Hello,

I need someone to translate SatoshiDice.com home page content into German.

Please PM me with your price (only need the home page, not other pages).

A world without money IS a world without trade, production and exchange. Money is impossible to avoid when people trade with each other, for they begin by bartering, and soon discover that certain goods are most easily bartered for (grain becomes easier to trade than bicycles, even if the other person doesn't want grain for his own consumption). Thus, you quickly discover that certain goods in the barter economy become traded very commonly. And voila, that's called money.

In other words, in order to have an economy WITHOUT money at all, there would need to be a law that you could only trade for things you would personally consume or use, and nothing could be traded twice. If a society actually had those rules, I suggest that trade, production, and exchange would be rare, inefficient, and burdensome.

Thus, I think my point was a fair one. Without allowing for money, an economy is not an economy. Whether the money is grain, cigarettes, seashells, gold, pieces of paper with leaders' faces, or Bitcoins... money ALWAYS emerges when people trade with each other. Money is intrinsic to exchange - they cannot be separated.

 

"For the first time, I was seriously realizing I could live totally moneyless."

Um yeah... because you hitch hiked off other people's generosity, and used clothing and tools created by the money-society you are pretending to reject. And then took a flight to Thailand and India, using a plane built by thousands of years of human ingenuity and progress which was enabled by trade and exchange, which was in turn facilitated by money... and then reported about it on a computer.

The dude is a 'tard. Wanna live off the grid? Fine, that's cool. But unless you're crafting tools from wood and stone and living in a shelter made of logs with clothes made from grasses and deer skins, then you're just fooling yourself.

A moneyless society is a society of starvation and utter poverty, and a world without trade, production, and exchange is a world without the leisure time one might desire for the purposes of reflecting on such fantastical notions as "a world without money."

Perhaps. But the state ought not have land.

I'm not smart enough to understand. But, wage controls should be gone, regardless of immigration issues. No man has the right to dictate what two other men agree via voluntary contract.

Or suggest Paysius.com

Hmmm yeah I read it three times and have no idea what he was saying. I think his thesis is this: "eliminating redistributive policies would also completely eliminate the fictional "labor advantage" of people who have to travel a thousand miles in order to work..."

What does it mean?? What is the fictional labor advantage?

And what's the comment regarding the "petro-dollar"?  That's just a term referring to revenue generated by oil-rich states. I have no problem with people selling oil (though it should be privatized, not state run)... lol not sure what to address exactly

Oh boy... where to start with this.

A) Illegal immigration is one of the most ridiculous "non issues" in society today. Who cares if Mr. Mexican arrives in the US? The only problem is if the government gives him stuff by taking it via taxation from someone else. But, this is a problem of welfare/socialism, not a problem of "illegal immigration."  You know who is far more expensive a burden than the immigrants?? The legal American citizens! That is where the outrage should be - that a bunch of fat lazy Americans get welfare paid by theft from other people, whilst complaining that "the illegals" have come into the country to work. End welfare for everyone and this problem goes away.


B) "$200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens."  <-- this is total bullshit and makes up the majority of the sum total at the bottom. The sentence should be changed to say, "$200 billion per year is saved by companies who are smart and moral enough to hire the most efficient labor inputs for their products and services." If an American cannot compete with a Mexican for the best labor at X price, then the Mexican should get the job! Simple as that. Illegal immigrants don't cost anyone anything, so long as they are not given welfare (and again, this is the problem of welfare in general, not as it pertains to illegals)

C) It is terrible and ironic that the US claims it is a "capitalist, free market country" while at the same time price fixing labor (minimum wage), and interfering with cross-border labor markets. Anyone who believes in free trade must believe in open immigration - for labor is a service. If it's wrong to stop apples from being traded to China, then it's wrong to stop Juan from coming to the US to pick those apples.

D) Complaining about remittances is utterly obnoxious and absurd. If a man earns $10, it's his $10 to do with as he pleases, including sending it to any other place he pleases. If $45 billion is sent in remittances, then good for those workers who earned $45 billion!

If America was a free country, a man could walk from Mexico into the US, start working, and be able to keep the profits of his labor. Unfortunately, America is a socialist empire with delusions of capitalism, and its citizens are so fat and noncompetitive that they must petition government to prevent harder working, more cost-effective Mexicans from arriving in the marketplace. Any problems with illegal immigrants is, upon reasonable inspection, actually a problem of welfare as a system, not of the free movement of labor (which a market economy demands).

