|
Thanks very much for making the gamble of reading this post.
You see I made a bet that you would read it, and my bet was to take the time to write it.
Perhaps you now know we have both won the bet, and you also know my point:
Every activity performed by any agent is a gamble. Every. One. End of story.
Now, tell me, is gambling wrong?
Another point: nothing "is wrong" without context. Is 3 wrong? Yeah, the question was what's 2+2. Otherwise, no.. you are an idiot for posing a question without the necessary context.
|
|
|
|
|
It is probably worth making a distinction between banks and counterfeiters. Actual banks, like, doing real business and not hiding their criminal operations, have no beef with bitcoin at all. It's just money. Something to store, change, and to charge a fee for the service. Credit cards, lenders, trust services, private banking, VC - - all of it works fine (and better actually) with bitcoin.
Those who run criminal counterfeitting operations however do have a beef with bitcoin, because they can't counterfeit it and it allows their victims to escape. That's the real war going on here.
|
|
|
|
|
WOW!!
Do you see that little highlighted box in the upper right that says: "WHY IT MATTERS"
(yes the all caps is how they wrote it)
Then below it says "Making it easier to move money around digitally could have many benefits"
Lets be 100% clear here. This is in no way, shape, or form "why it matters". Why bitcoin matters is because it cannot be counterfeit. Moving money digitally has been possible for decades.. but yeah, counterfeitable money.
This is beyond "oh we are just clueless here at MIT" and moves quite clearly into the arena of "we are deliberately deceitful".
This represents the crossing of a line in the sand for MIT Technology Review, which many have seen and discussed but now has been made fully public.
You have been warned, act accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Yeah. I have a question!
Why is it only those that own the means of production that get a vote?
Simply, because it is the easiest thing to do. You could make a proof of stake vote. It takes some preparing, someone needs to collect the votes. More importantly, he/she should not be able to connect ip addresses to signatures. Everyone has to be informed that his vote is wanted and they collect the private keys from cold storage, possibly endangering the integrity of the keys. Also, this voting scheme has the problem that some big exchanges may use customer funds to vote for themselves. Another random idea would be one bitcointalk forum post one vote, but that is easily manipulable and also not very fair. And "One person one vote" is clearly not accomplishable over the internet. What you suggest is basically what is implemented here: http://coin-vote.com/poll/55d5fbe74df0a76e09bafeeaThere is no endangering of the integrity of the keys however, at least any more than one would endanger them to sign a transaction. |
|
|
|
|
Give me control over a coin's checkpoints and I care not who mines its blocks.
|
|
|
|
FAQ link fixed, sorry about that. Thanks for your response! |
|
|
|
I'm afraid my wife and girlfriends will find out I wasn't looking for sex there and assume I am gay or impotent. ROFLMAO.... Do you realize that Ashley Madison had at least one million users, who were using the service to find same-sex relationships? There were around 700,000 women users who were looking for female partners, and some 350,000 male users, who were looking for gay partners. They even had gay users from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Good point. Well fortunately for those involved in relationships with adolescent intolerant fuckwits (national hat wearing or personal), a name or email on a hacker dump can hardly be seen as proof of looking for a sexual relationship. If you are in such a position of being accused of looking for a sexual relationship (imagine the horror, primates looking for a sexual relationship!), it is recommended that you take the leaked .txt file in question and add the email address of your accuser to it, save, and pass it onward. This might make them think twice about your-name-on-a-list as proof of guilt. |
|
|
|
|
Is it too late to add my email to the list?
I'm afraid my wife and girlfriends will find out I wasn't looking for sex there and assume I am gay or impotent.
|
|
|
|
|
"Embedded" code should be fixed, for those who wish to add a verifiable vote to their own sites.
Thanks for testing and reporting!
|
|
|
|
Coin-vote is now in extended beta, live at coin-vote.com. Service continues to be free, please help us test! Thanks  |
|
|
|
No, Bitcoin cannot replace dollars soon.
I mean That if XT kinds of hindrance will regularly come in its path and prices keep on fluctuating this much, then it will be very difficult to replace dollars which is the most widely accepted currency.
Most people bring ice in from the north on ships, that is the most widely accepted way to do it, and what people do now is what people will always do. Also people disagree on the details of how to build refrigerators. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your feedback and trying the embedded code. Hopefully I'll have a better answer for you about that soon, looks like some old stuff got left in there embedded code we need to fix. In the meantime you can link to the vote page as you have done here. Indeed, you have phrased THE pertinent question apparently. I am curious to see the tradehouses for those transactions if we make it that far. Very interesting. In this case, the placing a vote is of course no proof that the voter will actually do what they indicate with the coin.. but I can see that people with a clear opinion one way or the other might wish to indicate such. Some people might wish to remain "neutral", but business is business - if one needs to accept coin then a choice needs to be made which one will be used to verify payment. Perhaps better to put such discussion in another thread. |
|
|
|
Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase
because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic. that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend. I don't understand the argument that no block size limit would fill the blockchain with spam. I mean the blocks up till the spam attack, which was costly for the one doing it, were not filled up nearly. So when we would drop the block size limit, why suddenly should there be a lot of spam bringing the blocks to 20 MB? When it didn't happen till now then there is no reason to assume that it will happen then. The argument is that with bigger block size, the space is less valuable, so the required fee will be lower, so -- easier to send microTX/dust/spam. If you make it easier and cheaper, then more people come to fill the space, and in the end you are faced with the same problem again - except this time it is now unfeasible to even run a node on reasonable hardware/pipe. |
|
|
|
|
Quick network update:
Today we reached Difficulty=32.24 new ALL TIME HIGH.
