Furthermore it's not like deepbit makes "that much money" doing what they do, they take a small percentage and give most to its users. There is certainly more in it for them in the medium term to take millions of dollars.
Do you even understand the threat of a 51% attack? How can they "take millions of dollars"? Please elaborate. |
|
|
|
|
I was referring to the institutionalized, "because you didn't pay a fine" type of murder. The kind you call justice.
It's ok, I realize you cannot yet acknowledge this basic fact about your preferred system. Perhaps someday you can be honest wth yourself.
Before you respond, I realize that you cannot imagine any alternatives to killing people for not following your rules. It's not your fault, it's the society in which you were raised.
|
|
|
|
Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".
And in the meantime you are expecting the guy not to misbehave... And take action when he does misbehave lol yet, here you are, giving the benefit of the doubt to deepbit but not to coinhunter lol oops, there went your argument... fool Isn't the whole argument for SC 2.0's trust model that those with significant investment will not misbehave? Operating the largest mining pool seems like a more significant investment than being handed a 1.2 million SC wallet... Logic'd |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.
So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal? Yes. Can a shark or dog respect your rights? No, they don't know any better. I believe rights can only be afforded where reciprocal behavior is possible. An arbitrary belief on your part. Show me that your belief is less arbitrary. At least mine does not justify murder. |
|
|
|
I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent  Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network. That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now). Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise". |
|
|
|
So, have these measures, regulations, treaties, etc. of yours stopped shark finning? Drug trade? Illegal downloading?
Measures, regulations, etc. have been extraordinarily successful with regard to bringing back certain species from near extinction. They've also been extraordinarily successful with regard to eradicating drugs, protecting the environment, curing disease, and bringing the world out of poverty... |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.
So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal? Yes. Can a shark or dog respect your rights? No, they don't know any better. I believe rights can only be afforded where reciprocal behavior is possible. |
|
|
|
|
Found a great quote on the 5 reasons to own SolidCoin page:
"Unlike Bitcoin's startup which ensured nearly all the currency ended up with only a handful of people. These people have since vanished and cashed out, to leave the project to stagnate with little support from early adopters."
SolidCoin solves this problem by putting nearly all the coins in the hands of one person (plus everyone who mined in the first week).
|
|
|
|
I'm asking if you support the deliberate killing of a human for the act of shark finning.
I support measures, regulations, treaties, etc. to prevent shark finning. I cannot claim to be completely aware of what jurisdictions exists where, but where the rules are clear, and individuals are caught, I support fines, and possibly arrest. Said shark finner has the opportunity to comply. I then support coercive force to get said shark finner to comply. His resistance is his choice. Since I wouldn't mourn him falling overboard into a feeding frenzy of sharks, it's unlikely that I would mourn his death if it occurred in another manner. Consider the notion of living in your libertarian land. You run a dog kennel on your property. Some guy keeps coming onto your property and cuts the paws off of your dogs because, apparently, some culture believes their foot pads to have medicinal value. After about the fifth dog maiming, he's caught on video. Next night, you catch him red handed. But he escapes. Is not escalation and death possible in this scenario? Thanks for explaining how you accept murder only if is preceded by attempted kidnapping and extortion. In this scenario, he is infringing on my property. Attempting to defend my property with the minimum required force is justified. If he escalates the use of force, I would be justified in doing rhe same. This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks. |
|
|
|
Some of the consumer protections that credit card issuers provide are desirable for certain types of transactions. Just because such consumer protections aren't commonplace with bitcoin transactions today doesn't mean that they won't be in the future. And the great thing about providing consumer protection in a bitcoin context is that you can do it without having any of the issues associated with stolen credit cards (which I would guess is responsible for the vast majority of credit card charge reversals).
Bitcoin is a solid and simple transaction construct on which many different types of transactions can be crafted. It's much more difficult to take a reversible transaction and build an irreversible construct on top of it.
