|
Human caused global warming is a fact, there is no debate. Both sides are politicizing it which should be a big no-no in science, but it apparently put up with.
The real question is not whether it's real (it is) -- the real question is "who cares?" Why is it bad if we change the environmental stability? Nature kills things all the time. We have the technology to adapt to whatever new conditions we create, and if it gets bad enough that we can't breathe or something, green technology will rise in value and we'll go back to that route. Who cares if we kill all the polar bears? Nature's been eradicating species forever.
Now I don't happen to subscribe to that philosophy-- I think we should value and preserve our ecosystem. BUT that argument is the only actually decent one for the anti global warming camp. The argument about whether it's real is not an argument. That's been settled. The only viable argument is that it's not unethical to cause global warming.
|
|
|
|
I am deadly against blacklisting any coin, because that goes Satoshi's basic fungibility concept. But we can consider blacklisting addresses, just like we blacklist IP addresses for their notorious character. It does not mean those IP addresses are outside internet, similarly those Bitcoin addresses wont be outside the Bitcoin protocol. Only people will know that they are scammer/thief and deal with their own risk.
Then you are against fungibility. Anything that taints any coin makes people value it differently, which means the fungibility is screwed. The response to hacking is better proactive security and good old detective work; it is NOT post-hoc blacklisting of ANY sort. |
|
|
|
Correct. Cryptocurrency will have to deal with far more powerful forces than current hashers.
If JP Morgan, WellsFargo, Microsoft, Apple, Google or Amazon want to start hashing then we'll see something altogether different.
Oh god I would love for that to happen. That would be so great for bitcoin. It would force the community to mobilize and get normal users mining. It would be a temporarily "bad" thing but the result would be in the end amazingly good for bitcoin. And meanwhile the price would be driven up due to the influx of all this new hashing power and the economic relationship between mining, perceived value, and actual real incentive and value. It would push bitcoin truly mainstream almost overnight. Also, completely agree with you OP. Everybody should be either solo mining, p2pool mining, or always mining on pools with less than say 15% of the total network. (Solo and p2pool obviously better-- getting work from central nodes is not what bitcoin is about!) And everybody should also be merged mining namecoin. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a standardized namespace for publishing documents yet? I'm seeing posts on /r/bitcoin about cryptographic time-stamping, and this just seems like the perfect thing for namecoin. Like "doc/" or "pub/" namespace for publishing documents, and then the name values can be the hash, and a location to download, and the author's name and stuff like that. So it's useful info, and then even if the name expires, it's still in the blockchain and can serve as a time-stamp proof if needed in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using the portable Windows pre-compiled binary on their main website, and it doesn't work. :-(
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to use 3rd party plugins with the portable windows build? Like can I just make a plugin folder in the electrum_data folder? I'm trying but nothing is working. Or is that something that just can't be done in the portable build?
|
|
|
|
|
What's the best thing about twenty-nine year olds?
They're old enough to be emotionally mature but young enough to still maintain a youthful physical appearance.
|
|
|
|
There is no trace of common sense in this plan.
Actually, this is a rational strategy, and has been done in numerous situations: unions, guilds, oil cartels, professional organizations with limited membership. That's because in those organizations, they gain utility by cooperating. They can use their power to force others to meet their demands, because the work they contribute is necessary. No such coercion exists in bitcoin. Small miners don't care of the big miners stop. Big miners can stop and tell everybody else "meet our demands or we continue not mining!" and the small miners say "fuck yourself, and thanks for letting me get this block reward!" |
|
|
|
Does it really matter ?
If you are interested in the mid/long term value of Bitcoin, it can only go up mathematically speaking.
Really? Maths is based on proofs. What proof can you offer to guarantee that the price of bitcoin can only go up mid/long term? Never heard of risk? Bitcoin is a better way to move value. Therefore, over time, people will switch to using bitcoin to move value. In order to accommodate the total value of the increasing number of people using it, the price must increase such that the market cap of bitcoin is equal to or greater than the total value that people wish to move. Since more people will be using bitcoin, the price MUST increase in order to accommodate them. Game, set, maths. |
|
|
|
It would be nice to have a website - could be something with a name like radiobuttondemocracy.com, or something - that you would login with facebook to assign your desired public key to be associated with your facebook username.
Then you would have a list of questions for all sorts of things for each country/nation/state like:
USA
Do you want gay marriage to be legal there?
Do you want cannabis to be legal there?
Do you want abortion to be legal there?
etc.
etc.
...
...
Canada
Do you want gay marriage to be legal there?
Do you want cannabis to be legal there?
Do you want abortion to be legal there?
etc.
etc.
...
...
UK
Do you want gay marriage to be legal there?
Do you want cannabis to be legal there?
Do you want abortion to be legal there?
etc.
etc.
...
