I don't think any of these reasons would be true in a government that is neither corrupt, nor a puppet of its bank. The bad news, is that I don't know of any such country. You can measure the corruption of a government by its restrictions on Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses. The more regulations and bans there are, the more corrupt the government. Without corruption, Bitcoin PROVIDES government with better governance. If every government transaction used bitcoin and each wallet were labeled by a message in the chain, and no stealth addresses, it would provide complete transparency for government activities, and creates a provably honest system of governance. Higher corruption causes higher public investment, lower government revenues, lower expenditures on operations and maintenance, and lower quality of public infrastructure. The evidence also revealed that corruption increases public investment but reduces its productivity. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=880260 |
|
|
|
My guess is that you were trying to establish that in a cost-basis theory of market exchange that any amount of one for the other would not be "fair"... or something else?
The net losses of the foremost fellow (of the OP's hypothetical) were less than those of all others (as iterated above); therefore, the jist of the OP's conjecture (see the citation below) is, to a degree, accurate. (Note: to clarify this position, in departing with the capital that "foremost fellow" valued in excess of what he forsook to acquire the capital, his successor [in the hypothetical series of exchanges] suffered more in the way of economic loss than did the "foremost fellow," for his gains matched his losses.) In the end of the story, isn't the only person who benefits the guy who did nothing, got a pot coin, and convinced some sucker to give him a free gram of pot for it?
You could have simply said that I had guessed correctly. For anyone else that might be reading this thread, if you always value things based upon what they cost you, rather than what you may gain by parting with them, you will restrict your opportunities. |
|
|
|
|
To get to an answer to OP's question about why any of these "backed" alt coins could work, most don't work simply because it is already easier to do this within Bitcoin. For example if someone had some goods coming up for sale or working on a crop or had a vault of gold and needed a sort of futures market for this, or a way to manage warehouse receipts, or in order to smooth our the income stream rather than having it all come at once at harvest time, or to make the gold tradable, that someone could create a counterparty asset which would be redeemable for the goods when they are produced.
There are other ways to do it also.
If sidechains materialize, that may become even more easy.
|
|
|
|
I don't see the difference your distinction makes, (why is this important?).
The electricity is consumed, the sunk cost of the hardware is depreciated over time as it is used, heat is a byproduct.
The water and sunlight is consumed, land is depreciated, new seeds may be produced, fiber is a byproduct.
No matter and energy is created or destroyed, though a modicum is transformed, in each case.
Both cases the means of production are not consumed, both require some amount of entropy/time to pass. The process is similar enough that the distinction is not so meaningful.
The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.
If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?
The "seed and some sun[light]" (NewLiberty) is "consumed" (NewLiberty); however, the "code" (NewLiberty) never is, and the "CPU" (NewLiberty) but marginally so. Right, we already agreed on this. The electricity for generating the coin is also "consumed". Both are exchanging product and not the means of production (they aren't trading hashing farms for... well... hash farms). We agree that they are distinct things being exchanged with distinct processes to create them, what I am looking for is why this distinction matters to you or anyone? My guess is that you were trying to establish that in a cost-basis theory of market exchange that any amount of one for the other would not be "fair"... or something else? |
|
|
|
Right, the sun water earth and seeds were not transferred either.
They're trading the produce, not the means of production.
Additionally, a digital token does not consume "[its] means of production" (NewLiberty) insofar as an organic plant does. Maybe you can help me understand what you are suggesting? I don't see the difference your distinction makes, (why is this important?). The electricity is consumed, the sunk cost of the hardware is depreciated over time as it is used, heat is a byproduct. The water and sunlight is consumed, land is depreciated, new seeds may be produced, fiber is a byproduct. No matter and energy is created or destroyed, though a modicum is transformed, in each case. Both cases the means of production are not consumed, both require some amount of entropy/time to pass. The process is similar enough that the distinction is not so meaningful. |
|
|
|
It's not a scam, but a coin needs a couple things to succeed like publicity, trust, merchant integration and so on.
In case of paycoin the innitial publicity was good, thus we had an early pump, then the trust kept dropping due to some allegations like premine, no $20 support, problems with the name and almost no merchants accepting the coin. It's still possible for them to bring the price up but it would require some major stores to accept the coin, just as it was promised before the launch.
Allegations? Almost everything we have warned about has been revealed. Josh can instantly secure confidence in the community if he were to simply provide evidence to refute our allegations that he lied to all of you. Paycoin2 was a stillbirth upon inception and will slowly become a penny stock up until the day the SEC moves in and lawsuits start being filed. What is sad about this whole scam is that even if it wasn't intended to be a scam it was destined to fail because it is hyperinflationary with too small of a userbase and ultimately controlled by one company unlike bitcoin. Centralized digital currencies are nothing new and all eventually get attacked and shutdown by the government if they don't become co-opted(ripple labs will either be shutdown or co-opted in the future). Digicash, liberty dollar, liberty reserve, egold, ect... all shutdown. A US government and banks aren't going to allow anybody else to take over the FED and control the "prime controllers" without a fight. Liberty Dollar wasn't a scam. The government is returning all the gold and silver. As it turns out, they were wrong. http://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/2015/08/federal-government-to-return-millions-in-liberty-dollars-.html |
|
|
|
The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.
