|
I don't see anything immoral about it.
If you don't TELL people it's a pyramid game beforehand, then I would consider it to be so. But otherwise, play away. With full disclosure, there's nothing to be guilty about - everyone knows the risks and rewards.
|
|
|
|
|
No resolution for this... I too, would like to send transactions with no fees, even if it takes a day or two before they are finally included in a block. No way to do this though? I am running the latest bitcoind 0.3.23. I REALLY think it should be optional to pay a transaction fee.
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you just abandon your old account and create a new one for the new email address?
|
|
|
|
I'm not arguing that it would be a tough sell, though I do think that's a PR problem when trying to sell this idea. I am asking if job stability would suffer in a deflationary economy. It sounds like most people are saying that job stability would suffer and that shouldn't matter. Or that people would get use to it job instability or live with pay decreases. They wouldn't be living with pay decreases. If I pay one week with 50 one dollar bills and the next day with one 50 dollar bill, has your pay decreased because you received fewer dollars? There is no reason job stability would suffer. You can make the same argument in an inflationary economy and it's equally wrong. Here it goes: "Suppose I get a job for $55,000 per year. Two years later, due to inflation, I'm not being paid enough. So unless my boss is willing to raise my salary, I'll take a new job for a higher wage. So job stability will suffer due to inflation." But we all know that's not right. Both participants have an incentive to restore the wage to market value. Your right, 2 years later $55,000 wouldn't be as much. So it has become very common place to have standard of living adjustments while working at companies currently. And I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. In order to combat deflation companies would either need to adjust your pay, (pay you less every year) or fire you and hire someone new for less money. If you read my original question I give the example of, if someone pays you 10 bucks an hour and inflation hits at 10% a year. Why, in 10 years time, wouldn't your employer fire you and hire 10 other people at 1 dollar an hour? The only other option for the employer that I can think of is it would be common place to pass out a standard of living adjustment and pay you less every year. That or labor would start to get underpaid in order to counter act deflation and keep employees. Either way it doesn't promote employment longevity and job stability. It seems to be the same problem as inflation just in reverse. That is exactly what they would do. Why do you think they would do things differently? |
|
|
|
|
Another 100M ought to net at least one girlfriend.
|
|
|
|
Would destroy the whole reason behind bitcoin. Decentralized currency.
:facepalm: Being decentralized doesn't mean you can't make use of already-established companies or exchanges. |
|
|
|
It's the second best I've seen... First best being mine, of course.  |
|
|
|
And what you do with the psychological effect?
I mean, someone people will look back and say:
"Oh the good times, back in 2010, when I got 10.000 BTC for selling Pizza. Now I am getting this crap paltry 0,000001 BTC"
Even if 10.000 BTC was valued 15 USD and now 0,000001 is 30 USD
The same could be said of inflation. "Oh the good times, back in 2010, when I got a whole candy bar for $1. Now I have to pay $100,000 for one." |
|
|
|
I hope you can still sleep at night.
Hahaha that made me crackup. If I had over 200 Bitcoins I would be awake 24/7 checking my iPhone -_-. Not due to the balance, but due to the obviously immoral practices employed to collect said bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
I hope you can still sleep at night.
|
|
|
|
|
A better solution: Don't let the 50-coin reward run out.
It technically makes inflation unending, but eventually, the rate of lost coins will average out to the rate of new coins generated. Viola! Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree Atlas - I don't think it is the best method. The only pro to doing it that way is that a perp has less incentive to pay or trade for things with the stolen coinage.
US law doesn't agree with us though.
|
|
|
|
If you really believe what you espouse you'd know that theft is the violation of property rights and the upholding of one's property rights and the non-violence initiation principle is the core of the libertarian political philosophy.
I certainly agree.
Changing multiple hands does not launder the immorality of the original transaction.
Of course not but another victim of fraud should not be subject to penalties. Only the thief and fraudsters should be liable. As far as the holder of the blood money is concerned, he was involved in a fair transaction. He exchanged his property in a fair exchange. He should not be punished for the vandalism of his labor. Again, only the fraudsters before him and the thief. Unfortunately, "should not" and "will not" are two different phrases. Sure, he shouldn't be punished. But if he is found to have the stolen coins, he has to return them. He can then go to the person he received said coins from, and demand either more coins or a reversal of the transaction. If the person who sent him coins refuses, he could go after them with a lawsuit. At least, this is the way I currently understand the current laws of most countries. The only problem here is that you have to rely on the individual's own good morals since there is no way to attach some real identity behind a bitcoin address. This gives people more confidence to do the wrong thing and just say "screw you"... Lots of people have donation addresses, or other identifiers. But for the most part, you're right. You have every right to do what you're doing though, and for your sake, I think it's great you've set up a tracker for the coins. |
|
|
|
If you really believe what you espouse you'd know that theft is the violation of property rights and the upholding of one's property rights and the non-violence initiation principle is the core of the libertarian political philosophy.
