Well, the no-brainer answer is to delve into the topic of drugs, guns, cartels, money-laundering, and tax-evasion. Bitcoin is easier to use for these things than cash is without being detected. For drugs and guns, you can order them online now (AFAIK, no place you can do that with USD without risking being tracked by authorities). For cartels, I don't know. For money-laundering, a person could deposit monies at one exchange, convert to Bitcoins, withdraw, deposit at another exchange, withdraw under a different identity. For tax-evasion, do major transactions with other companies or persons within Bitcoin instead of USD. Untraceable, and no one is the wiser if neither party tattles.
So, from a legal standpoint, I would discuss whether the use and promotion of the Bitcoin protocol implicates a person in assisting in these activities, or whether that might be a possible ruling in courtrooms in the future. From an ethical standpoint, I would discuss whether the use and promotion of the Bitcoin protocol implies support of those activities. Maybe try to find some similar parallel of implied support for unethical activities within other real-life activities. For instance, supporting a musician by purchasing their music when they are using their money to support dog fighting rings (or something).
|
|
|
Yeah, exactly.
On the one hand, if you delay the first issue until B&N is ready for it, you'll have an angry mob here of people who were expecting to see the mag in Feb, but now don't get to see it until May.
On the other hand, if you start publishing the first issue now, then B&N never gets to even carry the first issue.
On the third hand (for those mutants among us), you could release the first issue now, and re-release the first issue at B&N a few months from now. Possibly accelerate the scheduled release for the next few issues at B&N (or decelerate the release of issues ordered from you directly) until B&N is all caught up.
None of those is really a good option, TBH.
|
|
|
Picked out some interesting things that Gavin and theymos have said regarding the matter... No, you don't have to upgrade your client to receive coins from somebody using a BIP 16 multisignature wallet.
Testing is actually one of the reasons I don't like BIP 17; it is harder to test, because it is much easier to steal BIP-17 transactions if the network hasn't yet upgraded (Luke has had to test BIP 17 on the main network instead of testnet because I wrote a BIP-17-stealing robot and ran it on testnet).
Miners (as a group) should not be given any say over issues like this. They do not necessarily know what the best option is. The issue should be decided by people very familiar with the protocol and the proposals.
I suggest that we compile a list of everyone who knows a lot about the Bitcoin protocol, invite them to a two-week discussion via email, and have those who participate in the discussion vote on the issue at the end of the two weeks. If one proposal gets enough votes (two-thirds, say), then Bitcoin clients will be programmed to apply the new restrictions ~3 months in the future. Miners will have to upgrade by then or their blocks will not be recognized by most clients. If there aren't enough votes for any proposal to pass, the issue will be shelved for a while.
|
|
|
I suppose I am confused. If it took 3 months to get it going at B&N, would B&N be carrying the first issue, or the third? In other words, would B&N NOT carry the first issue, ever?
I'm going to skillfully avert attention to another topic to avoid answering your question directly in an effort to avoid outrage from the community on the ramifications of either choice. lol ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) It's a tough call, for sure. Setbacks are never fun to deal with.
|
|
|
1st: this means that all merchants and users need to be downloading the blockchain which I thought there was a consensus that eventually this isn't going to be possible anymore which again leads to centralization..
2nd: wouldn't this mean that when either BIP12, 16 or 17 get rolled out those clients that wont update will essentially ignore the new transactions so Gavin has to get the support from every single user, not just the majority of the miners in order to successfully implement that change?
