We are resistance, bitcoin is not futile!

-MarkM-

Millionaires already thought of that, and countered it by having the government make them officially not liable for the scams they start, provided the scams are not proven to be deliberate scams and provided they get away with the scam and maybe a few other provisions.

What it amounts to is, any deliberate scam with both malice aforethought and enough up front capital to afford it will have some cool logo or notation or afficxation or prefix or suffix along the lines of "LLC" (Limited Liability Corporation), "LTD" (LimiTeD liability corporation), etc (some German acronym, etc etc, maybe various tiny states established purely for the purpose of running an offshore scams industry might even allow these warning labels to be left off, or use a warning label many people in the world have not yet learned to see as a red flag aka warning label, but basically they are all red flags warning you of a government-approved scam in progress or the intent to escape liability for anything that might go wrong can go wrong or is intended to go wrong, subject some provisikons maybe if you are lucky.

-MarkM- (Kids are responsible to parents; politicians are officially irresponsible, specifically not liable for consequences of laws they pass...)

Awesome! We now have three wings to our vast corporate connivance or conspiracy or company or committee or enterprise or virtual entity or fictional multi-personality person or legal but not actually a human being person or whatever clever name our lawyers come up with for something that can do what we can do yet cannot be persecuted for doing so:

1) The testing industry. Provides all useful or necessary testing of any and all things any customers wish to have tested, possibly in proportion to how much the customers wish to invest in the testing industry.

2) The dumbing-down and/or ergonomics industry. How dumb is dumb enough? In a free market, should dumb organisms be eaten? Is it dumb to eat organisms? Which organisms should be eaten, and if so which if any other organisms should be served as appetizer and/or dessert? And similar questions of ease of being used and how eager customers should be to be used, and whether customers are as usable as they can possibly or potentially be and all that good useful stuff.

3) By documentation, do you mean passport, DNA sequence, number of fingers and toes, number of eyes, colour of eyes and so on or something more along the lines of which bylaw number in which jurisdiction does or does not apply with or without the application of whoozit versus whoozit whichyearwasthatagain and so forth?

----

4) The source code. Either that IS the documentation or there isn't anything TO document other than the excuses for avoiding fully documenting aka making up excuses for obfuscating?

----

-MarkM-

Huh? This is the part that makes no sense, because if your market does not permit free trade of blow for blow, tooth for tooth, eye for eye, a hundred thousand on the beaches for one in tribute and so on and so on and so on then why should it not also not permit paper for paper, apple for orange, food for gold, or any other specific exchange that some pontif pontificates against?

A market in which people cannot trade one good for another is a market in which people cannot trade one good for another, regardless of which good it is they cannot trade for which good.

Basically what you are saying is a market is not free unless it is not free.

Which is good and true but is not a free market, it is an extremely controlled and manipulated market, in which the species that is the most adept and devious scammer carefully undermines the rights, even to life limb and liberty, of all other species, eating any species it chooses while making up elaborate contrived connivances for why this that or the other species deserves less rights than it does and so on and so on and so on.

And that is good, if you are one of that species. For example if there is a species that has enough clothing to survive the cold, or enough food to survive until the humans are cooked and ready to eat, it will be good to be one of those with warm clothing and a larder full of ripe humans and an oven to bake them in.

But if you do not have enough food, clothing, and shelter, then no, the market is not free, it is rigged against those who have not enough food clothing or shelter for themselves and their offspring, let along any excess they could trade at the market.

-MarkM-

Tah-dah! Enter DeVCoin, whose official GUI client is devcoin-qt

Are you on the list of recipients Unthinkingbit set up for donations?

DeVCoin doesn't even require you to have a separate address for receiving DeVCoin, it uses your normal donation address so you can be receiving DeVCoin with which to eventually maybe motivate people (maybe mostly after exchanges have been set up so they can cash it in if they don't actually "believe" in it themselves).

-MarkM-

The problem is "they" (not sure which/who "they") keep trying to sell the idea that buying their idea is better that taking their idea and their wallet and maybe even checking how edible they are.

They also complain when some rambunctious customer offers three bullets through the head in return for their corpse.

Then they start claiming they can hire Rambo to put more bullets faster into someone before someone puts three bullets through their head.

