|
Interesting, I would like to participate too.
What is there to prevent somebody to trick the network to think he is running multiple hatcher nodes while he really does run only one?
|
|
|
|
Time to step out of the shadows and embrace legitimacy
since when Bitcoin needs legitimacy from a corrupt and rotten system ? since the system has guns. How will guns stop me from transacting BTC? I have guns too. Want me to print you one? Theirs are bigger. They won't stop you from transacting BTC but they will stop you from using fiat money without compliance to their ruleset. That includes trading BTC for it. |
|
|
|
when a node makes a transaction it does so using a ip address which is in one way or the other tied to the identity of the user. The IP address is not a reliable indicator of the original sender, because there is no way to know if the node sending you the transaction originated it, or if it is merely relaying. Yeah but if I am a goverment I can go to that node, and then to the next one until I find the right one. Under a deep packet inspection regime like china does it isn't even necessary to do this physically. And when I have seized the computer from which the transaction was sent I have cryptographic proof that the transaction was sent from somebody controlling it. |
|
|
|
For lack of a term lets call it: "conditionally shared source" ok?
No. The traditional way to call that which bills itself X but does not deliver X is fraud. There's no need to invent three word compounds to describe fraudulent enterprises. Yes, I get that fraudsters would very much like to, and I get why, too. Makes no difference. Well Bitcoin calls itself anonymous, but then the transaction history is not only public but also necessarily so. And then when a node makes a transaction it does so using a ip address which is in one way or the other tied to the identity of the user. Can I call Bitcoin a fraud now? What will it be when the beta ends or the ripple daemon is released before that? |
|
|
|
maybe the seller wanted to buy up bitstamps wall .. then again.. why wouldn't he slowly sell and then buy bitstamps wall.
That wouldn't really make sense since the wall is higher than he sold for. |
|
|
|
|
This needs an ask wall to work.
|
|
|
|
-It is open source, just not published, you can get rippled if you ask opencoin for access
And you're not retarded, you're just saving your good ideas for after your marriage. Right? -does that really matter?
Yes, it does. Ok what is it then? Closed source/proprietary is when there is a binary but no source code right?
You must think you're pretty clever or something (because stupid is when there's a binary but no source, right? And there's a source of you somewhere, not like the binary was just picked off static). Well done, Commander Fuckwit, you've proven InterLogic. I'm still trying to find some substance between your insults, so excuse me if I miss your point. It's not open source according to your definition, since it is not publicly available. I get that. But since the source is available in principle that wouldn't be that of an issue for anybody genuinely interested in the software or it's development. For lack of a term lets call it: "conditionally shared source" ok? |
|
|
|
Ah well, I'd say that if the market was free and allowed to find an honest value, almost any gold jewelry could come back onto the market. Physical gold is in strong hands at todays artificially low prices, much of that won't be coming back any time soon.
So what industrial processes use up 30% of the gold? You got my curiosity there.
Well if you have a gold ring, you most likely sell it as a ring, at 300% it's physical value. But I guess that's of how much the prices would rise if you are implying artificially low prices. I think the largest demand for gold in industry are contacts and switches in electronics, those aren't really dependent, it just happens to be the most sensible material for it. |
|
|
|
This CHOO CHOO is becoming annoying (just like GO CHIKUN on btc-e). Hope this train si going to  so you will stop writing like you are retarded. interestingly that doesn't seem to generate the same amount of outburst as the pig vs. chainsaw gif I posted. |
|
|
|
Gold has been mined out steadily year over year. We know gold is scarce and we also know there is more in the ground.
No one is sure about the gold supply. But every bitcoiners know the supply of BTC.
