Immortal Technique is your best bet.
Agreed but i think they should sell there songs for bitcoins I emailed the CFO asking if they could add btc as an option. Mentioned paysius and bit-pay.. |
|
|
|
Sure, it could be broken. But if we accept Bitcoin is destined to be a "success" as a currency we have to accept the fact that policy-wise it'll ultimately succumb to the nature of man and his government.
Fair enough. Let's wait and see. Except, I won't be waiting doing nothing, I'll be using Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Immortal Technique is your best bet.
|
|
|
|
and i assume, using bitcoin...
no one likes to talk about things like this in such terms, but allow me to be a bit brazen:
i think we need to get the beautiful dark-skinned people in all nations involved in the bitcoin scene. for obvious reasons, they're generally not super trusting of government or any conglomeration of oppressive power, but simultaneously wield a great power in terms of influence in popular culture.
who can we talk to about making the 'megaupload' video of bitcoin?
(actually serious)
I have a counter proposal for you. Make Bitcoin popular with folks from trailers in eastern Kentucky. That's likely more within the reach, the language barrier is smaller, etc. Once you get some success there you can challenge yourself further. LANGUAGE BARRIER? good grief. i'm glad i made this thread, maybe we can all air out how we really feel. not that i care as long as the original question gets discussed.  Yeah, language barrier. You were talking about "dark-skinned people in all nations," and I replied before I realized you didn't know what you were talking about. You have since changed your proposal to deal with the US and UK. Most of dark-skinned people in this world are not native English speakers, or speak English dialects which are very different from yours. Also, judging from how you imagine dark-skinned culture in your OP, it's fair to say there is also a cultural barrier problem, in addition to the language barrier. For these reasons, I suggested eastern Kentucky as your first step. I like your revised plan better. Try and get Snoop Lion on board if you want to attract his kind of audience. The ultimate win would be to get that guy called Barrack on board. I don't give a shit about it. Finally, just in the interest of full disclosure, my skin is fair, I listened to Public Enemy live in the early '90s, later on I met Chuck D in person. I met Bobby Seale in person. Hell, I own a "free Mumia" t-shirt. |
|
|
|
The only thing that matters about the deflationary aspects of Bitcoin is that eventually miners will have little to no incentive to mine. Every non-miner Bitcoiner thinks fees are going to be enough but they won't be and all the smart miners know this. Think about it, imagine you're someone who is creating Bitcoin and you want to encourage people to use it, you have the problem of if you make it inflationary then no one will hoard it, so it will never get used or become valuable enough to use, and if you make it deflationary it will get hoarded, but sometimes the speculation is going to create bubbles that make it unusable and eventually just a handful of people will own large amounts of it that they are unwilling to sell.
Also, because it is deflationary, at some point you know the miners aren't going to be willing to mine anymore, yet they will, having been involved in large monetary purchases of the currency, have an immense amount of sway over politicians. We're going to get "taxed" via fees that the developers are forced by law of various governments to put into their clients and mining pools will be forced by law to ignore or not accept those blocks that contain transactions without fees. Obviously this is far future, but it's still what we have to look forward to once Bitcoin has been widely adopted.
That, or your crystal ball is broken... |
|
|
|
and i assume, using bitcoin...
no one likes to talk about things like this in such terms, but allow me to be a bit brazen:
i think we need to get the beautiful dark-skinned people in all nations involved in the bitcoin scene. for obvious reasons, they're generally not super trusting of government or any conglomeration of oppressive power, but simultaneously wield a great power in terms of influence in popular culture.
who can we talk to about making the 'megaupload' video of bitcoin?
(actually serious)
I have a counter proposal for you. Make Bitcoin popular with folks from trailers in eastern Kentucky. That's likely more within the reach, the language barrier is smaller, etc. Once you get some success there you can challenge yourself further. |
|
|
|
|
I appreciate the attempt, but you are preaching to the choir. We need to make it simple for the windows, iphone, and android crowd.
|
|
|
|
does martial-law imply shuting down the internet and the grid?
wtf would people do?
no one could live in the big cites, theirs no power! this is pure madness. no one is every going to shutdown the grid for any reason, their isn't any profit in it.
