Bitcoin exchange in japan
22 comments
Bitcoin current exchange rate
I interpret that as bringing more democracy to Bitcoin, not ultimate democracy. I kept cool and fortunately I had bitcoin set up a Coinbase account. A guy cord corem required to plug an SP10 in wikipedia way. If you don't need a node, it's exponentially worse. Here's a good example. Only the economic majority, not the majority of people democracy which is what dooglus is getting at. Local hardware stores carry NEMA plugs, cords and outlets. This does not mean anything, even if some ridiculous change is implemented in software you would still need people to actually run it.
Mine alternative cryptocurrencies You can mine any cryptocurrency available in our catalogue! That's the point being made. But there is no dialog possible between me and this official Core entity we are talking about. Jonathan Toomim appears to not believe in a censorship-resistant bitcoin. It might be argued, and eventually accepted by the majority, that an ever expanding currency base to pay the miners will ultimately be more beneficial to investors than a fixed currency supply with shrinking network use because of high fees.
I don't agree on that definition. I corem read there forums bitcoin daily but most of the discussions were others who were also in line, speculating about this-and-that, some positive stuff but wikipedia negative and once in a while you might hear something from Kurt, a KnC bitcoin. Learn about origins of bitcoin here! Their transparent mining sites and high quality software infrastructure corem with our wikipedia end mining hardware result in a great and unique product and experience for everybody interested in guy So we are good?
With a clear vision of scaling the project, Torvalds stepped in countless times, accepting or rejecting changes. As the original inventor, never bowing to political correctness, his authority was unchallenged.
To handle the growing number of Linux types and the difficulty of managing them, Torvalds created Git, a decentralized repository of code, allowing people to interact and share code easily.
Bitcoin and Git have a main similarity, as they both deal with getting to a consensus: Git has changed the politics of code development. You no longer need to beg for a central authority like Torvalds to accept your code change. Every code change is essentially a little fork, but merges became much easier.
With changes moving around freely, developers compete on the merits and usefulness of their version. How does a piece of code get merit? The authority behind an official version still underlines a struggle of power, but more voices can be heard, and forks are less dramatic. In practice, Bitcoin rules are set in the code of the official version. Subtle differences between implementations can lead to several competing versions of the Bitcoin ledger, the main database of all Bitcoin transactions.
They have this unwritten contract with the Bitcoin community: These are commonly known as Alt-coins and do not enjoy the same popularity as Bitcoin. Another possible solution is being promoted by the team at Blockstream.
The VC-funded company pushes for experiments to happen within the Bitcoin currency, but not as part of the main system. This introduces flexibility, allowing the core developers to innovate without compromising the currency.
Opponents see it as a backdoor to coerce the Bitcoin protocol in a more government-friendly direction, taming the beast.
Much like Git, these experiments, known as side-chains, separate the human consensus debate of what should be the authorized version from the underlying code-change mechanism.
Meanwhile, they keep the one consensus that seems to unite Bitcoiners: Keep Bitcoin alive and strong! Previous attempts by the community have been extremely problematic, at best.
VC-funded companies could play a larger role, but most would rather pretend that Bitcoin will be maintained by others. Companies that step up to the job will have their work cut out for them, proving their value to the community while being deemed agenda-free. Can we really create a human-free consensus? Nakamoto left us with an experiment. Strong leadership does in fact help forge consensus. However, it is a currency not controlled by a central source.
It is the first example of a growing category of money known as cryptocurrency. Core only ever pretends to be meritocratic and consensus-driven which means everyone agrees, before you bring up how a few VC-backed companies support a 2MB hardfork.
Possibly, I'm not really sure how the Classic devs not that they really have much in the way of devs are governed since it seems to change day to day. It could be that they let Coinbase make all the decisions or they have a benevolent dictator for life, I saw something about that on their web page. The last time I looked at their voting site the most popular proposal was "give total control to coinbase" or something like that.
Presumably somebody was demonstrating how such votes can be gamed. The 'solution' appears to be requiring people to upload personally identifying information before they can get 'verified'. As if that somehow prevents vote rigging. The whole idea is fundamentally flawed. If you have a group of volunteers who let anyone veto anything then you are guaranteed not to weigh any security risk against other potentially more beneficial changes.
The governance structure of Bitcoin Core might not be a person, but it still acts like a dictatorship. It is very strict, very unforgiving and it is the opposite of being democratic. And it still has subjective values it maintains above all others, fungibility being the most important one the rest flows from that. This works fine until you need to choose between security and growth. Or better said perceived security vs perceived lack of growth. It is not a guarantee that growth is really going to be limited with Core's scalability plan, and it is not clear that increasing the limit has measurable security implications.
Because a majority of transactions might really be spam which does't contribute towards Bitcoins growth. So maybe Core is a meritocracy, but what constitutes merit is still subjective and up for debate. And only giving developers gives a major preference to technical issues and not nearly enough consideration what the rest of the community wants or needs. You must also understand that the consensus process which Bitcoin Core uses deflects all responsibility for the actions of Core's as a whole.
No single person is responsible. They can just point at the process, and pretend that it is completely fair and unbiased. And that anyone can join in. When it is obvious that that is isn't the case at all. Let's try to keep things civil. I disagree and get frustrated with those groups as well, but resorting to ad hominem attacks do nothing but lead to more name calling.
There will always be uniformed and uneducated people who weigh in with their opinions on such things, we just have to ignore the noise and address only those with valid, well thought out and reasoned positions. I get how frustrating it can be on this topic. No matter what, we have to keep cool heads in these discussions though lest we be seen as immature and unprofessional as a community.
There is no way long term holders, such as myself, are going to transition to anything that involves upvotes on a website or the kinds of silliness jtoomim expressed above. If Bitcoin doesn't follow actual economic consensus, and isn't driven by what people actually want. Then it is by all means already doomed.
Bigger projects have fallen from greater heights because of the Stack Fallacy. Not by a long shot. If you are a long term holder, you should aware. And at least broaden your horizon and honestly look at alternatives. There can be no downside to looking right? I don't want to be put into the position of saying that Core is perfect or has most best and rightest way of doing things. I agree with you that Core could be doing things better, especially when it comes to pragmatic matters.
I do object to the idea of Core as a dictatorship of Bitcoin. Their power is in their influence, nothing more. They make software, tell people about it, that's it. That's not what I call a dictatorship. I also object to the idea that their actions as a whole are unfair or biased. That kind of a claim requires evidence.
Everything I've seen people point to? When I dig in, I always see good reasons for their decision making. Often I have disagreed with them, especially when I was starting out with Bitcoin, only to study the question more and come to the conclusion I was wrong. The strangest thing is that there is an easy open path to changing the Bitcoin codebase: This entire debacle reminds me of people raging at a Wikipedia page for being incorrect, but then not being willing to go in and do the work to improve it.
No I didn't want to imply that. Dictatorship was in the context of Jonathan Toomim being the dictator of Classic. So dictator for your specific client. I don't think anyone is forced to run their code, or anyone's code.