Please clarify:

1. What is the usual range of values for this parameter?

2. The pic says 1:1 whereas your title says 1:2. Which is it?

Nice rebuttal.

Stross is the modern day Ken MacLeod.  He clearly has socialist instincts but the facts of the world and the history of the 20th century have forced him to admit how much socialism sucks.  So he looks for alternatives.  Someone tells him about libertarianism.  He studies it.  It makes sense logically, but his gut recoils.  Despite this, he manages to wrote some decent science fiction with libertarian themes.

But deep down, he's still a socialist.  And when push comes to shove, like the emergence of a technology that frees money from the state, he sides with state power.  He might make overtures to freedom on paper, but when it actually matters, he'll always side with power.

I don't have $10,000,000 worth of bitcoins.  But given the 5-year trend in prices, I anticipate having that much in a year or less.  Of course, if we get a bear market, I won't have that much.  May have to wait a year or two longer than anticipated.  I'm just trying to plan for the future.  I don't see an easy way to cash out.

How did I get so many?  I make a very good salary, save every penny, and go "all-in" on investments when I believe there's good value.   I did that with BTCs.

Believe it or not, I've lost a lot more in bitcoins than I actually own.

Thank you for doing this!

I'm anticipating cashing out of a large amount of bitcoins in 2014, yielding possibly >$10,000,000.  How do I do this?  I'm thinking Bitstamp won't be able to accommodate me.  Are there people on localbitcoins with this much cash?  Does the Bitcoin Investment Trust buy from regular schmoes like me?  Does anyone 'know a guy'?

I'm not quite at the point yet, but I'm guessing that in less than a year, I'll be selling a large amount of bitcoins.  I'm worried there's no provider out there right now that will be able to wire that much fiat back to me (>$10,000,000) due to withdrawal limits.  What is the best way to do this? 

Which is better ? 

And how many times to roll the die to ensure randomness ?

Another question: in bitaddress, under paper wallet, I should be able to bash my keyboard to generate a sufficiently random key pair, right?  I.e., I don't have to roll a die a hundred times or whatever.

So I did a bit of googling/youtubing and know how I can check the md5 hash and sha1 hash of a file. Only problem is, I don't see any hash in the readme file or anywhere else. Where is the hash found? 

And what file should I be hashing?  The bitaddress.org.html file?  The zip file?

Thanks guys!  I'm being super paranoid, but how should I download that file?

1) download in Windows from github, put on separate USB, then boot via Ubuntu USB, leave Internet unconnected, then run the bitaddress file from separate USB?

Or

2) Boot via Ubuntu, connect to internet, download from github, disconnect from Internet, then run bitaddress file?

I'm trying to create a paper wallet. I made a Ubuntu boot USB. I booted via said USB. i connected to my home wireless network by entering pass code.

I started Firefox and searched for "bitaddress". First result was bitaddress.org. When I clicked, I received a warning, "This connection is untrusted".  I clicked "add exception". It asked something like "are you sure?"  I freaked out and closed the browser.

Is this normal?

Keep in kind that I'm computer illiterate and have never used Ubuntu before.

I know Gox has this feature. Any way to do it on Bitstamp?

Summary of zhangweiwu's most recent post:

China is a rule of men, not a rule of law.

Would you believe that I, as an ancap, also find Rothbard unconvincing?  Not only that, but I don't think the "non-aggression principle" is an adequate guide for political philosophy.  I'm not a libertarian due to moral axioms, but rather, because I think it produces the best outcomes. 

When I talk about anarcho-capitalism, I don't mean ending a govt and leaving a void.  Rather, I hope that certain institutions replace current institutions.  I don't desire lack of security or legal adjudication; I want a market for such.  In place of monopoly, I want competition.  Upon reading this, I'm sure you already have objections, such as, "Why won't various security providers simply fight each other?  Wouldn't they basically be gangs?"  Good question.  Just like you mentioned how at the supra-national level, there's relative peace because of economic development and the high costs of war, in my ideal world, security providers would find peace more profitable than war.  You might be skeptical; I don't blame you.  It's not without cautious skepticism that I hold my views. 

