 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Mr. Luther, we would appreciate if you'd get in contact with us about something that might be a site issue or oversight before posting publicly.
In retrospect, I should have PMed you about this post instead of posting in your thread. It was careless of me to post the link that way, and I apologize. I've used Bitinstant in the past with good results. My current transaction where I used the workaround has already gone through without a hitch. And I'm sure I'll continue to use your service in the future. That being said, if this kind of problem, which effects all users of a common feature, had happened with the Bitcoin client, we would see a full public disclosure, like the one here: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/03/full-disclosure-bitcoin-qt-on-windows.html This is the primary reason I have such high confidence in Bitcoins. IMO, we need to demand the same accountability from the people we do business with. Given the evidence I had, I was reasonably certain that this was effecting everyone who was using Bitinstant and Trustcash to deposit to MtGox, therefore the issue had to be hashed out publicly. Some people will disagree with me. They think that the more problems are known about a system, the less reliable the system is. (Wikipedia comes to mind.) I believe that thinking is backward. When these problems are laid out in the open, it motivates those who are capable of fixing the problem to action, and the rest of us can sleep easier. To clarify another point, we recently came to a new arrangement with our partners at TrustCash where the % fees will be lowering in exchange for a flat extra $1 fee per order. The simplest way to do this was to add the extra $1 to the URL we send user browsers to.
Since this has obviously caused concern i'll personally be investigating an alternate way to do this in addition to the FAQ and quote page changes.
Thank you. This is the kind of explanation I was hoping for. Again, thank you guys for your service. It is, so far, superior to any other service I've used to transfer money to the exchanges. |
|
|
|
|
[Deleting post. I should have PMed Yankee instead of posting in this thread.]
|
|
|
|
When using Bitinstant yesterday, I noticed that they now covertly add $1 to the amount that is quoted in the link to TrustCash. In their FAQ, they claim to not add any fees above the amount you order, and the website makes it appear (if you don't look at the address bar) that this $1 is being added by TrustCash, which is false. This problem occurs regardless of the amount that you order. I have a screenshot which shows that this overcharge originates with Bitinstant and not TrustCash: https://plus.google.com/115910879713858998075/postsI've been using Bitinstant since January and have not had this problem before. (The last time I used it was around March 11.) I don't believe it will be difficult for Bitinstant to fix this problem now that it is made public. I'm announcing this issue publicly because I believe the faster everyone knows about these problems, the faster we can build trust in the BTC economy. There is an easy work around for this problem. (I've done this, but I haven't actually made my deposit yet, so use at your own risk.): Make the order as normal and click the link to TrustCash. On entering the TrustCash website, you should see the amount you ordered plus $1. Find that amout in the address bar, change it to the amount you intended, and hit Enter. You can then continue your order with the correct amount. |
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for them to come up with a decentralized transit system and decentralized utilities. I'd do it myself, but I have no idea how such a thing could be possible, and, AFAIK, there are no historical examples.
[snip] In the modern world, examples of decentralized transit systems include 'jitney' cabs, Flinc ( www.flinc.mobi), Avego (avego.com), Zipcar ( www.zipcar.com) and RelayRides ( www.relayrides.com); in addition to more obvious examples such as Greyhound ( www.greyhound.com). These things all require roads. Roads are a centralized transit system. Also, aside from Greyhound, all these services can only move a few people at a time, making them far less energy efficient then trains and buses. They will be the first things to become infeasible when oil starts to get really scarce. For that matter, the New York subway system was originally built and managed by private enterprises, but was 'nationalized' during the second world war and never given back.
That's still a central monopoly power. What difference does it make if it's 'nationalized'? That's exactly the kind of double standard between official government and other monopolies that I disagree with. As for decentralized utility services, that is really just you (or your condo association, etc) providing for itself as opposed to relying on the municipal water company or the power company to do it, but it's uncommon because the economies of scale tend to favor those municipal companies. Even so, a local well for non-potable (i.e. toilet flushwater only) can pay for itself in no time, and there are many building in Downtown Louisville, Kentucky (where I live) that do have their own wells for that as well as for open cycle heat pumps. I know of no private business that purifies it's own building potable water however, if only because of the liability if the filter should fail unnoticed and some old guy gets something from the water fountain that puts him in the hospital. The municipal water service is indemnified from such events, so long as they can show that they made a 'reasonable' effort to monitor and prevent such things.
Likewise, anyone can put solar panels on their roof or buy a genset, but neither option compares to the peace and reliablility of the municipal power grid.
