I can't believe this thread is still alive. 

Ce serait super un podcast en français effectivement.  Histoire de se tenir au courant des nouvelles et des nouveaux sites sans s'abimer les yeux devant un écran.

Par contre comme remarqué plus haut: une émission par semaine ça me parait un peu trop ambitieux.   Un mensuel ou même trimestriel me parait plus raisonnable dans un premier temps.   Mais bon c'est toi qui vois.

+1

Please everyone: stop saying bitcoin is democratic.  It is not.

I created two github repositories:

• one for the digest module
• and one for bitcoin

You can now create addresses in Perl6:


Or check an existing key or address:


This is still the most basic stuff and it is awefully slow but there is a begin to everything, right?

This is a very long term project anyway.

LoL  I don't "demand" you anything.  It would be too easy if I could have you forget about your superstitious beliefs by just asking.

I wish you were not using the word "islamic" in your banking business, just as I wish there were no more religion in this world.  This is not a request.  Merely a hope.

Only maths are strictly logical.   And I'm not the one who brought logic in this thread, anyway.

Occam's razzor is a logical principle.  It's not an axiom of Zermel-Fraenkel theory, for instance.  It doesn't have to be one of them to be widely accepted as logical principle.

If only mathematicians can have an opinion about the universe, then no wonder religion has so much success.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "strictly logic".  Logic is about applying a succession of axioms to a set of hypothesis in order to arrive to a conlusion.  If you add Occam's razor to the set of axioms, then there is no tea-pot orbiting around Jupiter.

Otherwise, from your "strictly logic" point of view, I don't know if Jupiter even exists as we know it, since I have never seen it through a telescope.  So to me it could just be an ordinary star.  Or a totally different planet.

Occam's razor allows me to affirm that all the photographs, descriptions and scientist studies about Jupiter are not lies, nor a huge international conspiracy against me, aimed at having me believe in a non-existent planet.

There is no tea-pot orbiting around Jupiter.  Neither there are any leprechauns or flying horses.

That's an application of Occam's razor.

If you don't agree with that, then you just can't affirm anything and you are not religious, you're nihilist.  You might as well say that we don't know for sure if the sun is going to raise tomorow.  And without occam's razor, we don't.

Common sense tells you there is no tea-pot around Jupiter.  So it should tell you there is no omnipotent God anywhere, caring about human beings and violating physical laws from times to times to guide their life.

The topic of this thread is not:  "should I do business with IBB?".    Neither it is "should anyone be forced to do business with them?".

We were discussing about religion and why it sucks, and that lead me to express my opinion about IBB.  Now I can understand you don't like it but it is not because I don't have to use it that I won't express my opinion about it on the dedicated thread.

This is not directly related to this particular article, but:
I wonder if Silk Road is not much greater an innovation than we can realize at first glance.  I mean, if drug dealers are unknown, even for their clients, then they are probably unknown from one another.  As a consequence, they can not use violence to impose themselves on the market.  So in a way, Silk road style drug traffic could eradicate violence in the drug business, which would be tremendously good in my humble opinion.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that.  To him the issuing of currency would be defined by an algorithm depending on the spendings (assuming a computer can know these data).  The FED would have no power on it once it is launched:  he insists on the idea of throwing the key a way, so it is not ambiguous at all.

I doubt there is anyway for a computer to measure economics activities though, since money transfers could easily be fake (with no real economic exchange behind) by anyone willing to increase the money supply.  But this is an other matter.

To me a computer should be economicly blind:  its only job should be to provide money at a predefined rate, whatever the economic situation is.  Selgin doesn't agree with that, but he likes the idea of a monetary system being "human-proof".

Oui effectivement.   Maintenant je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit pratique/confortable.  J'avais proposé déjà des RDV réguliers dans un parc, sans trop de succès.

Pour vendre des bitcoins dans un lieu public il faut un accès internet.   Ca réduit déjà pas mal les possibilités.

Don't worry I don't force you about anything.  I'm telling you that there are some people who will not consider iyou seriously as long as you put religious references in your economic activities.

