Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2023, 10:47:09 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 25.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
1  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: DirectBet Ice Hockey Prediction Game *** Win Free Bets ! *** Free to Enter ! on: February 09, 2017, 11:40:39 PM
Nashville Predators 1 @ 2 New York Rangers
2  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: DirectBet American Football Prediction Game ! Win Free Bets ! Free to Enter ! on: February 05, 2017, 10:19:51 PM
New England Patriots 30 @ 26 Atlanta Falcons
3  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: BitMarket.Eu - Paypal no longer supported! on: August 25, 2011, 02:53:14 PM
Once the offers are matched, both the seller and the buyer receive emails from admin at bitmarket dot eu asking them to contact each other, so you can be sure he got the message unless our email address is in his spam filter.

We can't allow anyone to cancel their offers manually after the transaction took place, because this way the buyer would have no warranty that they will get their coins in case the seller was going to cheat. You need to email us if you need the transaction cancelled and then we resolve it. I know it's not ideal, but that's the way it is for now.

We are working out the legal issues and once we have everything sorted we will allow transferring money into the exchange, so that the transactions within the exchange are instant. No point in allowing that now and then shutting the exchange down after some tax officer gets onto us. We want to do this right. Also, once we have the legal end of it sorted we are going (more than likely) to act as a limited company with proper terms and conditions so that everyone knows where their money is going.

I was thinking a messaging system within the exchange, but then again, the guy may say he never logged in to read the message so this doesn't really solve the issue.

4  Economy / Marketplace / Re: Buy shares NOT on: August 25, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Until i complete 1st rig to successfully mine, i can't go for 2nd rig.
If you thought share profit is also like price of bitcoins, which increases some 10000 times in weeks, its not.
I am doing as much as i can with calculated risk not to spoil anything.
So, it will be some what slower & also whatever i do, the increase in difficulty will definitely reduce the profit in terms of bitcoins.
But in terms of fiat currency, the profit you get will only increase & won't decrease.

If you are in rush & want to make quick money as bitcoin rate increases many times, i can't help you.
Instead of buying shares, you better sell your coins & make quick money.

I can only give slow, but steady profit in terms of bitcoins. But in terms of fiat currency, you calculate yourself.
Once, i get cables i ordered, i will be able to mine with 8 cards.
Also, before that i have to get new electric line, since so far i used domestic line, electrician told, the watt consume meter won't withstand load of more than 4000W.
I hope, with 1st rig in full mining capacity , the meter will start wobbling, so i have to go for industrial or commercial electric supply.
For that, i have to deposit & get a new line & here everything is slow & corrupted will take time or need high bribe.
I cant go for high bribe with my SH money, so have to wait, but will do as much as i can.
Don't worry about power tariff, i already told 6 INR per kilowatt hour, ie, i get ~7 kilowatt hour per USD.
This is commercial tariff only & it is the maximum price. So, if i go Industrial, i will actually get less bill.

Instead of others, they just start anything & go sky high in less time, i always face problems from starting itself & always will move forward by solving problems. So, i won't fall that easily as i don't go sky high & also i can't go below earth.
It is my both curse & gift.

5  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: August 25, 2011, 02:51:16 PM
Since RBE is not communism, that just means that is going to be easier to become self-sufficient because of the robots. I like that, But...
I think cultural/technological advancements will also allow more specialization and division of labor, which is all that money is about.
I was worried about people thinking that the prohibition of money would be great and such. That's why I labeled RBE with communism.
If you think that money will disappear on its own, you just have to wait for it to be useless.

That's my point. Talking about the "elimination of money" is just detrimental at this point, because it feeds projections and hell-like scenarios by people who don't get the steps before that.

Rather, let's concentrate on what is relevant: the view of the world as a single system and the human species as a single family and recognizes that all countries must disarm and learn to share resources and ideas if we expect to survive in the long run. Hence, the solutions arrived at and promoted are in the interest to help everyone on the planet Earth, not a select group.

I like to quote Carl Sagan on this: The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and to rabid nationalism are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet.

The money thing is just a natural consequence of that, not particularly relevant at this point.

It's not money, it's the system based on profit and competition.

