That's the role of democraty, and laws. Society change his point of view and change the common direction it wants to take by this way.
So you cannot separate a money system from the collectivity using it, and the laws inside that community. If collectivity decide what you are doing is against its stability, against its own volontary decision, it will stop you. There you go. You admit it. When you talk about the community, in reality you are talking about the majority of the people in a region, because its imposbile that everybody has the same view about something. So you are actually advocating the rule of the majority, and by violent means if necessary. I find it repulsive. You have an example with prop8 in California. The majority decided that gay people should not marry, when is something between the two and does not affect anyone else. Yet, the majority decided they had the positive right to ban it and they did. From your point of view its fantastic and very moral. From my point of view its inmoral. Fortunately, in the USA they still have what its left of the rule of law, and the Supreme Court decided the majority should not get its way, and the individuals had the right to associate as they will, without the majority imposing their views on them. So Voluntary has two aspects : Your own will and the other's will, that can be contradictory. If you don't accept others will, so you might find a solution to live in other part than the collective society is established, or to develop a revolution to change collective will. But don't think it's possible to follow you own will ignoring collective's one without consequences.
Nobody is talking about going alone. He is talking about a community where self-ownership and natural rights are respected. The fact that you talk again and again and again and again about a community does not mean you are a team player or care about the others. It just mean you like to talk about it a lot. Everybody (or almost everybody) wants to live in a community, surrounded by other people and stablish colaboration with them. But what you are advocating is going futher than collaboration and having the majority impose its will violently over the rest of the people. I find your view extremely immoral and repulsive. |
|
|
|
@caveden
"A universal positive right means someone should be forced to give you something simply for the reason that you exist. This is servitude, partial slavery. It's unethical."
So a mother should not give attention to his children in an ethical way, that's exactly you are saying. You don't understand human as a social living being. By this idea you propose to be a "choice" his life for the wolf child. Honestly, when someone starts with this type of charlatanery it looses any credibility. Its obvious that you want to use cheap tricks and not acomplish anything constructive. And I will do something for you even when I dont know you, I will give you an advice: Dont come to a place and start going over peoples head telling them they dont understand human nature (and obviously implying you do completely). First, take the head out of your ass, come down to earth with us mortals, and then consider that the ideas you regard as "moral" are just evil, abusive, inmoral and degenerated. "If you do something nobody is willing to exchange their work for, they should under no conditions be forced to".
And so ? What is Linux ? Linux is an open source kernel or the community that programs it. Whatever you consider they are both VOLUNTARY. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you say that you have the privilege (or positive right, call it how you wish) of forcing anyone to program something for you. Linux and the linux community has nothing to do with what you are proposing. What is Internet ? Internet is a network of computers, just in case you didnt notice. |
|
|
|
That's cool, probably doesn't use much electricity, but how much khash would this generate?  Suposedly it uses 1 to 2 W only and the CPU has a cryptographic acceleration: http://plugcomputer.org/plugforum/index.php?topic=197.0Sounds very interesting for bitcoin. EDIT: The 1 W propaganda of the webpage is just that, propaganda (as spected). In real life test it uses 4W when iddle and 11W when CPU at 100% with USB and network being used. Still its very very good. |
|
|
|
A growing money system encourages to invest or buy, instead of a deflationnary or stable one, which encourages keeping it and invest later. A "growing money system" encourages speculation since you are influencing people to spend or invest more in the short term than they would naturally do. Since prices are going up there is no incentive to save in money and all the incentive is to "save" in form of commodity or investment. Following what you propose is how people is forced to play in the Wall Street casino or buy all type of things to keep their savings (buying houses is great, they always go up in price and the rest of the mambo jambo...) just to preserve their savings. This is why big banks always promote this type of system. I certainly dont want that type of events happening in the bitcoin community. Encouraging speculation is not what a monetary system is about. |
|
|
|
You are wrong  You can not operate a fractional reserve bank using bitcoins, it's impossible by definition because you can lend only the money you actually own and no more. Fractional reserve system works such that you need only 10% reserve of actual money and you can create 90% out of thin air ... Sorry, but I think it's not quite that... You could, in theory, have fractional reserves of bitcoins, as with dollars. Banks don't create dollars (FDR notes) out of thin air, they create bank account balance out of thin air, and that's is counted as actual dollars in the economy. Suppose some bank stores bitcoins. People would transfer their bitcoins to the bank and would have an account balance, that they could retrieve when needed. The bank could then lend part of this money without blocking your balance, thus creating fractional reserves. Of course that, as I said before, there is not much interest in this, because you don't really need to pay for somebody else just to store your bitcoins. You can do it yourself, easily and safe. So, although in theory it would be possible, in practice it might never happen. It does not have any inherent value
Nothing has inherent value.  Value is subjective, people give value to stuff, it's not part of stuff. That's why you can not claim that someone that built an ugly building beside your house damaged your property by reducing its value, for example. The value of your house is not an inherent attribute of it. I was going to say exactly this. Glad someone catch it before I did. |
|
|
|
Better yet make a car computer that generates bitcoins as you drive. Plug in a wifi or 3g card and you're all set!....  Now that you are at it, make it an overcraft also. |
|
|
|
Existing real-world currencies have been established on far and away flimsier grounds and backing than bitcoin certificates, including several "alternative currencies" that are currently accepted by a number of merchants.