Ask Iraqis, Serbs, Libyans, or anyone else who found themselves in a country bombed or invaded by NATO in recent years. Hint: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-114.htm |
|
|
|
How are my ideas monstrous?  The stripping away of individual liberties in favor of greater government control of our lives... Is there anyone here besides you who feels this is a positive socio-economic evolution? Here. Not because I favor the government over personal freedoms, but because I favor the government over private, cancerous corporations that definitely don't give a rat's ass about my freedoms or anything other than their profits. Most of criticism I can aim towards governments nowadays is simply a consequence of corporate influence over governments. Back to the topic: yes, I think Bitcoin is reasonably martial-law proof. Perhaps wouldn't be able to spend them easily, but they are extremely hard to destroy or take away. |
|
|
|
|
A slanted wall is still a wall, right?
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't this drastically increase board size increase? A huge board is not optimal.
If done carefully, users should not notice any big changes. You filter posts based on a tag or tags, and you only see what belongs to that "board." Right now, the user faces a list of boards and child boards on the main page. The user clicks on one, and topics are displayed. In the new proposed system, users would face the same list, but with a checkbox for each item. Checking the box filters posts with that tag. I know the devil is usually in the details, so I'll try to come up with some specific ideas over the next few days. In the meantime, it'd be nice to know what moderators and developers think at this point - is this technically feasible? |
|
|
|
We do not need hacks/thefts to help show how valuable bitcoins are. An influx of hacks/thefts can greatly lower the confidence of the users within the system.
There are thousands credit card number thefts everyday and still somehow nobody lost faith in credit card. because you can simply call your bank ,tell them someone in argetina made $10,000 of unauthorised purchases on your credit card and they will reverse the transactions who are you going to call when your btc wallet gets hacked for $10,000 of BTC ? At the risk of starting a derailment of this thread: I would call the police. I feel there is too much drama about these hacks. As pointed out above, either be more responsible protecting your coins, or call the police, or deal with it some other way if you are anti-police. As far as I am concerned, hacks only prove that (1) Bitcoin works and coins are valuable, and the obvious (2) there are assholes willing to steal your stuff. The second point applies to bitcoins, cash, golden teeth (ask anyone who's been through a civil war), copper wire, bicycles. Still, we don't lose confidence in cash, gold, copper wire, and bicycles just because criminals target them. |
|
|
|
They responded with this: Dwolla’s SSL certificate had a minor issue. The SSL certificate was purchased for one year, however, was given a two-year expiration date. This is part of our routine monitoring.
Dwolla realized this error and migrated the certificate to another vendor as an interim solution. Dwolla will revert to our old SSL vendor, a two-year, paid certificate, later this week.
So Verisign issued a 2 year cert, even though Dwolla only paid for one? That's odd, wonder if it was actually the other way around. See what Tux posted above. It was issued with a two-year validity. Apparently they revoke it if you miss a payment. |
|
|
|
Folks, as notme repeatedly pointed out, this is an issue of semantics.
Also, watch your tenses, it'll help you think more clearly.
Bitcoin is currently vmonetarily inflationary. It will become vmonetarily deflationary once the rate of mining drops below the rate of loss. Who cares? I don't. I simply use Bitcoin, and will continue to do so.