Forgive me, but I know you'll ask me to elaborate on that, so I'm posting a fairly long article to explain what I mean.

In the modern day, there is a great deal of public criticism in regard to “abuse” within the financial system. Toxic derivatives, CEO Bonuses, Madoff pyramid schemes, Goldman Sachs fraud, etc.. These near-constant occurrences are traditionally considered “anomalies” within the current order, tossed on to the front pages of our papers as though we should be surprised by these realities. What you don’t see on the cover of newspapers in regard to such “corruption” are those actions which are, in principle, equally as corrupt – but have been accepted as “normal” under the guises of “marketing strategy” and the “competitive nature” of the marketplace. These include various forms of dishonestly, such as the deliberate withholding of efficiency of a given good for the sake of reducing it’s “cost basis”, to the protectionist tendency of any company to preserve itself, regardless of social function or the advent of innovations which might inhibit a currently profitable practice.

It is important to point out that the motivations, and hence actions, of any human being within a society can only be a consequence of that society’s influence. Stealing, for example, is not a “genetic” trait. It is the product of a culture. Human motivation is complex and the study of human behavior should be at the forefront of criminology, with all relevant attributes of the social system considered as a possible cause. It is no revelation of human psychology, and hence sociology, that if a certain act does not offer a proper reward, then naturally there will be little motivation to carry out such an action. Likewise, if personal gain/reward can be attained through what society even condemns as an “unlawful action”, that distinction truly changes nothing if there is a level of desperation within a given person to require whatever that action may be.

Now, historically, the public assumes that certain actions are “moral” and others are not. Lying, for example, is considered “amoral”, both by common religious and legal codes. But what exactly are they referring to? What level of lying is “real”? The fact is, every single act of monetary gain is based on a form of dishonesty, only this dishonestly is simply re-termed as “competitive”. In the marketing world, everything is driven by “advantage”. The “competitive edge” is nothing more than a passive corruption where competing companies seek to “out do” each other in whatever way they can for the sake of market share. The very act of seeking differential advantage is to be engaged in the abuse of another person or group. Regardless, our social system at large chooses to collar this understanding and instead imposes punitive reactions to what the system defines as “socially offensive behavior” (or crime) while, in fact, ignoring the root causes of most of these so-called “criminal” actions – along with overlooking the other “accepted” forms of dishonesty present.

As an aside, the resolution of “offensive” human behavior can only come from an adjustment of the social system. There is no such thing as a “criminal”, as we are all products, and hence the victims, of the culture in which we are born into.

Now, before we begin, there is one more thing I would like to hesitantly point out. Criticism of the current financial order, and hence the profit problem, does not automatically mean the person presenting such a challenge is a “Marxist” or a “Communist”. Yes, the preceding statement is likely comical to those who are accustomed to thinking critically, but sadly, I need to point this out, for we can rest assured that a great number of people reading this article will simply try to find a way to reduce it to “Marxist Nonsense” – a thoughtless, capitalist catchphrase I have grown quite bored with. One of the greatest forms of imposed inhibition comes from creating associations that have been traditionally defined as “disproven”, “discredited” or the like. This is an age-old propaganda tactic to create uncomfortable, inconvenient and controversial associations in order to derail critical thought about specific “taboo” issues. Like a religion, the monetary system and the “theology” of the “free market”, is no exception. The high priests of our current economic model naturally come in the form of “monetary economists” which work in a field that is provably decoupled from any type of natural scientific order in regard to what actually sustains human life on this planet – which are natural resources and the scientific method. The only viable economic model that can possibly exist in any civilization must be explicitly based on resource management and preservation. The market system that currently exists in the world today is an utter failure in this regard and, in fact, works in a reverse capacity – perpetuating exploitation, pollution, and psychological neuroses.

