So we should remove our focus on contraception then? Simply ignore it, yes?
Yes. Teach it like any other biology lesson, and treat it as a non-issue. Higher instances of unwanted pregnancies compared to what? Exactly.
Practically every country in Europe. America was the start point for sexual revolution around the world, there you have it.
You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems. Drinking age is completely different issue. Why do you think lowering the age will lower poisoning count? Do those teens buy black market low quality stuff because they cannot buy in shops? No. They buy same stuff as you from same shops. If you open the gates, there will be same if not bigger amount of poisonings, cause restrains might keep some 2% at bay.
If that were true, you'd think that drinking problems were higher in countries where drinking age is lower, or more like guideline than a law, but the contrary is true. Why? Same reason sex, drugs, and guns are a problem here: we try to repress them, and end up with the "forbidden fruit" problem. It's easy for kids to get alcohol in Italy, so they don't care about it, and prefer things like gelato. It's hard to get alcohol here, so kids actively seek it out, just because they can't normally get it, and it's considered cool to get what others can't. |
|
|
|
I see no reason why BitMessage insists on addresses being a hash of the public key rather than the actual public key. It isn't like anyone can remember or will manually type in the address. This would allow you to get rid of the entire discovery step.
Easier to copy/paste than the huge public key, + possible deterrent to quantum computing? |
|
|
|
Rassah, we'll bring TREZOR - final hardware with alpha stage firmware, so no final product yet, but working.
Awesome! And I'll bring the slivovica - our national drink to test the tough natures of our fellow bitcoiners. Are you in for that?  Hmm, based on the name that sounds like it's something plum-based. Is this some sort of liquor that gives you both nausea and diarrhea? |
|
|
|
This looks bad. Does this guy know what he is talking about? ... i think a lot of things have been sorted out already.
His main issues were concerns with scalability, some privasy issues regarding tracking ACK (acknowledgement) messages, etc, which Atheros himself claimed he's not even sure about (quote, "There is no clear defined line as I'm not even sure what the bottleneck will be (bandwidth? Disk IO? CPU? Memory?"). But overall he seemed to really like it as the first step to get things going. The TL;DR of his review was "Very neat system, that is very obviously in the very first stages of being developed, and it's great to see so many people giving serious critiques on it, and seriously working on trying to improve it.". Which is true. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, this blowback thing reminds me of the sex issues in America. We focus the most on contraception and are trying to ban it more than European countries, where people don't care, and we have higher instances of unwanted pregnancies. We try to ban abortions way more than the European countries, and we have way more abortions. Even with alcohol, we try to restrict it as much as possible with age limits and such, compared to, say, Italy, where limits are more like guidelines, and we have way more issues with ten alcohol poisoning. Maybe the best way to reduce guns is to simply ignore them and make them an issue no one cares about.
|
|
|
|
|
^ ^^ Thank you. This is what I've been arguing with him about. If miners spend twice as much on electricity, and demand twice as much for their coins, they'll be laughed out of the market, where lots of people already have coins they didn't spend twice as much to obtain.
|
|
|
|
Oh it got even more messed up than that. Eventually I just dropped the conversation, because it was taking more time and braincells to process than I cared to waste on him, but here's is a highlight: A society would have long since collapsed before that, since nobody could afford electricity. One more time... - A: 1 bitcoin = 1MWh = 30 tons of coal = $1000
- difficulty up!
- B: 1 bitcoin = 1.1MWh = 33 tons of coal = $1100
- difficulty up!
