Yes it is but real growth can only occur when profits are made and reinvested. That's the way it always worked. While short-term loans might be desirable for a startup or during a period of unexpected rapid development they are not the main engine for growth.
Speaking of straw... I said nothing about loans, only saving/hoarding which is reducing consumption in order to divert scarce resources toward building capital |
|
|
|
But to give you something of why I am not attempting to refute his claims:
Stating that increase in business volume and economic growth are not correlated is just and simple false.
Correlation != causation An increase in business volume can only come after the necessary capital is in place. Individuals must forego consumption now (save/hoard) in order for those resources to be devoted to creating that necessary capital. It's an iterative process. |
|
|
|
I think CH is having sock pupper overload. Can't keep the sock puppet personalities straight. The sock puppets know things they shouldn't be able to know. They all need to drop references to how great of a programmer CH is. What's next every socket puppet telling us they know CH is an amazing lover?
I'm starting to think that CoinHunter is actually Kim Jong Il, and whoever started the Glorious Leader joke is also one of his sockpuppets... |
|
|
|
This thread is perfect example of the issues with closed source.
You can try petitioning the glorious leader. If he feels your petition is worthwhile me may devotes some of his $150/hr time into looking for a solution. Nobody but the glorious leader is allowed to look at the code in this "decentralized" network though.
But the source will be released very soon now! |
|
|
|
Actually johnj... if what was discussed in solid irc, and I have no reason to doubt the validity at this time. The 1.2 million coin addresses essentially cease to work once they fall below 1 million.... so given that statement is true, the address holders will have no choice to have them thrown away and the pre-mined economic impact is 2 million coins that get reverted back over to the CPF fund over a long course of time of which in that time if not enough "independently wealthy" solidcoin owners have been found the CPF will be forced to have to recycle coins into the propped up millionaire accounts and these coins will have to go through the same process again.
What is this new bullshit? So if the pre-mined 1.2 million SC wallets go below 1 million, then they no longer function as a trusted node, but the coins still flow back to CoinHunter? |
|
|
|
You are repeating yourself.  Absolute bullshit btw. This is the noise made by people without arguments. If growth does not require savings of capital, why don't you go spend yourself into prosperity? |
|
|
|
1. I answered 1 in a previous reply. Care to link it? I've not seen any "good reasons". 2. Haha! Nice retort. Yes, a "no-trust-necessary" network is a nice ideal. However, you still have to trust Deepbit not to perform a 51% attack, trust Mt. Gox not to run away with your dollars, trust any retailers (if any existed) not to run away with your Bitcoin and trust your pool not to keep back some mined coins or merged mine without telling you. There is a lot of trust required to live and operate in the real world, even with Bitcoin, that's life I'm afraid... There is a slightly larger amount of trust required in SolidCoin, you're right, and it does differ from Bitcoin in that respect. Is that inherently a bad thing? I don't think so, you may disagree but everyone's entitled to an opinion. None of the things you mentioned are integral to the Bitcoin network. I don't have to use exchanges, mining pools will be abandoned if they harm the network (or people will switch to a p2p pool), and I can use escrow or purchase things face to face. I cannot do anything about having to trust CoinHunter's friends which are an integral part of the network. If you want and need a "no-trust-neccessary" network: You already have one, it's called Bitcoin. Go use it to buy shit with, god knows nobody else is... FUD. I am and others are. Some of the smaller improvements like Multi-Wallet could and should have been introduced to the mainline Bitcoin client long ago as even a noob developer like Gavin should have been able to manage them. The fact is Bitcoin development is stagnant so you don't see any new features, "amazing" or otherwise. Multi-wallet is a hack implemented by someone who doesn't understand the problem he's trying to solve (more intelligent/manual unspent output selection algorithm is the proper solution). No new features, huh? Not even the password encrypted wallet that CoinHunter copied from Bitcoin?  