No. Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.
Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source. What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones. You have not made your point clear. Are you trying to claim Nxt security relies on obscurity? If that is the claim, that is provable false as you can decompile Java and steal Nxt. Given that isn't hapening, what are you trying to claim? He is simply stating that without source code and deterministic builds you can not be sure someone hasn't decompiled it, modified it to steal your coins, and then recompiled it. But if you trust the person distributing it has verified it, by all means run it. |
|
|
|
and the monday morning dumps are right on Q
also: stocks down, gold decline/dollar rally slowing, silver down, oil up, euro down. Tech stocks struggling. |
|
|
|
not with these two systems, I think is still one more system could be an alternative economic system is an islamic economic system, with its system of zakat, the Islamic economic system can ensure poor people in a country will be reduced, even so there are no more poor people in a country, this is a charity system of cross-subsidy system where the rich will subsidize the poor until the poor are able to meet their needs, zakat system is not only to give money but give a program funded from zakat, the charity receives will run the program so that he can return back the money the charity, so that eventually the receiving charity can be a person who gives alms hopefully This system could be an alternative system that replaces both the economic system ...  there is literally pages of well reasoned arguments about why capitalism solves poverty in here but you start with 'not with these two systems' and end with Islamic modelled economy? gtfo. Then why do the capitalist nations all have significant portions of their population living in poverty? Besides, Zakat and interest free loans could exist in a capitalist economy, and if it did it would likely have a positive effect on reducing poverty. |
|
|
|
and not a single one is a "bear question" or in any way indicates I am uncertain about bitcoin's potential.)
one other simple question and not an attempt to troll you. if you were "certain" about Bitcoin's potential and it was your intent to "accumulate all along", why would you sub to a Bitcoin newsletter unless there was some doubt on your part? As I said above, I was hoping for opportunities to increase my holdings, but you never did call tops until after the fact. I'll admit I'm partially at fault for not investing more energy in figuring out what exactly you were trying to deliver, but you didn't exactly advertise it as "hand holding". I'm also not sure why you are putting "accumulate all along" in quotes, because that is not what I said. I said my intention was to hold what I had. I was lucky enough to be an early miner and I generated a fair share. I don't have the kind of resources you to do constantly dump fiat into this market. And I haven't held them all either. Life has happened, but every sell was because I needed cash, not because I doubted bitcoin's future. Every sell has been painful for me because I know I'm selling my future. As for the emails, they were all either administrivia or discussion of SPXU. I remember one other time we discussed this, but I know you're prone to exaggeration so I can let it go that you've doubled that figure. I'm sorry if you took my cocky ass troll statement too personally. But that is exactly the persona I envision when you make statements with no backing and act as if they are fact. My statement was clearly overblown for this context, but it is a response to a trend I have been seeing lately. I think you've let the bear trolls get to you. |
|
|
|
...trim...
now you're not being fair. you aren't giving me credit for all those times you personally emailed asking this or that bear question. and every time i told you to hodl and be patient.
I give you permission to publish any emails I have sent you. Please post a single example. (If you want to save some time, don't bother looking. I have 5 threads in my sent mailbox involving you, and not a single one is a "bear question" or in any way indicates I am uncertain about bitcoin's potential.) you keep bringing up the 10 btc. you think ppl like me give out free info during a time when i was running a newsletter business for profit? do you think you were the only one? i don't have one other sub who's been complaining like you who also subbed back during that time. like i said, i fully admit that what i was doing was hand holding less experienced investors so they wouldn't cash out before the big move. and that, in retrospect, turns out to have been extremely valuable advice, as my own acct can attest to. and should yours, if you actually followed my advice.
I only went into it because you asked me about my experience as a subscriber. and as for intellectual rigor, you know that my newsletter and now my gold thread is filled with all sorts of news article links, quotes, charts, graphs, statistics, references to the Fed charts, game theory, historical perspectives, contextual interpretation, etc, etc. i don't see many others putting up data like that around here, do you? These all are meant to support my bull case and put context to it. my argument all along is that Bitcoin doesn't exist in a compartment, like many were arguing back in 2011. yes, my arguments must get tiring but fact of the matter is, i don't see anything has changed fundamentally. and in fact, the contextual argument dynamically changes everyday, which is why i keep up what you call "trolling". i call it realtime feedback from the real economy that helps keep focus. at least for me.
sheesh.
