Bitcoin Forum
September 28, 2020, 07:07:19 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 »
1  Other / Politics & Society / Bugaj: ...."or PiS [the Polish govt] will have to be executed by firing squad." on: April 26, 2016, 08:32:38 PM
Commentary on Poland's new government, which offers a diabolical mix of stupidity, National-Socialist tendencies and Catholic fanaticism.

http://www.polskatimes.pl/magazyny/magazyn-polski/a/ryszard-bugaj-nie-podoba-mi-sie-co-pis-robi-z-trybunalem-do-opozycji-jednak-sie-nie-przylacze,9915241/


The juicy quote is on page 4.

"Opozycja nie jest wyraźnie zainteresowana jakimikolwiek rozmowami o kompromisie. Zachowują się tak, jakby intensyfikacja tego sporu była im na rękę.
Sprawa trybunału sprawia, że narasta bardzo poważne zagrożenie rozchwiania porządku prawnego w kraju. Opozycja nie powinna lekceważyć zagrożeń dla państwa. Ewentualny kompromis nie może prawnych zaszłości ignorować ale bez politycznego porozumienia impas jest nieuchronny. Zabrnęliśmy już bardzo daleko. Jeszcze chwila i będziemy mieli tylko dwa wyjścia: albo PiS wszystko ułoży po swojemu, albo trzeba będzie PiS rozstrzelać. Trzeciego wyjścia nie będzie."


"The opposition is not clearly interested in any talk of compromise. They're behaving as if an intensification of the dispute works in their favour.
The tribunal issue means there's a very serious, rising threat of a destabilization of the legal order in the country. The opposition should not neglect these threats to the state. A possible compromise cannot ignore the legal legacy, but without coming to a political understanding, an impasse is inevitable. We're already mired neck-deep in this. Another moment and we will have only two choices left: either PiS will arrange everything however they want, or they will have to be executed by firing squad. There won't be any third option."
2  Other / Politics & Society / Archeology -- what are they really hoping to find? on: December 06, 2014, 09:47:12 PM
I mean, surely, all of the more advanced aspects of ancient societies were biodegradable?

We tend to assume that global society is the most advanced it has ever been, but what if that's just our arrogant ego talking, based on a mirage? It should be obvious that only the most primitive metal and stone symbols (pyramids) would have the dumb longevity to survive 1000s of years. Even so, they've given us so many hints about their mathematical abilities.

What if ancient societies got so cynical about "dem young inbred next generation" that, in multiple acts of desperation, they inscribed a whole bunch of runes for us, dumbing it down of course, like a kind of mental seed bank??


Ancient satellite and Internet technology? Biodegradable.


Ancient nuclear power? Safe enough not to leave any long-term evidence on the planet. The lack of evidence for (ancient damage, isotopes scarring the environment, etc.) is not evidence of lack (Logic 101). If anything, any "first time ever" occurrences of scarring should be regarded as positive evidence that we have gone downhill.


Ancient mining and excavation of energy and minerals out of the earth? Advanced quantum teleportation, unlike the primitive metal scoops that we use today. Tongue

That is all.
3  Other / Politics & Society / Public stoning of POWs -- Donetsk authorities exposed on camera as (neo)nazis on: August 25, 2014, 01:55:34 PM
Recap for those who missed it:

the Ukrainians had some Independence Day celebrations on the 24th. Meanwhile, in Donetsk, the "anti-Fascists" or whatever they like to call themselves held their own celebrations: parading Ukrainian POWs through the streets at gunpoint, while local Russian peasants recorded the event for posterity with their smart-phones, introduced themselves as "Fascists!", chanted "kneel!", and threw stones at the prisoners (except that I haven't been able to find any video link for that last one even though I saw it on TV; it's probably the hot property of one of the news networks).

