*Tema mítico* : Hilo oficial del Bitcoin (IX) - Ahora con más burbujas ™

sirpask dijo:

Una pregunta, a mi aun me siguen gustando los NXT aunque yo haya perdido un 66%/de su valor respecto al Euro.

A lo largo del tiempo, ¿con que seria mejor comparar el valor de una altcoin como NXT, con el Dollar o con el Bitcoin? O con el ORO?

Hacer clic para expandir...

sirpask dijo:

Una pregunta, a mi aun me siguen gustando los NXT aunque yo haya perdido un 66%/de su valor respecto al Euro.

A lo largo del tiempo, ¿con que seria mejor comparar el valor de una altcoin como NXT, con el Dollar o con el Bitcoin? O con el ORO?

Hacer clic para expandir...

tastas dijo:

Spoiler

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Release 1.7.4

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

sha256:

baf0286983fee3f718ea755dd76f5e9bb3d6a2962560368d513ffc9517d10c9b nxt-client-1.7.4.zip

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

sha256:

13a4437bce4941b06f9ce3b0bf8f2371f2240db264712371094e22fc5152b34b nxt-client-1.7.4.jar

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

The exe, dmg, and jar packages must have a digital signature by "Stichting NXT".


Change log:

This is the first stable release in the 1.7 series. It is a mandatory update
for everyone. There is a hard fork scheduled for block 621000, estimated to
occur around Jan 21, 2016, at which new antiestéticatures will be enabled. Nodes that
do not update to 1.7.4 or later by this date will be left on a fork.

On testnet, the hard fork block is already passed, and all new antiestéticatures are
fully functional.

There were incompatible API changes introduced in the 1.6 series. API users
still on 1.5.15 and earlier should make sure to read the 1.6 series changelogs
and forum announcements, before upgrading to 1.7. These changes do not affect
regular end users who just run the NRS client on their desktop or VPS node.

The new antiestéticatures and improvements in the 1.7 series have been documented in
the 1.7.0e through 1.7.3e changelogs, available in the changelogs directory.


Here is a high level summary of the new antiestéticatures to be enabled after the
hard fork:

Coin Shuffling, a fully decentralized coin mixing, to improve account privacy.

Account Control for phased transactions, the Nxt equivalent of multisignature.

Immediate release of certain types of phased transactions on approval.

Improved block times, 60 s average, long block times now extremely unlikely.

Account Properties, assigning arbitrary name/value metadata to user accounts.

Singleton Assets, useful for representing single tradeable objects.

Dynamic fees, proportional to the relative transaction size.

Improved Exchange Booth UI.

Data Cloud, adding a UI and multiple enhancements to the existing Tagged Data
antiestéticature, to allow decentralized, censorship-free and tamper-proof publication
and retrieval of small files, documents, or arbitrary data. This antiestéticature is
not dependent on the hard fork and will be fully usable immediately on update
to this release.


Changes added since the 1.7.3e release:

Added detectMimeType utility API, allowing auto-detection of the mime type of
uploaded file or data, using the Apache Tika library.

The uploadTaggedData API now uses such mime type auto-detection to determine
the mime type of uploaded data when the user has not explicitly provided a
type parameter. It also automatically sets the isText property to true for
data of type text/plain only.

Made the maximum permitted number of forgers or shufflers running at the same
time configurable, default 100 each, using the nxt.maxNumberOfForgers and
nxt.maxNumberOfShufflers properties.

The default value of includeCounts parameter in the searchDGSGoods API is now
also false, this API was inadvertently missed when globally changing the
defaults to false in the 1.6 branch.

Various UI improvements.

Updated Bouncy Castle library to version 1.54.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=t7Nb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mezclador de monedas, multifirma, control de tiempo de creación de bloques para no exceder los 60s, fees dinámicas y hasta un cloud para pequeños archivos.

Aparte de que las mejoras son destacables, lo que quería era incidir en que parece que cuando hay consenso un hard fork sigue teniendo sus riesgos pero no es tan problemático.

Hacer clic para expandir...

Sr.Elemento dijo:

Dos picos: uno debido al "hype" en la salida de la moneda y el segundo pico en un macro-pump-and-dump para pillar gacelillas.

ha ocurrido en prácticamente todas las altcoins que han acompañado a Bitcoin dentro del ránking de las 10 primeras criptomonedas por capitalización.

¿No ves un patrón común? Hype inicial, decaimiento, Pump&Dump intermedio y posterior gloria cerebral.

Cuidado ahí fuera con las shitcoins, gacelillas.

Hacer clic para expandir...

Claudius dijo:

Yo creo que aquí es distinta situación, por un lado está que Microsoft con Azure se están valiendo de ethereum para desarrollar tecnologías y al ser 'la pionera' están varios bancos esperando para poder empezar a implementar.
La primera prueba piloto fué hace unos días emulando el sistema SWIFT entre 7 bancos -creo-
(

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

)

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

de transferencias y fué un existo creo que esto es lo que ha disparado el ether. Esta tecnología cómo tal es muy prometedora a nivel empresarial.

