What is your benchmark? You are talking about $1. That is not a lot of money anywhere and is not crippling anyone - a device capable of running Bitcoin is still in the order of $50.
Right. So only well-to-do merchants can afford such a device, and folk limited to brainwallets and earning 0.0457 BTC a day might well find a cheaper blockchain based currency, with its presumably lower fees, more suitable than bitcoin for their needs. -MarkM-  $4, runs java. You'd maybe need a public/shared terminal and there may be security implications but there are options out there. |
|
|
|
Well, if it was the knowledge of the possession that was the currency then that makes the currency super portable and thus practical.
So that would be exactly what he ment by portability. Stones would be impractical to use as a currency and would prevent it from being used widely in everyday life.
Yes. It was my understanding that the posting of the picture of the stone coins was made as a counter to the portability requirement. The stones themselves were red-herrings (which actually would possibly be portable enough to be used as currency but would probably violate the previously undisclosed "must not smell of fish" requirement). |
|
|
|
Now could it be this is because people actually demand a government? Could it have to do something with this topic? Could it be that they do see the need for more balance and social equity?
Nope, there is a benefit to the individual if they can exercise power over others. Hence some individuals seek to climb the ladder of authority (and will create the ladder if it doesn't already exist). Unfortunately, there are plenty who are content to accede to such control and thus lend their power to those who seek to control. |
|
|
|
Perseus-Pouch.dat?
I like this one  . Though not sure where the Perseus reference comes from. Lets not confuse it with /etc/passwd.
privkeys.dat?
I was thinking that the keys were more like keys. Which leads to keyring or keychain. But that clashes with the whole PGP thing. Key pouch, keystore, keyfile keyvault? Keybook maybe? I don't know. The programs themselves also do more than just store keys so even that is not really a good representation (though your wallet does not monitor or initiate transactions either). Maybe go a little sideways: Sesame? (as in open sesame). Multipass? (  ) |
|
|
|
Again you show you don't understand what you criticize. Th market can't "enforce" anything.
Markets encourage some behaviors and discourage others, which may be not always in the best interest for themselves and everybody else in the long-term, because individuals often think and act too short-sightedly. That's all I meant. Why do you want to "incentivize" women to breed and not leave that up to their own reasoned out choice? Why not incentivize them to be barefoot and in the kitchen while you're about it? |
|
|
|
|
The surprise would have been if it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power
Ssshh. That's NBC's new sitcom. |
|
|
|
|
Even if you *must* have the client do the block-chain thing (and I understand the justification even if I don't necessarily agree with it), there's no reason you couldn't have the client run in a lightweight mode until the block-chain is caught up. Maybe with some suitable warning.
I've been using bitcoin-spinner to manage my so-far meagre funds but I fired up my PC wallet last night just for giggles and it took 15 minutes plus to catch up with the block-chain. That's not good user experience.
I understand block-chain processing === needed but it needs to be decoupled from the wallet. Heck, I should be able to run blockchain processing on my Linux server and keep my wallet on my nice friendly Windows GUI workstation, no? (Maybe I can already do this. I see that there are various options to the client that can be run on the command line.)
|
|
|
|
It's more complicated because it requires a printer and you'd need to remember and organise how much money is stored on the keys (How do you handle change?).
I guess the wallet could also contain a "change" address and the target should refund. That's still over-complicated though. |
|
|
|
You put coins in wallets where you come from? I thought most people put coins in purses or pockets and notes-aka-bills in wallets. So much cultural variation! Biblical David or somesuch ancient carried bread in his didn't he? Or was that purse? Hmmm... Was Medusa's head carried in a purse or a wallet? Times change, cultures vary, but part also of my point was try focussing on the part of their wallet where they carry ID and/or credit cards, hotel room door swipe-cards and such. -MarkM- EDIT: Also, at first sign they are thinking of the wrong type or aspect of wallet, maybe try "no no no not billfold, not coinpurse, wallet! (I have one that has a billfold section and a coinpurse (horrible to use, too bumpy/bulky in use) as well as normal wallet parts for IDs and cards etc...) (See what I did there with that "normal" word? ) I did know someone who had a coin-purse and used it. Of course, he was also pretending to smoke a pipe by age 10 so... Even so, I'm just saying that the metaphor of a physical token is enough to cause confusion in the wallet metaphor, not to mention that you don't have to backup or encrypt your wallet and if you lose it, you haven't lost all your money (Though you shouldn't if you are properly managing wallets anyway. But there's another point, who has multiple real-world wallets in general use?). The wallet metaphor falls short well before a regular user comprehends enough to be able to use Bitcoin safely. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, looking at bitinstant, when I change the country to the UK, it still lists the amount in dollars. That leads me to believe that I'll still be relying on bank conversion GBP->USD before converting to bitcoins. I had a quick dig around and they don't really mention foreign currency deposits at all.
Currencyfair looks interesting though. I could have saved a pretty penny if I'd known about them.
|
|
|
|
Obviously, numbers (including private keys) are not property. Using them to misrepresent yourself as someone else may, in some cases, be a form of fraud. I do not think that applies to Bitcoin, however, since the only thing you are really representing is that you have the private key, which is perfectly true. There is no actual property involved to substantiate a claim of fraud.
