|
Much like with the word democratic my problem with the word fair is that it's definition of what it means in a certain circumstance is all too subjective and while I agree with your definition it leaves the room for someone else to interpret it in a different much more hostile and violent way that ultimately leads to problems of some people claiming some sort of entitlement.
I don't see a single reason to leave that door open even by a hair, if we have oh so many other more precise objective words to describe the same properties. Do you understand what I'm getting at?
|
|
|
|
http://thesaurus.com/browse/fairI think equitable, unbiased and impartial are a lot better adjectives to describe Bitcoin rather than the highly subjective fair.
|
|
|
|
|
Vandroiy, I'm sorry to nitpick but I wouldn't label Bitcoin fair. It's actually highly unfair to those who do not have cheap electricity, or who don't have a high end mining hardware, or to those who don't know how to secure the use of the Satoshi client being forced to use and pay fees of ewallets, or to those who were late to hear about it and were forced to pay higher exchange rates for a lower amount, ect.
I think the word that's better suited for what I assume you meant to convey is honest. Bitcoin is truly honest in the sense that it's piratically impossible to counterfeit or doublespend or chargeback or break any of the other rules governing it no matter who you are.
|
|
|
|
If that's the case I have no doubt in my mind that their clientele will shrink accordingly.
It already is. Why did you think they were so aggressively launching new features, issuing press releases, and posting about transparency on the forums? Bingo. Don't you just love a market regulated strictly by market consumers i.e. the free market?  |
|
|
|
|
If that's the case I have no doubt in my mind that their clientele will shrink accordingly.
|
|
|
|
The big selling point is overseas transfers. Western Union fees are massive compared to using bitcoin.
For people remitting their relatives or paying people oversees bitcoin cant be beat.
This is only true if you already own bitcoins, and the person you send them to will keep bitcoins. If you need to first buy bitcoins and then the person that receives them immediately exchanges them back, it's actually about the same if not a bit more expensive. here's a thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76395.0 |
|
|
|
Also I don't see how you would enforce any fees if the deals happen person to person for cash.
Best strategy would be to charge the market maker for the ability to receive a rating. So say a market maker sells something but wants +rep for his account then he needs to pay a small fee to be able to receive +rep, if he doesn't pay, he can still make a trade, he just can't increase his reputation. |
|
|
|
Mt Gox needs to use a third party for AML/KYC rather than do it themselves. There is too much incentive for them to simply claim documents are fake and block account holders because there is no transparency at all .
Its like putting the banks in charge of their own regulations through the SEC which caused the GFC !
MtGox doesn't need to do anything because it's regulated by it's customers (i.e. the free market). Just watch how fast they'll fall if they are stupid enough to start operating in bad faith. |
|
|
|
Why do AML/KYC?
Mt.Gox handles both Bitcoin and fiat currency (Dollars, Euros, etc.) As a result, we are bound by the laws of Japan and America, along with various international regulations which cover the fiat side of our business. Very similar to how a bank in most countries must be regulated to ensure they are not facilitating money laundering, terrorist financing or the like, we are obliged to follow the same rules.
Oh please enough with the state propaganda bullshit. Why don't you tell it like it really is. You are not obliged, you are forced under threat of violence to gather information about your customers so that governments around the world can control what your customer's money is being used for. "Money laundering, terrorist financing or the like" are victimless crimes the state invented as a way to gain even more control over the people they assert their rule over. You can't imagine the angry thoughts that go through my mind when I read bs propaganda like this, I'm pretty sure if they already tried to attack people for thought crime I'd get the capital punishment.  First and foremost, don't let the bullies in this thread silence you (and shame on them). Your opinion is just as important as mtgox trying to work within the current system. I think we have to view the situation for what it is…mtgox is trying to operate out in the open and within the confines of the existing law…whether that law is legitimate or not. At BitPay, we do the same. That's why I'm not angry you and mtgox are for the purpose of self preservation giving in to these threats of violence and following the state's rules. What makes me angry is not calling a spade a spade. Don't say you are obliged to comply, say you are forced under threat of violence, don't say money laundering, say state's arbitrary rules about money transactions, don't say terrorists, say organizations the state wants to destroy, ect. just cut out the bullshit state apologist propaganda and tell it like it is. Personally I'm not against private law, I'm not against private rules, I'm just against rulers. In fact I support some voluntary, private and most of all consistent rules that would be mandatory for everyone wishing to be part of a society(not geographically bound of course) to follow. The only point of my entire rant was that if you really share my ideals and want to get from under the thumb of state sponsored violence, stop spreading their bullshit PR propaganda. It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, ignorance is bliss.
|
|
|
|
Those of you saying I should STFU, I have a question: If my comments aren't the truth, why are you so pissed about them, can't you just ignore me? Or does it hurt too much to be faced with the facts of reality for you to be able to do so? I know, I know, cognitive dissonance is a bitch.  |
|
|
|
the big bad government, that is actually trying to make you safe and comfortable
By robbing me of 40-50% of what I earn and by threatening me with violence and even death if I don't follow it's arbitrary rules to the letter? Yeah fuck that type of a protection, I didn't ask for it and I would never be stupid enough to ever do so. |
|
|
|
Why do AML/KYC?
