Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Why do people like you insist on using such stupid logic

Gold and bitcoin are both past-looking, where holding gold or bitcoin is prima facie evidence that a party has already in the past done something of value for society.  Dollars and ripple are more forward looking, where one party has received something of value, and the other party is hoping that they will do something of similar value in the future to redeem that particular debt.

A client/server UI makes a huge amount of sense. Then core devs can focus on the backend and others can create various interfaces including POS interfaces, or protocol interface layers etc.

This would also allow for a much simpler Electrum server install. I believe if bitcoind had an "address history" rpc call then it would be enough to support Electrum server as a thin layer over top and not need a full MySql/Abe/patched install.

these communities appear to be iterating toward libertarianism.

If you post on here comments like Stefan is a "cult leader" then I will have to assume that you lack the intellectual ability to engage in anything more meaningful than childish name calling.

Yes, that is the correct commit.

It's not a real version.  It's more just a way to remind yourself that you're on the testing branch (if your version number is higher than the latest release).  Can you just attach to the that particular branch (testing) instead of the tag?  Or do you need the tag?  I expect a "final" 0.86.4 release would have more than just these two lines of code changed.  It's more like 0.86.4 will accumulate these changes until it's ready.  I have been meaning to setup auto-incrementing super-minor version numbers (so this would be 0.86.4.123), but I haven't decided the best way to do it. 

I'm definitely open to recommendations for how to make this fit into other users' use cases.  It sounds like I'm missing something...

(along with changing the version number to 0.86.4).

I guess dubstep is the best 'mainstream music' contender for the dubious award of 'least musical'

All the old stuff about the old Ripple thing all took the idealistic stance that you would issue credit to your neighbors/friends out of nothing, basically giving them a line of credit.

But surely you could equally well only issue credit in an amount equal to actual "deposits"?

Afterall, banks tend to have two types of credits they give you, the easiest to get is your account balance, which you get by making deposits and they grant in amoujnt equal to your deposits. Getting an actual "line of credit" is harder.

So here is how I see it non-idealistically working, taking that hard drive at the restaurant case for example:

1) The restaurant deposits with/in you a meal worth one hard drive, so you issue them credit equal to one hard drive.

2) The restaurant gives the employee one hard drive, so the employee issues them credit equal to one meal.

I am not sure why you give the hard drive to the employee, it seems to me you'd give it to the restaurant, and any deal they make with the employee is out of scope. So lets try again:

1) The employee deposits the meal with/in you, so you issue the employee the hard drive (deposit the hard drive with the employee).

2) The employee buys the meal from the restaurant with their wages.

That maybe works.

The important thing is, you don't issue credit to until you receive a deposit, in this case a meal, and the employee does not issue credit to you until you deposit the hard drive.

This way it works like the credits known as "bank account balances"; the credit represents a deposit you already received.

The old Ripple system's documentation/propaganda/literature  jumped right over that stage, directly to "lines of credit", in which you issue credit before receiving the corresponding deposit, which is, of course, risky.

There is risk the other way around though too: the restaurant takes the risk that after depositing the meal in your stomach you will not see fit to assign them any credit in the Ripple system...

So its still the same old same old "who sends first" thing...

-MarkM-

Yes for Ripple.  No for Bitcoin.

Yes for dollars.  No for oil.

Yes for euros.  No for gold.

What do all the yes's have in common?  They are all based on promises, upon which the promiser can default.
What do all the no's have in common?  They are what they are, no more, no less.

I definitely don't see it as a threat to Bitcoin, and I see it as a complement that, if it works, will reinforce Bitcoin.

The biggest fundamental difference I see is that Bitcoin is a platform that issues "Bitcoins" and keeps track of them, and Ripple is a platform that lets the participants issue IOU's and keeps track of them.

A ripple IOU is only as valuable as you deem it to be, and how the law deems it as well.  Here's a problem the way I see it: Ripple will have chargebacks enforced by law, regardless of whether the technical design allows for them!

Ripple will have interesting security and legal implications all its own that differ vastly from Bitcoin.  With Bitcoin, if someone hacks your computer and steals your bitcoins, the consequences are limited to a) your coins are gone, b) the thief gets away with coins in numbers no greater than what you originally had, and c) the coins are now arguably tainted to the extent they can be traced back to the theft.  No laws can change any of that.

With Ripple, imagine someone hacks your computer and uses your private keys to create an IOU to them for a million dollars.  A lot of big questions remain to be settled.  A Ripple IOU for an amount like that is totally dependent on its legal collectibility, and in the US (and probably most other jurisdictions), you can't create a legally binding debt on someone else's behalf just by forging their signature, even if your forgery is convincing.  A dispute over collectibility would boil down to whether the digital signature was judged to be genuine - and not in a mathematical sense, but whether it accurately represents a commitment intentionally made by the key's owner.  If the mathematical validity can be set aside by a judge, it longer has any value and there is no point in depending on it.

The problem gets even more complicated: if it's for a million dollars, it's easy to point out that that must "obviously" be bogus, but what if it's fraud for a much smaller amount and comes with a much less ridiculous and more believable story?  What if it crosses international borders?  What if the participants are subject to conflicting laws, where one party's jurisdiction recognizes a debt and the other's doesn't?  What happens when uncollectible debt is traded from participant to participant, numerous "links" deep?  At some point, what's the value of Ripple's decentralization in the first place if its proper functioning is so dependent on socially-based agreements?

All it takes is a few high profile incidents where people repudiate large Ripple debts because they were "hacked", and suddenly the whole thing is threatened by the premise that any obligation you buy might be bogus because somebody along the way can claim the original obligation doesn't exist because they were hacked.

You are currently in offline mode because Armory could not find the blockchain files produced by Bitcoin-Qt. Do you run Bitcoin-Qt (or bitcoind) from a non-standard directory? Armory expects to find the blkXXXX.dat files in

%s

If you know where it is located, please restart Armory using the " --satoshi-datadir= to notify Armory where to find them.

If some wealthy person buys alot of bitcoins then volume wont help, if they can buy 10% of all bitcoins with their cash.

The price needs to be much higher, so that very wealthy individuals won't make a sizable impact by deciding they want to put a chunk of their savings into Bitcoin.

It is how the world outside Bitcoin works. Companies use a limited number of accounts to reduce audit effort.

Merchants may actually opt for re-using the same account frequently to have simpler audit.

If I buy a Mars bar with a $100 bill, well, the cashier knows I have some money, but this is hardly a privacy leak worth worrying about.

I was thinking maybe getting this guy to narrate the video.