As you are guessing, I am not convinced, but maybe you are seeing something I dont. Good luck with the initiative. |
|
|
|
My short pitch would be Your wife will take half your stuff if she finds out you bought something you shouldn't have on your credit card-so use bitcoins and save lawyers fees. Best selling point ever. |
|
|
|
No. Imagine if you have a kid mowing your lawn. In that case I think it would be much easier to hand him a bitcoin certificate for his work than trying to demand that he has bluetooth or a wireless device to receive the payment for services rendered.  Why wont you use the mobile internet connection or the internet connection of your house? Why does the kid mowing your lawn need to provide a internet connection? Mind you, this doesn't necessarily have to be done with physical objects. You could "e-mail" bitcoins in this manner to somebody who doesn't even have a Bitcoin node running, where they could even "redeem" the bitcoins for government-issued money straight away without even getting directly involved with Bitcoins. This is not very interesting as it drives people away from bitcoins. As an alternative, the bitcoins could simply be in a thumb drive instead where you could transfer over the files to the merchant representing the bitcoins you wish to use for the purchase, and they could even return the "change" to you in a similar fashion. This is a good idea, but involves merchant computer use, and it seems similar to me to the smartphone solutions I already mention. The pros of this option is that it seems slightly simpler as the bitcoin program could have a transfer option to a usb wallet (or to a smartphone wallet for the case, they have usb connections). The cons of this option is that you can only access the funds you transfered to the usb dongle (or the smartphone memory). This seems to me like a smartphone solution, not a paper solution. All in all, what you are suggesting here is far and away more complex than this paper currency system I'm suggesting here, and has been originally discussed at the start of this thread. This is a very lightweight bitcoin transfer system that has electronics of any kind as an optional aspect, and can enable purchases even if network access is unavailable on a temporary basis. I dont think installing a frontend or a wallet for bitcoin in the mobile phone from a app shop is complicated. What keeps people honest here is that the values can be verified, and double spending is minimized through the verification process. Somebody who is double spending is committing fraud, which has existing legal implications. If they obtained those bitcoin certifications from a 3rd party, a legal investigation of fraud would then target that person who created those bogus bitcoin certificates in the first place. How does the kid that mows the lawn know that the certificate is valid? To really be able to verify the certificate you need a computer, and then the smartphone solution its more practical. I think that a bitcoin wallet software for mobile phones or usb dongles is more practical, if you dont want to have your phone connected to the internet in any way, than this paper certificates. If this paper would be used without imediate validation in the bitcoin network, they could be unreliable and give bad image to bitcoin currency. |
|
|
|
As I said previously, maybe this idea could work, who knows, let the people who want to use it decide, but in my opinion is not a good idea. This is why: The problem with a smartphone or some other gadget is that there is overhead involved in trying to get the device to carry out the transaction. Yes, it could be done, but what happens when the networks are shut down temporarily, or you are in a situation where access to electronics is limited. Not everybody has 24/7 access to a network even in industrialized western nations. Well, a smartphone has mobile internet connection (almost) everywhere in a industrialized nation. Also, the shop could have a wifi or bluetooth connection to allow for the phone to connect and make the payment. And you dont need to have a bitcoin server in the phone, you could have a frontend that connects through ssh to you home bitcoin server and orders payments. You can even have the objects tagged with 3D barcodes that allows the phone to recoignaze them and the customer does not even have to type anything into the phone, just scan the barcodes with its phone and confirm the transaction. Or this idea I just came up with: Imagine bitcoind would have a webpage frontend where you could order it to make payments (obviously password protected). The shop would only need to let you access your server webpage and make the payment. Arent all this options simpler that printing paper? I would also have to be convinced on the eco-friendly aspect of this too. You can print out quite a bit of paper for it to have the same environmental impact as the production of an iPhone. You are also burning up a fair bit of coal for simply operating that device, or causing other sorts of environmental damage. I dont think people is going to decide if they own an iPhone depending on its capability as a bitcoin wallet. Also, all trade of any kind is a matter of trust between the customer and the merchant. The question is how to reduce the threshold where distrust prevents a trade from happening. If you are in a situation where large numbers of Bitcoins (in terms of value) need to be transferred or if you really don't trust either the merchant or the customer, you would need something a bit more complex for the transfer. That is where cashier's checks and other more secure fiscal instruments are used even in today's business world. If you want a middle man that the merchant could trust there alredy exists internet bitcoin accounts. If you have the smartphone, I would say go for it, but this idea of "paper bitcoins" and variations on the theme have a niche application where a smartphone isn't strictly needed. Dismissing completely out of hand the idea that you could make paper bitcoins doesn't really resolve the issue as to if it is is possible or practical.
