Das ist ganz normal und gang und gäbe. Die Presseagenturen wie z.B. Reuters oder dpa bringen eine Meldung und jedem Journalist bleibt es selbst überlassen, ob er den Text ungefragt und ungeändert übernimmt oder nicht, weiter recherchiert, seinen eigenen Senf beiträgt, etc.
Copy and Paste spart Arbeit, Zeit, und spült schneller Geld in die Börse, als sich ein oder zwei Stunden hinzusetzen und irgendetwas individuelles zu schreiben. Das Wirtschaftlichkeitsprinzip ist schon längst auch im Journalismus angekommen. ^^
Was ist denn das für eine Berufsehre!?! Ein blogger der was auf sich hält, würde sich sowas nicht erlauben  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has pretty strong privacy for the average person or business.
True. And the way for police to investigate / monitor by looking at ip traffic is not as simple as Jeff tried to make it look to the journalists. How are they going to detect a payment to - say - silkroad, let alone after the fact? Am I missing something? Also: when time comes we can move to btcfn (bitcoin over freenet) |
|
|
|
That is masterful PR. Making the fear-mongers look silly is brilliant. Any viewer with half a brain will still get a hint of the great potential.
+1, truly well done, jeff. Couldn't help to notice your suppressed smiles / grin when telling the "half-truths". Takes some balls to do this, also towards the community here, which I hope understands what you're doing. Congrats. |
|
|
|
http://www.openmarket.org/2011/06/06/bitcoins-four-objections/The bias is obvious with statements like: "The unbridgeable gap here is the transition from being used by a small group of hobbyists in barter to being used by financial institutions and the man on the street as a proper money." I think he means currently existing "financial institutions" and MY "proper money" Maybe we can help him as a gold/BTC trader. I left him this response: I really think this is a misunderstanding of the regression theorem. As I understand it, the regression theorem can only be used to explain the exchange value of a good that is being used in indirect exchange. It can not be used to disqualify any good from becoming money once it has actually established an exchange value. Even Rothbard said that once a good has exchange value, it does no longer need a use value, quote "On the other hand, while money had to originate as a directly useful commodity, for example, gold, there is no reason, in the light of the regression theorem, why such direct uses must continue afterward for the commodity to be used as money" (http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMA12.html).
Bitcons have an exchange value today and is being used in indirect exchange to some degree. I don't think there is anyway to deny that. So the only thing we can do with the regression theorem here, is to apply it to bitcoin and trace back it's (still somewhat limited) current exchange value in time to see where it originates from.
So bitcoin has an exchange value today since it had an exchange value yesterday. It had one yesterday since it had one the day before that and so on. If we go far enough back in time we will come to the first bitcoin exchange that ever took place (a 10.000 BTC pizza as I understand it). Why someone would actually exchange a pizza for bitcoins with no exchange value we can only guess, but reasonably the ownership of bitcoins gave him some sort of utility. According to the regression theorem (as I understand it), this very first transaction is where all of todays bitcoin value originates from. Bitcoins had some use value to someone, and this was enough to also give it an exchange value.
I think austrians should be very excited with bitcoin. It does not derive it's value from any other good (I've heard some people call it a dollar proxy). Bitcoin is the regression theorem in action, from the beginning.It doesn't seem to be at the web site though. Does he read through the comments before accepting them? your comment appeared on the site and also a reply by the authour, quote: 2_Thumbs_Up: Consider the rest of that quote. “On the other hand, while money had to originate as a directly useful commodity, for example, gold, there is no reason, in the light of the regression theorem, why such direct uses must continue afterward for the commodity to be used as money. Once established as a money, gold or gold substitutes can lose or be deprived of their direct use function and still continue as money; for the historical reference to a previous day’s purchasing power will already have been established.” *Once established as a money,* a commodity can lose it’s use value. Note that “lose” implies it had to have had a use value in the first place, and “once established” implies this can only happen after something becomes a money. BitCoins never had use value, and are not widely accepted enough to be called monies (hence my remark about “hobbyists” vs “the man on the street”). That said, I am not convinced that when Rothbard says this he means that free-market monies can lose their use value and remain monies, or he has the paper currency situation in mind. |
|
|
|
Die Frage ist doch, wie kann man es transparent machen?
http://www.btclottery.com/ zeigt, wie es gehen kann. Die Losnummern und die Gewinnnummern werden nach nachvollziehbaren Regeln aus den Transaktions-IDs generiert, und alle Auszahlungen auf dem Blockexplorer verlinkt. auch bei bitlotto ist das Problem wohl gelöst: Starting for the July 6 draw, the winning hash will come from a SHA256 hash of: block1hash+lotterynumbers (No spaces or + sign)
Die Lotterynumbers kommen von irgendner anderen Lotterie, find ich komisch und unnötig, aber geht. Eigentlich würd's doch reichen den hash eines bestimmten blocks zu nehmen, oder nicht? |
|
|
|
Aber für beliebig viele Mitspieler fällt mir da kein globales Zufallsereignis ein, euch?
