b) you don't seem to understand what per capita means.
My mistake on that one. I glanced at the chart and didn't notice the ratio. c) that wouldn't happen because where I live illegal handguns cost $3000 so crackheads, kids, and anyone else who would break into a house DON'T HAVE THEM.
What if you live in a really ritzy area, the kind of house that might have paintings worth a few hundred grand in them? Are you saying those type rich people are not allowed the protection of a gun either? |
|
|
|
I'm saying that if the USA banned all guns except hunting rifles, there would be an extreme drop in murders and accidental shootings, obviously.
No there wouldn't. There would be a violent revolt against the government for trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment, which has nothing to do with hunting rifles, by the way. I am not advocating anything, lol you are making me sound like a left wing activist, I just came herr to talk about the basic long term future of BTC/fiat exchanges, and how criminals and government criminal investigations threaten them! I am just stating the obvious with regards to gun laws, really nothing to argue about.
You're right. I'm sorry. It's a bit of an emotional topic; the right to keep and bear arms is one of the founding principles of my country. It doesn't matter. Whether governments try to outlaw Bitcoin or not they can't stop it. And they don't have jurisdiction over every country either, so all they will do is make it a political issue. If the western economic powerhouse nations shut down the exchanges... as I said, 10k BTC pizza will be back. No it wouldn't. Bitcoin would route around, and probably flourish more. In case you haven't noticed it's the "illegal" areas that are thriving most with Bitcoin right now. At least the community is trying to put the currency to more legitimate uses, and even allow taxes and regulation if that's what people desire. Bitcoin is just a tool that allows people to do with it what they wish. The neat thing about it is it doesn't make anybody ask permission of anybody else, which includes authoritarian governments. Certainly I see the romantic appeal of fighting the global system at any cost, but some of us here would actually like to advance BTC in our lifetimes. What freedom do you gain by holding worthless BTC with no where to exchange them? This chance at economic freedom will be lost and we will all be back to fiat for the rest of our lives.
There will always be a way to exchange bitcoins, just as there is now a way to buy drugs in pretty much any city in the U.S. despite the trillion dollar drug war to prevent it - which, btw, has greatly enriched drug lords... |
|
|
|
yeah acoindr, I think you're mostly right, although I do hate to tell my fellow libertarians who are from the USA that gun laws do work, if what you are trying to prevent are premature deaths.
How the hell do you figure that? First, you need to explain what is a premature death? Do you mean like a teenager dying, possibly from something drug related? I have news for you. Thanks to the US "war on drugs" which has had little success in curbing drug use, but large success in escalating violence, I can tell you drug dealers would NOT be prevented from getting guns because of gun laws... Now check te rate of the US an then calculate a mean of the EU countries. That's how the hell we figure that. Also, the drug dealers with guns are not what racks up the death count. Sure, smart criminals get their guns anyways, even here in holland. But the law prevents dumb criminals (of which there are many more than smart ones) from playing around with toys that are a danger to society. Your logic doesn't compute. Your chart shows firearm related death rates, and your argument is gun laws prevent premature deaths right? Well, Colombia tops the list at #1 with the U.S. at #10, but how can that be? Doesn't the U.S. have some of the most relaxed gun laws? And besides that, Colombia has a population of under 50 million, whereas the U.S. is over 300 million... yet the U.S. is not number one on your chart. How can that be? I'll tell you. It's because there are a lot of societal factors behind gun related crimes and deaths. You can't broad brush everything and say the solution is gun laws. I don't have time to argue this properly, but I hope this can shed some light. By the way, what would you do if someone broke into your house and held a gun on your family? |
|
|
|
yeah acoindr, I think you're mostly right, although I do hate to tell my fellow libertarians who are from the USA that gun laws do work, if what you are trying to prevent are premature deaths.
How the hell do you figure that? First, you need to explain what is a premature death? Do you mean like a teenager dying, possibly from something drug related? I have news for you. Thanks to the US "war on drugs" which has had little success in curbing drug use, but large success in escalating violence, I can tell you drug dealers would NOT be prevented from getting guns because of gun laws... Looks at the amount of murders in the US per capita compared to Germany etc.
