Oh, also, I've always had this hunch that the anti-vaccine movement and global-warming denialism were part of the global banking elite's world population control program. Crazy weather and widespread epidemics could kill off a nice percentage of the little people while the multibillionaires sip human growth hormone in their air-conditioned bunkers.
Come on sheeple, wake up.
Quick question, concerning your population reduction theory. If the super rich are out to kill off the "little people" then who will buy the crap they sell in order to pay for the air-conditioned bunkers? And concerning the bunkers, are they there to protect the super rich from the remnant? I'm sure you know that I was being sarcastic. Sometimes it's hard to tel...
|
|
|
I had the impression someone was working on the client, albeit slowly. The problem seems to be the blockchain and RAM usage.
I'm not sure a full-fledged node is even the goal here, is it? I'll pledge 400 make that 800, and would even pay if it's just a nice Android/iPhone web app BUT it must be runnable on one's own server, not linked to its own service.
"runnable on one's own server" sounds to me like it's simply a rpc client, no? Can the pledgers please clear this up? Different pledges have different requirements. An android remote control client has been developed, and I believe has been paid out. Mine has not.
|
|
|
If things get to that point, I expect that state will not be very concerned with retaining its image of legitimacy any more. They won't need clever arguments when they have a monopoly on violence.
If governments drop the pretense, they will no longer have a monopoly on violence. Not in places wherein privately held firearms exist in an numbers anyway. Whether those same firearms are "legal" or not. And those that fancy themselves as a legitimate ruling class know this very well.
|
|
|
what's up with this?
does the bounty still hold?
1740 quite some money nowadays, noone up to this task? Andreas Schildbach's Wallet (for testnet) was almost there, wasn't it? (crashes my phone, but used to work just fine couple weeks ago)
It does for me, and my previously stated conditions, to my stated bitcoin amount. When I pledged it, 50 bitcoins was a tip. Now it's a day's wages.
|
|
|
This is more fun.
If by "more fun" you mean that using trolling techniques means that your opinion is less likely to be taken seriously and you yourself are likely to be perceived as an asshole, then sure, call it "fun". Yes, that it what I call fun. What did you think that debating with unknown persons over a public Internet forum was about? Personally, I think polite and structured conversation is more likely to sway people in your favour. Isn't there a saying that you catch more flies with honey?
Probably, but sometimes just annoying the "Spock" in the room is the fun part.
|
|
|
That did not exist when this thread was alive.
|
|
|
[...] fiat long term value is doomed to asymptotically approach zero, by design.
I respectfully disagree; it's just a choice of systems. Every fiat currency system that has ever existed and failed, has done so in nearly an identical manner. vladimir's statement above sums it up nicely.
|
|
|
I don't think most businesses would be interested in a pay portal for their customers, most already offer free internet as a side benefit to being a paying customer.
Yes, like in Libya, $.1 per litre of gasoline, free electricity, $700/month unemployment compensation. Compare this to any US airport (I was SF and Washington) - pay 100 times of real price for Internet. Sorry, I was thinking only of the US again. Does Internet really cost that much in airports? I smell an opprotunity. I have a line of sight from the back of my garage to the local airport, and I could hit it with a high quality beam antenna.
|
|
|
Usually what I tell minarchists who staunchly defend the idea of a republic and public law in the form of a constitution is this:
The constitution either gave you the corrupt overreaching tyrannical and parasitic government that you have, or it was unable to prevent it.
A classic quote, indeed. But to be clear, I'm not an anarchist, either. I'm not because I view anarchy as a transitional state, not a sustainable one; and one that tends towards an even worse stable political condition than what you might call minarchy. As flawed as the idea of government is, I also have come to believe that it is human nature to trend towards identifying authority that we can relate to. So no matter how rational anarchy might be for 20% of the population, there will always be that 2% of the population that will attempt to take advantage of the system, and the other 78% of the population will look to anyone who asserts to be able to do something about it as an authority. In the end, the best we can hope for is a vibrant and innovative "market" of authorities to choose from; such as is imagined in "The Diamond Age", but even choosing your government from a number of 'phyles' or chosing to go it alone and unaided, is still a government.
|
|
|
I made a small attempt, but as expected, you were unable to process it.
Well, indulge me in a more comprehensive attempt. Think of it as education. However, before you do, I would like to remind you and everyone who may not have followed the whole thread about those two paragraphs in contention. Basically, I made the two following assertions: Vaccination does have some risks, but the benefits are so overwhelming that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis will favour giving them to all the kids who can have them.
And it's also true that not all of them are given to children anymore. One notable example is smallpox: there's no need to vaccinate against it anymore because the vaccination campaigns of the 20th century were so overwhelmingly successful that the disease was eradicated from the face of the earth! Think about this: one the biggest killers in human history goes "poof" thanks to vaccines. Want a better argument in favour of vaccination?