Atheists don't like superstitions and would not want to have business with a "astrological bank of bitcoins", "christian bank of bitcoin" or "pastafaric bank of bitcoin".


PS.  I understand though that such a name has probably a good appeal for muslim people.  And there are quite a lot of muslims in this world so I guess from a marketing point of view your name is a good strategy.

I very much disagree.  He likes the idea of a monetary policy beeing handled by an unstoppable computer.  I guess he would like the bitcoin software to be modified to do so.  This is totally a positive attitude towards bitcoin, imho.

If we believe in monetary freedom, then we should hope that more people adopt this idea of modifying bitcoin to comply to their ideas regarding monetary policy.  Everyone would just pick the money they agree with and the market find a price for them.

Nice.  I like this guy.  I had seen once his speech about private coins and it was very enlightning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gn55fTRXZw

Shouldn't this thread be in the 'press' subforum, though?

You're the fisrt muslim I ever encounter who supports evolution.

Maybe I'm wrong about muslims and they are not as obscurantists as I thought.  I still whish you were not refering to islam with everything you do, though.  Including banking and bitcoins.

Yeah right.  When someone shows you a book supposedly written by a prophet of God you just accept it without discussion.  And yet when someone gives you a materialist explanation of why life is so diverse and how it evolves, you just reject it and ask for "facts" because you think a weird explanation such as "it's just that God made it so" is better (although it doesn't explain anything: it just gives a name "God" to the explanation).

Science is full of theories about how things work and I'm pretty sure you accept them without so-called "facts", because you know they make sense and do not hurt your religious belief:  you may accept plate tectonics and yet you will never ever in your life see a continent move with you own eyes.  But I guess plate tectonics does not hurt your feelings.

Then call those civilisations persian when they are persian and arab when they are arabs.  Western cultures come from roman and greek civlisations but usually we call them just romans even if we're talking about people who where living very far from Rome.  Anyway we do not use the roman religion to name them.  We don't say that the western culture comes from the civilisation of Zeus.


Just get rid of this stupid book and you'll do even better in learning nature.  It's a waste of time for the mind to read and accept a book just because it is "revelated".  It is contrary to scientific method to accept an ad-hoc idea just per se, as a dogma.  This is the main reason why religion is very little compatible with science: it diffuses the idea that it is acceptable to use autorithy and blind faith to determin whether something is true or false.

You can talk however long you want about how great were some muslim scientists.  There is no point as I will not deny that some of them made great discoveries indeed.  Yet I may ask why then your great God didn't gave more hints about science to your prophet and put them in the Coran.  Why didn't he write the equations of Maxwell, the list of the elements and the axioms of quantum mechanics for instance?  All this could have been written on one or two pages.  Yet it seems your God wanted all this to be discovered by non-muslims, and he wanted the people he chose to be quite limited to maths, astronomy and medecine, and still to be over-powered by non muslims in these fields anyway.  Go figure!
 
This is BS, seriously.  I've seen some documentaries about madrassas, islamic schools, where young chidren were spending their all day long learning the Coran by heart during years.  How on earth do you want such kids to learn anything about nature?

In the arabic world, in the persian world or whatever makes what we currently call the "islamic" world, there were great scientific discoveries that were made.   Yes, but it is true also before that in the greeko-roman world (which arabs transmitted the legacy to us, thanks for that!), and also in India and probably in other civilisations I do not know about.  Those civilisations had religions two, damned it!  And yet we never insist on using the name of these religions to qualify them, as you keep on trying to do.

En voiture non puisque j'en n'ai pas.

Je crois que je vais devoir privilégier les contacts par le net.  De toute façon si tout va bien une fois emménagé j'aurai un accès permanent donc ce sera l'occasion de participer un peu plus activement aux discussions.

Mais pour les rencontres IRL, ce sera difficile pour moi.  Par contre je ferai peut-être le déplacement à Londres pour la conférence cette année.

Yeah but were they really all muslims at this time ??

I mean, it's not like all the arab population, including greatest minds, became muslim as soon as the prophet appeared.