|
Jesus, Bruce! That was mean!
I saw that title and thought "Yeah right, april fool me" then read your post and though "aw, crap!"
|
|
|
|
I am American .. I'm Canadian .. duh!
You guys really need a name for your Nation, instead of taking the Continents name.
aren't they study geography using globe of united states, it's a miracle that they do not call it united states of earth or better yet united states of solar system  Patience... |
|
|
|
2) the campaign finance laws require that they cannot accept donations from anyone that they cannot show is an American citizen; which in practice requires disclosure. Bitcoin undermines disclosure. They do not have to accept anonymous donations, do they? This is just a matter of organization to ensure that all the bitcoin donation come from US citizens. You do not argue that this cannot be done when using bitcoin, do you? No, it could be done. It's just not (perhaps, yet) worth the work to set up a bitcoin donation system that will not provide the donator a bitcoin address until s/he provides the data, and asking for that data tends to offend the kind of person who might otherwise donate to a Paul. Using credit card donations, the credit card company provides most of that required data. |
|
|
|
Unless this is an April Fool's joke, of course...
Here we go, and I have hoped for a little bump in xrate on mtgox  I'm with the April Fool's joke. Considering that I live in Rand Paul's district, campaigned for both him and his father (2008 presidential run); and that I am a Kentucky State Delegate, I have more to say about this than the average bear. I can say for certain that 1) the Pauls are aware of Bitcoin (as well as other alternatives) but don't think too hard on that,(gold is another subject) neither has a couple hours to spend talking to anyone outside of their family or professional teams, and Bitcoin cannot be accepted for a political campaign due to campaign finance laws. (I checked). How's Bitcoin compare to all the however many small donations that Obama received? 1) I wouldn't call Obama's average donation "small" and... 2) the campaign finance laws require that they cannot accept donations from anyone that they cannot show is an American citizen; which in practice requires disclosure. Bitcoin undermines disclosure. |
|
|
|
No government authority is necessary.
I agree .. was that not clear? That post wasn't really for your benefit. I can already tell that you have spent time thinking about such things. |
|
|
|
Unless this is an April Fool's joke, of course...
Here we go, and I have hoped for a little bump in xrate on mtgox I'm with the April Fool's joke. Considering that I live in Rand Paul's district, campaigned for both him and his father (2008 presidential run); and that I am a Kentucky State Delegate, I have more to say about this than the average bear. I can say for certain that 1) the Pauls are aware of Bitcoin (as well as other alternatives) but don't think too hard on that,(gold is another subject) neither has a couple hours to spend talking to anyone outside of their family or professional teams, and Bitcoin cannot be accepted for a political campaign due to campaign finance laws. (I checked). |
|
|
|
Let's just put it this way. Gold is valued as capital. Not just as money. Not just as jewelry. Whether it is being used or not is irrelevant to its value.
I can accept that, but I still think that it's confusing. I have to admit that it's pretty counter-intuitive to think of gold as not capital and US $ as not real money, but that is the way it is. |
|
|
|
Why? Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies? Do you have any particular hierarchies in mind that you consider tolerable, or is your concern with the collectivist anarchists' focus on hierarchies?
Regarding the bomb-throwing quip, error, that's seems to be a sweeping generalisation and I'd want to see some sort of evidence to support comments like that. With respect, it seems more rooted in late-19th century history and the caricature of the bomb-throwing, cape-wearing anarchist than any 20th or 21st century reality.