Hacking isn't really a question of IPR; the central question is whether, by sending commands to your PC and causing it to act contrary to the wishes of its owner, the hacker has trespassed on the owner's physical property rights in the PC. The counter-argument would naturally be that a hacker can't cause the PC to do anything it wasn't programmed to do by the owner, by accident or default if not deliberate intent. I lean more toward the latter camp, but I will admit that the trespass argument has some merit.
Assuming the trespass argument is discarded, where does that leave us regarding hacking? I would say that we are left with contracts. Specifically, the end-user's contract with their ISP, the ISP's contract with their upstream provider, and contracts between ISPs and backhaul providers. These contracts should prohibit use of the connection for hacking, specify administrative procedure and penalties, and require similar provisions on the part of anyone connecting to the same network. Anyone caught hacking could then be kicked from the network and/or fined for breach of contract.
There's always the good old "Theft of power" and "Theft of services" Private keys are clearly not "intellectual property" of any kind though. |
|
|
|
I need you to elaborate. We're not aiming to make the system directly favor libertarians, we want people to be able to vote for who they really want to represent them
How could a yes/no system be better than complete ranking; are you thinking its too complicated for the average sheeple?
No, I mean objectively that in a good percentage of cases, it results in the selection of the candidate that not the most favored choice of all concerned. It's a perverse outcome but it's pretty well known. I think there is some good info on Wikipedia also. In particular, it has this (amongst others) to say about IRV: The participation criterion states that "the best way to help a candidate win must not be to abstain".[34] IRV does not meet this criterion: in some cases, the voter's preferred candidate can be best helped if the voter does not vote at all.and The Condorcet winner criterion states that "if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election". It is incompatible with the later-no-harm criterion, so IRV does not meet this criterion.I'd recommend reading around the various pages on the voting systems. It's fascinating reading (if you're that way inclined) and quite possibly could produce an epiphany about the relation of the governers to the governed. |
|
|
|
I was not being sacrastic, I was realising myself that although I recall wallets as being where one keeps money, who-ever named the private keys repository in bitcoin might well date from an era when wallets are not for keeping money in but, rather, for keeping the stuff you need for identifying yourself as being authorised to access money.
-MarkM-
Ah, I see what you mean. Good point. Though people do still put cash in wallets (not me. The different dollar bills all being the same size makes it too annoying) and the bitcoin is, after all, named after a currency token which further emphasizes the metaphor of "a bitcoin in your wallet". Even on this board, those who know better often talk as if the coins are in the wallet. Like I say, I understand why it was called that, I just think where the metaphor breaks (and it breaks easily) is where things fall apart. Also consider that although credit/debit cards authorize your access to money, they very much behave like cash in actual use (Get items, hand token to cashier, the invocation and return of token are the main difference). I'm actually thinking that the hardware wallets suggested elsewhere may provide a more friendly introduction to bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
All Assange proves is that when it comes to someone moving against them, the government will move heaven and earth. When it comes to people acting against the general population, meh, they'll get around to it. Eventually. Maybe. Or give them a bailout.
|
|
|
|
i see instant runoff as having all of the benefits of that plus more
vote in order of whoever u want, but u can just leave off who u dont like or vote who you least like the lowest number
1. gary johnson
2. rand paul
3. gill stein
4. Governator
5. mitt romney
6....
7....
8....
..
.
55. turtle in a bathtub
56. Obama
And you end up with Obama (some of the time). The problems with instant runoff are well documented. It is an improvement on first-past-the-post but still ends up with poor selections in quite a large number of cases. It does tick the "one man, one vote" box which is a stumbling point for a lot of people who oppose approval voting. Approval voting does that sometimes as well but it seems as if there's always going to be problems with selecting a very few people to represent a large number. (Though it often applies in other cases such as choosing where to eat). Martin Gardner has an interesting article on it though I have only ever seen it in dead tree form. |
|
|
|
A wallet is the thing you keep your cards in, right?
The cards with the magic numbers on them that give you access to money?
What generation are you from? Maybe old enough to remember when people kept paper in their wallets instead of printing their wallets on paper?
-MarkM-
P.S. The cards that nowadays chances are have to be scanned/read-by or typed into a computer to get access to that money?
Nice sarcasm. Shame it's wasted, I have no problem with the concepts involved in the Bitcoin wallet. Do you really want me to spell out all the differences? These differences are what will make it troublesome for many to adopt. That is all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
Runoff voting has its own issues and is a pain to actually apply (I've been through it. Though it is only a short term pain and that shouldn't really affect adoption). Personally, I'm a big fan of approval voting. Though I really don't expect anything to change anytime soon.
explain approval voting? It's pretty straightforward. Take all the candidates running and apply a "Yes" or "No' against their name. The one with the most "Yes"s win. It's still not perfect but it has a lot going for it and most of the objections that people have straight away usually prove not valid with a bit of thought. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
