How do you out lobby the fed?
Fed can only bribe w/ dollars, but we have bitcoins.  But seriously, freedom is not giving extra to your masters. |
|
|
|
|
I'm in for testing for sure. Keep us updated.
|
|
|
|
how does one delete blk*.dat?
Something like C:\Users\[Your User Account]\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin Then delete the two files that start with blk. Should be blkindex and blk0001. |
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for addressing my concerns! I have come to realize that (A) there are a lot of smart people out there who would notice the network split and take steps to address the problem, and (B) there are a lot of cheap, open-source technologies to enable connectivity such as: Mesh Potato (open-source mesh router that automatically forms a peer-to-peer network and relays telephone calls without landlines or cell-phone towers) Universal Software Radio Peripheral (an open-source high-speed, flexible, inexpensive hardware device facilitating the building of a software radio, GSM cell tower/base station, digital transciever) openBTS (an open-source application that uses the Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP) to present a GSM air interface to standard GSM handset and connects calls) OR a good old-fashioned modem Nice. I posted the mesh potato in other topics a few days ago. If bitcoin stays small and bad internet stuff happens I guess it could get split, but if it gets any kind of size and distribution it'll ust be impossible to keep us apart (at least many of us, for very long). |
|
|
|
|
This offers the same anonymity as using a new address each time? And you would still want to use a new address each time if you care because eventually you will be revealing yourself.
|
|
|
|
While it may minimize it, someone willing to put forth the effort to game the system (similarly to what I communicated above) may make the idea seem not as successful or reliable as it could be. Perhaps instead of relying on this forum to guarantee unique users, some other method could be established that is more reliable?
There are surely better ways. It depends on what his goal is though. If you want to cap total exposure, then do that and tell people "Sorry, full up" If you want to keep bets balanced on both sides, just close the lagging side. OR spread a market and let the rate fluctuate and people bet with each other. |
|
|
|
To be legal from my country's perspective I would need to:
1) Limit the value per transaction. I'm not 100% sure which value this would be - I'm currently consulting on the fact - but it would be less than $10000.
2) I would need to withdraw any profits from the offshore account (paypal, etc) within 30 days of receipt within the account.
3) If I would need to refund, or pay someone out, I would have to do that within the allocated 30 days. Paying out cash would not be allowed.
4) I would have to declare my income from the sale, and pay taxes on it.
5) Obviously normal accounting practice would need to be followed and books maintained as per normal tax regulations.
It sounds like it'll be tough to compete with someone who has freedom. |
|
|
|
There is a thread on this board titled 'Win 100.000 BTC'. The context shows this to mean one hundred thousand Bitcoins, and not one hundred with an accuracy to three decimal places.
I see the potential for misunderstanding. Can we agree to use 1,234.56 notation as a Bitcoin standard?
Not a bitcoin issue, go talk to Europe. Oh, I see, since we will probably actually use that decimal place. Yeah, use a damn comma, Europe. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is depressing. I am a newb. Why isn't this info created at the same time as the program? Why can't Satoshi just rattle it off?
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin community hopes that it will generally remain free of intervention, perhaps with your support in the future.
Or even better:
The Bitcoin community hopes to generally remain free of intervention, perhaps with your support in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people just don't know where they aren't welcome, Jeez...
j/k what happens when you log in once you are at the econ page? Have you tried it with a different account?
|
|
|
|
|
The whole form of it is bad though because it's not a conditional thing. We hope to remain free weather their legal organization helps us or not.
|
|
|
|
That is a truly awful sentence.
Saying how awful it is doesn't exactly help me. The letter may not be that great, but it remains that I am the only one who is writing it. Sorry. I wasn't helping because I'm not interested in legal action. I'll do grammar action though. I was talking about this part mostly: "..the Bitcoin community have hopes that it will generally remain s free of intervention" |
|
|
|
Or it can be a verb, "If you like my work, bitcoin me."
That should be capitalized because you are referring to the Bitcoin network. Similarly, "Just Google it" is capitalized when referring specifically to the Google search engine. These rules are all very trivial and unimportant, of course, but following all of English's ridiculous capitalization rules is a bit of a hobby of mine. I did not know that. After Googling "when I googled it" I realize I am not alone. Not that people on the internet have a clue, one person "google'd" something. |
|
|
|
|
That is a truly awful sentence.
|
|
|
|
The relatively small and few non-exchange items on the trade page is proof of how difficult it is to create value. The new currency would have to reproduce all of that work. To tell the truth I am surprised the Bitcoin has achieved it's current value against the US $ and feel it is rather inflated thanks to fundamentalist followers who want the concept to work rather than a true value pegged to production.
I'm sure you are right to some extent, but don't forget about supply and future expectations of supply. There are about 3.5M available bitcoins. I don't know how many USD there are but it's more than a few orders of magnitude more. There is way way way more demand for $$ than BTC, but there is way more supply too is all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
|
Or it can be a verb, "If you like my work, bitcoin me."
|
|
|
|
|
So, to get a handle on what you are looking for:
A simple private public key pair is no good because while one user belongs to each pair, many pairs can belong to one user. You want to make sure no one can have multiple identities?
Here's the bar to beat cost wise. Hold everyone down at gunpoint, implant a heart monitor that explodes when removed and communicates with your server continuously.
|
|
|
|
Willsway, if future inflation is stealing from past participation, then isn't it fair to say that past inflation is stealing from future participation? The current inflation rate is EXTREMELY HIGH. Do the means justify the ends? It's EXTREMELY beneficial to the past participants if it is adopted by the later participants. But why should the future participants accept to have had the high inflation stolen from them simply because they didn't know about the project or were not born yet? Isn't it in their advantage to group together and start the whole process over again so that they can also have the opportunity to steal from future participation?
Look, if you tell people that you are going to be debasing the currency and that they can use it or not then that isn't stealing. So it's wrong to call the method in the OP stealing. But I don't want to invest into a system where my contribution is able to be watered down and given to everyone every year forever. It's also my guess that other producers won't want to get involved either. The people at the beginning are taking a risk, and they are the only reason the currency will have any value at all in the future. If people want to get involved by supplying more backing in exchange for an agreed upon amount of coin then they can, if not then they won't. It's my guess that they will, that's why I'm earning bitcoin by processing transactions and by supplying goods and cash. There is no guarantee that I am right and my various investments will pay. I am pretty confident judging my the growth of the community over the last month. There are people who were confident even earlier when it appeared even crazier and riskier, they will get paid more for the same investment. |
|
|
|
I understand that the 4x limit to the difficulty adjustment was added quite recently, so there is some precedent in fixing problematic aspects of the algorithm.
Really? Source? Sorry, I was wrong about that. I though I had read something on the forum to that effect, but now I can't find it. Looking at old sources, I see that the 4x cap was there as early as bitcoin-0.1.0.rar, so this is definitely not a new modification. I thought so, but still, some changes can be made. What is the change that solves this problem? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
