Wow. Just wow. What in the world makes a guy wake up one day and decide to blow any good will and karma that he might have accumulated with the community over losing $20 in a zero-risk wager because of his own faulty assumption? Dude, do you know what deception is?
Do you? |
|
|
|
|
My (incomplete) understanding of quantum cryptography is that in general quantum attacks have the potential to halve the bit strength of any system, but no more. As in, a fully capable quantum computer could defeat a 160 bit system in the same time that an equivalent classical computer could break an 80 bit system.
As in, using a classical computer, we expect to be able to beat a 160 bit system in about 2^160 operations. Attacking the same problem with a quantum computer would only require 2^80 operation. Note that 2^80 is still insanely huge.
Quantum computing isn't really new, and cryptographers took notice like 20 years ago, so everything we use today (including everything in bitcoin) is still secure in a fully quantum world (which doesn't exist yet, and probably still won't for another 10 to 30 years).
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to report for documentation sake that I'm still getting hit with hack attempts. The latest attempt was yesterday someone who speaks good English using a server (118.192.35.57) from China tried over 1,500 various methods to hack into my server. It's hard to stay ahead of these guys, if they are persistent, they will eventually get in (as evident with the other already hacked bitcoin services). Here are some of the methods he tried: - Tried to access boot information
- Tried to access file system (ie /etc/passwd)
- Various SQL injection techniques
- javascript injection
- Tried executing system commands with buffer over-runs
It's kinda funny that they never tried to find my wallet.dat file :-) What types of attacks were they using? Just web requests? I've found that a well configured fail2ban setup has made my logs vastly less annoying to read. |
|
|
|
No it was not money before. It is money when you can exchange it , you can only then exchange it if that someone really likes the picture of your dog. IT IS MONEY IF YOU CAN EXCHANGE IT . By assuming that there isn't a THIRD person that would also be willing to exchange for it then I have to assume it ain't money afterwards.
So, money is anything that could be exchanged, but only in those moments when it could be exchanged. If it actually is exchanged, it could very well cease to be money at that instant. And, of course, we never really know what could be exchanged unless we actually attempt the exchange. Or, is something money because someone says they are willing to exchange for it, even if they really aren't willing? In this strange world of quantum moneydynamics, what plays the other roles that we assign to money? To give two examples of non-medium roles, how is (abstract) value stored, and what is the unit of account? So by you only post in which you reveal you point of view : I assume your view of the noun DOLLAR which defines a currency is that it is the realization of money. WHICH IS COW DUNG. A DOLLAR IS JUST AS FICTIONAL AS A SIN OR A BLESSING FROM GOD. the dollar bills and the number in the bank accounts represent that fictional item like wine represents in certain conditions the blood of CHRIST.
You should figure out who pressed your crazy button and ask them to turn it off. Just in case you aren't merely trying to embarrass yourself, I'll point out that I've already addressed your objection in the very post that you claim to have just read, post #2 of this thread. |
|
|
|
Wheal they are also nouns . Currency is also a noun . Fuck me even human is a noun. and even language is a noun and even RETARD is a noun. What's that suppose to mean? A form of wealth that ain't money is for example a photo of your dog that no one would want it in exchange for something he owns. IT would be wealth to you because it has value to you , but it ain't money because you can't exchange it. and it ain't currency either. I have to make a correction to one of my statements above thought : No you don't have currency , cash , but still you could rent it , or you could exchange it ... or you could grow something on it , or you could build something on it. Money ain't imaginary. It's a term for value which can be exchanged . If something has value to you it is money wealth. There . So not all wealth is money ... only that which can be exchanged . Your view has some pretty big problems still, even after you've clarified it so as not to include all nouns. The first problem is that you are ignoring several roles of money in favor of just one role. Go back up to the top and read the first few posts. The second problem is that you are using meaningless criteria for excluding some nouns from the category of money. Say that someone really likes the picture of your dog. Does the picture of the dog then become money? Was it money before that person knew the picture existed? Does it remain money once that person has the picture, assuming that there isn't a second person that would also be willing to exchange for it? I could go on, but it doesn't appear that there is any way to make a consistent decision about the money-ness of some object based on your definition, nor on reasonable extensions of that definition. |
|
|
|
So having a patch of land you don't have money ?
