Frankly speaking, I see no future where anonymity reigns.
How many people who have contributed something "world-changing" in history did it anonymously? All the scientific discoveries, the conquests with the super-leaders, the great thinkers, they all have their name attached to their lifes-work. Dont worry about the "rant", you made a good point. A great many, and also: No. Take a look at Stigler's Law of Eponymy. For almost all of these great scientific discoveries, conquests, thinkers, whose names you are thinking of, there are others you haven't heard of who really did it first or did the grunt work. |
|
|
|
because i just lost all of our family's money in the crash. i told her the market will correct but she's already too mad to care.
wait aren't we up 100% YTD? |
|
|
|
One of the things that's always amused me about Bitcoin, and a lot of the people who support it is the blatant hypocrisy. Y'all complain about fiat money, how it's not on the gold standard, how it's backed by absolutely nothing and could crash any minute - and then we all pay good money for bitcoins, which are not on the gold standard, backed by even less, and could crash any minute? I'm bullish and I love BTC, but can somebody please set me straight? What am I missing?  Here's what you are missing: BTC cannot be counterfeit. Pretty simple isn't it  Can you tell me how many BTC are out there? Yes you can, it's public. Any kid with an internet connection can tell you there are 9.7 million BTC out there. Can you tell me how many EUR are out there? No you can't, it's simply not possible to know. Economists with years of training will give you their best estimates. Are there any limits to how many new USD can be created? Not really. Regulators can try to limit it, but in the end regulators are subject to the same human psychology and they will be tempted to make a deal and print some extra for whatever reason they can come up with. Are there any limits to how many new BTC can be created? Yes, and they are cryptographically secured. |
|
|
|
Maybe not with 51%
But what if they do have more, like 80 or 90% or more? After all it only take like 10 millions $ to do a 51%, an entity wich has billions can surely spend a bit more and do that.
Think about it. If you have some large hash at your disposal you could generate a new chain with a fork further back in time and thus take other recent miner's income as you point out. However in doing so you are applying your hash to making this new chain and could simply be raking in current blocks which would generate more profit for you. As you have spent so much on your hash you will have incentive to make the network stronger and thus increase the value of your coins. The only possible exception to this is right after a block reward drop, though I still imagine it would be more profitable to simply mine new blocks (anybody want to model this for me?). I imagine Satoshi considered this possibility along with the resolution of a more gently falling reward rate, and realized it didn't matter much and thats why we have the 50% reward drops. You make an estimate of US$ 10 large to make a 51% double spend attack. Do you think there are enough instant large-withdrawl-enabled services out there that anybody could recoup this kind of investment by doing some double spending? I don't. Careful planning and you could get the maximum withdraws from all the top exchanges, and some serious loot from gambling operators and a few online wallets. I don't think this will approach $10 mil. Coin service operators are (hopefully) aware that a double spend possibility exists and can simply put a hard cap on withdraws. In my mind this vulnerability just means that BTC is not an appropriate vehicle for transactions, lets be conservative and take 10% of your figure, which are valued at US$ 1mil. If you need to accept a million dollar payment from somebody you don't trust, you might want to start to worry about a double spend attack, especially if you think there are 10 other folks out there also accepting million dollar payments from this non-trusted entity. A suitcase of swiss francs or gold bars is probably a better solution for you. As the network hash rate grows, the cost of a double spend 51% attack increases as well, and the maximum that people are willing to accept in coin payment from non-trusted entities will go up as well. In a related topic, can anybody tell me why this idea of "checkpointing" gives me a bad feeling? |
|
|
|
There are a lot of things that would remove the "need" for wars in the middle east, the least of which is more efficient vehicles. Talk about "drop in the bucket."
Maybe so. I'm not talking about a boost in mileage from 25mpg to 35mpg though. Neither am I. I'm talking about removing the entire reason for war. (Hint: it's not "dependence on foreign oil") I'll take a guess. Mental illness? http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=TJoMMpFFBFs |
|
|
|
Well, economic growth can also be attributed to the manifestation of new resources, such as discovering a coal deposit or an increase in the population, but all else being equal growth is an increase in efficiency.
What you do with the dirt matters, but this will be determined by prices in the market. A business will produce [resources out] based on whatever configuration yields the most profit, considering those prices. This process maximises the total subjective value of all resources.
People who lose their jobs due to their work being made redundant will get jobs in other fields. The money saved from the new efficiencies will be freed up for other things. These newly unemployed people will have to provide these other things. Having 100 men dig a hole when 1 man + machine can do it is just a waste. There is no point being inefficient just for the sake of jobs. Remember, we want stuff, not work.