Liveleak: http://youtu.be/Wrs1ScSWPM8
http://youtu.be/Me2If0uEzhA
http://youtu.be/tRXl8Gtb51M

photos: http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/5,114944,16522822.html?i=0


I suppose everyone is sick of the last several months of Russia vs Ukraine threads, mostly thanks to the flood of mindless propaganda by the likes of Nemo-something, Crypto247, Balthazar and a couple of other sockpuppets. Now that the netizens have been suitably numbed by the Putin shills, we can probably expect Russia to proceed with further baby-steps to a full-on invasion of Ukraine.
4  Other / Politics & Society / USA, EU vs RU: sanctions thread, non-censored version on: March 28, 2014, 03:33:29 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/28/ukraine-crisis-economy-idUSL5N0MP1VL20140328

Quote

* Price Ukraine pays for Russian gas to rise 80 pct

 
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / "Failure to understand Bitcoin could cost..." (non-totalitarian version) on: February 09, 2014, 07:36:49 PM
Seeing that the manipulator, AnonyMint has a somewhat tyrannical habit of starting threads that look promising at the start, but are ruthlessly censored to shut out dissenting views, I've decided to repost here.

Feel free to post (or repost) replies as you see fit.

Self moderated threads are for pansies.

Quote from: blablahblah
(Doug) Casey Research's Alex Daley penned a myopic rebuttal to internet pioneer, now venture capitalist Marc Andreessen's myopic fanboy regurgitation of the often repeated incorrect theories about Bitcoin's key innovation and future. These two and most of the Bitcoin community are far from understanding what is really going on. Thus expect the majority to vote "No" here, to reaffirm their myopia, else they should refute me in debate me here (they won't be able to). Tongue

Daley essentially incorrectly argues that money can't exist without top-down corporate and government control (although he admits it could in a "wild west" mad max world which is precisely where we are headed after 2016), yet correctly argues that Bitcoin has insurmountable (also) flaws for consumer payment without top-down take over while he failed to enumerate many of the reasons Bitcoin is vulnerable to top-down take over. Copying the myopia of most of the Bitcoin community, Andreessen fails to understand the reasons Bitcoin is doomed to a future of top-down control and thus can't compete with the top-down global money solutions being patented recently by the major banks.

Your prejudice against all things centralised or structured "top down" (aka: weasel words for social structures that you emotionally dislike), fits right in with the 'myopic' Libertarian euphoria surrounding Bitcoin... in 2011 - 2012. In defence of the Libertarians here, most seem to have quite moderate views in advocating "small" governments and seeing their ideology as a "guiding principle" rather than a hard set of rules.

Quote
Bitcoin is doomed to a future of top-down control and thus can't compete with the top-down global money solutions

That's BS. Central control implies a cohesive group of vested interests -- much more dangerous to legacy financial systems than a disorganised collective of FOSS enthusiasts. One could even argue that as a distributed/decentralised platform, Bitcoin was a) too new/experimental/immature to compete with anything, b) allowed to naturally mature and become more hierarchical in precisely your favourite way: chaotic simulated annealing. It's too bad that you don't like the results-to-date of that unregulated self-structuring.




Quote
Bitcoin Take Over Threats

  • Coming $Trillion(s) bubble burst will demand world government intervention & cooperation [1] (Bernie Madoff is so much smaller)
  • Selfish mining attack confirmed by skeptics
  • Those who were anonymous lose it ex post facto, when tax & law enforcement attack the numerous non-anonymous [2]
  • 51% attack because mining is concentrated in a few pools
  • 51% attack because mining is ASICs concentrated and ASICs foundries could be purchased with unlimited fiat. Note also ASICs can't be re-purposed as PCs can, i.e. each ASIC only works for a specific coin design.
  • 51% attack because mining is not funded with perpetual debasement (new coins) to remain proportional to market value, instead transaction fees can not scale to market cap because even debit cards & ACH charge a flat-fee not a percentage of transaction value. Thus the world's rich (denominated in coin) grow more wealthy relative to the income of the miners.
  • Non-zero transaction fees allows cartel take over via Transactions Withholding Attack
  • Pools can be attacked with Share Withholding Attack fixable with oblivious shares
  • Blockchain requires increasingly powerful full clients as scale to billions of transaction, thus more centralization and vulnerability to 51% attack.
  • Superior altcoin
Your fears seem pathological, and you seem to misunderstand several things about the nature of money (but that's OK, so do most people).