Die Zieladresse eines bestimmten Bitcoin-Blocks oder ein teil dessen hashs könnte also globaler überprüfbarer Zufallsgenerator herhalten, oder? |
|
|
|
Molecular, darf man fragen wie du darauf kommst also auf knapp 800 mit nur 385W, ist ja richtig gut! Dann müsste ich mir nicht mal neues Netzteil holen  Netzteil ist ein "Straight power E8 480W", keine Ahnung ob das effizient ist. Es könnte an folgenden Tatsachen liegen, dass ich ziemlich effizient unterwegs bin: - VIA CPU (ca. 8W stromverbrauch)
- RAM-Clock von 1 GHz auf 400MHz runter (hat min. 20W gebracht)
Die hashrate zeigt mir der phonix miner an, die 385W sagt mir der "Conrad Energy Check 3000" an der Steckdose. |
|
|
|
We can of course create X more with Y more (where X > Y) which is usually how growth is used, but that is also more with less...
That's what I meant. X > oldX, Y > oldY. how is that "also more with less"? |
|
|
|
[HUGE FOTO QUOTED]
That came out great!
Everyone who can, please, send some extra business and donations his way.
I wish people would refrain from quoting huge images, especially when it's an early answer right below the original huge image  Great billboard btw, thanks memorydealer, it's HUGE, american style! |
|
|
|
This piece just earned my price for "most fud-complete article". it has everything (list for english-only speakers): - link to very negative german bvdw press release
- common misinterpreattion of Jason Calacanis ("most dangerous")
- "mining not profitable due to high swiss power prices" (they used CPU to determine that fact)
- fear-mongering about p2p infecting your computer with shit
- reference to silk-road (not by name)
- "danger of bubble"
The comments are extremely uninformed, just commented a lot pointing to mybitcoin.de, bitcoin.org. Unfortunately they have to be manually accepted ;( |
|
|
|
What economics growth means is simply that we do more with less. Less resources and labour are needed to maintain the same standard of living when we have growth, this is quite beneficial to the environment and everyone in the economy.
I would call "doing more with less" just "increase of efficiency". What if we merely produce more with more? By your definition that would not be "economic growth" That doesn't fit. |
|
|
|
Wie hoch wäre der Preis ich glaube , der preis wäre doch im Satoshi Bereich oder? So rund 0,06 BTC
satoshi-bereich ist gut, das sind ja 6 millionen satoshis |
|
|
|
Thread is temporarily used for Bitcoin Meetup during 29C3 27th thru 30th December 2012Wer in Hamburg wohnt und Lust hat, sich mal mit anderen Bitcoinern zwan- und planlos in 'ner Kneipe zu treffen, hier die Infos zum ersten Treffen: Anmeldung ist nicht nötig, einfach kommen und nach einem Tisch mit Nerds suchen, bis denn.
|
|
|
|
Hallo, ich habe soeben http://www.miningrigs.com/ online gestellt. Für den Start habe ich erst einmal nur ein High End Mining Gerät angeboten. Die Stromkosten in Deutschland sind nicht zu vernachlässigen und daher bin ich der Meinung sollte man nur in effiziente Hardware investieren, damit man auch so manche Steigerung der Schwierigkeit zu Berechnung von Coins noch verkraftet. Gratuliere zum shop. Optimal effizient ist das aber nicht. Ich komme hier auf 790 MHash/s bei 385 Watt => 2.05 MHash/Ws, besser als die 1.68 des angebotenen miners. |
|
|
|
Now if I were going to call these guys, I would forget about Bitcoin and Tor and stick with the end prohibition message.
Maybe if we buy them a nice pair of alpaca socks. how about sending them a bitmail containing considerable amount of coins. If they accept the coins... voilá |
|
|
|
The most important words that were said can be understood in any language Satoshi Nakamoto - Geniusyeah, and also: "clondike" |
|
|
|
The real faith comes with people USING it to buy and sell goods and this needs a totally different form of software development.
Can't we always produce more coins just by splitting them further?
So maybe we should look into splitting techniques and into wallet improvement.
That's implemented. You can split a coin into 100 Million pieces by using a decimal point. The smallest unit (some called it a "satoshi") is 0.00000001 BTC. We can also switch to using different units (see other topics about this), like milliBTC, nanoBTC with minor adjustments to the client / websites. |
|
|
|
The next question is how do we get enough energy?
Well, according to mother_of_another's argument, something will be invented ( http://prometheusfusionperfection.com), or something we already have (solar) improved enough, before the resources we currently use for energy production will be depleted. (if we continue in this manner without new/better technology, these natural resources will be used up at some point, according to ender's argument) Now just because in the past it has been the case that we always shifted our technology in time, this doesn't, in my mind, allow us to stand by and just assume this will be the case in the future. If we fail this and humans are extinct, the question of wether or not we left a "better" planet, is not one we can answer, because life after us might have a wholly different set of values and judge that diffently. But that's not the point. I'm not really sure any more about my original point, but I'm still of the opinion that we as western citizens should reduce exploiting both nature and other people in order to protect our outrageous wealth and become even more obese and unhappy. I have a feeling (for wholly unscientific reasons), that bitcoin might play a role in this process. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