I appreciate when you are rigorous. I don't appreciate it when you make one line posts that sound like statements of fact but are backed by nothing. That's all I was trying to say, but you got awefully defensive very quickly. |
|
|
|
Hmmm, that's the same information I have. What's wrong with prognosticating anyways? What's wrong is you are stating it as fact without any evidence. If you labelled it as prognostication or expressed that it was merely an opinion, I wouldn't have called you out. You know I've defended you countless times, but lately you've mostly just been a cocky ass perma bull troll. There's nothing wrong with being a perma bull, but you'll get a lot more out of all the time you spend here if you work on dropping the cocky ass troll bit. What I said was no more speculative than 99.9% of what others have "prognosticated" here in the Speculation Forum. If you've depended on what I've said and lost money, I apologize for that. This reminds me of the depths of 2011 when the price kept going down. People were all depressed and short tempered and I got alot of the same criticism you're venting on me right now. That's Ok. I can take it. Perhaps instead of cocky ass troll, you might consider describing me as "repeatedly wrong" on this down turn. That I could accept better and maybe what is what you really want to say. Everybody's doing it.... great reason to avoid intellectual rigor . And no, I haven't depended on what you say. As a former subscriber, I know your bitcoin advice is worthless because it is always the same. I said what I wanted to say, but you are free to interpret it however you want to in order to preserve your ego. I just miss the old cypherdoc who was still trying to figure things out. This new cyperdoc who thinks he knows everything is annoying. But maybe I just put too much importance on maintaining "beginners mind" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin). There is not much intellectual rigor one can apply to the PayPal situation. We all know the same information, which at this point is minimal. Any prognostications one might apply are based on one's assessment of human action and game theory looking forward into the future. Yes, I don't think in the long run PayPal has any intention of sticking with Coinbase if they find out accepting Bitcoin is a viable situation. They have the ability and capacity to bring it all in house. Otherwise, they would be forfeiting loads top what is in essence a start up competitor. BTW, I'm curious. As a sub of mine when the price was $2-4, did you take my worthless advice? A generally accepted strategy around here is to hodl. Have you and how is that such a bad thing to recommend in retrospect? Much of what I was doing on my newsletter, and what I've admitted all along, was hand holding trying not to have subs dump on the way up at 10, 20, 30... Did you? Since you asked, my plan all along was to hold on to as much as I could. As a sub of yours, I was hoping to be able to increase my holdings. Instead, I paid you more than 10 BTC to be told what I already knew. The other information in your newsletter was interesting and valuable, but I don't have anywhere near enough assets to be able to trade those markets without giving up my position in BTC. |
|
|
|
Hmmm, that's the same information I have. What's wrong with prognosticating anyways? What's wrong is you are stating it as fact without any evidence. If you labelled it as prognostication or expressed that it was merely an opinion, I wouldn't have called you out. You know I've defended you countless times, but lately you've mostly just been a cocky ass perma bull troll. There's nothing wrong with being a perma bull, but you'll get a lot more out of all the time you spend here if you work on dropping the cocky ass troll bit. What I said was no more speculative than 99.9% of what others have "prognosticated" here in the Speculation Forum. If you've depended on what I've said and lost money, I apologize for that. This reminds me of the depths of 2011 when the price kept going down. People were all depressed and short tempered and I got alot of the same criticism you're venting on me right now. That's Ok. I can take it. Perhaps instead of cocky ass troll, you might consider describing me as "repeatedly wrong" on this down turn. That I could accept better and maybe what is what you really want to say. Everybody's doing it.... great reason to avoid intellectual rigor . And no, I haven't depended on what you say. As a former subscriber, I know your bitcoin advice is worthless because it is always the same. I said what I wanted to say, but you are free to interpret it however you want to in order to preserve your ego. I just miss the old cypherdoc who was still trying to figure things out. This new cyperdoc who thinks he knows everything is annoying. But maybe I just put too much importance on maintaining "beginners mind" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin). |
|
|
|
Hmmm, that's the same information I have. What's wrong with prognosticating anyways? What's wrong is you are stating it as fact without any evidence. If you labelled it as prognostication or expressed that it was merely an opinion, I wouldn't have called you out. You know I've defended you countless times, but lately you've mostly just been a cocky ass perma bull troll. There's nothing wrong with being a perma bull, but you'll get a lot more out of all the time you spend here if you work on dropping the cocky ass troll bit. |
|
|
|
PayPal is going to needa chunk of bitcoin in order to provide this service as well.
