langsam merken immer mehr, es ist ein unausweichliches thema, bald geht es nicht mehr ohne. Es braucht dringend eine Blockchain aus der NIX, aber auch gar nichts erraten werden kann.
die taz will womöglich transparent sein und benutzt daher (bisher) nur eine einzige adresse (oder sie kapieren's noch nicht ganz, oder können nich so schnell eine technische lösung für adressen on-demand aus dem hut zaubern). und wenn deine spende dir nicht anonym genug ist, kannst du die coins ja immer noch vorher durch 'nen mixer schicken. |
|
|
|
|
eigenen raspberry-server is natürlich günstig, aber die räumliche redundanz is dabei meist nicht gelöst, wenn die hütte abbrennt oder das GSG9 reinstürmt wegen terrorbitcoin oder raubmordkopiererei
|
|
|
|
|
joa, SpiderOak is nich Open Source, und damit nur Schlangenöl.
z.Z. kann man SeaFile empfehlen. Open Source und end-to-end-verschlüsselt. 1 GB umsonst bei seacloud.cc, aber auch 'nen eigenen Server kann man aufsetzen (allerdings reicht kein PHP-Wald-und-Wiesenhoster wie bei OwnCloud, das aber immer noch nicht wirklich geschmeidig benutzbar ist).
Eine auf BitTorrent basierende Lösung (statt auf Webserver) wär natürlich extra-fein, aber leider ist auch BitTorrent Sync nich open source. Tahoe-LAFS schon, aber is auch noch ein wenig zu geeky.
|
|
|
|
schön, wir wollten und sollten ja eh auch mal vorträge und workshops veranstalten, das wär schon mal eins der themen; jetz fehlen nur noch vernünftige räumlichkeiten. Mit ein bisschen Hilfe Eurerseits könnten wir auch den Couchclub dazu bewegen Bitcoins anzunehmen
ah so, der couchclub gehört anscheinend dem alex von der niederlassung, also kennt er bitcoin schon |
|
|
|
there remains no doubt that any Bitcoin transaction (just like any other agreement, oral or written) DO have "contractual force" per se.
yes but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Maybe you should rather see a government as a mafia, as it in fact is. Protection money is called protection money because it offers that: protection. For that, they expect loyalty. Now if you invent something like Bitcoin to bypass their infrastructure, but still you want their protection, it's an uneven deal (for them). |
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not need regulations. Bitcoin has got it's own regulations embedded, with consensus from its community. We do not need governments...
... ok, maybe governments might be of help to take care of scammers and dishonest people, but ONLY when the community chooses for the "Government path": in this case, all Civil and Criminal Laws already existing around the world is enough.
(edit: Bitcoin may only opt for "government regulations" if the community decides to please them, and not to "despise" them...)
I already commented this for a recent article: Something like Bitcoin in this historically correct context is even more interesting, as money hitherto was always a thing enforced and organized by a governmental authority (yes even gold and silver, as said). Bitcoin lacks contractual enforcement so far. We can have "smart contracts" all we like, but it's just information; if you actually want to chase and catch people like pirateat40 or TradeFortress, you need an executive force. That's an important aspect of the regulation question. That's the deal today's governments are offering: if we are supposed to chase fraud in Bitcoin, then we want and need to have control over that thing. So it is very interesting how this deal will turn out. |
|
|
|
|
The issue is not individualism vs collectivism, it is scale.
Ancient people lived together in tribes. This is somewhat the synthesis of individualism and collectivism: What's good for you is good for your family, your tribe.
The tribe was destroyed by the Roman Empire (or even older authoritarian civilizations) by removing natural tribal solidarity through reducing such natural social cohesion to core families, thereby isolating them into separate living spaces for better control, esp taxation. Divide and conquer.
Higher orders of social cohesion have been provided by governmental institutions since then (school, religion, etc).
We're used to this societal structure to this day. It's not natural.
Who knows, maybe we will see some kind of neo-tribalism in the internet age now, families in-spirit. Like-minded people can and should come together and self-organize most affairs of their lives in a largely self-sufficient way (see aquaponics, open source ecology and village construction set, 3D printing, biotecture, etc). This is the only sensible countermovement I can see against the estrangement that modern life brings, no matter if you call it "capitalism" or "socialism", power-of-the-might "individualism" or "totalitarian" collectivism.
|
|
|
|
[...]
if the leasing model spreads more, and recycling tech as mentioned becomes more sophisticated, competition will drive the fees down. |
|
|
|
|
Then Saudi Arabia or Iran would make a lot more sense because those actually qualify for a world cup once in a while.
|
|
|
|
|
maybe i'm old but i feel all this rollover stuff is a bit overdone
|
|
|
|
|
it's of course true that people do want the latest things, so why should a company invest in robustness; technology life-cycles become faster and faster too.
the marginal costs of materials are negligible nowadays.
you could say you now rather pay for the service of a company (i.e. engineering, design, management) rather than the single materially manifested product... this is where the costs are, not in the materials.
with software, we get updates too; why can't it be the same with hardware?
i'm almost certain in the near future you will lease stuff; you'll get a new TV every year, or every two years, depending on your contract; the faster you want to stay up-to-date to the latest tech, the higher the fees will be.
and if one day there is proper recycling tech (at the molecular level maybe), then this won't be environmentally problematic anymore, and no more need for child labor for rare earth metals in 3rd world mines.
|
|
|
|
|
yup, BTC is "libertarian" (although I don't like the term), or better put, it does not interfere with libertarian ideology (i.e., no state-enforced structure).
but it is merely as libertarian as the internet itself is though
so does this say anything?
|
|
|
|
Kind of looking forward to this, they can't really compete economically with Bitcoin due to the cost of implementing and maintaining a system and they seem unable to grasp the concept of openness so they'll likely end up destroying each other in attempting to monopolise digital money  yup, exactly, and hopefully; it's like Murdoch looking at the internet and trying to come up with his own version of an "internet" under his control. (although the centralization of information in "our" internet with dominant players like google of facebook is concerning of course). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
