Bitcoin is both a commodity AND a currency. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. While not mutually exclusive, they each have characteristics that make them each. A currency is anything that is intended to be, or by defacto use is, traded as a unit of exchange value. While a commodity is anything that has a general or consumptive use besides, or in addition to, it's uses as a unit of exchange and storage of value. Oil can be burned, and copper made into wires. Both have trade and storage of value uses, but that is not their only useful function. Bitcoin has no other function than as it's intended use in exchange or storage of value, thus cannot be a commodity. |
|
|
|
Can we relabel the front page of bitcoin to say crypto-commodity instead of crypto-currency? After much thinking I believe that it is a commodity. Also lawyers in France are using the bitcoin.org homepage against us.
Can we please relabel it for the sake of bitcoin and because it really is a commodity?
Thank you.
No, because it's not a commodity. Bitcoin is a currency, by definition, and cannot be a commodity, also by definition. If you disagree, then you don't know what these words mean. Even if we all agreed to start calling it something that it isn't, that wouldn't change a thing; certainly not France or any other entity considering it a currency. Bitcoin is like gold. Is gold a currency? No Whenever minted into distinct units of weight, yes it is. |
|
|
|
Well as long as they're just chronically hungry, I guess that's okay and means that charities will still be flush with money once you eliminate the minimum wage on top of that. I can't possibly see how chronic hunger could lead to starvation. As a libertarian, connections that tenuous make my head hurt. Minimum wage doesn't do anything but force people to be unemployed that can't provide labor worth around $7 dollars an hour. If you can provide labor worth $5 an hour but employers have to give you an extra $2 which represents a loss, they aren't going to hire you. Then on welfare you go where other people are forced to support you entirely instead of allowing charity to provide only that extra little bit you are missing. There are so many reasons why the current system hurts the needy, not allowing them to easily start a business without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops, allowing the people with the most resources to make laws (unions support the minimum wage yet they don't come anywhere close to needing it, hmm I wonder why), etc. I'm not going to sit here and give you an entire economics lesson. All I want you to take away from this is that we aren't that different. We both want people to be free, want them to succeed, want them to be happy, we just differ on how to go about it. So when you call people sociopaths just because they *gasp* think differently, it doesn't really help at all. Unions indeed are a tricky one - I'm still not sure how I feel about them. On one hand, I can see them being needed inorder to prevent it's members from being kicked around. On the other hand, it can result in things like I saw in Detroit, where union workers are making $30/hr, 60hr weeks (so 20hrs is at 45/hr), for pulling levers and pushing buttons. And that's on top of benefits. At it's core, a union is just a group of people getting together to act collectively in mutual self interest. No more moral or immoral than a corporation or political action committee. I've been a member of two different unions in my life. Unions aren't the problem, per se; it's when collective bargining is permitted for government workers. It the private sector, government operates as the arbitrator between unions and businesses. When the employer is the taxpayer, and the unions are able to contribute to the election of people who negotiate on the behalf of the taxpayer, the balance of powers are all screwed up. Can't really blame unions for taking advantage of the situation, it's what they exist for. But we shouldn't allow it to happen to start with, any more than we should allow corporations to donate unlimited amounts of campaign support to those who might regulate them or decide on their government contract bids. |
|
|
|
Can we relabel the front page of bitcoin to say crypto-commodity instead of crypto-currency? After much thinking I believe that it is a commodity. Also lawyers in France are using the bitcoin.org homepage against us.
Can we please relabel it for the sake of bitcoin and because it really is a commodity?
Thank you.
No, because it's not a commodity. Bitcoin is a currency, by definition, and cannot be a commodity, also by definition. If you disagree, then you don't know what these words mean. Even if we all agreed to start calling it something that it isn't, that wouldn't change a thing; certainly not France or any other entity considering it a currency. |
|
|
|
Is there an analogy for Bitcoin that might be more efficient than escrow and without counterparty risk?
