I disagree with this view:
"Their (sic) is no such thing as people working for the common good."
I feel that Bitcoin itself is an example that refutes that.
While the net result of a truly free market must tend toward increasing the common welfare, the individual market players most certainly do not participate in the interests of the common good. The net result is due to the fact that all free trades (truly in the absence of coersion) must be in the best interests of those involved. Thus, in the aggregate, the results of those millions of free trades must be in the best interests of the society as a whole, even if the outcome may not be 'optimal' from a particular ideological viewpoint. The "prisoner's delimma" argument does not exist outside of the context of a coercive theird party; be that the prison itself or coercive governments at large. In short, Bitcoin does not refute the above quoted statement, but still tends toward that result. |
|
|
|
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats. http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htmRand Paul on Civil Rights Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010) Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009) Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010) Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010) Wow, you read a politician's website and actually assume it accurate? What the hell for? It's on the Internet, so it must be true! Dude, those bs websites are written to throw the opposition off of the scent for as long as possible. In this case, the opposition is as much the old guard of the Republican Party as much as it is the Democrats. The worst thing that I can say about Rand is that, despite his upbringing, he is a very good polititian. |
|
|
|
agents of the state or it's subsidiaries from using bitcoin for their own ends
What ways do you see this type of use occurring? I have no idea. What ways do feds use cash beyond manipulation of the economy? Maybe the CIA will switch to bitcoins to pay for all that heroin, once the hillbilies in Afganastan catch on to their game. |
|
|
|
"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because smart people treat authority as damage and route around it." - Kevin Carson
"Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because majority is more stupid than those in authority." - subSTRATA "Society is able to function, despite the stupid rules made by stupid people in authority, only because smart people treat subSTRATA as damage and route around it." Interesting thread by the way. Too bad one self-important kid who beliefs he knows something derails it on the last page or so. Dude, you're interfering with the 'ignore' function. |
|
|
|
There is nothing preventing fractional reserve banking and credit, based on Bitcoin, just as in the past it was done, based on gold.
There can be no lender of last resort with bitcoin. The banks running fractional reserve schemes would have to fear bank runs and buy insurance and earn the trust of their customers. In addition: bitcoin has low transaction cost (as opposed to gold) and the reason why people started using "receipts for gold" as money instead of the gold itself was lower transaction costs. Why would a customer accept the third party risk of depositing his BTC in a bank and then using the receipt as money if the BTC itself is just as cheap to store and transact? Why would anyone accept such a receipt at full value? This is a fair question, but that does not make it impossible for fractional reserve lending to rise up among the Bitcoin economy, if the public or market demand it. As has been already noted, a great many people are under the impression that fiat currencies are somehow superior to the gold standard, and by extention any other form of sound monetary system. So in a bitcoin dominated world, there is nothing to prevent some minor nation from pegging their currency to a reserve of bitcoins, and then permitting their banks fractional lending supported by their taxpayers. This would, in effect, amount to the same thing as a bitcoin bank going it alone. Let's say some country, like greece, decides to back a new drachma with bitcoins (which it first mines and/or buys using its gold reserves) and has its state bank issue this new currency redeemable in bitcoins (1 drachma = 1 millibitcoin) and then gives power of reserve lending to commercial banks, requiring a certain reserve of bitcoins to be held by the commercial banks in an account at that state bank. The idea being that by manipulating the required reserve ratio the government can "regulate the economy" by effectively controlling the money supply to help avoid "booms and busts" and "support growth". Why would they do that (apart from that idea of being able to regulate the economy, which is a farce in my mind). What would happen? Would the market prefer to hold 1 drachma or 1 millibitcoin? I say there will be a run on the bank at some point (once they have lowered the reserve requirements sufficiently on pressure by politicians who argue this needs to be done to help the economy and create jobs) and everyone will want to redeem their drachma for bitcoins, and/or: there will be some Nixonesque event where some Papadimitriou will tell the people of greece that the "bitcoin window is now closed" and to "keep using the drachma", which is "the sole currency in greece allowed to be accepted for payment of debt and taxes". -> failure of the idea to make bitcoin backed currency with fractional lending and probably also failure of greek economy. I don't contest your predictions, but that doesn't change the likelyhood of some entity trying somehting alng these lines, nor does anything in Bitcoin actually inhibit such an action. |
|
|
|
|
I have to point out here, that there is nothing that we can do to prevent either agents of the state or it's subsidiaries from using bitcoin for their own ends anymore than they can prevent us from the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Not explained at all, merely stated. Adding subsidized ASICs to the mix will increase difficulty, at least until the point that everyone stops using the system entirely, at which point the only person left mining is the subsidizer, and he can set the difficulty to whatever low value he wants, but, and this part is critical, but no one cares because no one else is using it.
