|
I think this is the biggest fee I've seen in a transaction. Even then, 0.13 BTC on a transfer of 100 BTC, that's only 0.13%. Not too shabby anyway.
|
|
|
|
I'm using 512sha2 hashes as an id, however I would like to use a shorter string, what options are there available?
I'm thinking not using all the hash, say the first 50-100 characters to lookup the whole hash and get to work that way.
If there is a collision at say 50characters (2 hash id's have the same first 50 character) then what should I do?
Workable?
Is there a specific term for what I'm attempting to do?
Well, Bitcoin takes the SHA256 hash of the public key and turns it into an address by hashing with RipeMD-160 and then Base58 encoding the result (and some other stuff). Perhaps something like that? Also, if you run Bitcoin in debug mode and double click on a txn, it will give you a very short (16 char?) string which BlockExplorer knows what to do with. Theymos might be able to tell you what exactly that string is. |
|
|
|
In-person DNA testing.
That fails the fairness test, too-- identical twins won't get their fair share. DNA test + fingerprint?  |
|
|
|
I'm not being disingenuous. The only reason an employer can sell the product of my labor for less than what he sells if for on the market is if he has the authority to exclude me from that market. He gets this authority from a state of some kind. There are many reasons why one individual would agree to be employed by another. Risk, up front costs, reputation, etc. As always, no state necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Nodes don't have to keep the full block chain, but the current implementation does. I believe the client supports a lightweight mode that only downloads block headers, but it's not enabled. There is also talk of an ultra lightweight mode that would only keep a portion of block headers, but would have to request additional information outside of the regular communication channels.
|
|
|
|
|
Recurring billing does not need to be a part of Bitcoin in the same way that it doesn't need to be part of U.S. Dollars or gold.
These types of systems and features can be built on top of Bitcoin, just as credit cards, electronic transfers, etc are built on top of the U.S. dollar (or other currencies).
|
|
|
|
The defining characteristic is this...
If you refuse to pay the gated communities fee, what happens?
If, at any point, you risk physical harm done to you by officials of the gated community, or incarceration, then the gated community is a government and the fee a tax. I would argue that the risk of physical harm or incarceration must be legitimized and institutionalized in order for it to be considered state-like behavior. If the gated community claims the sole authority to use whatever physical force necessary to retrieve money money from you, then sure, it's a state or state-like entity. |
|
|
|
I find it curious though that some atoms, after a worker uses his labor to arrange them in some fashion so as to create a product, become more valuable after the employer takes it. Must be magic. No. Two things. Something only has value when another is willing to trade for it. The product's value, from the time it leaves the worker's hands until it reaches the consumer's, is one hundred percent speculative. The reason that the worker chooses to work for his employer rather than himself is that his employer absorbs any difference in the speculative value of an object with the traded value. This is in addition to all of the time the employer spent building the company before the worker came around, and the risks involved in such. No magic involved. |
|
|
|
Seems like business is good, don't know why they would. Can anyone confirm one way or the other? They shuttered silkroadmarket.org, which was just a portal page. The actual site, on Tor, appears to be operating as normal. |
|
|
|
Edit: Holy crap! Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!
That does sound like what he's saying. But it actually reminds me of a justification for rule enforcement (say, by competing private entities) that I like. Let's say I enter your house and take your TV. Assuming it is known by all parties that I did do such a thing, I see only two possibilities for my response. Either I agree that theft is unacceptable, or argue that it is acceptable. If the first, then I am agreeing that I infringed upon your rights, and restitution is in order. If the second, then I am implicitly agreeing that I allow such a thing to be done to me. This is demonstrated much more succinctly in Withur We. The main character starts a private security agency, and one of his first adjudications is done for a client that was beaten by a larger man. “Mr. Rachmann, we don’t anticipate needing to use a jail very often. We offer a different service here, and now we are going to deliver the justice Mr. Hassan has paid for. First of all, you have physically assaulted Mr. Hassan without his permission. This action on your part is a declaration that you consider such violence permissible. As a first course, Mr. Hassan has the right to do to you what you did to him, or to hire someone to do it. Taribo will be doing the honors today, unless Mr. Hassan wishes to do it himself.” “It is demonstrably untrue that we cannot beat you, Mr. Rachmann,” Alistair said with the flat tone of a lecturer. “Just as you beat Mr. Hassan, we can beat you. Whether or not this is a proper course of action is, ultimately, Mr. Hassan’s decision, but you certainly have no room to argue you should be treated more gently than you treated Mr. Hassan.
“In our justice system, after a neutral party determines guilt, the aggrieved party determines the punishment, the maximum permissible extent of which the perpetrator himself determines at the moment he commits his crime. You determined the type, intensity, duration and amount of the beating the moment you delivered such to Mr. Hassan. While you wait for your beating, Mr. Mpala will consult with Dr. Lushington so that an accurate punishment may be administered.” “But that is just the beginning. We beat you with the permission of Mr. Hassan, a permission he received from you when, by your actions, you declared such things permissible. But when you beat Mr. Hassan, you acted without permission. In other words, our beating is a response and yours was an initiation. The pain to follow is a consequence of your own actions, but the pain Mr. Hassan must endure is unjust, something he should never have had to go through in the first place. You will therefore be made to pay a fine upon which interest will accrue for every moment it remains unpaid. This will be compensation for Mr. Hassan’s unnecessary suffering.” “If you refuse to pay the fine, your property will be taken from you and its title transferred to Yusuf until the debt is cleared. If you do not have property enough to settle the debt, and if no one will lend or give you their property to help you, you will be forced to work off the debt. However, in such a case that you refuse to pay the debt on your own, we will be forced to charge you for the trouble of having to force you to work off the debt. This will only make it more expensive, and the accrued interest will be much greater as well. You may at any time, of course, reach an agreement with Mr. Hassan to settle the debt, both the money or property owed and the beating.” |
|
|
|
|
Yep, I was able to connect and browse without any issues at all.