There's a lot of ways to get around not downloading the full blockchain. Technically, you could just hold the last 2 blocks, then use those to verify future transactions. As long as you start with a valid block from a trusted source, the future blocks cannot be calculated wrongly. The next block's hash is created in part from the hash of the prior block, which is why it is a chain. So if the prior block is valid, and the next block follows all of the rules that are set in the client, that is all that is needed to verify that a block is legitimate. As far as gathering current balances for Bitcoin addresses without downloading a full blockchain, well, that's a bit of a different challenge. I can't speak for the potential BIP changes, only that I know Gavin said it would be compatible with existing clients.
|
|
|
Depending on what rule changes you are talking about it doesn't matter if 95% of miners choose to switch to say 50BTC reward forever. The power is with the merchants to reject the false coins. Please explain to me how they can do that? They just keep running the code they've been running. It will reject the 'bad' blockchain being produced by 95% of the miners, and accept the 'good' chain being produced by the other 5%. I thought the merchants only sent and received transactions and had nothing to do with the blockchain unless they were miners themselves? EDIT: Also my initial argument was that due to how the system is designed it will eventually lead to a really small minority control 100% of miners and when the switch happens it would be 100% of miners not 95%, what then? Obviously your own non-mining client can tell what is and isn't an actual Bitcoin transaction, that's how you know you've been paid even before a tx gets in a block. The tx has to have a history that leads back to a valid generation, has to be signed correctly etc. Yes I understand. They check the blockchain.. But how can they tell which blocks in the chain are legitimate? If the small minority of miners changes to new rules unanimously, there wont be a fork and everyone will be forced to use the same longest blockchain now being generated under new rules. So how then does a client reject a transaction that is in the blockchain it uses I ask? If there's new rules, it won't be validated by an old client. The old client has old rules, and checks to make sure all of the transactions are using old rules as well. If someone introduces new rules, even if they have 2000 times the hashing power of the current Bitcoin network, the current Bitcoin network still wouldn't accept that new blockchain, since it wouldn't validate to the rules that are built-in to the client. EDIT: Basically, it's not JUST the longest blockchain that is accepted, but the longest blockchain that uses the same rules that are hardcoded into the client.
|
|
|
We'll just need to wait for reputable hosting site(s) that exist & accept modern forms of payment to start accepting Bitcoin - not "founded with Bitcoin". Umm hello, is this thing on (tap, tap). Microtronix has been a reputable hosting provider for 10 years ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) , we have clients in 7 countries of the world and offices in two ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) We not only have accepted CC's for years but we also accept Mexican Pesos, Lempira's and Quetzales http://www.microthosting.comAnd I can vouch for jfreak - his services are legit!
|
|
|
I'd wager that the vast, vast majority of deepbit users are NOT doing PPS. And when stales and invalid blocks are counted for the non-PPS model, the actual deepbit fee is closer to 1 or 1.5%, a fee which I am happy to pay for a service without complications that never goes dark. How many invalid blocks had Deepbit had in the last 1000? 1? 5? Invalid blocks shouldn't be more than 0.2% of total for a properly running pool. With good pool server, LP, and proper miner stales are <0.3%. So you are paying 3% for 0.5% in cost. If you like Deepbit and like a centralized Bitcoin that is fine. It is a free network you can do as you please but don't try to rationalize it. You are paying 2.5%+ for the privilege to centralize the network and add a point of failure. When you include the fact that Deepbit doesn't pay transaction fees or merged mining it is >3.5%. You sir, bring up some good points. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
I suppose I am confused. If it took 3 months to get it going at B&N, would B&N be carrying the first issue, or the third? In other words, would B&N NOT carry the first issue, ever?
I'm sure you could sell all prints of the first issue just through your site eventually, especially once some members start receiving/reviewing their copies of it here. What is B&N's cut of every sold magazine? You could probably find community members to buy in bulk at that same price, and leave it up to them to resell them.
