|
i think garzik did a fantastic job.
he deflected those things which needed to be, avoided mining almost completely (even by inference), and did a fine job of walking the line between politics and geekdom.
hey look - my first concern is the success of Bitcoin. ideology comes second - at the moment. and the plain facts are that we are going - at some point - to need votes; whether in congress or in a general public election. we need to lay the groundwork for that. we need Bitcoin to be non-threatening to as many people as possible.
if the ideology you subscribe to sees certain benefits in Bitcoin, that's fine. i see those too. but the benefits Bitcoin offers will not go away, simply because we don't push them on people who don't care and wouldn't understand them even if they did care.
those benefits will always be there, waiting for us.
"it's like PayPal but it's free, payments can't be reversed, and it's a million times faster to get your dough."
on the other hand, you could spend a few hours with everyone you know explaining about cross-border transfers and capital gains arcana. and what you'd get in return would be "Silk Road, Silk Road, Silk Road."
yes... garzik did just fine.
|
|
|
|
I actually tried giving bitcoin as a wedding present to a couple I know. They said they prefer cash, and I of course obliged. Since then BTC has tippled  yeah. i've had a drink or two myself... |
|
|
|
government is for those who cannot govern themselves
I guess that's why the bitcoin exchanges are following government rules Only the public exchanges. heh. +1 |
|
|
|
|
wrong question.
the correct question is: "what price is low enough?"
in my case... $8.00.
i invested $1,600 in mining equipment in late march, and have been at 2.1 Gh/s since - solo at the beginning, but now in pools.
i have 200 BTC set aside as a stop-loss. if the price goes down close to $8.00 i'll sell them so my investment is covered. the electricity i can afford to forget about.
i spend whatever bitcoin i spend.
i'll keep the rest forever, if need be. even if only as a reminder.
anyway, that's how i think of it. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
i understand. And after listening to that CBS interview today, where the guy talked about how they were closely working with governments to track transactions, I was kinda left with an empty feeling. but i also understand that there are laws: and we subscribe to them - like it or not - by where we choose to live. we can work to change them. i do. but the reality of it is the reality of guns. we can also move to another location, more in keeping with our beliefs. but there are risks in that, and loss. i see no choice but to fight it - metaphorically. that is, not with violence, but with money and votes and demonstrations and conversation. never lose sight of who you are and what you believe, no matter who you are with. i don't know what plans there are in "the amazing brains that are behind bitcoin". we would all profit more by learning of your plans. |
|
|
|
I sure hope I'm getting OT for this week
i hope you are too, brother. it's my dime, but the value of that dime is something i can afford. |
|
|
|
Nah, I'm too pooped to ride a new wave tonight. I intend to use the rest of my schedule for vacuous staring and alcohol consumption.
Good choice. agreed. vacuous staring at the bitcoin monitor, of course... |
|
|
|
i'm not really sure which forum this belongs on - if there were a "Bitcoin & Politics" forum, that would probably be perfect. my point in posting this is to offer something to think about as to where the latest crop of trolls could be coming from. you know the ones i mean - well-rehearsed and well-informed, with the tools of the professional blogger in place. they sow doubt and reap anger. every incremental step is like the tiniest tap of a dwarven hammer on the walls of the Bitcoin mine... i wear no tinfoil hat - yet it is clear that blog warfare is becoming a major part of the government's arsenal. just because there has been no announcement of their engagement with their economic 'enemies', as there has been (see my link) with their military enemies, it doesn't mean that they are not now engaging. and possibly, i am prepared to believe, here. here is a starting point for those with interest, who may not already have heard of the US government "online persona management" software: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networksand for a more in-depth analysis, try the DailyKos (like them or not, they're good at this...): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All************* i just kind of get the feel of this, lately... |
|
|
|
Short answer: your balance goes down, you get poorer and everyone else (that holds bitcoins) gets richer
The client tries to protect you against putting in an invalid address (there is a checksum in the address that will protect against simple copy/paste errors). But if you send money to some address for which no one holds the keys to spend, the bitcoins go to bitcoin heaven. The supply of bitcoins shrinks, and hence, assuming constant demand, all other bitcoins in existence increase slightly in value.
this is interesting. so if i understand you correctly, one could set up a script to install new bitcoin clients - thousands upon thousands of them, one after the other - have a downloaded blockchain ready for them, and -rescan... eventually you would create a client with an address that someone had mistakenly sent some bitcoin to? Yes, and your average time to success would be, on average, something only a couple millenia after the Sun engulfs the burnt crust of the Earth as a red giant. But, yes. It's technically possible. is there a limit coded into the client on the -keypool (key pool size) function, creighto? |
|
|
|
Somebody help me understand why somebody would go through the trouble of registering a domain and making a crappy website like that?
it's the /. crowd. they fancy themselves gods. |
|
|
|
Short answer: your balance goes down, you get poorer and everyone else (that holds bitcoins) gets richer
The client tries to protect you against putting in an invalid address (there is a checksum in the address that will protect against simple copy/paste errors). But if you send money to some address for which no one holds the keys to spend, the bitcoins go to bitcoin heaven. The supply of bitcoins shrinks, and hence, assuming constant demand, all other bitcoins in existence increase slightly in value.
this is interesting. so if i understand you correctly, one could set up a script to install new bitcoin clients - thousands upon thousands of them, one after the other - have a downloaded blockchain ready for them, and -rescan... eventually you would create a client with an address that someone had mistakenly sent some bitcoin to? |
|
|
|
|
there are some valid points in that article.
i've gotten two people onto bitcoin now - my daughter is one, and she said pretty much the same thing.
but it's not like the developers don't get it - they acknowledge these issues and are working on them. hell, it's barely a beta.
|
|
|
|
|
that's a valid point.
boy! do i have a lot of millies...
(is it 'millis' or 'millies'?)
|
|
|
|
was supposed to cover bitcoins, haven't had time to watch the whole vid though, inept people keeping wringing my phone at work
do you get phone juice out?  |
|
|
|
There are two types of addresses that don't exist. Those that are invalid as an address, and those that are valid as an address but aren't controlled by anyone.
For the first type, the client will let you know if you enter an invalid address. It knows this because an address contains a checksum which must match the rest of the data.
For the second type, there's nothing that can be done. If you send a transaction to a valid address that nobody controls, it is gone. Perhaps one day someone will generate a private key which corresponds to that address and get free money, but perhaps not.
ah. thank you, BitterTea. |
|
|
|
|
i'm not sure i understand how that could happen.
addresses are all cut & paste - how do you screw that up?
and if you send to an address that doesn't exist (by typing it in? holy god!), yet satisfies the address format, would the blockchain even accept it? i don't know - just asking.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah. irritating, innit it? oh well - patience. spend some bitcoin.
love the edison quote, BTW.
|
|
|
|
Well, sort of.
Any website which you provide your bitcoin address to can associate that with your IP address. Unless you're on Tor or something, isn't this a bit of a cause for concern?
from "scarily traceable"... to "a bit of a cause for concern"... to "Unless you're on Tor". what's your point? |
|
|
|
interesting. did you see the poll directly below the video? Do you think Internet access is a an essential human right for all citizens?
* Yes, there should be as little restriction as possible to the flow of information.
* No, if the Internet can be used for nefarious purposes or exploited, access should be removed.
* Case by case, I think Internet access and connectivity should be determined based on the changing circumstances. but it's fascinating that they should choose to conflate Rep. Weiner's weiner with Schumer's silk road crusade. oh. i meant inflate, of course... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