- C: 1 bitcoin = 1.2MWh = 36 tons of coal = $1200
Here we have an example with actual cash value attached, just so you can see. At point A, a single bitcoin can buy you 30 tons of coal. Obviously, you're going to use a small fraction of a bitcoin for something like milk and eggs, so a single bitcoin being produced is a LOT of money, relatively. Obviously the value of a bitcoin would start out much smaller, with much higher amounts, but this is sorta throwing you in to the point where it has been mined for a little while. Suppose, as you said, that the 'value' of the bitcoin 'doubled'. If you look at the above, there's simply no way it can double, without having an equal impact on everything else. Suddenly, mining would be twice as profitable, because you'd do the same work for twice the reward. Knowing this, coal/resource prices would rise to twice as much, because selling them any less would be less profitable than simply using them on their own to generate electricity. So the electric company pays twice as much, and produces the same amount of electricity as normal. Obviously, the electric company has to charge more for electricity to make up for this sudden change, so the cost to a consumer of 1MWh has to be double what it used to be, otherwise the electric company would be better off simply mining to break even. Another example would be a great new invention that allowed one to mine bitcoins with half the needed power. Unfortunately, this is no different than the above example. If you halve the power needed, you halve the floor value of the currency. Were it not for the increasing difficulty, this would actually help in lowering costs (and profits, so companies have no reason to do so), so long as it happened with regularity. I don't even see any way that you could 'fix' these problems with it, were it to be used as a real currency. The mining aspect would have to be completely revamped, or removed. If you eliminated the difficulty curve entirely, that would prevent the cost of electricity of rising, but it would also ensure that everyone ever would have absurd amounts of bitcoins, which would devalue the currency just the same. The only other alternative would be direct and heavy government regulation (price fixing, government controlled power companies, etc), which would still probably require some modification to the core of bitcoin. Basically, in order to make it work, you have to make it less like it is, and more like what we already have. My gist of the entire exchange is that cattimiptwax believes in the labor theory of value, where things are priced based on how much work you put into it, instead of being freely exchanged on the market based on supply/demand. It seems this whole claim is based on the idea that as bitcoin costs more to make, electric companies will demand higher price for bitcoin, and thus bitcoin value will go up. Maybe I misread it, but it was rather difficult to follow at times. |
|
|
|
Oh jeez, I feel so bad for some of these people. They'll still be tired and jet-lagged from the previous weekend's convention. We promise to take good care of them and get them to you in one piece though  Rassah, Are you going to the event? No, I'll be "taking good care" of some of the people who are going to this event at my event in Amsterdam the week before. |
|
|
|
|
Here's a silly question: Will the conference organizers have their own table, to promote conference-related stuff?
|
|
|
|
That wasn't meant to hurt feelings. People running for any elected office (with government or private industry) can't allow anything to hurt their feelings.
...
I just don't believe your goal of, as you state it, "make reliance on banking systems and government issued currency obsolete" should be the primary objective of Bitcoin at this stage in the game. Good business will require that Bitcoin representatives play nice with governments and find a niche inside of fiat systems like a low cost Western Union replacement. I would have preferred that no one lobby the US government and instead allow officials to learn about Bitcoin with lengthy research allowing Bitcoin more time to grow first. However, they have already opened that Pandora's box and will need someone that can play nice and agree to work within the system instead of working to make the system obsolete.
I wasn't really hurt, sorry for making you concerned (well, maybe a bit about the "international" part). For the record, my "platform," and my view in general, is that bitcoin has certain aspects that are just simple facts of its existence. It is what it is, and it can't be changed. Politicians may want to control issuance of bitcoins to keep it from forming speculative bubbles, or be able to reverse fraudulent transactions, or be able to track every transaction and link it to every identity, but that simply won't happen. They'd be legislating at a wall. So the best that anyone can do from that angle, really, is inform them of the facts, and help them regulate their way around those. Most probably this will involve a very specific new class of regulations that deal with specific criminal issues, instead of the current "monitor everything and hope we can catch something later" methods that they use with the established financial system. The best analogy I can think of would be meeting legislators and explaining to them that, for example, pretty soon gun control legislation may be a waste of resources when anyone can simply 3D print their own gun at home, that they should get ready for such a reality, and maybe they should focus instead on fighting the causes of violence instead of the tools. Likewise with bitcoin, I'm sure they want to keep regulating to keep everyone safe and keep things fair, but with bitcoin, they'll have to change their strategy and focus more on looking for actual criminals instead of just making things difficult for everyone. I also think that lying to them by trying to assuage them with things like "bitcoin isn't really anonymous" and "you can't launder large quantities of money with bitcoin," when it can be, you can (slowly) and when both of these things are being actively developed, is very productive, either. It's the same situation as above, and we might as well let them know what it is they are going to be faced with and let them adjust to the new reality, lest we end up with other semi-useless regulations which people will still not be able to comply with. Is Elizabeth on Reddit at least? |
|
|
|
I was going to update my thread but I see people keeping track. That is good.
