|
301
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Transaction fee?
|
on: December 08, 2011, 04:14:34 PM
|
Sorry to threadbump, but I still have a question about this: The purpose of priority is to organize transactions of the same fee size in the event their is insufficient room in the block. For example if there isn't enough room in a block for all free transactions those with higher priority will be confirmed first.
Are the following statements true? Priority is not meaningful at all right now, as blocks are nowhere near full. The priority calculation is a thing that is built into some mining software, but not necessarily used by all miners. A transaction paying a higher transaction fee will never have a higher priority than a transaction paying a lower fee. |
|
|
|
|
302
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Laws Imminent - June Article
|
on: December 05, 2011, 08:20:06 PM
|
laws against filesharing,
Are you sure about that? Completely. It's criminal offence to share, use or make duplicates of data You have no usage rights. And it's criminal offence too to support filesharing, even openly telling "piracy is good" can get you in years of troubles and your electronic equipment can be confiscated. Filesharing is not completely illegal, it is only illegal if you are filesharing copyrighted works that you do not have the right to distribute. What's the purpose to share files that anyone can download from the authors website? For example, Linux distributions are frequently downloaded over torrents so they ease up the traffic on the official download channels. Public-domain books can be so old there is no "author's website." And some artists want to distribute some or all of their music on filesharing to increase their fan base. |
|
|
|
|
303
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Laws Imminent - June Article
|
on: December 05, 2011, 06:26:02 PM
|
laws against filesharing,
Are you sure about that? Completely. It's criminal offence to share, use or make duplicates of data You have no usage rights. And it's criminal offence too to support filesharing, even openly telling "piracy is good" can get you in years of troubles and your electronic equipment can be confiscated. Filesharing is not completely illegal, it is only illegal if you are filesharing copyrighted works that you do not have the right to distribute. |
|
|
|
|
304
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I want to send money throug bitcoin, is there anyway to overcome the votality?
|
on: December 05, 2011, 03:38:51 PM
|
No. The essence of Bitcoin is that its value floats, it is not tied to a dollar value, its value can go up or down due to market forces.
However, I would think that within an hour, the price will "probably not" swing very greatly.
3% is "Great". I mean that if you buy 1000 BTC, immediately transfer them, and then the other person immediately tries to sell them by placing a sell order at the same price you bought them, your order will likely be filled within an hour or two. But this is of course not guaranteed. If it is absolutely crucial that your funds transfer maintain the same dollar value, you will be best off sending dollars and not using Bitcoin. I would recommend you use Dwolla. |
|
|
|
|
306
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Looks like the manipulator is failing you guys, muahahahaha
|
on: December 05, 2011, 02:26:30 PM
|
|
If there is a manipulator trying to profit by putting in enormous sell orders ( like on November 14th) and then buying back at a lower price (like on November 29) I don't think this strategy will work for him very long. As the market matures, people will see this and stop panic selling at low prices because they know there will be a huge buy order coming in later on (as there must be if this manipulator continues manipulating)
|
|
|
|
|
307
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I want to send money throug bitcoin, is there anyway to overcome the votality?
|
on: December 05, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
|
May I ask why you bought all these bitcoins?
I just want to transfer my money from China to USA, for example. What is your time frame to lock in the $3 price?
Let's say 1 hour (6 confirms) I just want to send money through bitcoin and overcome the risk to bitcoin's price, Is there anyway to make this type of fee constant(irrelevant to the price of bitcoin)? No. The essence of Bitcoin is that its value floats, it is not tied to a dollar value, its value can go up or down due to market forces. However, I would think that within an hour, the price will "probably not" swing very greatly. |
|
|
|
|
308
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Laws Imminent - June Article
|
on: December 05, 2011, 01:11:28 PM
|
From the article: Anti currency creation laws already in place here in the US could theoretically be applied to Bitcoin Miners making for a good media push. What a bunch of bollocks. There are laws to prevent the creation of federal reserve notes (if you are not the government of course), it would be counterfitting. There is absolutely no law preventing the creation of private currencies. That is an article pretending to be a serious analisis of Bitcoin legality? I stopped reading there. The author is not very smart. First he says it will become illegal, then he claims it's already illegal. The only way you could claim it's currently illegal is if you can convince a court that a reasonable person could confuse a Bitcoin with legal tender US banknotes or coins. That is not going to happen. |
|
|
|
|
309
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What form of physical bitcoins would you prefer?
|
on: December 03, 2011, 11:43:12 AM
|
i agree that it needs some sort of background image, english notes have famous/influential people, USA has presidents. bitcoins could have cryptographers, computing pioneers, revolutionaries. anything that can be associated with bitcoins
This is an outstanding idea. Charles Babbage Claude Shannon Alan Turing Gordon Moore Jack Kilby and there's many more. |
|
|
|
|
310
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Thomas Jefferson on the "general welfare" clause...
|
on: December 03, 2011, 03:38:40 AM
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. Very true! Here's another opinion, from James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" "With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." |
|
|
|
|
311
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?
|
on: December 03, 2011, 03:34:31 AM
|
Where did the carbon encased into fossil fuels come from? My understanding is that they originally came from dead plant material, but if so, where did the plants get it? The obvious answer is the air, but I'm open to speculation about alternatives. If the carbon came from the air, and we presently live on this planet, how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?