Here are six problematic attributes of the market system:

1. A “Corruption Generating” Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, slave labor and many other issues. Well over 90% of the people in prisons are there because of monetary-related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes. Also, if one is to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others, it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products. In a sustainable society, human motivation would be driven by contributions to society, and hence ‘themselves’ – not abstractly “making money”. The system would be designed to best facilitate the needs of the population directly. Yes, this is that dangerous phenomenon we hear so much about, with the image of blood engulfing the planet Earth, denoted as “socialistic”. God forbid society might actually be ‘designed’ to benefit the people which live inside of it. The fact of the matter is, the profit motive incentive, and hence our competition oriented system, is entirely “anti-society”. It is a pure corruption. The entire point of a social organization is to facilitate and perpetuate the well-being of its citizenry. In society today, the exact opposite is true. People are told they must “earn a living”, which perpetuates a form of superstition that only certain people deserve the “right of life” and others do not.

2. The need for infinite growth. Infinite economic growth is not only mathematically unsustainable, but it is ecologically detrimental. While people can debate the theoretical nature of “capitalism” and how it is “supposed” to function, one thing is historically clear. It perpetuates/requires constant growth and consumption. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet, but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and “economic growth”. In order to keep people employed, people must constantly buy and consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility and basic necessity. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources. In a sustainable society, a “steady-state” economy would be in order. This would mean that there is no pressure to consume, as labor is not linked into the feedback loop. While it is very difficult for most people today to imagine a world which does not impose the need for “labor for income”, it needs to be pointed out that the constant requirement for labor is nothing but detrimental in the modern day, especially in light of the growing efficiency of mechanization of labor across developed nations.

3. A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe, than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US, bottled water from Fuji, Japan, while western companies will go to the 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc.. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This is extreme inefficiency and only justifiable within the market system for the sake of “saving money”.

In a sustainable society, the focus would be maximum efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor when compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the *best possible goods. (*see more below) In other words, the system is planned to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.

4. A propensity for “Establishments”. Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self-perpetuation. If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well-being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a “competition” mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level – which is the competition against new advents which would make them outright obsolete. The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and ‘Big Oil’ collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called “Who Killed the Electric Car?”. The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well-being of those on the payroll, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( i.e. the perpetuation of “Hybrid” cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced drugs which would void existing/profitable ones.

In a sustainable society, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything, once it has been tested thoroughly. There could be no “Established Institutions”. New methods would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving nature.

5. An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay “competitive”. This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production, and hence stay “competitive” against another company which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers “create the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices” is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading. It is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the productions of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis. They very simply cannot make the “strategically best”, physically – it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it, for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember: People buy what they can afford. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand.

In a sustainable society, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design and recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste. You will notice the term “strategic best” was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources and with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into account all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retro-actions and the like. In other words, we would not use TITANIUM for every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the empirically “strongest” materials for the job. That practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be assessed through analysis of, again, relevant attributes such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be assessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time.

6. The market system is driven, in part, by scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world’s people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits. Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (like a loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn’t even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed. While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued (and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of “running out”), the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity-driven-based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never “run out” of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporation who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True preservation, which must be strategic, can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient applications of the resource in industry itself; not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.

6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? on: August 23, 2011, 11:23:38 PM
Satoshi definitely saw this as a strike against the malignant forces that national fiat currencies and the parasitic monetary/finance system has become.

Enslaving us all in unpayable debts and endless taxation for wars and bankster bonuses ... it is now a criminal system that will go down in history and those at top aren't doing squat to change it, except personal enrichment. (Oh but we are chasing bad guys playing poker online, trading goldbits and smoking weed on their couches ... whatta a load of BS).

7  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Pandora's Bitcoin Junction (Shareholders wanted) on: August 23, 2011, 11:22:59 PM
This is a very disappointing response. If you are serious about floating your company then you must understand that right now, you have issued 45,000 shares, and sold 724 of them, meaning you own 44,776 shares. You could offer these for sale whenever you like for 0.0001 btc or 1 btc. No one knows unless you say. You are in complete control of the price, not the market.

So I ask again, how many of these shares are you going to sell and for what price? If you can't answer this simple question, you obviously don't know what you're doing when it comes to offering a business or investment opportunity.

