julz, I think it's safe to assume it wasn't aimed at you  |
|
|
|
|
How do you know it would be worse? Does human history have any precedent of a sophisticated, highly developed and educated society that attempted a by strictly market consumers regulated market approach to law and security?
You know how you sound? You sound like those who defended slavery saying the world was going to end without slaves since there wont be enough food produced without masters having the slaves to work the fields.
|
|
|
|
like I said before a giant slope leaning more and more towards inequality
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but we are not and can never be equal. |
|
|
|
You really don't see a problem with your cellphone analogy? Really? Come on man. You find it acceptable that an enormous amount of people are unable to simply go about with their day because they are not able to defend themselves (or are uable to pay for it) just like it is acceptable that an enormous amount of people who clearly need a cellphone can't get one.
No I most certainly don't see a problem with my analogy. Freedom is not free, those who wont or can't defend it or find others that will defend it for them will unfortunately have to cope without it. That's not ideal but it's the cruel reality we exist in. And don't for a second pretend that government and it's service of protection somehow solves this perfectly, especially for the really poor, because I'm not going to list various crime statistics to prove to you with concrete evidence how deluded you are. Btw most of your wrong ideas about the world stem from your lack of good understanding of a by strictly market consumers regulated market econimics (i.e. free market economics) and I'm sorry but I can't afford to waste my time replying to you anymore because it's simply no point until you have a grasp on that. If you have an honest desire to learn, head on over to mises.org and educate yourself, a lot of is completely free(actually free, not government free). |
|
|
|
Which also brings to light that there is a really significant chance you just are terrible at learning to defend yourself, just like many people just are terrible at singing or whatever. And what about people who are just unable to fend for themselves? The sick, handicapped, injured, but also children, especially orphans, or the elderly who don't have children. Creating private policeforces massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leaves a lot of people who clearly need defending undefended. Fallacy. Another reason it is an excellent state of affairs that the government has a monopoly of protection is more or less the same reason there is seperation of powers. It insures that there is the least conflict of interest, and that everyone has a right to the same amount of protection, and the right to have a fair trial. As soon a any of those things are for sale, you start to slide towards massive inequality.
What separation of powers? Merely saying it exists doesn't make it so.  Explain please, merely saying fallacy doesn't make it so. You seem to think there is a problem with the seperation of powers, how would a NAP improve that? If anything it would only make things worse. Don't forget the rest of the post btw. And for someone making a remark about me "just stating things", you seem to be doing exactly that ... Learn free market economics as taught by the Austrian school of economic thought and you'll understand why it's a fallacy. But really quickly, what you said is the same as if I said creating private companies to develop cell phones will massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leave a lot of people who clearly need cell phones without one. I don't seem think there is a problem with separation of powers, I think there is no such thing as separation of powers just the idea of it, and I think that based on evidence of recent history like unilaterally declared wars and all the other bullshit governments do they according to their PR (constitution) aren't suppose to do. |
|
|
|
Which also brings to light that there is a really significant chance you just are terrible at learning to defend yourself, just like many people just are terrible at singing or whatever. And what about people who are just unable to fend for themselves? The sick, handicapped, injured, but also children, especially orphans, or the elderly who don't have children. Creating private policeforces massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leaves a lot of people who clearly need defending undefended. Fallacy. Another reason it is an excellent state of affairs that the government has a monopoly of protection is more or less the same reason there is seperation of powers. It insures that there is the least conflict of interest, and that everyone has a right to the same amount of protection, and the right to have a fair trial. As soon a any of those things are for sale, you start to slide towards massive inequality.
What separation of powers? Merely saying it exists doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
|
No one is preventing you to defend yourself against their "violence" and fork the chain. No one. And that's freedom.
And if they are stupid enough to destroy the trust in Bitcoin through keeping their technology to themselves and acquiring more than 51%, they'll not only destroy the value of their investment but they'll also trigger a response by everyone else changing the protocol and forking the chain as self defense.
