What you don't understand is that for the most part, the reason profitability changes is because of changes in the difficulty of mining the coin, not changes in the value of the coin.
The multipool switches to the coin because it can mine more coins. It doesn't matter as much when it actually sells them.
I understand very well that mining difficulty is very important. But you cannot say that exchange rates don't change during several hours and that they are basically ininfluent. Luckily, I didn't say that. I said that the change in price mattered less than the change in difficulty. That is true. |
|
|
|
Oh vay....Let me ask you something..
When a new coin comes out and it is not on Cryptsy, which for as far as I know is the only "auto-exchange". Then the trade has to be done MANUALLY. Do you have time to sit in front of your pc and watch the coins come in and then click trade after they transfer to whichever wallet and exchange that has to be used. If yes, get a life. But the answer is no, as no one really can.
You surely are jocking... or you just don't realize that altcoin profitabily (compared to LTC) changes by the hours... so it would be completely pointless to mine now a coin that has, let say, 20% profitability and to exchange it six hours later when its profitability is -10%. If you really believe that is the way to run a multicoin pool then you are beyond help bro! What you don't understand is that for the most part, the reason profitability changes is because of changes in the difficulty of mining the coin, not changes in the value of the coin. The multipool switches to the coin because it can mine more coins. It doesn't matter as much when it actually sells them. |
|
|
|
They may be left wing. Bit the last time I checked, 98% of the Scottish population was European, and only 79% of England's population was so. Wrong, whether you define nationality by of birth or passport held. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-international-migrants.htmlIn 2011 13 per cent (7.5 million) of usual residents of England and Wales were born outside the UK; in 2001 this was 9 per cent (4.6 million).
There were 4.8 million non-UK passports held by usual residents of England and Wales in 2011, accounting for 9 per cent of the resident population. Of these, 2.3 million were EU (non-UK) passports. Even accepting your code of 'European' == 'White', you would be wrong: E92000001 ENGLAND 53,012,456 79.8 1.0 0.1 4.6 79.8+1.0+0.1+4.6 = 85.5 |
|
|
|
Where are the dirty deals?
To my understanding, this was just a blog headline to get attention to the case, no need to spin on that anymore. Well, when someone posts misleading headlines that accuse people of nefarious acts in order to increase traffic to their blog, they shouldn't be surprised when those people get pissed off. Ranvier was probably just a little upset about that such a discussion took place outside the more trafficked bitcoin places online, and voiced his opinion about it and chose a controversial title for his blog post. How can you blame him, he probably felt very strongly about it. His response was childish and rude. Yes, I can blame him. |
|
|
|
Also, 75% sounds pretty dominant to me. And what the fuck does it matter what colour people are? Maybe he is one of the ignorant people who think (having presumably read no history) that there is some sort of 'pure' British strain, untained by those nasty foreigners. (Plus, it isn't 75%, it is just over 80%, for England and Wales) |
|
|
|
Having developers who deviate from Satoshi's original idea and want to implement features in the bitcoin protocol that destroy the features of bitcoin as it is at the moment is worrysome. Esp. confiscating others funds is something we should not do. There should be noone that has any kind of power to confiscate anyone elses bitcoins. Which is what pretty much everyone else on the mailing list said too. Where are the dirty deals? |
|
|
|
...maybe you wouldn't be talking out your ass and looking like a complete ignorant dick. Yes, because when comparing you and eleuthria, it is clear which one comes out looking like a complete ignorant dick. [...]fucking dense[...][...]talking out your ass[...]looking like a complete ignorant dick.
Pry yourself away from your computer monitor tanning for a bit and develop some social skills. Oh, the irony. |
|
|
|
In that case, I applaud you for your effort, and I'm a bit worried about the response you've received from Gavin and Mike. Even if they think that you're annoying, your involvement should be applauded and not ridiculed. It's important to see both sides of the coin, also for developers. When you posted on that mailing list, you had a concern, it was not to waste your own time. Therefore I think that should be respected, but my impression was that you got laughed out of the room so to speak. I didn't read it like that, what I saw was people saying that they would continue to discuss Bitcoin development on an open Bitcoin development mailing list, and thought it slightly silly to try to divert the discussions to someone's personal blog instead. And given the blog post title, I don't blame them. It totally mischaracterised the discussion. There were no deals being done. Noone was plotting to change the way the code operates without telling anyone. Person A said: I think this would be a good idea. Pretty much everyone else said: No it wouldn't. How is that bad? |
|
|
|
what hell is going on?  Idiot posts misleading information. eleuthria goes on first class rant. Amusing Jesus image. That pretty much sums it up. |
|
|
|
|
It is easy to say lawsuit. The reality of the hassle of dealing with instructing Swedish lawyers to handle your case is something else.