Again, we'll see what happen. Maybe it does have some use, I just dont see it. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe this has future, who knows.
But I really think that using smartphones to make payments with bitcoin is a more comfortable way of doing things. Printing paper is a thing of the past.
|
|
|
|
It's been a while since I posted this.. I will sell it for 900 BTC OBO. If nobody is interested I'll just put it on ebay or something. I have more stuff like this for sale I might try posting too.
Its a shame you are in the USA and I am in the other side of the Atlantic. Looks interesting to replace my shitty video card. |
|
|
|
I was just reading the faucet drainer thread and it came to mind that no one was brave enough to say they're from Spain I'm from Portugal, btw. I am from Spain.  |
|
|
|
But why is there demand for Bitcoin over USD?? This is a subjective valuation arising from properties such as anonymity, decentralized system of clearance, cryptographic trust, predetermined and defined rate of growth, built in deflation, divisibility, low transaction fees, etc.... inherent to the Bitcoin system. Exactly this. Bitcoins have value because they offer some qualities, and some people value them. Also, I would add ideological value. |
|
|
|
If he/she lives near me I can pay him a visit... just saying.  |
|
|
|
I wrote it. I hope you enjoyed it. Let's see if it results in some new interest.
Ta,
Yep, it was a great surprise to see it there. LRC site seem to be full of strange, loony, or simply alternative ideas, at least that what I heard from another libertarian. (To be honest, bitcoins is probably perceived as loony to the rest of the population)
But it's still nice to know that bitcoin is being covered. LRC is great. People like Marc Faber and Jim Rogers write there. Lew Rockwell is the founder of the Mises Institute. I usually read the Mises Institute webpage more because its more academic and historical stuff, while LRC is more day to day stuff, also from a libertarian perspective. LRC is more casual, but its great. |
|
|
|
I was very surprised and pleased to see an article at LewRockwell.com about bitcoins. Did anyone from here wrote it or at least knew about it? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/luongo7.1.1.htmlAlso, I think this could count as reference for the wikipedia article. |
|
|
|
The biggest problem I foresee with a mobile client having thought about it, is that you could loose a certain amount of anonymity. If the carrier knows your location and can recognise or at least guess at certain traffic been bitcoin, then when you start the app to make a transaction to another mobile user in the same location it may be possible to tie the two together. The same even goes for using a mobile website. I think ideally you need something like Tor running on the device to avoid the such a problem, and it needs to be running all the time really or your internet activity when you fire it up for a transaction will be a dead giveaway. Of course this is only a significant problem when bitcoin gains enough of a foothold to cause governments to take notice, and hopefully by that time it will already be to late Or the region that starts using bitcoin can use something like this: http://guifi.net |
|
|
|
What do you imagine the iPhone app doing? Just looking for some ideas on how it should look and what it should do..
For what I have seen everybody agrees that a full bitcoin server for mobiles is not the way to go, since it would be draining the battery with the processing (even if its not generating coins). Also, the mobile internet connection is expensive in a lot of places and is payed by how much information you transmit. So the obvious solution is a frontend to a bitcoin server. I think limiting the frontend to a bitcoin web service is bad because you are loosing the de-centralized nature of bitcoin. This has the problem typical problems of centralization, but also its worth noting that governments arround the world impose a monopoly on money in their territory and bitcoin is going to compite against it. So giving a central location or company to attack is making things easier for governments to attack bitcoin and defend their money monopoly. Also, a lot of us run our home servers with bitcoin and it would be great if the phone can directly connect to our servers. I am thinking the easiest and most practical solution would be a frontend that connects to the server through a encrypted, password protected, json-rpc connection. That way the frontend could be configured to connect to both a private server in the home or to a bitcoin webservice. This would require also changes in the server to allow those kind of connections obviously. PS: Adding the scanning feature to be able to pay automatically is the perfect extra. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