And again, that's freedom, the best possible social and economic foundational principle for maximum peace and prosperity known to man.
|
|
|
|
So I started a discussion about what I perceive as profiteering in another thread, and realized that there is a comparison with libertarianism and the Non Agression Pact. I define profiteering as selling at the maximum price you think your customers will pay; as a genuine free market would fully endorse. One forum user, evoorhees, states: It is natural, moral, legitimate, efficient, and productive to seek the highest profit one can obtain, so long as one doesn't resort to fraud, deception, trickery, or theft in order to obtain it.
So I wondered, why stop at profiteering? Why should fraud, deception or trickery somehow not be permitted? Please read that thread for more info there. Here I just want to discuss the analogy with NAP which, hopefully, is fairly obvious as follows. Libertarians want there to be a minimum of laws, in fact, as I understand, there should be only one: do no violence unto others (where violence is understood to include such things as theft or damage, which implicitly defines such a thing as private property). Well, why no agression? Life is violent by nature - just ask any lion or gazelle; each and every one of us should be obliged to take adequate steps to defend ourselves and those who do not... well... too bad, they were warned. The thief cannot be blamed if that ferrari happened to be there, with the keys in the ignition; the bandit cannot be blamed if the rich man was travelling dark lonely streets without bodyguards; the large-scale farmer cannot be blamed if his small-scale neighbor left his farm unguarded while he was ill. And so on. A society could have lots of laws, or a few laws, or none. What's so special about having just one law, the NAP? Like I say, life is violent, so people should all be prepared for violence. You can't defend the NAP by appealing to civilisation or that mankind has subjugated its violent nature, because then you're implicitly justifying any other laws that civilisation chooses to enact, or any other behaviors that mankind chooses to subjugate. Indeed, a violent person should be praised for helping the society learn how to defend itself and become even more resilient to external agression. A bit like hackers getting paid to show banks where their weaknesses are. If you want people to be as free as possible, then stopping at "no agression" seems a bit arbitrary. It's certainly not written in the stars or the rocks. What gives? Simple, my post on FreeDomainRadio in the thread titled "Why Should I Follow the NAP?": Morality really boils down to how you can behave towards others while not provoking what you'd consider a negative response such as self defense or ostracization, ect. When the other person labels something as morally good or right it's really behavior they are ok with, and when they label something as bad or wrong it's really what they aren't ok with and are going to respond negatively towards. It's all highly subjective and without them being there to subjectively experience your behavior there is nothing objective about something being right or wrong. You don't murder not because it's universally wrong, but because you know the likely response you'll receive for your actions and you want to avoid that response. That's why you should behave morally, to avoid responses from others you don't want to experience. The only question left is how do people figure out what everyone will be ok with and what everyone will have a negative response to and how do they reconcile with everything inbetween including their individual preferences, a very difficult and most likely an impossible question to answer and what UPB attempts to answer, hence why I believe morality is not only counterproductive but also irrelevant(read about it here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35285.aspx) I maintain that a far better approach is to colaborate only with people pursuing the same objective goal which then has clear objective requirements for reaching it in order to figure out what behavior is ok for everyone and what behavior isn't. |
|
|
|
In essence the ONLY reason to change the algorithm is if there is a security problem with it, which at the moment there is not.
