Well, duh. I completely agree with you, though. I don't buy that retaliatory force can ever by considered non-aggressive when it's initiation of new force. The only possible exception I think I'd accept is in cases of imminent danger, and the person's defending themselves.

Jail is nothing more than kidnapping and detainment. We use euphemisms when we think it's justified, though - keeps us from thinking about it too much.

The best argument I heard from a NAPer is that if a punishment is outlined under contract law, it isn't aggression. For residency, or even visiting in the country, everyone must sign the contract, stating they accept, say, execution for chewing gum on a sidewalk. New laws would have to be grandfathered in, affecting only children born after the law goes into effect. Children may be handled by a legal guardian signing for them, taking responsibility for any crimes the child commits, until the child is old enough to sign for himself.

Now, this does not necessarily imply centralization. There could be many laws/contracts for people to sign, maybe based on various factions. For example, say there is a Christian Fundamentalist faction, and their members run bus lines, restaurants, and beauty salons. A Christian Fundamentalist owner of a restaurant may not serve customers who do not agree to forever follow a set of laws set by the Christian Fundamentalist faction, which would have its own police/military to carry out enforcement. So you may be able to exist in this kind of pluralist society where so long as you don't want to eat at, say, Chick-Fil-A, you don't need to abide by the Christian Fundamentalist laws - but you may still be able to visit Taco Bell, which requires customers to be subservient only to Stoner Law. A standardized EM/IR/BT/whatever card may come up which can be scanned to determine which law sets a person agreed to abide to, which determines which services they can use (or where they can live, etc), and which liberties they have sacrificed.

Some members of the community have been using the forum's trust system to give negative trust to people who engage in certain activities which aren't explicitly against forum rules. In these cases, users are marked pre-emptively as untrustworthy in cases where members of the community feel they are likely to be scammers, even if they haven't yet scammed anyone. In some cases, they may be legitimate users who are uninformed. In most cases, I think it's working as intended.

For now, these activities appear to include:
*Asking for a loan without decent collateral, or as a member with <50 activity
*Posting obfuscated referral links
*Making many worthless posts (for example, posting "Welcome" in every newbie introduction thread)
*Attempting to buy BTC with Paypal
*Using sock accounts (with some exceptions)
*Selling goods or services as a relatively new member without using escrow or sending first

Will update list as more trends are discovered.

The .45 balance can be paid off by using the FreeBitCoin application only 1286 more time (~18k Captchas solved, ~643 hours of continuous use). Thus, it could be paid off in less than a month unless you sleep.

Gox's market share has more than halved in the past couple months. They're facing a $75m lawsuit. They're no longer used in pricing on most sites. They had millions of USD seized by DHS. They have months of USD withdrawal backlog they may never find a resolution for. They've actively lied to customers about processing withdrawals to mislead them into making bad decisions.

Keeping money in there is boneheaded at best.

I am winrar? 

(took a lot more trial and error than I expected)

Whoa. I never knew that - never looked that far down. I never knew I could move my own threads, either (or change the title of the thread for all replies).  Oh well, there goes that idea.

I'm pretty sure that's not what he's talking about. You can sell multiples of the same item on BitMit (as in, you can sell x qty of an item, and buyers select how many they want). I think OP is saying shipping cost did not adjust for the buyer ordering more than one of an item using the quantity function. I've never dealt with selling multiples of the same item, so wouldn't know.

Sites like eBay usually have a tool to input shipping costs for multiple items (since it's often cheaper per item to ship multiple units of something instead of one). BitMit, OTOH, does not have this feature, so it's reasonable to think if shipping price is set to, say, .1BTC, and a buyer orders four of the item, they'd pay .4BTC in shipping, not .1BTC.

Maybe. Hard to say. For all I know, you might be a woman. I might be a woman.

I tried adding msg # and topic # to locked thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=post;msg=3111069;topic=290554.0) since there's no displayed edit button but received "Topic is locked..." message. Is there an unlock button I'm missing?

& if PGP can be used to recover an account, does that technically count as 2FA? I know a lot of people were asking for it.

In Indiana, inns are inherently intrusive for former inmates due in part to a now-inconceivable idea to do background investigations in cases where a guest clocks in intoxicated in such a way where speech is incoherent. Indiana inns inoculate former inmates by installing thin, shiny ingots of zinc in a parallel composition, done in part to inhibit dodging inn guidelines.

(yeah - not in a row. "joined in in" is nonstandard, though - so there.)

Just a weird misunderstanding I see around a lot - the idea that Bitcoin is secured against xx% attacks by having a high difficulty.

It may seem purely semantic, but what really creates security is the cost of obtaining that xx% of the network.

A high cost for mining on what's available to us also does not necessarily make Bitcoin secure.

While Bitcoin was operating only on CPUs, the Bitcoin network was extremely insecure. It didn't really matter how many more CPUs were put on the network, even if 2TH/s of CPUs were put on the network, because software to utilize GPUs could've been created and privately exploited to bring the network down for a few thousand dollars (even though all the CPUs collectively mining may've cost $200,000+).