I can't see that subsidizing ASICs is going to run enough miners out of business. Many don't, and never did, need to be profitable in any practical sense. Many of the early full time miners were just disiplacing the electric resistive heating for their flat with as much mining heat as they could manage; simply displacing one electric heat source for another, with the potential of gaining bitcoins in the process. Even if pool miners could be run out of business (something that I question for reasons beyond the above situation) the long term reduction of difficulty simply makes mining more attractive for those who can still justify it. |
|
|
|
There is nothing preventing fractional reserve banking and credit, based on Bitcoin, just as in the past it was done, based on gold.
There can be no lender of last resort with bitcoin. The banks running fractional reserve schemes would have to fear bank runs and buy insurance and earn the trust of their customers. In addition: bitcoin has low transaction cost (as opposed to gold) and the reason why people started using "receipts for gold" as money instead of the gold itself was lower transaction costs. Why would a customer accept the third party risk of depositing his BTC in a bank and then using the receipt as money if the BTC itself is just as cheap to store and transact? Why would anyone accept such a receipt at full value? This is a fair question, but that does not make it impossible for fractional reserve lending to rise up among the Bitcoin economy, if the public or market demand it. As has been already noted, a great many people are under the impression that fiat currencies are somehow superior to the gold standard, and by extention any other form of sound monetary system. So in a bitcoin dominated world, there is nothing to prevent some minor nation from pegging their currency to a reserve of bitcoins, and then permitting their banks fractional lending supported by their taxpayers. This would, in effect, amount to the same thing as a bitcoin bank going it alone. |
|
|
|
That would guarantee a democratic win. Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is. That's false. The root reason that Romney was the least likely choice to defeat an encumbent Democrat is because he wasn't crediblely conservative enough for the (rather vast) conservative wing of the Democratic party (think "Regan Democrats", mostly middle class private sector union employees with traditional views on family, religion and policy) to choose a Republican challenger over a Democratic encumbent. The result being is those "center-right" independents & Democrats simply don't see that voting is worth their time, and turnout is poor; thus leaving the outcome in the hands of the political junkies. Simply put, there is simply many more registered Democrats in the US than Republicans, so it's not possible for a Republican challenger to defeat a Democratic encumbent without convincing at least a portion of Democrats to switch sides. And what value is there in that when most non-political observers can't really see daylight between their positions on things that they care about? False? Only a time machine can determine that. But if you think going farther right will help the Republicans go ahead.... vote in the farthest right you can and see where it gets you. So you are saying a republican needs democratic votes to win..... but being more conservative will bring out those democratic votes? Ok. GO FOR IT! Regan won because he was a moderate republican not a foaming at the mouth tea party conservative. I don't think that you know anyone that considers themselves a Tea PArtier
As for turnout, keep listening to right wing talk radio and ignoring the facts of what just happened.
I don't listen to talk radio, and the turnout was comparable to 2008; elevated overall for the exact same reason, the youth vote. Which didn't show at all in 2010. This is counter to what I said above, but since I was referring to the conservative voters (although failed to state that) I was not wrong. Conservative democrats do exist, and they didn not really vote this Tuesday. Milinials, however, showed up in droves. Most politcally active generation alive, and larger overall than even the baby boomers. It won't be much longer before they completely dominate the electorate, as more graduate high school and more boomers die off or move to expat retirement communities. |
|
|
|
|
Your OP says that denominations are available in fives and ones, but I also want twos'
I.e.
I want a set of .01 BTC, .02 BTC, .05 BTC, .1 BTC, .2 BTC, .5 BTC, 1 BTC, 2 BTC, 5 BTC and 10 BTC
All of the twos in double amounts compared to the ones & fives. In this fashion, any amount of BTC can be tendered (without change due) between .01 BTC and 11.10 BTC using 12 bills or less.