Re: the $150T bubble collapsing?
Not gonna happen unless levels of mutual distrust in society reach a crisis point. Look up the causes of hyperinflation. There doesn't even need to be an increase in the money supply -- hyperinflation is fundamentally a runaway collapse in the amount of trust the average person has in the underlying system. Look around! Bitcoin had its own mini bout of hyperinflation just the other day -- yet the inflation policy has never changed.

You've opined about the hockey stick shape of US reserve printing. There are many ways in which it could be interpreted, e.g.:
-2008 was the start of currency war in which the US tried to steal from the EU with overpriced dollars. Since exchange rates are laggy, there's a first-mover advantage for currency debasement and the US broke the stalemate by printing. US interests would have been able to transfer $billions in hard assets from the EU, if not for EU counter moves to eliminate that advantage. Now it's back to stalemate mode with both sides sitting on extra reserves that they can't really move.
-Structural problems where the Fed have some print policy, but a parasitic hierarchy of banks is doing funny things with the money instead of lending it, because no Glass Steagal.
-You're right about a coordinated conspiracy and the Satanic elites have some suicidal plan.
-Or... anarchy rules, everything is a pathological mess, and no-one's in charge. Ideological belief in the superiority of Capitalism could do that -- government bureaucrats simply shrug their shoulders because the free market already pays them to do what they do.


All the 51% stuff and other attacks? It's all priced in.

Centralisation boogie-man = big yawn. As mentioned above, it naturally results from your favourite simulated annealing process.



Quote
Bitcoin Killer Altcoin

The Bitcoin killer will thus have at least the following features.

  • provably cpu-only mining with botnet resistance (current proof-of-stake can't redistribute new coins to masses & I posit it isn't secure)


Mining is a temporary bootstrapping thing. As a feature of money, the 'costliness' of the tokens has near zero utility. Calling that cost "intrinsic value" is just a distraction for people who haven't quite wrapped their heads around more advanced ideas that cash is a symbolic pointer to a web of trust. Smiley
Mining is a (maybe) necessary evil so that trust can be built on immature networks where no naturally trustworthy leaders have emerged yet. Bitcoin allows proof-of-stake to be added. Whereas perpetual POW crappyness is implausible.

Quote
small, reasonable perpetual debasement
agreed.

Quote
built-in anonymity (to minimize non-anonymous users)
meh.

Quote
zero transaction fees (with economic transaction spam resistance)
So you want to reinvent hashcash? How? Perhaps a small fee to prevent ddos? Maybe all the miners get together and vote to determine fee levels?... You haven't thought this through, have you?

Quote
faster 1-confirmation block chain, e.g. 1 minute instead of Bitcoin's 10 min delay, if the orphan rate can be contained
2nd gen cryptos like Ethereum could make that issue completely irrelevant. E.g.: Ethereum would allow you to set up any centralised cash or share system inside a contract, and the "decentralised cloud server mining" nonsense is outsourced and non-intrusive. Your server just runs seamlessly until it runs out of funds.

6  Other / Off-topic / Is Bitcoin a Woman? on: December 06, 2013, 05:47:18 PM
Speculate on this imponderable, and give reasons for your answer below! Wink

.
.
.
.
.
.
Disclaimer: this thread might contain light-hearted sexism that's not actually intended to offend anyone.
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / A short tale of a world currency, and fees going UP and UP and UP on: November 22, 2013, 02:45:19 AM
In a far, distant future, bitcoins are not only expensive, but also very expensive to transact. Over time, as the system evolved, things got tricky in the mining sector. Miners who tried to offer cheaper rates kept having their blocks 'orphaned' until they learned to comply with the club rules: do not swamp the blockchain with cheap transactions. No matter how these heroic, rebel miners tried to get around the problem, it just wasn't working. Cheap transactions -- big blocks. Expensive transactions -- small blocks. The group consensus was: small blocks are less costly in the data centres.