Pretty soon I have to wonder how their mercenaries proposal is less bad than the mercenaries who already have all the guns...

-MarkM-

Pie charts without data seem like pointless armchair-theorising, better would be simply change the port numbers and the four byte handshaking sequence and the name (maybe call them TOKEns or something? ) and when we make a forex app they can both run in the market, it will be interesting to see which ends up with better exchange rate against which other currencies.

Let miners vote with their hash rates and developers vote with their developments and we'll see whether artists and writers and coders and marxists (couldn't resist since mining seems to be a "own the means of production even if you are an unskilled worker" thing) and musicians prefer a chain that benefacts them or a chain that benefacts miners.

This could be fun. If you like I will grab your code from git and add these additional changes that will free it to soar as itself being itself.

Do you even want or need the receiver files stuff or do you want that changed too? I have no problem hosting a receiver file for your project as well as the one I already host for the devcoin project.

I might even mine on your chain some, what the heck, always nice to pick up some almost-free coins or tokens as an early adopter before the means of production owner types come along and muscle in on the action with their obscene amounts of hash power insisting that since they own the muscle they should rule the economy. (Charles Atlas & Rambo versus Einstein & Fermi, championship match of the millenia! )

-MarkM-

I tried progressively removing the dots but still no page found, so tried www instead of www10 but still no page found, so tried the search on main page of the wqww which took me to

http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/search-recherche/1-eng.asp?QU=Paxum&x=1

Which is a page found, but its basically a page claiming it never heard of any Paxum...

-MarkM-

But did they? On a case by case basis?

Sure, okay, their television evangelist(s) televised a 25000 BTC account being on there, but what were they actually risking? They, afterall, knew the guy or the operation well enough to tellyshop or app-mockup or scrape together 25000 BTC for promotional purposes on behalf of the guy or operation. Can we wonder what they hoped to gain by doing that?

But normal people?

It might be interesting to divide the victims into those who follow the show and those who never even heard of the people involved in that whole public relations blitz and find the mean of the deposits of each of those categories of victim.

It is blatantly obvious that the more people who are risking a few bitcoins the more bitcoins are at risk therefore the more risk each person's coins are at due to the whole haul of the lot of them being more attractive a pile of loot so the less coins each individual should and hopefully would put at risk, isn't it? Unless some cut is being used to beef up security, which if it truly was a free service you have to wonder where in their business model the security budget is going to come from?

-MarkM-

Okay, lets whip out some litmus or phenethalene and check the ph of:

- Which cares more about their customers, Linus Torvalds or Bill Gates?

- Which cares more about you, Linus Torvalds or Bill Gates?

- Did you, before googling as a result of this message, know who Linus Torvalds is?

- Did you, before googling as a result of this message, know who Bill Gates is?

- Which is your operating system of choice: Mac, Linux, BSD, BeOS, Solaris or other (specify)?

- Do you care about that built it in his garage chap, I forget his name, does iPods now I think?

- Have you ever heard of Steve Jobs?

- Who do you care about more: Linus Torvalds or Bill Gates?

- Do you care about Steve Jobs? (If so, how much? More than Linus or Bill?)

Maybe the rest of the obvious questions could be left to the reader, depending on the previous answers, but just in case certain combinations of answers might correlate with readers' talent at projecting trends or deducing patterns maybe I should go on?

-MarkM-

P.S. Am I incorrectly recalling the other ph test (the clear or pink liquid not the red/purple/blue test) or does the CSI television franchise tell us correctly it also detects blood? (Is what does detect blood such a deep secret they lie in the show or something?)

Hours are something well all get only the same amount of, barring moving very close to the speed of light.

But how can we have things like "interest rates" if the total number of hours produced per hours is always no more (nor less) than the number of people that exist?

Population? We would have to increase the population in order to increase the hours (per hour)  supply?

Maybe time prefference can help with this? Instead of only counting currently-happening hours, suppose we also counted hours that have already happened?

That would give us an hours supply that would always grow, with only the rate of growth being dependent upon the population.

Some might argue that some hours are worth more or less than others, so let us go further into detail, allowing hours to be differentiated.

For example, some people might value sleep hours more or less than they value work hours or leisure hours.

So we could have markets, with hour-pairs sleep/work, sleep/leisure, and work/leisure.

