I don't understand how this problem can't be countered with a simple will. Unless you're implying people are stupid enough to have several thousands of dollars worth of wealth not plan to pass it to someone. The problem isn't technical, simply PEBCAK.
A piece of paper with the password to thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars? Sounds like a big risk to take, unless you are 100% trusting of whoever holds the will. Of course, any decent lawyer isn't going to risk his livelihood for anything under 6 figures, but when you get higher up there in net worth (which could happen unexpectedly if we continue to have such extreme rallies on value), the incentive to steal becomes that much greater. And many lawyers are sleezeballs to start with, so I wouldn't put it past one of them to steal from someone's will with a written password... This is a case of someone trying to run a proper business vs a one day lotto profit. You did read the post, right? How are they to access your encrypted wallet?  Or dont you encrypt the wallet?  How can you easily pass them the key without risk? Yes. Everything is within the will. What is to stop the legalities that surround wills to not be applied to a will holding BTC? You enter a contract with a third party to execute your will upon your death. The contract contains all the information necessary for the will to be processed + the value passed upon by that will, that the third party will naturally verify and publicize in the will, a copy of the public information that you and your heir will hold. If the third party screws you over, he is not only facing trial from your heir, but also losing all of his customers. From his stand point, he's better off offering proper business, same as it is done nowadays with any other form of wealth. This is as if you consider BTC residing into some different dimension upon which common practice on wealth nowadays can't be reproduced. I'm kinda startled here. |
|
|
|
Are you saying that stabilizing the price wouldn't increase the number of transactions and/or the percentage of real transactions (i.e the ones not aimed at hoarding and speculation)?
everyone in the world would be hoarding that currency essentially forever only to be sold to another investor/hoarder when they badly need money. This is your stance. Then you relay to the trade history on MtGox to maintain that stance. Yet that same trade history shows that since mid April, pretty much since the price spiked above $2, that MtGox has been experience a 30d volume consistently within 900,000 to 1 Million BTC, and now the price is on its way beyond $15. The 30d expected inflation through mining is anywhere between 200,000 and 300,000 BTC. This means that on a month and half span, about 1.5 millions "old" BTCs have changed hands (without accounting for the freshly mined coins in that period), which is over 1/4th of the total "old" BTC supply. According to your hoarding theory, this is impossible. Now I suggest you reflect on your stance. |
|
|
|
i wasn't expecting or asking for a reply. what he wrote wasn't even slightly responsive, however. the problem here is that people think they're offering new thoughts on grand questions that have been debated to death by countless others who have examined the propositions in much greater detail. read 'anarchy, state, and utopia' and then nozick's own refutation of it, as a start. looking for new political thoughts in this forum is a fool's exercise. Yet the point is that Atlas made this thread about the bad rap Bitcoin is getting, and someone brought in the political sauce to it, side discussion to which you contributed. I understand clearly from your stance that you think yourself far superior in experience and wisdom than the common poster on this forum when it comes to political matters, even though it doesn't surprise me since you fancy yourself as a "connaisseur" and this forum is about technology and economics, both which are not directly related to politics. Under these premises that I think you will agree to, I am trying to understand now the motive for your posts and their content. I frankly do not understand why you are willing to take part in a political discussion on a forum that isn't dedicated to such topic to only state to your detractors that the level in here is too low to deserve any contribution from your part. You are either genuinely attempting to elevate the discussion in here, in which case you can't deter from any arguments based on the premise that it is too low and unrefined for you, or you are being dishonest and reluctant to discuss in the very fashion you are accusing others of. Also, this is a public forum, you might not be asking for replies, but you should certainly expect some. I think to establish a proper level of respect between the speakers, it is required that you either answer to post directed to you or you admit the point over and done. Which is not what you are doing. You are attacking the writer, not the content delivered. I regard this as disrespectful considering the people who answered you took the time read your posts and provide proper and honest answers. If you wish for such grandeur of speech, you ought to show the way. in the end, almost no experienced policymaker or businessperson is an extreme libertarian (or whatever other minor variant of it you want to call your own ideology). you