 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
"noise" can still be compressed to reduce the size...
Good encryption should be indistinguishable from random strings. What is the chance that it could be compressed by at least one byte? There are 256^n strings with a length of n bytes. Since we want to be able to recover the original string, each compressed string must decompress to one decompressed string. There are 256^(n-1) strings of length n-1 bytes. This means that only (256^(n-1))/(256^n) = 1/256 strings of length n can be compressed by one byte. For more highly compressed strings, the chances get worse. This is why trying to compress the data would be useless. |
|
|
|
|
I can't live without Firefox's awesomebar.
|
|
|
|
|
1) Typical Wikipedia (see the page on Anarchism for another example).
2) Its easy to cherry pick 'prophets' out after the fact.
|
|
|
|
Why not go further and make the atomic unit of sovereign power the individual at that point? It would be much more beautiful, and it seems highly likely that the collections of people, and collections of collections would still develop.
That doesn't address the issue of families, and the question of whether or not a 12 year old is a sovereign individual with the same rights as a parent. For those who would scoff at this notion being an issue, listen to some of Stefan Molyneux's ramblings on the "family cult." Assuming making cities the atomic unit resolves this issue, then it should work. An obvious way to achieve this state is through devolution at first. |
|
|
|
|
Why not go further and make the atomic unit of sovereign power the individual at that point? It would be much more beautiful, and it seems highly likely that the collections of people, and collections of collections would still develop.
|
|
|
|
nothing good comes from it. please consider making a minimum trade value of 1BTC when placing an order. I'm tired of watching www.mtgoxlive.com and seeing people trading .01 btc , sometimes even .00 shows up . In fact prices would go up if there wasnt this high frequency crap. Move it to dark pools so it doesnt affect the normal market. if the entire point of mtgox or other exchanges is for only botters to make money while tricking other people, i might as well use the real stock market. I've got ~400 in mtgox. At least consider a ceiling value on placing/cancelling orders or possibly increase fee % on traders who place/cancel 100s or 1000s of orders to dissuade them. Anything to make it less blatantly dubious It provides stability, which is good and allows businesses to more easily work with Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Most notable with the insurance.aes256 file. Is there a simple way to point my miner to cracking this file? I'm anxious to know whats in it...
AES and (double) SHA256 are very different things (AES is encryption, SHA is hashing), so your miner isn't going to be useful at all. Remember that the miner doesn't even crack SHA256. It seems likely that even quantum computers won't help you with AES (other than turning 256 bit AES effectively into 128 bit AES), so your only real option is to become very good at math and find a weakness in AES. |
|
|
|
The only "tiny" fact that you're most likely NOT telling them is that currently 0.1% of all bitcoins ever get created per day. Go and calculate the annual inflation rate of that and be amazed... I think your math is off. A block is created every 10 minutes (that's the target anyway). That's 50 bitcoins per ten minutes, or 300 per hour. Times 24 hours equals 7200 btc per day. 7200 / 21000000 = 0.00034285, which is 0.03% per day. It will take still some time until even half of that 21 million are mined. Currently we're nearly at 1/3rd --> 7 million BTC, not 21 million. ~7000/7000000 = ~0,1% per day So not taking in the decreases in the generation rate, we have: Current year + 0: 37.5% Current year + 1: 27.3% Current year + 2: 21.4% As the trend in the exchange rate has shown, demand is far exceeding the rate of inflation of the supply of Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
If lending fiat dollars with interest is causing the world economic collapse, will lending bitcoins at interest cause an internet collapse?
If we lend bitcoins with interest, what happens when there are not enough bitcoins to pay off all the interest on the borrowed bitcoins? Lending with interest does not imply that more money has to be created for the loan+interest to be paid back. Money circulates. The money that is used to pay the interest finds its way back into the economy and may very well be used again later to pay back the loan. In the current, fractional reserve lending system this would be correct. With BTC's finite $21MM coins, it doesn't work this way. Eventually someone will not be paid back. As long as there are more coins outside of the lender's control than there are due to the lender, everyone can in theory pay back. Even if the lender is owed 30 million coins, the debts can in theory be paid back as long as the lender spends enough of the coins as they are being paid back. |
|
|
|
Ahh, AyeTroll, as productive as ever... 1 foot /3: 4 inches. /4: 1 inch. (didja forget that 4 * 3 is 12?)