Por otro lado, la primera empresa tecnológica en meterse en este mundo a varios niveles, con bitcoin y ethereum ha sido Microsoft. Y nadie más del mundo del desarrollo tecnológico ha movido ficha.
Eeste año creo que otras cómo Oracle, Google, Amazon, Facebook u otras empezarán a hacer algo, y estas son dadas a hacer una compra directa de la tecnología..

Hacer clic para expandir...

Sr.Elemento dijo:

¿Qué pasará cuando, en cuestión de unos meses, Bitcoin pueda implementar todas esas tecnologías a la vez a través de las sidechains?

Hacer clic para expandir...

Sr.Elemento dijo:

Sí, estoy seguro de que esta vez será diferente. :rolleye:

¿Quieres que te cuente todos los planes megalómanos que tenían cada una de las monedas que te he dicho cuando estaban en este preciso instante de cotización en el que está Ethereum?

Ripple ya tenía varios bancos en el bolsillo que incluso iban a ser "gateways" del sistema, NXT no paraba de implementar tecnologías vanguardistas (arbitrary messages, digital goods market, alias, delegación de forjado, etc), dogecoin se iba a la luna porque incluso había patrocinado un anuncio en la Superbowl, Maidsafe estaba "a cuestión de semanas de sacar ya una beta terminada", Litecoin era "la plata de las criptomonedas" y Monero había conseguido la piedra filosofal de las criptomonedas: un sistema que garantiza completamente la anonimicidad de las transacciones.

Ahora mira de nuevo sus gráficas y añade esta pregunta:

¿Qué pasará cuando, en cuestión de unos meses, Bitcoin pueda implementar todas esas tecnologías a la vez a través de las sidechains?

Hacer clic para expandir...

Claudius dijo:

No me convences.. 😛 todas las otras era humo, esta es más tangible.

La letra pequeña que no anuncian:

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

más claro el agua... swift está planeando migrar a toda velocidad.

A este año al btc le van a dar por todos los lados, ya que los poderosos no quieren perder el control de su poder el dinero. Ya veremos cómo evoluciona.. y la guerra civil en su interior no le beneficia.

Este nuevo mercado tiene y va a tener muchos actores, y todos competirán por ser los de más atractivos para los inversores.

Hacer clic para expandir...

Sr.Elemento dijo:

Veo que tienes sentido del humor.

¿Apostamos?

Hacer clic para expandir...

tastas dijo:

Enseñadme cómo se transvasa poder de fruta de btc a X crypto y entonces me preocuparé. Si ya es "fácil" mover la cotización de btc, no me quiero imaginar qué no harán con las otras.
Y está claro que ya nadie ignora las cryptomonedas, con lo que el fiat tiene que llegar por alguna parte.

Hacer clic para expandir...

pep007 dijo:

Juasajuaaassjjaaaa

664 cryptocoins, no sabia que hubiera tantas...

Cuantas mas se podran inventar?

Cuanto material para fabricar cryptomonedas queda?

Cuanto valdra una criptomoneda cuando existan infinitas?

Hacerse preguntas es malo?

Etc, etc,...

Hacer clic para expandir...

Josar dijo:

Cuantas cantidades de piedras y minerales hay??

Porque guardar oro, puedes guardar cuarzo, mármol, madera de pino, etc..

Hacer clic para expandir...

Claudius dijo:

O Platino, Rodio, o barriles Brent, el azafrán todo depende del momento y del binomio oferta y demanda.

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

Hacer clic para expandir...

Hi Eric,

You might want to meditate some on this post:

Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido

Bitcoin was created to be a system of money that depended on cryptography and mathematical proof instead of strong trust; removing systemic political risk and providing monetary sovereignty to it users. Bitcoin is simple in implementation, but complex in implications-- it carefully balances economic incentives and clever algorithms. As typical for cryptosystems, the details matter greatly: Many people have failed to understand the careful balances in the system, and many an altcoin that twiddled with the parameters in seemingly innocuous ways found their system unworkable or insecure in practice.

Capacity is an important criteria for the Bitcoin system; but is one that is sometimes in competition with security, censorship resistance, and the other properties which are critical to Bitcoin having value compared to traditional financial instruments. I believe that with care we can navigate these compromises and with intelligent technology we can reduce the conflict-- just as Bitcoin does. We must be humble about the emergent properties of a system which no person understands completely, and be careful to do no harm. There are many ways to achieve capacity, and the fine details of them matter greatly from an engineering perspective; but if implemented well-- are irrelevant to the end user.

Some people, like Mike Hearn and Gavin have pitched a future where Bitcoin runs exclusively out of large datacenters and its users are left depending on the trustworthiness of a small number of organizations scattered around the world. They've suggested a world where security is provided by unspecified mechanism or donations instead of fair market forces, or where proof of work only acted as a bootstrap. I don't share that view, nor does Bitcoin Core in general: We don't believe the world sees or will see value in recreating a centralized payment processing network like Paypal, except with less efficient technology... I don't think Bitcoin's value as a trust-reduced personally autonomous global currency are just a sales pitch, I believe we can deliver on them now and into the future... and that if we give up on these values, even if we enjoy short term benefits like unlimited capacity, that kind of Bitcoin would fade away because it wasn't providing something the world needed that it didn't already have.

