I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but Schumer et al. have *not* called for shutting Bitcoin down. I haven't read anything where they even call for investigating it. They want Silkroad taken down.
"It's an online form of money laundering used to disguise the source of money, and to disguise who's both selling and buying the drug," [1] |
|
|
|
FFS. This is bitcoin.org, and this thread was intended for the discussion regarding Silkroad and its relationship with Bitcoin, not a subforum for account begging.
I'm no moderator, hell, I'm the smallest of small fries around here, but I think this is extremely bad publicity for Bitcoin, this happening here.
I love your fake humility. You did say that the public image of Bitcoin must be protected by whatever means necessary, right!? No, I don't remember saying that. Can you point me to it? If I said that, I will refute what I said here and now, because that is a very bad thing to say. Whatever means necessary includes killing everybody's pet dog, blowing up the moon, and forcibly sterilizing every male human. It's a hell of a clause. |
|
|
|
Imagine bounties for
* 10 jews bombed
* a dirty bomb killing at least x people on Berlin
* an A-bomb somewhere.
As counter examples, imagine bounties for... * The assassination of Hitler, Gadaffi, or any other tyrant * The assassination of representatives who vote to curb civil liberties * The assassination of the owner of a large corporation that violates the rights of others |
|
|
|
FFS. This is bitcoin.org, and this thread was intended for the discussion regarding Silkroad and its relationship with Bitcoin, not a subforum for account begging.
I'm no moderator, hell, I'm the smallest of small fries around here, but I think this is extremely bad publicity for Bitcoin, this happening here.
I love your fake humility. You did say that the public image of Bitcoin must be protected by whatever means necessary, right!? |
|
|
|
Okay, but what gives bitcoins value? We would still need USD/EUROS, ect otherwise for it to work, right? I'm having a hard time explaining this to others like my family as I hardly understand it myself even after reading those long wikipages.
It's the same thing that gives gold value, that people trade their goods or services in exchange for bitcoins/gold. No other currencies are necessary in order to determine the value of a bitcoin, it's just that right now merchants still pay their expenses in dollars. This means that they set their price in dollars and then convert to bitcoins based on exchange rate. In the future, it could be that most merchants pay most of their bills with bitcoin, so they can price directly in the currency as opposed to dealing with exchange rates. The only reason people want dollars is so they can pay for things they need or want. The same is true for bitcoin, except it's also a good vehicle for storing value (saving). |
|
|
|
I'm a little disappointed that there was no poll option for "it is inevitable, but concerned citizens should do their best to help law enforcement catch anyone involved"
That's how I feel about the Silk Road too, incidentally.
Why would you want to help a bunch of thugs put non-violent people in prison? If Bitcoin is made illegal, will you do your best to help law enforcement catch Bitcoin users? |
|
|
|
|
Blocks are containers for transactions. Blocks are difficult to create and chained together, which means each block found serves to protect all the transactions that came before. In the future, you may not have to download full blocks or any blocks at all, as there are ways for a modified Bitcoin to function without them.
USD is not backed by gold. It used to be, but now it is only backed by the promise that the government will pay its debts. What gives Bitcoin its value is that other people are willing to trade goods and services for it. Exactly the same as with gold, just a shorter history.
No, in a sense. Anybody can "give themselves" as many bitcoin as they want, but the rest of the network won't see that as valid. Satoshi and the other early adopters had to mine every bitcoin the old fashioned way, though at an admittedly low difficult compared to today's.
|
|
|
|
The entire purpose of homesteading is a fair and transparent way of assigning usage rights to objects that can only be used by a single entity at a time. Ideas can be used by an infinite number of entities at the same time, so it does not follow that a similar framework fits.
Why not. It's just rules. You can tweak rules. Unless you're ideologically stuck. I'm saying there's no point to. You don't have to have a system of determining ownership of something that everybody can use simultaneously. You seem ideologically stuck on the notion that an individual deserves payment when another individual makes use of "their" ideas. Alternatively said, that an individual should be able to use physical force in order to control the use of an idea that they share with others. |
|
|
|
I think property laws (in fact all laws) should be simple. I find bitterTea's definition of property pretty simple.
