|
You'd better cash out of bitcoin now, before you make some money. ;-)
|
|
|
|
And, just to get this thread back on the rails, we're not talking about people who are poor and starving.
We're talking about people who 1) own houses and 2) whose mortgages are at least $50,000 in the red.
Why should we marginalize the productive members of society to help some individuals poor investment decision. Reallocating resources in this manner reduces the total wealth produced by society which results in more people unable to pay back their mortgages. They can default, the bank takes a loss, they rent another place, problem solved. |
|
|
|
Sure you have a right to live, but you don't have any rights that impose obligations on others.
Illustration:
You sit on your ass all day and produce no goods or services that society needs or wants, but you have a right to food and shelter. Where does this food and shelter come from? You're hard working, productive peers are obliged to give it to you through the force of the government. You are a parasite.
Does this include people who truly, honestly are trying as hard as they can to find a job, but are unable because there is simply not enough demand for labor? Does it include the sick and disabled, who are unable to work? Are they parasites, who should be left to die? Look, your problem is that you think the state is the solution to the problem of the poor and sick. I reality, all measures the state takes to help them actually creates more poverty. You don't understand how a free capitalist society produces wealth and, ironically, advocate policies which destroy wealth with the goal of eliminating poverty. No, this person should not be left to die, but forcing people to pay a bureaucracy to institute some incredibly inefficient welfare program to help them is a terrible solution. People in a free productive society will help these poor on their own, without state coercion. What to you believe, that if not forced, no one will help the poor? or do you believe that there are people who will allocate some of their disposable income to the needy? If the former, that implies that no one actually gives a shit, in which case, who give a shit. if the latter, then there is no need for coercion. which is it? you can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
When I'm in trouble, I use insurance. Again, something I signed
for instead of having it shoved down my throat without having
been asked.
Are you some sort of commie ?
Good for you. Insurance is not an option for everyone, like those under the poverty line. But only the rich should be allowed to live, right? Everyone else is just trash. Even if you can afford insurance, a lot of people choose not to do so because they believe that catastrophic things never happen to them. But then it does. Should a person be deprived of their right to live just because they were naive? And yes, yes I am. The "poverty line" would be allot higher if the government wasn't arbitrarily redistributing wealth, stifling economic growth. |
|
|
|
Uh, so it's all fine and dandy to steal my money, then you can help me out when it's convenient?
FUCK YOU, PARASITE! There's no other way to say it. You have no respect for man! You only have respect when its convenient for your whims and desires! Parasite, eh? The buzzword of objectivists, nothing more. I have respect for human rights. I respect the human right to food and shelter, the human right to live. Should the common man be punished for the failure of capitalism? No. Sure you have a right to live, but you don't have any rights that impose obligations on others. Illustration: You sit on your ass all day and produce no goods or services that society needs or wants, but you have a right to food and shelter. Where does this food and shelter come from? You're hard working, productive peers are obliged to give it to you through the force of the government. You are a parasite. |
|
|
|
Let's assume that you have completed a block. You have the opportunity to include any available unconfirmed transactions.
Would you as a miner choose not to include transactions with no fee?
Probably yes.
Would you as a miner choose not to include transactions with low fees, and only take transactions with high fees (for suitable definitions of low and hisgh)?
Probably no.
If you choose not to include transactions with low fees you will earn less from your block, leaving a higher bounty for the next block. You would bacically ignore a free lunch.
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6284.msg92187#msg92187 |
|
|
|
|
Excuse me if I'm being a noob, but as I understand this system, it's basically generating many keys in a deterministic way from a single backed-up seed. Doesn't this make it possible for anyone with multiple public keys generated from the same seed to do some sort of correlation attack and discover the seed?
Again, I'm not a cryptographer and could be way off the mark here. I think it's a fantastic idea, if it is indeed secure.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is bigger than Jesus!
It's okay, you can say that on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Yes or do your business outside of the states.
or do all your business in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If you are an employer, tell your employees that you are going to start paying them in BTC, if they don't like it then tell them to take a hike. If you are a worker then start working for employers who pay in btc. Might as well start hustling for that coin now!
I'm sure you're joking, but its a bit difficult to pay your taxes in bitcoin. "pay taxes in bitcoin" - lol! |
|
|
|
There are a lot of factors in play, yes, but we need to keep in mind that there's no direct pull on a BTC buyer to pay more because Joe Miner only makes 2 BTC/day today, whereas he made 4 BTC/day last week.
The SAME NUMBER OF BITCOINS are produced every week, regardless of how many miners participate in the bounty.
Print that out, put it on your wall. It cuts to the essence of this "difficulty" controversy.
Here me out I'm going to use your logic here. If the same amount of bitcoins are made every week, but the number of miners increases then what happens? We form DEMAND for a finite resource, thus making the coins even more valuable. If people want it, it doesn't matter what me or anyone else says, the price is going up. Maybe the demand will very well be sparked by the miners themselves, but demand is demand nonetheless. Miners may DEMAND coins, but if they are not BUYING them then they do not affect the price. Your logic is broken. If I fire up my GPU miner and the difficulty increases accordingly, explain the causal chain that leads from this to a increased price. |
|
|
|
|
Er... difficulty follows price, right? Isn't this obvious.
Value increase -> mining becomes more profitable -> more miners -> higher difficulty
This is so trivial, I can't believe there is so much debate about it. Miners may have some small influence on the market when they sell their bitcoins, but surely real demand + speculation is driving the price, which, in turn, drives difficulty by the mechanism I described.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been watching this for months. It's been exponential the whole time. I think this trend will continue until bitcoin awareness reaches saturation point, after which, it will level off.
I expect the value of bitcoin to trail this graph.
|
|
|
|
I'll try to rebuild the OS X package so it doesn't ask for a fee systematically like a beggar.
Sheesh! just use the command line client. It has none of this bullshit. |
|
|
|
laundering bitcoins is a snack.
Guide? Use laundering service. Current ones are admittedly pretty crappy, but it's possible to build one which breaks the transaction chain, completely disassociating your payment from your addresses. Make this a tor hidden service and snack is served! |
|
|
|
Science is NOT absolute. Mathematics... yes, within itself :-)
Given that Science has given us the definitions of concepts such as 'Absolute Zero' (0 Kelvin), and has been our go-to source for the definition of 'The smallest thing ever' for a few centuries, I'm confident in saying Science has absolutes. Science itself isn't absolute, because We don't yet know everything there is to know about the universe, and we may never know. What is zero? how do you measure it without comparing it to something? |
|
|
|
Linux shred does not work on file level. That's a prehistoric tool. Stop using the filesystem with the wallets on it immediately. Scan the whole partition for wallet-like patterns after that.
Yeah, I read somewhere that shred doesn't even work on modern (journal-based?) filesystems such as ntfs and ext3. Writes are done on fresh blocks, leaving the original intact until some other write operation overwrites it. which is why you should stop using the disk immediately. Your wallet should still be on the disk. Good luck finding it, though it is doable. |
|
|
|
|
All concepts are referenced in terms of other concepts. Kind of like the way that all words in the dictionary are defined using other words in the dictionary. There is no absolute anything! Value, morality, meaning, truth, identity.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
