You don't have the right to dictate that. We already have mechanisms for dealing with animal cruelty and its not your place to tell us what we "should" do. So we don't have the right to dictate what you should do, because the current system lets you dictate what everyone does. Got it. If we want to be told what we "should" do, we'd invent a god.
You already did, and His name is State. |
|
|
|
It *seems* that BCX's theory has so far proven itself: Block generation hasn't (meaningfully) adjusted, despite massive difficulty increases.
The argument from the SolidCoin camp is that this is due to a continuous increase in the number of legitimate users, as SolidCoin continues on its trajectory to replace Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.
Except that horses and dogs, as he implied, do not have the capacity to communicate their desires to us and thus fall into a different category than human beings. |
|
|
|
Backpedaling, are you? Are you against regulations which would prevent others from keeping slaves on their own property?
Oh, and your earlier comments about animals having no rights is repugnant. Especially in light of how you feel about slavery.
He's not backpedaling. You're just conflating unrelated concepts. For instance, I don't like DRM, I avoid purchasing software which is encumbered by it. I will never encumber my own software with it. I wouldn't, however, advocate violence against those that provide their software encumbered by DRM. Do you see the difference? |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?
FirstAscent casts Deflect It's SUPER effective |
|
|
|
I particularly like the portions about fraudulent sale practices. Implying that these portions are applicable to GLBSE? In what way? In my opinion bitcoin by itself should be suitable for trading under the OTC BB rules in the USA. Whoopty do, some of us don't care. But currently it is impossible to detangle "bitcoin by itself" from the mass of false information about it. False information, such as? It is really hard to separate honest mistakes from intentional fraud. The underlying source code is complex and very little is known about its behaviour under stress. I don't understand what this has to do with GLBSE. Courts and lawyers will have interesting tasks ahead of them.
It's always interesting watching them try to criminalize more and more non violent behavior. |
|
|
|
You've been brewing over this all day with no break through, yet Magik here does the work and figures it out independently and you still fail to see the obvious? And I don't think Magik has been spending hours wrestling with the concept.... heck I discovered the every other block thing that you all are up in arms about in beta through empirical observation... didn't even need the block explorer or the source code to do it.... so what really is your problem?
This answer? 6 * (1.13^69) = 27578.0688 Only one small problem.... Difficulty isn't 27,578 right now. Other than that small glitch your right, it makes perfect sense. In case he refutes that's the answer Magik came up with... edit: difficulty started at 8? or you could think of it as difficulty starting at 6.03 after first retarget?
6 * (1.13^69) = 27578.0688
|
|
|
|
|
Have you considered the possibility that the law is complete and utter bullshit?
Not that they won't try and possibly succeed in enforcing it, but that it is still complete and utter bullshit?
If so, do you think they want to change it? I don't. I see attempting to circumvent it as a valid alternative.
|
|
|
|
Really? What if the client let everyone lock in their own block number/hashes? What would it mean then? |
|
|
|
The sources will be published, just some more patience...
Do you mind if I ask what reason you have to place so much trust in CoinHunter/RealSolid? Satoshi did not ask nor want that any trust be placed in him, the code was open from day one. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I follow, but yes even for TIPS.
Well then could you answer the implied question -- how?! It would be paided back like other debt.... I think the answer is that TIPS are tied to CPI. Given that the government determines CPI, they can simply create more currency, cause an equivalent amount of real monetary inflation (decrease the real purchasing power of existing money), change the way CPI is calculated, and voila! |
|
|
|
But the fact that a violent minority uses force does not mean that the peaceful majority should not use force.
does not mean that the peaceful majority should not use force
peaceful ... force
 |
|
|
|
Your quote from Washington is ironic - he imposed a tax on whiskey and the courts imposed the death sentence on those who led the resistance. How is it ironic? Washington understood the nature of government, he just accepted it and/or was a hypocrite. If you fail to show up, eventually you will have your assets taken and your earnings garnished. It may he cheaper not to steal someone's property but you won't go to jail unless you get violent yourself.
