The problem with nuclear energy (besides the scale issues, of which I agree with Jaime Frontero on) is that we have to figure out a secure way to store the waste that is beyond any time scale we can reasonably envision. Because of this, we essentially are creating incredibly toxic management problems for societies that we have no idea of. I believe it is an unfair burden for future generations to have to deal with, when we do not know what their capacity to deal with it will be, just so we can have more energy now.
Thorium is wasteless. It uses Uranium as a catalyst. That's not quite true. Thorium does have some hazardous waste products, but none that are nearly as long lived or as hazardous as plutonium itself. |
|
|
|
The problem with nuclear energy (besides the scale issues, of which I agree with Jaime Frontero on) is that we have to figure out a secure way to store the waste that is beyond any time scale we can reasonably envision.
Waste storage is a red herring. These issues have been solved, but the US doesn't do these kinds of things, and instead chooses the path of long term storage, because this waste is still reactor fuel in it's own right and the US has no economicly viable uranium mines of it's own, and presently depends upon favorable political relations with Canada and Austrailia to supply both the military and civil needs of the United States. The long term storage facility concept thus becomes a reserve that could be drawn upon should either of those supply source become cut off indefinately. |
|
|
|
Sorry for all the questions, but you seem to the best first person that might actually give me answers instead of dodging them.
That is provablely not the case, and he will grow weary of your crap soon enough. |
|
|
|
It proves that your contrived scenario is invalid. Likewise, just because you feel you need a credit card to survive in the modern world, doesn't invalidate the concept that in a libertarian society you would not.
Prove it. I can't prove a negative any more than you can, despite your repeated attempts to do exactly that. All of your arguments are rooted in your belief system. While that may be true with us as well, at least we can make a credible appeal towards logical premises. I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I told you a prove your statement that credit cards wouldn't be necessary in Liberland. Proving a negative would you asking me to prove... "why not?" Which is what you've done repeatedly. You made a statement, I'm asking for proof that the statement is true. Which I have already done, and you ignored it. It's possible to live, and even use credit, without maintaining a credit card right now. I, therefore, conclude that it would still be possible to do so in an imagined free market society. The burden of proof, if there actually could be any, rests upon yourself to show that I'm wrong on that assumption. It doesn't have to exist now, it just has to be possible. I just pointed out that there already exist private party/ free market solutions to the problems presented that do exist already, even if they don't exist where you live.
If it doesn't exist where I live then it's of no use to me, kind of like the fact that water exists while people die of dehydration in the desert.
Still, you avoid the actual point being made. The argument over transportation is fluff.
So it has to be true for you to be true anywhere? Wow, that's a novel argument! If I don't have access to what you're claiming is a valid alternative, then possession of a valid alternative doesn't apply to me. Although this true enough taken alone, it's not relevent to the argument because I have already shown that it's possible, by presenting an existing solution. Are you twelve? I don't require your respect. You've already lost the respect that I grant others due to lack of knowledge of their faults. I shouldn't need to defend anything, whether I'm poor at it or not. Libertarianism is not on trial here. This is our house. Wrong. You're the one that believes in an ideaology that has no real-world examples of actual use. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it's everything you claim it is. I'm not making anY claims, I'm just shooting holes in your claims. You believe you are doing such a thing, but really you are just upsetting your hosts and making a general ass out of yourself. BTW, there are actually real examples of societies that were very libertarian in their own times. The Swiss cantons from ~1270 till at least the 1600's is a fince example of this. Yes, the Swiss were a stable society because of their social constraints and homogenous racial makeup, but their actual national government was almost non-existent for hundreds of years. Of course I'm upsetting the hosts. The hosts are libertarians and they're getting called out to support and defend their belief systems. It's much easier to believe in something you're never challenged on or forced to prove. This forum doesn't exist to support the ideologies of the hosts, or anyone else. It exists to support Bitcoin and educate those who wish to be educated in this subject. The fact that one ideology predominates, for which you disagree with, is not material. So you are calling out your hosts to defend something that they shouldn't have to defend in this forum. Thus 'calling out' in this context is trolling by definition. Granted, so was the original post that started all this, and I'm ashamed that I was sucked into this at all. |
|
|
|
It proves that your contrived scenario is invalid. Likewise, just because you feel you need a credit card to survive in the modern world, doesn't invalidate the concept that in a libertarian society you would not.