600+ MSkein/s
All systems go. Keep up the good work woodcutters!
|
|
|
|
A lot of folks have used the word "vote" in regards to the discussion about whether or not we should treat a block with size > 1MB as valid. I'm not saying a vote is the solution, but I am saying this: We built a platform for you to place and count verifiable votes. Maybe, just maybe, the people who hold the coin might have some say in the matter? I'm mostly curious what people who actually - have bitcoin - think, rather than some anonodweebs or pseudodevs. http://coin-vote.com/poll/557573b91ce32f881a045135Go, place your vote. It's free, safe, and publicly verifiable, and if you don't like the wording - make another. For more information on the voting system: http://frass.woodcoin.org/introducing-coin-vote/ |
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a lot of talk lately with "developers" comparing the sizes of their bitcoin cocks.
How many pull requests did you have accepted in this or that software repository? Were you the first to implement this or that protocol in this or that broken product?
You know what? I don't gaff.
Are you a "core developer" ? Do you have keys to a centralized source repository or perhaps the ability to censor this or that centralized schoolroom bulletin board?
I still don't care.
Some of you are in the above mentioned schoolrooms and repositories, day in and day out, telling pseudonymous noobs (like yours truly) how ECDSA, bitcoin, computers, and the world works. And this is what you are: bitcoin educators.
And for this I love you. This is the real work that is needed, and you are doing it.
Perhaps your version of multisig or mining or z-client or whatever - is commonly used / totally broken / fantastic / abandoned. These details are certainly interesting, from a technical and historical perspective. However the real impact is pedagogic.
I hope you see that.
Yes, we need good software, and this is also a hugely important task which I am not discounting here. But what good is a decent stack if nobody has a clue what it is or how to use it?
We need educators of all levels. This is what holds us back: we are not primarily in need of protocol improvements or better GUIs or whatever, but of people that have a clue.
I'm trying my damndest not to mention names here, because you know who you are.
It's been called God's work. It is largely thankless and without compensation, and I for one say: Fucking Thank You!!
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I misunderstood. But, this: 2) Start charging people to submit TXs to your node, and enable such submissions via website form, IRC message, whatever. Payment can be in the TX or otherwise how you like. If you charge people to submit transactions to nodes, you are eating into miners revenue. My general point is that increasing fees to users is part of the issue that has led to an XT fork attempt - their view is that increasing fees too much prevents adoption. If the aggregate of all the fees people encounter when using Bitcoin becomes too high, people won't use it. Linking payments to websites just attaches your identify to transactions. It removes what little anonymity is in Bitcoin. This is a tricky problem to solve and I certainly do not discourage anyone thinking about it - just trying to point out that some ideas lead to unintended consequences. Thanks  Yes, indeed charging for TX relaying would be taking from the source that pays miners relay fees and so could in theory change that market. In fact it seems impractical because miners should simply say, well, just give us the TX directly. We have net access too and we can also make wwws. I am still somewhat surprised that there is not more direct submission of TXs to miners, though I know there is some. There are some other reasons to submit TXs directly to miners, for more non-standard TXs where malleability can be an issue for example. So yeah, my saying "nodes can already charge if they like" is hardly a cure-all solution. The market says there's no money there, and in the end, I hope, the market decides what people can do, not some guy claiming to be a dwarf on bitcointalk  In any case, there doesn't have to be any doxxing in these payment channels. A node could for example say "any TX which doesn't provide 1 millie output to this address I will not propagate". In the end there are many types of motivations behind payments, some which need confirmation as soon as possible and are willing to pay, and some (e.g. between mutually trusted parties) that don't care how long it takes. This stuff will have to find balance with the costs of internet, power, and node operation expenses. |
|
|
|
1) Make a nice node, ensure good connection to miners
2) Start charging people to submit TXs to your node, and enable such submissions via website form, IRC message, whatever. Payment can be in the TX or otherwise how you like.
That's pretty much it. Right now you might not get anyone to pay because, well, volunteers do it for free.. but if this is an issue.. well there's your solution.
Unless I didn't understand the question or the solution correctly - the issue is who, why and how are people going to pay? Then there is the issue of miners rewards halving to zero. The intention has always been that when rewards end, fees fund mining. So we would end up with fees going to: * miners * connections to nodes * exchanges * payment processors * off chain networks that settle on the block chain Then there is the issue of how do you pay nodes from SPV wallets. You could have a situations with one full node for every 1m SPV wallets as a general ratio. Having websites to pay nodes would have an impact on user and infrastructure anonymity of the entire network. That would be like the doctor prescribing a cure to an illness, which would unfortunately kill the patient. The OP is addressing the incentive to run a node, not the incentive to mine. Mining incentives, well, that's another topic. My point is that you could charge people now, any way you like, for running a node. This is not a "protocol change needed" scenario. This "no change at all" is hardly a doctor's prescription nor an illness. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