Yes and no but it is the reason for the gold crunch this month. You see gold, like every resource follows the Hubbert Curve. Peak gold was projected to be some time around 2020. Now what happened was that gold futures piled up to such an extent that it became questionable if it really is this early, not later. So speculative interest coming form the assumption of declining supply rates after that date went away and the price plummeted. Of course gold-bugs will tell you that was because market manipulation or "fake" gold futures for gold which isn't really there, but we should know better  But this does not mean that peak gold won't happen within the next decades so the gold price will not deteriorate completely. That argument would only hold water if gold was a commodity that gets used up, like oil. However gold is not really a commodity, it is primarily really money, which is why central banks hold it. Almost all the gold ever dug up is still available to go to market, therefore there is a huge potential supply of it that far outweighs any new gold coming to market from mines. The laws of supply and demand should ensure that when more demand is there then the price goes up accordingly. Where it all goes wrong is in fact what gold bugs will correctly tell you, that in the futures market the big commercials can sell as much gold as they want without having to actually possess the metal they are selling. Despite the fact they are not really selling physical metal, this actually is permitted and the amounts are vast. This mechanism enables them to manipulate the spot price almost to any degree they choose. In other words the spot price of gold is not really much to do with a physical market. And in fact because gold is not really a commodity it has no business being in a futures market in the first place. It's both, as far as I know it's 50% jewelery, 30% industry and only 20% investment, or using it as money. Once gold is made into jewelery it is rarely recycled since it is worth significantly more, and with a growing industry recycling can only go as far. I don't really think the gold futures market is fake. Mining companies must be truthful in their prospects or they will not find investors and their shareholders would sue them if they lie in that manner. |
|
|
|
I wish you "bulls" would put your money were your mouths are and start BUYING!! At least we'd have some action. As far as I can tell, that's why you hate FUD...because you're so easily shaken in your faith.
FUD is what placed Hitler in power. Or...maybe it was just his support to void the Treaty of Versailles, which was hugely unpopular, that placed Hitler in power. Maybe.Nice!  Adam, I think it's time for a new thread! |
|
|
|
Well if you aren't sure an accusation is justified why make it?
That's a safeguard mearure for mental sanity. There is a saying: "Be careful when you argue with a zealot, because he might be right" Yeah  |
|
|
|
|
Well if you aren't sure an accusation is justified why make it?
|
|
|
|
Don't You Laugh?
Because we do, even if you don't
Laughing at you probably fits it. |
|
|
|
If it's not open source what it it then? Surely it's not proprietary since the source code is available to the users.
What a strange logic. Please just publish the Git url to pull all code form. All of it. Until this does happen, it's closed source. And the creators or ripple get the smell of fraudsters for using the positive connotation of "open source". Being an open source developer myself, I can tell you: there is absolutely not the slightest practical problem to publish every line of code right away. It does not "help" you not to publish. The contrary is true. Publishing helps spotting your own "group think". Closed source does imply the binary is otherwise available, which it is not. If you are just using the client you are not a user. Users are those who run a node, and those get access to their github. You clearly have no idea what "Open Source" means. "Open source in future" is NOT Open Source. Period.If it were for me to decide, you would be marked as scammer together with Ripple for doing PR for them. Ok what is it then? Closed source/proprietary is when there is a binary but no source code right? Then I am glad it isn't up to you, what a strange, strange world that would be.  |
|
|
|
If it's not open source what it it then? Surely it's not proprietary since the source code is available to the users.
What a strange logic. Please just publish the Git url to pull all code form. All of it. Until this does happen, it's closed source. And the creators or ripple get the smell of fraudsters for using the positive connotation of "open source". Being an open source developer myself, I can tell you: there is absolutely not the slightest practical problem to publish every line of code right away. It does not "help" you not to publish. The contrary is true. Publishing helps spotting your own "group think". Closed source does imply the binary is otherwise available, which it is not. If you are just using the client you are not a user. Users are those who run a node, and those get access to their github. I don't know what their reasons are to make it not all public immediately, but I can't see anything that would lead me to the conclusion that it's fraud. It might be, but claiming that it is is so far stretched that it requires serious mental gymnastics to get there. |
|
|
|
|
If it's not open source what it it then? Surely it's not proprietary since the source code is available to the users.
In a sense you might be right, and you might not, do you know there aren't any other nodes than those under control of opencoin? Do you think that nobody took them on on the offer to get rippled on individual access?
They use cryptographic hashes for validation, besides pointless nit picking it is true, again what's the fuss?
The goverment could seize lots of things, your point? The goverment could also break into your home and steal your bitcoin wallet. Yes, I think that notion is equally ridiculous.
Your rambling about units and central servers do not even make sense.
Well they are claiming correctly if there really are nodes not in their control.
I care, you claim they are lying while you lack insufficient information to even make that assessment.
You have a strange eating habit ShadowOfRedHerring
|
|
|
|
I don't think anybody was speaking of Bitcoin itself rather than exchanges and anti money laundering regulations.
He was speaking about Bitcoin because he made a precisa reference about the Fincen statement that cited explicitly Bitcoin. That was still about exchanges. |
|
|
|
|
I think LTC is over the hill, it's got it's own version of SR, Atlantis, as long as this exists so will Litecoin.
Although I wouldn't bet that $3 is sustainable.
What I am fairly certain though is that this thread gonna get moved into the alt coin section of the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