You then stated that the second paragraph contradicted the first, which triggered the current flamewar. Therefore, to settle this once and for all, I most kindly invite you to point out how exactly does that second paragraph contradict the first. This invitation, by the way, extends to anyone else who may share your opinion that I engaged in a contradiction. And I'm not being facetious. If I did contradict myself, I would very much like to know how exactly that happened. I take my cognitive hygiene seriously. Mind you, we may be having a flamewar based on a simple misinterpretation. I may not have made my position sufficiently clear, or you may have misunderstood what I said. In any case, it behooves us both to clear up the confusion. In the second paragraph you use an actual example of the cost/benefit analysis of widespread use of a vaccine that moved dramaticly from positive to zero as an example of "any reasonable cost/benefit analysis will favour giving them to all the kids who can have them". It should be obvious that the cost/benefit analysis of continuing a vaccination program beyond the eradication of said disease from nature does not favor (Can't you English spell English right?) giving it to all the kids who can have them. My own cost/benefit (risk/benefit, really) analysis isn't nearly as clear cut, admittedly, but it's no less real. EDIT: You neglected to explain why you want brown people to pay more for vaccines.
If you are able to produce a quote of me stating that I would "want brown people to pay more for vaccines" (sic) I would be happy to accommodate your request. If you cannot, then stop trolling and learn to argue like a grown-up. This is more fun.
|
|
|
can't see it working with bitcoin mining rigs unless this society is even more far gone than my paranoid mind is imagining ... unlikely, but I've underestimated the depravity of the "state is god mentality" before
Today a woman asked me if I installed google on her laptop Was this after she asked you to fix her cupholder?
|
|
|
I want a government that is kept honest by a well-informed enpowered population that demands quality for it's tax-money, a government restricted to spending its taxes on public goods and subsidizing the value of non-commodified human existance. Then you want what has never been, and can never be. No matter how one might look at it now, the establishment of the United States as a federated republic was an experiment to do exactly what you profess you desire; and that experiment was a failure by any metric I can imagine. Yet, it was also literally the closest any nation in the history of the world has ever come, and that includes modern Sweden. After a point, a rational person looks at the evidence and concludes that the concept of government itself is fundamentally flawed, and therefore the ideal is impossible. The irrational person convinces himself that the implimentation (or some other detail) was flawed, and in this way continues to advocate against his own interests and those of his principles. Have you ever stopped to consider, what if my premises are wrong?
|
|
|
And I would have plenty of warning in order to get my kids vaccinated if that were to occur, but the most likely cause of such a thing would be a mutation that renders the current vaccine ineffective anyway.
Unless your children are part of the first wave of infectees. An astronomical unlikelyhood. I don't live near a border, an international airport, or even an ocean. And you are also assuming that vaccines will be easily available in circumstances where there's a fulminant rise in the incidence of a disease.
I don't assume this to be so, but I do consider it likely. If a new form of often fatal childhood disease were to be found in Kenya, and spreads to other nations before a vaccine could be developed, do you think that Kenyan children are going to be vaccinated before American, British and German children? Again, reality isn't fair, but it is reality. As to the mutation issue, it depends a lot on the pathogen. The flu virus is notoriously slippery, but that's not the case for other diseases. Moreover, a vaccine may still offer partial protection against a mutated pathogen. And partial protection is better than no protection at all!
You assume this to be true, and it likely is, but you can't know to what degree it would be true in advance. No one can. How would getting a vaccine of questionable benefit help my children, here and now? And calling me complacent implies that I'm doing this out of laziness. The lazy method would be to just get all of the vaccines that are recommended and not worry about the details.
If the vaccine truly was of questionable benefit, I would not disagree with you. Apparently you would. However, I suspect you may be categorising as of "questionable benefit" vaccines which the science-based medical consensus agrees are worth the risks. And note that I am not saying that there is always unanimous agreement between this consensus and the vaccines which may be recommended by your local authorities. The latter may be influenced by non-medical interests.
I'm the parent. The one persson most directly responsible for my child's well being. How I define the benefits are not really relevent, because I'm "the Decider". I shouldn't need to follow any step by step explaination, it's self-evident to anyone that doesn't have your cognative dissonnance.
Actually, I reckon anyone who paid close attention to this thread will have formed a different opinion as to who was engaging in cognitive dissonance. There it is again. Listen, this back and forth game of more-logical-than-thou began when you accused me of contradicting myself in two statements I made. I have carefully explained why there is no contradiction in my statements. Therefore, and for the sake of closure, I suggest you either retract your accusation or proceed to explain step-by-step how those two statements of mine are in contradiction. In cases like these I always suggest people draw a logical flowchart pinpointing the exact spot where a logical fallacy took place. If you really think you are right, would you be so kind as to enlighten us all as to where the flaw in my reasoning lies? Thank you. I made a small attempt, but as expected, you were unable to process it. EDIT: You neglected to explain why you want brown people to pay more for vaccines.
|
|
|
But keeping profits purely bitcoin and paying for services the same way is bound to attract the IRS eventually. I doubt this really. Governments everywhere had other methods of taxation before the income tax, which only came to the US in 1913. Prior to that, the better part of the US federal revenue came from excise taxes on alchohol. Bitcoin just makes the income tax difficult again. It doesn't abolish a governments abilities to tax. The US might end up with a liquid fuel importation tax, which would work similar to Europe's VAT taxes on fuel. The results would be to vastly favor oil pumped and refined within the US is economicly favored, but it's impossible to supply the US on domestic production alone. This creates a bottleneck that the government can watch (ports) and collect taxes.
|
|
|
I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment but... this is the CIA we are talking about.