The end result is that quality of life goes up for all. And of course the environment is completely destroyed due to edge effects, because the environment has 0 value ;-)
Well I like the idea that quality of life could come into play in an economic indicator, but this is tough to quantify. Some indicators of quality of life such as people "not being depressed" or "not having cancer" correlate inversely with the counterfeit-money-distribution index (GDP). There are also reasons to believe that your quality of life will be better if you get out and dig a ditch once in while rather than letting a machine do it every time. And as for "we want stuff".. I am hopeful we can move past that. Stuff is good for filling landfills, for example making giant piles of crushed automobiles seems to be an indicator to some of "economic growth". But are giant floating island of garbage really what we're after? For many an epiphany in their view of "stuff" comes from having a family member pass away and being in charge of "getting rid of the stuff". Hoarding is an instinct that does not always serve us well. As for the environment, we are the environment. Quality of life is a nice phrase but I think survival is even more basic, (QOL requires L), and makes it more obvious that our extended bodies (the environment) are crucial. |
|
|
|
Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.
Whoa whoa just a sec! Trade is free? Where? What do you mean by "economic growth"? Producing more what for less what? [resources in] X [economic efficiency] = [resources out] economic growth is an increase in [economic efficiency]. eg, I buy an excavator and now I need 100 less people to dig dirt. My out/in ratio has increased. Technological innovation (the invention of the excavator) has created economic growth. We don't have completely free trade and never will as long as the state exists. Thanks for your answer. An interesting idea. So then, a large increase in [resources in] is NOT economic growth. There are some issues in the definition you give such as [efficiency of what task?] Does it matter what you do to the dirt? Or is the important part just that there are more unemployed people? I don't have the answer, but I like your answer better than the standard definition of economic growth which as far as I can make out is "an increase in distribution of counterfeit monies". |
|
|
|
You can't make much money that way when there are functioning exchanges and you're not producing a product. In fact, you are much more likely to lose money.
[...]
So manipulations have to be much more subtle to have even a chance of working. You have to gradually push the market to convince a large number of other people that the "natural price" is something other than what it would be if not for your manipulations. And the reason this won't work is because there are a number of well-financed people who are too smart to fall for this. It only takes one to make you lose more and more as you try to move the price at a loss and split the gain more and more as you try to take profit as it goes back. Since there are several, this is just not going to work.
Really? Sorry for the off topic followup but take a look at what DeBeers or OPEC or ATT or any other famous monopoly / market maker has done. You don't have to convince anybody what a "natural price" is.. if you have bought all the cheaper items, then anybody who wants an item has to pay the higher price no matter how smart they are. In theory anyway.. market maker theory which seems unlikely to be widely published for similar reasons to the fact that cutting edge crypto isn't immediately published. In any case, a topic for another thread because I doubt its related to these high yield investments. |
|
|
|
A very damaging example would be the fence proposed along the U.S./Mexico border by certain politicians.
Which do you think causes more ecosystem destruction, 10 million extra Mexicans, or a fence? Not sure I understand your joke. Is that, 10m People + fascist wall as compared to 10m people without the wall? Do you want me to include in my calculations the staggering cost in time of bothering millions of people with totally useless and solely motivated by mental illness wastes of time and money? Or are you implying that this kind of general welfare for evil and proof of stupidity is a good thing because it reduces the population? |
|
|
|
Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.
Whoa whoa just a sec! Trade is free? Where? What do you mean by "economic growth"? Producing more what for less what? |
|
|
|
Dear community, I'm putting together an article for the Bitcoin Magazine (October 2012, Issue #5) and I'd like your opinions. One of our greatest and most respected leaders in the USA today has told us to vote our problems away instead of take arms against the government. The ballot is stronger than the bullet.
