Since this seems like the kind of crowd that would be more inclined to push further down the list, I'd be interested in seeing what the public opinion is here and what arguments people can raise about where to draw the line.

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?

The main plus with Wuala is that it encrypts everything on your hard drive, so your data is safer. Another is that you do not have to have a special "Dropbox" folder where you store everything you want to sync or hack your way around the issue with symbolic links - you can just sync whatever folders you want. The only issue with Wuala that I still have is that the Android app doesn't offer file uploading from your phone, although as of today it does allow opening files from within the app and editing them.

Also, the prices.

Dropbox: 2 GB free, $120/year for 50 GB, $240/year for 100 GB
Wuala: 2 GB free, $25/year for 10 GB, $51/year for 25 GB, $77/year for 50 GB, $129/year for 100 GB
Wuala bitcoin: 2 GB free, $4.4/year for 10 GB, $12.7/year for 25 GB, $26.4/year for 50 GB, $54/year for 100 GB (with fluid granularity in between, it's 0.1 BTC ($0.55 USD as of the time of this writing) per additional GB per year)

Hope that helps!

Disclosure: I'm not in any way affiliated with Wuala beyond being a happy customer.

Just wanted to remind everyone that Wuala still offers Bitcoin as a payment option: http://www.wuala.com/en/bitcoin

In fact, BTC prices are 50-75% below what USD customers pay, and you get far more granularity (you can buy 8 GB for 1 year for 0.8 BTC, 33 GB for 1 year for 3.3 BTC, etc). Also, just today their Android app just got a lot better with in-app file editing.

Just thought one of the largest businesses to have accepted Bitcoin to date needs some love.

Yes. Some of us are perfectly fine with complex transactions having addresses a hundred characters long and that is just as legitimate an option as BIP-16, 17, or anything else that could possibly replace them.

Things like this is why all these movements really do complement each other so nicely.

A fee of 1.75% is a bit low. I'd charge 50% for something like this.

> I don't see how you can do that without making it centrally controlled and acting like the fed (printing more or less based upon an inflation target of 0%).

Network hashrate relative to a projection from the 2-year moving average (eg. hashrate of 100 110 121 133 146 is just Moore's law doing its job, 110 110 121 140 170 signifies a spike in popularity). If there's a spike in popularity, print more, otherwise print less.

Versus doing nothing, it's useless. Versus using a housewide heating system that has no useful byproducts whatsoever, it's great no matter what the price and hashrate is.

Just FB/Twitter? No love for G+ or Diaspora?

I think this is probably the key contentious issue for this forum to focus on. His general argument makes sense: autonomy is a basic human psychological need, technology necessitates a strongly linked society which denies autonomy therefore technology is bad (to compress 232 paragraphs down to a single sentence). Some questions to think about:

1. What is regulation? We tend to think of it as government regulation, and when advocating government-free societies fall back on some sort of boycotts or community action as an alternative. While such alternative regulation has advantages in that, if practical, it is far more agile and incorruptible, is it really any better in terms of not denying autonomy? Social coercion controls us in many ways, from what clothes we wear and how our homes are constructed (even beyond the rules imposed by restrictive building codes) to how we speak and even think, but does the fact that submitting to social coercion is philosophically voluntary mean anything from a psychological point of view?
2. Is it possible to create a social system where rules of any sort beyond private property-style restrictions are largely unnecessary? It can be seen that as society becomes more and more complex our actions affect more and more people - for example, due to the urban density issue what we do affects more and more of our neighbors, due to technology we have less and less privacy in our personal lives, the industrial pollution that is a necessary consequence of much of modern society arguably affects the whole world, etc. But is there some way to make the situation less restrictive? If, for example, jobs were mostly online it could make people much more physically mobile and able to live beside only like-minded people. Putting more social activity on the internet also helps. In the most extreme case, furthering space exploration can separate people into cultural communities completely (cf. ethnic streaming in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy, if anyone's read that). What can we practically do to maintain the sphere of impregnable autonomy within our lives that we seem to need?
3. (focusing on another argument in the manifesto) Internet communities based on common interests could potentially replace the small tribal groups that we would see in paleolithic society. But for that to happen it would be necessary for such communities to be reasonably small - less than Dunbar's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number) of 150 - so everyone can have an identity. Is that practical? Right now the minimum size for an internet community seems to be in the low thousands since people only spend a few minutes of their time a day in one, but can that change? MMO guilds with <200 members seem to be holding their own just fine, since they are based in a setting that people tend to spend >1h a day of their lives in, so is that the direction we'll be going in the future?

Of course not, there's no reason for them to exist in the present world when the expectation is to rely on the government for everything. Things like private charities and mutual aid societies were far more powerful in the earlier half of this century before they got centralized into the government.

Alright, let me try a completely different take on this.

I'm assuming that by libertarianism we mean anarcho-capitalism, since a minarchist libertarian society can still justly enforce carbon taxes and the like as CO2 emissions are a form of harm/aggression against others.

Just a few weeks ago, the governments of the world managed to make significant progress toward addressing the climate change issue in Durban, laying the foundations for a cap-and-trade agreement to be made in 2015 and to take effect in 2020, potentially including commitments by the US, China and India. Now, international law respects the sovereignty of nations, so theoretically any country could pull out and keep polluting, and setting up the treaty to shut down if any party reneges on its agreements, while a valid strategy for bilateral agreements, would not be viable in this case. So what would be in place to dissuade polluters? Economic sanctions - essentially everyone would put tariffs on their goods. With that penalty in place, it's in everyone's interest not to pollute.

