When you talk with a friend in the street, people around could be listening to your conversation. So it's a public place. I think, that the public IRC channel and the real street are quite different things. Even in the SL world streets look more like real, there is communication distance. On IRC you always know a number of persons who can see your public messages. People should behave accordingly and responsibly!.. Or just use private messages. It's not a matter of good behavior, it's a matter of having a place where you can talk without thinking all the time of what would happen if my boss reads what I am writting. There are a lot of people that I don't want them to know what I like, what I do on casual time, what are my political beliefs, and so on. I'm not exhibitionnist and therefore I don't want everyone to know everything about me, or even about my pseudonym : I'd like my pseudo to carry some reputation on cyberspace so even for my electronic identity, I want it to have some place where it can be used relatively anonymously. [/quote] |
|
|
|
In addition to the kriptomonunuo problem, there's another problem that the righthand side menu for all languages is English no matter which language is selected!
Maybe you should pm sirius-m directly. But please first make sure that the translation is correct now, because I guess he won't be happy if we disturb him twice for a translation, especially with this language ! |
|
|
|
I hope that doesn't mean he found a vulnerability in the system. Why would it mean a vulnerability? There are lots of reasons to sell BTC (and anyway we don't know that these are Satoshi's sales). One reason to sell BTC would be to bring in some money to help pay the electricity bill. Another reason to sell BTC would be to get more of the bitcoins "out there" for other people to be doing interesting stuff with. Or even just to help the fledgeling exchange to get started. indeed, makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
If the early adopters have a lot of bitcoins, I don't see anything wrong with it.
|
|
|
|
An imaginary conversation on an IRC channel : <Alice>Yeah... I had fun last night. <Bob>So you went to the party, finally ? Have you seen your old friend John ? <Alice>Yeah, omg. I drunk too much and when I saw him, I couldn't resist and we did bad things. <Bob>Don't tell anything more, Alice. You know, this chan is archived ! <Alice>Really ? Oh, sh..it ! |
|
|
|
I agree to be archived. And I think that everyone should be archived. It is public place!
When you talk with a friend in the street, people around could be listening to your conversation. So it's a public place. And yet, would you agree if governments woud decide to put mics everywhere in the street, so that all "public" conversations would be recorded and archived ?? |
|
|
|
Groovy, so I sent Satoshi's email address to the banker ... hopefully Satoshi will enlighten us if anything develops. I'm pretty darned curious as to what the heck a banker would want with Bitcoin ...
Unless he wants to buy Satoshi's bitcoins, I'd say he just didn't understand how bitcoins works and wanted some explanations. |
|
|
|
Esperanto? WOW! LOL!  Pretty cool, hum ? :-) But I'll feel much better when someone edit the current page and change the horrible word 'Kriptomonunuo' to 'Cxifromono'. |
|
|
|
|
Why does he want to talk to Satoshi ??
Didn't he understand that this is a decentralized system, and that no one rules it ?
What an arrogant attitude to think that, because he is a banker, he should talk directly to the initiator of the project !
|
|
|
|
bitcoin2cash, I would like to buy 50,000 bitcoins at $0.04 each, but I can not agree to your terms. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you may be legit, but I will not give you the benefit of my money. If satoshi posted he wants to sell 50,000 coins at 0.04/each, I'd probably ship him cash and wait for coins. (Although, this would open a whole new can of worms  ) Good luck with your business. First of all, I wouldn't allow you to send me that much cash in one transaction. I would insist that we trade in smaller denominations. Why aren't you willing to make smaller trades at first and go up from there once we have established a relationship? If I sent you $1.00 and you sent me 25 coins, would you then believe that I am trustworthy and start sending coins first, before I send cash payment? I don't think your business model will allow this. In this kind of transaction, the one who makes the "first step" is obviously the one who has the slowest reputation. bitcoin2cash has a better reputation since is has a website, even trivial. So if I'm not happy it would be easy for me to just say "bitcoin2cash is a scam". Now, if I was Satoshi, I would easily convince bitcoin2cash to send bitcoins first. Because my reputation would be superior to bitcoin2cash's reputation. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the French and Esperanto translations! I see on this thread that some people made a french translation. Still, I don't see it on the main page.
I don't see a previous French translation of the main page. It is now. However, I made a few mistake. Here is a slighlty modified version. Also, the esperanto version is incorrect. Please use this one instead. |
|
|
|
i clicked a link from the bot to 'tell us what you think about [the loggging]' i was expecting a poll, but i dont see one, so:
i'm very, very, much against it, and am totally amazed anyone would be logging such a thing to the web for countless obvious reasons i'm not going to state for the same reasons
I seem to miss the point. Please tell us these reasons to either convince us to change our minds or create a public debate as to why they are relevant :-) To put it simply : if you log IRC, you're working for Big Brother. |
|
|
|
It is reasonable to assume that the few users who still do generate coins, do it at almost zero marginal cost, utilising resources that would have gone to waste anyhow. So it is not as ineffecient as it seems.
