What could go wrong with a crazy russian oligarch funding a bitcoin device ?
The way I understand it, is he is really fed up with Banks and Central Banks behaving badly. He is realizing Fiat currencies purchasing power is going to 0. He wants to spur Bitcoin adoption by bringing Bitcoin to retail. Plus he had this great hardware device developed for a long time which fits the Bitcoin usecase very well. The bitcoincard and the ellet is like watching the space race all over again  I think exploring meatspace this soon is kind of jumping the gun. Bitcoin is a digital currency, and wants to live in the digital world. I don't think we have a digital ecosystem robust enough to support it in real world transactions just yet. I'm glad that the work is at least being started, but there is still a lot of work to be done on the protocol, the clients, security and usecase exploration. I agree, we still haven't really developed smartphone apps enough to really show what Bitcoin can do. Web and smartphone apps should be the main priority for awhile. Bitcoincard is awesome, but maybe too soon to bring to market. |
|
|
|
|
Here's my conundrum. I have all these ideas for Bitcoin based businesses, but neither the programming skills, nor the cash to hire programmers. What I can do is create a skeleton type website (like the one below) with basic web 1.0 skills, but right now I don't want a bunch of crappy looking websites. I am thinking of hiring filipino web developers, that would at least get me started, but even that can get expensive. I can create a GLBSE IPO or several and get funds for programmers for each site or several at once. Some of the websites will be moneymakers, some are just plain needed and may or may not make money. So should I just build crappy websites and build them slowly as I can afford, or should I look for investors?
Here's another future issue. I am already financing a money lending operation in the Philippines that will take awhile to realize profits, but my goal there is to really start making money with Bitcoin eventually. I'm not sure it would be ethical to include investors in this project, but at some point advertisers will be sought. I plan to merge the money lending with a Bitcoin exchange. For that I may need additional investors, but I hope to bootstrap this project for awhile until the business model is better developed. Or maybe I should just put together one big massive IPO and use the money to develop the projects all at once. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
The protocol is very noise resistant and very low bandwidth. |
|
|
|
|
I've been emailing with with Mr. Ioscko. I don't think you're going to get much from them, but I have a feeling they will have some big things planned soon.
|
|
|
|
That's an even better idea than mine. Each person could have their own public address linked to the charity wallet, then looking at the blockchain will show the donation amount to your particualr address. |
|
|
|
|
I bought Bitcoin at Walmart. I had to pay $243.95 for $228.83937 worth of Bitcoin through Mt Gox.
[edit] they also required ID and phone number.
|
|
|
|
What you are describing can also define any organized religion.
Religion is based on the assumption that there is basically a second universe, and that there is some sort of relationship between it and our. Austrian economics doesn't do this. Not all religions believe in a second universe. Many just believe things about this one that cannot be validated with evidence, only faith. I will defer this type of orgumentation to theologians. Case in point:
axiom1: people use means to achieve ends
axiom2: there is no free will, all is predetermined
Neither are valid without empirical evidence.
Yet again you are mixing this with empirical phenomena. Axioms cannot be "valid" or "invalid". They can only be combined in ways that are, or aren't, contradictory. Whether invalid or contradictory, both yield a useless axiom. I prefer the Null Hypothesis. Finding empirical evidence that contradicts a hypothesis does not posit an alternat hypothsis. It just means its time to do more science. Besides, there's cake.
Then this isn't economics in the Austrian sense. All social sciences must use statistics to validate a hypothesis. If Austrian Economics does not use statistics, then economics in the Austrian sense does not use the generally accepted scientific method used by peer reviewed journals. Therefore I don't call it science. |
|
|
|
A multisignature transaction taking funds from #1 and paying them to #4 that requires signatures from #1, #2, and #3 should accomplish the same thing, though.
Great idea, Gavin! So when we will have facilities to spend multi signature transactions without having all of the keys in one wallet? Can you estimate how much time will it take to develop this? You have asked the $64,000 (literally) question. It will happen, have faith. I've been switching back and forth between writing a spec for it ( https://gist.github.com/2839617 ), implementing it ( https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/signrawtx ), writing up a test plan ( https://secure.bettermeans.com/projects/4180/wiki/Raw_Transaction_RPC_Test_Plan ) and testing. My goal is to get all that done by the end of this week and have it in the 0.7 release. But lots of things could make it take longer. Pardon the topic change. This is huge. |
|
|
|
PS. How to you prevent "Stolen" coins from reaching your address unknowingly?
Considering the government can send you tainted BTCs to anyone and then be say they have proof your doing business with a felon or terrorist or w/e scary people are called these days.
Anyone could do it. 1. Create a wallet that can't be traced back to yourself. 2. Report a bitcoin theft and send those coins to the anonymous wallet. 3. Wait for the coins to be marked as tainted. 4. Send a satoshi to anyone you want to get in trouble. 5. Report this "suspicious" activity and call for an investigation/audit. See i didn't even think of that -- and that is a very scary scenario -- my own neighbors could hate me and send me to jail nice point edd. Even worse, they could use some of that taint to send you a gift from Silk Road and an anonymous tip to the DEA. |
|
|
|
It sounds like it uses Texas Instruments ULP. |
|
|
|
This whole thing started because I said that a A theory requires empirical testing, otherwise it is a hypothesis. I still stand by that. Newtonian theory may be dismissed someday because it does not hold up at quantum nor relativistic levels.