|
|
|
|
No, it's still less risk with bitcoin since you can't fake or forge a transaction, nor reverse one.
Until it has been confirmed, yes you can reverse it, with a successful double-spend attack. And do you have any reliable statistics about what percent of bitcoin transactions are currently reversed by successful double-spend attacks? No, but we have seen it on a moderate scale at least twice, with GHash.io's attack on BetCoinDice and the recent malleability issues. If not, I'll take your claims of "considerably more risk" with the same serious as I take most of the other FUD in this thread. Just to be clear, my considerably more risk comment is not general Bitcoin FUD, it was in response to this: They are only effectively instant because the merchant it allowing you to walk off with the merchandise even though the transaction can be reversed.
The merchant can do the same thing with bitcoin, and generally do so with less risk. Some do exactly that. The situation of a face-to-face transactions with the customer leaving with the goods and not waiting for a single confirmation. And I think that is more risky that the equivalent credit card transaction, whether the store has confirmation from the CC company that the card is valid and can check customer ID to match it to the card. Even more so with chip-and-pin cards, whether the customer has to demonstrate that they have the 'private key' to the credit card. Conversely, a Bitcoin transaction with a single confirmation is safer for the merchant than a credit card transaction. To quote gmaxwell: Taking irreversible actions on unconfirmed transactions is not safe. This is not news. |
|
|
|
Barriers, with attendants. And legal action if you don't pay. Ultimately the threat of imprisonment. Force.
And if you had barriers which prevented cars from entering the road without paying? Then miscreants would try to remove them, and you would need to stop them. Force shouldn't be necessary, but it is. |
|
|
|
What other way do you suggest, ultimately?
You have built a valuable road.
People are using it against your will.
How do you stop them?
How are cars prevented from entering toll roads without paying today? It's not really a complex problem. Barriers, with attendants. And legal action if you don't pay. Ultimately the threat of imprisonment. Force. Every society ultimately ends up with someone with control of power running it, whether that power is the threat of force, or money or equivalent to be able to hire the threat of force, or agreements with other societies to be covered by the umbrella of their threat of force. And I will repost Nock: According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit an almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition.(Memoirs of the Superfluous Man)
You choose submission because you view it as inevitable. I choose another path. One of the benefits of being an anarchist is that I don't need you to agree with me  And, so far, thoughout history I have been correct |
|
|
|
No, it's still less risk with bitcoin since you can't fake or forge a transaction, nor reverse one.
Until it has been confirmed, yes you can reverse it, with a successful double-spend attack. |
|
|
|
They would use force to prevent non-payers using their roads.
Really? You can think of no other way? What other way do you suggest, ultimately? You have built a valuable road. People are using it against your will. How do you stop them? No we haven't. For almost 800 years, we have found that extracting money on threat of violence is the most efficient way to fund any endeavour of the ruling elites. That you would trade your freedom for some smooth tarmac and a shiny iPod says more about you than it does about alternatives to extracting money on threat of violence. Every society ultimately ends up with someone with control of power running it, whether that power is the threat of force, or money or equivalent to be able to hire the threat of force, or agreements with other societies to be covered by the umbrella of their threat of force. If it didn't, it would be taken over by the warlord next door, and would have no way of preventing it. As long as the guy next door has a gang, and no morals, you need either a bigger gang, or to bring yourself within the protection of a someone else's bigger gang. |
|
|
|
Any many of them were built by the state.