Meanwhile, various helpful investors saw some opportunities to tidy Bitcoin up a bit. Bitcoin, the clunky "digital gold" that it was, was just too bulky for the fast rough-and-ready infrastructure people wanted. So a whole new banking sector arose from the ashes of the old one. This new sector was of course very convenient and useful: each layer provided an extremely valuable service, such as lending out Bitcoin-backed credit, all for a tiny fee that was passed onto the customers. In turn, these customers also provided some extremely valuable services: accounts, ATMs, chip cards, and pleasant branches with helpful staff. The best part was the cost: extremely affordable! Only a few percent per year.

Others saw opportunities in the 'mining' sector. Spaces were limited for the actual mining of course, but figuring out the optimum fees and block sizes was a formidable task requiring an army of accountants and programmers. You see, any slight miscalculation could have catastrophic consequences in the wider economy downstream. For example: increase block size too quickly, fees drop, and a small revolution erupts as mushrooming non-bank lenders start competing with the old guard and drive them out of business. Scary stuff! In such complex, chaotic systems, it often seems that the best thing to do is just: never change anything, and then it will remain stable.
8  Other / Politics & Society / assassination market -- legitimate tit-for-tat as per the N.A.P., or coercion? on: November 20, 2013, 03:45:57 PM
Until now it was just theory. Now there's an actual site running. Thoughts? Smiley
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / "Assassination Market". Potential hostage crisis brewing. Need game theory on: November 20, 2013, 01:15:55 AM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=337897.0

TL;DR: Someone made an "assassination market" website in plain sight... false flag, predictable timing with the bubble/politics/press coverage and shit like that.

However...

on RT:
http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-assassination-market-anarchist-983/

Quote
Sanjuro’s FAQ shows that he is aware of the imminent prospect of arrest.

“All the money will be confiscated by the state, and I will probably be killed or spend a considerable portion of my life in jail. Provided the system is a success, of course. Which I am hoping for.”

Did I read that right?

How long did it take for fucking Silk Road to get taken down? 2, 3 years? Who gives a fuck about "whodunnit" and "oh it's just another bad press false flag by the haters."

What if they "can't" take that website down because of say, magic wikileaks servers or some similar excuse??

UPDATE:

This is how I see things potentially playing out. At first, nobody takes the threat seriously. Everyone who has followed Bitcoin has seen so many scams and would-be disasters that were supposed to destroy Bitcoin but failed, that we've become numb to it all.

Occasionally a few coins get deposited, and it's seen as black humour for the lulz. Who cares if it's probably a scam and the creators will disappear with the money? It's Bitcoin -- stuff like that happens all the time. It's a risk people take when trying to remain anonymous, and 2-party escrow is still in beta. Authorities probably could take down the website if they wanted to. IF.

Meanwhile, the funds slowly add up and eventually they reach a tipping point. Whether it's because of slow accumulation or rising exchange rate doesn't matter. Some big-name politician gets killed, and that's when the SHTF.

Suddenly, the news is 100 times worse than Silk Road ever was. Massive regulation ensues. Innocent Bitcoin enthusiasts, miners, early adopters, and developers get arrested. Masses of people who don't care about any alternative political systems like Laissez-faire, Anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Libertarianism, Zeitgeist Movement, etc., they see this from the POV of "normal" people: murder caused by Bitcoin and therefore it must be stopped.

And who gains in all of this? Not some phantom government which is supposedly evil and coercive -- they're just taking bribes like all good Capitalists. It's the fucking dinosaur banking sector.
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Why Bitcoin Land is (un)like Soviet Russia... on: November 14, 2013, 02:30:41 PM
In Bitcoin land, YOU control the money.

In Bitcoin land, you hyper-deflate the money.

