Oh yeah, this was on testnet.  |
|
|
|
While we're at it, let's just attach arbitrary data to the transaction.
You already can, and Gavin has proposed testing a new transaction type (<bytes> OP_DROP OP_DROP ...) that would also do just that. This is a single, optional, what... variable sized integer? I don't see a problem, and it could be very useful. Services like MyBitcoin could use it to ensure people don't send money back to the wrong address. I just got bit by something similar on testnet. I generated a bunch of coins, then sent them to BitcoinJ's PingService example, which accepts coins and returns them to the first input's address. I think it sent them back to one of the generated addresses, and now I don't see it in my wallet. |
|
|
|
|
There could be a field in the transaction header, an index to a specific input, that when optionally set indicated to the receiver which address funds should be returned to if necessary.
When sending, it could be in an "advanced options" dialog.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, I've had that happen a few times. Probably because I was switching between wallets so running with -rescan all the time.
|
|
|
|
Doesn't matter.
He encouraged people/hackers to attack a rival exchange. That is enough. This is far from honest business.
I agree, but technically, there is nothing fraudulent about it. He was quite open with his support for the DoS. |
|
|
|
|
I agree, I think that's a fantastic idea. Maybe they could get like, Neal Patrick Harris to read the recorded advertisement.
|
|
|
|
|
You may not need to use -rescan anymore. As of the latest version (0.3.21, I think) the client stores the index of the last scanned block in the wallet. Once the client starts (or is it before?), it will automatically rescan all block after the stored index, finding any transactions not already in the wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
The kittens are safe for another hundred views!
I just added a few more example questions, since it appears that's what we need now.
"Why is the exchange rate so volatile? Will prices in Bitcoin ever stabilize?"
"Are Bitcoin transactions anonymous? How can someone link my identity to information in the block chain?"
"Doesn't Bitcoin favor early adopters, since they were able to spend comparatively fewer resources to gain a significantly larger reward?"
"Is Bitcoin a pyramid or ponzi scheme?"
|
|
|
|
|
I think it will be some time before any government tries to outright ban the use of Bitcoin, if at all. By the time that happens, I think it will have little effect, just as attempts to prevent use of bittorrent have had little effect.
|
|
|
|
I believe Mr. Rothbard argues that there are two things which must be forbidden in a libertarian, natural rights, property-rights theory: theft and implicit theft. Again, "...the defendant stole the former’s creation by reproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else’s contract with the original seller." Carol is an implicit thief. I don't think this logic applies in the case of intellectual property. When possessing stolen goods, you are depriving the rightful owner of their use. When possessing non-contractually copied information, you are not depriving the rightful owner of their use, but rather his claim to control their use. If it is to apply, I feel it must be shown that such deprivation is equivalent in harm, and thus that one does have a right to control the use of such information. |
|
|
|
|
To be fair, the things he derides in this article aren't p2p currencies, but a sort of dollar backed digital script issued by private organizations.
I'm sure he'd shit a brick over Bitcoin though.
|
|
|
|
In other words, a contract between two parties isn't automatically binding on a third party. Once the cat is out of the bag, there is no putting it back in. This is the point I was trying to make. Only to the extent that you do not bypass the contract by illegally entering my property or handling physical property, such as a book, which does not belong to you. I agree with this. For instance, earlier in the thread someone spoke of using binoculars to examine the material. This would be fine, assuming a copyright owner would be so foolish as to let the book lie open in plain sight.
But even taking the book of the shelf in a library would be wrong unless you first have permission to do so. And again such permission will not be forthcoming unless you agree to the contract. I have to disagree, the library would have a contract with authors allowing loaning of their books out to library members, perhaps in exchange for having membership rules against copying. If a member copies a book, he is breaching of the rules of his membership, but not any contract with the author. If an author believes a library is not enforcing the rule, he can sue the library for breach of contract or just invalidate it altogether. At least, that's one idea of how a library could work without intellectual property laws. |
|
|
|
|
I think what matters more than whether monetary inflation or deflation is occurring is whether it is predictable. If so, businesses and investors can include it in their calculations to more accurately determine profitability. Otherwise, they will follow the false signals created by artificial pressure on the supply of money and malinvestments occur.
|
|
|
|
|
It is free from arbitrary or unknown inflation forever. That is, if you define "Bitcoin" as the current set of rules in place, everyone will always know what the inflation rate is at any time. This allows entrepreneurs and investors to accurately take into effect the cost of inflation when determining profitability.
|
|
|
|
This is one of my favorite quotes from the article. A core function of government since the beginnings of civilization has been to provide legal tender. Or, you know, since 1862. |
|
|
|
How does the hit-man accept the award without implicating himself or tipping off the target?
Everybody that places a bet includes a payment address. The winning bet has the pool amount sent to the associated address. The hit-man could place a bet last minute, or in advance. Presumably he knows best the time at which the target will die. |
|
|
|
|
That argument assumes that individuals have a right to control the use of their ideas through the use of physical force.
Why is this so?
If it is merely voluntary - by contract - then bypassing the contract and obtaining the information through alternative channels is not morally wrong.
|
|
|
|
It also sounds like a great way for an ex-wife to get revenge. Or anyone who doesn't like you, for that matter.
People will kill for very little if they are good at it and there are no consequences. I would hate to live in such a society - I would always be living in fear.
Your example of government officials sounds all dandy, but it could just as easily be used against you. Someone gives a bloke on the street $50 to cap you in the head, and you'd probably never even see it coming.
All of what you say are concerns regardless of an assassination market. It could just as easily happen that your ex-wife or guy that doesn't like you gives a crack head $50 to kill you... An assassination market is really only useful as tool for a bunch of people to contribute a little bit toward the untimely demise of a widely dislike figure. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