Many things have been done by the state. It doesn't mean it requires a state in order to come about. Can you really not conceive of roads being built by anything other than a state? On anything other than the most local scale, they would only ever be built by large companies as profit-generators, charging a toll for access. Then you would end up having to pay lots of different tolls for parts of the same journey, which would be very inefficient and annoying. So either the companies would end up merging, or form a cartel, which one doesn't really matter, to have one unified toll system. They would use force to prevent non-payers using their roads. Rather than paying per use, they would instead charge an annual fee to anyone who ever wanted to use the roads. And the end result is that you have a single effective monopoly taxing you to maintain the roads. How different is that from a government? The single most obvious question that anarchists never address is that if this is such an obviously better way of doing things, where are the examples? Where are the successful modern-day anarchistic societies, that have all the technological and engineering improvements that 'normal' societies have, but without a central body ruling ultimately by the use or threat of force? Oh, and doing a little more digging, state finacing of roads in the UK goes back further than 1555. Pavage was a medieval toll for the maintenance or improvement of a road or street in England. The king by letters patent granted the right to collect it to an individual, or the corporation of a town, or to the "bailiffs and good men" of a neighbouring village.
Pavage grants can be divided into two classes:
Urban grants to enable the streets of a town (or its market place) to be paved. These represent the majority of grants.
Rural grants to enable a particular road to be repaired. These grants were mostly made in the 14th century, and largely for the great roads radiating from London, which were presumably those carrying the heaviest traffic.
The first grant was in 1249 for the Yorkshire town of Beverley, where the pavage was associated with the cult of St John of Beverley, and was ultimately made permanent. Another early one was for Shrewsbury in 1266 for paving the new market place, removed from the churchard of St Alkmund and St Juliana. So for almost 800 years we've found that roads couldn't been maintained without state taxation. |
|
|
|
Who would build the Xs, the Ys and the Zs
The most common first counter to an anarchist's vision is "who would build the roads?"
This is to be expected, since statists (which account for 99+% of people) have spent no time imagining life without the state. The doctrinal systems are set up to drill into us this dependency from day 1, and undoing this conditioning is not a trivial process.
Nation states are a 19th century European invention, one exported to disastrous effect across the world. We had roads before them, we will have roads after them. Any many of them were built by the state. In the UK, you can still see the legacy of the network of roads built by the Roman army almost two thousand years ago. And your idea of nation states being a 19th century invention seems a bit odd to people living in nations that have existed a lot longer than that. The first post-medieval state-legislated road program in the UK dates to the mid 16th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_Act_1555 |
|
|
|
There is no trolling. It's the truth and you know it. Confirms or not, it's the same f---ing thing. SLOW
The problem is that when trolls complain, they don't make the effort to compare the same f---ing thing. How long does it take for a credit card (or debit) transaction to become irreversible for the merchant? How long does it take for a PayPal transaction to become irreversible for the merchant? How long does it take for an ACH transfer to become irreversible for the merchant? I'm not a merchant, so I don't care in the least. For a consumer, the first two are effectively instant. They are only effectively instant because the merchant it allowing you to walk off with the merchandise even though the transaction can be reversed. The merchant can do the same thing with bitcoin, and generally do so with less risk. Some do exactly that. No, they do it with considerably more risk. A credit card company knows who their customer is and where they live, and has verified that information. Fraudulently claiming you didn't use your card when you actually did is a criminal offence, and there is a pretty good chance, in face to face transactions, that if investigated you would be found out. Bitcoin is anonymous. Once you walk out the door with your product, the merchant has no way of tracing you. |
|
|
|
There is no trolling. It's the truth and you know it. Confirms or not, it's the same f---ing thing. SLOW
The problem is that when trolls complain, they don't make the effort to compare the same f---ing thing. How long does it take for a credit card (or debit) transaction to become irreversible for the merchant? How long does it take for a PayPal transaction to become irreversible for the merchant? How long does it take for an ACH transfer to become irreversible for the merchant? I'm not a merchant, so I don't care in the least. For a consumer, the first two are effectively instant. |
|
|
|
Strange then that your own mazacoin.org webpage links to http://www.oglalalakotanation.org/oln/Home.html, which shows Brewer as President. And you agree you have no statements from anyone representing the tribe to agree that it has been adopted as an official currency. Brewer was voted for by his own people, which is more than is true for you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
