|
No, just no. Smoothie should never be in a moderator position.
|
|
|
|
Here's a trivial example: Both parties to an agreement believe a truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries and both believe that $2/pound is a fair price. They agree to sell the cherries for $10,000, based on their common correct belief that cherries are worth $2/pound and their common mistake belief that the truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries. If it turns out the scale was broken and the cherries actually weigh 4,500 pounds, how much is "his debt"?
The argument would be that you can't look to the contract because the contract doesn't say what happens if the cherries weigh 4,500 pounds. Everything written in the contract is based on the assumption that the cherries weigh 5,000 pounds. (Unless it contains some clause about the weight, of course.) Here, it is clearly unjust to enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement was predicated on the shared belief.
Assuming you mean a buyer and a seller by "both parties," the number of cherries wouldn't make a bit of difference unless mentioned in the contract. If the buyer didn't do his due diligence in verifying the number of cherries on the truck, and didn't add wording specific to the number of cherries he was receiving, that was his problem. In the case with Patrick, the number of cherries WAS specified. Well, the interest rate was, anyway. And Patrick failed to hold up to that interest rate. It'd be like the seller of the cherries writing in the contract that he was selling 5000 pounds of cherries, but he only brings 4500 pounds, using the excuse that someone must have stolen the other 500 pounds out of the back of the truck last night. That doesn't make a bit of difference - the buyer bought 5000 pounds of cherries, not 4500, and unless a new contract can be established (likely with a reduction in price), the seller is in the wrong, not the buyer. You stick to the word of the contract no matter what. That is what is enforceable by law. Assumptions DO NOT MATTER. |
|
|
|
I'm really not a big fan of paper backups. There are so many ways paper could be destroyed/lost, and there's no way to encrypt paper and send it safely to remote backup servers distributed all over the globe. Plus, if you consider an attacker gaining physical access to the device, you should consider him getting physical access to the paper backup too.
I'd strongly suggest an alternative: allow the user to type a passphrase during initialization. Use this passphrase to encrypt the seed and save only the encrypted copy outside the device via USB. Obviously, instruct the user to use a strong passphrase and to back up the file as much as he can.
I realize that I can scan the paper backup, encrypt it and do it myself. But then again, I would need a safe device just for this task...
Why not just type the paper backup into a .txt file, and encrypt that? Honestly, asking people to type a passphrase and expecting them to make it complicated enough that it cannot be hacked in any reasonable number of years (at least until well past the time they die) as well as not forget it is just as impractical as a piece of paper. Guess how they are going to remember their complex decades-future-proofed password?  And that's even assuming they choose a password strong enough! Anyone who doesn't would have a good chance of their coins being stolen from their "ultra secure" device, and sudden, that device gets a bad rap from it. No, slush is making a very wise choice in only supporting paper/manual backups. It puts all the blame unquestionably on the user if anything bad happens. People put all kinds of valuables in safes and fire safes in their homes - why would this need be any different? Write down the seed, put it in the safe, and it's there along with other things like jewelry, gold, and social security cards. I would hope people aren't storing paper backups just any old place in their house...! |
|
|
|
I think we need Clinton back. Now that hes too old to get caught up in the "scandals" of his previous term, he can spend more time working on what he did right. Well, that is unless he has viagra...
Ugh, no. His policies enacted to back bad housing loans with government funds caused the housing bubble (and subsequent crash). That's how it always is with the Dem's - looking at the surface, never seeing the consequences down the road. |
|
|
|
I was gonna send 26.13 coins to the address 1LLjPPzFEYmdFcswPBvUY6vjnGvNEEXQvc I used blockchain.info and sent it using their anonymous option.. now, several hours later (more then 3 hours ago now) nothing has happened, have not received the coins. If you check out https://blockchain.info/address/1LLjPPzFEYmdFcswPBvUY6vjnGvNEEXQvc there are two transactions coming to that address, but they're both unconfirmed.. it seems to be for the right amount at least if you add them both together minus fees for the mixing. When I check "my transactions" in blockchain.info , it does NOT list the address 1LLjPPzFEYmdFcswPBvUY6vjnGvNEEXQvc in to/from for the last transaction I made from the wallet, but another address. Why is not blockexplorer showing any activity for this address I sent the bitcoins to? http://blockexplorer.com/address/1LLjPPzFEYmdFcswPBvUY6vjnGvNEEXQvcNervous freak is getting really nervous now, please advice and tell me everything is cool... I was quite sure I double checked the receiving address before sending and since blockchain.info shows that there are two transactions coming there it should be cool huh? Do i need to chill down and wait? If you sent it using their anonymous option, why do you expect them to use the same coins you sent them? Makes no sense. I also heard that anonymous sends can take several hours, based on their mixing. They're an honest bunch, you'll get your coins. Check it again tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
I still completely disagree with you Joel. It doesn't matter what Patrick's plans with the money was - he agreed to pay back at a certain rate for a certain period of time. He failed to do so. He broke the contract. That's all that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll have to disagree with you here JoelKatz.
