Followup: I am not sure if I should laugh or cry. The original developer of BitcoinSpinner is on vacation and will come back Monday January 16 (One week from now). He has the signing key for uploading updates to the Android Marketplace, and he cannot reach it from where he is. This means that the bug described above will have to wait one week. Given that the bug is not serious, this is not too bad. However, this reminds me that there should be another upload procedure  big advantage of password safes: leave no key behind  also usually allows for easy sharing of subsets of keys by import/export of subcategories. The good news is that I have added another feature, which allows you to see the USD value of your balance if it was sold on Mtgox at the current buying rate. There has been quite some demand for this.
thats indeed nice. and there is still one week of vacation left for more features  |
|
|
|
die frage ist, womit menschen besser umgehen können. zukunft ohne streichen, bitcoin = 300€: ein kaffee für 0,01btc und ein auto für 100btc. zukunft mit vier stellen streichen, bitcoin = 0,03€: ein kaffee für 100 btc und ein auto für 1.000.000. also vier stellen finde ich deshalb schon sehr viel. 300€ ist ja nun schon ein recht amtlicher kurs. bei sechs stellen müsste selbst für diese sloty-artigen werte der kurs schon bei 30.000€ liegen. ich denke, wenn man das streichen durchziehen will, sollte man das so ansetzen, daß ein normaler stundenlohn ein- bis zweistellig ist. und sobald man da wieder drunterkommt, streicht man wieder zwei stellen. ist ja nicht so, daß sich der kurs beliebig oft verhundertfachen wird. 30.000€ pro bitcoin ist auch schon mal eine marktkapitalisierung von 360mrd. bei 12mio bitcoins (ca. 2014). da gehts vielleicht auch noch nach oben, aber für exponentielles wachstum ist da nicht mehr viel platz |
|
|
|
Well, there you go, your point of view is not any different to thousands of other anti-DRM campaigners. It boils down to "I don't know how things should work, it just shouldn't be like this". It's not a very useful position to take.
my favorite model right now is that of a culture flatrate along with a voting system. you pay a culture tax and get a limited number of votes you can distribute across all artists/developers or groups of them and they get paid from that tax. i would prefer nonlinear system that allows artists with a limited number of fans to survive and superstars to get moderately rich. technologically thats quite possible. of course thats a system you cannot try locally, even nationwide is tough. btw calling me a campaigner is not really accurate in my opinion. i have no ideological attachement of any kind. i just see a system that is clearly failing and i dont see anybody really willing to even try and fix it. 95% of the people with actual power are in the "there is no alternative"-religion and their favorite improvement of something totally fubar is "more of the same" which, in this case, means stricter laws. We have systems like DRM and their support laws because nobody has figured out that theoretical alternative despite decades of trying. The closest I've seen is assurance contracts (kickstarter style), which is why there's a description of how to do it low-trust style on the Contracts page.
Unfortunately the few examples of large, well established names trying this technique out all resulted in failure (Steven King etc). I'm not convinced you can make the kind of movie or video game that breaks records today via assurance contracts. And as that's the only viable alternative suggested, I think copyright is going to be around in some form for quite a while.
i dont think the problem can be solved without legal changes. you cant have two solutions at the same time. thats why i agree copyright will be around for a while. nobody will dare to try anything else. or want to. after all, governments are mostly in the business of getting elected. solving long term problems with long term solutions isnt really their field of duty. |
|
|
|
So you're against two consenting parties being able to form a contract, enforced by software that they both agree on ahead of time? That sounds rather anti-capitalist to me.
DRM is just a form of electronically enforced contract. If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't buy the software/music/movie/whatever.
yes, i am. mostly because there isnt much consent involved. most people dont understand the software, the drm, the license agreements, nor do they understand if they are even legal under their jurisdiction. but aside from that i think the whole system is fucked up by design. right now we create an artificial scarcity denying millions and millions of poor people access to all kinds of software and entertainment products to allow companies to earn money. as a secondary effect, we also accept decreased quality of the products. so if thats the kind of damage it takes - just in a single industry - to maintain capitalism i am definitely an anti-capitalist. its not about ideology. the system clearly does not produce acceptable results, so dumb it. that does not mean i have the perfect solution how to distribute money to the producers without selling the product. but at least we should look for one. instead we create another dreadful protection mechanism that doesnt work after another and then create laws to protect it and then laws to protect those laws. I think what you're afraid of is that if there's no electronic mechanisms to allow the seller to increase their trust in the buyer, they won't sell to you at all. This is the mess that some countries have got into with credit cards. Fraud rates are too high and there's no way to do irreversible payments, so sellers simply refuse to sell if they suspect you might be connecting from such a place. Bitcoin solves this by making it easier for contractual trust to be established electronically. Bitcoin isn't perfect and double spends are possible. If you lose your keys, you're hosed, and so on. DRM is a bit like that - it's an imperfect and inflexible enforcement of contracts that are too low value or too international to be enforced by the courts.
see, from my point of view its an imperfect and inflexible solution to a problem, that is a) unsolvable and b) artificially created. all to make products that are reproduceable without cost work in a society that measures value in scarcity. its basically the same with patents. the system does not work and it cannot work. and it will only get worse because the transition from a world in which resources and production capabilities represent value to one in which ideas and designs do is still in its infancy. |
|
|
|
|
i dont think the companies that deploy drm are run by idiots and i understand their motivation. i just think they shouldnt be allowed to deploy it at all.
