But would raising the cost of sending spam lead to a decrease in spam volume? Would it lose its effectiveness as a result of this extra step leading to further decreases in volume?
Spam volume would have to decrease by half in order to break even, and you'd have to get almost everyone with an e-mail address to participate. I suppose the plan might work if implemented at the servers, but then you wouldn't know if your granny keeps getting pinged for bitcoins every time she tries to e-mail you. |
|
|
|
yes it would - but as long as /i/ don't see the extra traffic, it's not my problem.  It is if the servers you depend on have trouble delivering your messages as a result of the extra traffic. |
|
|
|
Nice! That would raise the price of sending 1,000,000 spam messages by about $10,000, right?
It would just double e-mail traffic. Might be good for busy people though. Non-spammers might actually pay to have their message read by someone important a presumably busy. |
|
|
|
We seem to have a different definition of a donation.
You'd have to give me 100 BTC to eat sugar free cheesecake anyway.
If the market will bear up to ⓑ100 for such a service, I have no choice but to increase my rate. That'll be ⓑ95, thank you. Free markets at work! |
|
|
|
Anyone have any ideas for raising money for wikileaks? Some governments have frozens Julian Assange's bank accounts, paypal, and credit cards. I think Bitcoin would be a great way for them to get donations. Anyone think its a good idea? I would like to start accepting donations for wikileaks but I don't know who to contact at wikileaks about getting them to accept bitcoin donations.
Nothing is stopping Wikileaks from using bitcoin. This community doesn't have to do anything about it. Let's just carry on. |
|
|
|
What if we put food inside the block chain?
NOW NOBODY CAN STEAL MY WAFFLES! GENIUS!
I was hoping this thread might contain a list of vendors selling food for bitcoin, or possibly a list of recipes by community members. |
|
|
|
What I proposed was a token pegged to bitcoin, not backed by it. One day, governments might peg their currencies to the bitcoin. Just pick the most trustworthy one for your coinage, no? |
|
|
|
Although I love some of the creative designs people have come up with here... The problem is, if the character doesn't already exist in standard-issue fonts... What are we going to do? Insert a JPG image next to a numeric value every time we want to type a Bitcoin amount...?
Let's say that ⓑ takes off. Websites wishing to display can host the necessary fonts for browsers. Typesetting programs should accommodate the symbol without much trouble for formal documents. For informal documents, people will get by with simply b or (b), as they do with the copyright symbol. One can easily tell Word to turn (b) into ⓑ on the fly as well. I suppose that when there can be no ambiguity, people will default to a currency code (BTC) as they do with every other currency. |
|
|
|
|
It really isn't up to us whether or not Wikileaks adopts bitcoin. Isn't that part of the currency's beauty?
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin may be suitable for large transactions of contraband, but not yet for small time handshake deals. That would require a good smart phone app. Of course, were I a dealer, I'd never except anything but Bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
Of course, if he doesn't have a profit motive, that's another matter.
However, the same thing can happen to people who put their money into a scam, or willingly sell the bridge to an evil property owner who have preferences outside of human norms. What if the bridge owner suddenly became evil. Must the village put up with him? If you institute a regulatory authority of some kind or have some kind of mob rules, the rule of laws will disappear, and the uncertainty cost will increase. This lead to less capital formation that alleviate your bridge problem.
If a bridge owner knows he is not evil, and if only evil doers have to fear the mob, where is the uncertainty? I predict that someday after everyone is lined up for some required injection, the whole mass of them will either die, become sterile or homosexual. What is this I don't even |
|
|
|
Exceptions are of course, dangerous.
We invent it in the time of danger, never to waver again. Sometime we invent exceptions so we can arrest that person we don't like.
True, but don't we need reasonable contingencies for unreasonable behavior? |
|
|
|
Depending on it is a really bad position to be in for a variety of reasons. But if you are literally starving or something I'm not saying you should turn it down to avoid being dependent. When the government gives you your money back after having taken it, you are foolish not to accept it. Instead of not claiming that which belongs to us, we should work to prevent its theft in the first place. |
|
|
|
I can't really call myself a libertarian or an anarchist, but I'll give it a go: In the UK seatbelts are mandatory otherwise you get a fine. All cars come equipped with seatbelts. I love seatbelts since they significantly reduce the risk to my life by many orders of magnitude. In Iran not many people wear seatbelts. Often many cars just don't have them. So if I want to take a taxi then I can only have the choice to risk the taxi or not take it. Add to this that road laws are virtually non-existant and
cars just swamp the roads (meaning road accidents are super high). My life is endangered by someone else having their freedom. The roads' owners will make the rules to which drivers and their vehicles must adhere. However, if someone controls a pass for which no other reasonable alternatives exits and that person tries to enforce an unreasonable unicycles-only rule, the people have the right to re-appropriate that pass. In the UK it is illegal to smoke indoors. Otherwise I would be the single person in a group that boycotts places which allow indoor smoking. Either my life is endangered through risk to my health by someone else having their freedom, or I am a lonely person. As someone with bad asthma, it's killing when in other poorer countries people smoke everywhere and I can hardly breathe. Libertarian ideology doesn't satisfy me in addressing this example. Unlike most other drug use, smoking tobacco, cannabis, or whatever doesn't require a specific context to put others at risk besides proximity. While consuming drugs differently, one typically has to try to operate a heavy machine in order to impinge upon others. We share the air and I see no wrong in communities collectively deciding how best to use it. Immunisation only works once a majority of the population has been vaccinated. Vaccination does not prevent you getting an illness- only makes it less likely. In this way the disease is less likely to transfer across to another person and it's more difficult to spread. So difficult that it disappears. However for the individual, it's not worth the cost. And for immunisation to be effective, it needs mass mobilisation. Who would organise a state-wide immunisation campaign for a net loss? The government should not force immunization on the people, but I see no wrong on schools forcing it on students, businesses forcing it on employees, or hospitals and insurance plans forcing it on customers. |
|
|
|
FreeMoney was very careful to say that if you take the money, you mustn't depend on it (i.e. need it to live on). I took a job throughout my university education, so I was always financially independent. I should have taken the money and donated it to a voluntarist cause.
But it already is your money with which to do what you want. The government took it from you. Now that you have it back, how can anyone blame you for spending it as you would have had the government not taken it? |
|
|
|
Just doing some freehand stuff, I came up with this "alternative" that you might want to play with:  Obviously that needs to be cleaned up a whole lot, but it seems like a variation on the theme you used here. I demand to see the birth certificate of that bitcoin. Just kidding. Are we trying to create a completely original symbol here? |
|
|
|
|
If you voted for such policies, maybe. However, taking care of your self interests doesn't make you one.
|
|
|
|
Are you trying to create a currency symbol? Perhaps this thread might interest you. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin fans enjoy the freedom that the currency promises to provide. We like that no government or central authority controls it and that no other currency offers the same security and privacy. However, only people with the privilege of Internet access can possibly enjoy these benefits. The rest have no choice but to barter or stick with their governments’ currency. For governments so inclined, might the proliferation of bitcoin mean greater control over the technologically deficient poor? If so, how can we avoid or mitigate such an outcome? Should we even care?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
