Oui sauf qu'en France la notion de responsabilité est pervertie. On pense qu'elle ne s'étends qu'aux entreprises, pas aux consomateurs, ni à l'état. Se couvrir de produits chinois et se plaidre de ne plus avoir de boulot non qualifié, c'est un sport national.


Je pense que les 3 millions de fonctionnaires font plus de dégats. Au parle de compétitivité mais on oubli de mentionné la porte fermée à la concurence que sont les monopoles d'état et les législations sur les prix. Sans concurence il n'y a pas d'innovation, ni d'incitation.

La banque prend un risque, bien que minime comparait a celui qui empreinte. Le cas c'est presenté durant le crash des subprimes aux USA. Un simple example: Bob empreinte 200k à une banque pour acheter un maison. La banque prends la maison en guise de colateral. Un an plus tard, la crise des subprimes fait ses dégats et le prix de l'immobilier dégringole. La maison ne vaut maintenant plus que 100k. Bob doit toujours une grosse partie du primer (les 200k) et encore beaucoup d'interet. Dans cette situation, il arréte de payer les traites et fait défaut sur son prêt. La banque a maintenant une maison qui vaut 100k au lieu des 200k prêté et presque rien en interet. Dans ce cas la banque à perdu de l'argent et Bob s'en ai finalement bien tirer.

There are a lot of different movements that share the idea that government power is inversely proportional to individual freedom, and they all disagree with each other at a fundamental level. As an example, a libertarian isn't an anarchist. It is true that an anarchist would agree on a lot of points with a libertarian when compared to a socialist, but anarchists and libertarians are still fundamentally opposed in that to first group wants no government whatsoever while the second wants to limit government power.

In that light, the author appears to be lumping several political movements together under the label "libertarian". It is in line with his overall lack of semantic rigor and I think it would be better for everyone to not give credit to this guy's definition of a "libertarian", but rather perceive it as his target scapegoat group around which this essay has been crafted. Essentially, this guy is not offering an honest analysis, rather he was presented with the concept of Bitcoin in association with libertarianism, chose his premise ("this is all evil") and proceeded to link one to the other in somewhat haphazardly fashion. The scary amount of contradictions will attest of that.

I don't think there's much of a need to go after this guy's contradiction to try and prove him wrong. This'll either be a case of preaching to the choir or into deaf ears. What's interesting though, is that in his essay he reveals his fundamental preconception about the economy and human behavior. Here are the 2 most interesting ones:


Leverage implies negotiations. This person sees all trade as negotiation. The counterpart to negotiation is violence. People negotiate because the alternative is violence. Trade is a voluntary act of discussion for the purpose of profit. If both parties can't achieve profit, trade won't occur. If trade doesn't occur, it doesn't give place to violence. Only lack of profit. The question then is, does this person think profit is an act violence? Is this a shared pattern within Marxists? If profit is violence, is lack of profit a desirable alternative then?

There's another side to this. Negotiation can't occur without leverage indeed. If I want your land and you can't defend it, I'm gonna take it, period. Both parties need to have leverage. If trade was negotiation, then Alice and her coffee would never be able to buy a house from Pete, since Pete cannot possibly need enough coffee in his lifetime to be worth a house (using the author's premise: "we trade for what we need"). The implication is that even if you embrace the author's twisted premise you come to the conclusion that you'll need an intermediary item of barter to conclude any significant trade (whatever you can get straight up for coffee will lose significance in the face of what you can't get). Hence, money is needed.

This is a recurring theme I see with a lot of socialist friendly movements and people: "Dependency on money". As if money alone was desirable, disregarding its function in the economy. The idea that people trade for money simply for the money and not the value attached to it is to be oblivious to the organic function money fulfills. People don't have a dependency on money, as some sort of a disease. They simply prefer receiving money instead of another random object. This is where the fundamental discordance appears. This firm conviction that money is an imposed burden instead of a preferred choice. What's amusing about this stand point is that it is contradictory with the Marxist premise, where supposedly people mold reality instead of being molded by it.

Finally, a few quotes that made me go "what?"


This is outright dishonest. If all trade is negotiation as the author purports, then regardless of the nature of the trade and the items traded, violence is always the alternative. Money is evil, that's the author's premise, not his conclusion.


Mutual benefit of all? Now he is bagging Marxist ideology with "Libertarianism". Indeed under Marxist premise, defending your property makes no sense as private property is a big no-no.

La barriere est culturelle à mon avis.

my domain, your freedom

You looking to make this a browser game or a stand alone executable?

For windows,

CreateProcessWithLogonW is your go to WinAPI function to start a process from another one. I haven't read into it thouroughly, but I think you can set it so that the created thread will be terminated if the original thread dies. Granted, I'd have to dig into it.

Would have to then make a small dll with the windows specific code, and integrate all that for the windows environment part.

