trusting a third party .. just like a central bank ..
your all whacked in the heads.
Edit:
- third party trust to create legit ones ... NO WAY
- wallet backup ... third party trust ... NO WAY
- a card is easy to be ripped of, confiscated by parasites, destroyed, etc, ... NO WAY
Bitcoin is meant to get rid of ALL these issues ... why on Earth would you want this?
No, Bitcoin was created so that you don't have to trust a third party if you don't want to. For something like this, it's cool enough that I have enough trust in llama to risk a few bitcoin. I keep the majority of my keys in my wallet, on my hard drive, encrypted and backed up. |
|
|
|
im aware of that
however your average joe does not need to trade on the stock market in order to use the USD
and that average joe will never get exposed to DP
but at least at this point in time if that average joe wants to get involved in BTC he is going to need to trade it and going to be exposed to DP at some time or another.
I personally have nothing against it, but people seem to be automatically against anything they dont understand (unfortunately) and DP is one of those pseudo ugly things that will make it difficult.
It is not necessary to use MtGox to exchange USD for BTC, and it will be increasing less necessary as time goes on. |
|
|
|
Wow. There are things about the world you are evidently yet to discover. Consider the legal status of the corporation.
The depth of your ignorance astounds. Consider that the legal status of the corporation was granted by the government. edit... The anarcho-capitalist libertarian and Austrian economist Murray N. Rothbard, in his Power and Market (1970), attacked limited-liability laws, but argued it was possible similar arrangements may emerge in a free market, stating, Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann's The Good Society. It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations. |
|
|
|
Wait a minute, I'm confused. You seem to be on my side then.  Maybe it's because I know that lobbies are funded by rich corporations and the like that bend the government to their will, and I am against this, whereas you think (unless I'm wrong) that the problem is that there is a government in the first place. Am I right? Without a government, there is nobody to lobby. Governments just grant privileges, tax, and use actual or threatened force against non-violent people. Every desirable function of government is better provided by private entities. That is my position. |
|
|
|
Said with the fixed-eyed certainty of the fanatic. Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power. It is ironic that those that profess to want life in a free society are nonethless happy to profit from the slavery of others. The sweat-shop worker and the endebted farmer are the victims of your so called freedom, never mind any loss of choice.
Fuck the weak, consume the poor, the Earth belongs to the Powerdful, this is the legend of the 'Libertarian'.
I love that you're afflicted with the same "fixed-eyed certainty of the fanatic" as those you criticize. Where would Walmart be without transportation costs subsidized by the government in the form of public roads and highways. It is because of statism, not in spite of it that large corporations flourish. Remember, the corporation itself is a government legal fiction. Additionally, without a taxpayer subsidized police force, entities with large amounts of capital would have to pay the full costs of securing that capital. It would be expensive to be wealthy. |
|
|
|
What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors. This is a good read. The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted. Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer). In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition. The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings. Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26) The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28) |
|
|
|
well that makes no sense because he could have used the matter transporter to get to pairs, and back, and wouldn't be jet-lagged.
I'm thinking it's time-lag from the time machine. It's not June yet so OUR Gavin hasn't even visited the CIA. This impostor must be from the future! |
|
|
|
At this point I do not trade at a level where I would really use DP, but it does not look good to people who do not understand it, and when it comes to trying to win over the public on this whole bitcoin thing DP is going to make it more difficult.
I have read several bad press items reviewing bitcoin in a unfavorable way, they were all incorrect and misinformed, but features like dark pool trading make the whole thing even less easy to swallow by your average joe.
Dark pools are not something unique to Bitcoin. http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/18/dark-pools-trading-intelligent-investing-exchanges.html |
|
|
|
Too bad there isn't a Clinton Jr. that can come back in office to undo what Bush Jr. did.
You mean like Obama?  |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't reset, it is adjusted based on the time taken to find the past 2016 blocks. If that time is less than two weeks, the difficulty increases; more than two weeks, it decreases. It can only increase or decrease by a factor of 4. There seems to be a correlation between exchange rate and difficulty - as the exchange rate increases, mining becomes more profitable so more people mine, which increases difficulty.
|
|
|
|
Normally I get unconfirmed + confirmed = total (estimated is ignored) and right at the moment mine adds up that way. However I've noticed around the time a block is solved it takes a while for some things to get added and you can get some odd results. Wait until a round has been in progress 10 mins or more and then check again and see how it looks.
You're right, estimated reward is not included in total reward. |
|
|
|
|
Estimated reward: based on your current share submission rate, what will (probably) be your slice of the next 50 BTC pie?
Unconfirmed reward: you only get your reward after 120 blocks, these are the ones that are less than that age
Confirmed reward: rewards older than 120 blocks
Total reward: sum of all of the above
|
|
|
|
|
I spent my first Bitbill last night. I went to see Thor (meh) with another voluntaryist friend of mine, and he paid for popcorn and drinks, so I paid him back with a 1 BTC Bitbill. He's been thinking about dipping his toes in the shallow end of the bitcoin pool for a while, so I figured it would be a good opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on my phone so this reply will be terse, but there are two important critiques of the view expressed above.
1) Were these trusts providing better service at a lower cost than their competitors? Ultimately, that is the most important question.
2) Were their monopoly positions sustainable? That is, absent government intervention, wouldn't the ability of smaller competitors to more easily adapt to new markets and technologies allow them to efficiently compete with the trusts?
|
|
|
|
Hey, I said reasonable (in the sense that it would have the most benefit and least detriment), not likely to happen! |
|
|
|
|
Here's my position, which I find to be the most reasonable of the methods by which to cut government spending:
Start cutting benefits for the rich, and taxes for the poor, and work your way to the middle.
|
|
|
|
For those who have difficulty converting units... MHash/sec * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 1 THash/1000000 Mhash = THash/hour All the numerator units except THash cancel, and all the denominator units except hour cancel. Btw, someone should throw this up on a website to calculate all this stuff. Exchange rate and difficulty could probably be filled in automatically with a couple of calls to BlockExplorer and MtGox. What is the subsidy variable you added intended to be? Subsidy is another name for the block reward. I prefer the term subsidy because it implies that it is a temporary measure while the network is smaller and transaction fees are not a sufficient enticement for mining. |
|
|
|
|
How would they do so? In order for the block subsidy to stay 50 BTC forever (the simplest way of making Bitcoin permanently inflationary), a majority of users must adopt the client with the updated rules. There's easy way for a single or small group of individuals to change the rules at their discretion. In the future, this might be possible with the prevalence of headers only or even thinner client software, but I believe such drastic unilateral changes can be guarded against.
|
|
|
|
I am against dark pools. If we are to have a true an open exchange all price data should be immediately available to all market participants. No backroom deals!
+1, magicaltux? There's nothing wrong with dark pools. If you are willing to buy, but do not advertise that fact, you are "withholding price data". If there were no dark pools, large traders would use bots instead, and that price data would still not be available. I think a better solution is to use "iceberg orders" instead of dark pools. There has been some discussion about this in the past on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
It's not waste, it's securing the network. Is computing for SETI a waste? What about any other project that doesn't render something useful?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