No they won't. If you actually look into it instead of prognosticating without information you would see that the only thing they are doing are allowing merchants who sign up with coinbase to integrate coinbase using the braintree API. This will lead to more coinbase merchants, but Braintree/PayPal/Ebay is not taking any bitcoin risk at this point. |
|
|
|
So, if we ignore for a minute, the properties of gold that make it less attractive than bitcoin, and purely focus on the limited nature of each one; Why isn't gold acting as a store of value in a QE economy? Why is it not guaranteed profit to take out a huge low interest loan, and buy gold?
If there is an answer to that, why doesn't it apply to bitcoin?
Gold truly is the barbarous relic. It can be shorted to hell with naked contracts (big banks can sell what they don't own) and it is very inefficient in the digital age. How can it compete with instant and cheap value transfers like bitcoin (for which naked short selling does not currently exist)? As we've said before, bitcoin is assuming the position historically held by gold. Bitcoin is Gold's Black Swan. Just remember to take possession of your private keys. Appreciate the response Steve. To delve a little deeper, I realize that gold is a "barbarous relic" and inconvenient to use, which is why I was ignoring those facets for this particular comparison. Surely a clumsy, less efficient, hassle of a commodity will still rise in value relative to a paper currency issued in unlimited supply? If naked shorts really are the answer to what keeps gold value in check, then my next question would be what keeps bitcoin protected from entities offering naked short selling? I realize that if everyone acts responsibly, that won't be a possibility, but that's never happened before, so I'm not counting on it. Also, just to clarify a bit, I wasn't trying to compare gold to bitcoin, I believe bitcoin is superior in this role. I was comparing each to dollars, and wondering how we can expect bitcoin to clear the hurdles that gold failed to do, when they are both using the same approach. It is much easier to demand delivery of Bitcoin, or at least proof of reserves. |
|
|
|
Good point. Increasing productivity has been known to cause deflation since at least Adam Smith (1776). I still don't see how collapse of debt (which reduces the demand for money because now that debt isn't going to be repaid) causes deflation. If you have to make debt payments, you will try make sure you have enough dollars to pay them. This is why debt increases demand for dollars. Again, yes initial issuance is short term inflationary, but I don't see how you can claim it is inflationary overall.
you're over thinking this. money supply = monetary base + mostly credit/debt. in the run up into the 2008 high in housing and stocks, ppl leveraged up to buy both assets. when the bubble burst, margin calls went out to stock holders and home owners found they could no longer make mortgage payments. what do you do in that situation? panic sell at lower prices to limit your losses. the whole process began to snowball with stocks and home values plunging as a result along with widespread debt defaults. oil dropped to $30. gold hit its 9 yr cycle low. all that leverage started coming out of the system (deflation) and there was a worldwide scramble for USD's to pay off that liquidated debt as well as a run to safety into UST's which only exacerbates the deflation associated with Fed policy to manipulate rates downwards during normal times. of course you can never rule it out. but i really don't think so.