Because I think that hierarchies spontaneosly emerge when cooperation happens. I've been in a meeting with anarcho-socialists and communists and what happened blew me away, it was fantastic. Nobody interupts, everyone listens and the whole thing goes swimmingly. However, there was a hierarchical structure that spontaneously emerged, served it's purpose and disappeared. It happens when we communicate, I talk, you listen and vice versa. There is lasting power to be had in maintaining a hierarchy for longer than it's natural life. This is achieved with violence and I am opposed to this. Governments talk, people listen, it's unilateral and perpetual. I don't personally believe the bomb throwing anarchist rhetoric. I've seen enough evidence of agents provocateur to know what's really going on. OK, good answer, but an "an-hierarchist" would want no hierarchies :-) The "hierarchies" I've seen emerge in collectivist anarchist settings tend to be voluntary and temporary (the temporary acceptance of someone to chair a meeting, for the duration of that meeting) and didn't suggest any power beyond that necessary - the chair of a meeting had to wait their place in turn to speak on a proposal, for example. The bomb-throwing comment was addressed to error, but possibly deserves some clarity around it: I've also seen my fair share recently and as far back as the Miners' Strike in the UK, so while I'm aware of the huge amount of negative publicity some anarchist have had generated around them, I'm also sceptical when I hear claims of violence against living creatures. I'm well aware that some anarchists support property destruction, which doesn't fit with my more pacifist beliefs, but I'm very sceptical of the media presentation of anarchists as violent thugs attacking poor, un-armoured, defenceless state employees. Yes an anhierarchist would want no hierarchies at all, I bring the idea up to highlight what I see as an inconsistency. I feel that any prolonged hierarchy, such as those that exist in the workplace are valid and desirable so long as they meet a well defined need. For example, maybe the valid and desirable duration a hierarchy is a "moment". That moment could be the duration of a meeting, or the duration of a period in time where a demand exists for a service. A perfect example of what I'm opposed to is what the record and film industries are doing. They served their purpose, met the needs of the market, but now technology has made their business models obsolete. The moment in time which the organisational hierarchy that emerged to meet the needs of artists and consumers in the way that the record and film industry did, is now over. Digital information is now almost entirely post-scarce. It's only because the cost of going around and persecuting people who share files is offloaded to the taxpayer can they continue to operate in their archaic fashion. I think that things of this nature are a big piece of the puzzle as to why we're so messed up at the moment. That video in the link is amazing! Hadn't seen that one yet! Absolutely blatant! You are simply describing the Misesian concept of "emergent order". Anarchist meetings aside, have you ever gone to a Meetup? Who is in charge? Usually the guy that pays for the hosting fee on Meetup.com, and only so far as that goes. Once the meetup is up and going, there really isn't a 'leader'. If there is a crowd getting onto a city bus, there is no leadership, but rare is the event where someone is cut or pushed to get onto the bus, and never is anyone left behind. No government authority is necessary. |
|
|
|
After reading a lot of these posts, and the arguments supporting them, I am really beginning to think that a portion of these 'new members' are government plants to attempt to either confuse, and/or stop support for bitcoin threw subtle manipulation of other confused or hesitant peoples.
I've been thinking along similar lines. Considering that I once worked for these bastards, I certainly wouldn't put it past them to hire trolls. They are probably relatively cheap. Hell, they might even be outsourcing to India. I've been busy lately. |
|
|
|
A priori you are helping even with the smallest amount of hashing power, since on average your expected number of blocks found is higher than zero (even though it may be 0.001/year).
A posteriori, if you haven't found anything (the most likely case), you have wasted your power. That doesn't mean it was meaningless, since you always had a chance to find something.
I'm just trying to debunk that it isn't true that having a very large chance for not finding anything necessarily implies completely wasted power.
Their contribution to network security is dwarfed by their damage to the environment, and the electric bill required would be orders of magnitude more effective if contributed elsewhere. Nonesense. Most of the individual miners use the waste heat to contribute to their home heating, and many would be contributing to Folding@Home or SETI if they were not running Bitcoin. In most cases, A/C requires less power for a given level of heating. If CPU folding/seti is worthwhile, people shouldn't mine instead. If it's not, people should be educated that CPU folding/seti is a waste of power which is an entirely different issue. Even if edge cases exist where CPU mining is a positive net good, it is so small as to not be worth the effort. I've lived in many places, and have never had an apartment that was not heated by baseboard electro-resistive heating. The only alternatives that I've ever had was in single family homes I've owned. I'm sure that I'm not an anomaly. |
|
|
|
If I supported initiating violence to achieve my goals, I'd be pro-government.  So if the stranger peacefully walks into your house with no weapons and turns on the TV, sits in the chair, and eats your food, it will be OK because the stranger didn't use any violence. Or is it your opinion that someone imposing on your space a violent act? If so, don't ever go to a city. A person entering your home without your permission is trespass, whether violence is used or not, intent of force is implied. You don't own a city, but the same thing would be implied if an army marched in uninvited. Once force is initiated, a force response in kind is justifiable. If your trespasser has no weapons for which to threaten your family, your justifiable response is to 1) demand that he leave, and 2) if he does not (or cannot, drunk perhaps?) you can throw him out or hire someone to throw him out for you. (such as a cop or hired security) You cannot, however, justify shooting him while siting in your chair. Like all things, the justifiable response is relative. Only children and madmen deal in absolutes. |
|
|
|
A router like the Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 might be worth looking at if you want to expand your wireless range, ever. I recently got one of these, as they are suggested hardware for a PirateBox. The device is impressive. |
|
|
|
Have you tried calling your ISP and asking them to unblock port 8333 for your machine, or simply asking them why it is done?