The seeds of achieving truly great capacity without compromising the differentiating values of Bitcoin, our removing our arguments for security without collusion in the long term were sewn in the very first versions of the software-- support for payment channels are just one example. Though this work is still maturing.

Bitcoin Core has adopted a capacity roadmap that increases the direct capacity some, while also applying risk mitigation in the forms of allowing new more secure lite client modes, improved relay performance, and other optimizations-- and does so in a way that is compatible and which doesn't require immediate cooperation from all the participants. "Classic" (in quotes, because I believe the name is deceptive and insults all of our intelligence) proposes similar capacity but without the safe-guards, by a hard rewrite of the system's rules.

I think incredible care must be made when rewriting the rules like that: The rules _are_ Bitcoin. The stability of Bitcoin's rules _is_ the soundness of the currency. If the rules can be easily rewritten against the will of some users by others according to political whim then what can be trusted? Is the supply fixed? Will coins be confiscated and awarded to others? If that gate is crossed then there is almost always some excuses which is "good enough"-- as was lamented in some of Bitcoin's earliest announcements. And these changes are controversial -- see, for example, the millions of dollars of Bitcoins backing opposition to things like BIP101 and supporting core over classic. I don't believe that Core has the power to make changes prohibited by the rules of the system while they are opposed by an economically significant portion of Bitcoin's users. If it does, by way of inertia or lazyness, have that power I don't believe it has the sarracena authority: to rewrite the system out from under people risks walking the thin line of theft. And if the system could really be so easily rewritten against controversy: it may bring into question Bitcoin's ability to uphold any of its properties. This is a dangerous road that should be avoided whenever possible.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, and I believe it won't: With the planned improvements we can gain capacity without the controversy; and preserve harmony as the essay I initially linked to discusses. We should be able to satisfy all users and uses of the Bitcoin currency; and we must if we are to achieve the full potential of the system.

As far as classic itself goes. I must admit having a difficult time taking the question seriously. The active technical minds in this space, dozens of people, almost unanimously agree with Core's approach. Similar to XT, perhaps arguably worse off--, classic is not currently supported by a vibrant team of experienced and able parties. In spite of much posturing and language, they've failed to even deliver on the most basic software development work, and once they do I am doubtful that they'll be able to continue maintaining it. If this development is happening now, it doesn't appear to be in the open and subject to extensive peer review. This is no coincidence: most people who understand the technology deeply overwhelmingly agree with Core's approach. Perhaps it will get its act together in a way that XT didn't, but that hasn't peine yet. It's a little alarming to me to hear some fruta parties backing something with so little delivered substance, and I'm somewhat concerned that it's setting up the industry for further embarrassment (beyond the small amounts classic related embarrassment suffered so far), perhaps even worse than caused by XT and Mike Hearn.

I feel I shouldn't need to go into this-- But I know it's being said I feel I should confront it head on: Some of the advocates of Classic claim that Bitcoin Core is somehow controlled by my company, and that we somehow hope to profit from stifling Bitcoin. I believe they do this because it's a cheap attack, easily believed because most do not have the time or energy to trinc the details of the activity in core-- similarly they draw an equivalence between the technical people who've signed on and those involved in the core project. To an insider these comparisons are laughable, but I am aware these claims have cause concern. Everyone at Blockstream has a significant financial interest in preserving Bitcoin's value (time locked bitcoins are part of our compensation, and most of us owned personally significant amounts of Bitcoins prior to blockstream). The fact is that my company was created by some of the most active developers of the Bitcoin system as a way to provide sustainable funding for that development-- something few to no companies in the industry were doing so; but even so it's just a rough half dozen voices out of dozens-- and you can happily talk to non-blockstream Bitcoin developers like Cory Fields, Wladimir, Alex Morcos, or Eric Lombrozo-- or outside-of-bitcoin technology experts like Bram Cohen (inventor of Bittorrent) or Nick Szabo-- and get much of the same message you're getting from me. The understanding that there is a fundamental capacity/security trade-off is not a new one though we're constantly learning new implications of all aspects of the system, scaling included. I think that the work we've done inside and outside Bitcoin speaks for itself, but if that's not enough-- talk to the other contributors and compare notes. I don't know of a better way to answer the conspiracy theories than that.

I hope this has provided some useful food for thought-- but really, what I think is missing is your thoughts. What requirements do you feel aren't being met by Core that would leave you asking such a question? (I could guess, but communication is much better than guessing.)

Hacer clic para expandir...

pep007 dijo:

Juasajuaaassjjaaaa

664 cryptocoins, no sabia que hubiera tantas...

Cuantas mas se podran inventar?

Cuanto material para fabricar cryptomonedas queda?

Cuanto valdra una criptomoneda cuando existan infinitas?

Hacerse preguntas es malo?

Etc, etc,...

Hacer clic para expandir...