Use similar definition for IP then. If you are the first to claim an idea it's yours for a limited time and you can captialize it. It's interesting that you are commenting this in a thread titled "Read this before having an opinion". I'm not going to rehash the thread, but note that if you truly believed you could apply natural rights and homesteading to ideas, then any idea you 'mixed your labour with' would be yours or your assigns' not for a limited time but forever. Does that still sound like a good idea for society? Have you paid your wheel and fire usage fees this month? From BitterTea: "If it's unowned you can homestead it, which is just whatever method society accepts as a market of proving "I claimed this first"." So, why not use a similar one on ideas, just like I wrote? I had this idea first, it's now mine. However since everyone understands that there's a difference between an idea and a spot of land, we tweak the rule a little. You don't own the idea forever, like with the land, but for a limited time. See, not that hard. The entire purpose of homesteading is a fair and transparent way of assigning usage rights to objects that can only be used by a single entity at a time. Ideas can be used by an infinite number of entities at the same time, so it does not follow that a similar framework fits. |
|
|
|
Because as we all know, the US dollar is safe & sound since it's backed by the good faith of myself and the rest of the american people.
Alot of people have been waking up to the fact that central banking is and has always been a scam. The families who first realized they could hold peoples money and then loan it out to other people at interest are at this point worth upwards of hundreds of trillions of dollars.
The US dollar has lost some 95% of it's value since it's inception. And this only continues to drop with questionable economic practices like quantatative easing and mass amounts of fraud.
Not to keep this off topic, but for anyone skeptical of this claim, I highly recommend watching the video The Creature From Jekyll Island. I was as secretive, indeed I was as furtive as any conspirator. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would have been wasted. If it were to be exposed that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress…I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed one at a time....where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of the train for the South. Once aboard the private car, we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress. |
|
|
|
and i just figured out how to use bitcoin and was learning pgp and it closes  i had coin in my wallet there It's not closed, just bracing itself against the flood. The login form still works, but I would be extra careful now with the extra attention the site has been receiving. |
|
|
|
nice idea.
Any other replies from others?
Since the web client is working, along with voting, you could create a motion, to ask your shareholders if they want you to keep looking or go for different cards. Nefario. Where is the web client? |
|
|
|
personally, i understand, and even marginally approve of socialism applied in some areas of human endeavor: public roads, for example (marvelous creations, which are somehow always ignored by those who claim their riches are solely the result of their own, individual effort). Jaime, public roads aren't so great when you see them as subsidizing certain industries at the expense of urban sprawl, traffic, pollution, lack of mass transit, etc. or health care ( individual and collective longevity having considerable impact on the accumulation of wealth - both individually and collectively). Again, I don't see how government can improve health care. They are the reason we have medical licensing laws (artificially limits supply of doctors), health insurance laws (state mandatory policies, unable to buy across state lines), employer subsidized health care (relic of WWII wage caps, ties employees to employer's health care), Medicaid's under payment for services (subsidized by those privately insured), etc. How can additional government oversight fix the problems government causes? |
|
|
|
invites actually don't increase security at all
(you think a LEO would have a hard time getting an invitiation?)
and they increase the probability that the person you are dealing with is a LEO because of this. Average user gets frustrated, forgets about it after an hour. LEO gets paid to get an invite.
SR admins, please keep market free and open both as experiment in possibilities and because it actually offers best protection for users.
Nice try, DEA agent.  |
|
|
|
Those are just bad apples, you can't lump all cops in with them!  edit... You were too quick, was looking for this link. |
|
|
|
This link now has the full, unedited (thankfully) interview. To be blunt, in the interview you seem eager to cooperate with law enforcement in identifying bitcoin users. I understand part of this is a reaction to the tone of the interview, but would you in your capacity as Bitcoin developer make changes to the client as requested by a government agency? What if they produce a legal document compelling you to do so and/or preventing you from divulging that information? If you want, we can move this to a new thread. P.S. I understand this is open source software, but I'm lazy and don't look at the code for each version. Jeff, I don't mean to single you out, this is an admittedly unlikely but possible scenario for any of the trusted developers. |
|
|
|
|
Regardless of whether or not governments try to attack Bitcoin in this way, systems will be created to prevent (reputation) and settle (arbitration) disputes outside of any territorial jurisdiction. People will subscribe to these services voluntarily, without the need for taxation.
Who needs government? Not me.
|
|
|
|
You can save by entering into payment contracts for monthly services and paying in advance. As long as it's not being spent on something that's gone in minutes, spend on necessities is the same as saving. Hoarding is something else altogether. You can also save by stuffing dollar bills under your mattress. Would you care to explain why saving is good, hoarding is bad (I assume that's what you mean by "something else altogether") and what the objective difference is between the two? |
|
|
|
|
Could this be offered in multiple colors? I like the design but loathe white tshirts.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