While Bitcoin was operating with CPUs and GPUs, the Bitcoin network was insecure. It didn't really matter how many more GPUs were put on the network, because BTC-mining ASICs could've been privately manufactured and run to capture the majority of hashrate for maybe $200,000 (even though all the GPUs and CPUs collectively mining may've cost $20,000,000+). In this way, ASICs were absolutely essential to long-term sustainability of Bitcoin, and the market being over-saturated with them is probably a good thing for at least the next year or so. (down the road, it may lead to bad consequences, since ASIC manufacturers may well be in for a long dry spell if BTC price isn't soaring, which may lead to technological retardation [as in, BFL may be the only ASIC manufacturer standing in 2015 ])

Is Bitcoin still in danger for that reason? Maybe, but relative to previous revolutionary advances (which were already thought possible to utilize well before release) in mining, probably much, much less.

What we really need to be looking at is decreasing the upfront and maintenance cost of hashing, and ensuring this cost-effective technology is publicly-accessible. Bitcoin can never again afford to be in a position where a few new ideas, a little know-how, and a few weeks of time by one or a few people can lead to a revolutionary advance which immediately obsoletes old mining hardware. The biggest help a non-miner could offer would probably be to subsidize mining with larger-than-necessary transaction fees, increasing incentive for Joe Miner to either grow or at least maintain his farm. (running obsolete hardware incidentally has the opposite effect)

Gotta say - the mentoring system they set up is genius. At first, it seemed too convoluted and ripe for abuse (it is "kind of" abused in that the wiki has little information on how the game mechanics work, but just enough to think you have a basic grasp on the game), but the people there taking on students are way more helpful than I was expecting. I recently purchased an account close to DT payout, and had an amazing guy for a mentor (Umuri) who worked hard at ensuring I could give the account back after achieving 100% with a tidy profit. Devs release almost no info on games, so high-level mentors generally end up being the first test subjects, and the ones which come out best seem to all keep spreadsheets open while they play to exactly figure out all the mechanisms and statistics. I was surprised I didn't see any mentors advertising for students based on how many MB of data they collected in Excel sheets. 

Many of the games seem very simple and chance-based, but many games looking like chance games turn out to partially be skill games, and there are a lot of concealed PvP elements in chance/skill games, which allows for fairly deep gameplay wherever you don't expect it. It may also allow for a lot of knowledgeable (and hard-working) users to skim losses the uninformed and stubborn take. It may be very possible to "work" at DT as a player, both through mentoring and playing up the mostly-secret advantages only a handful are aware of. Of course, to get up to that point (both in DT level and "real" experience), look to lose ~250BTC.

It'd have similar effects to a default. Central banks must remain solvent, so tons of money must be printed in order to forgive the debt. This would eliminate all confidence in the currency and government. The foreign debt wouldn't be written off in such a case, but eroded in value to the point where it may's well have been.

Can an account be recovered if we've posted a PGP key and can sign a message stating it's been compromised?

Not if locked. Users also don't have the right to delete their own threads in that subforum. The best they could do is ask a mod to delete.

Sounds reasonable. Will post and lock. Maybe will start a trend.

A nun on Russia's primary propaganda producer saying it's false because media outlets couldn't possibly scrounge together footage of the attacks and effects mere hours after it happened is not credible no matter how much secret BS governments are engaging in. She even goes on to say she's certain chemical attacks took place. Best of all, she hasn't had time to write up the report for the UN, won't share details, but has time to give an interview to RT.

I question the authenticity of this nun. I have proof of her actually being a Protestant I will write up later and submit to the UN.

A pretty solid (and AFAIK, never refuted) "Tits or GTFO" defense was on page 10.

I think there'd be something similar if someone kept throwing "I'm of x ethnicity" in folks' faces (uh... probably not "Tits or GTFO"). I've never encountered, that, though. "Tits or GTFO" generally only pops up when someone explicitly admits to being female when there's no reason to bring that into a conversation. It happens a lot. Still, some don't understand "Tits or GTFO," so if there is a valid reason to admitting female, they're sometimes harassed as if there were no reason to admit sex.

I was wondering if we could have an automatically locked subforum somewhere just for PGP key lookups. Putting it in a sig is largely worthless if an account is compromised.

If someone, say, asks for a loan, I may trust the person I knew the account-holder as, but I no longer automatically trust the person posting is the poster I knew.

Though, then the risk is the unpublished sale of an account along with PGP privkey and email account... but it's still a solid extra bit of defense, I'd think.

Ideally, we'd be able to post and lock a PGP key to our account, similar to how Skype, IRC handles, and email addresses can be tied to an account and show as a little button on forum posts (though there'd need to be some type of significant time lock for a change of displayed key to go through, or maybe some type of 2FA).