I like it better. It allows me to spammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I like it better. It allows me to spammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Any way to have member server work pointed at a FQDN with a self signed cert?
@freetrade
What happened? Want to talk?
Is a telegram group not happening?
Telegram asks for a phone number. A NoGo for many.
Try it on https://memberapp.github.io/index.html#thread?root=189150a2aa8a6d0129f0939a24eae5e1a536861445ecb859ee3af7825d792ae1&post=189150a2aa8a6d0129f0939a24eae5e1a536861445ecb859ee3af
7825d792ae1
Hello world , hello everyone, just joined on Memocash
What would victory mean though?
salary on cigarettes but on vacations doesn't mean that cigarette companies pay your vacations (no matter that the cigarette industry might shrink a tiny bit because you buy less
cigarettes now).
payments, and all the BCH users get degraded security.
* Not spending them on security doesn't mean it's miners that pay for our development. The same way that not spending your
salary on cigarettes but on vacations doesn't mean that cigarette companies pay your vacations (no matter that the cigarette industry might shrink a tiny bit because you buy less
minting new coins, thus devaluating all the existing coins.
* Spending them on development means less money for hashing, meaning that miners will do less work for the lowered
payments, and all the BCH users get degraded security.
* Not spending them on security doesn't mean it's miners that pay for our development. The same way that not spending your
situation, may be a better use of them.
So, what I'd like to argue is that the money for the fund will come from the BCH holders and no one else:
* The money still comes from
minting new coins, thus devaluating all the existing coins.
* Spending them on development means less money for hashing, meaning that miners will do less work for the lowered
go for development. So, the coins that are minted every block remain the same, but some amount of them don't go for security anymore. It goes for development, which, in the current
situation, may be a better use of them.
So, what I'd like to argue is that the money for the fund will come from the BCH holders and no one else:
* The money still comes from
devaluation of their coins, because it's been there since the Bitcoin start.
---
Now, about the dev fund proposal.
The proposal is that a percent of the block reward is shifted to
go for development. So, the coins that are minted every block remain the same, but some amount of them don't go for security anymore. It goes for development, which, in the current
security, we pay with newly minted coins. This coin minting increases the supply and thus devalues the previously existing coins a bit. **Holders of BCH** know about this coming
devaluation of their coins, because it's been there since the Bitcoin start.
---
Now, about the dev fund proposal.
The proposal is that a percent of the block reward is shifted to
network to be popular enough that it can get enough revenue from transacting users. Thus, the minting schedule.
So, let's recap. Until we have enough transaction fees to pay for
security, we pay with newly minted coins. This coin minting increases the supply and thus devalues the previously existing coins a bit. **Holders of BCH** know about this coming
money, so to be willing to spend the electricity, you will want to be paid. The end-game is security being paid off by transaction fees. For this to be applicable though, we need the
network to be popular enough that it can get enough revenue from transacting users. Thus, the minting schedule.
So, let's recap. Until we have enough transaction fees to pay for
* of the chain. Bootstraping security is needed, because security is achieved by mining - computers spending electricity to do work and make the chain hard to reorg. Electricity costs
money, so to be willing to spend the electricity, you will want to be paid. The end-game is security being paid off by transaction fees. For this to be applicable though, we need the
not be even though - it started from 50 coins per block and halves every 4 years.
This, according to Satoshi, is done to fairly distribute the coins and **to bootstrap the security*
* of the chain. Bootstraping security is needed, because security is achieved by mining - computers spending electricity to do work and make the chain hard to reorg. Electricity costs
existence. This is done in a controlled fashion and a strict schedule exists: minting will continue until about the year 2140 and the total amount of coins will be 21million. It will
not be even though - it started from 50 coins per block and halves every 4 years.
This, according to Satoshi, is done to fairly distribute the coins and **to bootstrap the security*
The end-game of Bitcoin is to have a limited number of coins, meaning that no more coins be created, ever!
Right now that's not the case - every block found mints 12.5 new coins in
existence. This is done in a controlled fashion and a strict schedule exists: minting will continue until about the year 2140 and the total amount of coins will be 21million. It will
You can't make miners pay, they mine what's profitable
The end-game of Bitcoin is to have a limited number of coins, meaning that no more coins be created, ever!
Right now that's not the case - every block found mints 12.5 new coins in
You can't make miners pay, they mine what's profitable
One day that encryption algorithm can be broken and from private it becomes public ... what is private should not be on a blockchain forever
You have a point