...
It would use this provably fair system or similar so you could just login with your facebook to keep the answers updated and on the day of voting you would just sign the voting with your private key and all votes would be sent at the same time on that voting day.
That's reminiscent of a recent reddit post: This means, for example, that we could have laws and voting on new laws done in an anonymous and enforceable manner. Imagine a semi-anarchist city where each citizen isn't a citizen unless they happen to currently physically be there, and to reside there they put up a deposit for some amount of time, which gets taxed over time for social services, and forfeited completely if they violate the laws, and returned to them if and when they leave. (All automatically enforceable.) And everybody anonymously votes on new laws using colored coins from the same addresses. Proposed legislation is uploaded anonymously. Bam you have a functioning society with laws and social welfare and cohesiveness, which is still entirely voluntary, with true actual democracy, and no leaders-- just the protocol, which you agreed to when you entered the city limits. Taxation would be minimal and 100% efficient, and go only towards what the population decided were necessary services. Public servants could have their jobs voted on on a weekly basis. |
|
|
|
|
Hate to break it to you OP, but freedom and personal responsibility are double edged swords.
The fungibility of bitcoins must remain intact at any and all costs.
|
|
|
|
|
entire net worth, reporting in
|
|
|
|
|
easier to remember = less entropy = you gon get robbed
|
|
|
|
|
Oh well, live and learn! The info should still be correct for 8 months anyway.
Thanks to all of you here who helped revive namecoin this past year. It's great to see people working on the non-money uses of bitcoin. Distributed DNS and identity verification is a really awesome thing. Thanks for your efforts!
|
|
|
|
|
I used the command line (Windows cmd to namecoind) and registered an id and there was no warning in the instructions on the dot-bit wiki about the over 519 bytes thing, so the id name is larger than 519 bytes (but less than 1023 bytes), and so when I then tried to perform a name update, I got the "error code -1 could not sign name coin output" error.
Is there anything I can do to update the id, or am I boned and I just need to wait for it to expire?
|
|
|
|
OBS: By the way, your data set do not have enough information to achieve any accurate result.
Prove it. Nope, that is up to you convince everyone except yourself that your theory is valid. Nope, each person have to prove his own statement. Simply saying "no" is just obstructing. Incorrect. Pointing out that a statement is not adequetly defended is not something which itself needs backing. If you say "unicorns exist", a perfectly valid response is "prove it". It's not on me to prove they don't. Similarly, gbianchi's claims are reversed engineered from the data, so of course they fit. In order to show the validity of the equation and the other claims, he would need to show they work with new data. Calling BS is a perfectly valid response. Nope, If someone says "unicorns exist" and then "proves" it with some kind of argument, you can not just say that it's BS, you have to point out the errors of the argument. In this case he would have to explain why he doesn't think the data is sufficient. That's completely correct, and not what it appeared to me you had said/implied. In this case, I'll do the arguing for the other guy and say that no matter how robust everything appears to be, it's still made to fit pre-existing data and the robustness may simply be to account for that. It needs to fit NEW data, and unless he can cross apply it elsewhere, that just means waiting a few years to get enough. I don't know enough about stats to get confidence rates for the quality of the theory based on new data, but I'm pretty sure one or two weeks since it came out is certainly not enough. |
|
|
|
Just wait until Moneychanger gains the ability to also act as a Bitcoin wallet too, transparently.
and be a color-coin enabled wallet.... |
|
|
|
Feathercoin realizes it's gonna fail and pivots. I'll go with Datacoin, which had this goal from the start and whose design is better suited for this purpose.
Bitcoin should absolutely not implement this. Blockchain bloat is already a problem.
Namecoin will beat datacoin. Any alt that serves a different purpose than bitcoin, and the purpose isn't to use a different hash, should always use double sha256 and 10 minute blocks so that it can feed off of the main network's (bitcoin's) computing power via merged mining. There's just no reason to force people to devote computing power to one or the other when they can devote their power to *both* with minimal cost. That fact, along with first-in brand recognition means Namecoin is, and rightfully should be, the rightful "datacoin". If the purpose is decentralization and disruption and uncounterfeitable storage, feeding off of the biggest computing network should be part of the design. |
|
|
|
OBS: By the way, your data set do not have enough information to achieve any accurate result.
Prove it. Nope, that is up to you convince everyone except yourself that your theory is valid. Nope, each person have to prove his own statement. Simply saying "no" is just obstructing. Incorrect. Pointing out that a statement is not adequetly defended is not something which itself needs backing. If you say "unicorns exist", a perfectly valid response is "prove it". It's not on me to prove they don't. Similarly, gbianchi's claims are reversed engineered from the data, so of course they fit. In order to show the validity of the equation and the other claims, he would need to show they work with new data. Calling BS is a perfectly valid response. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