This^

What would be nice, is a site where two players could wager BTC on the game. THAT is useful.

Do you have a rating with the OTC web of trust? Also, have you successfully repaid any loads through this forum before? Also, if you're only looking to raise 300btc, that's only $1,500. I'm sure a pawn shop would loan you far more than that, at a similar interest rate, using your Gaughin painting as collateral, no?

I disagree that creating thousands of transactions is "spam" or harmful in any way:

A) All payout transactions have fees attached to them... so the system is paying for every transaction it creates. Most input transactions have fees also, but we can't control if some people avoid those fees (it does however usually delay their bet, sometimes by quite a while, so the incentives are aligned properly).

B) Bitcoin as a global payment network better be able to handle FAR FAR more transactions that what SatoshiDice is creating.

If anything, this should be considered a minor stress test, and a stress test that is being paid for by SatoshiDice. Thus, it shouldn't engender any ill-will, even if next week it's processing 10x the transfers.

As a libertarian, I have absolutely no problem with banks per se. I don't even have a problem with fractional reserve (banks should be able to set whatever terms they wish). I  simply have a problem with forced fiat currency, and with taxpayer-subsidized bank insurance (FDIC). Enable a free market in money and if banks occur then great!

Thanks Slothbag, just submitted a few sites.

The universe of Bitcoin is certainly disorganized and sites like yours are needed.

I've never heard of such a thing, but it would be pretty silly. That would mean only 144,000 transactions could happen in a day if they happened perfectly evenly. Not suitable for a currency that will take over the world

http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

Now, this is actually misleading, because the vast majority of the huge spike in the past couple days was SatoshiDice.com. But, numbers are numbers and we just hit the all time Bitcoin transaction record The transactions are actually real people placing real bets, so I guess they are legitimate for the transaction count, right?

To Piuk (blockchain.info owner), I might suggest you make an additional transactions chart like the above but remove all transactions to or from the 1dice addresses.

Ahh crap someone just won 85 coins lol

I'll have fireduck comment on that HostFat - interesting problem.

Just added the Google +1 button. If you'd all be so kind, if you like the game, please go click it!

SatoshiDice.com

20 BTC

Well, I guess you're asking a few questions:

1) Is a world where many users use ewallets/ebanks more centralized than a world where everyone uses their own client software?  Answer: yes.

2) Isn't that increased centralization a problem? Answer: not necessarily.

People need to distinguish between coercive centralization and voluntarily centralization. Centralization of government power, for example, is bad, because people are being coerced into doing what they'd otherwise not do - this is problematic morally, but also can lead to harmful real-world consequences. BUT, this is wholly different than voluntary centralization.

Take the example of Walmart (huge mega-retailer here in the US). Walmart has centralized the distribution of products, and you can find anything you want inside the store. So is this harmful in the same way that coercive government centralization is harmful? I don't think so. If centralization is occurring, but it's occurring voluntarily based on market signals, then that should be taken as a sign that efficiencies and value are being created by that centralization. When the centralization is forced, however, it is unlikely that efficiencies and value are being created (if they were, then the centralization would have occured voluntarily anyway), and thus such coercion should be fought against and resisted.

Bitcoiners are happy to fight against the coercive centralization in the realm of money (vis-a-vis central banks and fiat currency), but sometimes that justified antagonism spills over into also fighting against voluntary centralization, which is problematic.

Centralization can be good or bad, and it typically depends on whether it's occurring under coercion or by choice. If Bitcoiners in the future tend to centralize funds held via ebanks, then so be it. A) there's nothing you can morally do to stop it (other than pleading with people) and B) it likely represents efficiency and value gains which ought not be interfered with anyway.  

Does this make Bitcoin less "safe" or less "secure" with voluntary centralization? I'm not sure... it's possible that if safety/security is handled largely by professional private institutions, we'd see a safer and happier blockchain than if it could not be centralized in such a way. Admittedly, some degree of decentralization is lost in this process, but security gains from other dynamics may compensate for this. Also, perfect security is only achievable by spending infinite funds... thus there is always a tradeoff between security and efficiency. The marketplace might discover that the optimal balance means most funds are held by ebanks (but again, you always have a choice to hold your own!)

If all Bitcoins were held at a handful of large US banks, then I'd be worried. But that will never happen, and thus I am not bothered by some marginal or even significant voluntary centralization short of that occurrence.