|
I dont know if its worth to have a bitcoin subreddit, but for what its worth now you have a second subscrib er.
|
|
|
|
|
I watched the first two, the Uk ones. That this things go on is really amazing.
|
|
|
|
Just installed it.
The installation went fine, and the theme looks good. But I have no clue how to add a new node. My bitcoin program is running in the same computer as phpMyBitcoin is running. I am running the official client (not patched). I dont really understand what the port, the user and the password is for.
Thanks,
Sorry about the confusion, I need to work on the documentation. If you are connecting to a Bitcoin node on the same server you'll need to use "localhost" for the hostname and "8332" for the port. The URI field is only used in conjunction with the relay.php script. The username and password will be the same ones you set in your bitcoin.conf file. Here's an example bitcoin.conf: rpcuser=USERNAME_HERE
rpcpassword=PASSWORD_HERE Thanks, now I just need to know where the bitcoin.conf file is. I have checked and its not in my ~/.bitcoin folder. Its not with the binary neither. Do I have to create it? Whre should I put it? SOLVED: thanks to the guys in the chat room. |
|
|
|
|
Just installed it.
The installation went fine, and the theme looks good. But I have no clue how to add a new node. My bitcoin program is running in the same computer as phpMyBitcoin is running. I am running the official client (not patched). I dont really understand what the port, the user and the password is for.
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
I would pay you some bitcoins for a donate bitcoins module.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks very good. I will give a try soon.
What do you use for login?
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody has said it yet? Ok, then Ill have to:
The best anti-virus is linux.
|
|
|
|
The official CPI is a government metric, and should be suspect. It does not include energy or equities, and only considers real estate indirectly via 'owners equivalent rent' which (presumedly by design) tends to dampen the effects of inflation or deflation upon the real estate sector. There are better metrics to base your opinions upon. I agree that any government metric should be doubted, in fact I am a big critic of the CPI. But the point is that macroeconomics uses the terms price inflation and price deflation to refer to the prices of the CPI, and using it in another way just adds confusion. There is no doubt that house prices are down (and they still have some way to go), there has been an stock crash (and another might be coming, probably smaller though), and day to day consumer goods prices (CPI goods) have remained flat. Semantical discussions are a bit pointless in my opinion and I prefer to use the definition the majority of economist use. And yes, the gov CPI is a big scam, but because the CPI is always reported lower than it is in reality! not higher. This happens thanks to the hedonic method and other inventions. Check shadowstats.com : http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts You can see that even during this crisis prices have been rising quite fast, which matches better the real life impressions. This CPI manipulations allows the government to pay less in its obligations like pensions, because they are updated by the CPI. Also, the real GDP number is corrected by the deflactor that comes from the CPI. If the CPI is lower than it should the real GDP number is bigger... By just changing a method the economy is "growing" faster! Isnt government statistics great? Indeed. I find that it's incredibly difficult to get people to consider the motivations of the creation of the Fed, beyond the official story. The idea that the Panic of '07 was so terrible, but it only lasted for a year. And during the depression of 1920, the Fed did nothing at all, and the economy recovers in 18 months. So what was different in 1929? The classic story that the Fed waited too long to provide stimulus is historicly dishonest. The reality is that the Fed was stimulating for several years leading up to the crash, mostly by keeping the interest rate too low, encouraging risk-taking. As the cracks started to show in the economy, the Fed started to tighten up, triggering the crash themselves. We would be better off without monetary management, but like anything else, it's very difficult to get a professional to admit to any client that his services are counterprodutive; or even unneccesary. And the panic of 1907 was only possible because of the banking laws approved by Lincoln at the end of the civil war, that centralized the credit around the New York banks (one of the main reasons Wall Street grew so big). The most funny thing about all this is the legend that Herbert Hoover was a free market proponent and did nothing when the crash of 1929 happened. Hoover was the Secretary of Commerce when the 1920 crash happened (and btw, the 1920 crash happened because of the bubble created by the Fed to finance IWW) Hoover urged the president to intervene the economy and raise gov spending. But the president dismissed Hoover and listened to his Secretary of Treasury, Menlow, who recommended lowering taxes and lowering gov spending. The crisis was over quick. Hoover tried to intervene and created some government programs from his position as Secretary of Commerce, specially subsidizing farming businesses, but he had not enough power and did not had a significant impact in the economy. Fast forward to the 1929 crash, and now Hoover is the president, and Menlow is still the Secretary of Commerce. Menlow again recommends the president a non interventionist approach to the crisis, but Hoover is a staunch interventionist, and not only dismisses his advice, but also teams with the Subsecretary of the Treasury to implement the measures that Menlow was refusing, in effect putting Menlow out of power. Hoover even said that he was going to put the USA government to work like never had been seen before. And he did. But Hoover's rhetoric used the market language while FDR rhetoric used the labor language, and because of that some historians portrayed Hoover as a non interventionist free market supporter, when in reality it was the opposite. In fact, FDR accused Hoover repeatedly during the campaign of being an interventionist and that it would prolong the crisis (for some reason he changed his mind once he got in power). Even one of the subsecreatries of Treasury of FDR said that Hoover reforms where a big help and that the FDR just renamed and continued most of his programs. It is so ridiculous to portrait Hoover as a non-interventionist... |
