|
This isn't the end of this, Mr. Shrem.
|
|
|
|
The plates arrived!!! And the New Hampshire plate is clearly the best for this purpose   |
|
|
|
|
From their official post:
"At WordPress.com, our mission is making publishing democratic — accessible and easy for anyone, anywhere. And while anyone can start a free blog here , not everyone can access upgrades (like going ad-free or enabling custom design ) because of limits on traditional payment networks.
Today, that changes: you can now buy WordPress.com upgrades with bitcoins.
PayPal alone blocks access from over 60 countries, and many credit card companies have similar restrictions. Some are blocked for political reasons, some because of higher fraud rates, and some for other financial reasons. Whatever the reason, we don’t think an individual blogger from Kenya, Haiti, Cuba, or Iraq should have diminished access to the blogosphere because of payment issues they can’t control. Our goal is to enable people, not block them."
|
|
|
|
"Here's the issue: I would much rather not pay the high rate exchange fees that all the exchangers have, I'd much rather have someone invest their BTC and then receive cash for their investment plus 10%." The exchangers cost way less than 10% genius |
|
|
|
This is why I always say that I have no problem with socialism ... so long as it's voluntary. It seems to work reasonably well at the level of a family or small tribal community. It just doesn't scale (and it should never be forcibly imposed by the threat of violence).
Socialism cannot be voluntary. It requires coercion. If you have people "giving" and "sharing" with each other voluntarily, that is not socialism... it's liberty. Libertarians are never opposed to individuals choosing to live in whatever way they wish, so long as they don't aggression against each other. I assume most people would end up living in "profit seeking" ways, but surely some people would form communes or any other structure they wanted. All of this is liberty, and is the opposite of socialism, which is a forced structure. I don't disagree with that from the perspective of "what is the technical definition of socialism?" My point is more rhetorical. For obvious reasons, socialists aren't eager to acknowledge the coercion inherent in their political system. They want to make a socialist society sound like it's one big happy family. I'm trying to point out the gun in the room. Hehehe yeah it's important to point out the gun in the room. The irony is that most socialists/leftists are very much opposed to guns, yet their ideology requires institutionalized violent threat via gun. |
|
|
|
Average use by a typical user would result in very little anonymity in the face of an concentrated effort by an entity with access to resources of the size of a world power government. On the other hand, with the appropriate knowledge, precautions, and effort bitcoin can provide the tools necessary for near complete anonymity against an entity regardless of their resources. Perhaps if you offer a hypothetical scenario as an example, we could demonstrate both how an average user might accidentally reveal their identity, as well as how a careful user could maintain their anonymity. In general, I'd say there are 3 areas of concern. - Acquiring bitcoin
- Storing bitcoin
- Spending/disbursing bitcoin
Great answer. And welcome Murphant! |
|
|
|
I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. != Liquidity.
This forum is more worried about trying to correct people and show how intelligent they are than any other forum ive seen. If you read my post you'll fully understand. It is pretty straight forward regardless of me saying liquidity or illiquidity. Its a liquidity issue. No, it's showing how stupid I am, because I can't see why liquidity/illiquidity, Bitcoin, credit cards & PayPal should even appear in the same paragraph. Ryann's point is a good one, though "liquidity" may not be the right term. The fact that you can't buy BTC with credit cards sucks, and is a major hindrance. Now, there is good reason why this occurs, but it still sucks, and we should all be finding ways to fix it or find alternatives (and indeed many people are doing this). As it becomes easier to get in and out of bitcoin, the entire system will skyrocket in popularity. |
|
|
|
And after all that, Dmytri is still correct. If you think bitcoin is going to replace govt currencies then you are so far out to left field you dont need to reply. This place is just like Apple forums. Fanboys. You do raise some good points though.