What's you're point here? You think gun laws would make the U.S. a safe society? Ha! If your goal is something else, then gun laws may now work. They certainly work well in places like Vancouver, but obviously would not be just or feasible in say Kandahar or the actual wild west. Anyway, that's totally off topic.
My goal is freedom. That's what works. I had a friend from Holland who couldn't understand our 2nd amendment. Apparently, you're not allowed to keep a gun in your house in Holland. I asked how you're supposed to defend yourself when someone breaks in? I don't understand how they get away with that. But on the other hand, they allow a lot more freedom of things like recreational drug use there... Anyway, I explained to her that our gun rights exist so good guys can carry guns too. She had never thought of it like that. One of our problems as I see it, is that allowing unfettered access to serious criminals will be the exact excuse they need to outlaw the use of bitcoins/all stateless currencies in the US, Canada, EU, etc. As people have mentioned in other threads... read the upcoming trade agreements.
It doesn't matter. Whether governments try to outlaw Bitcoin or not they can't stop it. And they don't have jurisdiction over every country either, so all they will do is make it a political issue. What if kidnappers start using BTC? It's the next logical step... we just saw that person/group attempting to extort Romney use BTC.
Like I said, the U.S. dollar has probably financed more immoral behavior than all other fiat currency combined. It's almost like you think these kinds of things were not possible or happening before Bitcoin... |
|
|
|
I wouldn't call the cops if I saw someone buying drugs on the street... the question is, when large drug dealers are running huge amounts of illegal money through my exchange, do I turn a blind eye?
...
If the US government considers a big exchange to be laundering money to drug dealers, or some cartel... they'd better be hosted in outer space.
I guess you missed this forum thread: The Very Best Place to Launder Money? Why, US Banks!And you probably never saw images like this:  (Money and weapons seized from Mexican drug cartels.) ...at least twenty-two journalists and more than 35,000 people have been killed in drug war related violence since 2006I hope you also know there were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, and that was and is a blatant invasion to protect the U.S. dollar. I watched actual combat footage from Iraq taken from an attack helicopter. The gunner, "crazy horse", fired on some "enemy combatants". Reports from the ground team came back that the stomach of a ten year old girl was blown out. The response from crazy horse was damn, well that's what you get for bringing children to a fight. You're not going to win a morality contest with the U.S. dollar over Bitcoin. The U.S. dollar being as dominant as it has for as long as it has probably financed more immoral activity than all other fiat combined. Bitcoin is a tool, just like guns which can be used for bad or good. You don't look at unwanted behavior and attack the tools, like guns, because that doesn't work. All it does is hinder the people that could use it for good. The unwanted usage will always find a way to continue by going underground. Just look at alcohol prohibition, the trillion dollar drug war, and gun laws. You really think someone can't buy anything they want if they really want it? |
|
|
|
The real crime is when governments make it illegal for two people to engage in voluntary trade. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else with their business, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.
+1000 |
|
|
|
|
I think a fair number of people may use more than one option.
|
|
|
|
devs should be active in trying to develop a distributed exchange.
Interesting, how might this work? |
|
|
|
The reason that analogs of traditional financial institutions are being created is that they work and often were in place long before banking became the province of centralized government.
The test is if, in a free market, without government interference, those institutions which fail to provide value should quickly fail.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Very nice! This project seems to continue to have the best technology associated with it.
|
|
|
|
|
1. most obvious is limiting attempts getting it wrong before locking user out, otherwise brute force may be option
2. how secure is the database containing the hashed password? if the db can be compromised (sql injection etc.) then the password might be brute forced if not very long or not hashed in secure way
3. who has access to the server? if a hosting company then any weak link there means compromise
The method you describe seems secure, but that's just one piece of the overall puzzle of course.
|
|
|
|
The linguistic changes you are talking about are an effect of people and businesses being able to pay more of their expenses in bitcoins instead of local currency. Changing the way people talk about Bitcoin will not magically cause this to happen.