|
|
|
Except for the pesky little fact that the Fed isn't neutralizing the deflation. The deflation is here and now, reflected in the falling real estate values, the drop in state sales tax revenues In macroeconomics, price deflation is defined as a decrease in the general price level, meaning the CPI. There has been a stock crash and a housing crash, but there has been no significant price deflation. It really is a stupid issue, since its only a definition. I dont really care about the definition as long as everybody knows what its happening in reality, but using standard definitions makes everything easier. There should have been price deflation but the government has stopped it. , the rapid contraction of credit outstanding (due to both mass bankruptcies and a sea change in the public towards austerity) and vast unemployment and under-employment. It's not that the Fed is incapable of creating enough new FRN's to come close to what you seem to believe that they already have done, it's that they fear hyperinflation in a couple of years as a direct result. The things that they already have done, although they would be vastly inflationary under other circumstances, have done very little towards replacing the contraction in credit extended by the Fed's member banks. 2009 was the first year in two decades that American's were net savers, and that was by a measly 1%. This is something very few people understands for what I've seen. The government could print more and create more price inflation, but they fear the consequences this could have in 1 or 2 years, because it could even create hyper-inflation as you said. But for some reason, people has a big problem understanding this. It is in the best interest of the political powers, in the near term, to compel the Fed to participate in stimulus. But to do more than the appearance of complying risks the hyperinflationary death of the currency. Since this would spell the end of the game, the Fed, and the private banking interests that they represent, are simply not willing. I see no conditions that could change that in the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
The part to the right of 1960, that excludes the 70's which sucked. But even when things sucked in the US, they sucked more in other countries at the time.
But ever since 1980, you see a consistent ability to keep inflation slightly positive, with no deflationary dips. 2010 might actually be deflationary dip, but it won't be one because of the fed. So? Price inflation is a bad thing, it creates bubbles and deindustrializes a country (its one of the main reasons the jobs are going to China). Price deflation is one of the signs of a sane and healthy economy. The real goals of the Fed are not those, but even if they were the Fed is a complete failure: There has not been stable prices, on the contrary, since the Fed was founded the dollar has lost 95+ % of its value. Housing became totally unaffordable, the difference between the rich and the poor has widen (again, it happens always when inflationary policies are pursued), etc... There is not maximum unemployment and crisis have become deeper and longer, so people go without a job for longer period of times. Moderating long-term interest rates is something the Fed has done, but its actually a bad thing to do, because if a form of price control and messes up the economy. And the promotion of sustainable economic growth is laughable seeing how it has turned an industrialized country into a deindustralized and completely debt dependent country. Real estate spiked mostly in particular areas, CA, FL, AZ, NV. It wasn't the Feds doing. It was wall street's fuckup. It is very simple to understand and explain. The actual criminals were mortgage brokers who didn't vet loans. They basically gave out loans to anyone then sold them the same day to Fannie, Freddie, and real estate trusts. Bankers bought in to wall streets fuckup. It turns out letting them do that was a bad thing in retrospect. To big to fail served us just as well as it served the soviet union. Where did the money to do all this came from? What would have happened if the Fed did not supplied cheap interest rates to Wall Street and the rest of the banks? Why do you look at the symptoms but dont look at the root? |
|
|
|
but reality shows that the fed is succeeding at its assigned task. What reality? |
|
|
|
