AyeYo: It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression. For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them. But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival. I can't prove that. It is an assertion. The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion. However, then you could argue that only some organisms have a right to a chance at life.
See, you've presented an argument for the claim made. NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead. MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative. Now... I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die. And I guess that it's impossible to fly, since there is a natural law that we call "gravity", huh? See, I can pull your bullshit too. |
|
|
|
I have purchased a relatively small sum of bitcoins some time ago, prior to the founding of MtGox. It was a direct exchange between persons, and did not involve an exchange market acting as a matchmaker. Ok, but that person has to have gotten them somewhere, and it's likely he/she directly or again indirectly falls in one of the three mentioned categories. This is a reasonable assumption in general, and correct in particular. But my real point is that the exchange markets exist because of convience, not necessity. For if they were really necessary, I wouldn't have been able to buy any prior to MtGox, since they were the first. My method of seeking out an early miner to engage in trade with is both inconvient and time consuming, but it's still a viable way to obtain bitcoins sans any established or otherwise accessible exchange market. I would think that, if all of the exchanges we presently have, were knocked off of the Internet tommorrow, then direct exchanges would return until another exchange market were to pop up to fill the void. The demand creates the market. |
|
|
|
And gold is backed up by what? Can you go to a shop and pay with gold?
I've done it with silver, but never gold. But I would hazard the guess that you can actually spend gold in many more places than you would assume would be likely, it's just that, because fiat currencies are the common unit of value measurement, any such exchange is necessarily between two individuals with the authority to bargin, and this pretty much excludes most any chain store you will ever encounter. Engaging the shop owner in a bargining event requires the commitment of time by both you and the shop owner, so doing so for relatively inexpensive items, or many consumer items, tends to consume too much time to be profitable. So don't count on buying groceries with a gold coin, but if you are looking to buy a tailored suit, give it a try. |
|
|
|
Exchanges are a good thing, my point is that they are not critical to the functions of Bitcoin. Not to the fundamental technical function no. But for practical/economic function very much so, at least in the beginning. Without them, there is no influx of capital possible, which is needed to enable the merchants taking part to continue taking part until the economy grows large enough so they don't need this external capital (USD, whatever). Maybe something like Ford starting to pay employees and taking payments in BTC could kickstart a closed loop growth, but this is an extreme balancing act, especially while pricing is volatile. I can agree with this viewpoint. |
|
|
|
None of the three conditions apply to myself, but that is not what I was refering to. You can't possiblely know if I'm an exception. Ok, strictly speaking you are right, I'll rephrase that as "there is a reasonable chance one of these attributes apply to you, but whether or not they do, they will definitely not apply to the majority, who will need exchanges until the economy grows large enough to be sustainable as a closed loop - which I don't think it will for the next decade at least". I would like to know what other attribute applies to you for this not to be true (which would constitute an exception in itself  ), if your anonymity isn't hurt by it. I can't possibly know for sure, but according to the same probabilistic reasoning as above, I will assume you are not Satoshi I have purchased a relatively small sum of bitcoins some time ago, prior to the founding of MtGox. It was a direct exchange between persons, and did not involve an exchange market acting as a matchmaker. EDIT: I guess this would apply, "bought them at an earlier stage where due to a lower price you can have a hoard that does not need an exchange to be replenished", because you didn't actually mention an exchange acting as a matchmaker or middle man. I just assumed that it was implied. |
|
|
|
|
"Is there any currency in the worlk backed by gold?"
Not since the Swiss Franc dropped gold reserves in 2000. They only used a partial (40%) currency reserve anyway, and it wasn't convertible, so it's debatable that even that would have counted.
|
|
|
|
Basically if presented with 2 transactions then miners can randomly choose which to include in a block (if using the same outputs). The only condition is that the tx they include mustn't use the same outputs as a tx already in a block.
So you send out tx A with no fee, and tx B with a fee + lock time.
Two scenarios:
1. tx A gets included in a block before tx B's locktime finishes. By the time tx B becomes active, tx A is already in a block so it gets dropped.
2. tx A never gets into a block. tx B becomes active + gets into a block. tx A is forgotten.