I haven't scientifically analyzed this thought all the way through, but hundreds of millions of years ago during the time dinosaurs were living, the world was a lot hotter than it is now. As living matter pulled carbon out of the air, died, and turned into oil, the earth cooled. "how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?" - It was hot in the past and it wasn't catastrophic then, but there was a very different profile of life on Earth than there is now. A heat level that was not catastrophic to dinosaurs could very well be catastrophic to humans. |
|
|
|
|
313
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: I don't feel like working anymore.
|
on: December 01, 2011, 09:12:10 PM
|
Slavery involves physical punishment for not working how the slave owner demands. It's a defining characteristic. It's clear that you haven't studied much American history. If you had, you would have heard of Frederick Douglass. He was a slave that was allowed to earn wages by working at a shipyard. Each week, he was forced to give all of his wages to his master. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass compared his master to a pirate who had a "right" to his wages only because his master had the power to compel him to hand it over. That sounds like taxation to me. Oh wait, as you say, the difference is that we don't have to work at all. We could just live in homeless shelters or in cardboard boxes. That's a real meaningful and important difference! "Don't like taxes? Jump in the ocean and drown, or be a bum." So Fredrick Douglass was forced under threat of violence to work a certain job for a certain length of time for no pay. How is this exactly the same as our current system of labor and income taxes? *No threat of violence *Not forced to work a job *Not forced to work any longer than you want *You get paid. You're right. That's exactly the same as slavery. |
|
|
|
|
314
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Transaction fee?
|
on: December 01, 2011, 09:07:00 PM
|
It was my understanding that miners were not required to include any transactions in the blocks they process - they like to process fee-paying transactions for their own financial benefit, and that they process no-fee transactions only out of the goodness of their hearts (and a desire to see Bitcoin flourish.)
Is this accurate? Yes And if so, is the 'priority' of older transactions only a recommendation, or are miners eventually required to process old, no-fee transactions? Miners are not required to process anything. Technically if a miner wanted to be an ass they could mine empty blocks.  One thing is that if a transaction requires a fee because its priority is too low many miners will exclude it But how can it even be known if a fee is "required" ? Isn't that dependent on the policy of whoever mines the next block, so it is unknown? And since miners can choose for themselves which transactions they will include, and they will most likely make their decision based only on what gets them the highest fees, what is the function of "priority" as mentioned in this thread? The exact time depends on the value of each address and time. The formula the client uses is: priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes If priority is >57,600 there is no transaction fee. Basically it works out to 1 day for 1 BTC. Larger addresses (not total wallet value) require less time, smaller addresses require more time. I don't understand this - so the priority will increase when the transaction hangs around longer without getting into a block? Aren't transaction fees paid when the transaction is first sent, when you have no idea how long it is going to hang around before getting into a block? |
|
|
|
|
315
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Transaction fee?
|
on: December 01, 2011, 04:36:36 PM
|
|
It was my understanding that miners were not required to include any transactions in the blocks they process - they like to process fee-paying transactions for their own financial benefit, and that they process no-fee transactions only out of the goodness of their hearts (and a desire to see Bitcoin flourish.)
Is this accurate? And if so, is the 'priority' of older transactions only a recommendation, or are miners eventually required to process old, no-fee transactions?
|
|
|
|
|
316
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: I don't feel like working anymore.
|
on: December 01, 2011, 02:27:38 AM
|
 If you forcibly have limited choice in what to do with yourself and your labor, it's slavery. If you think that slavery is defined as merely having someone limit your choices, then you have a very different definition of the word than the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
|
317
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: I don't feel like working anymore.
|
on: December 01, 2011, 02:26:01 AM
|
you aren't forced to work That's brilliant. Punish the people that do. If you consider taxation to be punishment for working, I would consider this to be the opposite of slavery. Slavery is reward for working? Slavery involves physical punishment for not working how the slave owner demands. It's a defining characteristic. But you know that and you're just being obtuse. |
|
|
|
|
319
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: I don't feel like working anymore.
|
on: November 30, 2011, 08:54:17 PM
|
Useless people do get a say in this it seems. They can enslave an entire populace of working people if they please. Oh wait, they already do.
Taxation is exactly equivalent to slavery, only that you aren't forced to work, you get to choose what you do for work, and you can work as much or as little as you want. Other than that it's the same. |
|
|
|
|
320
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: I don't feel like working anymore.
|
on: November 30, 2011, 05:38:24 PM
|
I don't feel like feeding myself nor fetching water. Heck, I even wear a diaper that needs to be changed. I am going to die of dehydration and in an adult diaper full of shit glued to my ass unless somebody pays for my survival. You don't feel like helping me nor can you afford to care for me. Oh but luckily you're so compassionate that you'll force other people to care for me. You take your team of buddies with guns to extort funds from your neighbors so I can get my ass wiped, watered and fed.
Is this moral? If not, what should of been done that doesn't require force?
If you do that you have some sort of mental disorder. Is it moral to leave those with a mental disorder that keeps them from sustaining themselves to die? Is it moral to enslave people to care for those who are dying of a mental disorder? If people truly care about them, shouldn't it be only those who choose to care for them that do so? Is it moral to put the full burden of care on a select few? We can do this all day. Yes, it is. The burden should only be put on those who desire it. Nobody is entitled to the labor of another. That is slavery. Taxation is exactly equivalent to slavery, only that you aren't forced to work, you get to choose what you do for work, and you can work as much or as little as you want. Other than that it's the same. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
