It's a harsh reality to discover that pretty much everything you thought you knew turns out to be make believe.
The Chairman of the Fed, as well as every member of the board, is appointed by the President of the US. I think you need to take your own advice here ^ As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 4 years. Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views. The chairman and vice-chairman are chosen by the President from among the sitting Governors for four-year terms; these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation.[1] By law, the chairman reports twice a year to Congress on the Federal Reserve's monetary policy objectives. He or she also testifies before Congress on numerous other issues and meets periodically with the Secretary of the Treasury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_of_the_Federal_ReserveThe Fed sucks for a lot of reasons, but you haven't identified them. Start with Quantitative Easing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-kIt doesn't matter how it is supposed to work in theory. If the system is specifically designed to be easily corruptible, it will be corrupted. We should stop electing people, we should vote directly for ideas, not the people. Edit: and yes start with fixing the voting system first. I mean private company controls the whole election process? Really? Edit2: Nice video on QE by the way! But so is every video I watch on the topic, the scale of this whole thing is enormous. |
|
|
|
I did that in that in the second post. Maybe if people took time to read the threads, instead of posting repeated things, we'd have more useful conversation.
Apparently posting it for the second time didn't convince Hawker to watch it  But sure, my bad. I'm not very good at reading... I also created a separate thread for it here, thought it deserved it. |
|
|
|
Videos are a waste of time. If the person has an idea worth taking seriously, they'd have it written down somewhere.
Hawker is a speed-reading British lawyer; if you want him to consider your arguments you have to provide them in written form. The last video I posted here is only 30 minutes, it would actually save a lot of time from reading, arguing and asking questions. Although I agree that these forums are exactly for that, so I'm not going to discourage you from doing any of that. Everyone finds its own way to the truth. |
|
|
|
...
In the US, who is oppressing you?
The entity which has monopoly on money printing not accountable to elected govt. |
|
|
|
|
For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
Nelson Mandela
|
|
|
|
|
Google "Executive order 11110" and make your own mind.
|
|
|
|
I posted this in some other thread but I thought this video deserved its own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloUIt covers the financial system on the planet and how certain things we associate with govt aren't really what we think they are. |
|
|
|
|
It's good for bitcoin to grow slowly this time. The last summer bubble was considered the fall of bitcoin by many after it burst even though it did a good job spreading the news. I think bitcoin prices should get to the next level only if it's sustainable to stay there for a few months.
|
|
|
|
No, a forking of the chain would lead to dilution and confusion and nothing good will come of that.
You never want to hear someone utter "Do you accept my bitcoins? Oh, no, you accept the OTHER bitcoins? Dang..."
I understand what you are saying, but a fork in the Bitcoin chain is already in its future. No matter how much complaining you or anyone else does, it's gonna happen. My suggestion is that we should embrace it and help it, sure the learning curve on an already very difficult system to understand get a little higher, but the users will manage. "Do you accept my bitcoins? Oh, no, you accept the OTHER bitcoins?" and this is a problem because? This is where individuals have the opportunity to influence each other to support the best, most efficient system. Lots of fear with my suggestion; do you really have a problem empowering people to make a different choice? Just to be clear; I also have skin in the game. I mining on the bitcoin chain. I buy a few dollars of bitcoins everyday; yet, I'm not scared one bit! There is a difference in forking the current chain and creating an alt-chain. In the first case you create confusion and it will only work if everybody migrates to the new fork letting the old one die. Alt-chains are different in that they have their own blockchain from the beginning and they usually have its own brand. |
|
|
|
Videos are a waste of time. If the person has an idea worth taking seriously, they'd have it written down somewhere.
Well you did watch the original video about George, so I don't see a problem. Here is another one opening up the truth about how our beloved state actually works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU |
|
|
|
Wouldn't the old chain stop growing? I mean, the large majority of miners and the pools will switch over very quickly. Anyone using the old client should fairly abruptly stop getting confirmations, right? If coordinated, this would be very abrupt.
Yes it looks like the old chain will just stall. It might be a good thing if we want people to upgrade their clients. They will see that something is wrong, go to the official site and boom there is a new client with the message to upgrade. Not this time maybe but in the future, when we really need to fork. |
|
|
|
...snip...
I believe authority-based societies are a thing of the past (or soon will be). It creates this feeling of separation: there are "them" and "us". And as separation grows this division becomes more evident, "they" try to become a master race turning "us" into slaves. This is the end game in every authority-based society no matter how good it starts. Everyone should become their own authority. Why should some people born on the same planet tell other people what to do? F@#k "them"!
In bitcoin society everyone is equal in front of the network. All conflicts of interest should be resolved the same way as conflicts in the blockchain are resolved! Yes by voting with your computer power. End of story.
The "them" and "us" thing does not affect the basis of society. The Occupy crowd all accept that the state is legitimate as do the Tea Party. "them" and "us" is a debate about redistribution. What percentage of people does society have to carry in order to avoid disruption? Things are going to change and change a lot. The current model of society is not an exception. Here is an excellent video, why state and the old ways will become irrelevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=mjmuPqkVwWc |
|
|
|
What actually happens if user sends coins from old client into BIP16/17 multisig address?
Do they just disappear in a black hole? Or does the old client generates error message?
Some people with old clients might not be able to recognize new addresses and send coins by mistake.
This proposal is mutually exclusive of BIP 16/17. If BIP 16 or BIP 17 is accepted, this proposal becomes unnecessary and will not be implemented. Same vice versa. However, if the question is, will old clients be able to send to new multisig addresses, the answer is YES, and the transaction will work correctly. That's because a sender's client doesn't even know he is sending to a multisig address because it is still just a normal bitcoin address. The transaction is identified as multisig much later when those coins are respent. So, old clients can't see incoming transactions from multisig clients, but they can send coins to multisig clients (including their multisig addresses) just fine. No coins are ever "lost" with this proposal. When I say "lost", I simply mean that the old client sees multisig coins as "lost" only because it can't understand how they are being spent, and because it's impossible to respend them in a way that the old client will accept as an incoming transaction. As soon as the user upgrades, the new client understands the new spending rules and they are no longer "lost". I understand that it works fine with BIP22, my concern was that if we go with BIP16 only, what would happen then? Edit: Ok I re-read the answer and now understand that sending coins from an old client should work with any of the BIPs. |
|
|
|
|
What actually happens if user sends coins from old client into BIP16/17 multisig address?
Do they just disappear in a black hole? Or does the old client generates error message?
Some people with old clients might not be able to recognize new addresses and send coins by mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think we should finally get over it. BIP16, so be it.
It's not the end of the world, and I trust Gavin to provide support for his solution if needed.
All other proposals are good candidates to play with on other blockchains.
|
|
|
|
Can we have a review of BIP 22 from all the main devs?
So everyone can give his own opinion.
+1 It seems that old clients will be able to spend their coins in both old way and new way. That's nice, coins should be always spendable! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