Those previously nominated board members, that were ratified by the US Senate, must also be acceptable to the sitting board for practial reasons. Again, it's impossible for any sitting president to pack the board during his two terms, so any attempt to nominate anyone that the board doesn't approve of would upset the sitting board. If the Senate doesn't nix the nomination, then that person will be entirely ineffective their entire time. So for practical purposes, all board members that are nominated come from a pool of acceptable employees of the Federal Reserve banking structure itself. Which, in turn, recruits from a pool of applicants with a history of employment with the member banks. So yes, there is and are private entities involved, and they hold most of the cards. You are taking what is seen and drawing the conclusions that they desire that you come to, and failing to look at the unseen to understand the entire process. The Federal Reserve system is intentionally designed to give the appearance of a government entity with a measure of independence, while for all practical purposes, they are a private business with monopoly powers. As a wise man once said, if the common man understood how the montary system of the United States actually worked, there would be a revolution before tommorrow morning. I dont agree with the above, but it does not matter at the end. You are criticizing the government rules to elect the member of a federal government agency, The Board of Governors. There is nothing private in that. One can argue that the government regulations for that agency are more or less prone to corruption. But that does not make it private. The secretaries of the Treasury have banking employees for the last decades as well. Yet nobody is saying that the Treasury is private. To a certain point, it makes sense that central bank employees and even that treasuries employees come from finance. The Board of Governors, the agency setting monetary policy in the USA is a federal government agency, not a private agency. Another discussion would be if the government regulations regarding that agency are better or worse, or more or less prone to corruption. You wont find disagreement with me there. I find that most areas of government are geared towards corruption and corporate profit. Also, you have to think that the legal actions of a central bank are already extremely favorable to commercial banks. One of the legal functions of a central bank is to provide liquidity to member banks of the cartel. By "provide liquidity" they mean that the banks can borrow money at an interest that nobody in the market can get. This allows banks to over-extend credit a lot a lot a lot more than they could naturally (and earn the interests), because it protects them from failure. And protecting them from failure stops competition and creates the big banks (at the end its a government created cartel of banks). And this is all legal. |
|
|
|
|
This does not seem to be a very shared opinion, but I have always though that as bitcoin evolves and more people adopts it, there would be different networks for more local use of the coins. For example, the shops in a town get together and agree to start their own bitcoin network, kind of like they do with local currencies to improve local shopping. There could even be exchanges between the different bitcoin networks.
But who knows what will end up happening. One thing is clear to me: the adoption of bitcoin depends on shops accepting bitcoin as method of payment. That will make people who is not so conscious about the monetary system to start using it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, community building is important. And offering a fun experience will help.
But business accepting bitcoins is the key to bitcoin success. Setting up or opening your already existing business to bitcoin is the best thing you can do to help.
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the president can only nominate from within the ranks of the sitting board. It's as false as the choice of voting for or against your local representative. By the time the public gets a say, their choices are effectively reduced to only two people, both of whom are already parts of the political machine. This is not similar to a Supreme court nomination. The president can only nominate to Chairman someone who is already part of the Board of Governors, correct. But all the members of the Board of Governors are previously nominated by the president and ratified by Congress... I am not discussing how great or bad this works. All I am saying is that there is no private entity involved in the process. Whatever the rules are, is a government issue. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is a federal government agency, and is the one setting the policy. Only to a point. If he were to fail to get renominated by the next president, he would *still* be a member of the board until his original 14 year term was up. He may risk his position by upsetting the politicians, but not his paycheck. This gets back to my comment about the tail wagging the dog. The Senate *does not* have the power to affect the personal finances of the members of the board by *any* legal process; but the reverse is not true. The decisions of the board can dramaticly affect the personal finances of the members of the Senate in the same way that they affect the entire nation times the size of their fortunes. Who do you think has more power? Take it to the extreme. The government created the Fed. If the politicians are not happy on how the Fed operates they could decide to change the law. Check Ron Paul recent Audit the Fed bill that had great support among congressman until it was taken down. The Fed knows that all its power, the monopoly on money, comes from the government. So its in its own interest to keep politicians happy. That said the bill Audit the Fed failed because there was evident pressure on Congress to not audit the Fed. And that pressure did not come from Bernanke, but from banking power. Again, I honestly think that saying that the Fed is a private institution is highly inaccurate. About who controls who... I think we might have slightly different suppositions on how that works. I think we can agree that banking power controls both. |
|
|
|
|
The problem wth bumb is anonimity, but to have it as an option to exchange bitcoins would be great.