As a potential shareholder, I would ask for a commitment that you don't lower the price below 0.109 for the unsold shares. Either that, or you commit to a smaller IPO sale (say 5,000 shares) at 0.109 and keep the rest in reserve. IMO, you should try to sell enough so that you can operate the business with an initial cash injection, and only issue more when you have a business case to increase the value of the company, for example to buy more equipment. By then, you should be able to demonstrate the ability to derive profit and so be able to issue the shares at a higher price preserving initial shareholder value. Even then, you should put it to a shareholder vote.

I don't want to sound to lecture-y, but this is what I expect as a shareholder. Good luck with your IPO and with your business.

8  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: 331Mh/s or: Why I Love My 5830 on: August 21, 2011, 09:58:41 AM
Man you guys make me want to crank it up on my 5830. I get 225 on stock and 270 when I push it to 900Mhz via CCC. Tried MSi AfterBurner but what annoyed me about that is you need to keep moving the slider down and then saving then repeating that step to get the memory down to 300Mhz. It also gave me my first set of blue screens even though I never pushed it so much. TRIXX is way better as I can move the sliders in one go to all the extremes and then revert back when i am using the system for regular stuff (but still mining at stock!) Now all I need is the courage to do it!

I've two 5830's (Sapphire Xtreme) togethter with two 5870 all on stock voltages

It is a bit strange becaues I can run the first card (Device0) only at about 970 core and 300mhz Memory but the Second one on over 1020 Core 300Memory stable

Im using Ubuntu 11.04 and all over ssh, when a card fails mostly phoenix hangs up but the other card continue hashing

i've tried setting aggression on device 0 lower ( but it didnt help much

When i set aggression over 10 on any card and want to stop hashing (by killing the screen sessions for that gpu) it freezes the whole machine sometimes.

my best worksize settings have been for windows 128 and for linux 256

When i get to the machine the next time i will change the positions of the two 5830 to find out if I have the problem with Device0 or with the Card itself

But all Cards together are hashing at about 1600mhashes wich is fine for me rigth now  (first 5830 @ 315 (970,300) second @ 335 (1020,300) and the 5870's @ ~460 (990,300)

9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Bitcoin Show on on: August 20, 2011, 02:05:56 PM
I'm looking for insights to the problem posed. Any time you propose going full tilt gold standard, backing gold by BTC, BTC by gold, USD by BTC etc. etc. it's just putting up an abstraction that doesn't actually solve the problem. These all fall in the "you have proposed a solution to spam, here is why it won't work" category. We need to think about this ahead of time, it'll all work out in the end is not a good answer. A few decades of chaos is not a good answer either.

BTW, I think the meaning of inflation/deflation is clear from the given context, at least I'm ok with both the 'proper' use of inflation meaning increase in supply of the currency as well as with the 'common' use of increase of prices of goods priced in said currency (which equals devaluation of the currency, which describes the result of said increase in supply).

10  Other / Off-topic / Re: Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers on: August 20, 2011, 02:02:28 PM
In my opinion, only simple bartering remains the solution to all currency issues.  It places importance primarily on the process of exchange, not on the products or a currency and thus facilitates healthy person-to-person communication.  I think civilization had it right to begin with and then currency came along and jacked the whole thing up (e.g. paper money is not important to me, but it's important to everyone else, so THEN it becomes important to me and displaces my values.  Bitcoin is no different).

And, it is also my opinion that the theory behind Bitcoin isn't that brilliant.  The brilliance came from putting the pieces together (i.e. taking the theory, creating a mathematical analogue of it, representing that analogue in a computer program, and marketing it) and having the motivation to actually do it without knowing if it would catch on.  I, along with many of you, also have many brilliant ideas but we simply don't try to fulfill them to their ends because we think they might fail.  If they fail, it's a waste of our damn time.  And I have objections to Bitcoin because I think it is weak in theory, but strong enough to 1.) Be better than traditional fiat currencies and 2.) Gain the respect of a significant number of people.  It's a currency for the at-least moderately wealthy and computer literate.  It is not a currency for the poor or the uneducated (I use uneducated in a very general sense here to represent those who will have trouble understanding it and would need to dedicate a very significant amount of time to do so).

11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The mysterious bitcoin flower opens once a day and reveals a free bitcoin on: August 20, 2011, 02:01:22 PM
Wonderful idea. I like the fun aspect of it.