Prove it. I can't prove a negative any more than you can, despite your repeated attempts to do exactly that. All of your arguments are rooted in your belief system. While that may be true with us as well, at least we can make a credible appeal towards logical premises. It doesn't have to exist now, it just has to be possible. I just pointed out that there already exist private party/ free market solutions to the problems presented that do exist already, even if they don't exist where you live.
If it doesn't exist where I live then it's of no use to me, kind of like the fact that water exists while people die of dehydration in the desert. Still, you avoid the actual point being made. The argument over transportation is fluff. So it has to be true for you to be true anywhere? Wow, that's a novel argument! I don't require your respect. You've already lost the respect that I grant others due to lack of knowledge of their faults. I shouldn't need to defend anything, whether I'm poor at it or not. Libertarianism is not on trial here. This is our house. Wrong. You're the one that believes in an ideaology that has no real-world examples of actual use. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it's everything you claim it is. I'm not making anY claims, I'm just shooting holes in your claims. You believe you are doing such a thing, but really you are just upsetting your hosts and making a general ass out of yourself. BTW, there are actually real examples of societies that were very libertarian in their own times. The Swiss cantons from ~1270 till at least the 1600's is a fince example of this. Yes, the Swiss were a stable society because of their social constraints and homogenous racial makeup, but their actual national government was almost non-existent for hundreds of years. |
|
|
|
I think I just managed to lose a large number of BTC. Here's what happened: 1. I had a wallet with all my BTC. I quit Bitcoin (version 0.3.21) and renamed the entire Bitcoin directory Bitcoin-checking. 2. I re-opened Bitcoin, which created a new Bitcoin directory and downloaded all the blocks again. 3. I copied the address shown, quit Bitcoin, renamed this directory Bitcoin-savings, encrypted it as Bitcoin-savings-encrypted, and saved it in multiple remote locations. 4. I renamed Bitcoin-checking to Bitcoin, then restarted the Bitcoin application. 5. I sent 0.02 BTC to the address from step 3. 6. I quit Bitcoin and renamed the Bitcoin directory to Bitcoin-checking. 7. I unencrypted a copy of Bitcoin-savings-encrypted, renamed the directory to Bitcoin, and restarted the Bitcoin application. 8. My 0.02 BTC showed up in this savings wallet. 9. I copied another address, quit Bitcoin again, renamed the directory as Bitcoin-savings, swapped in Bitcoin-checking and sent lots of BTC to this new savings address. 10. I never updated the Bitcoin-savings-encrypted file after step 3, because I thought the wallet automatically contained 100 pre-generated addresses to start. 11. I securely deleted my unencrypted Bitcoin-savings directory with multiple passes. 12. Later I unencrypted a copy of the Bitcoin-savings-encrypted directory, renamed it Bitcoin, opened the Bitcoin app, and only my original 0.02 BTC are shown even after all the new blocks are downloaded. So it looks like I lost all the BTC I transferred to my savings wallet! I downloaded bitcointools from here: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointoolsand viewed the contents of my savings wallet.dat from Bitcoin-savings-encrypted with this command: python dbdump.py --wallet The output only shows a single PubKey and PrivKey pair (where I sent 0.02 BTC). It also shows two lines that say "Unknown key type: bestblock". I was under the impression that wallets automatically have 100 pre-generated keys as soon as the wallet is created as mentioned here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_walletSo why did my savings wallet that I encrypted in step 3 only have a single address? I clearly completely screwed up by not updating Bitcoin-savings-encrypted after the large transfers, but I thought I only needed to do that after 100 keys had been used for 100 transactions. What went wrong? When does the Bitcoin application actually create those 100 queued keys? Does it only created the pool of pre-generated keys after the first address is actually used? - Very Sad Puppy Something else here happended. You don't need more than one address if all you are doing is sending more money to that address. You only need more than one to send money. Did you try to send any money? |
|
|
|
If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work. You're moving goalposts. We were arguing about whether or not you are physically forced to do anything other than keep your hands off of other people and their property. Now you want to argue about whether or not the system works. That's an entirely different argument. Stick to one at a time please. Wrong. The argument is about the inconsistent, contradictory, and hypocritcal nature of libertarianism. In typical fashion, you're attempting to narrow the bounds of the argument to one of your preset talking points - not going to happen. lol @ asking the probabilities Methinks you're a bit over your head. Project much? |
|
|
|
No, I didn't. Troll. I pointed out that there are people who have the skills to manufacture the computer componets for you in your locale. You just can't afford their services. Mass production by semi-skilled labor always wins on economies of scale.
