Ok, here's a strange bit:
When pasting the HTTP request to a telnet on a WINDOWS box, it fails.
When pasting the HTTP request to a telnet on a LINUX box, it passes.
(The code I wrote (that failed) was in C# on windows)
wtf?
some stuff about line endings... \n vs. \r\n |
|
|
|
GET /mtgox/Currency=USD HTTP/1.1
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: Upgrade
Host: websocket.mtgox.com:80
Origin: websocket.mtgox.com:80
Sec-WebSocket-Key: UWaphFPiSqq3f2gOmaD5Sg==
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: Upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Accept: Bzz8qKJPEMNNOgC4hOZd3iZNb5o=
�4{"message":"Now online (no channels)","op":"remark"}
�
|
|
|
|
|
stuff works fine for me when i copypaste
|
|
|
|
Yes, this "we" is standard usage (for scientific papers, not forum posts of course) even if it really is just one person.
Nothing to read into this at all.
Yes I know this is standard paper stuff but still.... also the I in the forum maybe the coder only answering I use I in my forum posts, and WE("vi" in danish) or ONE("man" in danish) in my math papers... |
|
|
|
|
im also writing math paper with WE instead of I.
|
|
|
|
|
lukejr is a crazy and religious person. don't care about him
|
|
|
|
There was an elder forum on bitcoin.org. At least there are references to it in Satoshi's posts.
i think that forum moved, with all its posts and stuff, from bitcoin.org to bitcointalk.org. |
|
|
|
Is murder not an initiation of force?
but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself). The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation. If you are saying it is not enforced from the top down you are correct. It is a general principle. A truth. Nobody has the right to interfere with someone's else's life. Now obviously not everyone in a free society is going to adhere to this which is why security providers will still be in demand by the market. Just there will be competition in geographical areas rather than the coercive, controlling monopolies that we currently have which there is no evidence they have the rights to do what they claim to be able to do. see? you are pushing stuff onto other, which you said that you would not. What am I pushing? |
|
|
|
Is murder not an initiation of force?
but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself). The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation. If you are saying it is not enforced from the top down you are correct. It is a general principle. A truth. Nobody has the right to interfere with someone's else's life. Now obviously not everyone in a free society is going to adhere to this which is why security providers will still be in demand by the market. Just there will be competition in geographical areas rather than the coercive, controlling monopolies that we currently have which there is no evidence they have the rights to do what they claim to be able to do. see? you are pushing stuff onto other, which you said that you would not. |
|
|
|
I agree in theory with libertarianism and NAP. But many things worry me. I find that just like Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism/Voluntarysm, and The Zeitgeist Movement ignore human nature. By being focused on their perceived evils (lack of free market for An-Cap/Vol and money for Zeitgeist), they could repeat the failure of Communism, which was focused on class warfare. Many things look perfect on paper as was Marx's manifesto, but when implemented in real life can have horrible results.
... and this is why i argue that it works pretty good right now, so why not just continue with that evil state? Is murder not an initiation of force?
but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself). The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation. But why is that wrong? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, is the only true justice (except when it is applied collectively). because the options with NAP is: a) allow murder. b) push stuff onto others. Im not that saying a statist society would be murder free, just that it would not be allowed. Im perfectly fine with pushing stuff onto other. |
|
|
|
Is murder not an initiation of force?
but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself). The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation. |
|
|
|
so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)
Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts? of course i would not let him go... i would be angry and try to control his nexts actions by apply pain to him. and i have never said otherwise, it was myrkul who said that he did not want to control others. it was a example to show that NAP believer who does not want to control others are actually pacifists(no matter was the call them selves). you clearly missed the point. If I say to someone, you are not allowed to murder me, how am I controlling them? the NAP says no such thing. |
|
|
|
i still say: come up with a implementation, and i will hack it to dead.
Fine. An initial implementation of consensus based system has been deployed for your hacking pleasure. It is called Ripple. Kindly demonstrate its vulnerability. Upon your demonstration of the problems of consensu- an- ledger based systems, Decrits might possibly be able to learn from your demonstration and adapt Decrits in some way to avoid the weaknesses you demonstrate in Ripple. -MarkM- AFAIK, ripple is not consensus based, it is based on IOU's and trust and reputation. |
|
|
|
so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)
Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts? of course i would not let him go... i would be angry and try to control his nexts actions by apply pain to him. and i have never said otherwise, it was myrkul who said that he did not want to control others. it was a example to show that NAP believer who does not want to control others are actually pacifists(no matter was the call them selves). you clearly missed the point. |
|
|
|
|
so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)
The NAP allows you to try and control people under some circumstances. Give up the NAP and you will win the argument...
|
|
|
|
You know, I think it's kinda funny how I get along better with the actual libertarian socialist than I do either of you. i have never claimed to be a libertarian of any sort(and even i have it was a part of a argument). |
|
|
|
So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others.
I have no interest in controlling others, save preventing them from controlling me. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It doesn't even mean no leaders. It means no Rulers. In a N.A.P. respecting anarchy, groups of people could agree to share their property, and set aside the idea of ownership amongst themselves (though historically that has typically failed miserably), they just couldn't make others "share" against their will. AAAAAAND he flipped back... Have I ever said that I wanted to control others? That would be required for me to "flip," would it not? well you have agreed that its human nature to be violent sometimes... and i guess you are human... and i will also go as far as to say that this violence will in some way be used to enforce control of some sort over someone. so yes, you want to control others. |
|
|
|
So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others.
I have no interest in controlling others, save preventing them from controlling me. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It doesn't even mean no leaders. It means no Rulers. In a N.A.P. respecting anarchy, groups of people could agree to share their property, and set aside the idea of ownership amongst themselves (though historically that has typically failed miserably), they just couldn't make others "share" against their will. AAAAAAND he flipped back... |
|
|
|
proof-of-stake based systems are possible, and there are other risks with them then there are with proof-of-work based ones. The proof of consensus that I've described is absolutely nothing like "proof of stake". well then you system surely will fail. Nope, you have done that all by yourself. You answer most questions with a wall of text, and your proof-of-stake system is huge and complex.
I can't answer the questions in terms of bitcoin. Do you want to actually learn something or just assume that I don't know what I'm talking about and chomp at the bit as you have done every time I've made a short answer? I can't win. Short answer: I'm stupid. Long answer: I'm a wind bag and something like cryptocurrency over the internet can't possibly be possible. Whoops.Proof of consensus may sound huge and complex, but only in the concept of a bitcoin blockchain. With a ledger, many advanced features that are totally unavailable to bitcoin are possible. You choose not to grasp that for whatever reason. i still say: come up with a implementation, and i will hack it to dead. |
|
|
|
Congratulations. You're finally starting to 'get' that: diverse moral and belief systems + complete absence of any control structure = Anarchy.  So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others. don't push him too hard, dude. he will just flip right back into the denial stage again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