My point was that it's more what you're used to, than which is 'easier'.
So then tell me how many inches are 7.35"? How can your halving and thirding help there? I can however say easily that 7.3548 m are 735.48 cm or 7354.8 mm. It doesn't even require calculation, you just move the decimal point. Since we use the decimal system now and not the duodecimal system of the Middle Ages where everything was to the basis of 12 (a dozen), you should be more "used" to that. First, the distance would be presented in feet and inches (or just inches), instead of a decimal amount of feet. If presented in feet and inches, you are done because you likely don't care about the number of inches. |
|
|
|
lol wut?
12 inches = 1 foot
How is that a half, third, or quarter?
3 feet = 1 yard
1,760 yards = 1 mile
Huh? Sweet massive leap. So for anything over 3 feet and under 5,280 feet, I can either use a ruler that's way too small or one that's way too big.
Don't forget the weird units like rods and chains. |
|
|
|
Without having read anything about it: almost certainly BS. First seeing a fundamental breakthrough as a commercial product is a huge red flag. |
|
|
|
or just be competitive temporarily until the competition goes away. the monopoly is established, they can afford to run at a loss for awhile. the new competition can't, they have capital providers they need to pay back.
then after the new competition goes out of business, jack the prices back up to where they were. repeat as needed.
You're assuming people will only look at price. Two or three cycles of this, and as soon as the next competitor shows up, everybody switches, because they know DickCorp is just going to raise the prices again if NewGuyCorp goes out of business again, which gives them incentive to keep them going. If some megastore sells retail below your cost, just buy his entire inventory, mark it up and sell it in your store. See how long he can stay in business against you doing that. 1) It would have to be below their price (or else you're making them money). 2) What's stopping them from not selling to you? |
|
|
|
The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.
So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective? I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders. No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today. This. The boss/employee model will have to face competition with other models in the labor market. As for collectives, there is nothing stopping from collectives from having leadership; its just that the nature of the leadership would be different. |
|
|
|
As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.
I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'. Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society? The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions. |
|
|
|
mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue? I have a company, so I hire you. I am the owner, and you are the employee. You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise). *fails to see the problem*
As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk. |
|
|
|
I don't think you know what a strawman is. You just identified an area in which choice does not exist, thus proving my point that there is not ALWAYS a choice.  I don't think you know what a valid argument is. Present to me one, one scenario where an adult has no choice in his actions, and I will concede the point. You live in a deterministic universe?  |
|
|
|
3. Its totally unfair. Take an unemployed person for example. Currently his income tax is zero. But your going to add the income tax of the countries wealthiest people into the basic cost of goods, so that his bread and milk costs will go way up? Thats going to benefit the high income earners greatly.
A simple solution to this is to give every citizen an equal salary (in addition to what ever they get elsewhere). |
|
|
|
and my favourite is erlang , though in the end it all boils down to 3 logical operations, so, who cares...
NAND is universal, and so is NOR (Minecraft redstone circuits are NOR based). I wouldn't recommend Lisp unless you want to become a computer scientist or to write programs in Emacs. Most people learn to program so they can achieve things, not for the art of programming itself. Python is a language that gets stuff done in very few lines of code, which is what most people want/need.
That's an horrible advice.  !. Software quality is decaying because now days the average programmer don't cares enough to properly learn the underlying theory required to make quality software. Instead they just want to "achieve things" or "get things done", as if to acquire knowledge wasn't an achievement in itself. Ignorance of the principles of your work is not an option. Please don't incentive new programmers to continue polluting the software collection with crap. Lucky for you, the main pushers of "Get things done" are companies that need to get the software coding done as quickly as possible for as little money as possible. That means that the "get things done" development is pretty much limited to pay-for software. Your freeware/GNU stuff is still safe  Yeah, Lisp has the downside that it is so powerful that other languages become tedious and time consuming to use. If you want to work on the details of Bitcoin itself, of course, learn C. If you want to build anything that needs to be as efficient and secure as humanly possible, there's just no other choice.
The language that gladly lets you write code with buffer overrun exploits is secure? |
|
|
|
|