Yes, and no. There is an internal scripting mechanism that permits complex transactions to be processed, for a fee, but that scripting mechanism is not presently in use. Mostly because it's not complete & not vetted for security. Once it goes live, you will be able to do some very creative things. The torn dollar pseudo-escrow thing is one of the very creative things considered early on, along with (off the top of my head) multi-user signatures to send or claim funds (like on a corporate check that requires two officer signatures to be valid, or a cashier's check made out to to receipients that must both sign) or transactions that can be claimed by one of several different addresses (first to claim) or to no particular address at all but can only be claimed by satisfying a scripting rule, such as knowledge of an encryption key. Also, transactions that cannot be claimed until after a certain time has passed, such as a postdated check; and transactions that can be revoked before that time period has passed. I believe that you can presently send to many (like a business would make payroll) different addresses already using a single transaction, but the vanilla client doesn't have access to this feature. |
|
|
|
Well, better to be a sociopath than a parasite.
Almost the entire incarcerated population of the United States would qualify as sociopaths. So would almost all of Congress. So I'm not sure that there would be a distinct difference between a sociopath and a parasite. |
|
|
|
Is treating data as property useful? If the answer is yes, people will do it and you have no right to tell them not to. You can try to persuade but don't get self-righteous.
Useful for whom? Sure, some people are going to try to treat data as property, but that doesn't make it so. (insert slavery property reference here) Others will treat data as data, and you have no right to use force against them to prevent it. I can get as self-righteous as I like. Your great-grandchildren are going to be as embarassed to know how you "earned" an income as white southerners today are about how they came to inherit a Georgia plantation. |
|
|
|
The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery. Is it immoral to forbid theft?
Let me guess, because slaves are property right? You are American and a fair number of your states went to war to defend their "property." Does that mean that all defense of property is wrong? OF course not - I am actively defending the idea of intellectual property. As I said, saying that the same logic can be used for slavery as for defending IP doesn't make IP wrong. Of course it does. The main point is that people are not property, and neither is data. Those states went to war over the right of seccession, not slavery per se. And they were wrong about the slavery issue, just as you are wrong about the IP issue. The US Constitution was flawed in that it maintained the practice of slavery in order to maintain peace among the states, and it didn't work anyway. The Constitution is just as flawed in permitting Congress to establish copyright monopolies, and someday that will come to a head as well. Copyright is a monopoly privilege granted by the king/goverment. It was a common practice well before the foundation of the United States, and was regarded as about as legitimate as an inherited title or a land grant. The early US didn't recognize copyrights issued by any foreign government for many decades, and never did recognize copyrights of anyone that date prior to 1776. Still don't, not that it should matter. Anything that requires the organized force of government to exist isn't a natural right. Rights are negative in nature, meaning that to exist, they need only that others (and particularly governments) do nothing to inhibit their free exercise. IP doesn't fit that model, since the 'right' of the producer to limit the free distribution of their work via IP laws require that agents of government do something to those who would freely distribute that data in order to prevent or limit same. If you really can't see the distinction, I pity your children more than you; for your education has failed you, and will likewise fail your children because of you.So your assumption is that society exists, that it can act to prevent harm to itself but should not because you say so. Who elected you? Nobody. Who says that the elected represent society? I don't. You still haven't even tried to define 'society'. Probably because you intuitively know that you can't define society in a way that is inclusive and still doesn't result in IP laws pitting one class of society against another. We would hammer you down with that one too, no matter how you do it. Because 'society' is an intangible concept; it is both real and false at the same time. Certainly you know many people that you can identify with that you would consider part of your 'society', as well as many people that would completely reject being included by yourself. And again, just because harm to one class within society can be demonstrated with the repeal of IP laws, does not mean that there is not harm caused to another class within society by the existance of IP laws. I could sum it up in one sentence. You are the 1%. Guess who the 99% are? |
|
|
|
The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery. Is it immoral to forbid theft?