Mt.Gox handles both Bitcoin and fiat currency (Dollars, Euros, etc.) As a result, we are bound by the laws of Japan and America, along with various international regulations which cover the fiat side of our business. Very similar to how a bank in most countries must be regulated to ensure they are not facilitating money laundering, terrorist financing or the like, we are obliged to follow the same rules.
Oh please enough with the state propaganda bullshit. Why don't you tell it like it really is. You are not obliged, you are forced under threat of violence to gather information about your customers so that governments around the world can control what your customer's money is being used for. "Money laundering, terrorist financing or the like" are victimless crimes the state invented as a way to gain even more control over the people they assert their rule over. You can't imagine the angry thoughts that go through my mind when I read bs propaganda like this, I'm pretty sure if they already tried to attack people for thought crime I'd get the capital punishment. |
|
|
|
Tainting will likely happen after/when Bitcoin is widespread, I would give it 12-15 years. Sorry if this is a stupid question (couldn't find a non-ambiguous answer anywhere) but exactly what is a tainted bitcoin? A stolen bitcoin. Like someone steal a bitcoin, well then this bitcoin is "tainted" and whoever receive it will like be "omg you have a tainted bitcoin you CRIMINAL" wich of course make no sense cause bitcoins keep moving from an address to another and if you sell something to someone and he pay you with a "tainted coin" you are not a criminal. Not true. Tainted is not a stolen bitcoin, it's a bitcoin merely accused of being stolen, big fking difference. |
|
|
|
Man I wish I learned about this sooner, I live just 200km away from Vienna  |
|
|
|
Why starting making the same errors in bitcoins as in the actual currencies?
Some people are thick that way.. |
|
|
|
GREAT IDEA.
I find it highly ironic that the forum's "libertarians" are the ones that are most opposed to a personal blacklist. By public ridicule, and by threatening to attack the block chain, they seek to impose their academic hypothesis of fungibility on all bitcoin users. Why do you think you are allowed to use force to prevent me from implementing some scheme on my own client?
What force? Please, think before you speak. You are perfectly free to implement what the OP suggested and fork the blockchain but on the other hand if you should manage to introduce these rules into the current client, we who disagree are perfectly free to fork the blockchain and then we can see who's going to be more popular and successful of which this thread gives you a nice little hint for. And there's no force involved in any of this. |
|
|
|
The number one advantage of IPv6 over IPv4 is the much larger address space. To quote Vint Cerf, one of the "fathers of the internet", a few weeks ago: The other thing that is very important for the last decade or so, is the introduction of mobile technology. There are 5.5 billion or so mobiles in use today; not all of them are internet-capable, but probably 20% to 25% are, and over time that percentage will go up. The reason that's important, is that for many people their first introduction to the internet comes through a mobile as opposed to a desktop or a laptop or an iPad. For many it will stay that way, and for others: they will begin to accumulate other devices that they will use in addition to their mobiles. But that adds a huge demand for address space on the network, because if every mobile that is internet-enabled has to have an IP address assigned, eventually you start to run out of IP addresses. And in fact, that's what we're faced with today.
We chose a 32-bit address space in 1973, in order to carry out an experiment. And I want to emphasize that this was an experiment. What I though was that if the experiment succeeded, then we would design a production version of the system. Well the problem is that the experiment never ended, and so we're still using the experimental internet which only has 4.3 billion terminations built into its design. So in 1996 in a great panic, we developed, and here "we" in this case is not Bob (Kahn) and me but rather the IETF, developed an alternative packet format called IPv6. It has 128 bits of address space and if you do the math that's 3.4*10^38 addresses. This is a number only the (?) can appreciate. We are now in the process of introducing in parallel with IPv4 the IPv6 formats. So on june 8th last year (2011), many of us in the internet community turned on the IPv6 capabilities that we had in addition to IPv4. On june 6th this year, all of us are going to turn on IPv6 and leave it on. So this is a very important year for the internet because IPv6 will be launched on june 6th. Google and many other have been preparing for this for several years and we're all looking forward to seeing what happens when we turn it on and leave it on permanently.
On a more practical note: bcause of IPv6 much larger address space, addresses are much cheaper, and typical home internet connections are intended to provide many - enough to give each household device its own public address (though firewalled) without needing atrocities like NAT (creating a separate independent local network, and translate addresses between them) and UPnP to overcome it. So all there's no need for local networks anymore, is that the idea, every device having an IPv6 address? If I got this right, what does it mean for security? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