Some people though might arge that not all sleep hours as equally valuable. A doctor sleeping might be a huge negative value, depriving a community of essential services, whereas an unskilled labourer's sleep might be far less of a liability.

Or, who knows, maybe someone might value a doctor's sleep; an administrator, for example, might refuse to permit a doctor to man a post in a hospital for any less than X number of hours of sleep, paid in advance.

Would it matter whether the doctor paid that up front fee in doctor-sleep hours, nurse-sleep hours, or unskilled-labourer-sleep hours?

Would it have to be a "personal check", such as videotape proving precisely what that doctor was doing during eight distinct hours, each of those hours having been assayed for their doctor-sleep-content to ensure they are not counterfeit-sleep or counterfeit-doctor hours?

Maybe "missing hours" could be a whole new flavour of hours, being in fact precisely those hours for which no video footage exists? Who knows, some people might value "missing hours" more than they value authenticated, genuine hours?

This maybe could spin off derivatives:

DVD doctor and nurse sleep hours; DVD doctor and nurse counterfeit-sleep hours (what *are* they up to in there?!) and so on...

There could even be "indeterminate missing hours", such as all the person-hours accumulated by early homo sapiens prior to the development of video. How many person hours did humanity actually accumulate up to that point in time?

The point of the video is partly to make a tangible "hour" one can trade, to make "hours" easy to pass back and forth as trade items.

-MarkM-

If a transaction has two outputs, each to a different address, then only a script that uses the correct keys for both can get both.

Thus, you can control how much of the value there is output by a script simply be your choice of whether to supply that script with the correct key for one of those two addresses, or the other of those two addresses, both of those two addresses, or neither of those two addresses.

If a transaction has 100 outputs, each to a different address, then you have a much wider number of combinations of the outputs that a script can choose to take (as inputs to itself).

So, a script can control the amount output from a transaction, but, it is the scripts taking those outputs as input that do the choosing of how much value it wants its inputs to output to it. (The outputs it does not want to take right now, it need not take. The total amount of the output that can ever be taken in total is constant but the amount output at any given time - meaning, the amouint output to any particular new transaction that chooses to take some of those outputs - is set by the scripts of the transaction that causes the output to actually "happen", as it were.

The confusion seems to have been between the "potential eventual output possible if the right keys ever turn up" and "the actual output that ends up having happened by the time the universe ends or som other event ensures that not key that hasn't yet shown up will ever show up.

So what scripts control about the poutput values is whether they ever are output or not. More smaller "potentially eventually claimable outputs" means more "granularity" of the amounts scripts can eventually set in the blockchain as having been actually output so far, the remainder being possibly simply lost-forever coins rather than ever turning out to output to an input.

(If you only want half the amount to be output, you give the transaction two outputs and only give the key to one of those outputs to some later transaction that takes the value from the previous transaction as input. If you want the whole amount to be output, you eventually provide both keys, either both in one transaction or if you want the entire amount but half at one time half at another, you provide one key at one time and some other time eventaully you provide the other key.)

-MarkM-

I would note that in the example given the forum is quite distinct from "the company's own forum", or even a forum.

So let us consider exactly what kind of a forum this specific forum-in-question is.

Is it:

- A forum whose administrators are aware of techniques criminals might use to evade being detected as such?

- Aware of the pitfalls to which customers allowed untutored and unaccompanied into a scam site's own special forum just for those people lucky enough to be their customers can fall into?

- A marketing arm of an umbrella association of some kind whose primary goal is to get you to buy into at least one of the companies who all maintain a presence on the forum and use it as a common pool of customers?

Etc...

-MarkM-

So you probably don't give a damn about the car mechanic who actually fixes your car, you care about the fawning smilie-face that engages you on the way into the Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire and convinces you to use their car-service offering so they can try to get mechanics as cheaply as they get fawning smilie-faces?

Do you even actually investigate the conditions the (powers behind and maybe oppressing the) marketing smiliefaces who talk you into buying this that or the other thing impose upon their suppliers / back room workers who actually do the real work?

-MarkM-

If they came back it would imply that my fix of their problem did not work.

They have a problem, they call me in to fix the problem, I am out of work unless they have another problem or I didn't really properly finally all fixed now fix their problem afterall.