Personally, I don't mind a cheaper binding or print quality. Probably somewhat of a staple for startup magazines anyway.
|
|
|
Just thought I'd give a little input on the STFU "issue"... My parents are a couple of the most conservative people you'll ever meet. They don't drink or smoke. I've never heard a swear word come out of their mouths (not even so much as a "damn". Etc, etc. Then one day, I'm over at their house, watching an Oregon Ducks football game with them, and my mom shows off her new UO t-shirt, which has the acronym STFU on it. I was rather shocked. Of course, the acronym was created on purpose because of it's normal meaning, and stands for "Smoke & Tobacco Free University", which is a campaign that is currently running among people at the campus. My mother knows full well what STFU means, but was still willing (and proud) to wear the t-shirt. Granted, football fans is a different crowd than Bitcoin, but if a public university is going to put the acronym on a shirt for their fans (with a wide variety of financial statuses and ages, as well as an older crowd of athletic dept. donors who have gobs of money), I'd say it's not going to damage Bitcoin's image any either. Also, a link for more info on the STFU t-shirt campaign. http://apassagetopondi.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/stfu-smokers/
|
|
|
Wow, there's actually a lot of stuff listed for sale there now. Much more than I ever saw at biddingpond.
Probably the biggest problem is feedback. You have to start somewhat small when selling with 0 feedback, else you'll lose big on the lower prices the items you list sell for.
Also, I love the icons indicating shipping details. Much clearer than eBay's setup.
|
|
|
Let me pose a question for you: If I take a Montsanto sunflower seed, grow it, harvest the seeds and plant ten of them the next year, am I stealing from Montsanto?
If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance... Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen. I am not talking about a huge corporation mass-producing an object, I am talking about people and fair use. If I spend vastly more time and effort to build my own version and I am not trying to profit off it, even if it turns out exactly the same, how is that stealing? In plant genetics especially, there are a lot of different ways to elicit a mutation you are looking for. If I take a different road to the same result, somehow I am stealing from the patent holder. Fuck that noise. There is no such thing as "Fair Use" for patents. It simply does not exist in the patent system. Mostly because patents deal more with the physical implementation of ideas instead of the expression of ideas. Patents bring thought to reality through a process, all of which is protected by the patent. Even for copyrights, this would not come under fair use because you would be effectively replicating it in its entirety, basically performing an identical performance as the original, in its entirety, which you have no right to do without permission because the basis for your new plant is the original that is protected. That said, Utility Patents exist for significant improvement upon an original patent, and you certainly have the right to improve upon the original, so long as your process is unique, novel, not a basic deviation of whats been done before, and most importantly, you arent infringing on the original patent its based on. In other words, its an actual improvement of the original that would be of some substancial benefit the original did not provide. Huge corporation research lab or musty old basement is not relevent. Bill Gates started in the garage. I'm pretty sure anyone can build anything for their own personal use. Patent laws only apply when you start selling things that utilize patented technologies.
|
|
|
SSD is the best/most important upgrade you can make in a laptop, IMO. The standard 5400 rpm platter-based drives get so slow... Unless you actually NEED 500GB of space on a laptop (I don't - my desktop and server serve me fine with regards to storage space), I'd make getting an SSD your #1 priority.
|
|
|
If you find this ridiculous,you should read about how young offenders in UK prisons get all sorts of creature comforts like a large screen TV,games console and a whole host of other things.It's really shocking.
I wonder how the benefits system from US and UK differ?
US prisons are just as bad from what I hear. Like you said, PS3's, big screen TV's, etc. It almost makes me want to go to prison... wouldn't have to work, and could read books and play video games all day, paid for by the state! No wonder there's people committing crimes and getting caught on purpose. IMO, prisons should be a place of despair. Put them in a 4x4 cell, no light, and the nastiest grub you can think of to eat twice a day. Then, maybe people would actually regret doing something that causes them to go to prison. On topic: Welfare recipients should be required to work for their welfare, no exceptions. If the government is going to give away money, at least make people work for it! You know, do trash cleanup on the roadsides, or clean laundry for a nursing home, or SOMETHING. The fact that people get money as a reward for doing absolutely nothing just astounds me.
|
|
|
Did you read the article? The delay is procedural and the bill is coming back today.