I thought of something similar a while back. Might take a fair bit of coding though. It might be called The Mandelpot. It's like a treasure hunt for pots of gold (acctualy bitcoin prizes), randomly distibuted through an online rendering of the mandelbrot set. You would have to zoom in a bit to find the smaller bitcoin 'pots of gold' and explore the set even more carefully to find biger prizes. The colective prize money would replaced regularly as it is won, but randomly split so that the smaller chunks appear closer to 1:1 scale (say at a minimum of 100:1 for 100 satoshis), while a larger chunk would be calculated to be hiden deeper (say 1,000,000:1 for a 0.1 bitcoin prize). You can explore the set for as long as you please, but when you login you agree to have your GPU/CPU harvested for some machine cycles to generate bitcoin. So it's actualy a casual bitcoin mining farm also. While you are exploring you might notice various sponsorship ads swimming into view amidst the sweeping tendrills of the mandelbrot set. Also some of the pots might have a generous vouchers of genuine discount/gifts/introductory offers from the sponsors, rather than straight out bitcoin prizes.

I think this could be made so that bots have no better chance of finding the pots than the humans, but as long as they are there, they too have to contribute machine cycles to play, so they would contribute to the prize pool as much as (or more than) they are harvesting from it. The more hashing power you have the more quickly you can zoom, scroll, render and such, so it should possible to ballance the odds if done properly.

If somebody wants to code this up, I'd likely to be quite willing to put a reasonable sum of bitcoin in to help launch it. What would the coding for something like that be worth?

12  Economy / Economics / Re: Freicoin: decreasing fees by charging demurrage on: August 20, 2011, 02:00:16 PM
Demurrage would seem to discourage Merchants joining on freicoin/bitcoin.  With fees, you get what you charged for.  With demurrage I see destroying money that people own, have earned, and have every right to spend, and give it to whoever they want. (This is an idea of bitcoin representing value owned.  A very attractive idea to me.) For what? To avoid an honest Supply/Demand economy in bitmining?

The concept of people leaving the bitmining pool and joining thus creating a raise and drop in prices is really simple supply and demand economy.  This is free market at it's finest and simplest.

I feel strongly about the apple scenario.  Somebody answered the question 'Why buy an apple today when tomorrow you can buy two?' with 'Because your hungry.'  Which is exactly the point of it!  With the deflating dollar I need to buy a dozen apples today to retain my dozen apple value that I received in pay for my hard work, even though I won't be able to trade those apples for a car I may need in the future.  So I have to stop purchasing so many apples and save money at a rate that exceeds the rate of inflation, when in fact if I had saved my money and only bought apples when I was hungry I could have purchased the car sooner and replaced the vehicle more often, and all parties involved would benefit.  The apple seller would be getting an increasingly valuable currency for his apple, the car dealer as well for his cars.

13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Conference 2011 NYC on: August 20, 2011, 01:59:16 PM
It's not that BitCoin is unreliable, it's that it is still a currency in its infancy.  It cannot be used to value things on its own, yet.  No matter how much Bruce would like to have a set price in BTC that stays from the start of ticket sales to the end, it won't change the fact that there is still a good deal of volatility in the value of bitcoins.  Volatility = a huge amount of risk when you are talking about playing with money you are borrowing (which is essentially what is happening when you accept payments up front for expenses in the future).

You keep saying how Bruce has malicious intentions to mislead and speculate, when that simply isn't true.  Now, you seem to have backed down to a statement regarding the volatility of Bitcoins, which I think everyone here can agree with.  Just don't blame Bruce for Bitcoin's volatility.

And yes, I agree, the media probably will latch on to the fact that most things for the conference are being paid for in USD.  So?  Is there anything that could be done about that?  Not really...

14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [If tx limit is removed] Disturbingly low future difficulty equilibrium on: August 19, 2011, 01:47:54 PM
It doesn't make sense as long as people still follow the rule of "build off of whichever version of a block you see first", but if some people stop doing that then some possibilities open up.