You failed to address the argument. Here's the argument not obscured by an example: there is not true choice when all the choices are the same - ironically similar to the current American political system. There is nothing in your free market fantasy land that corrects this or prevents it, in fact, without regulation it is encouraged. That wasn't the argument, but I'll address this one. By definition, government imposed regulation limits consumer choice. It is their primary tool. In the absence of regulation, therefore, consumer choice would be greater. There is nothing that promises that those other choices are actually better, this much is true. But on average, history shows us that the kind of innovations that drive technology and culture forward (thus society as a whole) are the very kind of innovations that regulators cannot forsee (how could they? otherwise they would have been the innovators) and whose limiting powers tend to restrict choices and delay progress. I will concede that there is nothing in libertarian thought (I'm not an anarchist) that actually prohibits such a worst case scenario, but there are natural regulatory forces in a free market that you are wont to acknowledge. I don't have a credit card, and have never had an issue getting any kind of installment loan. Revolving credit is not comparable to an installment loan with collateral. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. "I know a guy who" fallacy. Your personal experience doesn't change reality. Credits card are an important part of modern life. I know a guy who lives with a car, tv, computer, and SSN, but that doesn't mean it's the norm or a good way to live. It proves that your contrived scenario is invalid. Likewise, just because you feel you need a credit card to survive in the modern world, doesn't invalidate the concept that in a libertarian society you would not. Three times, no I didn't, troll! If the service doesn't exist (yet) in your area, that is not evidence that it couldn't be if the need were to exist in the future. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't exist now, thus my point still applies and you have still not addressed the argument. It doesn't have to exist now, it just has to be possible. I just pointed out that there already exist private party/ free market solutions to the problems presented that do exist already, even if they don't exist where you live.
Yet another cop out. I'd respect you and your position more if you just admitted the inconsistency of your position or, at the very least, your inability to properly defend it.
I don't require your respect. You've already lost the respect that I grant others due to lack of knowledge of their faults. I shouldn't need to defend anything, whether I'm poor at it or not. Libertarianism is not on trial here. This is our house. You are a guest, who is quickly wearing out his welcome. From what I can see, you are very poor at presenting valid and rational arguments to support your own position, relying heavily on repeation of falsehoods, a lack (or feight of) ability to understand the positions and arguments presented to you by your opposition, and attacks upon the writing skills of your opposition. |
|
|
|
Honestly, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination. #1 Seriously? Have you ever heard of a hackerspace? Adafruit? Just because it's cheaper for Chinese factories (not slave labor) to make them and ship them around the world, does not mean that you couldn't find someone locally with the skill set to do this. You just probably couldn't afford it. OMG, the solution was right in front of me the whole time! There is a third option! Manufacture my own computer components, find/drill/refine my own oil, create my own investments!!! OMG that's a totally realistic solution! You failed to address the argument. No, I didn't. Troll. I pointed out that there are people who have the skills to manufacture the computer componets for you in your locale. You just can't afford their services. Mass production by semi-skilled labor always wins on economies of scale. #2 Look around the forum you are on. What do you think is happening here? Personally I haven't used a credit card in a decade. They aren't necessary. Enjoy trying to get a car or home loan without a credit history via a card.  I don't have a credit card, and have never had an issue getting any kind of installment loan. Revolving credit is not comparable to an installment loan with collateral. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. Again you sidestep and fail to address the argument.