first off, both Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe did not have functioning bond markets. Germany was just coming off the war and really had no infrastructure so the only way they could get money out to its citizens and to pay off war reparations was to print. the massive potential for all the US debt build to deflate thru defaults is likely to win in the medium to long term. after a big washout, maybe hyperinflation is possible. but not until then. also, the monetary velocity chart is going nowhere but down right now along with interest rates. that's deflation. if ppl were dumping their cash as fast as possible, it would be going up instead. what ppl are doing is saving like crazy. banking deposits are way up and ppl are clinging to what cash they have. i know this from my own accounts. i've pulled out of the stock mkt and my deposit accounts are brimming. i'm expecting some bank trouble again so i've spread them out in multiple bank accounts trying to keep them close to the $250,000 limit. also saving in Bitcoin obviously. as long as the USD remains the petrocurrency and our military remains strong the USD is likely to go up in a deflationary event as it did in 2008. the good news for most Americans is that our price of goods and services has not gone up significantly. sure, in some areas it has, like student tuitions and healthcare premiums. but even $4 gas hasn't been too bad and food is relatively inexpensive. in short, i don't see the USD plummeting just yet and the charts i've been putting up indicate we may be starting a major rally.
for the same reasons i argue that Bitcoin will win the altcoin space as ppl gravitate to one currency for efficiency reasons and the network effect, i think that Bitcoin wins over gold. as long as Bitcoin can remain secure, there is every reason to like it better than gold. definitive fixed supply, portable, divisible, transportable, room for growth, intangible, not encumbered by a paper market (yet), unreachable by gvt, etc. so no, i don't think they will go up together. for the last 3 yrs, we've already seen them go in opposite directions. gold has failed in its historical role as an enforcer to UST's.
Emphasis mine. This has been my point all along. Deflation does cause defaults, and defaults cascade due to rehypothecation, but when it all is said and done, the end result is inflationary. When the debt is not defaulted on and ends up being paid back, then overall it has a deflationary effect, which continues until someone can't afford their debt. |
|
|
|
I know a guy who bought a Pizza once ... it cost him $5M  It was 2 pizzas  |
|
|
|
Dubia will build a mile high tower called Bitcoin Tower. All 200 floors of it will be filled with mining ASICs. Visitors who wish to take the elevators to the moon observation deck will have to pay in Bitcoin. The tower will become with single most profitable structure per (footprint) square foot ever known to mankind. They will then proceed to build more of these towers, fueling the Bitcoin price to $1,000,000 each and beyond.
I don't think these kinds of towers would have much effect on the price of bitcoin. They would, if really built the way you propose would certainly cause the difficulty to go up a lot. Although I am not sure how profitable this would actually be as it is very hot in Dubai. If designed properly, they could use the rising heat to draw air in at the lower levels, creating a nice breeze toward the tower for everyone around it to enjoy. |
|
|
|
There should be a government regulation against trolling.
Politicians would never outlaw themselves. Interesting concept. I wonder which politicians are trolling this thread in their various capacities? Jorge = [ ... ] I am a government employee but a bit too old to start a political career now. My best plan for retirement is that Papalcy thing. Infallibility, lifetime post, and nearly guaranteed posthumous sainthood are not things to scoff at. (Being an atheist should not be an insurmountable obstacle, I hope.) (How to Become Pope) |
|
|
|
I have a problem with this debt creation means deflation meme.
In a restricted economic model, where we have some actors and some money, the value of each unit of money depends only on the actors willingness to hold. The demand and supply sides consists of the same people, where demand is the wish to hold more, and supply is the less willingness to hold.
Extending this with debt, a debt which is safe and of static volume, extends the money supply. The debt is more like money if it is transferable. If a debt is completely safe, have very low interest and is due very long time in the future, and is transferable, it is in practise equivalent to money.
In all cases up till now in the model, the money supply is static and we should have stable price level on goods in the market.
Extending the model again, now with an expanding money supply in the form of base money and debt, which is the current situation in the world, value of the money unit should fall, as the supply is now the willingness to hold less plus the new money, demand being the willingness to hold is the same.
Now the big unknown, hitherto considered static, is the willingness to hold. This is of course not static in the real world, as it depends on the actors life situation and the world situation, including the important prospect of the future value of the money. Basically, if there is an expectation that the money will fall in value, people will hold less money and hold long lasting, transferable goods instead. But this will only accelerate the fall of the value of the money, it will not be an upward pressure of the value of the money unit (otherwise called deflation).