Let me guess, because slaves are property right? You are American and a fair number of your states went to war to defend their "property." Does that mean that all defense of property is wrong? OF course not - I am actively defending the idea of intellectual property. As I said, saying that the same logic can be used for slavery as for defending IP doesn't make IP wrong. Of course it does. The main point is that people are not property, and neither is data. Those states went to war over the right of seccession, not slavery per se. And they were wrong about the slavery issue, just as you are wrong about the IP issue. The US Constitution was flawed in that it maintained the practice of slavery in order to maintain peace among the states, and it didn't work anyway. The Constitution is just as flawed in permitting Congress to establish copyright monopolies, and someday that will come to a head as well. Copyright is a monopoly privilege granted by the king/goverment. It was a common practice well before the foundation of the United States, and was regarded as about as legitimate as an inherited title or a land grant. The early US didn't recognize copyrights issued by any foreign government for many decades, and never did recognize copyrights of anyone that date prior to 1776. Still don't, not that it should matter. Anything that requires the organized force of government to exist isn't a natural right. Rights are negative in nature, meaning that to exist, they need only that others (and particularly governments) do nothing to inhibit their free exercise. IP doesn't fit that model, since the 'right' of the producer to limit the free distribution of their work via IP laws require that agents of government do something to those who would freely distribute that data in order to prevent or limit same. If you really can't see the distinction, I pity your children more than you; for your education has failed you, and will likewise fail your children because of you. |
|
|
|
i am facinated right now from the bitcoin. I am thinking get in siriusly. But there is a quation i have to do. As i understand the transactions complete when a new block is discouvered. So what will happen in the future when the blocks became more scarce?
Blocks will not become more scarce, only the reward for the block. Blocks will continue to be added to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes or so until every bitcoin client on Earth stops 'mining' or the Sun goes supernova, whichever comes first.
2nd.. is the bitcoin client also a miner?
Yes and no. Every full client is also capable of mining, but only if you tell it to do so. Thin and light clients don't mine, however.
and 3rd.. say i have an online store and i accept bitcoin. There is any script (php.. something) so i can understand how transactions works for the bitcoin currensy system?
There are, but I can't really direct you to such a script. They wouldn't tell you much, either, as scripts would only do a small part of the transaction handling. |
|
|
|
This is very 'low tech', we're not sharing transactions, just bitcoin keys, and in a controlled way, so if I'm paying 17.85 and I share the priv keys to 18 btc with the merchant, that's the extent of what they can steal, even if I have 1000 btc in priv keys on my phone. The time to market on such a solution is very small and although it is not by any means perfect, still leaving the door open for a number of attacks, it is something anyone with a smartphone and a computer can use without any technical knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes. Hell, my father would be able to use this, if he had a smartphone that is  I think I get it now, so you are sharing a single private key with the QR code, and trusting the vendor to give you back your change to a change address, then? Much like one trusts the cashier at Starbucks to give back the change of the $20 bill. The full client at home that you got the change return address from would have to be able to send your phone a text when it saw the change, so that you knew that it happened, but that would be trivial if the need was there. You can't walk away from the POS, not get your change, and come back expecting anyone is going to believe you if there is a failure. I can see how this could work with small amounts and trusted vendors. |
|
|
|
If you mean that the QR code scanned is a transaction itself, then there isn't enough screenspace to produce a QR code large enough to reliablely hold a transaction. But nor would it be necessary, if an android client were developed with my original specs for the bounty. Namely the ability to directly commune with another client; such as by multicast over a shared open hotspot (internet connection helpful, but not necessary), bluetooth or (ideally) Dash7.