No, I didn't. Troll. #3 What says that your vehicle must run on gasoline? What says that you even need your own vehicle? What about flinc.mobi, zipcar.com, relayrides.com or the many other private transit solutions popping up?
OMG YES! I'll pay a service that's non-existent in my area to drive me around everywhere I go at very high cost!! Three strikes, and you haven't addressed the argument. Try again. Three times, no I didn't, troll! If the service doesn't exist (yet) in your area, that is not evidence that it couldn't be if the need were to exist in the future. How about that second section? Where's your response to that?
The top was so much crap, I didn't bother to continue. |
|
|
|
Real world example #1:
A computer has become a necessity these days in this country. However, all computer hardware is made by companies that exploit third-world wage slavery labor. I have a choice between supporting these companies doing things I don't agree with or going without a very important piece of equipment that will have a large impact on my ability to communicate efficiently, get a job, etc. There is no substitute for computers.
Real world example #2:
Credit cards are another modern necessity. However, the banks and financial institutions offering them are crooked, corrupt, and the same places that caused the recent financial collapse. Once again I'm forced to support bad thing or simply go without. There is no substitute for a credit card.
Real world example #3:
Cars are a modern necessity, especially to those that live in areas with poor public transportation and/or spread out populations. Cars run on gas. Liberland theory say that if Company A and Company B charge too much for gas, I can buy at the cheaper Company C. In the real world, there are so few gas companies that ALL of them charge outrageous prices. I'm forced to either buy the overpriced gas or go without a car/motorcycle/scooter. Once again, that is not a true choice, that's an ultimatum.
Honestly, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination. #1 Seriously? Have you ever heard of a hackerspace? Adafruit? Just because it's cheaper for Chinese factories (not slave labor) to make them and ship them around the world, does not mean that you couldn't find someone locally with the skill set to do this. You just probably couldn't afford it. #2 Look around the forum you are on. What do you think is happening here? Personally I haven't used a credit card in a decade. They aren't necessary. #3 What says that your vehicle must run on gasoline? What says that you even need your own vehicle? What about flinc.mobi, zipcar.com, relayrides.com or the many other private transit solutions popping up? |
|
|
|
I think we will find that a major, if not the predominate use of BTC, will be as a store of value. You know, the _other_ function of money. Using BTC for ordinary and "legal" trade has a blizzard of intractable problems with no obvious (to me) benefit. How is BTC better than Paypal if you plan to obey the "law" ?
1) Bitcoin transfers are cheaper. 2) Bitcoin gift transfers do not require that both parties are registered with the same website. 3) Bitcoin does not discriminate against users who live an certain countries. 4) It's impossible to violate the terms of service or policies of Bitcoin. 5) If you are from certain countries, using Bitcoin doesn't contribute to the tax base of your perceived (true or not) oppressor or occupier nation. 6) Bitcoin transactions between two people can occur off of the Internet altogether, as there is no server necessary to actually perform the transaction. 7) If you are the vendor, Bitcoin won't take back your sales revenue because someone says their account was hacked or because they claimed that you defrauded them; nor can Bitcoin reverse any transactions for any reason without your consent.  Bitcoin won't submit tax reporting on you if you exceed $600 in sales in a single year. But you're right, there is no obvious benefit to using Bitcoin over Paypal for legitimate transactions, to you. I agree with all the above... but Bitcoins would be so much better if I didn't lose 1/5 of them at Mtgox. All that I can say about that is take a hint from your great-grandmother and learn a bit more distrust of banking institutions. I had a trade account at MtGox as well, but I have less than 5% of my bitcoins holdings even exposed to the Internet in total. MtGox had less than 2%. Yes, it sucks. But never risk what you can't afford to lose, and there is no logical reason to keep a vast sum of coins at MtGox, or any other exchange, unless you intended to risk them in speculative plays. And Paypal can be hacked as well. |
|
|
|
I think we will find that a major, if not the predominate use of BTC, will be as a store of value. You know, the _other_ function of money. Using BTC for ordinary and "legal" trade has a blizzard of intractable problems with no obvious (to me) benefit. How is BTC better than Paypal if you plan to obey the "law" ?