I'm pretty sure that the free transaction that doesn't consider a lock time would render the one with the fee and lock time invalid. The reason for this is because the scripting system is required to use a lock time, and this requires a fee, but it's the use of the lock time that keeps the inputs from being 'commited' by the clients that see the lock time transaction. However, the regular (feeless) transaction would cause the inputs to be 'commited' by the clients, and thus the scripted transaction would become invalid and be dropped before it's lock expired. I could be wrong about this, not sure. |
|
|
|
not sure what else to say
Welcome. Whatever you say, keep saying it. You need 5 posts in the newbie section and four hours of lurking before you get posting privilages beyond this section. |
|
|
|
During apocalypse, what has universal and undeniable value? Food, energy. What is a good storage of value? Spam, batteries.
Kerosene is better than batteries. It keeps longer, has a much higher energy density, and is cheaper on a joule per fiat currency unit basis. If battery power is a concern, get one of these... http://www.techdigest.tv/2011/06/everybody_needs.html |
|
|
|
Which makes you an exception. You can't possiblely know this with any certainty. Do you mean none of the three possibilities I listed apply to you? None of the three conditions apply to myself, but that is not what I was refering to. You can't possiblely know if I'm an exception. You can make such an assumption based on what little of the market you can personally observe, and likely be correct, but you cannot know because of the high degree of anominity. |
|
|
|
The five-post rule doesn't make much sense because people will just write these boring comments. But the 4-hour rule makes more sense so you can prove that you were browsing.
Bots can't make coherent, on topic posts, even in the newbie section. Bots can browse just fine. |
|
|
|
I must admit, you are the best deflector of arguments I have ever seen.
That would be quite a trick, considering I haven't yet seen an on topic argument out of you yet. You are very good at arguing why you shouldn't be expected to present an argument, which is quite a talent I must admit. Much like being a magician, I suppose. Everything you present sounds good, but lacks substance; yet succeeds in delaying the demand for support from yourself, while at the same time wearing down your opposition. That set of three logical fallacies was beautiful, considering that you literally presented the exact three that apply to your own post, and succeeded in implying that I had violated them while not actually presenting an argument for that either! You are either very practiced at this and have no life, or this is your job; I'm not sure which. A cursory look at your posting stats suggests that you have no life, for even if you are doing this at work, even professionals go home eventually. |
|
|
|
Feedback?
A future feature that would allow a person to 'withdraw' a particular public/private keypair from their wallet.dat and use that as cash directly has been discussed. The problem is only when the receiver doesn't trust the sender. Bitbills are based upon this concept. This is also somewhat how an online wallet service such as Mybitcoin.com works, as the funds sent to your receiving address are almost certainly not going to be used by yourself. Thus, an online wallet service adds to the anonimity of the group. The problem with such online wallet services is that, because this kind of service requires a large group to contribute meaningfully to anonimity, the wallet service then becomes a primary target for government leverage to be applied. But what if such a wallet service were to pop up that was, itself, anonymous. Such as on Tor as a hidden service, with no connections to real world individuals. Well, the trust level would necessarily be lower, due to the fact that if someone were to steal the coins, including the site owner, there would be even less recourse for users to pursue the thief than there is with regard to MtGox. Still, I could imagine myself putting small sums into such a service, risk of theft would still be a limiting factor. |
|
|
|
Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.
In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.
The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.
The premises are assumed to be true, in the absence of contrary evidence. I'll even use this logical argument as my evidence. You cannot possible prove that all men are mortal, for that would, in fact, be attempting to prove a negative. Specificly, you would have to be able to show that every man that has ever lived, has actually died, as well as every man that shall yet live, shall die, as well as show that it is not possible for you to have failed to include anyone. We both know that proving the premise "all men are mortal" is, thus, actually impossible. Therefore we assume that it's true in the absence of contrary evidence. I have stated a premise, that I assume to be true in the absence of evidence. I'm asking for any kind of such evidence from yourself, who seems to wish to invalidate the premise on the logic that I cannot prove it. Sorry, doesn't work like that. Watch... Unicorns are real. You cannot disprove it, therefore unicorns must be real. Nice try, but I've seen mortal men, and I have known some who have died. So I have some personal experience that would lend credience to the assumption that all men are mortal. Even if you have seen a real unicorn, your readers have not, so there is no shared experience to base such an assumption upon. I must admit, you are the best troll I have ever seen. Try again. |
|
|
|
Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.
In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.
The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.
