|
I haven't read the diamond age yet, but I know the story and I heard about the "phyle" concept.
Of course there are several other worldwide dissiminated cultural groups, but none of them has a clearly strong, government-proof currency.
|
|
|
|
Wow. There are things about the world you are evidently yet to discover. Consider the legal status of the corporation.
Ok. My bad. I totally forgot about this legal status thing, especially the limited liability part and stuffs like that. I already had such a discussion with a so called left libertarian, and as a share holder myself, this gave me a freaking headache. He claimed that modern capitalism is based on this limited liability legal thing, as share holders don't have to respond to what the company does, at least not beyond what they personnaly invested. So to him the state protects shareholders from legal and moral responsbilities that could be engaged by the company. Then left liberals use this as a reason/excuse to do other state-involved stuffs such as universal dividends and stuffs like that. This personnaly gives me nausea. Anyway, I just hope that at some point shareholdings will be truly anonymous (which is only possible with a truly anonymous currency), so that companies will not need the help of the state anymore in order to protect their shareholders. |
|
|
|
I certainly don't advocate hiding anything from citizens. I would much rather openly discuss the negative effects of lobbying and other means by which corporations try to capture government. Even better, let's all discuss the appropriate role of corporations. Should they exist? If so, what kinds of powers should we let them have?
Sorry to intrude, but I've just red this amazing paragraph and I can't help noticing how ugly it sounds. Corporations are nothing but a bunch of people working together in order to reach a common goal. You don't question the existence of people. You may judge their acts, but not their existence. And corporations do nothing but selling stuffs to people who are willing to buy them. They force no one to do so. |
|
|
|
Most people do not really want more Bitcoin incarnations. That defies the purpose of keeping them rare and stable. Concurring Bitcoin block chains would hold many problems.
Can't avoid it anyway. So we'll just have to deal with it. And no, it does not defy the purpose of keeping bitconis rare and stable. The "original" bitcoin will stay rare and stable. But they will be other cryptocurrencies. I don't think it will be a problem though. Prices between different cryptocurrencies will be a matter of social consensus and economic desire for new, "fresh" money. I don't think it will be a problem for the whole cryptocurrency concept. It won't be much different from the time when most currencies in the world were private. I don't see how hoarding would go into some extreme though. Right now, while the market size isn't determined, well, speculation has that gambling charm. But later? There might be better investments than just holding Bitcoins. Also, few people want to sit on their money forever. Hoarding could become a very boring thing.
Agreed. There is no point having a lot of money if you die before spending it. |
|
|
|
Des riches toujours plus riche, le pouvoir ayant tendance à se concentré, et une quantité de pauvres en augmentation.
(...)
Est-ce que le bitcoin aurait tendance à résoudre ou à accentuer ce problème ?
Ben si les riches s'amusaient à accumuler et utiliser les bitcoins entre eux et à n'en laisser aucuns aux pauvres, ben les pauvres se créeraient leur propre fork. Donc pour répondre à ta question, je dirais "résoudre". Le bitcoin n'est qu'un outil. Tout le monde, y compris les pauvres, est libre de l'utiliser ou de le modifier. Par ailleurs, c'est une erreur grossière selon moi que de considérer que la répartition des signes monétaires est représentative de la répartition de richesse. |
|
|
|
|
A typical economically oriented argument against bitcoin is the "bitcoin will eventually create a deflationary spiral" one.
According to this argument, bitcoin will fail because it lacks a way to inject new money into the system in order to suit economic growth.
I think most of bitcoin adepts answer this argument by defending the concept of deflation, explaining that it is really not so bad after all. It's especially common amongst former goldbugs as myself.
However, there is a much simpler argument, that doesn't even have to defend the idea of a deflation-friendly economy.
In a keynesian nightmare, people would start to hoard bitcoins in such an extent that bitcoins become rare in circulation and thus prices start to fall. Then people are even more inclined to hoard bitcoins, and that is the very deflationary spiral. In such a situation, the lack of money in circulation will create a demand for money. The failure of bitcoins to serve the economy will become more and more apparent and people will just start to want an other currency. To put it simply, they will just create an other block chain. Bitcoin is a tool to create money. It can be started as soon as a social/economic consensus requires it.
On the opposite, if the bitcoins do their job and allow trades to occur correctly, there is no need for a new currency and nobody will be willing to put any effort into a new block chain.
Between those two situations some equilibrium has to be found by the market. It can be observed by looking at the prices of the main cryptocurrency compared to other challenging cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin doesn't prevent from creating more money than what is written in the software. It prevents from creating more bitcoins. Mind the difference. Basically monetary injection/destruction is possible with cryptocurrencies. It's just that it obeys social consensus and individual economic freedom, and NOT central bureaucratic forced planification.
|
|
|
|
Kial la aliaj lingvoj subite ricevas propran forumeron kaj Esperanto ne? Ni havas sufiĉe multe da skribantoj kaj legantoj, ĉu ne?