Correct. You have wealth, not money. I think you don't understand the difference between money and wealth. We should all try to remind ourselves of that difference from time to time. Please explain to me the difference. So that i can remind to my self of that from time to time. All currencies together are currency . They are money only in certain conditions which i explained above. Money is wealth and wealth is money . even if we didn't invent currency money would still exist because we can exchange our wealth through barter. Money = wealth in exchange. Currency = fictional item invented for the sole purpose of being exchanged. Let me ask you this: If for example a town would revert to barter would it have any money? Could it use it's wealth to trade with other towns? Or would they absolutely need currency? Sure they can trade ... they give oil for food for example and that wealth is money at that very moment and it ain't currency because if no one want's their oil for example they could just use it themselves to power some tractors. This is my view on things. What is money in your view ? All currencies ever invented? If that is the case then you are right. If we refer to money as a distinct term for all currencies and only currencies , that don't represent wealth and can only be exchanged for wealth then you are right. The problem with your view is that it defines anything and everything as money. Why not just call them nouns and be done with it? |
|
|
|
HAHA, wow. you must live near by. I got my bottle yesterday and unfortunately its just about gone. great stuff though! I too had already written it off as a loss, must of come on a boat or something. Thank you much!
Yeah, he mentions in the thread that he thinks it comes by ship, so I was expecting it to take 3-4 weeks. What I wasn't expecting was the total lack of tracking updates. I figured that someone in Poland would let me know it had been loaded into the shipping container, and that someone in the US would let me know that it was unloaded. Instead, there were a couple of updates showing it moving around Poland, then nothing for 5 weeks, then it magically appeared in my mailbox. |
|
|
|
|
I ordered a bottle a while back, and it showed up today in my mailbox. Took a while to cross the Atlantic, and the postal tracking was terrible. Actually, the package tracking was so bad that nothing had been updated since September 20th, and I was almost sure that my bottle had ended up in the belly of a customs inspector along the way. But it got here intact, here being the midwest United States.
As far as I can tell, if it had been stopped by US customs, I would have been on the hook for an import duty, which I calculate to be about 71 cents, and I would have had to find a different shipping service to finish the delivery, because the post office isn't willing to carry booze.
I think I'm going to order a few more.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say no. This is after just a moment's thought, so it might change.
In my view, money is the abstraction, and currency is the realization. When you pay someone with a paper bill, or a metal coin, you are operating on both levels, giving them both the abstraction, and the physical embodiment. When you pay with a check or a credit card, you are operating only on the abstract level, so money changes hands, but currency does not.
Then again, on a deeper philosophical level, one could argue that the paper money or metal coin is very nearly as abstract as a check or credit card transaction. But, if you must draw a line somewhere based on principles, I think what I've described is a good place to draw it.
Oh, and note that while a check isn't generally a currency, there have been (and can be again) situations where personal checks have been passed around at face value, making them a currency within those specific situations.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, when you don't have any funds, the buy order will remain there. When you then sell some BTC, you get dollars, and the buy order will suddenly be executed.
In my opinion, this is kind of obvious, and is exactly what you ordered the system to do. I don't see Mt.Gox having a fault in this. The old trade orders are right beneath the form when you click "trade".
Exactly, not mt Gox fault, I changed the OP title, Notheless the only reason why someone would do this is to create fake volume and activity on the exchange. Since there is not really a legitimate use for this feature, I think we could be warned with a confirmation dialog. You screwed up and lost a few bucks. I think plenty of us have done that. I know I have. Suck it up and vow to be more careful next time. But, don't think that there isn't a use for this feature just because you can't think of one. This is called the iceberg system, and it is incredibly useful, but it does require some care on your part. |
|
|
|
|
So, I read the last few pages of the other thread, and now this one, and one thing wasn't clear. At least not clear to me, maybe I'm just feeling dense today. Also, I wanted to subscribe to this thread so I don't have to go looking for news and updates.
