It seems he read Mike Hearn's decentralized blacklists idea.

So the domain is not under your control?

There's some problem with the domain name. I'm must put https://109.201.133.65 in the URL in order to access it.

Mike, you complain about viewing things as "black and white", but look at yourself:

It likely will. I can't copy and paste the address from an image but you can. Go on https://blockchain.info and check whether your address has a balance. If it has, then the transaction succeeded and it's just a matter of synchronization.

Interesting theory, but I wouldn't be that sure. Satoshi looked much more reserved than DPR. The latter expresses his political ideas much more eloquently than the former.

Thanks OP for sharing and thanks Andy Greenberg for compiling this collection.


+1

Do you see this, folks? Can you find somebody that writes better than this guy on this forum? And he's not even on the damn press list!

Please, just remove this pity attempt of "censorship of ideas" from bitcoin.org.

Wow... totally distinct sets, huh? Anarchists don't ever form business or write software. Brilliant.

I'm sorry Mike... I strongly admire your work, you're the source of a bunch of really bright ideas in Bitcoin world. And you work hard for its improvement. I thank you for that. But this post of yours was pathetic and filled with prejudice. Perhaps the worst of yours I've read so far.


Oh no no, that's not apolitical at all, and you know it very well. All this is already a political choice - that of being a state-lover and "law-abiding" person. That's obviously a political standpoint (and imho, a sort of religious belief too).

And by the way, about "always following the law", perhaps you should read what Falkvinge has to say about it (he's a socialist statist, by the way): http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ (it's item 3 if you're in a hurry)
(I can also quote Larken Rose, but I suppose you'll discredit him right away: )


I agree, pointing to a wiki page is probably not a good idea either. A true attempt of making bitcoin.org less biased would be to remove this Press Center entirely. Just remove the Press Center from bitocoin.org, and journalists will keep doing whatever they do to search for information.

Coinapult SMS Wallet is to Bitcoin what M-Pesa is to whatever fiat currency they transfer.
The problem with coinapult is that their sms wallet is only available in Canada+USA, two countries that don't really need it.
If somebody with good connections with mobile operators in these poorer countries builds something equivalent, there's a chance it'll take of. Actually, M-Pesa itself should seriously consider adding a bitcoin wallet option.

You really believe this? Seriously?

As said by others, banks frequently blacklist Bitcoin exchanges because criminals steal some of their clients credentials and use them to send money to these exchanges, in the hope of quickly converting this money to Bitcoin.
Instead of making their systems more secure, they prefer to simply blacklist the exchanges.

Such assumption is not reasonable.


Surely it can change, and likely will.
It's also likely that there will be people that will insist in remain in the "old version" where no more than 1Mb blocks can exist. That will provoke a fork. This will provoke lots of turbulence in the short run. In the long run, the scalable Bitcoin will "win".

Yes, people have thought about it. There's plenty of material on this forum, on the wiki, the Bitcoin Magazine print version ran an article on it etc.

OP: you don't need to use bitcoin-qt if you want it to be ready fast. You can use something like Multibit for example, it uses SPV.

And they have absolute control over it or what? Why can't all other developers simply "band up" and remove this trouble from bitcoin.org? Why can't sirius do it? I thought he controlled bitcoin.org.

Whose idea was it, for a start? Seriously, who thought that putting a small list of people on bitcoin.org as "press contacts" would be a good idea?

Just remove this damn list from bitcoin.org for fuck sake!

It should have never been created in the first place. Journalists seeking for information should keep doing what they used to do: contacting people like those in the Bitcoin Magazine, in the Bitcoin Foundation, or individuals like Voorhees, Ver and Matonis.

Bitcoin.org should be as neutral as possible. Just expose the technology, that's all. Matonis, Ver and Voorhees are obviously perfect for PR, have been doing it greatly so far. The simple fact that they are not on this list shows how biased the list is. And IMHO bicoin.org should do the most it can to be as unbiased as possible. So, just remove the damn list.


