just because you have a free market, does not mean that you have the skills to build a nuclear bomb
Not bomb because bomb has limited radius . Plutonium can be dispersed over entire planet thanks to jet streams. We live on single interconnected world, someone else's freedom is interfering with your own even if you dont see it. "6 billion other people will have the freedom to come and stop you by any means they see fit." There you go , your first regulation. "You cant buil nuclear plants full of obsolete fuel type based on plutonium". no. i did not make a regulation. i did just say that you are unskillful. and i don't think anybody would sell you plutonium, they would not be stupid enough. you because there is a free market, it does not mean people are selling. |
|
|
|
You guys figure we've hit a support level yet?
Got a sensible figure for average cost of production? the avarage cost of production of a $100 bill, is very very small. still its worth $100 So you haven't got the slightest, foggiest notion about the average cost of production of a bitcoin? yes i do, around $4-5, right now. if it is all time, then its more like $0.5 because of all the difficulty-1 block. any way the production cost does not matter, because we bitcoins, have a very low overall supply of them. there will only be 21millions of them. if you think bitcoins are worthless, why are you still here? |
|
|
|
You guys figure we've hit a support level yet?
Got a sensible figure for average cost of production? the avarage cost of production of a $100 bill, is very very small. still its worth $100 |
|
|
|
"Free market" means no person or group has the right to force any other person or group to make any economic decision. This leaves room for government involvement in a very narrow field - namely contract enforcement and theft and violence prevention/prosecution.
In practice, this would have a few key features:
- No minimum wage
- No taxation of trade or income
- No import/export restrictions
- No central control of monetary systems, no central bank
- No FDIC
- No "consumer safety regulations"
- No building codes
- No FDA
- No prohibition of substances
- No prohibition of voluntary action (incl. gambling and prostitution, etc.)
The United States of America is not even close to a "free market." It is a socialist/corporatist nation, not a capitalist nation (the fact that it's not as socialist as other places doesn't make it capitalist).
Finally i can build my own nuclear plant full of plutonium rods and then blow it up. Game over mankind. just beacuse you have a free market, does not mean that you have the skills to build a nuclear bomb |
|
|
|
pics?
and what about shipping?
I will take pictures tomorrow if you are interested. I do not own a digital camera and will need to borrow one from a relative. Shipping to US only (preferably) and will be free for the 10 BTC offer. Add .2 BTC for the 1 BTC offer. Add .1 BTC for the 2 BTC offer. So, 3 for 1.2 BTC shipping included. 8 for 2.1 BTC shipping included. 50 for 10 BTC with guaranteed inclusions, shipping included. Supplies limited  Edit: If you are outside the U.S., let me know and I'll think more seriously about international shipping. im outside  denmark to be precise. |
|
|
|
|
pics?
and what about shipping?
|
|
|
|
A free market is an impossible ideal, a system with no checks and balances to keep things stable. No society in the history of the world has ever had a successful free market-based economy and I don't think that's likely to change.
we never had had a free market. the liberalism people are screaming: we what free market. we never had a real free market. the communism people are screaming: we want communism. we never had read communism. |
|
|
|
Hi, I've been reading the bitcoin code lately looking for the functions to modify to implement demurrage.
With demurrage, when the client wants to know the balance of an address, it has to take into account how many blocks ago.
The only change that is needed is there, how to interpret the balance of accounts.
I think I only have to change three methods for that:
CWalletTx::GetAvailableCredit()
CWalletTx::GetAccountAmounts(strAccount, nGenerated, nReceived, nSent, nFee);
CWalletTx::GetAmounts(allGeneratedImmature, allGeneratedMature, listReceived, listSent, allFee, strSentAccount);
Am I right?
isent demurrage just making the value smaller? then you could just continue giving a block reward of 50. it *should* do it. |
|
|
|
All I'm saying is that it's conceivable that someone might want to use an output script to try to control where the value goes in the next transaction.
Gift cards have restrictions on how they can be spent. Do those not make sense?
I'm not saying it's currently possible, or that it should be made possible, or that it would be a good idea to use it even if it were made possible. I'm just talking about a hypothetical possibility, which I also happen to think is not a good idea.
somehow i don't think you did understand the idea behind bitcoin. limitless control of your money |
|
|
|
Please post what you think defines a "Free Market", using a moderate level of detail.
no regulations at all. No two sentence answers. fuck you! my choice not yours! Freedom of choice. I think the above sums it up nicely. For more detail I suggest reading "My Philosophy of Liberty" at http://www.economicsandliberty.com+1 |
|
|
|
Please post what you think defines a "Free Market", using a moderate level of detail.
no regulations at all. No two sentence answers. fuck you! my choice not yours! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has not failed. Its just starting and will continue for years.
