Hmmm.






I'm not getting this proposal at all.

First... these tx-lists can be published by anyone verifying the chain? Bitcoin nodes can publish lists? Just any ol' node can do that? Considering the prospect of malicious nodes trying to crack this new feature, isn't that tempting fate, unless such lists can be ignored? And if they can, what's the point of having them?

And then, miners get to choose which list to use. So why wouldn't a miner just publish his own list, then immediately use it?

I'm failing to see exactly how all this is supposed to realistically handicap a miner and "encourage" them to put transactions into their block.

And if it DOESN'T do that, then what's the point? What is this "proof of validation" supposed to do if it doesn't result in transactions being forced into a block?

And if it DOES force transactions into a block, but I produce a block without those transactions, how could my block NOT be rejected?

I think whoever is doing this is brilliant.

There's been concern for a long time that the bitcoin network will eventually weaken due to pitiful transaction fees providing no incentive for new/continued mining.

Not only has this zero-tx miner forced this issue to the fore, he has also provided an incentive for all of us to do, over time, what needs to be done to alleviate that concern.

Begin bumping up our transaction fees.

It's doubtful that small bumps in our fees will quickly end zero-tx mining. But it's also doubtful zero-tx mining is going to cause serious problems in the near future. But over time, it begins to matter.

As our transaction fees go up, not only will we be incentivizing new miners (strengthening the network and lowering the % of hashing power belonging to the zero-tx miners) but, eventually, the zero-tx miners (surely a handful of miners already did this) will begin to start processing transaction fees just because the lost profit would make it stupid not too.

And yes, with a big enough transaction fee reward per block, even a zero-tx mining botnet (which we don't know it is) will switch. And the halving of the block generation reward will only hasten that.

Looks like the simplest, easiest, and ideal solution is for us to do what needed to be done anyway.

Well played.

I disagree. I think there are a number of advantages to storing a private key physically and storing or exchanging that, provided a certain level of trust is present (or unnecessary.)

I just think that enough tools exist for people to do most of this on their own. Paper is a great medium, and slightly sturdier materials can be used at home as well. I just don't see that anything much tougher is needed, unless the selling point goes beyond just having the key in physical form.

Casascius found that attaching keys to durable tokens have enough of a market demand, probably for the "neat" factor as well as storage durability and aesthetic appeal (those gold-plated 100-btc bars are nice!) to make his products worth it.

You just have to find what little niche beyond "it's in physical form" would work for you.

Hmm. I just used the scanner to load an address into the address book, no problem. But to test your issue, I tried to scan an address for sending coins, and indeed, no text popped up in the field. In the past, this field got filled, so I'm guessing this is a new bug.

I'd love to purchase some for cash or credit card. But with all the tools that have come out recently, I don't know that I need to put my bitcoins onto a card. (I understand some people buy Casascius coins with bitcoins, but you're getting some pretty nice tokens, or even silver/gold for the service.)

You can't shove cash into a USB port (or go to some random bank) and anonymously send it to someone else halfway across the world in a few seconds.

Further, no one is approaching central banks and trying to convince them to change their cash, or their systems. Instead, an entirely new product was created for the sole purpose of acting as digital cash, and we've all just decided to use it.

So forgive me, but your statements seem a bit disingenuous.

But let's suppose enough miners and exchanges relented and implemented blacklisting to cause "tainted coins" to not be worth receiving.

Let's also suppose that the masses of us who came to bitcoin for what it was then left and created Bitcoin 2, with automated coin-mixing. (Because believe me, that's what would happen.)

Would you be satisfied because your goal of turning bitcoin into the currency you wanted was achieved? Or would you begin advocating for anti-anonymity changes to Bitcoin 2 as soon as the first theft occured (or earlier?)

Bingo.

Much appreciated!

Nice!

As of now, IMO, Android is *the* platform for using bitcoins.

Not going, wish I was though.

I second the sentiment: I'd like video of that presentation!

Since this is a minimal case (a situation where the lightest level of culpability, however slight, can be reasonably assigned,) it can be used to establish a baseline.

By determining whether a moral responsibility is there or not, we can then establish a valid chain of logical reasoning for other situations, particularly extremely similar ones.

If the age is enough of a concern that you don't consider the child capable of moral responsibility, raise the age a few years and you can still establish your baseline.

Would your answer change if the children were 9?

I'm saying that most people who answered the poll (especially if they aren't really partaking in the thread afterwards) likely didn't give a thought to the idea of saying such things in a film. They looked at a phrase, said "Well of course people shouldn't be saying that!" and voted.

But if someone in a bar says "You should go out and kill five blue-eyed people right now," and the statement itself is what is banned, then you don't have to prove the person truly intended for someone to die. All you have to prove is that they intended to utter the statement.

Whether written properly or not, Hollywood actors won't be prosecuted (Hollywood has money and influence, after all.) But there's no guarantee that anyone else saying the statement won't, and it's more probable that they will be prosecuted, regardless of whether they really meant for anyone to die, because the crime is no longer attempted murder, it's uttering a banned statement.

Except that such exceptions are typically either codified directly, or merely ignored in such obvious cases of legal overreach. I don't see such a concern typically slowing down people's response to such issues.

Well, I admit, part of my intent was to create such an odd combination. But not one so convoluted as to defy moral analysis, if any moral aspect exists, despite the oddness.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your belief seems, moreso than simply "No culpability exists," to be "Any such 'culpability' in this case is too trivial to be worth dealing with."

That's a sensible enough take, but it's not quite a denial that moral analysis of the situation is feasible. And if it's feasible to analyze this scenario, then the conclusion should speak volumes as to similar situations.

If there is a law banning the statement, "You should kill five blue-eyed people right now," then the question if intent boils down to "Did you intend to utter those words?"

That's part of what we are trying to point out.

Of course they do. I'm not even suggesting that the child be told to not do it again.

It's merely a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

Why would you, if there's no moral culpability? Because others want you to?

No offense, but that seems a little out of character.

To those who voted "No," two further questions:

1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?

2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?

While the scenario might arguably be simpler, the questions and implications seem to just make the point of the initial question more obscure. That's why I fashioned the initial scenario as I did, and removed the heavy moral weight of culpability for a death from the equation: to quickly get at the root issue.

Asking if someone is at all morally culpable for some specific incident--particularly the one given--shouldn't be that hard to discern on it's on, should it?

Would have responded last night had the forum not been down.

Those arguing that this is pointless because there is no such thing as morality (or there is no correct answer to this question, etc.) might as well bow out of the thread. Culpability implies an element of morality in this case; if you believe that that element doesn't exist, then there's not much for you to discuss regarding culpability.