But why would anyone put tariffs on goods? It's well known that tariffs introduce economic inefficiency and ultimately hurt more than they help due to deadweight loss, so why would anyone take the hit for themselves to punish others? Two factors are at play. First, the specific mechanism of a tariff has the very attractive property that the disincentive to trade with the cheater scales linearly with the tariff (by definition) but the deadweight loss scales with the square (since with a 10% tariff everyone with less than a 10% profit margin has to stop trading, losing out on approximately 5% profit, but with a 20% tariff everyone with less than a 20% profit margin (about twice as many people) has to stop trading, losing out on approximately 10% profit - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss and notice how the harm is in the form of a triangle), so it's worth it for large players like the US to impose reasonably small tariffs that carry a medium amount of push at very low cost. Second, tariffs can be enforced recursively - if anyone refuses to implement punitive tariffs, the WTO might decide to implement a punitive tariff against them, and everyone would be similarly pushed to implement that punishment as well.

So how would all this translate into a libertarian society? All that the previous explanation required is the existence of powerful market players that are motivated by a large number of people's welfare and that has control over a powerful economic output. The lever of control does not have to be a tariff - taking a model of a country as an atomic unit (stay with me here for just one second libertarians, I know why that perspective is so philosophically wrong, but it's useful here), a tariff is really a country stealing from itself and cutting down on a certain one of its actions. A person or institution can, instead of a tariff, implement a partial boycott. To illustrate the principle, an business might reduce its electricity consumption by 10%, cutting out only that portion of its usage that provides only a small marginal benefit over not using electricity (eg. turning off the lights when it's not too inconvenient) but still pushing down his demand for electricity by a considerable amount. But organizations enacting such measures do not have to be governments with monopolies over large land areas. Possibilities include:

* A corporation, choosing to support voluntary pro-climate moves as a side benefit to its customers and workers
* A cooperative democratically voting to support such measures
* A voluntary mutual aid society
* A health or home insurance company seeing an interest in reducing how much it will have to pay to deal with the diseases that global warming helps spread or hurricane activity

Such large groups would agree on a treaty to reduce their emitting activities, and also reduce their use of products from businesses outside of the treaty. With large companies being more willing to work with pro-environmental players, a degree of enforced environmentalism trickles down into medium sized businesses and groups and even small businesses as well.

And so far all this assumes purely materialistic self-interested agents. Once you add social peer pressure, environmentalists who actively desire seeing the earth not being polluted just as strongly as we desire our homes not having dirt all over the place, and other psychological factors the scale tips even further.

I don't think nation states invading other nation states is a serious threat anymore. Most of the wealth in modern society is not nearly invincible physical resources tied to land, as was the case in ancient times, or even factories or equipment which could be captured and salvages. Modern wealth is people - it is us, our skills and our relationships with other people that we work with. If you try to capture a country for profit, you'll find that the people there will be much more interested in putting IEDs under your tanks than working for you, and the only way to truly subdue a nation is to pretty much burn everything and everyone to the ground, and what's the profit in that?

Government is bad because it's a monopoly more than for any other reason. You can think of the world as a free market anarchy where all the land is legitimately owned by 193 landowners that allow you to live on the land under certain conditions. A few are genuinely criminal, but with most once you hit the age of majority if you don't like it you can leave, and if you don't like all of them you can go live on a raft in international waters where no law affects you at all (well, if you start attacking cruise ships, you'll get arrested quickly, but that's legitimate self-defense not any kind of coercion). So why do we see all these harmful effects from oversized government? Because government is non-competitive, and in practice most of us don't have the choice of going to another country over disagreements about the level of taxes, public services, personal freedom, etc. A corporation or cartel that has a monopoly on food and shelter will have the exact same negative consequences as a government monopoly on land. Secondly, both megacorps and governments suffer from the same economic calculation problem with regard to internal affairs, which makes both inefficient once they cross a certain size threshold.

All this brings me to my second point - why we are here (the Bitcoin forums). For most of us, it's not just getting fedgov out of our money, or creating a new, better gold standard, it's also about getting rid of the need for banks, credit cards and Paypal - it's about getting big business as well as big government out of where it doesn't belong. With the internet, there is an unprecedented opportunity to decentralize the economy and massively reduce worldwide power and wealth inequality. Self-employment will go up, and small businesses will become more and more powerful. The world will become less hierarchical and based more on peer-to-peer mechanisms: the free market, crowdsourcing, democracy, etc, and we will all benefit.

I would open one up in my backyard, massively overhype it, and when they come to buy it up sell it to them for 100x what it's actually worth. Rinse and repeat until they're bankrupt.

> Integrating banks as an intermediary between the user and the e-currency organization will permit two strong actions...

> Small e-currency establishments without the financial means to establish business relations with a bank will disappear from the market. Russia possessed an excessively large number of virtual currencies whose economic utility was not always justified.

Pathetic. Just pathetic. And we wonder why the banking oligopoly is making so much money.

Thank you!!! Much more reasonable 0.80 khash/s now.

Just tried adding that. Now it just prints out the help text, which says that --algo can only take c, 4way, via, cryptopp and cryptopp_asm32.