I hope you aren't thinking I should therefore arrange some more problems, if not for past customers then maybe for potential future ones?

-MarkM-

For many merchants that would be best, except possibly in the case where the customer's choice of currency to pay with happens to correspond with the currency the merchant wishes to be paid with.

In all the other cases, that is, in any case where the currency the customer wants to pay with is not the same currency as the one the merchant wishes to be paid with, most small merchants who are not forex players would probably prefer that the customer pay the payment processor the not-what-the-merchant-actually-wants currency and the payment processor pays the merchant the currency the merchant does actually want.

-MarkM-

That could be it, certainly.

How much has Lloyd's of London quoted prospective exchanges for deposit insurance on deposits?

If the insurance companies aren't quoting insane rates that would make a legitimate exchange economically unfeasible, maybe the example we are all meant to think of is setting up open source exchange software on a laptop to run wherever we happen to be as a roving webserver so we always have our customer's deposits right within our reach, showing that app to the licensing people and asking for a licence to operate such a business, and... presumably it is thought that we would find we are not in fact permitted to operate such a business?

I dunno, it seems to me if you need to be anonymous you are maybe in a war, and if your opponent(s) in that war are not anonymous they might be stupid to imagine you are not going to kill them at the first opportunity since as the weaker side in a war taking prisoners might not be practical - one is, in effect, a prisoner already, in protective custody of oneself...

-MarkM-

Well gee, you don't imagine that I actually have any customers any more, do you?

For one thing, once I automate things for them they figure hey what do they need me for anymore. Programmers, like doctors (or health workers maybe in general) goal is to put themselves out of work. But unlike doctors or health workers in general, we programmers will put everyone else out of work too if need be to accomplish our goal!

Are you implying that customer service businesses cannot be trusted because their secret agenda is to steal your customers? If so yes, this is a  big problem with customer service reps, leading to the whole war over the customers crap, how do you make the customer respect you more than they respect your service reps, when will your secretary walk off with your customer list to a competitor or start up as a competitor and so on and so on and so on.

So how can a customer service business gain credibility? Hmm...

-MarkM-

I am biased as I come from a programming background.

So my take on a business for a free open source do it yourself at home person to person currency forcused business is if you want customer service feel free to provide it, I run the thing on a server because I don't want a human to have to run it I want a computer to be able to run it. The whole point is to teach computers to do the crap that humans do not want to do, and for a lot of people making money is something they do not want to do but the people who keep telling us they are the great makers of money usually screw us over, we learn in history that they do not actually make useful (to us)  money,  they are not reliving us of the work of making money they actually provide us with the job of turning over our money to them and getting screwed.

So the whole point of a business model in which the business is done by computers is so humans do not have to do that crap.

If you want customer service write a program that will service you the way you want to be serviced! Frankly I don't even care if you want the computer to service you with a dildo, there are dildos for that purpose and there is software for that purpose.

So all this screaming about customer service often seems like more of the same refusal to learn, refusal to chip in and help, gimme gimme gimme mentality that already gives us plenty enough hard time in our quest to develop automated systems to free humans from having to do much of anything other than keep improving the automation.

So if you want customer service, awesome, please do provide customer service! Whichever apps seem to you to lack enough customer service are maybe the ones you should first devote the most of your customer-servicing time to.

Part of why we develop open source is so we can also say hey look if you find using my server to run the app for you bothers you due to my not letting your computer-illiteracy or whatever drag me away from working on automating things please just go ahead and run the stupid thing yourself on your own desktop or server.

If your business involves anything other than just only bitcoins, then you can gain credibility by doing it successfully without bitcoins first, then add in bitcoins once we have all seen that your business works fine with USD and or GBP or whatever normal folk where you live already use.

Because if your business is not viable without bitcoins, what the heck reason is there to think it will work with bitcoins?

Bitcoins are not a magic software-pill that turns business failure into business success.

So first be a viable working successful business.

THEN add bitcoins.

-MarkM-

I read somewhere too that useragents that actually send a useragent field might be favoured over those  that do not?

(Dunno if bots would actually be requred to pretend to be (vanilla ?) browsers in order to be permitted to use the bot-enabling API though, has anyone tried being honest about which version of which bot is making the request?)

-MarkM-