What do you think about this? Should Bitcoin be defended with guns or lawyers and votes? If ballots were so strong, couldn't Lincoln simply have voted John Wilkes Booth's Philadelphia Deringer to not fire? Notice: By responding to this thread, you give Bitcoin Magazine the right to freely publish your quote in the magazine.Well these days things are a little different as anybody who is popular is basically not electable. Vote fraud is entirely understood and expected as the big business as usual. Saying that the votes aren't really going to count is kind of like saying that professional wrestling is scripted. Who cares? We still like the theater. See how many people are willing to talk about unadjusted exit polls or verifiable voting systems. Its much more likely that we let NPR tell us who to support and then enjoy yelling at Vince McMahon's FOX equivalent when he shows up on the screens. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/wisconsin-recall-the-adjusted-final-exit-poll-was-forced-to-match-an-unlikely-recorded-vote/Interestingly enough this is relatively modern phenomenon. Even Malcolm X had more faith in the voting system than most of today's youth, as evidenced in his famous speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_BulletBut that's all old news, what I want to hear is how block chains can be used as verifiable voting systems. A one-bitcoin-one-vote system is now practical and could make representative democracy (which by the way is neither representative nor democracy) more than just theater. Comparison to other crytographically secure voting systems please. Cryptovotes ftw! |
|
|
|
Just a possible hint, if you go around asking everyone you can for permission, you're not going to get it. No matter how hard you try you will never be 100% legal. You might also be interested in "How to be free in an unfree world" by Harry Browne. Also try Switzerland good luck in your travels! |
|
|
|
|
+1 what evoorhees said.
Also nobody has pointed out yet in this thread the real problems with the gold standard of money:
Either:
1) You are using physical specie, requiring purity and weight measurement on a regular basis. This is a real pain or will require huge investment in the right machinery. INCONVENIENT
or:
2) You are using paper "representing gold" (or stamped metal) and are never sure the issuer has the gold or paper is not counterfeit, or the stamped gold has not been shaved or "coined" or otherwise doctored in a value reducing manner. GAPING SECURITY HOLE
Not to mention:
3) Uncontrolled and unknown inflation or money supply shocks are possible
And lets not forget:
4) Can be difficult to hide from enterprising neighborhood entrepeneurs / government thugs / annunaki rebel forces
5) Au dice would be a lot slower
|
|
|
|
|
Awww... I really like Max too, kind of a shame to see him get so sloppy. Definitely a low point with this episode of his show here IMHO.
Hopefully this can be a wakeup call to Max if he wants to keep any respectability.
Some problems here:
1) Shows disrespect or ignorance of 2nd amendment
2) Shows disrespect for fortune cookies
3) Shows disrespect for LSD
3) Shows disrespect for regulatory capture
4) Shows disrespect for improved security methods such as bitcoin by implying we could be better off if we return to ancient system
5) Shows disrespect for personal liberty
Mostly it seems when watching this episode that he doesn't respect you because he just goes for volume and emotional response rather than reasoned arguments.
|
|
|
|
BitcoinEXpress only wants bitcoin to exist.
No other alternative coin to bitcoin.
Same like Microsoft want to be monopoly & kill Linux.
but here bitcoin in not centralized or run by one person.
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion. Is that why there was lots of warning to the forum about the 51% attack? Is that why all this effort was made which in the end will strengthen litecoin? As an enthusiast of block chain currencies I say thank you to BitcoinEXpress. The more attacks, especially made in such a benevolant manner, the better off we become at resisting attacks and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the network. Keep up the good work! I think the following posts answers your question. Isn't it enough to just agree on one node to trust? If you then detect a fork, either stop processing and raise an alarm or go with the trusted node.
The one thing all of this has done so far is really expose the vulnerability of LTC and alt chains to 51% attacks. In it's current form, LTC will never be secure as this will always be a possibility. No security equals no future. Even Bitcoin itself is vulnerable. I am seeing multiple comments about how LTC needs 51% protection by validating transactions from the authentic chain only. They're being called, drumroll.... "trust nodes. LTC Trustnodes...has a familiar ring. I have ran into the concept before of a node having the only purpose of authenticating transactions to stop 51% attacks. Was Coinhunter simply ahead of his time and correct all along? ~BCX~ I have no intention of ever bothering Bitcoin.
wow what a fucking hero "someone in a shoutbox pissed me off, so now I am going out of my way to fuck over peoples good work"
some "community" we have.....
Yeah, funny how his shenanigans don't work on Bitcoin. I wonder why...I have way too many BTC and have been mining BTC since August of 2010, that's why.
Of course. It's a lot harder than it was when Litecoin first came out. But you just have to DDoS all the pools, which we know you are capable of. Then while people are down, you throw a few hundred EC2 instances and a few hundred GPUs at it to fork a chain.
The best defense we have is to solo mine or use p2pool. That way a DDoS won't take all the miners down and it would require more resources to try to outpace the main network.