You're trying to push on a string. When Bitcoin becomes more widely accepted the way we talk about it will change.
I agree with this. For common people/talk the change will happen naturally. For professional traders it makes no difference. Right now, for example, currency traders talk of "buying" dollars, euros, yen or whatever else. |
|
|
|
The Drama!  Probably one of my favorite forum quotes: If Bitcoin was backed by drama the price would be stratospheric. |
|
|
|
Aha, now I see why you are so resistant. Like DeathAndTaxes, you think I'm trying to replace bitcoins. I'm not. I want bitcoins to succeed just as much as I always did, and I hope the Bitcoin Foundation can help achieve that. I intend to help the foundation however I can in that regard.
 Yes, well. Because you said it. Either this post is BS or the OP is. Either way I'm out, since attempting to reason with you seems about as useful as chasing a hyper-active gerbil. I never said I was trying to replace bitcoins, in any post. And you can't cite where I did. I guess that's why you're "out". Either you have a problem with reading comprehension, or with admitting you're wrong. Perhaps that's why you think reasoning is of no use. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is by definition the protocol. If some change isn't a change in the protocol then it doesn't really matter.
I disagree. Power comes in different forms. Consider the President of the United States. The president has no legal authority to control the stock market, yet just the words he says or even how he says them can affect markets. That power didn't come explicitly with the presidential office, but as a side effect. As for who's a supporter of bitcoin: Right, I'm not a supporter of bitcoin... because I want to keep using it. Sure that makes sense, you're supporting it by switching to another currency that adds almost nothing to the base concept.
Aha, now I see why you are so resistant. Like DeathAndTaxes, you think I'm trying to replace bitcoins. I'm not. I want bitcoins to succeed just as much as I always did, and I hope the Bitcoin Foundation can help achieve that. I intend to help the foundation however I can in that regard. At the same time I do, however, believe bitcoins should have competition in the marketplace. I'm going to write up a post on competing currencies when I get a chance because I think the community really needs to understand that concept, and why it's better overall. It doesn't weaken bitcoins/cryptocurrencies, it strengthens them. To summarize, imagine you went to the store and saw prices not just in dollars, but also something called dwellers. The people controlling dwellers were completely different than the Fed. If the Fed did something you didn't like like lowering interest rates causing inflation you could exchange more of your dollars for dwellers, and use those to buy things instead of dollars. If the people running dwellers mismanaged them you could choose to hold and use more dollars. Both currencies would exist and have value in the marketplace, but because no single currency had a monopoly it would ultimately benefit the market participants by giving them choice. Choice is usually always better. Consider politics. Is it better to have only one or two candidates or would you think the more the better? As an aside, LTC offers a single advantage to BTC in its faster block creation times... which means it could be potentially less annoying to use for a consumer/vendor transaction... while at the same time bringing a flawed concept of inflating the overhead associated with block creation (scrypt) to stave off technological advances (because they're somehow 'unfair'). Which is counter intuitive to growing and securing the LTC network.
As for securing the LTC network please see my comment here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.msg1250825#msg1250825 |
|
|
|
Back on topic, I think most replies miss the point the OP is trying to make.
It has nothing to do with fear nor with being a Bitcoin or Litecoin supporter nor with being a nay-sayer or foundation hater.
It does not matter how likely or unlikely you think it is that Bitcoin can be comprimised. I think we can agree that it is possible and that scenarios exist where "refuse to update your client" is not an option. You would either have to join your enemy or you loose.
If I understand it correctly the main point he makes (OP correct me if I'm wrong) is that competition between working and tested crypto-currencies is a good thing and to an extend may prevent development going bad, because users now have an option to abandon coins that are comprimised. Nothing more, nothing less.
Think of it as the decentralisation of decentralised crypto-currencies.