Imaging the slow version was offering the finder of the bock who built on top of it 1BTC. Why not switch over once you get the slow block? This could move the slow blocks chance of staying from 5% to 50% if half of miners were looking for this and it would be well worth it to pay that 1BTC.

Once something like this is in place you have the option of working on the current block which has very few fees in it or redoing the previous block to get all those fees and paying people to work on yours instead. If the offering you'll need to pay (just enough to outbid the other finder) is less than the extra fees then this is what you do.

I don't think people will keep working on old blocks and waste a ton of work, I think an equilibrium fee of about half the average fees in a block will emerge. At half there is no incentive to work on an old block because you'll have to pay more than half to outbid the other guy who is making the standard offering.

I think this is cool because your tx fee would now indirectly go to pay for more and more work getting piled on instead of just the one block of work as it is now.

15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Bitcoin Show on on: August 19, 2011, 01:47:17 PM
The part that pushed my button so much was his comment that I accept bitcoins because I am selling mining gear.
The exact opposite is true. I am selling mining gear because I accept bitcoins.

I accept bitcoins for deeply rooted philosophical reasons.

I first read about the concept of online digital cash in the late 90's and was enthralled by the idea.
I had been waiting for the last decade for it to come along, and now that bitcoins are here,  I can hardly sleep.
I spend just about every waking moment promoting them in every way I can.  
I'm positive bitcoins are going to change the world for the better, and I want to be a part of that.
I don't care at all about selling mining gear,  and I can't think of something more insulting to me than having my devotion to bitcoin being downplayed.

I'm currently working on another project that I think will be the biggest news yet for the bitcoin community.
It's not for sure yet,  but I hope to be able to make an announcement about it at the end of this week.  (Hopefully on Bruce's show)

"Thank you" to all the forum members who helped make the above projects possible.
Keep your fingers crossed!

16  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: IBB - Islamic Bank of Bitcoin بنك بتكوين الاسلامي on: August 19, 2011, 01:42:41 PM
I have not reviewed the entire Jak concept but a cursory glance at it makes sense. The longer a member has had a savings deposit with the bank the more available loan credits they are entitled to. Is this the general premise? I will review the entire concept a little later but it looks promising.

I have been thinking of another way to encourage loan repayment and community/bank participation and subsequent trust reward but I have to think it through a bit more before I post it here.

@senbonzakura I can send 3 BTC now of my conditional 10 BTC pledge if you would like. I would just consider it lending you 3 BTC for the moment at 0% interest until you get the shares/etc worked out and convert it into shares. You can use it for expenditures as needed and if the project dies I will accept a shared loss. If you have another proposal I am open to it.

If you want me to send 3 BTC now please post an address I should send to publicly here on this thread to make such transaction transparent.

17  Other / Meta / Re: Why is this forum considered terrible by our development overlords? on: August 18, 2011, 01:07:24 AM
It's not just the ideology which is a deterrent, it's also the "fuck you, got mine" attitude which characterises so many threads dealing with BTC-related issues.  Deleted your wallet?  You're not l33t enough to be trusted with the protocol.  Had your account hacked?  You should have used better passwords.  Unable to access your money?  You should have picked a different exchange.

You're not going to get merchants flocking to add BTC as a payment method while such attitudes are common and highly visible.  Merchants want to know that if they have a problem with using BTC, support will be available at a similar level to which it's currently offered by their existing payment platforms and this forum does nothing to create the impression that it will be.

18  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: 3% faster mining with phoenix+phatk for everyone on: August 16, 2011, 02:35:56 PM
Just tossing my confirmations out there:

Sapphire 5830s:

Pair 1:  264 Mhash/sec -> 271 Mhash/sec (each) at 875 MHz GPU, 900 MHz RAM (2.58% increase)
Pair 2:  273 Mhash/sec -> 281 Mhash/sec (each) at 900 MHz GPU, 600 MHz RAM (2.84% increase)

I'm also tracking Rejected shares.

Before Patch:
Pair 1:  ~2.6% rejects (after 800+ shares)
Pair 2:  ~3.2% rejects (after 800+ shares)

After Patch:
Pair 1:  ~3.0% rejects (after 650+ shares)
Pair 2:  ~4.0% (after 750+ shares)

So, the increase appears to also cause additional rejects that should be discounted from total increase gain, cutting it down a full 1% in my case.