My workers appear to be using the new PPS system without any action from me. Will this just keep working, or do I need to change anything?
While we are at it, are you down to a single server? My failover proxy has like 4 different (old) hosts set up for BTC Guild. Should I drop them all down to just a single entry for btcguild.com?
|
|
|
|
At the time I made the original post, there was plenty of depth to accommodate buying or selling $20,000 worth of bitcoins, and hardly move the price at all. Today that is not the case, but give it some time.....
I'm not "extremely dumb" but I do have my own agenda.
It is promoting the free market and the accompanying voluntary society.
Bullshiet, whatever your agenda is, its for your own benefits. Saying no goverment intervention is also stupid. But i'm sure you know that. Wow. |
|
|
|
I don't mind the security, but why wasn't I warned when I deposited monies?
I deposited, traded and attempted my withdrawal all in a matter of minutes so not an issue of a time lapse. Only when I tried to withdraw was I told my account was "under review"... and we're only talking about enough for a nice dinner out... not big $$$.
Guess I am awaiting for my support request "in the pile"...
If I was writing an automated system to detect activity that looked like money laundering, and it didn't flag this activity, I'd be fired. |
|
|
|
Which isn't a bad thing. As long as they are unable to use violence (aka, government) to prevent competition, they have to remain the best, or they won't stay on top for very long. This means they won't abuse their monopoly position, unless we give them the power to.
I believe, monopoly is caused by lack of regulation, and once it established, it will last generations, since the later comer will not have enough accumulation of capital/resource/knowledge/credit etc... And, due to the limitation of resource and space on the planet, most of the monopoly will last even longer once it established Do you have an example of a monopoly that was sustained without direct help from the government, and that also overcharged the market? Just one example would do nicely. For a static, unchanging world where every day was exactly the same as before, I'm pretty sure that we could eventually develop an excellent planned economy. But people die, and new people are born, and preferences change from day to day, and the world changes around us. The only way to cope with that sort of changing world is to decentralize, and let each man make their own decisions to create their own futures.
I do not favor a planned economy, to make the game rule fair to every one is more interesting. Unfortunately, everyone was not born the same, so its actually a question if it is possible to make game rules that are fair to everyone Meh. Life isn't fair. |
|
|
|
There's no regulation more efficient that that of free competition.
Questions for this statement: Do you really need a very high efficiency to give everyone a comfortable life, at the current technology level? Yes. But it kinda depends on what you mean by "everyone". And by "comfortable". And who the hell is going to be satisfied with the "current technology level"? And, free competition always end up with monopoly, due to difference of each organization's capital/resource/intelligence etc... winner take it all. So, if you are already at the monopoly situation when it comes to money and financial, why do you want to start the whole process again (and bring chaos into society)?