can come up with psychological theories for that ('the rest suckle the teat of the state' is a common one) or dwell on the exceptions (like peter thiel, for whom the first words that come to mind would probably be even too uncivil for this forum), but the beliefs are almost inconsistent with having significant real-world business experience in the end. That's funny. The first thought that crossed my mind is that people nursing such political thoughts would naturally act against governmental expansion, which would in return close them doors in the political world, or they would altogether not seek office. It is but natural to expect people you qualify as idealists to stick to their ideals, isn't it? i know it doesn't satisfy the craving some seventeen-year-olds have for formal logic as applied in the political sphere, but it's hard not to let your interlocutor's absence of any experience enter your thoughts, even if that means you're resting partly on authority. A pure logical argument can subvert the need for common knowledge. I think politics are abstract enough at their core to allow for such arguments to prevail. And I think you should give it a try before dismissing the possibility of your interlocutor grasping the concepts you are trying to convey. I'll say it again, I think Atlas made valid points against your prior arguments, and you haven't answered them. As a detractor of your ideas, I could just as well accuse you to refuse to confront your points with someone that doesn't share your views of politics to begin with. This will only result in a succession of ad hominem stands on both sides until you chose to either attempt to refute Atlas' points or step out of this discussion. I'll view any other action from your part in this thread as proof that you are being dishonest about your intention to engage into a proper argument. dozens of people work for me, and i've created significant wealth for myself and for others. it's hard to debate 'political nihilism based on voluntary contract' with someone who's probably never negotiated or signed a single complicated voluntary contract and has no detailed understanding of contract law.
law is complex and subtle. it's more complex and subtle in the common-law world than in civil-law countries, though even then the difference isn't as stark as some continental commentators would like to suggest. it's fact-based and messy, like all practical reasoning. to boil it down to 'governments have done some bad things, thus there should not be governments' is exactly as juvenile as it sounds, and it deserves a laugh because i've never encountered an ideologue whose mind was changed by logical argument rather than by outgrowing their fringe beliefs. I'm quite startled by this stance. The frame upon which our current political system is built, which you appear to support, has been crafted in antiquity, and it's forefather, Plato and friends, have made quite a point of proving that politics is the affairs of every citizen, disregarding experience and standing. I think a quick re-read of the dialogue "Protagoras" will get you back on track on this one. Certainly laws are complicated to write, for them to be rigorous in such fashion that there is no room for interpretation outside of their original intent, but the rule the law is meant to convey is simple, and debatable by all. Unless you are refuting the very frame of republic and democracy, in which case I wonder who is the most anarchist of us 2. if, on the other hand, you are at least moderately a consequentialist, at least i can point you to empirical studies of happiness and make arguments about the cost-benefit analysis of various policies. very rarely is it clear which group the extremists on this forum fall into, however, and relatively few have even thought about it. I'm open to discussion, but let me make things clear when it comes to me, since I can only speak for myself and only wish to do so: I do not hold happiness to be synonymous of freedom. I also am more concerned about being in control of what it is that will cost me more than it's perceived efficiency. You can't properly discuss politics with an anarchist or a libertarian if you refuse to discuss the argument regarding aggression and the use of force by the government. I can just as well say you are stuck on your principles and deaf to my plea. Unless you're willing to agree on some middle ground for the premise leading to such discussion, nothing will happen. You have to perform a gesture to prove you stand by your own words before you can sermon others with them. have you witnessed any political growth in this forum, ever, on anyone's part? if not, why shouldn't people simply laugh at foolishness? You seem to overestimate the power of argumentation, and I'll wager that your stance is not humble enough for others to listen to you without animosity. If your wish is but to laugh at the content of the discussions in here, a simple "lol" will do. Calling people names on the other hand, will result in retaliation. |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how this problem can't be countered with a simple will. Unless you're implying people are stupid enough to have several thousands of dollars worth of wealth not plan to pass it to someone. The problem isn't technical, simply PEBCAK.
|
|
|
|
If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.