If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?
Within the hypothetical, "jacknimble" transferred the ownership of a "coin" (jacknimble), not the "CPU, code and some energy" (NewLiberty) that facilitated its genesis. Right, the sun water earth and seeds were not transferred either. They're trading the produce, not the means of production. |
|
|
|
Of course there's a way. It's just software code, which can be changed.
I'm absolutely confident that Bitcoin Core will be modified appropriately when needed, so no need to worry.
and why they aren't doing it instead of creating XT and this whole trouble that this drama is making? it would have been a much better solution and less dangerous, maybe there was not even the need to fork, but only to upgrade like you go from 0.9 to 0.1... To get bigger blocks, you have to fork. Both Core and XT will hard fork. If you want no fork, you talk to MP. |
|
|
|
|
The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.
If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?
|
|
|
|
I support the block size increase but it seems this can happen with Bitcoin Core, I have yet to find a compelling argument for why I should support XT however, and the TOR blacklisting stuff they never mentioned worries me.
I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. That is why we must hard fork away from Core if we want bigger blocks. To think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team can hold. I would actually prefer a compromise between XT and Core, but right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so I choose XT. If a third option becomes available with possibly a more conservative block size increase with no other new features I would definitely support that instead. I don't buy all the hyperbole. Both Core and XT are going to hardfork the chain for larger blocks. Big blocks alone is not reason enough to switch to XT. This is over 2 months old already, some miners are participating now with block size voting. This is in Bitcoin Core: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdfI like that BIP100 takes the block size out of the hands of the developers. XT should do this instead of relying on developers trying to guess sizes that are both good and safe. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't it about time now for an Ashley Madison reboot, but with Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
Yes,it is a way, but nobody knows why, some bitcoin core people don't want
On the contrary, those who pay a little attention do know. There are a finite number of reasons why the block size can't raise much just yet. These are being solved. Bitcoin Core will increase the size only after it is safe to do so. It is not so hard to be patient once more of it is understood. Yes, only when Blockstream is ready. Ah yes, that private company which we will all have to rely on. Thanks but no thanks. BIP100 is being voted on by miners. Block size increase in Core is coming sooner than later. so, If Block Size isn't the compelling reason to use XT... The XT marketing fall back plan apparently is that XT is the anti-Blockstream code? |
|
|
|
Yes,it is a way, but nobody knows why, some bitcoin core people don't want
On the contrary, those who pay a little attention do know. There are a finite number of reasons why the block size can't raise much just yet. These are being solved. Bitcoin Core will increase the size only after it is safe to do so. It is not so hard to be patient once more of it is understood. |
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
You're joking, right? Is there anyone that really thinks that Satoshi wrote that? Even though I largely agree with what was written, it should be considered simply "anonymous". |
|
|
|
…
At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.
I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way. What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit. Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ." What would happen? Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB. This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes. I'd expect many people to do the same thing. Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size. We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks. Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows. TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit. You know that you can do this now, right? And always could. The code is open source, you can (of course) just change it and compile. |
|
|
|
Cognac CLXII Auction Interim Situation
Note that Corporations that have restaurants now are allowed to bid for 50 bottles max. I have added my wealth management etc clients, and they will not raise their bids no matter what, so enjoy knowing this in advance!  Looking forward to the time when these accounts can be given to other guys... 20 @ 5.1 Duke of New Liberty 10 @ 5.1 Noble Palace 05 @ 5.1 Baroness Asenath |
|
|
|
Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
...and Monero has had scaleable block sizes since inception. The assumption of invidious motive degrades the debate. It is not an effective method to getting closer to a resolution. When politicians use this method and claim that their opposition hates their country, rather than persuade based on the merits of their position, it irks me just as much. |
|
|
|
Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.
1) Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.
2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.
I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists. I don't follow your logic. Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective. I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed. It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment. Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer. |
|
|
|
Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.
1) Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.
2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.
Or the opposite of #1. As a developer, having power is very bad. The goal of the project is to avoid centralization of power, and at least some are working on achieving that goal for themselves by divesting of it while it remains possible to do so. (BIP100) This improvement proposal is the only significant one so far that removes the dev team from picking arbitrary numbers and dates and puts the size to the market of miners. There are some other proposals on miners paying to a forward pool to increase the block size, but they are not so formalized yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