It is probably much more efficient to not have a anti-counterfeiting organization, or all the security guards to defend the gold vault, etc. +1 |
|
|
|
Please contact me by email and let me know how much you are sending so I can reserve the appropriate number of bitcoins for you.
done :-) |
|
|
|
Would you accept euros ? No, I accept USD only. You can convert your currency to USD at most banks or airports. I'll do that, since your fares seem better than bitcoin4cash. |
|
|
|
Would you accept euros ? What would be your ask for that ?. How many bitcoins would you give for one euro ? |
|
|
|
:O Grondilu, you are correct. I didn't know that kripto meant that. I thought it was a synonym for ifro! Anyway, that's fixed now. Are there any other errors? http://ompldr.org/vNW83OQ/index.htmlBy the way, the English word for 'traduction' is 'translation'. Cxifromono seems much better, I think. I'm not a very experienced esperantist, so I'm not much confident about my skills to judge your translation. I suggest you post your work on soc.culture.esperanto or something. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the welcome. Why did you loose interest? I think that the bitcoin system has some awkward aspects, in a word. The idea of generating (and verifying) coins through lengthy but otherwise meaningless computation is not very inspiring and introduces an inefficiency that is a barrier to widespread adoption, if it is not absolutely necessary. Then there is the problem of sustainability as the computational requirements appear to grow indefinitely over time. Finally, a finite number of coins can be hoarded and/or lost over time. I use bitcoin because I'm very interested in a 'deal facilitator'/commodity/whatchacallit that is not centrally controlled, thus not regulated by a single entity. I'm a big supporter of decentralization also. Therefore, a distributed peer network seems essential. However, I think it's reasonable centralize the creation of coins, perhaps on a temporary basis only. Once created, they then would then be managed by the network. As they exist, bitcoins have a single point of origin to some degree anyway. For example, one person decided the total number that could be created. One suggestion I have is to generate coins as "rewards" for charitable donations. One or more suitable non-profit entities would be designated (perhaps by popular vote), and if an agreement can be made with the entities to reward donors with coins, then every coin would be created by a meaningful act of generosity. I know I would feel good using such coins knowing of their origin. People give money to non-profits/charities anyway, so they would find themselves with a supply of coins to use and many would find ways to use them. A coin could be identified by a unique ID, and digitally signed by the non-profit as authentic and as belonging to a certain donor as identified by their public key. When the donor wanted to use the coin, he would digitally sign the coin over to a new owner with his private key. A chain of anonymous ownership would be created connecting the coin to a trusted source, which provides a public counter of the last coin ID issued. This chain would not be very difficult to verify, compared to bitcoins. Jez... With all due respect man, When I read you I see the intrusion of a bureaucratic-state supporter. Do you work for a central bank of something :-)  I'm a huge defender of currency competition, so honnestly, if you think an other version of bitcoins worth creating, feel free to create it. But be aware that I will probably stick to bitcoins. And I probably won't be the only one. It would be the role of the network to dynamically store all existing coins, and to prevent counterfeiting (if possible with this approach -- that is the question). I think the computational overhead would be much less than with bitcoin.
It is an open question whether to limit the number of coins produced. I like the idea of switching to a completely decentralized network once coins are no longer generated, but then there would be the possibility of hording (aggravated by expected attrition of coins) and the coin records would grow indefinitely. So, I lean toward ongoing production of coins, perhaps with demurrage; perhaps competing series of coins generated by different designated charities. I expect that there will always be (and should be) competing currencies anyway. I like the idea of currency as a flow rather than as a scarce resource, and a system with steady production and retirement of coins fits the former concept best.
Well, I very much prefer a limited-amount currency. Sure, one can imagine a annualy-fixed production of money (such as 2%, for instance, as targeted by modern central banks). But I beleive such e-currency would be about as much crappy as other current national fiat currencies. The possibility of a corner, imo, is a necessary evil. You might regret it, but imo it is this very possibility that gives the money its value, as rich investors will always try to corner it, and by doing so will sustain liquidity and value. It"s funny I have this discussion the very same day gold reaches a new all-time high, at 1,300$. |
|
|
|
i clicked a link from the bot to 'tell us what you think about [the loggging]' i was expecting a poll, but i dont see one, so:
i'm very, very, much against it, and am totally amazed anyone would be logging such a thing to the web for countless obvious reasons i'm not going to state for the same reasons
Well, I think I understand what you mean, and I didn't thought about that first. But you're right, for some reason that we can't really say here, making logs is a very bad idea. |
|
|
|
http://ompldr.org/vNW56aw/index.html The main page in Esperanto. (I will eventually also translate the wiki and the FAQ). Please do this quickly as I suspect I may be able to get some small online Esperanto shops interested in the project, and maybe even a moderately large shop. Saluton, kaja ! Your traduction doesn't seems very good. For instance, we can't use 'kriptmonunuo' since the word 'kripto' doesn't mean 'to cypher' at all. The correct esperantist world is 'Cxifri', I think. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
