in b4 "do i need to be online to receive email?"
This isn't really a fair comparison, because bitcoin is peer to peer and email is client-server. To receive email, the SMTP server that is associated to your email domain does need to be running. For bitcoin, the entire network would have to be down before coins couldn't be sent. |
|
|
|
|
I just want to expand a bit on lile's post so that you have a better understanding of this system. The tracking of your bitcoins in your address is done by everyone. The peer to peer network copies the coins out to every node, so the fact that they have their computer on is what records your coins. They are sitting out there in the system, and you can go see them at blockchain.info and other places without turning on your client.
What you client and your wallet allow you to do is spend the coins. You can't send out a transaction saying "give coins from X address to Y address" without your computer being on the internet and connected to other bitcoin nodes.
|
|
|
|
According to any logic after halving the production rate the price should double after that (slowly/or not).
It actually can have an even stronger effect. First of all, halving the inflation rate means that we only have to have half as much money invested in bitcoin in order to sustain the price. So this means either people in the economy, or introducing new people to the economy with a rate of 12.5% instead of 25%. But with the price stability or increases, it becomes easier to convince people to get in. With more money coming in, the price will go even higher. The only push back is long time holders deciding to cash out. |
|
|
|
There is also Christmas coming up and new ASIC that people are investing in.
Christmas is an aspect. I've bought one gift already with bitcoin and have plans for a few more. |
|
|
|
I'm not aware of any GUI, but if you compiled CGMiner from source, you should be able to figure out the command line without much of a problem. To use the command line you just do command option1 option2 option3 ... You have to follow the options that are specific to the command. You can pretty often get a list of the options with the option --help. E.g. cgminer --help (side note, I don't know why, but on my system, this takes over a minute, but it does eventually come back. I think it's because I'm running cgminer at the same time, though). Now watch this video for some more tips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1TKYpxTmso |
|
|
|
|
If you install TOR, then on the Options|Networking tab, it allows you to enable SOCKs. The default setting (127.0.0.1 on port 9050) also happen to be the default setting for TOR, so just checking this will masquerade your identity.
|
|
|
|
Again, if I required "improvement" to land, we'd get parking lots instead of forests.
This seems to be going in circles based on the argument in front of you. How do ancaps decide if they require improvement or not? paying some random stranger and putting numbers into a computer don't grant you ownership.
Nothing grants you ownership. all you can get is a temporary exclusionary right to the land. No, it's not. And if the argument were "I want free stuff," I would concede the point. But it's not. The argument is "this stuff is mine, because I made it."
But you didn't make the land. Period. Taking land that doesn't belong to someone is fine. Trying to take land that does belong to someone is not. That's when the force comes in.
Which means there's no problem because land doesn't belong to anyone. You have to have it in order for me to deprive you of it. Since it's not your land, my claiming it deprives you of nothing.
It deprives everyone of their use of it. They think it's fair. Otherwise they would increase their prices. If they think it's fair, then who am I (or you) to say otherwise?
That doesn't make sense. They aren't selling their coffee shop, the guy with the empty lot is. They don't receive any fair compensation for that, or really any compensation. I've mostly stopped posting in this thread because I felt like I've said most of what I have to say, but a few thoughts.
Yeah, I'm getting there too. It's just repetition along the lines of: It's not fair to take something I own.
You don't own the land. |
|
|
|
That could cause some confusion, but as long as it's well known that that registrar is used in that area, It would probably be OK (smart AnCaps check registries, too). If there were some confusion, and the AnCap moved in on the geo, the geo would be compensated once it was brought to light.
So no actual improvement to the land is necessary. In an ancap world, just some kind of simple registration is needed. Why wouldn't all the land be taken up in an instant with a computer program? See, an AnCap who has marked out land as owned expects exclusive use, and the right to use force to defend that exclusive use.
See, the ancap is the one who uses force to keep people off the land he doesn't own. It's the equivalent of establishing a small state. I understand that people like free things and so taking land that doesn't belong to anyone has it's appeal, but "I want free stuff" isn't a moral argument for the use of force. Bullshit it doesn't. If the geo demands payment for something that he had nothing to do with the creation of
Geo's don't demand rent. I covered that in my last comment. If you want to get something (e.g. the exclusive right to some land), then yeah, it ain't free. Why would I give you the exclusive right to that land without some compensation? By your exclusion, you are depriving me of something. Let me repeat: They (the providers of goods, services and conveniences) are compensated for the provision of those goods, services, and conveniences. Since those goods, services, and conveniences are part (aside from demand) of what increases value of land in a city, the people providing them have already been compensated for the increase in land value (which they also benefit from).
They get some benefit, but it's not in proportion to their effort. A guy with a 5 acre empty lot is going to get a lot more benefit than the guy with the .1 acre coffee shop. You used the word "fair" with regard to the compensation in your initial post, and there's nothing fair about it. |
|
|
|
He has at least 50k btc in his possession, I know that with near certainty.
And how do you know this? 1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM has been pretty much shown to be the Silk Road and it appears that pirate was simply selling coins as they came in in order to buy Zeek Rewards. I doubt he has a bitcent. |
|
|
|
|
A vote for Paul robs Johnson of his vote. I hope that people vote for Johnson instead because it would give the Libertarian candidate a greater chance of being in the debate in 2016.
|
|
|
|
If the geo has marked out the unimproved land as already owned, the Ancap would leave it alone.