|
|
|
|
creighto, yes we are discussing the exact tonality while we agree in the color. But for the sake of it: No, it is not. The Federal Reserve Bank is a privately founded bank with monopoly powers by virtue of a government charter. This is comparable to the federal government hiring a private merc army for operations overseas a la Blackwater. Government is the customer, and has sway, but does not make the executive decisions and was never designed to be able to influence those executive decisions to any large degree. You could say that the Federal Reserve is a mixed thing: - The local Federal Reserve branches are "private". And I use brackets because its not private in the common sense. The system has its unique government regulations, for example, the private banks that own the stocks can not sell them. So this "private" system does not operate under the market rules, and certain sentences have declared that they are not even private but a mix of private corporations and government entities, because of the unique regulations they have to obey. Also, bear in mind that the local Federal Reserve branches are not the ones that decide the Federal Reserve policy. - The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Bernanke and the rest) is a federal government agency. Wikipedia is not the best source, but hope its enough for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Board_of_Governors (or you can do your own research). The Board of Governors is the one that decides the Federal Reserve policy. The members of the Board of Governors are nominated by the president and ratified by congress. And yes, once they are nominated they are supposedly independent from political pressure. But its not true that the Fed is politically independent, f.e. Bernanke knows that to be re-elected again, he has to please the politicians. So I think its very inaccurate to say that the Federal Reserve is a private institution. You could argue that its not a 100% government institution, that its a mixed thing between private and government, but still the government is the one holding control over the institution that sets the policy. If you want a more exact and legal approach, check this: http://mises.org/daily/4171So I would say that the political system holds good power over the Federal Reserve. That is not to say that the corporate system does not benefit or controls the Federal Reserve. They do, but I think its mainly through the control they have over the political system. |
|
|
|
The board is is nominated for 14 year terms, and they are just nominations. The sitting board is not subject to the will of any branch of the US federal government in any official capacity, and they don't have to accept the president's nominations. They don't have to worry about political backlash once appointed because they *will* out last the president that nominated them. Also, no sitting president can ever get the chance to nominate a majority of the board. The idea that the board of the Federal Reserve is subject to political control is a convient fiction. I said that it's more like the other way around because the power to regulate the national currency is the power to destroy same, and that power is far greater than any of the branches of the federal government. The only real power that the government has to check this is the power to revoke the charter of the Federal Reserve, and remove it's monopoly control of the currency. No, I am not saying that the Board of Governors does a good job or anything similar. I am just saying that the Board of Governors, the one who takes the decisions in the Fed, is a federal government agency. Supposedly, the system is the way you describe it so the members are independent. I dont believe that for a moment, but it is the justification. Having a independent or honest politician or bureaucrat with that level of power is an utopia, a lie. But the decisions about monetary policy are already taken by a federal government agency. That is what I wanted to say, not that it worked. If I could I would abolish the Fed, and put an end to the money monopoly. This, of course, would destroy the currency in short order, but it would also destroy a large number of the legistlators' own personal fortunes. So there is a strong incentive to not choose this 'nuclear option'. I think that the real reason politicians support the central bank is because the central bank finances government and allows politicians to spend more than they could by direct taxation only. |
|
|
|
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Hyperinflation always and everywhere requires the willfull participation of those who control the printing presses. In every case that I can think of, that required that the political class have the authority to create new currency, and would do so for political reasons not economic reasons. The IMF published a paper recently about the necessity of a global currency and speculated about how to make it work. One of the main arguments were the demise of the dollar and its possible collapse. So there you have a reason to make the dollar collapse. In the US the federal government does not control the Federal Reserve. It's more like the other way around. And since hyperinflation, once begun, is a death spiral; those who do have control over the monetary base have a vested interest in the continuance of the status quo. To allow, or even risk, a hyperinflationary event would be so catastrophic to their personal fiefdoms that few would be willing to go along quietly, even if there was much to be gained politically. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Bernanke and the rest of the gang) is nominated by the president and ratified by congress. If you say that the government is corrupt and benefits special interests I will agree with you (its a government...), but I dont see how someone can say that the Fed controls government when its the other way arround. You have to think that politicians benefit from the expansionary policies of the Fed, because they get to spend more than they would without the Fed. Far more likely is an old fashioned deflationary Greater Depression, the great 'they' have less to lose that way. Banks hate deflation. If they can avoid it they will. And they can, so I highly doubt we will see any meaningful price deflation. |
|
|
|
|
My doubt is: Why would someone choose this currency over bitcoins? It seems to me that it has the same advantages and problems that bitcoin has, except that it has one more problem that bitcoins do not have, it is tied to the dollar value and will depreciate with it. Why would anyone choose them over bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