Today I tried to send btc. Had a hard time remembering the passphrase and that got me into a little bit of trouble

I was using an old version at that point, something like 0.7x, those that would give you the "loading blockchain info" splash screen still. So I start a transaction, put in the address, the amount, click send, confirm and here it asks for my passphrase. Here I wrote a wrong one and it froze armory. I killed it then restarted, tried again, same thing.

I then updated to 0.87 beta. I start it, let it read the block chain, procede to send coins, write in a wrong passphrase and it freezes on me again.

Round 3, start armory, let it load the chain, go to the wallet menu by double clicking on it and attempt the change the passphrase. Write in the wrong one, freeze.

Round 4, start armory, attempt the change passphrase before the block chain is loaded, write in the wrong one, long wait, then tells me the passphrase is wrong. Keep trying to change the passphrase until it finishes loading the chain. At that point I attempt the change the passphrase, expecting a crash, but it doesn't, and I manage to "brute force" through my passphrase and send my btc.

paid my 10 BTC pledge

Let's say you want to attack the Bitcoin network. You have 2 solutions: Waste millions upon millions of dollars to turn a 10 stories high building into a gigantic barbecue, or take control of DeepBit. What do you do?

That's kinda funny. You didn't read enough into the centralized Bitcoin argument and too much into the tire one.

The argument goes like this: Bitcoin is designed around decentralization because it is a needed feature for a proper store of value/currency. As such, security has been built around it while keeping in mind that the users will maintain it decentralized, since their motive for using Bitcoin is that it satisfies the needs of a proper store of value/currency.

You thus have a simple premise: Everyone can contribute data to the block chain. This identifies 2 groups: honest users and attackers. You then need to establish a set of rules that allows you to identify data emitted by honest nodes as valid data, whereas data contributed by attackers is corrupt and should be dismissed. Bitcoin uses proof of work rewarded by coins. Meaning valid work is identified as the most powerful contribution (difficulty and chain length), and it provides more profit than using the same power to cheat the network.

You should understand from this premise that if honest nodes contribute corrupt data, then that data is considered valid. This is the situation DeepBit is creating. The system is built to ward against attackers. If honest nodes partake into a behavior that is corrupt, then there is no difference between honest nodes and attackers, and the system it breached.

This is why DeepBit is a problem, because it concentrates the power of the network into one point, effectively centralizing it. Whoever takes control of that point can inject corrupt data into the block chain at will. Whoever takes that one point down can overpower the network with much less resources than needed otherwise.

No one is claiming for regulations over mining. We are simply warning DeepBit users that for no valid reasons they are centralizing the power of the network, and that harms the security of this network by offering the very tools to attack it to whoever damn pleases. No one here is forbidding you from mining at DeepBit, we are simply telling you that if you don't walk away from that pool, you are artificially creating a great point of failure, all this at the cost of high fees and bad statistics.

Whichever way you look at it, if you purposefully drive yourself into a wall, you can't blame the car.

tl,dr: Bitcoin is built to ward against attackers. If users start behaving like attackers need them to, the security is moot.


Yes, that attack can hurt the block chain beyond repair, and right now there is no need to spend a ton of resources over it, since honest users are willingly creating that situation.

Bitcoin is decentralized by design. If the users chose to centralize the network into a single point of failure, there's nothing the concept can do about it. It's like democracy. Every one is free to vote for whoever they want, but somehow a majority of the voters are misguided and vote for the guy who takes you to war for 10 years over a pissing contest. What you are experiencing here is not design failure, it's PEBKAC.


As usual, easily said from someone who doesn't understand the internal mechanics and weaknesses of a decentralized network relying on public contributors. You're saying tires can't guarantee 100% control of your vehicle on a road, so instead of teaching people how to drive properly, we should work on anti-grav cars.

Yeah I started on the DeepBit too cuz it was the only pool with open registration at the time (late March). Why though? Cuz slush's pool was being hammered so hard for being the better pool (and it still is better than DeepBit). And as soon as slush's pool reopened I moved there.

The double spending issue is much more real than you like to depict it when you add in the DeepBit flock, which won't step of out of the pool, no matter what. You seem to omit the security concepts that Bitcoin employs, i.e. an attack costs more than the benefit it allows you rip. This concept wards the network against "theft". It doesn't ward it against "arson". The proof of work system is there to ensure that those who simply want to harm Bitcoin have to employ large resources, seemingly proportional to the network "wealth", in order to do so. That the network itself provides such huge point of concentration of the very resources required to attack it opens it to anyone willing to take the opportunity. The only thing they need to do is to hack into 1 pool. And don't say that's impossible, it already happened in the past.

This is were I argue that a threat is a possibility by definition. But let's not delve into semantics.


Every pool has stale shares and downtime. The "weird score formula" has a valid reason to it and doesn't change your payout compared to proportional pools. Instant payouts is the only thing DeepBit had going for it. BTCguild offers that service for a 2.5% fee.

