I pledge +50 BTC

I'll bounty +50 BTC (sent to account)

I really recommend you learn how to use Illustrator, it is a wonderful program.  Much more powerful than the GIMP path tool.  Even so, if you want to continue using FOSS, try inkscape.

re-read nanotube's+theymos's proposal! Sound Good 
+1

So in theory this is the perfect system for claiming a 'named address'.  If I wanted to send a payment to 'theymos.btcdns' I could. Or is my understanding wrong?

This is a very good and important idea, we should set-up some 'domain trust' where well established domains will be protected until they are claimed (at a good fee) by a verified owner.

Maybe we could have a 'time-lock' of about a week or so where you claim a domain, and if half of the network decides that that domain should be in the trust they can deny that request.  Once the network is more established the minimum time-lock can be reduced.

a DDoS attack must involve a denial of service. Generating the block chain is the providing of a service, so it is not a DDoS attack.

I'm a Voluntaryist.  But I'll vote 'Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian' as it is close enough for me.

Being pragmatic, I do prefer the term 'Laissez-faire Capitalism' to describe my economic views.
I think that this poll illustrates, again, the importance to separate moral and economic labels.

Voluntaryism is a moral code, it just so-happens that 'Laissez-faire Capitalism' is the only rational economic model for a society of voluntarists!

I’m starting this topic to express my deep fear for the world over the recent trends within the western world to apologise for the evil that is being perpetrated in Iran and through the name of a so-called ‘religion’ of Islam.

The core of the issue is what intellectuals constitute a religion to be; should religion be restricted to spirituality, or is valid it for it to dictate an entire way of life?  Personaly, I believe a religion should be only personal and spiritual.  When religion extends further than this, it is no longer a religion, but governance, thus not valid for protection under the claim of religious freedoms.


In Iran we see one of the most potent examples of how a political regime can somehow, falsely, claim religious protection. When in frank assessment it is shown to be plainly evil.

To highlight this problem a recent article in ‘The Australian’ (the only Australian paper worth reading, other than the financial review maybe), talks about the paralysis that the American and international governments have had in condemning Iran.  It is a shame that their true, (and in many ways, much more honourable), assessments needs to be shown through Wikileaks.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wikileaks-reveals-ugly-truth-about-iran-appeasers/story-fn59niix-1225966020409

I'm interested in hearing what the thoughts of my fellow bitcoiners are

This has already been discussed at great length, in multiple threads. In summary it is generally agreed that a 3rd party 'central authority' must issue a coin that represents a claimed value of ‘bitcoin’ stored in some wallet vault somewhere.

See this thread for a ‘digital cash’ layer, which may co-exist with bitcoin.http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=847.0

I strongly agree with this sentiment, bitcoin is young, we should behave accordingly.
We should be working hard to grow and mature bitcoin with a goal that one day it will be of the standard and quality that it can be a great help for Wikileaks.

I suggest that when the bitcoin community commits to the sustained donation of more than 50% of Wikileaks operating expenses at a time to consider a formal relationship.

Until then, let’s not use Wikileaks as a cheap publicity stunt, but rather a goal that we use to spur us on to develop this ‘bitcoin’ tool that will help support the important work that Wikileaks is doing on freedoms behalf.

Ps. In another post I voiced a differing view, which Wikileaks and bitcoin could enter into a mutually beneficial relationship for development; however I have since revised this view, under the account of the different maturities between Wikileaks and bitcoin.  Wikileaks is mature, while bitcoin is (relatively) immature. It would not be a balanced relationship.

lol, crazy drawing.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear:  Indeed I'm sure the economic argument against IP would win, I'm sure because I can prove it, (based upon said axioms)! (no, I haven't done a formal proof, yet, so don't ask for it).

I was just trying to point at the folly of trying to prove that IP is a good (or bad) thing through an economic argument when it is entirely a moral argument.

Trust you to notice that    Madhatter you got a pretty good rap in the interview!

shooh, you are being a newfag!

I guess I’ll wade into this debate, to me it is a very simple moral argument base upon a strong axiom:  Voluntary interactions between people.


When somebody creates something of value, (from the unused natural resources surrounding them), they morally have right to _USE_ (aka, own) what they have created for whatever purpose providing that purpose doesn’t _DIRECTLY_ infringe upon another.

This also applies to intellectual works; one has the ability to use whatever they have thought of for what every purpose.

Another _DOSE NOT_ have the right to deprive anyone else from something the he or she legitimately owns.  So the person, who made a chair, gets to sit in it.  The person, who writes a book, gets to read it. The people who design a medicine get to make it.

Otherwise it is free for all, another is allowed to make another chair for himself; write another book that is just the same, or make a medicine that works in the same way.  All of this action doesn’t deprive the original from use of their work.

In a free society there is only one form of intellectual property and that is your name.  Plagiarism is the theft of the claim of one’s own achievement.


I really don't care about the economic arguments (for or against, but I’m sure the ‘for’ would win).
I want to live in a free society, not just a prosperous one.  I’m somebody who picks what is moral, then works out the economics to make it happen.

Bitcoin is one of those concepts that you just 'get' but it takes a bit of a intellectual jump to get there.  I find it hard to explain to my friends also.

@Bruce,  I just listened to your interview about bitcoin, you did a really good job! I’ll send a few BTC over to www.oneradionetwork.com once they have it all setup.

Datacasting is perfect for bitcoin, anyone has $100,000,000  for a satellite?

(back to reality).  Radio would be perfect for bitcoin, even for 10MB/s the band space would not be excessive.  Bitcoin is a true one-to-many broadcast once it is compiled by the network.

The funny thing is that "BTC" has been working fine for now!  I don't even know if a symbol will ever catch ok... 

+1 noagendamarket