Yes, deeplink, you have it exactly. Thank you for speaking up  Let me clarify a few points. I do not hate the foundation, and certainly don't hate Bitcoin. In fact, I think the foundation can do a lot of good. Further, I even admitted that the people forming the foundation did nothing wrong technically. What I am suggesting is there is inherent danger in concentration of power. That's just a fact of life. Like it or not. Sometimes it's abused and sometimes not, but to not have any concern I think is naive. The best way to fight against concentration of power, short of directly attacking it, is to offer alternatives. That's all I'm trying to do. In other news I see the LTC/USD exchange rate is skyrocketing on btc-e.com lately  Apparently it hit .10 briefly, which I think is an all time high. Does anyone know a source of historical LTC prices? |
|
|
|
I think this has been blown out of proportion. The nay-sayers and armchair developers ...
Not that it's relevant to the points I'm making, but I'm not an "armchair developer". I know how to code. have a million opinions and want to just sit around and complain.
I suggest you re-read my OP. It's not just sitting around and complaining. In fact, the thread title has the word "solution" in it. If someone thinks there is a better way, you're free to do it.
Yes, that's right. That's exactly what I'm doing. This isn't a slippery slope- BST, GLBSE, Bitcoinica,PIRATE, and the list goes on- these are slippery slopes. Poorly secured or run services, or outright frauds that destroy our credibility. This is the slippery slope to a cesspool of inaction and ponzi schemes.
I don't know what these businesses have to do with the Bitcoin Foundation. Nobody, that I know of, is suggesting it is a Ponzi scheme, fraudulent, or poorly run service, at least not at the moment. |
|
|
|
That being said, I think the 'refuse to update' crowd has it right - if Gavin & other developers go off the deep end and make changes that are bad for the network - I simply won't use it.
As I replied earlier, what if the changes made are not to the protocol? I'll repost what I said... Let me give what I think may be a good example. We're talking literally about money are we not? How many people on earth use money? Almost all of them. That's near 7 billion people.
Now, say TBF becomes powerful, widely popular, and corrupted. Millions, even billions of people download the software client from TBF because that's what's popular (see Windows). What if the Bitcoin client followed the protocol with no changes, but also gave a convenient screen listing businesses that accepted the currency... You click 'restaurants' and a list appears, 'dentists', a list appears, 'wedding photographers', anything. This is just a separate tab on the client so it has nothing to do with BTC operation, but it does have to do with power/influence over what million or billions of people think are the recommended businesses to go to all around the world. You don't think that's too much power for one organization to have?
I for one refuse to make decisions based on fear. Yes, I can see how the foundation could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet - and I'm not abandoning bitcoin just because it could eventually lead to that.
I guess in 1913 you would have said, sure the Federal Reserve Act could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet and I'm not abandoning it just because it could eventually lead to that. To even suggest a pre-emptive more to an altcoin... shows everyone that you aren't a supporter of bitcoin...
Acutally, you're the one that isn't a true Bitcoin supporter, because you're showing you don't understand it. If you believe in Bitcoin then you believe it is a voluntary currency supported by the free market. This means you believe it should gain value on its own merit, not because of what someone else says, dictates, or enforces. It also means you welcome competition for it, because if the free market picks the competition then that is the way things should be. Otherwise trying to protect a certain position is not what Bitcoin is about, that's what fiat is about. but merely a speculator trying to make a quick/easy gain.
If you hold bitcoins and don't spend them you are a speculator too. You are speculating your bitcoins will have the same or higher value in the future. but please don't run around pretending the sky is falling when it isn't.
The following poll shows I'm not alone in my concern: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.0 |
|
|
|
|
Here is my timeline:
1. misunderstood them
2. conflicted over whether they could work
3. holy #$%!
|
|
|
|
@acoindr
Sorry, i do not have the will or time to discuss or try to convince you that LTC sucks, you are going to find it out yourself.
I wish you good luck, i hope you get very rich by using Litecoins, but i seriously I am not joining that wagon.
I don't think anyone should try to convince anybody to use Bitcoin or Litecoin. I do think it's helpful, however, to offer intellectual reasoning on any given point regarding them and let people make up their own mind. That's all I ever try to do. Thanks for the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