Technically you are correct, however you are still making the assumption that the purpose of economics is to explain empirical phenomena. Strictly speaking, Austrian economics isn't about empirical phenomena, similarly as math. Hoppe and Mises argue that the axioms are selected as propositions which to deny would be absurd or contradictory. My own take is that the act of denial of the axiom would need to presuppose a different axiom, contradictory to the one you're trying to disprove. An example is the human action axiom: people use means to achieve ends. In order to deny this, you need to present a counterargument. But presenting a counterargument is itself a mean (argumentation) to achieve a goal (resolution of a dispute). So you simultaneously need to assume people do, and do not, act, leading to a contradictory combination of axioms. What you are describing can also define any organized religion. I will defer this type of orgumentation to theologians. Case in point: axiom1: people use means to achieve ends axiom2: there is no free will, all is predetermined Neither are valid without empirical evidence. My own take is that the act of denial of the axiom would need to presuppose a different axiom, contradictory to the one you're trying to disprove. I prefer the Null Hypothesis. Finding empirical evidence that contradicts a hypothesis does not posit an alternat hypothsis. It just means its time to do more science. Besides, there's cake. |
|
|
|
|
I bet Gavin got one or two of the prototypes and is digging into it as we speak. I hope we get a status report soon.
|
|
|
|
This verse seems prophetic about Bitcoin:
Revelations 42:8-12
"For he who shall hold the key shall enter the crypt. And all possessions shall be transacted upon by this act. The beast shall break the chains and rise up from the mount. And every bit shall be paid through a number set upon your person."
Damn! You just found my Brain Wallet!  |
|
|
|
|
This whole thing started because I said that a A theory requires empirical testing, otherwise it is a hypothesis. I still stand by that. Newtonian theory may be dismissed someday because it does not hold up at quantum nor relativistic levels.
|
|
|
|
Show me any theory that can be measured and shown accurate to absolute precision. Good luck.
That's my point. That's why models are only predictive and may be dismissed anytime a better model is discovered. There is no absolute truth in science. Math uses "proofs" yet nothing can be proven in nature. |
|
|
|
Fractal models exist, yet you will never find a perfect Mandelbrot in Nature.
And your point is... Being important for discovering some math models doesn't mean that they are necessary for ALL math models. I still don't see how the lack of a perfect triangle in the real world disproves Austrian economics.
Economics in general is just too broad of a social science. Besides, science isn't in the business of disproving anything, just falsifying hypotheses. Too broad for even a social science? lol. I was pretty sure that social sciences were broad anyways... So what is economics if not math, science, or even a social science? And why does this disprove Austrians? Keynesians are the ones who try to use hard equations, are they not? My area of social science is psychology and I have had to dismiss 99% of what I had been taught in favor of new theories. That's what scientists do. Personally, I don't believe in any particular general theory for any social science, but that doesn't meant there are not important predictive models backed by empirical data. In other words, Austrians and Keynesians are both wrong. Social science must be ecclectic to be useful. |
|
|
|
Besides the point I already made, I am amused by the passive-aggressive stance toward governemt (presumably mostly by Americans). I wonder when some noses and windows will break instead of armchair complaints. If you don't like where things are going in your society, do something about it, or find a better place and move.
Why do you think we are here in Bitcoinland? |
|
|
|
Being important for discovering some math models doesn't mean that they are necessary for ALL math models. I still don't see how the lack of a perfect triangle in the real world disproves Austrian economics.
Economics in general is just too broad of a social science. Besides, science isn't in the business of disproving anything, just falsifying hypotheses. |
|
|
|
|
Fractal models exist, yet you will never find a perfect Mandelbrot in Nature.
|
|
|
|
OK, so you claim math is a science. Fine. a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is a math theorem that is mathematically accurate to absolute precision. Now show me a perfect triangle anywhere in nature that can be measured and independently tested and verified to have perfectly straight lines and can be accurately measured at anytime to be be consistent of the theorem that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 exactly.
But I don't have to show you anything in nature for it to be true.... A triangle has such properties a priori. That's exactly why you should not always use empiricism as a way to acquire knowledge. "Measuring and testing independently at anytime" is the empiricist way of acquiring knowledge, which doesn't fit neither to Math, nor to any social science. The Pythagoras equation holds true for any triangle, even if you're not capable of finding an object with triangular form in nature. Are you trying to argue that the equation is not true because you've never seen a natural object of triangular shape? Well then he probably claims social science isn't science either  cbeast. What about fractals? They are in nature and in math. Do they disprove whatever it is you are trying to argue? I type too slow. They prove that empirical measurements are important for discovering math models. Yes I believe that social science are just as empirical as chemistry. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