EDIT: Upon review, that would be "...21.10 BTC using 13 bills or less". The point being that including 2's are more 'paper efficient' than quarters if the goal is presenting an exact amount due.
|
|
|
|
Did you know that by printing just twelve notes, you can make a payment in any bitcent amount between 0.01 and 11.10 BTC?
Just print 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.20, 0.50, 1, 2, 2, 5
I do now, and I thank you for that info. However, I'm curious what prompted you do determine this fact, and to what length did you go to find it out yourself? EDIT: Is there some way I can produce said notes, without needing to design them myself? EDIT2: This little fact would also be useful for memory restricted, off-network capable devices such as the bitcoincard; as it would permit a disconnected device to create, in advance, a series of input transactions that it could use to create a perfect payout transaction for any amount within that range, at least once during an Internet blackout. |
|
|
|
I really don't like Rand Paul. Unlike Ron Paul, he is willing to abandon his principles for political reasons.
While that is certainly true so far, I've personally met Rand Paul, and he is has a deep libertarian streak. Yet he is not his father. Still, he might have learned his lesson, and has four years yet to convince us that he has seen the error of compromising with demons. He's also a genuinely nice guy, and tall. He's an emposing figure in person, particularly while on a speech platform. I've never met his father. |
|
|
|
That would guarantee a democratic win. Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is. That's false. The root reason that Romney was the least likely choice to defeat an encumbent Democrat is because he wasn't crediblely conservative enough for the (rather vast) conservative wing of the Democratic party (think "Regan Democrats", mostly middle class private sector union employees with traditional views on family, religion and policy) to choose a Republican challenger over a Democratic encumbent. The result being is those "center-right" independents & Democrats simply don't see that voting is worth their time, and turnout is poor; thus leaving the outcome in the hands of the political junkies. Simply put, there is simply many more registered Democrats in the US than Republicans, so it's not possible for a Republican challenger to defeat a Democratic encumbent without convincing at least a portion of Democrats to switch sides. And what value is there in that when most non-political observers can't really see daylight between their positions on things that they care about? |
|
|
|
I guess that me being the oldest miner, makes me Santa Maria then.  Santa Maria. Wait, are you Satoshi? Or are you saying that you're over 80? |
|
|
|
|
Plenty of people already worship at the alter of money the world over already, so at least this would be more honest in that context.
|
|
|
|
what if its a low speed torrent and only uploads at 100kb or sumthing and takes months or weeks to upload is time a factor? or just the bandwith it self
Explained above. You buy 10GB for 0.1BTC - Take as long as you want to use it, once all 10GB are used then it gets turned off. Sounds good, but should I assume that the 10Gb of bandwidth being charged also includes the bandwidth required to get the data onto your server to seed? Or is there some other method for providing the seed data for very large torrents, such as a usb drive mailer? I'm just curious, because I have no intention of buying bandwidth to seed a torrent so large. |
|
|
|
|
The last batch that I ordered, I intended for my kids. I ended up eating the entire box before I ever thought to mention them to the kids.
Oh, well.
|
|
|
|
Last time I checked as a USA citizen freedom of speech is allowed, I take it you've been out of the country since 2001? |
|
|
|
You must be kidding? Misappropriation of funds is a crime and should be punished by law. Nothing to do with GLBSE beeing illegal. He just ran away with our funds. Thats how I see it.
From what I understand he passed these funds through to fraudulent asset issuers. He was just a middleman. It's a bad idea, but he didn't really profit that much himself. Which is something that happens in teh investing world regularly. It happened to a union controlled pension fund I belong to twice. The problem is that con artists at this level are very good, and fund managers are terriblely inexperienced. My union pension fund never got a dime back, and never will. This has almost nothing to do with the questionable legal nature of the exchange, but you guys got f*cked and the best outcome that you can expect is to learn from this experience and not gamble with funds that you cannot afford to lose with amature fund managers beyond your ability to punish for wrongdoing. |
|
|
|
My doomsday plan is a cache of assault weapons and a map to all the local preppers...  I see a fatal flaw in your plan. We know about the likes of you, and have a cache of weapons too. And if you have a map to the local Morman "bishop's store" I'll eat my hat. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