If you do this and they give you an answer post it up here, I would like to see what reason they have. If they are using an automated system to dynamicly block ports, as has been suggested, but don't take the time to check the system, it's possible that Bitcoin looks like a botnet or worm to such a system that is otherwise unaware of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Have you tried calling your ISP and asking them to unblock port 8333 for your machine, or simply asking them why it is done?
|
|
|
|
Wow you actually have an ISP that blocks ports....you know that is against the privacy act right? (Blocking a port that has no illegal activity associated to it is classed as an intrusion into your private activities).
That's not true. ISP's block ports all the time, but usually incoming ports, or ports of known worms; for security reasons. It would be a violation of the privacy act to redirect your datagrams without your consent, but that does not seem to be the case here. |
|
|
|
Like in the subject line. Anyone tried?
Yes I have, and the answer is yes, sort of. Based on the assumption that your ISP is blocking incoming connections, presumedly for your own protection; you must start the client with a command line flag to tell it to connect to a known node. It should be able to connect to that node explicitly, but other nodes will not be able to connect to you. You will be hamstrung, and mining would be futile, but sending and receiving coins will work, slowly. Initial bootstrapping across one connected node can take as long as a day. And if it drops off the Internet, well you're going to have to start all over. Another alternative is to port forward over SSH, or use Tor. Either method is just a work-around, is not simple, and incrediblely slow. EDIT: I just re-read the title, and feel kinda silly. How do you know that they block 8333 outgoing connections? That is very unsual, unless you are trying to do it over an employer's network, or a university's. |
|
|
|
"Outlaw Bitcoin"? Well, maybe.. But idea is alive and I don't think it can be stopped. You only need > 50% of GPU power to stop it. (think double-spends) The governments of the world only need to conjure up slightly greater than 50% support of the network to suppress the rest, kind of like "majority rule" democracy. No, even 50%+ of the network power isn't enough to break Bitcoin, only to defeat a particular portion of the system security for a period of time. The only known way to actually break Bitcoin is to shut down the Internet, and unless that is total, then that only works for as long as the sections that are dark remain so. 10-20 more years of the crap they call education these days and we'd be doomed as a race. Education as a whole is a well-meaning profession gone wrong because it is currently based on false principles. It may seem that way, I'm sure. But "education" has been surprisingly effective at it's original goals. Horrance Mann is widely considered the "father" of the American education system, by both his supporters and critics. Read what he said about the subject, and it will become bluntly obvious that the "education" system was never really intended to educate the children of the middle and lower classes in America, but to condition them. The next obvious question then becomes, condition them for what? You will not like the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Underground_History_of_American_Education |
|
|
|
A cartel isn't a state as normally would be defined, as they tend not to have geographical bounderies. Sure they do. It's called turf. If there were no other greater state that also had claim to the same 'turf', then I would agree, but a cartel is not a state so long as it remains in contention for that same 'turf'. A drug cartel could be considered a phyle. Phylum? No, a phyle. Like a tribe, but more politically structured.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyle"Phyle (Greek φυλή phulē, "clan, race, people", derived from ancient Greek φύεσθαι "to descend, to originate") is an ancient Greek term for clan or tribe. They were usually ruled by a basileus. Some of them can be classified by their geographic location" In the modern sense, they are used to describe a type of mostly voluntary city-states from the fiction of Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age#Phyles"The world is divided into many phyles, also known as tribes, distinguishable by either ethnic, religious, political or other emerging cultural markers.... Most societies depicted in the novel have become globalized, and maintain enclaves throughout the world.... The phyles coexist much like historical nation-states under a system of justice and mutual protection, the Common Economic Protocol." Inevitable is a good word for it. Not desirable, nor irresistable; but certainly inevitable. That's a different discussion though. Not for me. |
|
|
|
A priori you are helping even with the smallest amount of hashing power, since on average your expected number of blocks found is higher than zero (even though it may be 0.001/year).
A posteriori, if you haven't found anything (the most likely case), you have wasted your power. That doesn't mean it was meaningless, since you always had a chance to find something.
I'm just trying to debunk that it isn't true that having a very large chance for not finding anything necessarily implies completely wasted power.
Their contribution to network security is dwarfed by their damage to the environment, and the electric bill required would be orders of magnitude more effective if contributed elsewhere. Nonesense. Most of the individual miners use the waste heat to contribute to their home heating, and many would be contributing to Folding@Home or SETI if they were not running Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