On a positive note, the development team is planning for Solidcoin to have a much improved integrated miner in a future version which will include hybrid GPU & CPU Mining all within the client! Pretty exciting stuff I think you'll agree and another world first If SolidCoin grows as you desperately wish it will, mining will become a specialized activity just like it has for Bitcoin. In that case, what good will mining built in to the client provide? None, as larger scale miners won't want to micromanage their mining machines. 4. Ok, well you kind of just have to trust me on this one, it was an error. I'm really not sure what the project would have to gain by everyone thinking they had a lower hashrate than they really did? Certainly this was an embarrassing oversight for a coder of RealSolid's high caliber. You seem have a problem with the word and the concept of trust, so I doubt there's anything I can really say to make you believe that this wasn't a massive conspiracy to erm... trick people somehow?  What reason do I have to trust you? I suspect you have ulterior motives for promoting SolidCoin. RealSolid had an incentive to make people think they were mining faster than they were. When it was suspected that this number was inflated, he "found a bug" which meant the hash rates in the beta were wrong. Whoops. Then, when developing a GPU miner with the intent that it is "equal" to the CPU miner, he magically discovered that CPU hash rates were being under reported. I posit that the first bug was introduced by him to make CPU mining artificially attractive, and was fixed to cover his ass. Further, the second bug was "discovered" (introduced) by him to make it appear that CPU and GPU mining are on equal footing, when in fact they are not. Will someone with a million SolidCoins in a wallet wish to use their position as a Trusted Node to destroy the chain and make their million coins worth less (or indeed worthless)? But you said that the millions of coins are "fake" and not worth anything!Greed is why the hackers restrict their attacks to alt chains. What alternate reality are you living in?They own a lot of Bitcoins so, although they easily could, they don't attack Bitcoin directly and devalue their own asset (although they do stupidly attack the pools as "punishment" for adopting merged mining which is indirectly attacking Bitcoin itself ). Bitcoin is not susceptible to the attacks used against SolidCoin, both because of a lack of a centralized "trusted" nodes, and much higher computing power securing the network. |
|
|
|
I've numbered your points to make them easier to respond to, hope you don't mind  1. In this instance, yes. The initial release was closed source for many good reasons. 2. Nope. But when the source comes out you can run a comparison with the Bitcoin code to see the incredible amount of work that RS has put in so far into making SolidCoin "Best in Class" for CrpytoCurrency! 3. Features like multi-wallet, 51% protection, integrated miner in the client, faster confirmations and so much more! 4. Proper testing as in Private beta followed by public beta followed by a full public release which happened at a scheduled, pre-announced time. You obviously haven't spent much time developing software or IT projects, no matter how much testing you do there are always defects in the live code, especially the first release. Good testing just tries to ensure that none of them are "show stoppers" 5. No, absolutely not. And just to clarify, the people who do have the trusted nodes were not given 1.2 million SC, they were given 1.2 million dead token coins which cannot ever be spent on the network. You will be able to verify this later when the source makes its grand debut appearance 1. Reasons like...? 2. "Best in Class" only because it is not in the same class as Bitcoin, as it is not a decentralized no-trust-necessary network. 3. Multi wallet: lol. It takes an amazing programmer to swap out berkley DB files by combo box selection... 51% protection comes at the cost of decentralization, faster confirmations is not a feature as the amount of computing power (and thus security) represented by it is smaller. I'll give you that the miner integration into the client is nice, but after playing with it, it seems very cluttered and bolted on after the fact. 4. Ah, assumptions, you know what they say, right? I actually develop software for a living, and while I understand bugs happen, the hash rate reporting "bugs" were far too convenient and do not seem like a coincidence. 5. They are not dead tokens, because a number of them every block are transferred to CoinHunter's "fund". Anyway, if they are dead, then how does that create an incentive for the controllers of the wallets to protect the network? His theory for trust is that those with a large amount of wealth can be trusted... if it's not real wealth, from where does that trust come? |
|
|
|
True, but I was talking mostly about the first guy. I don't think he has any interest at all.