I do not disagree that deflation is a real risk (or that it is happening now), i disagree only that it is the expanding money supply in the form of debt that is the reason for it.
In my view, it is a collapse of debt that is the reason for a possible deflation. A collapse of debt will happen when the market actors consider the risk of lending too high, or when other risks make people hoard wealth in the form of long lasting consumer goods like houses and cars, paid not with loans but paid for by less consumption of other goods.
The 'money supply' is only a fraction of total debt (USA 60 trillion). As long as debt creation in an economy is faster than productivity, you'll have inflation. As soon as the total debt sum doesn't increase as fast as productivity, you'll have deflation (Japan first and now the rest of the western world following). Good point. Increasing productivity has been known to cause deflation since at least Adam Smith (1776). I still don't see how collapse of debt (which reduces the demand for money because now that debt isn't going to be repaid) causes deflation. If you have to make debt payments, you will try make sure you have enough dollars to pay them. This is why debt increases demand for dollars. Again, yes initial issuance is short term inflationary, but I don't see how you can claim it is inflationary overall. Imagine that 99 pct of the 60 trillions of debt would be wiped out. That means that the other side of the balance sheet would be wiped out as well. The price level in the economy would return to that level on which it had been as the total debt sum was at 0.6 trillions. Sure the banks would lose a lot of "assets" but all the entities who owed that money previously would find themselves keeping more of their income. We know the banks aren't spending, but can we count on the general population and the government to sit on a surplus? |
|
|
|
Crap. I missed the wall take down. Was on a bike ride. How did it happen? Did one or all of the walls get taken down at once or piece meal?
Whatever, it's a great victory for the bulls who stared those walls down for almost 24 hours. That'll teach 'em.
I only saw stamp and bitfinex, but both were swallowed in a matter of minutes. |
|
|
|
I have a problem with this debt creation means deflation meme.
In a restricted economic model, where we have some actors and some money, the value of each unit of money depends only on the actors willingness to hold. The demand and supply sides consists of the same people, where demand is the wish to hold more, and supply is the less willingness to hold.
Extending this with debt, a debt which is safe and of static volume, extends the money supply. The debt is more like money if it is transferable. If a debt is completely safe, have very low interest and is due very long time in the future, and is transferable, it is in practise equivalent to money.
In all cases up till now in the model, the money supply is static and we should have stable price level on goods in the market.
Extending the model again, now with an expanding money supply in the form of base money and debt, which is the current situation in the world, value of the money unit should fall, as the supply is now the willingness to hold less plus the new money, demand being the willingness to hold is the same.
Now the big unknown, hitherto considered static, is the willingness to hold. This is of course not static in the real world, as it depends on the actors life situation and the world situation, including the important prospect of the future value of the money. Basically, if there is an expectation that the money will fall in value, people will hold less money and hold long lasting, transferable goods instead. But this will only accelerate the fall of the value of the money, it will not be an upward pressure of the value of the money unit (otherwise called deflation).
I do not disagree that deflation is a real risk (or that it is happening now), i disagree only that it is the expanding money supply in the form of debt that is the reason for it.
In my view, it is a collapse of debt that is the reason for a possible deflation. A collapse of debt will happen when the market actors consider the risk of lending too high, or when other risks make people hoard wealth in the form of long lasting consumer goods like houses and cars, paid not with loans but paid for by less consumption of other goods.
The 'money supply' is only a fraction of total debt (USA 60 trillion). As long as debt creation in an economy is faster than productivity, you'll have inflation. As soon as the total debt sum doesn't increase as fast as productivity, you'll have deflation (Japan first and now the rest of the western world following). Good point. Increasing productivity has been known to cause deflation since at least Adam Smith (1776). I still don't see how collapse of debt (which reduces the demand for money because now that debt isn't going to be repaid) causes deflation. If you have to make debt payments, you will try make sure you have enough dollars to pay them. This is why debt increases demand for dollars. Again, yes initial issuance is short term inflationary, but I don't see how you can claim it is inflationary overall. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