We are talking about the people that have done everything from setup secret brothels to study what happens when they slip people LSD 40 years ago, to helping run secret prisons and torture facilities, run guns, introduced crack into inner cities... and regularly murder people with remote controlled planes.
The CIA is, in my estimation, the enemy of all civilized human beings.
They're just protecting American profits, and their own. It's self-defense, really. But, uh, I digress. Lol, a psycho breaks into his neighbors house, kills the children, rapes the wife, steals the stuff. It's ok though, he's just protecting his interests. "What's yours is mine fella." You pretty much just summed up the nature of government across all of human history. This problem isn't limited to the US government, they just happen to have bigger guns and more resources for bullets.
|
|
|
It is very easy to shut down bitcoin! they can buy it all! :p
IIRC, the US Gov't did exactly that maybe a year or so ago one time when a book came out they didn't like the content of. That was the memoir of a former CIA operative.
|
|
|
Part of the reason I use BTC is that it's environmentally friendly That one is true, in a relative sense. Can a quote be stupid if it's also accurate?
|
|
|
This topic has been covered extensively in past threads. Search for the vending machine thread, Dash7, QR codes, Poker chip tokens, and the power failure thread.
EDIT: And search for the Iphone and Android apps & widgets, they already exist in beta development.
|
|
|
I expect the worst that could happen from a way to find collisions in SHA256 would be that difficulty would rise, as it would then (in theory) be easier to find a hash below the target. But the double SHA256 hash used in Bitcoin makes this unlikely even if such a break existed.
Someone correct me if I've gotten anything wrong.
Yes, the difficulty would rise, but there would also be a disconnect from the difficulty and the real security. But the hashing algorithm could be swapped out for something not-yet-broken. For that matter, one of the two hashing cycles could be exchanged for a different secure hashing system now, and the system would remain secure even if one or the other were broken. But then all of ArtForz's ASICs would become worthless. And even if the hashing algorithim were broken, that doesn't necessarily expose the whole of Bitcoin to exploitation. That would depend upon how it was broken, and still only expose the blockchain to manipulation in the worst case. The vast majority of users would still not lose their coins.
|
|
|
You used the example of a high risk vaccine being used to eradicate a higher risk disease from nature, and the subsequent removal of that vaccine from use; as the support for the ongoing use of moderate risk vaccines intended to prevent moderate risk childhood diseases that have already been (statisticly & effectively) eradicated from the society that my children live in.
As Longmarch already pointed out, none of the diseases you've failed to vaccinate your children against have been irrevocably eradicated. They may not be widespread in your particular community in this particular point in time, but they may stage a comeback at any point, particularly if there are many complacent parents like you. And I would have plenty of warning in order to get my kids vaccinated if that were to occur, but the most likely cause of such a thing would be a mutation that renders the current vaccine ineffective anyway. How would getting a vaccine of questionable benefit help my children, here and now? And calling me complacent implies that I'm doing this out of laziness. The lazy method would be to just get all of the vaccines that are recommended and not worry about the details. Look, I'm not even making a subtle point here. There's a world of difference between a disease which has been thoroughly extinguished worldwide like smallpox, and diseases like measles which nowadays are less common in industrialised nations but which are still endemic in poor countries and could therefore come back to byte us in the ass.
Not really. My kids have had MMR, but lets use that as an example. Measles can be fatal, but isn't likely to be fatal without a compromised immune system. Measles is pain and suffering, but the vaccine can cause permanent nerve system damage if you turn out to be the unlucky one. I live in a city that hasn't seen an actual case of measles (discounting the cases that are systomatic responses to the vaccine itself) since 1995. Tell me how it's better for my child for me to risk a one in 50,000,000 chance that the vaccine will cause paralysis (or other less significant complications) when the odds of just being exposed to that same disease in this city is one in 50,000 or better, and the odds of lifelong effects from the infection itself (with access to 1st world medical care) are longer than with the vaccine? I admit, getting the vaccine would be cheaper for me, and likely far less painful for my child, than for my child to get infected and be treated to a two week hospital stay. Why on earth are you having such difficulties understanding this point?
I understand the point, it's just not an absolute. At least I'm not competing with children in third world nations for those same vaccines. You do know that, by not participating, I make those same vaccines cheaper for people who live in places where these diseases are still common, right? Why do you hate brown people? I shouldn't need to follow any step by step explaination, it's self-evident to anyone that doesn't have your cognative dissonnance.
Actually, I reckon anyone who paid close attention to this thread will have formed a different opinion as to who was engaging in cognitive dissonance. There it is again.
|
|
|
|