From this description, it would seem that the pressure for efficiency would push directly toward centralization. In the long run, my point still stands. |
|
|
|
Hence the contradiction in anarcho-capitalism. Any time you have a natural, long-term monopoly that everyone depends on, you have a government. The monopoly owner has great power over the people. Anarchists seem to think that as long as the government isn't "official", they can just look the other way.
Assuming you need a monopoly for those things to function, which is not the case. Let's see, agorists have already disproven the need for copyright (free software, Wikipedia, etc.) and fiat currency (Bitcoin). I'm still waiting for them to come up with a decentralized transit system and decentralized utilities. I'd do it myself, but I have no idea how such a thing could be possible, and, AFAIK, there are no historical examples. |
|
|
|
Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures. Exactly. So what's your point, exactly? Any time you get 3 or more people together, you get a power structure. To get rid of government, you'd have to ban nearly all social interactions. The fundamental building block of any government is a monopoly of force, how can you build anything stable from that?
If the government had a monopoly on force, it would be impossible for anyone to commit illegal violence. So by your definition, we already live in an anarchy. I contend that government is built on the need for monopolized services. The source of its seemingly disproportionate power is the fact that there are people who are willing to publicly risk their lives to enforce its polocies. People like that can easily whoop anything you can establish with just property rights and contracts. |
|
|
|
I have to agree with XMPPwocky. In anarcho-capitalism, somebody still has to own the infrastructure. Each network (roads, utility lines, etc.) has to be monopolized to maximize its usefulness. Therefore any owner of infrastructure is a de facto member of government.
That makes no sense at all. The whole idea of anarcho-capitalism is that there is no government. Hence the contradiction in anarcho-capitalism. Any time you have a natural, long-term monopoly that everyone depends on, you have a government. The monopoly owner has great power over the people. Anarchists seem to think that as long as the government isn't "official", they can just look the other way. |
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with XMPPwocky. In anarcho-capitalism, somebody still has to own the infrastructure. Each network (roads, utility lines, etc.) has to be monopolized to maximize its usefulness. Therefore any owner of infrastructure is a de facto member of government.
|
|
|
|
|
@Fizzgig: Just because you cannot personally think of how something might be done, doesn't make it impossible. Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.
|
|
|
|
I don't have near enough time to respond to everything that's being said, so I probably won't be posting anymore. But I couldn't resist this: If I might offer an analogy, its not enough to say the roof on a house is leaky; you have to offer a way to fix it or a way to replace it with a better roof. You rightly point out that modern societies are not perfect. The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.
[snip] Let me offer an analogy for why your criticism is flawed. In the time when slavery was a widespread institution, it was a valid criticism to say that slavery should be abolished, even if you did not offer any alternative to how the things slaves did would get done. In the same way, anarchists of various stripes say that the state should be abolished, even though we do not (and cannot) tell you exactly how the things government does will be accomplished. To think that one person or one small group could tell you that is the pretense of knowledge, and is one of the reasons that centralized institutions like states fail at their goals. Sure, if all the cotton was produced by slaves, we could find a way to get by without cotton. Just like if we abolished copyright, we would find a way to survive without lame-ass movies coming out every week. It would be tough, but at least the strongest among us would survive. HOWEVER, if we abolished the state, a new one would simply take its place. This is because every society has structure, and some people are creative enough to use that structure to seize power. If we try to make a concious decision about what form that new state will take, we will either make the world a better place, or we will learn from our mistakes (hopefully both). Either way, it's a net plus. If we merely abolish the state and then go about our business, some people would seize power and we'd be oppressed all over again. We'd break even, at best. |
|
|
|
We must coerce people into respecting each other's rights.
In a completely free society, we must assume the potential of infinite diversity. If we don't, our prejudices would prevent us from respecting the uniqueness of everyone's needs. This would make society quite unfree by definition. By infinite diversity, you are referring to individual rights. Why are you claiming individual rights have infinite diversity? By infinite diversity, I mean that each person's needs and wants are unique. For the sake of evolution, that's a good thing. It's also possible that a person's needs are so unique that others cannot understand them. This is why I'm skeptical of any generalizations that libertarians make about the way people behave. Creating government means a one-size-fits-all solution which destroys all demand for private contract resolution institutions, and also prevents innovation in this theoretical industry which could exist if not for government.
Not so. We do have private arbitration. And people are free to criticize court rulings with reasoning that could influence future rulings. Government services do not imply monopoly. Rights are a construct created by man to relate to his fellow man. The tribe, through social interactions, agrees on the rights of it's members. They meet another tribe with slightly different rights, but the amazing thing is how similar they are! This is because to survive, one set of rights is better than another.
Even if this is true, each tribe would develop under its own unique circumstances, requiring different customs for survival. There are also customs where no single practice is clearly better than another. Aggression is fundamental to survival.