Oh, my bad. If you haven't sold it by next week, as I said I may be interested. |
|
|
|
According to this, they can actually be 25-34 characters long. I think the range of sizes comes from the Base58 conversion and/or from the endian-ness conversions. This is just off the top of my head, so I could be incorrect. |
|
|
|
I do not think he is really interested. I think I was just being trolled into giving up my ID....
No, I am really potentially interested. You had already posted the eBay links, I merely asked for confirmation that you were indeed the creator of those auctions. You gave up your ID on your own... |
|
|
|
John C. Dvorak is notoriously bad at making tech predictions.
He was wrong about the keyboard and he's wrong about this! You're just saying that because it takes two hands to type your username on a dvorak keyboard... Wrong Dvorak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_KeyboardThe Dvorak Simplified Keyboard is a keyboard layout patented in 1936 by Dr. August Dvorak and his brother-in-law, Dr. William Dealey |
|
|
|
Go ahead, great one, tell us what is so "different" about it, besides have significantly less sycophants than gold or liberty dollars
I knew I had you ignored for a reason. You can not transfer gold over the internet (gold receipts are not gold). Liberty Dollars were centralized. When Liberty Services was raided, Liberty Dollars became irredeemable and worthless. |
|
|
|
I guess there's a typo. Instead of libdb4.8++-dev you should type libdb4.8-dev. Still, I'm unsure.
Unsure about what? This is pretty cool! |
|
|
|
I just wanted to issue another big fat warning: do not invest in alternate cryptocurrencies or you will lose money!
A fundamental aspect of Bitcoin is that there is a limited amount of currency.
Any alternate currency that tries to copy this "finite supply" principle is doomed, no matter what technical advantages are claimed by the creators of these currencies.
It is like saying that you are a monotheist, but you also want to believe in another God than the pre-existing one, because the new God looks better.
No, this is not true. Both gold and silver exist in a limited supply on the planet Earth, and both can serve as money. There is no reason why any number of finite supply *coin block chains can not simultaneously exist. |
|
|
|
I doubt that any exchange who is big enough to pay their expenses will be able to operate under the kind of anonymity that would be desirable to a lot of us.
My projection is that when anonymity is required, fiat<->btc will be occurring on a face-to-face basis and at a significant discount over the exchange rates. And I doubt that it will be long before that is considered to be a criminal activity if it is not already.
Are you saying people will pay less to get coin without giving info to an exchange? I think it's the other way around, meeting face to face to purchase bitcoins with cash immediately is a premium service over using an exchange. |
|
|
|
It's better because of the approach that RealSolid is taking with the development. Secretive closed source is a better approach than open source? What? Can you show me something similar to this for SolidCoin? Adding new features that are actually useful, doing proper testing before releases Features like...? Proper testing, like...? How do you know that this is occurring? The entire development process is cloaked in secrecy. Also, proper testing doesn't lead to bugs which are fixed, then unfixed, then fixed again (hash rate reporting). A lot of people don't like him, I guess because he says bad things about Bitcoin and I guess because he always thinks he knows best? But I think he's a real cool guy who really seems to know what he's doing.
Please answer this question. Are you one of the few who were given 1.2 million SC and run a trusted node? |
|
|
|
How soon will this be? Thanks
Oh, I forgot that those aren't your pictures, I assumed you had a stack of the 32 gb ones... |
|
|
|
Can you prove that you are precisejim?
I changed it to 3 day listing to give you guys more time. I also added "Bitcoin!" to the description. You should now be able to know that this is me. I will upload photos of the pads if you insist and only if you are going to buy it... Thanks Cool, thanks! I bought a Galaxy Tab 10.1 for my girlfriend, but she has had her heart set on a Touchpad. So, when it gets here we'll see if she likes it, if not I'll be looking at purchasing a Touchpad and keep the Tab for myself or resell it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