Obviously the bitcoin ecosystem is not surprised by all those revelations. It simply means there is not enough tinfoil hats for everyone on this planet now as it is all factual.
We need tinfoil computer cases...  |
|
|
|
In all seriousness though, I'd like to have a mechanism whereby if a core developer is approached by any gov't to compromise bitcoin, they have to resign - and announce that publicly, signing the message with the same pgp signature used to commit their changes to the Bitcoin codebase.
I know that the devs wouldn't just sit there if such a situation occurred, but I'd feel better knowing there was some kind of notification process to deal with it.
Good idea, but may be unnecessary, due to so many different devs working on different bitcoin clients. It'll be like someone from the gov asking a dev working on Ubuntu to compromise it. All other Ubuntu devs will notice, all other Linux devs that use Ubuntu code will notice, and all the dozens of other Linux distros will not even notice. |
|
|
|
Oh jeez, I feel so bad for some of these people. They'll still be tired and jet-lagged from the previous weekend's convention. We promise to take good care of them and get them to you in one piece though |
|
|
|
I'm intrigued.... hockeyunderwear.net Now I'm really intrigued! You need someone to pass these out at the con, or just asking if anyone wants one copy to bring with them to show around? |
|
|
|
The correct person won the election.
There's a second round of elections. She may be the one most likely to win, but there is a smaller field now, and most people who threw away their vote last time despite not wanting to vote for Elizabeth (like I did) will be more serious this time. Not saying she will not win, but it's not guaranteed. She is exactly what enterprise needs to support profitable growth.
I thought that's what the Industry candidate was running for? There is nothing wrong with "feel good" words and cheer leading. Ask any politician about the importance of perception over substance.
That depends on what her job will be. If her job will be to try to sway the masses towards accepting bitcoin, yeah, she's be extremely great at it. If her job will be to influence politicians, as the Foundation seems to hint as being their near-term goal, then, as they say, you can't bullshit a bullshitter. Politicians do this stuff every day, and they'll likely see right through that. I'm sure the Foundation will recognize the skills of whoever wins, and use them appropriately though. At least I hope so. I'm sorry Rassah, I think you're too passionate about your personal agenda for Bitcoin to ever be an effective international leader.
Well now I'm hurt. I don't think my personal agenda for bitcoin is any different from bitcoin's own agenda, which is to make reliance on banking systems and government issued currency obsolete. Just because that also happens to involve some political connotations and consequences isn't my fault. And from the discussions there, there were very few people who seem to have any clue about international issues with and ramifications for bitcoin: myself, Joerg, Nilam, and maybe two more. Elizabeth wasn't one. You are right about one thing though, I am not much of a leader. I'm more or a mastermind adviser, preferring to point out any issues or opportunities to someone else who is much better at getting people following them than I. I'm an introvert, in search of a charismatic, power-hungry extrovert She's very active, takes the initiative and seems to have great interpersonal skill, but her words lack specificity.
It's almost like she'd be an advocate for the community... That was actually one of my initial concerns: how can you be an advocate for the community when you aren't even involved in it? I guess if she wins, she'll have a lot of catching up and introductions to go through. This segregation will be the death of bitcoin Bitcoin Foundation.
FIFY. Don't forget, Bitcoin is way bigger and much more resilient than any self-appointed "official" organization. It was specifically designed to be that way. |
|
|
|
How many votes did you get Rassah? Given that you're a prominent figure in the Bitcoin community and given how few people voted, it seems like you should have cleaned up.
