|
Heh, I got out of there right at the last second. Again.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's too many. Please limit yourself to one or two per day, Atlas.
Affirmative. |
|
|
|
I e-mailed their corrections department to ask for clarification on the fraudulent minting claim.
Shouldn't The Bitcoin Foundation do that? lol I mean, I thought their job description was clearer press communication? |
|
|
|
Do what you want. No one is forcing you to do anything.
Most miners use a mining pool. Most miners don't run a full node, as this is not required for pooled mining. So thousands of miners could be relying on tens of nodes.
I want a healthy robust network that is capable of withstanding various attacks. I run a node on every computer that I have access to.
Isn't the most threatening attack one of 51% of the computing power confirming most of the blocks? |
|
|
|
82 is a crazy high number! Holy moly! I've seen a few of his threads and they really REALLY aren't well thought out. Again, if the content is questionable, I'll happily move it to the archive or it can be deleted.
Where is that objectivist superman from your threads, Atlas? I thought you promoted self-regulation in order to not require others to do it for you. Nobody is daring to enter the discussing of your 'content', this is straight up about the number of threads you are compulsively creating. 82 in less than a month means you can't stop yourself and this will go on forever. Well? 82 is a number. Not a debt nor harm against a person unless the content is vandalistic, fraudulent or unreasonable; any threads that are will be happily moved to the archives by me, else deleted. |
|
|
|
I have kept my thread creation to a reasonable minimum. Date Registered: September 10, 2012, 03:20:02 PM Total Topics Started: 82 topics  Again, if the content is questionable, I'll happily move it to the archive or it can be deleted. |
|
|
|
|
I have kept my thread creation to a reasonable minimum. If the content in those threads is in question, they can be deleted.
|
|
|
|
Why is this a problem? Why should every user be forced to install software and operate a node as well?
Nobody is forced to install anything. They can run a lite-client or use a web-wallet if they wish. Edited. |
|
|
|
|
Why is this a problem? Why should every user be influenced into installing software and operating a node?
|
|
|
|
I don't. PM's, property, and Bitcoin all appeal to me because they lack counter-party risk.
About the only thing I do with BTC is donate them to things I think are worthwhile. I believe that to be more efficient at furthering the projects in our world that I believe have value. As long as our 'official' currency solutions are for all intents and purposes supperior for the things I need a currency for, I'll probably be using that. Part of my Bitcoin speculation is because I don't know that 'official' solutions will continue to perform to my satisfaction.
This is not a problem in itself, but the economy would not grow if everyone acted like you, so the attitude you prescribe is mildly parasitic. Here's why you are wrong: The whole economy can run off 1 Bitcoin. That 1 Bitcoin or more can be invested and used as much as you like. The persons holding more are holding back nobody. |
|
|
|
there are other clients that don't need to use it.
No. Imagine what will happen if everyone uses clients that don't need full blockchain. Nothing? Miners would do it exclusively? |
|
|
|
Of course; however, this deals in new information. Check the article. |
|
|
|
We already are in a free market. The world has always been a free market.
It's just the bids and asks are higher than what people think they should be.
No it's not because there is no convenient mechanism for miners to make their demands public. Instead mining is substituted using ponzi schemes (mining bonds). Mmmm, I think people's transactions not going through would be a significant message. Maybe the fees are in the right place? Subsidized miners (those who operate some scheme on GLBSE) will accept even zero fee transactions. Added to that pool operators block the free market mechanism from operating. So, lower costs are a problem? I really don't see the network in trouble right now. There is still choice in nodes. |
|
|
|
We already are in a free market. The world has always been a free market.
It's just the bids and asks are higher than what people think they should be.
No it's not because there is no convenient mechanism for miners to make their demands public. Instead mining is substituted using ponzi schemes (mining bonds). Mmmm, I think people's transactions not going through would be a significant message. Maybe the fees are in the right place? |
|
|
|
|
We already are in a free market. The world has always been a free market.
It's just the bids and asks are higher than what people think they should be.
|
|
|
|
This is a bad idea, because the browser isn't guaranteed to copy the invisible TC.
Are you sure? The characters are "visible", but the font defines them to have zero width. Is the "TC" supposed to actually be invisible? I see it as "B⃦TC" (Ok, seriously, are you talking about this: BTC? So either it should load the Webfont resulting in BTC being displayed as "B with decoration", "invisible T", "invisible C" or your w3c/lynx on a non-unicode console should just display BTC … or your smart browser decides that there is something wrong with letters that have zero width so it defaults to another font. Which browser are you using?) "B⃦TC" is shown by Konqueror/KHTML, Rekonq, and QupZilla. Nobody browses with these except Richard Stallman and Co. |
|
|
|
Second, you're a Randian, yet you want to use the bitcoin network with a client that doesn't help maintain it? You want to profit off the work of others without giving anything back.
Transaction fees. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