If someone needs food, and has no way to get it without killing or stealing, why shouldn't he do so? Without this basic survival instinct, humans would not have survived long enough to invent property rights. I have to agree with this point, but if he tries to kill for food, he may be killed himself. He is initiating aggression and that cannot be justified morally, but that would not stop him or anyone else if that was the ONLY option. But let's ratchet up the scenario, what if without a $75,000 hospital procedure you will die, is it then justified to steal? Of course not. Will people do it to survive? Yes. Of course it would be justified to steal. I wouldn't expect anyone to sacrifice their life only to uphold property rights. The question is how should we address this concern we have of starving people. Should we try to find a real sustainable solution to the problem, or should we force every person to throw in some money to give to people who need food. If you look at the result today in any meaningful way, you will see that force is not working as hunger in America has increased significantly.
Citation needed. If you're refering to the rich/poor gap, that can easily be explained by the vast majority of power being consolidated in corporations. Yes, that is a use of force, so you might be partially right. Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place? The body of people in society share the same moral principles and government enforces those principles. At first government serves the people, but the opportunity to take control and exploit the vast reserves of power government has is just too hard to pass up. Eventually nefarious entities gain control of the power center and all hell breaks loose (a few decades or centuries later). Once the body of people line their moral philosophy based on universal ethics, government is exposed as the fraud it is and can be cast aside. Until that happens let's learn the ways of peaceful interaction, and let's constantly expose the violence that is often hidden in interactions. Well, I'm all in favor of exposing stuff, but there will always be people that are more powerful than others (making government an inherent feature of society), and they will make mistakes, so I'm certain that some violence will always be necesary. |
|
|
|
If you are wearing a watch and I take it from you, am I the aggressor or are you? Well, if you took the watch from me yesterday and I'm just getting my property back, then you're the aggressor. If it was always your watch then I'm the aggressor. See, you can't talk about the non-aggression principle in a vacuum. The other side of the coin is property rights, which tells us who exactly the aggressor is.
This would seem to make the NAP irrelevent: It's completely subsumed by whatever system of property we use. |
|
|
|
This isn't true. You are confusing aggression with violence.
So educate me. What's the difference? Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place?
Power in numbers. People come together for one reason or another and then refuse to separate after the goals are achieved. Once the system is in place, certain individuals realize they can take advantage of it to achieve power without production. People accept it because responsibility is difficult work. Well, sometimes those goals are ongoing. For example, public goods, like infrastructure, need maintenence. Society always needs some people in positions of power. People just need to know when to revolt. |
|
|
|
|
Here's a real simple explanation:
Due to advancing technology, the world is changing much faster than it ever has in the past. To be able to adapt to these constant, unpredictable changes, we need to maximize our diversity. When each individual has the freedom and responsibility to act on their own, some people will try some unusual practices. Some of those unusual practices will turn out to be highly beneficial and can be imitated by others. Thus, all of society benefits from the freedom to do things that very few people see the value in.
When you centralize the managment of resources, whether by regulation, joint property, or uncriticized tradition, you kill off the diversity that allows the discovery of new things, thereby halting the vast majority of our potential progress.
|
|
|
|
|
Libertarians seem pretty confident in their reasoning ability, but I'm yet to be convinced. In particular, I have two major objections to the non-aggresion principle:
We must coerce people into respecting each other's rights.
In a completely free society, we must assume the potential of infinite diversity. If we don't, our prejudices would prevent us from respecting the uniqueness of everyone's needs. This would make society quite unfree by definition.
Some people won't want to respect the rights of others.
Therefore, individual rights must be enforced by coersion.
(If you bring up the idea of "provocation", please define exactly what you think that word means. To me, the NAP is about the same as pacifism, and it's too easy to redefine provocation to suit one's argument.)
Aggression is fundamental to survival.
If someone needs food, and has no way to get it without killing or stealing, why shouldn't he do so? Without this basic survival instinct, humans would not have survived long enough to invent property rights.
Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I'm Luther. I learned about bitcoin back in 2010 December and started buying them in 2011 February. Looks like a pretty solid system.
|
|
|
|
|
<bump>
New, improved version of btctrade. This version no longer outputs a CSV file. Instead, it takes numerical arguments as a date, and reports the high, low, and average for that year/month/day/whatever.
|
|
|
|
Oh sorry, then do you know about bitcoincharts.com?
Yes, I've seen that website. I might have to make use of their JSON API to make my script more versatile. |
|
|
|
|
That's not really what I'm looking for. I'm trying to get a feel for the long term trends in market prices.
|
|
|
|
|