@Bitlane You know I can and I will. @Coblee I love how everyone else is more of an expert than you on LTC and just don't have the faith. The timing of the attack will be as follows. It will take me a couple of days to coordinate the herders, test DDoS defense and build that many EC2's. Looking for this Friday or early Saturday.The attack will last for several days and after a couple of resets, I intend to drive the difficulty to all time highs, then simply quit. NMC hell all over again. No coin that has been 51% attacked has ever recovered it confidence level.~BCX~ You can search & find more. Well, pointing out vulnerabilities makes a system stronger, right? I'd much rather any critical vulnerabilities emerged sooner rather than later. The only way to really gain confidence in the system is to have people attack it, thus demonstrating resilience. This is also an important role for alt coins to play in my opinion, after all scaling up the attack by whatever factor and you have the same thing on the BTC network. So far the output of this drama: 1) some more work by dev to create a new version 2) a lot of people talking about dangers of 51% attacks and pool DDOS attacks and alerting miners to options 3) slightly higher prices for ltc Here's another question for you: when somebody with 1000 times the resources does this to bitcoin and doesn't pre-announce intentions, what is going to happen? |
|
|
|
BitcoinEXpress only wants bitcoin to exist.
No other alternative coin to bitcoin.
Same like Microsoft want to be monopoly & kill Linux.
but here bitcoin in not centralized or run by one person.
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion. Is that why there was lots of warning to the forum about the 51% attack? Is that why all this effort was made which in the end will strengthen litecoin? As an enthusiast of block chain currencies I say thank you to BitcoinEXpress. The more attacks, especially made in such a benevolant manner, the better off we become at resisting attacks and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the network. Keep up the good work! |
|
|
|
|
Only one person can ensure your health.
If you don't know who that is you better find out soon.
Hint: it's not Obama, or any other people who don't really know or care about you.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool story bro.
Outsourcing security doesn't turn out so well, more news at 11.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your answer.
However when they say it is "usually referenced" it doesn't really answer my question. What happened on that day that was written about using both calendars? Well, I found this... As Dr. Jose Arguelles writes in "Time and The Technosphere" -
"August 13, 3113 BC is as precise and accurate as one can get for a beginning of history: the first Egyptian dynasty is dated to ca 3100 BC; the first 'city,' Uruk, in Mesopotamia, also ca 3100 BC; the Hindu Kali Yuga, 3102 BC; and most interestingly, the division of time into 24 hours of 60 minutes each and each minute into 60 seconds [and the division of the circle into 360 degrees], also around 3100 BC, in Sumeria." But that really doesn't provide a good reasoning for syncing the Mayan calendar with that date. The Book Of Knowledge has this to say: According to the correlation between the Long Count and Western calendars accepted by the great majority of Maya researchers (known as the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson, or GMT, correlation), this starting-point is equivalent to August 11, 3114 BCE in the proleptic Gregorian calendar or 6 September in the Julian calendar (−3113 astronomical). The GMT correlation was chosen by John Eric Sydney Thompson in 1935 on the basis of earlier correlations by Joseph Goodman in 1905 (August 11), Juan Martínez Hernández in 1926 (August 12), and Thompson himself in 1927 (August 13). Following one of the references from that article, (specifically, #8) we find this: the zenithal passage of the sun over Copán -- the major Maya astronomical center in the mountains of western Honduras, located at precisely the same latitude as Izapa -- occurred on August 13, the day that his own correlation originally indicated the Maya had believed was the "beginning of the world," We get a good reasoning for the date, if not the year. The year correlation was apparently done via computer analysis, as found later in that same article... Sure enough, the only other time that a katun had ended on 8 Cumku was on September 13, 1675 B.C., when 1 Ahau corresponded with that date. I therefore was led to conclude that whoever had projected the time-count back into history had done so in the year 236 B.C., because this was the only time frame that would have been consistent with what we know of Maya history. So there you go. The Mayans told us the date, by telling us the date (in long count) that it was enacted. Thanks for sharing your research! Are you convinced that the synching of the two calendars is accurate? I'm sure not. A few years ago I did some research on this topic, and found that there were different researchers (you mention Goodman-Martinez-Thompson who are one set) who had different synchronizations and hence different Gregorian days for 13.0.0.0.0.0. One group said that the new long count began in fall of 2011. Each had some kind of extremely tenuous connection making the link between calendars. The "computer analysis" there seems entirely obuscatory, only intended to impress idiots. Similar to McKenna's timewave zero perhaps? Anyway, thanks again and good luck in the new long count whenever it may begin |
|
|
|
The people who make the decision to become illegal immigrants have already taken that into account. They've decided that being illegal is a better economic choice than being legal. Personally, I doubt I would ever be that courageous.
Not quite bro. The person who decides somebody's existence is illegal is an asshole. They come from a sad family with a history of mental illness. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