Which isn't a bad thing. As long as they are unable to use violence (aka, government) to prevent competition, they have to remain the best, or they won't stay on top for very long. This means they won't abuse their monopoly position, unless we give them the power to. There are a few exceptions, such as where a monopoly is natural. For example, not everyone can build their own road, rail, power or communication network in the same place. Some regulation seems necessary there, but hard core libertarians would disagree on that point. As mobodick said above, regulated monopoly could be very efficient, but anyway I don't see the need for higher efficiency, all these efficiency talk only suits a society in low technology level
For many enterprises, they have the ability to produce enough utilities and services for everyone, but they can not do that, just because they have to sell the product/service for a profit, and the consumers do not have enough money. Money and its distribution is the problem here, not the technology
For a static, unchanging world where every day was exactly the same as before, I'm pretty sure that we could eventually develop an excellent planned economy. But people die, and new people are born, and preferences change from day to day, and the world changes around us. The only way to cope with that sort of changing world is to decentralize, and let each man make their own decisions to create their own futures. |
|
|
|
It might be my opinion and I'm different than others' in this forum, but money is wealth. Real Wealth. Do you consider gold wealth? Well, Gold is just a kind of material with high demand. The same for money. The same for a car. It's just a set of materials linked together, and they work  Well, so money is real wealth. But like wealth (Gold or Silver), money don't get destroyed or banks don't destroy it. What happened is that banks were investing their money in various mediums like stocks, bonds, loans, investments... When the crisis happened and the value of these investment decreased, banks faced bankruptcy and many banks did go bankrupt. So if you consider the bank and what it does as a wealth, then yes, it got destroyed by the crisis (that started for whatever reason). But for this part of your post People always say that financial crisis destroyed trillions dollar worth of wealth All I can say is that people says lot of stupid/non-sense things. No, money is not wealth. Money can buy wealth, and you can sell wealth for money. But money is not wealth. |
|
|
|
The whole mappers vs. packers epistemology is about how skillfully we are able to model our world. The scientific method vs. our patter-seeking animal instincts. Packers have evolved to survive in the natural world, but the inevitable outcome of all evolution is extinction. If we don't become mappers (positivists), then we will be replaced by species that will better adapt to the environment we create.
It's clearly the mappers, like bitcoin enthusiasts, who steer the world. If the human race followed packers, we might have never left the dark ages. Or even worse, we might all be wearing those godawful cheese hats. Anyway, packers tend to be followers, because they don't have the vision or risk tolerance to lead, so I'm not too worried about it. Maybe I'm not understanding this hypothesis. I tend to see the world leaders as mostly highly efficient predatorial packers. The few mappers in the world have to be wary of them. Mappers tend to have complex ideas and mappers tend to have loud voices proclaiming their knowledge. Try watching a creation vs evolution debate sometime. Our civilization is frequently hindered by distractions by packers with things like war and corporate sponsored sporting events. You should read some of the original programmer's stone papers. The M0 hypothesis (if we can call it that) has a lot to say about charisma. The Mapper/packer axis is orthogonal to the M0/immune axis, but a mapper/immune type that can see and do the M0 language is a powerful force (for good or for evil), but a packer/M0 type can be nearly as powerful, just less directed. |
|
|
|
That's a great view, I think most of the economy schools are taking this view, academically it is quite nice
I have a different view
When people sell product and get money, they save the money, but they did not save the value (the product was consumed or degraded), money was hold as a "proof of work"
It's easy to see: Saving do not increase the society's consumable resource, it just increased society's "proof of work"
So, in the example of the $5 million house, A paid B $5 million to buy the house, there are $5 million worth of "proof of work" transferred from A to B, but the real wealth is only that house, those $5 million worth of "proof of work" do not correspond to enough tangible wealth in the society
Same house could worth 5 million one year and 3 million another year, but the house do not change, only the exchange value of the house changed
The saving happened when he made the product but didn't consume it himself, not when he sold it. |
|
|
|
memvola beat me to most of this. Namecoin is almost an identical clone of bitcoin. The same rules in namecoin that resulted in it's block generation stagnation are the same rules that are in bitcoin and will result in bitcoin's block generation stagnation if prices drop low enough.
Namecoin's (near) failure was because it added nothing that anyone wanted. The people that wanted bitcoin's properties already had bitcoin. The people that want domain registration can't get it from namecoin. If the bulk of the DNS servers on the internet start to accept .bit as a TLD to be resolved through namecoin, it will explode. Until then, it remains nearly useless, even to the few dozen people that really believe in it. |
|
|
|
So in short gold colored paint, but it looks nice though  Silver or Gold coins would trigger attention from governements and can not be freely traded, especially gold is not allowed these days Some people was thinking of walking over our border with 200 krugerrands mounted in their jackets and belts.... And guess who has the gold now .... indeed the governement, so i do not expect such coins have an actual gold plating and to be honest you do not want that either.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