That might be better than requiring internet connectivity, but it could still present a problem if the buyer has to set something up to do the communications. I'm interested in the potential of a solution that requires no communications at all other than the display. Then what does the vendor use to accept the QR code and bitcoin transaction, if he isn't willing to set up any bitcoin infrastructure at all? A single wifi access point, whether connected to the POS computer, directly to the Internet, or stand alone in a piratebox setup ( http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox) is still cheaper infrastructure than even the smartphone capable of running bitcoin. And such a access point could serve the entire store. If it's just two people with smartphones selling/buying something on Craigslist, one person with a piratebox and zero connectivity would still be workable. If smartphones were to commonly have Dash7 radios in the future, even the piratebox would be unnecessary. But no matter how you do it, there has to be some kind of bitcoin infrastructure at the vendor's POS, even if it's just a QR payment address sticker on the back of the POS register connected to an online wallet system. |
|
|
|
I think my test for application of the NAP toward robotic life would be the same as organic life. The NAP applies if it (does or is able to) reciprocate in applying the NAP to me.
Interesting! Definately woot worthy. Woot! But can you define NAP for someone dumb as a stump? Not really, but that doesn't make the NAP any worse for a mentally handicapped adult than any other base principle of law. The same can be said for an infant. Even if s/he could harm you, you can't rationally hold that against the child, for they don't really know what they are doing. The only thing that you can do, since you are still bound by the NAP as a rational adult, is to take steps to prevent or avoid harm caused by the child, such as keep the matches in a high cupboard. The same is generally true for the mentally handicapped adult, no rational person would argue that any adult that can be demonstrated to a reasonable person to be incapable of rational thought has an inalienable right to 'keep and bear arms'. The theory of 'natural rights' assumes the rightholder in question has the capacity to understand what such a right actually is. EDIT: I completely read that question wrong. |
|
|
|
The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery.
I've been waiting for this. If it could be used to justify slavery, please show us how. *grabs popcorn* I wonder if he is sitting at his computer right now, with a response box open, trying to figure out what just happened. |
|
|
|
If you mean that the QR code scanned is a transaction itself, then there isn't enough screenspace to produce a QR code large enough to reliablely hold a transaction. But nor would it be necessary, if an android client were developed with my original specs for the bounty. Namely the ability to directly commune with another client; such as by multicast over a shared open hotspot (internet connection helpful, but not necessary), bluetooth or (ideally) Dash7.
see that's what my point was.. ideally something like that would work, but in practice I see it being a huge cumbersome process that most likely won't work. What won't work? The cumberson process part is mostly automated, much like it is with credit cards today, just different. In person & off network transactions might never come to pass, but it won't be because the process is cumbersome. Stop and think about what you have to do to buy a Big Mac with a credit or debit card. Nifty commericals aside, it's significantly less cumbersome for a customer to pay in cash than use a CC at McD's, yet people do it daily. |
|
|
|
99% hacked i bet
I would be impressed. So would the Humble Bundle guys. |
|
|
|
|
If you mean that the QR code scanned is a transaction itself, then there isn't enough screenspace to produce a QR code large enough to reliablely hold a transaction. But nor would it be necessary, if an android client were developed with my original specs for the bounty. Namely the ability to directly commune with another client; such as by multicast over a shared open hotspot (internet connection helpful, but not necessary), bluetooth or (ideally) Dash7.
|
|
|
|
The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery. Is it immoral to forbid theft?
Let me guess, because slaves are property right? |
|
|
|
The private defence becomes the new state. The chaos is usually an intermediate state.
Thanks for the assertion, now provide some logic to back it up. Start from assumptions and build to the conclusion. Private defense can be as simple as everyone owning a gun. How does that become a monopoly on violence? We've done that in the Fire-fighter thread. Why repeat it? Because, apparently, you don't get it. Or you do, and simply don't wish to hurt your head with arguments & logic you cannot refute. I have refuted them. Why repeat it in every thread? I can accept that you believe that you have refuted them, but you have done nothing of the sort. Most of your readership is either amused by you, or agrieved. I doubt that even those who agree with your positions would agree that you have 'refuted' much of note. |
|
|
|
Mockery is a high form of wit.
... Wit what? Wit a wiffle bah bat! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