In a couple of years decades we will know.
Whats happening is that there are 7500 new coins each day. Some miners can mine these for free.
Meaning that a price of $14 is hard to keep up, since it needs huge new investments each day.
fixed! |
|
|
|
The only thing the script could possibly do is try to control how the txout is spent, which is currently impossible (except, according to me, by forcing an exact match on the next transaction). Controlling how the output is spent can have a similar effect as changing the amount, say if the recipient were forced to send change to an address they don't control, under conditions calculated by the txout script. Maybe a parent gives their child money that can only be spent on books up to $50 or food up to $20, and the rest (everything not spent in the very first transaction) goes to the parent's change address.
would the child not just spend all the coin to another address, that he/she controls, and claiming that his/hers food did cost $50 then the limitation would be gone. how do the bitcoin client know if the child is buying books? your post does not make sense, parents should teach their children about responsibly. |
|
|
|
You could specify the signature and pubkey in the script, such that only an exact match to a particular transaction would pass verification.
thats how it works now. You could put multiple of these in a script and logically OR them together, so that any of several exact matches would pass verification.
yes but that would only require 1 of the sigs to be true, AND'ing them together would create a tx, where all should agree on the outputs. In this way you can test the hash of a transaction for an exact match using OP_CHECKSIG but I see no other way to have any dependence on the content of the transaction that is spending a particular output.
It might be possible to use something along these lines to implement escrow using the block chain, which might be useful if it is possible.
already though of, see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2:_Escrow_and_dispute_mediationyes it is not a standard tx, so most miners will not accept it All clear now?
much more. just cut the generalization crap, and i will understand just fine. Right now I can't think of any circumstances where general constraints (which are currently impossible) would be useful, so I see no reason to consider adding script capabilities to allow constraints such as having output values set by scripts, which was the original question. circumstances, general constraints, yadda yadda, capabilities, generalization, generalization, generalization i think it boils down to: you can't see any circumstances where allowing output value to change... say if im wrong. i do agree with you, no need to make scripts change the output value. its like giving $100 and depending on what you spend it on, it may change. it simply does not make sense. If I'm not clear, or if you don't take the time or don't have the capacity to understand, just say so. You might learn something.
or you could just speak clearer. true i might learn something, English perhaps. i think we understand each other now |
|
|
|
That is what my opinion is based on.
Are you saying that any constraints on the subsequent transaction are useless? Or that it is possible to have constraints more general than enumerating the possible transactions?
i don't know! you are saying all kinds of random nonsense, that i don't understand. but by judging of what i can understand of you posts, you are way off(i might be wrong, because of the communication problems). the scripts does not have access to the tx hash. but its is true that you can make funny things with scripts. that's why i recommended that you should go read. |
|
|
|
|
microtransactions does not have to be fast. they have to be small.
|
|
|
|
What type of personality make of the majority of bitcoin users?
What is the average wealth and social status of a bitcoin user?
how many bitcoin miners does it take to plug in a lightbulb?
yes they are good questions. but they are more sociological, then Computer Science. and OP is studying Computer Science |
|
|
|
|
some stuff on blocks.
like the reorg.
or block chaining.
it might not look so hard, but really it is.
|
|
|
|
Output values are set by scripts.
no they are not. go read: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#txFor example there are scripts that will not output their coins to another address/transaction unless/until a transaction that signs them runs the script. say what? inputs needs to be signed, by the key from the output they come from. and outputs are just specifying a new key(script), and a value Such transactions thus either output no coins (signature was wrong) or the programmed output value the script exists to to "output in the case the signature is correct". no. the output's value is static its defined as a uint64_t in TxOut. Scripts can also set the output values of multi-output scripts. For example suppose there exists a transaction with 100 outputs, each of which will be zero in the case of a wrong signature, 0.01 BTC in the event of a correct signature. no, scripts are not setting anything, it is pre-set the TxOut structure. transcaions value can not change Transactions can be constructed setting the output of that multi-output script to this new transaction we are constructing to anywhere from 0.0 to 1.0 BTC, even (by using the magic of so called "change") in denominations that are not exact multiples of 0.1. BTC. so now you think there is some sort of magic involved? So it comes down to how much you wish to output and whether you provide the keys that enable obtaining that amount of output at that time. no. scripts are self-contained, they can not change. (yes they can, they are only a array of bytes, BUT it would make the Tx invalid) either this is a big misunderstanding or you are just plain dumb |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