Iam estis same por la franca. Gxi ricevis propran forumejon nur post iom da tempo. Mi kredas ke ni nun ne havas suficxe da mesagxojn. |
|
|
|
|
I really would like to see a cryptocurrency that would use David Chaum's blind signature algorithm instead of ECDSA.
|
|
|
|
This is freakingly awesome idea! It surely will help to better distribute the overall hashing power, thus making the bitcoin network even more resilient. I'm not sure the client will be very happy to see his computer burning CPU for no apparent reason, though.  But indeed it is probably better than annoying ads. Again: awesome idea. |
|
|
|
Well, wouldn't it have been possible to start with a digital currency that had a fixed, unchanging number of units, and used a transaction cost scheme as the incentive structure from the start?
Sure, we'll call it GavinCoin and I get all the coins to start. If you want some, you just send me some of that worthless fiat currency that you have laying around. Sound good? You think this is a rebuttal, but in fact it's all the same to me, and others like me, who are coming late to bitcoin, and with no intention of buying hardware and doing my own mining. I've nonetheless forked over some fiat currency for these bitcoins, just because they seem to have acquired some value. Why wouldn't it {have been / be} possible to start with a fixed number of coins distributed among some community of hackers and get it started that way? The vast majority of bitcoins, presumably, were generated when the system was very young, and so are already in the hands of the early adopters. You are totally free to create your KlorthoCoin. Go for it, really. At some point anyway this kind of stuffs will happen. Just don't be offended if I don't value your klorthocoin much. |
|
|
|
just not noticed Gavin's new avatar. It is so true that he looked like Spock in the Forbes article!
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you use some kind of a source of verifiable random numbers from cosmic radiation or whatever, as long as the system is anonymous, it will fallback into CPU power or hardware ressource.
Basically if the right to receive bitcoins is based on some sky event, then everyone will try to post as many sky predictions as possible, just in order to increase their probability of winning. And the amount of predictions you can post would be proportionnal to your CPU.
|
|
|
|
Yeah I liked this part: « I know a lot of individuals in government will react with normalcy bias to this statement and say but we have to!. It doesnt matter if you have to. You cant. Period. » |
|
|
|
I can meet you in Paris this week end only: 21-22 may 2011.
just send me a message to grab a drink somewhere.
Dude, no offense but you have 4 posts here. |
|
|
|
I don't think begging for bitcoins and selling goods/services should be in the same answer.
Begging isn't mutually beneficial, it's totally different thing from trading.
Yeah but the poll is "mining or buying?", not "how do you get your bitcoins?", so I put every other way to get bitcoins in only one category. I could have written: 'Neither mining nor buying. I get bitcoins in some other way.' |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I've seen such a simple poll already.
Notice that to me begging or selling goods/services is the same as buying, but I'm pretty sure some people won't agree with that, so I made a distinct option.
|
|
|
|
|
My guess is he totally lost his mind this day. Possibly due to some health issue (brain damage or something).
|
|
|
|
|
I personnaly think he just lost his mind that day. Those things happen.
|
|
|
|
Encrypted hard drive. And Linux. Multiple backups.
idem. regarding hard drive encryption: $ apt-cache show ecryptfs-utils Package: ecryptfs-utils Version: 83-4 Installed-Size: 464 Maintainer: Daniel Baumann <daniel@NO_SPAM> Architecture: i386 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2), libecryptfs0, libgpg-error0 (>= 1.6-1), libgpgme11 (>= 1.1.2), libkeyutils1, libpam0g (>= 0.99.7.1), gettext-base, keyutils, libnss3-1d, libpam-runtime (>= 1.0.1-6) Suggests: cryptsetup, opencryptoki Description: ecryptfs cryptographic filesystem (utilities) eCryptfs is a POSIX-compliant enterprise-class stacked cryptographic filesystem for Linux. . It provides advanced key management and policy features. eCryptfs stores cryptographic metadata in the header of each file written, so that encrypted files can be copied between hosts; the file will be decryptable with the proper key, and there is no need to keep track of any additional information aside from what is already in the encrypted file itself. Think of eCryptfs as a sort of "gnupgfs". . eCryptfs is a native Linux filesystem. The kernel module component of eCryptfs is part of the Linux kernel since 2.6.19. . This package contains the userland utilities. Homepage: https://launchpad.net/ecryptfsTag: implemented-in::c, role::program, security::cryptography Section: misc Priority: optional Filename: pool/main/e/ecryptfs-utils/ecryptfs-utils_83-4_i386.deb Size: 98190 MD5sum: f10be79be3b4b38eafdefcbd37104336 SHA1: 9c7529f10d5fc5162d34da6d4bea63cd48092ece SHA256: 3b5dd87d8d18241557e8d9b5314c5ffda88c62748dd08403cdaa265c1c963145 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