I think that reason is smoke and mirrors... Proceedural... Right. I believe it boils down to lawmakers not wanting to be under the same rules as the average citizen. Just look at the supreme court ruling for the drug testing for political candidates as unconstitutional, but the average citizen cant get a "decent" job anywhere today without one... even government jobs like those lawmakers. IF this bill comes back with mandates for anyone accepting public funds to undergo drug tests, you can be your last dollar there will be severe limitations based on some bastardized version of "probable cause" required, and certainly it will not be a blanket requirement, requiring all of them to undergo drug testing to get on the ballot, be elected, take controll of the office, or to keep the office if already in office. After all they are a different class of citizen and not the average slave like you and I. I have my own problems with the drug war, but thats here nor there. Whats needed is consistency with everyone treated equally under the law. Not different rules and laws depending on your class or job description. +1, agree 100%. It's amazing how many perks Congressmen get that aren't given to "normal folk". They can't even relate anymore... like you said, they are a different class of citizen entirely.
|
|
|
The value is how much someone else would be willing to purchase it for.
I'd start with a Price/Earnings approach though. Find out how much of a P/E ratio is typical for your industry (10-20 is typical for most), then use that same ratio with your own profits. Obviously, that doesn't tell you the full story, but it's a starting place.
|
|
|
The first part of that should read: "Bitcoin selloff?"
|
|
|
Funny how the entire technology industry seems to do just fine despite being hugely deflationary. A $1000 PC today costs $500 next year... and yet people still buy. Funny huh? Exactly. It's actually very healthy in many ways to have a deflationary environment, which can't be understood by someone who relies on the "economics 101" as it is taught today. I would never have supported Bitcoin so strongly if the monetary model wasn't exactly what it is. Bitcoin is the first real currency that will put the Austrian school to the test and I'm confident that it'll pass the test. This will not be the problem that kills Bitcoin. It will undoubtedly lead to a smaller economy than we have now but people will be less in debt and they will have a much more solid foundation in their personal economies. This would apply to all levels of the economy, from governments to companies and regular people. I embrace this change, people should invest money in projects that they support from other perspectives than money. Investing only based on maximum return is an old way of thinking, investing to things that matter and actually produce meaningful things is the way to go. Consider the amount of useless crap the economy produces today, the amount of absolutely unproductive development that is done... the amount of money that is invested in stuff that is only produced because they have enough money to create a marketing campaign convincing enough to manipulate people to buy them. This behaviour will have less reinforcement in a more deflationary environment because first of all consumers will consume less crap that they don't really need and investors will think differently because they have to. The economy wouldn't die but it certainly would be different. Consumption and development would be focused more on things that 1) consumers feel they really need and 2) what investors and enterpreneurs feel they want to develop and produce. As long as the effective deflation isn't on hyper mode, and there is no reason to believe it would with the exception of short periods of rapid userbase inflation, there will still be a lot of consuming and a lot of investing. Simply hoarding will give you a small increase in your purchasing power, a good investment will still make you much more than that. I could go on forever but the bottom line is that not only is a monetary system like this helpful in correcting our overly materialistic way of life but it will lead to healthier and more meaningful ways of spending money. And on top of everything, it will actually help save our planet. Less consumption = good. I appreciate a response like this. Well thought out, with sound logic and reasoning behind it. You and I may disagree, but at least you have legitimate reasons for disagreeing with me. And it sounds like we do agree on some of the basics (the fact that the economy would be vastly different than it is today, for example). The technology example is a good one too. I don't have a rebuttal against that at this time. All hazek (and a few others in this thread) are doing is saying I'm wrong without anything to back it up. I'm done responding to them until they come up with legitimates response to everything I have already posted.
|
|
|
I'd wager that the vast, vast majority of deepbit users are NOT doing PPS. And when stales and invalid blocks are counted for the non-PPS model, the actual deepbit fee is closer to 1 or 1.5%, a fee which I am happy to pay for a service without complications that never goes dark.
I agree that Bitcoin needs to continue to trend towards decentralization, and I'm not entirely happy that deepbit holds as much hashing power as it does, but I haven't found a pool that I like as well as deepbit. *shrug*
|
|
|
|