It's currently price deflationary, and that will likely only speed up. Thanks for fixing that. Yes, the exchange rate to USD is likely to continue to rise, so btc-denominated prices are likely to continue to drop. Unless they don't. There have been, and will be, ups and downs in exchange rates. It's also a matter of time scale and cherry-picking to suit one's favorite dogma. I've got nothing more to add to this topic. Back to the OP, I don't think we'll be actually able to tell how price deflation affects users' behavior, unless we split the user base in half and introduce one inflationary, and one deflationary coin. Any other (more realistic) aproach will be prone to ideological fallacies in interpreting data. The thing is, people use Bitcoin. If price keeps going up, despite monetary inflation, we conclude that Bitcoin economy is growing, most likely because there are more and more people using Bitcoin - even though it's price deflationary! So it seems that there is no problem. |
|
|
|
I just think it is sort of a sucker score. My understanding is that if you always pay your debts you will have a decent credit score. But the dream customer not only pays, he/she also is prone to getting into debt. Being debt averse (arguably being responsible) will limit your score. As far as not being able to get credit, so far this has not been a problem. I know the rating agencies say you must have a score. Just like the credit card companies say you need a card. They will say "How will you rent a car?".  If I wanted a score I could get it back quickly. Last time I had one the banks were ridiculous in their offers to me. The amounts they said I could borrow were way too much money. Someone has to be the grown-up and the banks are not up for that task. My past 3 years tax returns have been under $10k and discover still offers me $25k @7% once a month. Of course they do. Banking is a zero-risk business. They make more or less, but won't end up kicked out in the street or in jail. Some of their customers inevitably will, though, simply because, at any given moment, available money supply does not include future interest yet. What if they make a lot less, and not all the other banks are going under at once? Discover on its own is not "too big to fail". Lower risk than without any safety net, but not zero. And then what? Those who make decisions walk away with all the bonuses and golden parachutes. Zero risk, in the sense that they inevitably get something from the game, at the expense of workers and customers who inevitably get screwed (fraction of them, that is). But we stray from the topic. |
|
|
|
|
Folks, as notme repeatedly pointed out, this is an issue of semantics.
Also, watch your tenses, it'll help you think more clearly.
Bitcoin is currently inflationary. It will become deflationary once the rate of mining drops below the rate of loss. Who cares? I don't. I simply use Bitcoin, and will continue to do so.
|
|
|
|
As for the "enterprise" level discussion, perhaps it's better if they keep it between themselves?
If your security measures rely on keeping them secret, they aren't good security measures. They shouldn't rely on secrecy, but should be discussed on a need-to-know basis between service providers, or between customers and providers. I think that's common sense. Anyhow, it wouldn't hurt to have the board. Everyone can decide if and how much they would be sharing there. what you just said is that you rely on secrecy, a completely open and transparent security solution allows for open source collaboration on fixing any holes, regardless of the sensitivity of your situation. There are more whitehats on here than blackhats, and those whitehats are generally better at their job, too. Then why are zero-day exploits usually not discussed in public boards? I thought a reasonable thing to do is to notify the dev team first, no? |
|
|
|
There are tagging plugins for SMF; implementation would be easy. Getting users to properly and consistently use it would be the nightmare.
Frank
Not a bigger nightmare then getting users to post in appropriate boards. Can you provide examples of plugins? |
|
|
|
I just think it is sort of a sucker score. My understanding is that if you always pay your debts you will have a decent credit score. But the dream customer not only pays, he/she also is prone to getting into debt. Being debt averse (arguably being responsible) will limit your score. As far as not being able to get credit, so far this has not been a problem. I know the rating agencies say you must have a score. Just like the credit card companies say you need a card. They will say "How will you rent a car?". If I wanted a score I could get it back quickly. Last time I had one the banks were ridiculous in their offers to me. The amounts they said I could borrow were way too much money. Someone has to be the grown-up and the banks are not up for that task. My past 3 years tax returns have been under $10k and discover still offers me $25k @7% once a month. Of course they do. Banking is a zero-risk business. They make more or less, but won't end up kicked out in the street or in jail. Some of their customers inevitably will, though, simply because, at any given moment, available money supply does not include future interest yet. |
|
|
|
One word : "multisig"
I don't understand why is multisig such a breakthrough, it is kind of multiplying something that already exists, isn't it? Everyday you will be unlocking five gates instead of one, and if a hacker could hack one, so he could hack five. Maybe there are some other uses of it but I can't see the security effect. No. You would open one gate, and I would open another. Also, not every day but only when appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