The premises are assumed to be true, in the absence of contrary evidence. I'll even use this logical argument as my evidence. You cannot possible prove that all men are mortal, for that would, in fact, be attempting to prove a negative. Specificly, you would have to be able to show that every man that has ever lived, has actually died, as well as every man that shall yet live, shall die, as well as show that it is not possible for you to have failed to include anyone. We both know that proving the premise "all men are mortal" is, thus, actually impossible. Therefore we assume that it's true in the absence of contrary evidence. I have stated a premise, that I assume to be true in the absence of evidence. I'm asking for any kind of such evidence from yourself, who seems to wish to invalidate the premise on the logic that I cannot prove it. And btw, the second premise has no proof, either. Socrates is assumed to have been a man, based on the historical documents that record events surrounding his life, but he could have been a fictional character. In 1000 years, if some future society with a disconnected historical connection to us, were to discover Harry Potter and the rich fan ficition around this character, what eveidence would they have that Harry Potter was a real person? More than we posses about Socrates, very likely, since we assume that Soctates was a living person based upon the varied number of authors who wrote about his life. I'm going to let that last attempt at dodging pass, since it was so well researched (albet flawed). But this really is your last chance present an arguement or admit that you don't have one, and be silent. Any further attempts to avoid the issue will result in me making a project out of you. I pride myself on my fair treatment of others, and favor freedom of speech over censorship; but it is my role here to be the judge of proper forum conduct. Show me that you're not just a troll. Participate as a peer, rather than just assaulting the viewpoints of others without support. Your viewpoint is no more valid without support than ours, but this is our venue. You're the minority here, thus the greater burden remains upon yourself, whether you are actually correct or not. |
|
|
|
It doesn't need to be proved because it is held to be self evident that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Remember?
Except it isn't self-evident and the burdern of proof is on those making the claim for this natural law. Provide a evidence and we'll debate from there. I cannot prove a negative and your claims are not true by default. Then you don't accept the basic premise, then? And choose not to present an argument as to why you don't accept the premise other than to lay the burden of proof upon myself. Well, I can't prove it, that's why I stated it as a premise. It's a given required in the further proof of natural laws of mankind. I'm going to give you one more chance to participate, and show that you are more than just a troll. Present an argument that my basic premise is false. You are not required to prove a negative, only to disprove a positive. It's put up or shut up time, and should you fail again the shut up will be forced. |
|
|
|
. (Remember that the Revolutionary War had only minority support in the beginning, something like 10%.)
It was actually about 3% of the population that actively supported the US revolution, with about 30% of the population as 'fellow travelers', another 30% were loyalists to the crown of England, and the rest really didn't care either way. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-three-percenter.html |
|
|
|
the USD will always be a stable investment because we PAY BACK..
Tell that to the retired in another 10 years, after the social security and medicare system that they were taxed to pay into for their entire working lives is ended because there is no money in the trusts. |
|
|
|
I meant to imply that it was contingent on impossible conditions. And it's not just due process but the entire legal system that is contingent on impossible conditions.
I am interested in knowing where you think things are different, so you can tell me which of these you disagree with, (or the logical step from one to another).
1. Assumption: any person or group can call themselves a 'court' and make decisions. There exist a diversity of courts and a diversity of interpretations of law.
2. There is no way to determine which court will have jurisdiction, as parties will seek courts that agree with their interpretation. If any person can be a court unto themselves, he can refuse the jurisdiction of any court other than himself.
3. The ability to pick and choose courts also means the ability to pick and choose interpretations of words.
4. Law that can be reinterpreted to mean what you want them to mean is the same as no law at all.
5. If we are not subject to lawful force, we will be subject to unlawful force. And this is the difference between having due process and not.
First, let me state that I actually agree with your position that a complete anarchy is impossible for reasons similar to your line of thought above. Which is why I'm a lib and not an anarchist. That said, that above statements have an unstated assumption. Namely that there isn't such a thing as a natural or common body of law. And until you can prove the existence of this natural law, then that will remain a correct assumption. No, it will remain an assumption. Natural law can be demostrated from root premisi, but if you don't accept the core premises that I base it upon, then we cannot ever come together. My root premises is that a man owns himself, and that no other man can lay a claim on his physical person or the fruits of his labors without a prior agreement to that effect from him. If you disagree, then present your reasoning. If you refuse to debate the underlying premesi then you are just a troll and need to drop this altogether. |
|
|
|
I just ninja'd his ass. :-3 And by ninja'd, you mean what exactly? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
