I don't understand how this was a "trick".

The URV was actually displayed in all grocery stores, right ?

So to me this money was not that virtual.  Basically it was existing via these marks that were put on products.  They had to come up to consistent numbers, and the cruseiro was only used as an intermediary.

It's great story anyway.  I had no idea this was how the real was introduced in Brasil.

Notice that in some way this is how the ancester of Euro, the Ecu, was introduced too.

Well, I just think exactly the same.

I've not always been libertarian.  I'm sure at some point in my life I could have been offended by a sentence such as "tax is theft".  Indeed I used to tolerate taxation, because I thought that, globally, the government was doing more good than arm.

It seems to me that this is what this guy thinks.  To him, taxation is indeed technically a theft, but it is acceptable as an exception to a moral rule.  So to him, there is an acceptable amount of liberty that a government can take out from its citizens.

Now, this is just a quantitative question.  To him, governments has not yet overpassed this acceptable amount.  To me and other libertarians, it has.  It is a very subjective question, imo.

I could tolerate governments if it took me only some very small amount of my work, depending on what it does with it.  Just as I won't try too hard to fight against mosquitos sucking my blood.  But as soon as I think "enough is enough", I feel that I have to stand up and do whatever I can as an individual to make this stop.  And if my vote is not enough, then I'll try anything else.

And if to do so I have to say rethoric sentences such as "taxation is theft", I will.

People who really own a LOT of bitcoins should consider giving me some at the following address:

1MHT1WZxPwH5gLdUb7gmum3xgqcTdFS5j1


I'm a good person.  Plus, I will contribute to the bitcoin economy, for I won't just hoard those bitcoins.  Don't hesitate to give me 1, 10 or even 100 BTC.  Thanks.

EDIT:

removed because it's just not a good idea.  I have to think it more through.

I bought many things with bitcoins.  Usually not directly though, but by using a currency exchange first.  Most often via bitcoin2cc, or via my selling site on my signature.

Does that count for you?  I think it does but I'm afraid you meant a "direct" purchase from bitcoin to goods and services.

I think you can do that on a OS level.  For instance, running "htop" you can press 'a' to set CPU affinity.

This would be extremely easy.

First, just make a modified version of bitcoin, with a different Genesis block.  In the genesis, all monetary units will be attributed in the transaction (a generation transaction).

To increase the capital, the company would just issue a new currency, and she would guarantee an appropriate exchange rate.   Or she can modify the code directly and claim that this new code is the "official code".

Retiring shares is just as simple.


It would be very easy, really.

The quantity of money you own has very little to do with your wealth, really.

It's actually silly to hoard large amounts of cash.  Somehow it's a kind of acetism, because money you hoard is money you don't spend, it's consumption you refuse to enjoy.  There is no reason to envy someone who owns a lot of cash, really.  You might even mock him.  Because it's foolish.

I own about 1,400 bitcoins, and about 150 euros.  Most of my wealth is in stock holdings and precious metals.  I hate owning cash, even in bitcoins (although I prefer bitcoins to euros). 

You may have made the transaction while you had no peers connected.  Then the software has to wait about 30 minutes to resend the transaction.  Don't ask me why, I don't know.  Ask on IRC, to theymos for instance.  They know these kind of stuffs.

J'essaie de faire une vidéo xtranormal qui explique comment bitcoin résoud le problème du double paiement.

Voici où j'en suis actuellement:

http://grondilu.freeshell.org/bitcoin-dpaiement.flv

Since there is efficient contraception, sex has very little to do with reproduction nowadays.

It is not what show empirical facts.  Longevity does not compensate for decreasing natality.  This is called "Demographic transition" and so far it has never led to an increase of population.

If women make less than 2.1 children, unless people become immortal, then there is just no way this can not result in a dramatic collapse of population, possibly extinction.  It is just a pure mathematical law.  The number of fertile women will decrease geometrically, and noone can know how much it can lower until women start to decide to make more children.


Population dynamics is much more complex than you seem to think.  Things have changed since Malthus, you know.

Do you know for instance the chaotic behavior of the logistic sequence (u_{n+1} = \alpha u_n * (1 - u_n)) ??

This equation is a basic model of a demographic evolution.  Basically it states that the future population number is proportionnal to the present one (which is logic since there are more fertile women), but with a proportionnal factor that tends to decrease when this number reaches a limit (which can happen for instance when people are afraid of overpopulation, as you seem to be).

Then I guess it can be privately funded, right?  If so, I have no problem with it.  I may even buy a few shareholdings.

Human population won't increase forever.    We're not rabbits, and we have contraception.  Developped countries have shown than when women have the choice of the number for their offspring, they make less children than what is necessary for renewing generations (2.1 children).  Overpopulation is only a short term problem.  We should rather fear the demographic crash that will follow.


This is just science fiction.

It is also a weird point of view.   You're advocating for a goal that you will never witness.  Who does that?

Why should I wake up in the morning and go to work in order to finance something that only humans in several centuries will enjoy?  This is a ridiculously huge social abnegation.  Just as silly as an ant which sacrfices itself for its queen.   I dare say that I'm not as silly as an ant.

If you want to work for mankind, I advise you at least do it for present mankind, not for the mankind of a very hypothetical distant future.

Well, maybe the fact that those millions of years of evolution you describe all occured ON EARTH !

Evolution is a gradual process.  Going and flourishing suddenly out of earth in a totally different environnement is something that has just never been done.

Also, evolution is contingent.  You see only what has succeeded.  For one success, many failures.  So there is no reason why humans should succeed in everything they try to achieve.

Seriously, you can try to go and live on Mars if you want, I don't mind if you do that by your own means.   But I will try my best to prevent you from funding this crazyness with tax money.

Yeah, I should have written this the other way around: we are not designed to live on Mars.  Nor are we designed to live under the ocean, in Antartica or at the top of the highest mountains.  Pretending the opposite is just silly.

Yeah adapting our environnement is cool.  But there is a limit to that.  We don't live in deserts on earth.  We don't even live on water, although we technicaly could, I guess.  There is just no benefit in doing so.

Now, maybe you can talk about terraforming Mars, but this is a very different topic.  It is just basically a very, very long term investment.  Who would finance this?  Why?   Why should I work to finance something I will never personnaly benefit from??   It is just an economic non-sense.

Lol  great we're going to have this debate about space colonisation again.

I like the part when Zubrin says:


Well, yes!  I'm pretty sure that, if Colombus, when arriving in America, found only a deserted dangerous place, with very little resource, only rocks and a deadly solar radiation, then I guess he would have say exactly this.

Instead, he found a luxurious country with gold everywhere and indigeous people who were offering their topless wives as a welcome gift.  No wonder he wanted to establish there!

The Colombus comparaison is just ridiculous.  To me, the first men on Mars should be compared to Tenzing and Hillary, the first men who climbed the Everest, not to Colombus.

Mars is a distant place that we know it exists, we know what it looks like, but we can't go there.

America was a place we didn't know it was there, we didn't know what it looked like, but where we were able to go.

Dreaming of establishing on Mars is just as serious as dreaming of establishing cities in Sahara or farms under deep oceans.

It is just *not a place designed to sustain human life*.

Well, yes that's the idea.  But it's no different than what any broker do.


I've actually finished it, thanks to dirtyfilthy wich made a C program which allows a user to extract private keys from a wallet.  But I don't like the ergonomic of the result, and I'm pretty sure people won't like the idea of using an other program to sign stuffs.

I'm now considering going back to the idea of using GnuPG.

Bash will be fine to this.  It's the whole design of the thing that I have to think more through.

blockexplorer is missing about 40 blocks.