To flesh out these ideas better, there's no better book than The Machinery of Freedom http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf by David Friedman.  If you appreciate a beautiful argument and a razor-sharp mind mixed with humility, you'll love the book.

As far as empirical examples, there are examples to various degrees, even if not in totality:

* federalism in the early US
* no supra-national govt at the world stage
* medieval merchant law
* insurance companies having procedures to settle disputes outside of courts
* rural California ranchers (Friedman's more advanced book Law's Order goes into this more)
* as mentioned earlier, medieval Iceland

Let's also recognize that just because something is unprecedented, that doesn't mean it's impossible.  Institutionalized slavery was a human universal... until it wasn't.  Women's suffrage was crazy... until it wasn't.  Democracy itself was nutty (one ancient Egyptian to another "What, the ruler will simply step down if he loses a popularity contest?!?!  Haha, you so crazy!!")...until it wasn't.  The idea of a functional cryptocurrency was crazy... until Satoshi made it work.

So yes, the list of functional ancap societies in the modern area is blank, but that doesn't imply they can't exist.  What matters is--can societies thrive under such a system?  Can they evolve into such a system?  The reason I call myself an ancap is because I believe, cautiously, that the answer to both questions is "yes". 

Ah, now we're getting down to business!  You interpret no state as "Somalia".  Well no wonder you don't like ancaps.  

But I ask you, if a lack of a state results in gangs perpetually at war with each other, doesn't that imply a need for a world govt?  After all, without a world govt, the national govts would be at perpetual war with each other.  Now granted, nations do war quite frequently, but what explains the relative peace between first world nations?  There's no supra-national govt to keep the peace, so why isn't there perpetual war?

Look, I know from watching your talks that you're a sharp guy.  But it's apparent that if your argument against anarcho-capitalism is that it by default boils down to gangs at war and Somalia, then you don't know the rich history of scholarship around the topic, and you've not taken the time to ruminate on it.  I hope you do.  

The depth got very thin very quickly.

What exactly is your criticism here?  That he was an ideological crusader?  Because so was Satoshi.  That he was a drug dealer?  Fair enough; some people find that distasteful.  That he was an an-cap?  Well, so is probably 20% of the community here.  That he claimed to be a libertarian but did some unlibertarian things like buying a hitman's services, selling forged documents, etc?  Hey, that's something most people can agree on.

Interestingly, at the moment, the Bistamp-Mt Gox difference is as low as it's been in a long, long time.  Gox showing $113ish, Bistamp showing $111ish.

You can call it whatever you want - canceling, breaking, repudiating, etc - if you prefer.  I'm not going to play semantics.

When govts fail to pay back their bonds, they're signaling to the world that they're not going to debase the currency, because that's the alternative.

Defaults aren't what cause currency collapse.  No, what causes currency collapse is when the govt prints money to avoid a default.  

Defaults and currency collapses are, in many ways, opposites.  Defaults are highly deflationary and send people scurrying for currency.  Currency collapses are highly inflationary and people will do anything to get rid of the currency.

That's not correct.  A default makes the fiat currency stronger, not weaker.  There's a difference between faith in the US Govt paying its debt obligations and faith in the US Govt-issued currency.

A default causes people to lose faith, yes, but they lose faith in the ability of the US govt being able to pay its debts.  So when the govt asks for a loan, people ask for more interest.  Bond prices go up because faith in the govt paying you back is diminished.

But bonds are different from fiat.  When loans are less likely to be paid back, people want fiat.  It becomes more valuable.

------

You may not believe this argument, so let me put it another way.  We all know the US govt is not going to be able to pay its promises.  So it has two options:

1) Admit it can't pay its obligations.  Cancel its promises.  This is called a "default".
2) Print money to pay its obligations.

Clearly, the second option is inflationary.  But what's less clear is that the former is deflationary.  It increases the value of fiat money because people know the govt won't debase the currency.  People lose faith in the ability of the govt to keep its promises and pay its obligations, but they know the govt will not debase the currency.  Their faith in the currency increases.