If it is enforced, it is corrupt, because the funds the central authority are effectively a privilege, meaning they have no responsibility to properly distribute it to begin with, since they acquired it through force. Corrupt people seek privileges so that tells you who will be trying to take control over that central entity. Moreover, force as the tool of an authority is nonsensical. Authority means to derive your power from a group that bestowed it upon you voluntarily. The use force to enjoy the benefit of that authority on the very group that bestowed it upon you renders it moot by definition. If it is voluntary, it will fail. In the worst case, only those who have not enough to survive will participate, meaning you won't have enough resources for all the members to begin with. At best, it'll be as functional as a non governmental charity, which can help, but won't be able to fix the problem properly. |
|
|
|
that means the market thinks bitcoin has a substantial chance of failure.
Indeed they could be. You don't mind driving at 100mph on the highway, but however large the road is, if it bordering a cliff with no fence, you wouldn't be speeding quite as much. Uncharted territories sure are scary. This is also a case of common sense. It is proper practice to not invest your rent and grocery money. As I said, from your own theory, you should assume everyone that invested in Bitcoins put as much money in it that they could afford, based upon their expectations of profit vs potential loss. It is madness to expect only profit and no possible loss. But I guess if you feel comfortable with selling your house to buy BTC, you can go ahead, no one will stop you. Lastly, the knowledge about adoption isn't absolute. Exponential adoption is expected, but the time frame remains an unknown element. |
|
|
|
ah, well. ~~~~~, you were right.
Actually I found Atlas' answers to your points pertinent and well argued. If anything he gave you proper reply, so unlike the 17yo answer your were expecting. This calls for proper answer, unless you want to be branded the childish speaker harboring truisms. Awaiting for your enlightenment as of why the current state of affairs should be maintained regardless of its countless documented failures. |
|
|
|
What new information is entering the system to drive price increases? Or is it being driven entirely by irrational exuberance/greater fools type speculation?
It isn't new information, it's new investors that have acquired that information. You should work on the assumption that anyone who is already part of the market invested as much as they feel comfortable to, according to your theory. On the other hand, the Bitcoin market hasn't reached full load yet, nowhere near that actually. Let's say it has achieved less than 1% of its user base as of today. |
|
|
|
Et donc au final combien peut-on se faire de BTC par mois avec par exemple une 5850
Si tu commence maitenant t'aura 10~15 BTC dans 30 jours selon l'evolution de la difficulté. |
|
|
|
I`m having a similar problem with the Total Bounty is decreasing!
Does that have a solution? what happens?
Same here, is everyone experiencing this? |
|
|
|
|
here's a funny one: bubble
|
|
|
|
Come on Nefario, we all know that. You know that.
No, you're just completely blind to the fact that even though the price of Bitcoin is 15 times what it was in early March, we're still seeing lots of days with high volume. Trade history on Gox directly contradicts your wishful thinking. |
|
|
|
Were the recent articles are prisoners mining WOW gold correct? Or were they mining bitcoins?
Considering mining Bitcoins just means sitting out there doing nothing? Or maybe they're nuts enough to have the inmates hash SHA256 by hand xD |
|
|
|
The economic model promoted by Bitcoin is a different issue than the costs of the technical implementation itself. Even if you are right in that changing the economic model will more than make up for the waste of Bitcoin itself, it still leaves open the question of whether a less wasteful 'Bitcoin-like' system is possible. I conjuncture that it is, although as rezin777 points out, creating it does not seems like a trivial task.
This economic model is deeply tied to Bitcoin, since the only guaranty that a currency won't be meddled with by the force controlling it is to decentralize it, and the only acceptable method for decentralization that I can wrap my mind around is 100% distributed, public data, which, by its very nature, requires higher means to secure it than centralized systems. It's like the difference between a population that is forbidden to own and wield weapons and an armed people. Naturally less resources will be spent buying guns and ammo in the former, but you're at the mercy of your government. On the other hand, an armed population can ensure it's own liberty, naturally at a higher cost, but you have to factor in all the wars your government won't get itself involved in thanks to that. I understand that you are not arguing about the need for freedom, rather, the point you are arguing is that there is no need for guns to ensure one's freedom, and that it's just fancy shit that a fist can replace for much cheaper. I'm arguing that your stance is unrealistic. A race for energy is ultimately a race against the environment. We know of no way to generate electricity without impacting the environment, the so called green electricity means for example huge wind-farms made of steel, aluminium, and copper that barely break-even in term of energy and resource costs to build them.