The only problem with this line of thinking is that when you do have a problem, it will be too late. I am looking for more formal guidance from BFL and maybe some added information on what there intentions are long-term. They have to understand politics do play apart in this because so many peoples hard work and investment is tied to Bitcoin so they have a RESPONSIBILITY to understand the fortunate position and power they weld. If they disagree or anyone on here responds with, "they can do whatever they want", in my opinion, don't really believe in Bitcoin for its important place in history and are really just in it to profiteer. In any case, thats what we already have in the world around us, but here we "could" actually try and work together to change things so we help not only the big players grow, but the small one too so we have a robust network and people we have a pleasure to work with. Maybe it is idealistic, but I don't think this bar is set too high. I want to build something that will be here after I am not and is in a better shape than I left it .02 BTC Dalkore I find your presumptive tone deploring. As if it weren't for BFL somehow Bitcoin or any businesses related to it are guaranteed to succeed. Well guess what, they're not. There are no guarantees, not in life and not in Bitcoin. They have 0, YES ZERO, responsibility with their fortunate position. They can do what ever the hell they want, that's real freedom, anything else is you trying to impose your arbitrarily presumed authority upon them and you should be ashamed for even suggesting something with even a hint of that. And yeah, freedom is scary, you must rely on other people without the option to force them to do as you'd wish in order to experience a preferred outcome, that's what real freedom is. Or are you in favor of masters and slaves where you'd like to be a master and just tell everyone how things are going to work? Is that it? They can well damn do what ever the hell they like. But if they are smart, they'll sell their product and offer it to the market and not acquire more than ~40% of hashing power to maximize the profits of the situation they themselves have put themselves in (that's right, you're also wrong saying they somehow magically found themselves in that position). |
|
|
|
So smart to see so little. How are changes to the protocol made? They are voted on by the miners. It only takes a few THash miners to drive the difficulty so high everybody else gets squeezed out. So when a few control a majority of the network, it will be they that decide what BIPs get approved or not. And when those few miners decide they want 3% of every transaction there won't be a damn thing you can do about it. So much for a decentralized currency. This was your last chance to keep Bitcoin in the hands of the people, because once those ASICs start rolling out it will be too late. Hopefully Bitcoin 2.0 will address this issue (amongst others).
Wrong. Those who run the full client but do not mine have just as much say in which BIPs are adopted and which aren't. If miners alter the protocol in anyway that isn't backwards compatible everyone else will reject their blocks and the chain will get forked. I suggest you learn how the protocol works before you make baseless and false comments. |
|
|
|
|
Forget the word bank, the official client is a ledger and a wallet.
If they don't want the ledger part, direct them to a wallet only client, if they also want a copy of the ledger, they can download the full thing.
Problem solved. (and I do believe this is a problem since I also feel like too many new potential users get discouraged after they unnecessarily download the official client)
|
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes pretty much already destroyed your FUD, OP, but I do want to make two additional points:
1. Bitcoin is open source so feel free and change the algorithm yourself, anything the devs could do, you can do
2. don't pretend to be smarter than the a market regulated by strictly it's consumers (i.e. the free market) because you're not
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like this didn't get enough attention so I'm bumping it!
ripper234 consider editing your OP with piuk's explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
Before I read this I just want to quickly post that I personally, no matter whether justifiably or unjustifiably, I personally feel like this is the most pressing issue when it comes to Bitcoin's successful future and I really hope the core team has planed an order of priorities accordingly.
|
|
|
|
 there was less bitcoins for sale then there was demand to buy
|
|
|
|
i really wish i had some idea what was motivating all this movement. it's wild.  People wanting to buy and people wanting to sell various quantities of bitcoins at various exchange rates. |
|
|
|
|
Nah around 10k BTC was removed if I saw that right..
|
|
|
|
Gorbachev... TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!
Yep it just got halved. EDIT: more like two thirds got torn down, just like that EDIT2: and it's gone.  |
|
|
|
|
Send to Facebook doesn't seem to work right now.
|
|
|
|
So how does this work? I deposit Euro's, they automaticly convert them to Dollars? (for free???) And I then buy bitcoins?
This is what they have in their FaQ: How long does deposit usually take?
A bank wire transfer typically takes 2-5 business days to reach our account. SEPA deposits must go through additional step of converting funds to USD, which can in some cases delay deposit for additional day. International deposits are processed and credited right upon receiving.
Who pays the withdrawal fee?
Not regarding to withdrawal method, a fee will be displayed before executing the withdrawal and deducted from amount. SEPA withdrawals are charged with fixed 0.90€ fee once your funds are converted to EUR. Minimum amount for SEPA withdrawal is $10.00. International withdrawals are charged with 0.09% fee, minimum fee is $15.00. Minimum amount for international withdrawal is $50.00.
How long does withdrawal usually take?
SEPA zone transfers usually take 2-3 business days. For clients outside SEPA zone it takes up to 5 business days. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