With more advanced scripting accepted by the network, escrow can occur directly in the block chain, though some new partial transaction shipping protocols may be necessary. |
|
|
|
So you support the killing of humans who fin sharks?
The honest truth? Any scumbag who makes a living slicing the dorsal fins off of sharks, and then tosses the sharks back into the water to die, and does this repeatedly, without remorse, all to make a buck, does not have my sympathy. If one day, said individual fell overboard into the water amidst a feeding frenzy of sharks, I would not shed a tear. Honestly, would you? Or are you not entirely familiar with the process of shark finning? I'm asking if you support the deliberate killing of a human for the act of shark finning. I would not feel sorry for him if he died, but I do not support the deliberate use of violence, no. |
|
|
|
Until you demonstrate that your libertarian society guarantees no escalation will occur during the resolution of contract violations, lawsuits, and general property rights violations, I don't see the need to defend or refute the sad result of someone engaging in selfish, cruel, unproductive and damaging activities.
Going to take one from your playbook here... So you support the killing of humans who fin sharks? Horrible... horrible... |
|
|
|
The problem is that I don't see any new mainstream adoption occurring. What increase in demand exists to drive their price up? We have an increasing supply, but a stagnant demand. Economics 101 says the price will keep falling without something changing.
Have you heard, a few people are unhappy with the banking oligarchy! A few others are unhappy with the very concept of central, institutionalized fractional reserve banking. I think a few of them might like Bitcoin. Give it time. |
|
|
|
It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?
Is that your solution to shark finning? Kill those who engage in it? It's not mine, but to each his own, I guess. I suppose if you claim someone sneaked onto your property and cut off the legs of your dog, I could then immediately ask you if you were willing to kill the guy who did it, but I don't really see how that furthers the conversation. I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.
Rather than randomly mention hypothetical absurdities, continue with this conversation, and preferably without jumping to killing people right from the get go. A death sentence is the logical conclusion of your statist system. Man fins shark: fine. Refuses to pay fine: arrest. Resists arrest: violence. Defends against violence: death. Just because he was killed for using violence against an agent of the state doesn't change the fact that it was over the finning of a shark. Please defend or refute this conclusion. |
|
|
|
Well that is the 51% attack, and it basically means you can wake up tomorrow with zero Bitcoins in your wallet. Wrong again. 51% makes double-spends of your own coins possible. A 51% attack on Bitcoin cannot make my coins disappear. He has to know this, right? All of those "articles" on his site merely make false claims about Bitcoin in order to try to scare people into using SolidCoin. How is CoinHunter/BitcoinMedia not in violation of forum rules? |
|
|
|
R If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?
Deflection hat trick! Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint? P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own? In response to your P.S.: No, I don't see how you responded to my point. So, when you catch the shark, you're then the owner of it. What is your opinion of shark finning? It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark? I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity. |
|
|
|
If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?
Deflection hat trick! Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint? P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin scene seems to play out like a huge MMO without a single GM.
Or a wild west without guns or sheriffs.
Without potential to inflict violence ( by police, courts, army or lynching ) scams, abuses and opportunistic
stunts seem plentiful.
Curious.
I think this is a hard lesson for people so used to blindly trusting others and turning to the government when it doesn't turn out well. Use the tools available to you to determine if someone is trustworthy. If you're not sure, get assurances or don't get in further than you're willing to lose. If all that fails, learn a lesson from your mistakes? How many people are going to lose their money in online wallets before they realize that they can run Bitcoin on their own computer? |
|
|
|
I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air.
How can you "confirm" that he is rich and powerful? You actually have to know something to confirm it. |
|
|
|
At the current rate over 1 million coins will have been mined in the first day. What do you think that just did to the value of Solid Coin 1.0 coins?
Make parity with Bitcoin as it is getting inflated at quite the same rate. 7200 BTC every day being pumped in and price falling way low. Yes, that is success. Bitcoin has pretty consistently been creating 7200 coins per day, so it is factored into the price. What's the target number of coins per day created by SolidCoin? How does that compare to the actual number? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