|
|
|
|
Poe's law: I believe Steve Gibson, of Security Now, called it the "crypto-dilemma". On one hand, it could be tool of political activists to resist repressive states such as China and Libya. On the other hand it could be used as a tool to launder money from kidnapping operations and organized crime activities. On one hand bitcoin could be used as a tool for political activists to resist oppressive states such as China and Libya. On the other hand, bitcoin could be used by political activists (ie: silkroad) to resist oppressive states such as the USA and EU. Much like how Tor can be used as a tool for political activists in China and Libya to resist oppressive states, and can also be used by political activists in USA and EU to resist oppressive states. If Bitcoin is a threat or not largely depends on how brainwashed you are by your respective government. Much like Tor, Bitcoin is a weapon against statists in general. The government will love using it to attack other governments, and will fear it being used to attack their own power over their own slaves. |
|
|
|
So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?
If enough people vote for it, and it becomes a law, yes. And if it applies to me and the house I buy. I doubt that I will buy such a house though. If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so? |
|
|
|
Taxation is agression? Paying for services is agression? The two are not the same. No entity other than the state can force you to pay for its services, even if you don't want them. In fact, the state can force you to pay for its services even if you don't use them. I agree with you though. I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence either. That's what the police is there to prevent. To handle those who do anyway. But you think the state should be allowed to initiate violence. That's what forcing someone to pay for a service they neither want nor use is. |
|
|
|
I bought some MTGox credit from mndrix last week, and I was planning on holding it for another drop in the exchange rate. Well, after reading your special update on the 11th, I decided to buy at the current price. I suppose you deserve another donation for that. |
|
|
|
What if instead of getting arrested when you don't pay taxes, you only got demoted from the citizen status kinda like in some sci-fi and ancient cultures, no longer being allowed to walk on the streets, drive your cars, use state money and standins (credit cards, cheques etc), no longer being accepted in public hospitals, no longer covered by the state's justice systems (no court appointed lawyer, no right to a trial with ajuri of your pears etc) and so on? Would that still make taxes an agression? I think being able to opt-out of state provided services would be a huge step in the right direction. It would create a market for private entities to provide those services, probably at a higher quality and lower cost. I disagree with many of your examples, though, as walking on the street, using fiat currency, etc are not affecting anybody else's ability to do the same. To answer your question, if I am free to continue my life while not paying taxes, they are voluntary and not aggressive. |
|
|
|
Sorry, you're resuming the State for me and you. And certainly the State ain't it.
Other than that upon that "anarchy" you seek to bend others to your opinion without the rules of Democracy - means you don't give a damn whether the majority of the people agrees with you or not. So... that whole thing stinks like communism «hey! Stop being explored by the Capitalism... let me explore you instead».
it is the person who thinks they know what is best, and if someone disagrees with them, they will use force to get their way
Again... mirrors must be a rare item where you're... I don't see you call up for a voting, but to an utopia where people get there by themselves... if that's so why arguing? Let people arrive there if they will, if they won't, too bad for you. I'm not pointing any gun, literally or figurative, on people who decided to join that community.
And I'm a bit tired anyway with this "anarchist" bs. You're funny but... Be happy kids!
What the fuck are you on man? Can you make a single coherent point? |
|
|
|
"Aggression"... listen to you folks and it looks like the State is up to beat anybody at will or for pleasure! You have yet, in my opinion, to actually respond to anything I've said. First, let's define aggression. I consider aggression to be the initiation of the use of force. Only the first entity to use force in a situation is the aggressor, responding to force with force is self defense. So, is "not paying taxes" an act of aggression? I would say no. Is putting someone in jail for not paying taxes an act of aggression? Yes. Is using force to defend yourself from being put in jail an act of aggression? No. When you're killed for defending yourself against aggression, is that an act of aggression. Yes. |
|
|
|
Anarchy is illogical on any social animal, even wolves have group leaders... accept or think for a second as anarchy being anything close to viable is to deny the entire nature of the human species.
We all have a bit of anarchist, is true, we dream to can do whatever we want without bother with social rules, other folks and so on... but that's just a wish as good as to gain wings and fly (by own means, not using devices to fly). No more than a wish...
A state is an entity which is granted a monopoly on the legitimate use of aggression in a geographical area. That means that the state is the only entity which is allowed to initiate the use of force. All I'm saying is that having such a monopoly is detrimental. You're saying that is the nature of human beings? That's fucking pathetic, and I disagree. Anyway, you still haven't given anything other than emotional reasons that anarchism is undesirable. How about some logic up in this bitch? By the way, using logic to prove a point is not the same as stating that something is illogical. You have to show it to be true. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