any software that stops the layman from making backup copies, running software when some verification server is down or any other intentional mechanism that might lead to unpredictable unusability of the product should not be allowed to be sold at all. software that installs spyware, rootkits or anything else that interferes with the normal behavior of the customers computer should be punishable to the same extend as spreading any other malware. meaning jailtime.
|
|
|
|
|
you normally have to pay for your insulin? you have no health insurance or its not covered? what about a possible cancer treatment?
that might sound like stupid questions but here in germany its still kind of all-inclusive and people not getting necessary medical treatment always feels a bit surprising/odd/outlandish/bizarre (cant find a good word here, maybe you get the meaning).
i dont know how much a cancer treatment costs, but i dont think most people here would be prepared for that kind of misfortune.
|
|
|
|
In fairness, Ubisofts protection was bizarrely weak given that the foundational idea was quite good. The crack I saw didn't seem to need some basic things you'd expect. Designing copy protection is more of an art than a science unfortunately.
There doesn't seem to be much you can do to combine Bitcoin+DRM, and I have an interest in both.
omg, my personal "bitcoin developer of 2011"-award-winner likes DRM. O-M-G. maybe you wanna watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSgeven if you cant agree, he is an enjoyable speaker even though he always says gemeral instead of general  |
|
|
|
wow, sounds great!  |
|
|
|
|
full blockchain on a mobile device sounds like a very bad plan. backup on dropbox wouldnt be my prefered solution either.
so imho bitpak is a very bad app by design.
|
|
|
|
not really on topic, but going from not having backups at all to max security isnt necessarily the best way. you cant have it without some downsides or inconveniences and you have to make sure they are ok for you or your friend. for example 2-factor auth is nice, but you better dont lose your yubikey or be certain, you will have access to that email address virtually forever. online wallets are convenient, but what if they vanish? how much work is it to get your wallet running at another service? can your friend handle that alone? doesnt mean its not the best solution for your friend. but a desktop client with encryption and backups might work just as well. might be a good time to introduce him to the magic power of backups anyway |
|
|
|
hm, and here i thought since a few days ago everybody is subject to US law. but probably only if you cant convince the judge whom you will never see that you are not a terrorist |
|
|
|
imho bitcoinspinner is as simple and nongeeky as it gets. therefore its a very important app for the foreseeable future, even though it has a single point of failure. so jan, dont fail |
|
|
|
|
trust takes time.
or money to create a trustworthy image. like all the big, untrustworthy companies do it.
open source doesnt mean shit to the 95% of the population who get their information from evening tv. nor does any other objective measure of how trustworty an entity is. its just to complicated.
so either you ignore the problem completely and pass on that audience for the time being - which is what we have to do anyway, because we dont have the software for average joe - or you adapt the marketing strategies of the big companies.
so imho dont target average joe. its not worth the time right now and especially not worth the money it will most likely cost.
|
|
|
|
WTF, dude?!  impossible!  yeah yeah, they all say its just skill... |
|
|
|
|
nobody has the intention of building a wall bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
jo, der typ hatte nicht so viel ahnung. mit der anonymität hatten sie aber recht. die frage ist, ob das viele leute stört und falls ja, ob man die anonymität nicht verbessern kann.
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoin needs developers and testers, merchants and buyers, reporters and writers, artists and designers, sponsors and organizers, miners and clients, everything.
i wouldnt cut anything out, unless you can say "we can succeed without a single one of them". for example, i think its very good for the confidence in bitcoin that even during massively falling prices a majority of bitcoins never made it to the exchanges. so i think people holding onto their bitcoins and remaining totally calm are important, especially in the rough early days.
|
|
|
|
+ Writing and making videos.
+ Creating graphics and logos.
+ Organising events.
[...]
+1 showing your faith in bitcoin by buying some is good. running the client constantly certainly improves the network. but in the end, there is still so much work to do. just making bitcoin "bigger" doesnt solve them. picking something no matter how small and doing it does. make an artist with 20 fans accept bitcoins. translate the wiki to islandic. organize the first meet-up in pukmukluktistan. and if you dont know what to do, ask somebody already involved in a project if and how you can help. and since you already bought bitcoins you dont just do it for the warm fuzzy feeling maybe setting up a page solely to organize volunteers might be a good idea. it is kinda hard when you have no idea whats important and where to start. |
|
|
|
The Satoshi bitcoin code could certainly do a better job of helping users recover from any/all of the above, although I personally think that development time would be better spent on the "what if my computer catches fire" scenario-- can we make it really easy for users to securely backup and restore their wallets off-site?
i am totally with you. but maybe first make it easy to backup at all? |
|
|
|
|
yeah, step-4-infinite-loop-attack.
+ none-of-the-wallets-look-like-a-plausible-real-wallet-so-i-continue-to-hit-you-with-a-$5-wrench-until-you-give-me-more-wallets-attack.
btw:
how exactly to you give them a secret wallet without doing the xor operation in your head? i mean you cant really tell them "my key is sha256(helloworld12345) xor privatekey" without revealing your method.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