Typically an assertion like that is followed by an argument. WHY do you think Bitcoin can't replace government currencies? If you arent taxed how do you think all those highways and roads and thousands of other things are paid for? There is no centralization we see scams all the time and there is nothing you can do about it. Your computer gets hacked you are done. Dotn care how many backs up you have it takes a matter of seconds to empty your wallet once its broken in to and you will not be reimbursed by anyone. I can go on and on. Mostly the arguments why bitcoin is superior are just lousy points aka quick transaction times and low fees, yawn. And don't get me started on "if there is no centralization we see scams all the time"... It is the centralized State which is the largest scam of all. That may be so but if someone hacked my comptuer and emptied my bank account I would get reimbursed 100% by the banks and they would even investigate on their own terms.. With bitcoins will get back 100% of nothing. It just gone to some unknown hash address. I understand your passion towares bitcoins since you run a very profitable bitcoin gambling site but realistically there are far to many negatives for bitcoin to become anything more than a novelty item. Its increasingly difficult for me to even buy bitcoins. Its pathetic. I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. Liquidity. The reason you get reimbursed by your bank is because there is deposit insurance. Deposit insurance can be provided by the private market as well. The fact that no bitcoin entrepreneur yet offers deposit insurance doesn't mean it can't be done. Simply, the bitcoin economy's not quite large enough to warrant that service yet (though you can bet your ass that some ewallets will emerge in the next 1-3 years that offer deposit insurance by default). Furthermore, the deposit insurance your bank gives you is actually Federal deposit insurance. The government pays for that, meaning that all of society is forced to pay for the protection of your bank account. If you're morally okay forcing other people to bear the costs of protecting your assets, then fine, but I'm morally opposed to it (it's also terribly destructive as it leads to perverse economic incentives on behalf of the banks - the risk they take is socialized across the country while their profits from that risk belong to them). However, you're correct that buying bitcoins is currently the biggest hindrance. Many of us are working on this, and indeed it is already far better than last year. Next year will be far better still. As with the deposit insurance, don't make the mistake of assuming that just because a nice service doesn't yet exist, that it won't tomorrow. |
|
|
|
This is why I always say that I have no problem with socialism ... so long as it's voluntary. It seems to work reasonably well at the level of a family or small tribal community. It just doesn't scale (and it should never be forcibly imposed by the threat of violence).
Socialism cannot be voluntary. It requires coercion. If you have people "giving" and "sharing" with each other voluntarily, that is not socialism... it's liberty. Libertarians are never opposed to individuals choosing to live in whatever way they wish, so long as they don't aggress against each other. I assume most people would end up living in "profit seeking" ways, but surely some people would form communes or any other structure they wanted. All of this is liberty, and is the opposite of socialism, which is a forced structure. |
|
|
|
|
Good point, we'll correct it in the next release.
|
|
|
|
Dooglus great comments, thank you! But why did it take 8 hrs to download the light blockchain?!? You on a modem?  On my computer it takes about 15 minutes total upon first launch, and on the tablet it takes about 30 mins total. It seems you did find a bug in the balance not updating to "Available" even though it was. Relaunching the program fixes it, but we'll address that bug asap. The largest usability issue is that once you bet, the change from that bet also becomes pending until one block has passed. We're working on a solution to that as well. And Dooglus for goodness' sake upgrade from your 28.8 modem |
|
|
|
HUGE thank you to SatoshiDice for their donation of 402.33 BTC to the Bitcoin Foundation. Cheers!
Will this lower the dividends? The day ended with 402 btc in earnings, and because it's donated to the Foundation it will not be paid in dividends (neither to myself or any other shareholder). But let's examine further because it's a tricky question. It's important to understand the "unseen" consequences. The offer to donate to the Foundation brought some new exposure and goodwill to SD. Some number of people played the game on the Friday due to this philanthropic event. This thus changed the revenues for the day and the entire betting patterns. So it's difficult to say if shareholders are ultimately helped or harmed by the donation. Long term, I believe they are helped, and I focus on the long term. Good business is not about scraping short-term earnings for quick profits, but about building valuable assets over time. The donation, in my opinion, greatly helps toward this goal (and if you understood more about the developers struggling with all the transactions SD is spitting at them, this would be very obvious). |
|
|
|
HUGE thank you to SatoshiDice for their donation of 402.33 BTC to the Bitcoin Foundation. Cheers!
Agreed, thanks Erik! Looks like moving the money from one pocket to other. Guys, it's obvious that u all are in one gang called "The Bitcoin Foundation". What the point to expose this farce? :facepalm: Moving money from one pocket to other.... hmmmm. Well, the money went from SD to the Foundation. The Foundation is working to improve Bitcoin and advance its adoption, and this will help SD, so yes I suppose you're right. The purpose of the donation was A) to do something nice for Bitcoin Friday and B) to leverage that "nice favor" in a way that helps SD also. Business is about finding mutual benefits. In this case, the Foundation is better off, SD is better off, and the Bitcoin ecosystem is better off with a more robust Friday event. What do you mean by saying we are all in "one gang?" I suppose you're implying that we all work together... and yes, we do. We work together wherever we can to build Bitcoin. Would you like to help? |
|
|
|
Stephen Gornick... you're so smart  |
|
|
|
SatoshiDICE Android, Linux, Windows, and Max apps released!!! I wonder if this will change the statistical layout of betting patterns? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124093.0Please post comments/feedback about the apps in that thread ^^ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