The point remains. You don't need omniscience as a miner. There are only 2 things you have to pay attention to when you get involved with mining, 2 things that aren't promoted by DeepBit. So I think the DeepBit fanboys deserve the flames coming their way, as well as all the people who join DeepBit cause "hurr durr biggest pool".

No need to know everything in the universe, just that you are a miner, so that your business with Bitcoin is:

1) Provide security to the network, which you threaten if you're in DeepBit.
2) Make a profit off of it, lol 3% fee.

Since your password has to be passed down upon your death, the fair assumption is that it has to be maintained "accessible" somewhere to be passed upon. What is protecting your password in this situation is the inability to link it to the wallet through whatever process while it successfully unlock the funds if acquired by your heir. I agree with the general proposal that the wallet should be distributed to all the interested parties, and the password delivered upon death, makes things much simpler. Now there is several angles to approach this, anywhere from sending the funds directly to the distributed wallet or simply a password giving access to the encrypted data. But first we need to discuss what kind of service provides enough discretion while maintaining sufficient level of functionality.

I'm sleepy too here, but this need response as well.

I've laid that problem down already. If you can't trust the process of transmitting your wealth to a second party, then you have to trust a third, which you are reluctant to as well. If you think the deposit box is good enough to hold your wealth, since it can be accessed with proper proof of heirloom and your death, then don't encrypt the wallet in it. Somehow the fact that you can encrypt your wallet got you thinking you should keep it encrypted at all times. If proper protection can be provided without the need for encryption, why go all bananas over it?

As for technological solutions, I already provided you with one. And I can come up with more if need be. Running a piece of software upon your prolonged absence is hardly a technological barrier.

Sure it can. With a deflationary currency the supply is fixed so only the demand defines price. Whether people buy $300 worth of BTC to hold on it or to purchase a ps3 from a BTC vendor, it's still $300 worth of value entering the economy.


If BTC turns into a currency, what will be the need to hold inflationary fiat? Anyway you look at it, fiat will lose value, so you're better off using that BTC directly. You're presenting this as if spending BTC only holds disadvantages. Holding fiat is far worse, so logically you'll end up using that BTC, whether you buy into the USD or directly spend it at BTC vendors.

If BTC remains a store of value, then it is the exact same as buying into some gold. Are you saying that's bad for the economy too?


If the MtGox data can't make my point, then gold surely will. Your model is that hoarders will hoards, selling under no circumstances unless force to by an adverse conjecture of events. Gold is the actual hoarder haven, yet it's easy to get into that market. So apparently hoarders aren't hoarding as hard as you wish them to.


Pyramid schemes require fraud, there is none here. The expectation that price will rise and you'll make a profit off of your hoard is reached by your own logic, not someone trying to pawn you some worthless goods pretending you'll get to sell them for 10 times the value. The fact that you think people hoard BTC proves that you expect the rise in value, so there's no fraud here.


Not in this thread. This is off topic. Make a thread about it, present the merits of your system, and I'll offer you my arguments against it in return.

You problem seems to be at en ethical level rather than technological. There is 2 ways to pass something on to a second party as you die. Give it to that party straight up, expecting them to respect your wishes, which you openly advertise against, or use a 3rd party. Your problem is that you refuse to trust both hoping to solve the problem by involving neither. There might be a technological solution to that problem, like let's say email services that offer you the possibility to delay sending of the email unless you log in the account and push that date further. You can use a combination of several of these services to ensure both wallet and relevant passwords + data will eventually be sent to your heir unless you're present to prevent it.

Nevertheless, my point was that there exist services for such purpose already, and everyday people die, passing their wealth safely onto their dear ones. Involving a password isn't cause enough to refute the strength of the existing system. Several banks will require you to fill a pass key on top of having the keys to a deposit box before you get clearance to the box room. And life still goes on nevertheless. I'm not funding my trust in this system because of the local jurisdiction protection of private property, simply because it is a business, and a profitable one at that, which implies customers are getting what they're asking for. I find your distrust of the actual system a little disturbing considering it works fine, but then again you are entitled to your own opinion about what is trustworthy or not. Then again, to call it a "problem" seems far fetched to me.

This example was to show you, with data to support it, that the behavior you're expecting in a deflationary market just isn't happening.


Why exactly do you want more transactions as the unique result from an economic model as opposed to natural market levels. Are you trying to say people won't buy food, lodging, clothes, transportation, energy and god knows what else because they're on a deflationary currency? If your only goal is to increase transaction volume, regardless of actual wealth changing hands, are you arguing the point that transaction fees aren't enough to maintain high difficulty? You didn't seem to argue that way from your previous posts.


Besides that it is unfeasible and no one would use such currency? Nothing. What I don't understand is why you're coming in a thread stating that deflation is a feature of Bitcoin and start arguing against it. If you have something against deflation, I suggest you run your own block chain with your own rules, code is there and all. Also, run your own forums while you're at it.