19  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: LinuxCoin A lightweight Debian based OS with everything ready to go. on: August 15, 2011, 01:39:24 AM
've tried phoenix and poclbm

right out of the box and stock the 3 cards are doing 260mhps with BFI_INT VECTORS WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12
If i set the first card to those flags it cranks the cpu to 100%.  This ends up reducing the performance of the other workers.
So I set the aggression down to 8 on the first card but now I can only get 150MHPS!!  What gives?
Currently I have to run the first card at 150mphs while the other 3 are running 260 completely stock.

I've tried all different flags, both kernels and the only way these cards do anything decent is with aggression=12
how can I run my primary card at aggression=12 without lagging the cpu?
I would love some advice on the issue, it may even be worth a tip, who knows.....

I will be sending a donation for the efforts put into linuxcoin, anyway.  Truely a great build.  Needs a little fine tuning/documentation but can get anyone who HAS A CLUE up and running in minutes.

Other than that this is my 2nd linuxcoin rig.  first one is 4x 5830's.  Worked flawlessy in minutes (maybe an hour)
whoever says getting linuxcoin to run is hard, obviously is not even familiar enough with windows, so probably should dodge linux altogether.....
that is coming from an avid windows users and a linux novice.  what parts are you guys having so much trouble with.  An easy windows tool to delete the partition and make a small first partition is EASEUS Partition Manager.  It is completely free for home use.  GPARTED is also another great program, just boot from the disc and make your two partitions.

20  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Maximum role of Government? on: August 15, 2011, 01:37:35 AM
Okay. I'll follow this line of reasoning just for kicks and giggles. Let's say that no one individual owns the road exclusively. So what? That means now everyone shares a partial ownership in the road, or "easement". Again, so what? That would basically mean the road is part-owned by everyone, right? I'm not sure what portion or in what way each individual would make his "rightful claim" but then it would just be a matter of sorting things out I would think. If you can't sort it out, it would basically fall into the category of homesteadable unclaimed land. There isn't an owner, so why not you, or me, or that "other" guy over there, who might want to make a business out of toll road fees. No one should complain that the road was "staked and claimed". You didn't step up and make a claim to it, so why not the guy who's interested in doing something with it? Or in other words, no one owns it and we just use it as we deem fit until things change. Notwithstanding, this temporary state of "unownership" could not demand forceful intervention for maintenance purposes (or any other similar coercive purpose). That would imply a condition of ownership. You either own it and defend it against trespass, or it remains commonly utilized by all -no more owned than the stars in the sky could be appropriated.

Obviously, no one has a specific right to travel on another man's property without permission. This would be trespass. He may attempt to travel on un-homesteaded land, but that would be the only right he would have, and even then, it would only be temporary until someone wanted to own it. Then he couldn't arbitrarily traverse it, because he didn't acquire it first, and make it exclusive to himself or his assigns. Let's not get caught up in all of the vague verbiage (government, state, "unorganized public"). This merely clouds the issue. And here's why.

If the "unorganized public" wants to fix/improve/reroute the road they apparently jointly own, then they, and only they could expend their effort, money, assets, resources and other what-have-you to improve this "easement" of their own free will. They could not of a natural right, force, expropriate, tax, extort, coerce (I think you get my drift here) from others to achieve this end. If others travel on your road, then they must get permission to use it. If you improve the road, but still not claim it as your own, you shouldn't be upset if others travel on it. You improved it out of the charity of your heart I guess.

Is this a little more clear? We don't need lawyers and legislators making definitions as to what a "highway" or "road" or "easement" is, but we should merely examine who is the rightful owner of such things. I'm trying to keep things simple here. John Locke said, the appearance of property has the distinction of labor mixed with something in Nature. It had to appear to be changed from its natural state when man intervened. If that's the case, I want to see who owns the deed or title, and if there is none, I'll take it.

Last but not least, if the government doesn't own it, then why are they forcing me to pay for its construction, maintenance and improvement?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!