I've made it known a bit early that I don't expect to win, don't intend to win, and intend to support Joerg. So, yeah, I got 5 votes, and am not too surprised about that. Elizabeth bothered to put together (herself) a very comprehensive platform website that seems (to me) to be much omre than "Yeah I agree with what you said" Where can I find your comprehensive platform thread/website? http://elizabethtploshay.com/platform/Sorry, I've been too busy doing bitcoin stuff, instead of making up glittery cardboard posters to post around the school, so to speak. And her platform is sort of what I'm talking about. On international growth, she says, and I quote, “ As a member of the Bitcoin Foundation Board, I will look forward to facilitating a Bitcoin meet-up guide and work to assist leaders and individuals who are passionate about the currency in nations around the world.”On charitable contributions, she says, “As a Member of the Bitcoin Foundation Board, I would work to educate non-profits and charitable organizations on the ease of transaction with Bitcoin and the many benefits of accepting donations in BTC.”In short, there's a list of feel-good words that, to summarize, say, "I will work to make bitcoin more international" and "I will work on getting charities to use bitcoin." There's just not much there besides, "I'll do this general thing I'm being asked about." For example, my own platform also includes, "I will reach out to the community," and "I will get more people to use bitcoin." I am really struggling to find where her platform has anything other than lots of words without actual plan or substance. Even herresponse to the open source topic is basically, "open source is good, and bitcoin should be open source," as if there is any way to change that. I've been watching the reaction around the community and it feels a whole lot to me like sour grapes.
Sorry, not from me. I didn't expect to win, and have legitimate concerns about her. How can she win a "popularity" contest if everyone was more popular than she was going into it?
By running on a platform of answering questions with lots of words that make people feel good, and posting tons of such stuff everywhere she could, but having little substance in what she actually says. So, literally, winning based on trying to gain popular support through fluff campaigning instead of through raising support for ideas and context. As I mentioned, she is very much a politician, knowing how to say a lot to answer questions on positions without actually answering the questions. And yes, I do feel bad for attacking her directly like this. She is an actual person with actual feelings and ambitions, not just some anonymous name on the internets, but I am just genuinely concerned about whether this is a position that she is right for. I'm not saying she is a bad person, I'm just worried she may not have the skills and experience the Foundation actually needs. However, that may depend on the direction the Foundation wants to take. As I said, if the Foundation wants to mainly focus on lobbying US government, she may be perfect. But that may not be what I and others want the Foundation to focus on. |
|
|
|
We are really looking forward to meet you guys in Amsterdam!  Any wishes on what we might bring to the party from Czech Republic / Slovakia ? Alena & Marek Palatinus TREZOR Hmm... how about some Trezzors? |
|
|
|
Apparently there aren't a lot of voters at all in this thing: https://electionbuddy.com/elections/9452/results/sdq6pd958Elizabeth only got 84, and Joerg only got 47. We get that many voters on some of our rather silly polls around here. Admittedly, one of the big reasons I don't like Elizabeth is because her campaign seems to be more about winning a popularity contest than about actual issues. She posts a lot, but much of it is "wow, bitcoin is great." And sure, she matches with some of our general beliefs, but so does everyone else who is anywhere near libertarian politically. There's not much more than "yeah, I agree with what you said" in her writing. I also just can't see her doing much more than supporting the Bitcoin Foundation in their lobbying and working within US only endeavors. So, my next vote I'll be supporting Joerg, who not only seems to understand why bitcoin might need government support, but also why it can survive in spite of it, and can see where we may be headed with it in the future, and even if Joerg doesn't win, I would support him starting up his own Euro-centric foundation as well. |
|
|
|
*bump* Just had a Skype call with Amy and Pradeep of the Primate Education Network. Their fiscal sponsor http://trustforconservationinnovation.org/ does the donation receiving and processing for them, and handles quite a few charities. Amy and Pradeep want to try to convince their sponsor to accept bitcoins, but mostly had some questions regarding legal issues and regulatory stuff. Like, whom would any financial disputes be handled with if they start taking bitcoin, etc. The chat went well, and they'll take all the information they discussed with me to the trust. They also asked if they could get KhanAcademy to talk to their trust to answer any questions regarding issues one might run into when accepting bitcoins as a charity. I send Khanacademy an e-mail asking if they would object to being contacted. In the mean time, I know we're all busy with voting for me in the Bicoin Foundation elections (except for Jason you backstabing bastard ), but we should probably give a yes or no to some of the charities we've been questioning recently. I'll take the loud silence is no objections I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