In Bitcoin land, Bitcoin crashes UP.


In Bitcoin land,...

Add your own. Let's get some memes in here Wink
11  Other / Politics & Society / Zeitgeist, free will, and the Left-Right 'box' on: November 04, 2013, 05:36:22 PM
This is partly a continuation of the Resource Based Economy thread, but I thought it would be better to start a new topic, focusing on the recent debate with Peter Joseph VS Stefan Molyneux, and some underlying issues of free will. Without sorting out the philosophical issues, it seems like progress in the RBE stuff will remain deadlocked.

http://youtu.be/jaP2GJvZlWY
http://youtu.be/vUtv5E6CkLE

I've only watched the top one (TZM sourced) and I'm not sure why SM's one is 3 minutes longer. Maybe an intro or some edits. Take your pick. They're both long.

If people want to discuss any follow-up video monologues, go ahead, but I'm probably going to ignore that stuff. From what I've seen neither side seemed to contribute any new material, or at least: I couldn't hear it above the sound of a beautiful string quintet Grin. My bias is slightly pro-Zeitgeist, but I'm going to try and critically discuss some issues that surfaced above the noise:

The left-right paradigm
It seems that neither side is particularly succeeding in thinking outside that box, and I think I've been able to figure out why.
The Left, and Zeitgeisters, fundamentally seem to believe in determinism and a lack of free will. PJ illustrates this with examples from his workplace that went bankrupt. Unavoidable situation A (market correction) led to B, which caused C, which caused D, and so on, and at every step people had what looked like unpleasant free market choices: "lie and steal from your employees, or starve your children?"
The Right, and Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians, fundamentally seem to believe in free will, freedom of choice, and some universal morals that naturally restrict that freedom and justify their Golden Rule.

I mostly disagree with the An-Cap side on this, but not 100%. They seem to ignore that even in an idealised market that is perfectly free from government interference or other restrictions, the very existence of the market is involuntary. The bigger the "mutual benefit for both sides to peacefully trade" the bigger the built-in pressure that both sides have to trade in order to obtain that benefit. ZM-ers seem to be standing on the sidelines and asking:
-why are the scarce resources located on the wrong side in the first place?
-And why are they scarce?
-Resources are needed at 'X'. Why isn't trade happening? Is the situation invisible?

Experience suggests that resource 'Y' is readily available for 5 units, yet a multi-tiered network of suppliers, advertisers and affiliates results in the consumer paying 50 units: 5 to the producer, and 45 units to the non-productive network. Market forces cause flows that eventually result in resources arriving where they are needed. The middlemen seem to play a dual role by enabling trade, but they also oppose this flow by adding their own costs to the transaction. Eventually, some of the opposing costs are eliminated and the flow of resources can be maintained even when there is much lower pressure.

There does seem to be a fundamental unfairness in that the middlemen try to sap as much energy from the flow as they can, despite their own costs obviously being much lower than they care to acknowledge. It's easy to imagine that when a market dries up, there's pressure for these middlemen to do something about it. Hence systemic corruption like: destruction of resources to make them more scarce, and reducing their design life. And didn't the US government recommend that everyone should buy lots of consumer items in order to boost their economy? This seems to align well with PJ's contention that the government is an extension of the market.

However, where my view seems to deviate from the ZM narrative, is the "free will" element that I briefly mentioned earlier. If the market-makers' own actions are dictated by some market force -- a need to survive, a natural tendency towards complacency or risk-aversion or something similar -- then that would imply a lack of free will, and its complement: determinism. However, based on a hunch that pure determinism and lack of free will doesn't seem right, I tried to resolve this dilemma.

Without wanting to sound overly conciliatory or regurgitating a lot of metaphysical waffle, to me it seems that free will and non-free will are both logically possible. It's just that opportunities to create new actions don't always present themselves, and people might acquire a belief that "since I can't change anything anyway, I might as well roll with the market". The important point here is that free will only comes into existence if people choose to create it. And I have another hunch: that if people had more faith in their own ability to change things, they would do so.