1) Bitcoin transfers are cheaper. 2) Bitcoin gift transfers do not require that both parties are registered with the same website. 3) Bitcoin does not discriminate against users who live an certain countries. 4) It's impossible to violate the terms of service or policies of Bitcoin. 5) If you are from certain countries, using Bitcoin doesn't contribute to the tax base of your perceived (true or not) oppressor or occupier nation. 6) Bitcoin transactions between two people can occur off of the Internet altogether, as there is no server necessary to actually perform the transaction. 7) If you are the vendor, Bitcoin won't take back your sales revenue because someone says their account was hacked or because they claimed that you defrauded them; nor can Bitcoin reverse any transactions for any reason without your consent. Bitcoin won't submit tax reporting on you if you exceed $600 in sales in a single year. But you're right, there is no obvious benefit to using Bitcoin over Paypal for legitimate transactions, to you. |
|
|
|
At block 210,000 the reward is reduced to 25BTC/block.
if I'm not mistaken, that's factored into my numbers. that's at the end of 2013, right? No, January of 2013. |
|
|
|
Im just wondering if the pro bitcoiners think that when mt gox opens back up a huge amont of people will sale their bitcoins?
How stable do you think this is?
Stability is a red herring. Which way it goes, nobody really knows. You place your bets and you take your chances. |
|
|
|
today my friends mom sent me an article about bitcoin. shits for real now.
damn, that is always my sell signal! but i really *like* holding btc. what do? Sell half. |
|
|
|
Absolutely! I've put together a free resource to help the onslaught of newbies as well: http://www.BitcoinTraining.comI've simply tried to organize things a little better since I was a newbie myself recently and found it maddening to navigate the numerous resources that are available. If you have any feedback or suggestions please let me know. And before I get flamed, yes, I stand to make a little coin if anyone cares to list their business on the shopping page. Gotta keep the lights on! Thanks, Trader Steve Well done, indeed. |
|
|
|
|
You are in pioneer territory. There will be no guide until the pioneers have made one.
|
|
|
|
http://twit.tv/sn306Security Now covers the week of bitcoin woes. The worst thing he did was tell everyone that wallet encryption is a feature that's already implemented in the client. Maybe he is on the cutting edge of it, because this is really close to release. |
|
|
|
|
Try it again after 11pm Eastern Standard Time.
|
|
|
|
Monopolies are protected from actual free market forces, and they can externalize the costs of their inefficiencies onto the taxpayer
Externalizing costs aren't limited to monopolies. Currently regulations keep companies in some kind of line and keep them from externalizing too much of their costs. Without those regulations, and a controlling body to enforce them, how would you keep said companies from doing that? Granted the overseeing isn't perfect today, but I have a feeling that it could be much worse. Better too obviously. Not when you consider the reality of "regalatory capture" wherein the industries in question functionally come to regulate themselves because those professionals that are experts in the fields, who are the best persons to regulate an industry, all come from that same industry and return to it after their public tour is over. This same effect magnifies the competitive advantages of the market leaders, because they have an outsized influence on those same regulators and their decisions as compared to their smaller competition. This isn't quite the same as monopoly capture of a market, but it all but garrantees that said industry develops regulatory barriers to entry over time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