It's not marked out. It's just recorded as being paid rent on. An example could be a cloud based registrar of GPS coordinates. However, if the AnCap had marked out unimproved land as owned, the geo would demand rent from him.
I think you are misunderstanding. The geo doesn't demand rent. You don't have to pay any rent on that land. You just can't expect an exclusive use of the land, though, and thus cannot use force to prevent people from coming on the land and using it. Also, if someone else rightfully rents the land, you can be evicted. So, as you can see, the choice to pay rent is voluntary, and the amount of rent paid is set by the free market. Since deriving profit from something you had no hand in making is immoral, It's clear to me that the geo would be in the wrong here.
This doesn't apply. But what makes LA land so valuable? In part it's demand, but it's also all the services and conveniences located nearby. The same can be said of every city. The people providing those services and conveniences are compensated for providing them, and charge a rate that they're happy with. In other words, they're fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA.
So when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby? How does that work to create fair compensation? How did you get from "they're already fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA." to "when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby"? You said that all the services and conveniences located nearby is what gives the land the value, and that "they" are fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in L.A. If it were fair, then the actual people who created those services and conveniences would get that value, not a guy who sat on an empty lot with a fence around it for 50 years. |
|
|
|
Also, It's telling that you chose this to respond to, rather than attempting to refute my previous statement.
Meh, it's actually not that telling. I did respond to it, but it appears I pasted over it when adding in my response to Topazan. Meanwhile, I included that part because it was embedded in Topazan's post and thought it warranted a clarification. Having parts of my responses accidentally deleted seems like a risk I'm taking when responding to more than one person at a time. I'm going to summarize the response quickly because I kind of don't feel like typing it all out again. Ancaps can't mix into anarchogeos because an anarchogeo could hold the rent on unimproved land and then an ancap would come along and improve it and claim it's "theirs", creating a conflict. And I still don't see the point about the importance of tolerance. Ancaps are wrong about their model of property, so I don't see why we need to respect it. @Fjordbit - So, your contention is that we only own the physical forms of the products of our labor, and not their value? "Thanks spell-checking my book. I can't pay you, so just copy down the words you fixed for your own use." "Thanks for the lifesaving surgery, as payment have a cadaver that's had the same operation."
This isn't my contention and so I can't really respond to it because it's not my position. Also both of these examples would fall into contracts enforcement and don't seem to me to be part of a conversation about property. If you contracted with the doctor to provide money for surgery, then I don't see how you would fulfill that with a But what makes LA land so valuable? In part it's demand, but it's also all the services and conveniences located nearby. The same can be said of every city. The people providing those services and conveniences are compensated for providing them, and charge a rate that they're happy with. In other words, they're fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA.
So when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby? How does that work to create fair compensation? The value you are talking about was not made by the land owner, so there's no moral argument for them to have a claim to it. Meanwhile, if someone wants exclusive use of that land, they would need to compensate everyone for that use to have a moral claim to that exclusion. The inherent value in the land causes the rent to be bid higher, giving society more benefit. |
|
|
|
This is incorrect, I paid with Paypal and received an order number.
Hmm, I stand corrected. Did this order number seem in line with the BitPay order numbers? |
|
|
|
|
I'm also a little confused by what's going on, so maybe you could be a little more clear to Jody in your emails as well.
Did you receive all of your BFL FPGA Singles, or did they cancel the order as you expected?
As far as the order numbers, those were assigned from BitPay, so only people who paid by bitcoin has one. Bank wires and paypal orders don't have order numbers. What you're doing is right to get a response, but IME it does take some time.
|
|
|
|
|
There's something wrong with the link in your sig. It has some HTML added to it (try clicking it).
|
|
|
|
Rule 5 for the contest is "Your signature can not contain any other text." I can't be in the contest and have additional text in my sig. |
|
|
|
|
Could you post that link in case others have the same question?
|
|
|
|
With the rise of the ASIC machines, the difficulty level will obviously go up. I just don't think it's going to go up as much as the numbers I've been seeing ( !0x or more). Perhaps the logic is flawed, but here's my theory.
The difficulty level will go up as the ASIC's are released, this will/should stop GPU miners if for no other reason that power costs, and insignificant BTC payout. The GPU miners will slowly leave the playing field, which will "slowly" lower the difficulty, or most likely prohibit it from rising too quickly. There will be a shift from a lot of miners to a few, as most miners aren't going to buy an ASIC's to mine with. Most used the BTC to justify that gaming rig, IMHO.
So do you think the GPU's leaving will be enough to stop the difficulty from rising too drasticly?
and
Will the shift from a lot of people mining and making a little, to a few mining making more per person hurt the BTC economy? Or will they simply buy them?
From the known numbers in sales from the first day ASICs went up, there was at least 8TH ordered and more likely about 12TH just for the one day. This is enough to offset half the current miners. Plus, there was a post where BFL Josh confirmed they had enough pre-orders to multiply the difficulty by 10. Personally, I think that's small, and as long as the return is there, the difficulty will keep rising. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