Actually, where is sirius? Is he really OK with this? Does he really believe that Satoshi left him the domain so it could be used like that?

Inhabitable dry land is all taken over already, you know...


But that's the whole point! Seasteaders don't want to live in the sea for the sake of it. Of course that if this is the only parameter, no doubt that I prefer to live on dry land like our species was meant to be.
The idea, though, is to bring competition to governments, and eventually "persuade" them to improve themselves - and consequently the life standards of all would improve as well.


You seem to be quite a problem-oriented person. Instead of focusing on potential solutions, you immediately see the difficulties and dismiss the entire thing. Many people regret having treated Bitcoin this way in the past.

Anyways, thanks for taking your time to address my questions.

But what if you just avoid such dangerous places? Hurricanes don't happen everywhere. The South Atlantic for example is calmer. The Mediterranean too.
How deep would you need to go to avoid the most dangerous waves a sea like the Mediterranean may hit you with?
Obviously by avoid I don't mean 100% ignore it, but just resist it without having your "house" rolling/turning strongly (or breaking apart!) and without getting seasick.


The supporters of the idea claim that most of the time the ocean is calm enough so that you can leave your submarine afloat. The top of the submarine would be like a balcony. It wouldn't be much different from an apartment after all.
Once in a while you'd have to sink for protection though.  I wonder how sudden would that happen. I mean, if you left your home floating and went to work nearby, do you have enough time to come back to it and sink before things get serious?


That's part of the argument of the seasteading institute (which is against submersible designs).
Those for it claim that such complexity is not necessary in a seastead use case. They say, for example, that you'd never need to sink deeper than what a snorkel can reach, so no need for fancy equipment to get oxygen from the sea water. Most of the military grade equipment available in modern submarines would also not be necessary either, according to them.

If I remember well, they claimed that you'd be able to have a concrete submarine with available inner space comparable to that of a 60m² apartment for something like 200k€, what would make it comparable to the costs of a house in the French Riviera for example. Do you agree with this assessment?

The main supporter of this idea has already produced private concrete submarines: http://concretesubmarine.com/


TSI has already published many research papers on these topics. See: http://www.seasteading.org/overview/


Because they would not be crippled by regulations and taxation. That's the whole point: the freer the economy, the more potential it has. A seastead based on libertarian principles would likely be freer than any other economy in this world.


Most american nations didn't have a shared heritage or shared language when they started. Same goes for Australia and other 'new world' nations.

From what I've been reading these open sea capable structures (including platforms, but specially steel ships) have huge maintenance costs. Sometimes you can buy big ships for a cheap price, but that's simply because their maintenance is due and they don't think it's worthy doing it. It's probably valid for oil rigs too.
But again, I have absolutely no solid knowledge on naval engineering.

If that's the case, would you care to share your opinion on this debate? http://www.seasteading.org/2012/02/the-seasteading-institute-policy-on-submersible-seasteads/

As I know bullocks of naval engineering, I can only watch the discussions and can't make any opinion out of them. It would be nice if submersible seasteads could be made as cheap and reliably as their supporters claim they can be, since that would allow a much more incremental approach (you could have "family-sized seasteads"). If that's not the case - and TSI is emphatic when it says it is not -, then the only alternative left are big structures which would need to be shared among hundreds or even thousands of people - no small group of "normal" (not billionaires) people would ever be able to buy a ship or platform capable of resisting open sea waves, AFAICT.

Isn't that what Coinapult SMS wallet does?

Perhaps the greatest advantage is that they already have it working outside of USA and Canada? (Because, let's be honest, how many people need a SMS wallet in USA and Canada?)

I'd start by saying the term "mining" is not really appropriate. It's stuck due to the gold-standard analogies, but it doesn't really describe what's done.

Then I'd say that the bitcoin network maintains a distributed database of transactions, and that keeping that database alive costs a lot in resources. People who voluntarily help to keep this database alive and secure are rewarded monetarily, both with inflation and with 'transaction fees', that are like tips people may add to their transactions.