Users with reclaimed accounts will be able to login to Mt.Gox on Friday June 24th at 3:00 GMT (12:00 JST). Once you are logged back into the Mt.Gox site you will be able to withdraw and deposit funds as per usual. You will not be able to trade initially, but we plan to activate trading within an hour of the site being up (4:00 GMT) (see https://support.mtgox.com/entries/20208066-huge-bitcoin-sell-off-due-to-a-compromised-account-rollback) They are planning to leave us one hour between checking whether our accounts work, and starting trades. We still don't know whether our accounts could be claimed successfully. Maybe MtGox has not even processed all accounts. Since the bitcoin price will probably fall immediately after trades are opened, this could create a HUGE disadvantage for people whose accounts could not be activated. Not to mention that 4 GMT sucks for a lot of people depending on the time zone. I'd say they should give us at least 24h. I hope MagicalTux will read this thread in time. |
|
|
|
|
@Hook^: Could you put up a poll? Maybe if MagicalTux sees there are 100s of ppl agreeing with you, he will react...
|
|
|
|
I agree. I was among the first to go through the claim process, and I still have no idea what the status of my account or claim is right now.
Somewhat frustrating...
+1 |
|
|
|
|
jbgc, you are mining on your cpu! (which means you have a much lower hashrate than you could have)
see the already posted wiki page for instructions on how to set up GPU mining (you will need CUDA from NVidia for GPU computing)
|
|
|
|
|
Just making sure I understood these points correctly. So the enforcement of justice in an anarchy is supposed to work in two different ways and rests on some assumptions:
a) "economic" enforcement (criminals don't get jobs).
resting on the assumptions:
a1) people will uniformly and consistently deny to trade with, and offer jobs to, hard criminals. Sounds reasonable to me, apart from the problem of global knowledge (if someone is a murderer in Zhengzhou and then moves to Vienna, how do I now not to trade with him?)
a2) denying trade and jobs will actually be bad enough to deter criminals. Reasonable for single persons. I am not sure about organized crime (sorry about bringing this up again, but it's the biggest issue I'm seeing here). If I'm a member of a Somalian pirate society, I don't really care if anyone trades with me or offers me jobs. I'll just steal what I need, or kidnap someone and blackmail their family to give it to me.
b) "company" enforcement (security firms, insurance companies)
assumptions:
b1) these companies possess enough power to fight criminal groups. Plausible imho, its a big market.
b2) these companies will 1) always act justly, and 2) never abuse their power. This could be problematic. Now I do get that it's a free market, and that corrupt companies could go bankrupt. I'm saying "could" deliberately. The problem is with monopoly, and with very big companies. Take, for example, Microsoft. Before Linux they basically had monopoly on the PC OS market, and let's be honest, they sucked. Blue Screens, errors, malfunctions, etc. and bad support. If there were no laws and no customer protection etc., they probably would have been even worse, and no one could have done anything about it. Similar situation with telecom companies - e.g. mobile phone network providers - in some European countries. Everyone knows that they overcharge by more than 100%, but since in some countries they are all owned by the same big company, no one can do anything about it (people can't just decide not to use mobile phones anymore. and there is no competition to speak of since the network is owned by that company, and building a new network from scratch is astronomically expensive).
b3) I (or we) can choose the ruleset I (or we) want to abide by (and get my security firm to enforce it). I'm not sure. What if there just isn't any company enforcing rules that I can 100% agree with? Or what if there is, but it is less powerful than my neighbors company, which in effect would make me abide by the laws of my neighbor instead of my own?
Freedom means I have a lot of choice. However, the amount of choice always depends on power. Whoever has the most power has the most choice and can also limit the choices of others.
The following fact would make me very uncomfortable in my current understanding of an anarchist system: my freedom would be limited in a way I cannot control, a) by the consensus of the people around me (e.g. "this guy is gay, lets not do business with him" - I'm not, just an example of how this could be unjust imho); and b) by powerful companies whose decisions I have no way to influence.
And isn't the whole point of anarchy total freedom, or at least a high degree of freedom?
P.S.: @myrkul: I do believe the percentage of psychopaths and sadists to be very far below 50% - but I also believe more than 50% of the people to be egoists in the sense that they care more about their pleasure and their wealth than they care about other people or about justice. Sadly, this is something that has been researched and proven time and time again; and it is, apart from criminals, one of the factor causing injustice in societies.
|
|
|
|
@Grant The same way we do today, except more efficiently.