This is the main point of the 'waste' topic, what's being wasted is the limited potential of earth to sustain us. It's misleading to say electricity is negligible in the energy mix. Creating electricity is hard and polluting because of basic thermodynamics, and in no way can you compare the 1KW of burning gas with 1KW of electricity. First, metals can be recycled easily, rotten dinosaur carcasses, not so much. Second, I wasn't thinking about worthless photovoltaic cells that can't even repay their production costs, I was thinking of newer, more efficient methods with low upcost, such as CSP ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power). This is why I was speaking of southern hemisphere countries mainly. And yes, this technology is on its way to become as efficient as fossil fuels. Currency is a medium of exchange, not a store of value. As a medium of exchange, it should have the minimal costs possible, ideally free (while in limited supply). There's no concise evidence that maintaining the value of a currency in the general sense entails energy expenditures. Maybe distributed internet money are different, and then again maybe not. I thought it was beyond the need for discussion that a proper currency has to be a proper store of value to begin with. Unless you're willing to discuss it, of course |
|
|
|
I was under the impression you could send any size transaction with any size fee or no fee, and it would depend on which miner processes the next block whether it would be confirmed in that block or not. (And that if the next miner didn't accept it, it would then have a chance of being confirmed in the next block, and so on.)
That assumption is true. It is up to miners to integrate any transactions they wish to the blocks they're attempting to solve. I think that warning is an implemented (but not enforced) guideline about transaction fees in the standard client. He can still try to submit the tx for free, and chances are one of the miners that integrate tx regardless of fee will take care of it(~99% of the network right now). What this warning shows is how much you'd be expected to "tip" in order to have that tx processed in the late future. Also, the message gets me thinking the guy is using a 0.005 BTC/kb fee client and that his tx is actually 1,180kb wide, which is why the client is bitching about "size limit", which is currenctly capped at 1mb per block. |
|
|
|
Hmm, I may be wrong, but i thought this is how it works:
Each block has 3 sections to it:
1. Encrypted private key used to write the block
2. Unencrypted public key used to read the block
3. Transaction history of this block readable with public key.
Block owner has a private key stored on his system to decrypt section 1 of the block and have access to private key with whichhe can modyfy block.
When ownership of the block is transfered the new owner sends the public half of his private key and old owner encrypts section 1 with that key, hence making new owner the only 1 able to read the private key and furthur modify the block.
This would mean that each block has a static value, say 0.01BTC....
Am I Rite?
/Puts a helmet on and hides under the table.
No. Blocks have 2 parts, the header, that is what is hashed for the proof of work, and the transaction list that the block solver added to it. The transaction themselves hold the address of the sender, the address of the recipient and the sender signing some BTC to that address (in case of standard tx, without going in it in details). |
|
|
|
France is the country with the most nuclear power plants in the world
That would be the United States. Unless you meant per capita  Oh yeah, my bad. France is top per capita, 2nd by count. |
|
|
|
|
If you let people chose which chain they want to mine, they'll all pick one and be done with it.
If you force people to run the 3 chains, this effectively reduces the strength of the block chain by 3 to do essentially what a bunch of digits behind the decimal already do.
|
|
|
|
or could I have 2 wallets, one I use online during mining and when I get coins, transfer them to a wallet that is kept on a HDD not connected to the internet?
Right now this is the proper way to do things: 1 spending wallet, one savings wallet with angrier protection. Keep in mind that an old backup of your wallet will work only if that wallet is exclusively used to receive coins. Old back ups of spending wallets will most likely not give you access to all your coins, so that kind of wallet needs more aggressive offline back up plans. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