The contract was made on assumptions that Patrick made, sure. But that doesn't mean he can back out of his contract scot-free just because his assumptions were wrong.
If the bank loans me $1,000, and I wanted to use that $1,000 to invest in a business that I assumed to be risk-free, but it turns out the investment DID have risk, and I lost the $1,000, would the bank just let me off the hook? Nope, they'd still want me to pay back the loan, regardless of what my assumptions were and how those assumptions turned out. Would they hit my credit score when I failed to pay the loan back? Of course they would!
We're hitting Patrick's Bitcoin community "credit score" because he failed to hold up his end of the bargain. It doesn't matter that he didn't realize he was investing in BS&T passthroughs - that was a failure on his part to do due diligence, and it is his responsibility to own up to that mistake and still make payments according to the contract.
Now, if he had worded the contract with a clause something like "If my investments fail, then your investment with me is worth nothing," then I can definitely see a case for NOT giving him a scammer tag. Otherwise, this is nothing more than him failing to hold up his end of the agreement, and he should get the scammer tag until he makes good on the promises made to those he contracted with.
|
|
|
|
|
I find that when I try to speculate on price, I always lose. So I just buy and sell at market price now.
|
|
|
|
-bump-
Still gonna take a guess and say that they won't be delivering any this October. |
|
|
|
|
Stonehedge
Nutcase
Case Knox
Stonelet
iPay
uPay
Freepay
Secrea
StrongPay
StrongMox
|
|
|
|
|
FourQ
Skynot
Burken
Bould
Deltress
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't this already done by one of those bitcoin banks? And it wasn't very successful...
Personally, I don't think putting a 3rd party between the one paying and the one receiving is a good idea if the only purpose is to make it look more friendly to the end user. And if we ARE going to put a 3rd party between the two, at least make it something independently verifiable (like firstbits are).
Ideally, a client should support firstbits right out of the box, and then people could just pay "1barnwood". That's by far the best "user friendly" solution, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
for example maybe all of my friends could start using Bitcoins and we could trade for small things amongst each other for bitcoins(cigarettes, booze, food tab, you name it, etc)
Then start the ball rolling. Offer to buy the above things from them with bitcoins. When you do, they now have bitcoins, and you all can trade amongst each other for them. |
|
|
|
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Pretty sure it doesn't need that? It's not a communications device... In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. This device is being sold by a manufacturer located in Missouri? or maybe WYoming? which last I check was in the US. Interesting! My new tidbit of knowledge for the day then... |
|
|
|
Intel was too early with "Sandy Bridge" chips. Just like Porsche with 911 model.
Good thing they've already moved on to Ivy Bridge then. Porsche, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how information could be considered to have mass.
When looking at information on a hard disk, the hard disk has the same amount of mass whether information has been recorded or not. How would a black hole be able to tell between micro-organization of bits on a hard drive platter? It wouldn't.
I'm sorry, but I can't even begin to believe a theory such as this.
|
|
|
|
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Pretty sure it doesn't need that? It's not a communications device... |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the vote of confidence caffeinewriter!
I might give BTCJam a try after this...
|
|
|
|
Casascius - what is the difference between what you propose to be done via satellite and a typical Internet via satellite service? Why re-invent the wheel? If someone has satellite service, why would they not opt for an internet connection instead of some weird listen-only connection? Or are you saying this satellite listen-only service would be free, thus more accessible to more people?
Whether free or not, the main thing would be cost per user, exploiting the ability of the satellite to broadcast data at a nominal per-user cost. If a million people get on a satellite and download the block chain using IP as the backbone (IP multicasting aside), the satellite needs one million times the bandwidth to send the packets to users, one at a time, as well as dealing with all of the overhead of acknowledgments, retries, etc. But if the satellite simply streams the block chain as though it were a channel that everybody could tune to, the bandwidth effectiveness is maximized. The stream would contain forward error correction and a small measure of scheduled repetition so that receivers who miss some of the transmission can fill it in. Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
|
Casascius - what is the difference between what you propose to be done via satellite and a typical Internet via satellite service? Why re-invent the wheel? If someone has satellite service, why would they not opt for an internet connection instead of some weird listen-only connection? Or are you saying this satellite listen-only service would be free, thus more accessible to more people?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
