I just did the test again:  PS. no, I'm kidding, I faked this one.  |
|
|
|
|
(just registering to this thread)
|
|
|
|
Ah, come on. Can't all anarchists get along here? At least I'm the most anti-authoritarian in this thread (well, according to this biased test.) Yeah, I was kidding. As long as you don't have the police tax me and torture me to reveal my wallet encryption password, I'm fine... |
|
|
|
Ah all fair points. Thank you for the feedback. If I have some time, I'll see if I can do another more simple take on it.
For what it worths, I really think you have a real talent for this stuff. I'm pretty sure you'll make quite some bitcoins with this activity. Keep on the good work. |
|
|
|
I have to say I am not very happy with it  , but I reckon you tried hard so I'll send you the two bitcoins, don't worry. What bitcoin address should I use? Oh no! Was it the pitchforks? Lack of sadfaces? Something else? I'd love your feedback so I can improve at taking requests in the future. I really wanted guns, as it is not clear what the intent of the guys with forks is. On the communist version, it seems that they are about to attack, where I wanted them to look like they are watching and preventing from escaping. Also, there are too many people in the circle and it is not clear what they are doing. They don't seem to be working, but rather camping. Also, the perspective for the tent is wrong in the communist version. Thanks for your effort anyway. |
|
|
|
Here's one I just took. I've drifted mostly left, but also a bit down since I first took this test in my teens.  Guys, we have an intruder. Set the dogs! |
|
|
|
Alright boys and girls, here we go... I would like a drawing that is not exactly bitcoin related. Rather, it would picture a caricature of the difference between capitalism and communism. At least in my mind. Both pictures would represent a circle of armed men, with a worker inside. The worker can do anything, for instance he can mine something (not bitcoins, the idea is that he has to be a symbol of labour). In the communist version, guns are pointed inside the circle. Towards the worker, preventing him from escaping. And the worker has a unhappy face In the capitalist version, guns are pointed outside the circle. They aim at protecting the worker's product of labour. The worker has a happy face. No legend. I'll add it myself. 2 BTC.  I hope this is what you had in mind. This one took the most time of all requests so far due to all the amount of detail, and I decided to go with pitchforks instead of guns for a more timeless feel and I skipped the faces for consistency in style (we can toss those on if you really want). If you like it, I hope you'll consider tossing a tip my way for the extra effort.  I have to say I am not very happy with it , but I reckon you tried hard so I'll send you the two bitcoins, don't worry. What bitcoin address should I use? |
|
|
|
|
When you think about it, you realise that in a fully interconnected worldwide electronic network, trying to centrally control the issuing of money is just ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
But doesn't that lead to monopoles and cartels? As we have it today e.g. with the central banks (not controlled by governments)?
Pfff.... Isn't this in a liberalism FAQ or something? If not, it should. |
|
|
|
Par "encore plus libérale", j'entendais moins solidaire. Solidarité qui est et devrait être incarné par l'état, sa seule fonction. Donner le même pouvoir à chacun s'appelle l'anarchie ou la loi du plus fort, c'est notre système historique. Comme tout système, cela plait à certains et pas d'autre. On ne pourra jamais être tous d’accord Effectivement on risque de ne pas être d'accord. Maintenant, tu noteras que bitcoin permet aux mendiants de mondialiser leur activité. Au lieu de se limiter à la rue et à son quartier, un mendiant peut s'étendre et demander des bitcoins à des millions d'internautes. Bref, bitcoin met la globalisation à portée des plus démunis. |
|
|
|
Mine:  |
|
|
|
I'm glad that justice was served.
I won't call it justice, but I'm glad he won't hurt anyone anymore, nor will he propagate any more hate speech against non-muslim people. |
|
|
|
That said, I don't think gold is likely to ever fully demonetize to the extent that it trades at intrinsic industrial/mettalurgic value.
Corrected. Best is to avoid the expression " intrinsic value" as it is quite controversial here. |
|
|
|
So if it were never possible to do anything with bitcoins except buy other currencies, it would start to resemble a pyramid scheme a bit.
Not even in this case. I would call it a metacurrency, but some people would call it a reserve currency. It would still be usefull, and several currencies have been used like this in history (the écu, predecessor of the euro, to name one). |
|
|
|
But back to the beginning, instead of Euro/Amero/Asian... it could be silver BTC/bronze BTC/iron BTC...
Indeed I think the metal analogy is better than the geographic one. |
|
|
|
|
Well, entropy has a meaning for a number, at least in a particular base (100000 has very little entropy in Base-10, for instance, but much higher in base-8).
But anyway, I totally forgot that a transaction amount can indeed be the result of some arithmetic operation (currency exchange, division into several parts, and so on).
That was silly of me. I lock this thread.
|
|
|
|
He says that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme because we're making money even though no product is being sold or something.
This is somehow a weird assertion. Can't money be considered as a product by itself ? Making a monetary tool is not that easy. You can try using seeshells, or numbers on pieces of paper. And yet everyone will think those are not "good" money. Money needs some properties to be considered as a good money. A 100$ federal reserve note is not just a piece of paper with ink. It has some security features that prevent it from counterfeiting, for instance. It has some value apart from its facial value. It has some value as something that is difficult to be counterfeited. A monetary tool is a product just as a hammer is a product. A hammer is usefull to nail nails, and a monetary tool is usefull to exchange value and trade stuffs. Bitcoin is much a better monetary tool than federal reserve notes. It has much better security against counterfeiting. It can be divided much easier. And above all, it can easily be sent through the internet. That's why mining bitcoin is indeed a selling of a product or service: it's a financial service given to the bitcoin community. |
|
|
|
Choosing one works, until you find somewhere you'd like to spend it that doesn't accept it and only accepts a different one.
Doesn't matter as long as you can exchange cryptocurrencies quickly on a global market. But I admit this would deserve a more thourough thinking. Deflationary spiral is also a myth.
Yeah I know but we keep hearing about it all the time as an argument against bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Now, could you inspect transactions and try to make a guess at whether they're conveying data through a side channel? Perhaps. But it would be an unreliable guess. For example, the presence of .01 transaction, made to a particular address at a roughly particular time, could convey significant information. Is 2.71828 a high-entropy amount, or is it just an estimate of e or a result of an exchange-rate conversion? Etc.
Why on earth would anyone use e as an amount for a monetary transaction ? You are right about exchange rates conversion, though. I've just realised it. So you have a point. |
|
|
|
But the more cryptocurrencies that exist, the more instability you will see in each of their prices as people have to gamble about which ones take off.
I also had this concern for some time. I'm not sure however it is a serious problem. Currencies don't devaluate one another. Printing sterlings doesn't hurt dollars. Gold is not threatened by silver. Etc. The fact that there are many cryptocurrencies on the market might confuse some people. But once they make their mind and chose one, everything goes fine. Just let the market adjust prices between them and, if the economy wants it, one particular currency will emerge. I actually think that the fact that people can create a new block chain at will is a good thing. If they do so, it will mean that bitcoin has reached a point where too few people have hoarded bitcoins, so that it makes bitcoins less usefull for the economy. People then need more money to do their business, and there is nothing wrong for them to create some. It might be the free market solution for the "bitcoin will create a deflationnary spiral" mantra. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