"But some experts believe that my actions were predetermined by the prior arrangement of particles constituting my brain and body, and therefore all my 'choices' are illusions that are somehow less real than the real reality that I was deciding on in the first place!"
-- Therefore existential crisis and complacency. Therefore, market-driven behaviour becomes the default behaviour.
12  Other / Politics & Society / "I don't vote"... "it's beneath me"?? on: July 09, 2013, 10:48:41 AM
"I don't vote" -- could somebody please explain this attitude which seems very pervasive among An-Caps and Libertarians & Co.?

Seriously, is it a:
"I don't negotiate with terrorists" hunger-strike kind of thing, where you drink poison and hope the other person will die?

Not that I'm trying to get anyone to participate in the democratic process (please, just NO! Wink ), I'm just trying to fully understand how this non-participation mindset is supposed to personally benefit the non-voter.
13  Other / Politics & Society / The legitimate purpose of military... on: May 04, 2013, 01:16:08 PM
Escrow to protect international trade and co-operation.

In our Anarchic globe where governments only have domestic oversight, but no supreme leader "brutally coercing" them to obey some heinous international laws, there must be some way to ensure that voluntary trade is predominantly honest. The Potential losses provoked by breaches of trust must outweigh any [potential] 'gains' from cheating one's customer or supplier.

Up until now, the Anarcho-Capitalists always had one argument up their sleeve with which they could criticise governments (that they support violent military and that military serves no useful purpose...), and for which I had no answer. But escrow is that answer. So, if any An-Cap or Libertarian supporters want to dispute that, I invite them to present alternative, non-violent/non-threatening, decentralised/non-authoritarian ideas for escrow that would ensure co-operative trade between isolated communities. Smiley
14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / "Ł" in the Litecoin name = marketing ticking timebomb on: March 19, 2013, 12:10:58 PM
Ł = a Polish letter which sounds just like a "W".
Hearing about "white coin" = ++ungood.

Just sayin'.

 Smiley
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Gavin's blog, "Reworking Bitcoin Transaction Fees" -- some Qs and ideas on: March 12, 2013, 11:44:47 PM
Hi, I've been looking at Gavin's blog updated a few days ago, hoping to learn more about the "fee model", so I've got some questions, critiquing, and a couple of ideas to run past everyone. Smiley

Quote
Goals

In rough order of priority:

    Create a self-regulating market for transaction fees between miners and merchants/users
    Smoothly transition from the rules we currently have in place to the new rules; transactions from users running old versions of Bitcoin should get confirmed reasonably quickly under the new rules.
    Make sure transaction spam is expensive for would-be spammers
    Replace compiled-in constants with dynamic, market-determined values

Pre-emptive intervention as a design goal? This may be nitpicking, but I would have thought that in a market where "supply meets demand", transaction spam would no longer be relevant. Miners would tend to simply sign "winning bids for transactions" in order of profitability and the problem would sort itself out. (Supply and demand might be chaotic but it's not Voodoo.)


Quote
Should the priority calculation be changed?

As the total number of transactions grows, transaction pruning schemes that "forget" old, completed transaction become more and more important. Pruning is possible when all of a transaction's outputs are spent, so a transaction that takes 10 inputs and combines them into 1 output is good for the network.

The transaction priority calculation could be modified to prefer transactions with a high ratio of inputs to outputs. However, we need to be careful and make sure that there is still an incentive to use 'sendmany' instead of creating dozens of single-in/single-out transactions; a 1-input-10-output transaction should not have one-tenth the priority of a 1-input-1-output transaction.

To give a mild preference to transactions with fewer/smaller outputs than inputs the priority formula could be modified to be:

priority = (sum(value*age)/size) * (1000 + size of previous txouts) / (1000 + size of this txn's txouts)

My question is: should priority calculation exist at all? Pruning generally seems like a sensible idea, but pre-emptively intervening and hard-coding the decision into the protocol seems like unnecessary bloat. Why not get rid of it altogether and provide miners with an economic incentive instead? E.g.: "reward miners who prune old blocks by giving them optional extra new blocks (without the coin reward of course)". Of course that might only work if block-space were already a reasonably scarce resource. Anyway, just an idea -- no idea if it's feasible.


