It would be awesome if everyone else was trying to mine bitcoins to be sent to my wallet, but alas I am the only one doing so.
All bitcoin miners are performing the same calculations, but on sufficiently different data that the results are not at all the same.

You should be able to claim the ixcoins so long as you still have the private key that corresponds to that bitcoin address.

With less information about your market, I cannot predict as effectively how it will move. Since I can't get cash out of your exchange quickly, I risk being stuck with cash that cannot do anything useful. I might be willing to take that additional risk, but not for free.

That's a miniscule risk. The vast majority of orders are not mine. I lose information for every not-mine order and gain for every mine order. I'd have to gain an awful lot on every order of mine to compensate for the much greater order of magnitude of orders that are not mine.

Then I might be willing to take the greater risk. It would help a lot if I could get cash out of the exchange quickly too.

Okay, fine, I benefit a tiny bit by hiding my own information from others. But I am harmed much more by not being able to see any other transactions. Keeping other people in the dark about other people's transactions, which I also don't know about, doesn't help me at all.

In sum:

My few transactions: Slight help to me per transaction.
Other people's many transactions: Moderate harm to me per transaction.
Net: Huge harm to me.

Less information means greater risk. Since every transaction on your exchange would have higher risk than an otherwise similar transaction on a more open exchange, you'd have to charge lower commissions to get my business. Otherwise, what compensates me for the greater risk I'm taking? Keeping my transactions secret from other people doesn't benefit me very much, but not being able to see the market I'm trading into harms me quite a bit.

3) The system ignores you, you're just a bit player. But it succeeds because bigger players cooperate because they understand that these thefts hurt the bitcoin economy their businesses rely on.

We seem to be talking past each other. Perhaps we should start over.

I think a free market will lead to prosperity and that prosperity is the ultimate solution to pollution. Essentially, that other things being equal, the freer the market, the faster pollution will become less of a problem. But I'm only trying to make a much, much smaller point here -- nothing about a free market need make pollution problems any worse, except that people would be free to pollute their own property in cases where it didn't affect anyone else's property.

The "dissonance" I'm trying to avoid is where you have a discussion with someone and you keep talking past each other because you have drastically different understandings of the consequences of things. In order to figure out what pollution would be like in an actual free market, we'd have to agree on what many other things would look like under a free market system, and of course people will disagree on that.

I will agree with this though -- if you don't believe that a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem worse. If you believe a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem better.

Easy, you don't give out any customer information without a court order instructing you to do so. See how easy that was?

It is a common misunderstanding of Libertarianism that you get to to do whatever you want to do exactly they way you want to do it. In fact, other people also get to to do whatever they want to do to the same extent, and if that includes revealing information that you would prefer to keep private, that's tough.

Quite the opposite, I specifically point out that fact in the quote you cited above. The term "air" can refer both to a location that is filled with air, and the air that fills that location. The former can be property in the normal sense, the latter cannot unless you enclose it.

I agree. That's one of the ways something you do on your property can affect my use and enjoyment of my property. From where do you get that I disagree with this?

As I said, in the quote you cited: "[ I ]f you pollute air on your property in such a way that it damages my use or enjoyment of my property, the majority of free market advocates would argue that your conduct should be legally actionable."

That the government will make the effective decisions is a consequence. It's not the consequence that I expect. But it's the consequence that you expect. For example, you probably don't think that effective private organizations will be able to make rules about pollution and enforce them. I might. So I might not expect the same conseqeuence you expect.

Exactly.

Suppose I believe that a free market will perfectly solve the pollution problem. (I don't, but suppose it.) To have that conversation with you, we'd have to argue over all the intermediate consequences of the affects of a free market on all kinds of other things, disagreeing all the way. However, I only need to make a much smaller point, which is that the "problem of pollution" is not a problem of the free market. It's a problem generally with all systems that a free market will not make worse.

Assuming your characterization of what I believe is fair. I know your statement describes the consequences of my system that you foresee but not the consequences that I expect. So rather than arguing over what the precise consequences would be, since it doesn't matter for purposes of this argument, I assume they'll be what you expect them to be. (For example, I expect that private organizations will take over many government functions just as private security and private arbitration have started to do. So I would expect some organization to figure out better solutions to pollution problems than governments have. But I'm willing to assume that doesn't happen, since I don't know for sure that it will.)

So suppose we have the same system as we have now, except people are free to pollute their own property or permit others to do so. So, what's wrong with that?

Does that make things much better? Probably not. But I never claimed I had some miraculous solution to the problem of pollution. If you see advocates of a free market claiming that a free market will solve the pollution problem, then you have a legitimate complaint. Otherwise, unless you can show a free market will make pollution worse, what's the relevance?

Your arguments are getting too ridiculous to be worth responding to. Have a nice day.

You know the client has a command to backup the wallet, right?

The first choice, since it gives him a higher return per share.

Would you rather have a thousand dollars in a week or two thousand dollars in two weeks? Unless you either desperately need money now or are a moron, you would take the two thousand dollars in two weeks.

As I understand his scheme, a falsely flagged address wouldn't do any harm.

Let me guess, the masterminds are the same guys who faked the moon landings and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, right?

They're optimized for performing hashes on large amounts of data, not for performing large amounts of hashes.

The problem in your reasoning is where I added emphasis. A pool hopper can always contributed to a PPS pool. So there will always be more profitable alternatives.

Pool hoppers do profit at the expense of the non-hoppers. The more pool hoppers in a pool, the less return per-share those who feed the pool shares at a constant rate get. That is a fact.

I don't think you've shown that because:

1) Overall, chance seems a better explanation for the pool's long-term luck.

2) There is no known plausible mechanism that can produce better days than average.

Of course. All arguments make simplifying assumptions and are invalid in cases where those assumptions don't apply to an extent that swamps the mechanisms of the argument. Nevertheless, I find Coase's criticism of Pigovian taxes to be devastating. But if you like them, by all means advocate for them. Though I think they're a bad idea, they're fully consistent with a free market.

It's only prohibitively expensive if you don't optimize it. But again, I agree that pollution is a hard problem and one that has little to do with a free market. The only relevance a free market has is that it would mean that pollution of one's own property that doesn't affect other people's use or enjoyment of their property would be allowed. Otherwise, it would be handled much the same way.

And people may be born with no wealth and be unable to borrow to finance starting a business. Education is an investment with an expected return like any other investment. If nobody is willing to make the investment with their own money, it's probably a bad investment. And I genuinely believe that for most of the recipients of public education, it does them almost as much harm as good. I consider public education more or less a failed experiment.

I don't believe public education is a better investment than whatever those who were taxed to pay for it would have done with their money. So I don't think it will improve welfare overall.

I agree, it's a fuzzy concept. It can't be explained in a buzzword or two.

Well, that's why earlier in this thread, there was a list of core policy issues that relate to what we mean by a "free market".

But yes, I agree, you can't make a simplistic list of buzzwords and say "that's what I mean by a free market". Complex issues are complex.

Even assuming that's true, what exactly is your objection? That people shouldn't be able to pollute their own property? That there's something wrong with a free market because it doesn't miraculously solve hard problems like pollution?