I keep hearing this but nowhere am I told why it would be more efficient. Competing companies COULD be more efficient, but there's no guarantee. I recently saw a government monopoly being broken up, and the end result is a rather large "meh". The prices are about the same, the service is about the same (but slightly better), and the salaries for employees in the new de-monopolized shops are about the same (but slightly lower). There are more shops though. This goes for cities. No idea how things are in the countryside. That monopoly was probably run as efficient as it could be by anyone, private or state. A bit more waste now if you look at it from a resources perspective. Still, I don't buy this "the government does everything poorly" argument that keeps popping up here. Perhaps you just have a shitty government. Then fix it. You have the tools. No revolution needed. I might be wrong, but I think the main line of argument here is that in the case of government owned companies, there does not need to be an incentive to improve (and to be the best), but in a competitive environment there obviously is. I'm not saying this is a generalizable rule, but I think it applies in a lot of cases. Look at what happened to Communist states - it was a good idea, but in the end, the economy went downhill and the products sucked in comparison to western products (at least for sowiet states, in one of which I happened to grow up. the reason this does not happen in china is that there is essentially a free market despite the communist politics) @myrkul I did understand the NAP, and I totally agree - it's pretty cool. But since the world doesn't only consist of holy people, how can we make sure that society abides by this rule, and does not fall apart? What do we do about the provable percentage of criminals or sadists or psychopaths in every larger community? |
|
|
|
Hm, that solves some of the problems, but I'm still having trouble to imagine such a system running without problems. the fact that they don't have to shoot people to do business, would drive them either out of business, or at least out of the killing business - it would do what decades of FBI attention could not: Drive the Mafiosos straight. This sounds a bit too optimistic for me. While I do see how anarchy could eliminate a subset of the problems associated with organized crime, I'm pretty sure the fact that criminals with sufficient power would have little or nothing to fear in such a system would make things worse. If I had no conscience, and no strong retribution to fear, but had some power - i.e. lead an organized criminal group or possess weapons or whatever - I could and probably would use my power for blackmail, kidnapping, forcing people to pay protection money, and so on. All of these are very profitable (see e.g. Sicily - no offense to any Italians. Weak police, weak retribution, allows them to run all that profitable stuff I have described. In most cases they do not even need to be violent or "agressive", people fear them and that is enough.) About the second point you made, I agree that insurance and third-party protection provides some degree of security - but in this case we have the same trust issue that we have with governments today, dont we? We've gotta trust some people to take care of our posessions, or of our security. Now if they are a) incompetent or b) malicious we've got a problem. There not being a central authority to punish them, and us probably being less powerful than they are, there's not much we can do about this. At least in todays system - which has its fair share of incompetent and malicious insurance companies - it is possible to sue them (with some little chance for success).... The only way I could see out of these problems is some kind of democratic organization which ensures peaceful conduct (provided that it operates according to a rule system that all people (or a great majority) agree with). This is not something that current political systems implement (I cant see true democracy in modern states, and people certainly dont agree with 100% of the rules), but to my current understanding anarchy strictly opposes such an organization, which could potentially make it even more unstable and even more unjust and unfair than the current system... Am I wrong? If yes, how could anarchy solve these problems without retributive force? |
|
|
|
feeded by many competitive forces rather than just one. So essentially you're saying that there still is something like a police. Would it consist of volunteers or would they get paid? If it's the latter, who would pay them and what would happen to people who don't pay them (would there also be a tax system)? And in both cases, who makes sure that what they do is "right" (in the sense of being morally acceptable by all people, or at least a great majority)? |
|
|
|
|
Apologies in advance if these questions sound naive - I've not read any literature about anarchy.
That being said, how would such a society handle a) organized crime, and b) non-violent criminals (thieves, hackers)? To put it simply: who will help me if someone wants to beat me up or rob me of my possessions; and who will avenge me if I'm killed?
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone, Is there a platform for trading bitcoins with leverage - e.g. CFDs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_for_difference)? If not, is anyone thinking about implementing one? Sorry if there is already a thread about this (a quick search only yielded an options trading project...). |
|
|
|
plus, low volume ( www.bitcoincharts.com) and almost nonexistent transaction costs make it easy to manipulate the market... btw for people who do not believe in the Efficient Market Hypothesis (i certainly dont...), i'd recommend checking out http://blog.bitcoinwatch.com/ for trade signal predictions - guy seems to know what he's talking about (even though its based purely on technical analysis) p.s. am i the only one getting a 404 every second time im trying to access this forum? |
|
|
|
|
what about increasing the time requirement, but obliviating the min. posts? apparently i'm not the only one who likes reading this board but doesn't post... (if it's straightforward to measure the time users spend actually reading the board, not just having it open in a minimized browser)
|
|
|
|
|
hi noobitcoiner,
just sent you 0.01BTC. have fun:)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