The same could be said for the mafia. As long as you give what they ask, or let them take it without defending yourself, they won't get violent with you. |
|
|
|
Block rate is what it should be for the amount of mining being thrown at the network for the difficulty. Difficulty adjust not broken, working as expected and is slowing the block rate as it should, no more or less broken than any other cryptocurrency. "Devalued" the work the SC1 miners put in.... really? now that's rich since they would have gotten nothing had it not been for the steps coinhunter took to bootstrap the 2 chains together so devalued? I think not, at least not today, but let's reevaluate that FUD in a year when it means more.
 Rofl. Perfect. |
|
|
|
Being aware of a law/contract does not a just law/contract make. See below.
So let me ask you this. This new and creative form of contract seems like it could be taken advantage of. There's the shrink-wrapped version of it, the law-warning version of it, and the copyright-notice version of it.
Given the above "contract" styles, I'm going to try a little experiment. I'm going to rent a billboard, and on that billboard I'm going to write a message, but before the message I'm going to list the copyright notice, and a warning. The billboard will essentially say this, "Anyone reading this billboard without the prior permission of the copyright holder owes the owner $10,000."
Now given that one need only be "aware of", "unwraps" or gives "warning" regarding the message, that contract should be valid. I should be able to legally collect fees.
I think you have no idea what a contract is.
Don't forget, you'll also be morally justified in sending goons to the houses of those who do not pay willingly. And if, in the course of the attempt to collect, the individual is killed, so be it. |
|
|
|
What does source code do ? You realize that almost everything we know about the functioning of Bitcoin comes from the source code, right? If you could understand all I've written why haven't you written it? Why have I discovered many vulnerabilities in Bitcoin over my course of refactoring the source? If you could understand Bitcoin so well, why did you not write it? *facepalm* It proves beyond a doubt that people do not read the source code, or at least, do not understand it, and the Bitcoin code has been out there for a while. In the end if you're not an advanced programmer you'll be relying on experts to "break it down" for you, right? I am a programmer. Maybe not advanced enough to write Bitcoin, but enough to get a general idea of what it's doing. 99% of End users couldn't care less about how SolidCoin or Bitcoin works. They want simple things. Things like fast transactions, secure networking, easy to use developer environments and many even want a small central organization to help protect the more vulnerable members in the community. I spent 3 hours today waiting for 3 confirmations in bitcoin. 3 hours. "Blah blah blah, my target audience is the ignorant, blah blah blah" So whilst I understand some will never be happy unless there is "source" I also understand 99% of people couldn't care less. All this said source will be released when ready.  How can the code not be ready if it's running a production system? That doesn't inspire confidence. |
|
|
|
seems it's exactly what i thought it was.
i just didn't know it hadn't been expanded to anything other than btc/nmc yet. Gotcha. Once merged mining is proven in a general sense, it seems to me that merged mining is a no-brainer for all pool operators and miners. Why wouldn't pool operators offer mining of all block chains simultaneously, and why wouldn't miners want additional revenue? I understand that now selling many chains on the exchange could be a hassle, but tools will be available to relieve that burden if so. |
|
|
|
Seriously, are you that brain dead? It is 5% of SC minted. If you think I'm the type of person to defraud thousands of people whilst I have assets and a family then it shows you don't know me and are making stupid decisions. Coupled with your inability to tell 10% from 5% it completes the puzzle doesn't it? This would all be a lot simpler if you released code, you know. Can you blame us for our ignorance of SC's workings, when the only information we have is that which you have given us? |
|
|
|
Does this really need explaining? The SC2.0 network is currently _growing_, like I said it's outpaced all other chains in growth and we've seen the worst block conditions for any cryptochain to this point. The SC2.0 network has handled it fine.
If a network is growing then block speed at increasing diffs will also grow. It's simple maths. I expect it to hit 50000 -> 100000 diff before we get close to the maximum desired blocktime in 120s, at current speeds. If we see another 1000 people join today then who knows.
So we should just take your word that everything is fine and dandy? Do you have any raw data to back up your claims? Again, how do you know that the growth is benevolent (users), not malevolent (attackers)? |
|
|
|
At ~50 diff, blk generation was ~3s/blk.
At ~100 diff, roughly the same.
Now it's at 1500 diff @ 6s/blk
And this is supposed to be 'normal'?
thisWhy aren't difficulty increases actually making it much more difficult? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