I certainly agree.
Changing multiple hands does not launder the immorality of the original transaction.
Of course not but another victim of fraud should not be subject to penalties. Only the thief and fraudsters should be liable. As far as the holder of the blood money is concerned, he was involved in a fair transaction. He exchanged his property in a fair exchange. He should not be punished for the vandalism of his labor. Again, only the fraudsters before him and the thief. Unfortunately, "should not" and "will not" are two different phrases. Sure, he shouldn't be punished. But if he is found to have the stolen coins, he has to return them. He can then go to the person he received said coins from, and demand either more coins or a reversal of the transaction. If the person who sent him coins refuses, he could go after them with a lawsuit. At least, this is the way I currently understand the current laws of most countries. |
|
|
|
|
I got the email, can't get the confirmation page to come up though. Too much server overload.
|
|
|
|
The biggest problem with deflation is debt accumulation. With deflation any debt is more expensive to pay off than the value of the goods originally obtained with said debt. Since the deflation in bitcoins is predictable, a bitcoin's value today already includes the present value of holding the bitcoin as it deflates. There can't be a significant actual increase in value just from predictable factors. To give an analogy, suppose everyone knew for a fact that gold would hit $2,500/oz in two years. What would happen to the price of gold today? The assumption that something will go way up in value in the future will cause it to go way up in value today, preventing the future rise because it will have already happened. So then would it be necessary for there to be a standard of living decrease? Or would jobs just hire you way under what your currently worth to try and get you to stay around? Either way it still seems like a problem similar to inflationary economies, just in reverse. It's not a problem though. I don't know why you think employees deserve to be paid more than what their labor is worth. They don't. An adjustment of wages towards cost of living is meant to give the employee the exact value of their labor. If the cost of living goes down, the employee's wages should go down according to a cost of living adjustment. You can argue about it being a tough sell to employees all you want, but the reality is, if the employer had to reduce their wage due to a cost of living decrease, then other companies likely did the same, and jobs listed in the area for the same type of work would likely pay the same as the new wage rate. Even if the employee didn't like it, there wouldn't be anyone else willing to pay them more. I'm not arguing that it would be a tough sell, though I do think that's a PR problem when trying to sell this idea. I am asking if job stability would suffer in a deflationary economy. It sounds like most people are saying that job stability would suffer and that shouldn't matter. Or that people would get use to it job instability or live with pay decreases. Ah, ok. Even still, job stability would NOT suffer. If I hire you for picking cherries at $20/hr, and a year down the road, the same cherry picking job is only worth $18/hr, and you think, "Oh, that sucks they are only going to pay me $18/hr now, I'm going to go look for someplace that is still paying $20/hr." Well, you're not going to find it. That's because, for picking cherries, the going market wage is now $18. Every company that is looking for cherry pickers is now paying $18, even if they were paying $20 a year earlier. So no, job stability would not suffer. All companies would adjust to deflation in their hiring wage rates, just the same as all companies currently adjust to inflation in their hiring wage rates. |
|
|
|
|
Don't you get it?
Dwolla ARE the hackers.
|
|
|
|
The biggest problem with deflation is debt accumulation. With deflation any debt is more expensive to pay off than the value of the goods originally obtained with said debt. Since the deflation in bitcoins is predictable, a bitcoin's value today already includes the present value of holding the bitcoin as it deflates. There can't be a significant actual increase in value just from predictable factors. To give an analogy, suppose everyone knew for a fact that gold would hit $2,500/oz in two years. What would happen to the price of gold today? The assumption that something will go way up in value in the future will cause it to go way up in value today, preventing the future rise because it will have already happened. So then would it be necessary for there to be a standard of living decrease? Or would jobs just hire you way under what your currently worth to try and get you to stay around? Either way it still seems like a problem similar to inflationary economies, just in reverse. It's not a problem though. I don't know why you think employees deserve to be paid more than what their labor is worth. They don't. An adjustment of wages towards cost of living is meant to give the employee the exact value of their labor. If the cost of living goes down, the employee's wages should go down according to a cost of living adjustment. You can argue about it being a tough sell to employees all you want, but the reality is, if the employer had to reduce their wage due to a cost of living decrease, then other companies likely did the same, and jobs listed in the area for the same type of work would likely pay the same as the new wage rate. Even if the employee didn't like it, there wouldn't be anyone else willing to pay them more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