Quote
maximum block size : The maximum size block that can be created. If not set, it will default to the same as the target block size. Miners can increase this to make room for more fee-paying transactions.
--The controversy never ends Smiley At the moment I'm favouring an algorithm where each time a block is discovered, the miner can reference the previous block's maximum size and vote it 'up', 'down', or 'no change'. The question is how much should the vote count? E.g.: a 2^(+-1/2016) change? (E.g.: doubling or halving every 2 weeks with that example). To me this seems like a relatively simple algorithm that alleviates 3 problems: 1) miners all having different opinions on exactly how much capacity blocks 'ought' to have, 2) minimising some potential problems with rogue miners/merchants/anyone DOSing transaction requests, 3) of course scaling.


Lastly, one thing I'm unable to find anywhere, and perhaps someone could point me to it -- where are "unconfirmed transactions" kept? Presumably this memory heap is itself a scarce resource, and ought to be treated as such? It seems that some merchants et al. are using this memory heap in lieu of a low-cost messaging system. Does Bitcoin already have a messaging scheme for data other than transactions?
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Why does everyone keep calling them fees? They're not fees, they're BIDS! on: March 10, 2013, 11:18:00 AM
When one pays a so-called "fee" for a transaction, it's not really a fee at all. It's a bid! It's simply bidding for space in the next available block.

So-called miners are the entities auctioning block-space to the highest bidders.

I've been wondering why there has been so much confusion surrounding the whole "increasing the block-space" thing, and I think it at least partly boils down to a highly misleading nickname. They're not fees, they're bids!

The way I understand it, every time a new block is discovered, an auction occurs and individual kilobytes of that block are auctioned off to the highest bidders. However, at the moment there's a problem because it seems like such a crappy opaque process with very little market transparency. This needs to be improved. Before requesting any transaction, I want to know the "going rate" and the estimated delivery time depending on how much i BID.

Agree? Disagree? Please discuss. Smiley
17  Other / Meta / Cracking down on n00b onslaught -- help me improve the Reply Template on: March 06, 2013, 08:23:38 PM
This (or a similar) template has probably been done before, but a fresh wave of n00bs is coming so we need to revisit and save our strength! We have to use the power of cutting and pasting! The complexity of various replies I've doing lately suggests this template is not quite there yet, so let's work together to patch this thing up!

Quote
Your post/thread attempts to criticise BITCOIN on

( ) economic ( ) technical ( ) philosophical ( ) emotional

grounds. Your criticism has no merit. To help you learn from your mistake/s, additional details regarding the nature of your error are presented below:

( ) Your arguments/conclusions are incorrect due to bad input data.
( ) Your arguments/conclusions are incorrect due to missing or incorrect input variables.
( ) Your arguments/conclusions are incorrect due to bad processing.
   Specifically, your logical fallacy is:
   ( ) Black or white (you're either with us or you're with the terrorists)
   ( ) Special pleading
   ( ) Loaded Question
   ( ) Burden of Proof
   ( ) Ambiguity
   ( ) The Gambler's Fallacy
   ( ) Bandwagon
   ( ) Appeal to Authority
   ( ) Composition/Division
   ( ) No True Scotsman/Appeal to Purity
   ( ) Genetic
   ( ) Begging the Question
   ( ) Appeal to Nature
   ( ) Anecdotal
   ( ) The Texas Sharpshooter (cherry-pick data)
   ( ) Middle ground
   ( ) Strawman
   ( ) False Cause
   ( ) Appeal to Emotion
   ( ) The Fallacy Fallacy
   ( ) Slippery Slope
   ( ) Ad Hominem
   ( ) Tu Quoque
   ( ) Personal Incredulity
   (thanks to: yourlogicalfallacyis.com)

( ) Your premise relies on
   ( ) Metaphysical
   ( ) Spiritual
   ( ) Theistic
   ( ) Emotional
   argumentation that is unfalsifiable. Please try to come up with a logical rebuttal.

( ) Your arguments/conclusions are incorrect because your understanding of certain concepts is flawed or incomplete in one or more of the following areas:
   ( ) supply and demand
   ( ) competition, monopolies
   ( ) money, currency, cash, fiat, commodities, history of money
   ( ) theories of value, bubbles
   ( ) inflation, deflation, CPI, money supply
   ( ) ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes,
   ( ) early adoption, FX plays, trading strategies
   ( ) FOSS: free and open source software
   ( ) structures: centralised, decentralised, headless
   ( ) cryptography
   ( ) data storage
   ( ) networking
   ( ) computer languages
   ( ) chaos, dynamic equilibria
   ( ) crowd psychology
   ( ) Game Theory
   ( ) laws
   ( ) people

( ) Your general criticism has been suggested before. Please use the search function to find out more about:
   ( ) Bitcoin versus ponzi schemes
   ( ) Lost coins
   ( ) Actual weaknesses


To successfully criticise BITCOIN in future, we suggest acquiring more knowledge of the subject matter in question. We wish you BEST OF LUCK in your re-education.

 Wink
18  Economy / Speculation / [poll] Quick! Put more chewing gum in Bitcoin's Velocity lever!... on: February 24, 2013, 12:09:49 PM
 Smiley
19  Economy / Economics / When miners hoard more, 'demand'... on: February 23, 2013, 02:43:27 PM
 Wink

Any relevant comments or questions welcome.
20  Other / Off-topic / Great minds required. Uncovering what REALLY happened at Chelyabinsk... on: February 19, 2013, 12:37:15 AM
Due to popular demand from incredulous mainstream Beliebers, I'm starting this thread so we can put our minds together and uncover the TRUTH behind the mysterious technology that was cleverly disguised as a meteorite.

I'll go first. Key points:
It was clearly an ICBM.
~30km/s seems a bit fast for a plausible re-entry speed, but it's the Russians so it seems legit.
10 kiloton estimated explosive force seems way off the mark for conventional explosives unless they somehow fired a 10 thousand tonne warhead. I'm sure someone would have noticed a rocket the size of the Great Pyramid lifting off, so it couldn't have been conventional explosives. This leaves a couple of other options like fuel-air and nuclear.

Was it a Fuel-Air bomb?
This seems far more efficient than carrying chemicals where the necessary oxygen is already present. How about a solid shell of magnesium? I was wondering whether it might contain metallic powder inside but why bother when at such high speeds the whole thing could become an aerosol. I'm not sure about magnesium's high-speed behaviour, but I hear that tungsten and uranium are pretty good. Presumably they went for a staballoy with optimised shattering properties for the job: high surface area, while maintaining enough solidity to pass by and release as much energy as possible from the ambient oxygen and nitrogen.

Was it nuclear?
Atmospheric testing over a place like Chelybinsk seems like the perfect smokescreen (pun intended). According to some reputable YT videos, the place practically glows in the dark anyway so who would notice a few extra milli-Rad? And don't give me that BS about detecting traces of radio-isotopes in the atmosphere. Everyone's instruments are already gummed up and malfunctioning with wet Fukushima Dai-ichi dust.

What about the "moving spotlight" effect? Or the glowing embers coming out the other end of the fireball?
Some of the YT videos clearly show the shadows of cars and buildings smoothly rolling across the terrain, like a time-lapse video of a sun dial. I'm just not convinced that a nuke could be made to give such a reliable point-source of light. And you certainly wouldn't get anything solid coming out the other end.

Conclusion: the so-called "meteorite" was really a fuel-air kinetic penetrator, likely consisting of a secret blend of heavy metals in an inefficient "roundish" shape. How did I do? Grin
Pages: [1] 2 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!