Can you fix the SatoshiDICE software to stop generating a ton of tiny outputs, in the event of a loss? One of the long term drains on resources is tracking unspent coins -- and SD creates 0.00000001 outputs for losing bets. We have to individually track each one of those outputs until it is spent. Of course, it is difficult for users to find ways to spend 0.00000001 BTC, so the obvious database bloat for each bitcoin user results...
I'm not educated on this. Is there a reason why they cannot simply not pay BTC during a loss? |
|
|
|
Is it possible to run an exchange where users must opt out of any/all legal recourse? I'd rather risk losing everything I've invested in a site than have to indirectly pay for liability, just because of the inefficiency of the legal system. It's not like the settlement money comes out of thin air - all similar business will now need to pass this cost onto consumers.
Either way we pay for risk, let me cut out the middleman if I want.
IANAL, but a short TOS will probably do in most states: By participating in Exchange, you agree to surrender any assets transferred and hold harmless Exchange regardless of any damages.
|
|
|
|
1 @ 1 BTCAfter my bid: | Bidder | Amount (BTC) | | cablepair | 5 | | cablepair | 5 | | cablepair | 5 | | cablepair | 5 | | Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย | 2 | | Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย | 2 | | rate5 | 1 | | dree12 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
Scenario:
I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?
It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands. You and your neighbour are not the only people who own the old-growth forest. Everyone else affected will join your lawsuit. People aren't stupid, and one can never beat a thousand. |
|
|
|
 This thread is taking off again  . |
|
|
|
Compressed hydrogen is an excellent method for energy storage. Hydrogen fuel cells convert the hydrogen to electricity and produce water vapor as the exhaust.
Energy storage is important, but what about the other parts of energy? I think energy production and energy conservation are too often ignored. |
|
|
|
So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.
Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks. If you do something stupid on your parcel, there will be coalitions of people to sue. If you reject arbitration, there will be severe sanctions applied. If you do something stupid again, good luck keeping your land. Think about it: if a forest is in your land, but by cutting it down you will have caused damage to the thousands of landowners adjacent to you, how will you win? Prediction: he calls all the other owners idiots by implying or stating that they won't know that their land has been affected. Your prediction exists in part because you've actually learned the mechanics of the situation. As for a large part of the owners being idiots and being ignorant of the real damages caused by other owners, I think it's very clear from the responses to my posts in this forum that the majority do indeed not understand the consequences of others. BitcoinTalk Forum ≠ General Public. Just because 90% of BitcoinTalk users won't care doesn't mean 90% of the public won't. In fact, it's quite likely 90% of the public will. |
|
|
|
all middle class should have home solar power
Solar power is good for running air conditioning in the middle of the day. Electric cars charge at night. Solar Panel->Battery Cars are an excellent place to put solar panels on, especially foldable ones that can be put on the windows. This keeps it from becoming superheated and generates electricity at the same time. It's killing two birds with one stone. Some types of renewable energy are not suited for cars, however: - Wind Power: Unless it's a really windy day and the car is nearly stopped, this will waste more energy than it will generate.
- Geothermal Power: Quite obvious, hopefully.
- Hydro Power: Hopefully still obvious.
|
|
|
|
The poll is reset again. Vote now so that we can see what the latest sentiment picture is.
I find it interesting that every time, the sentiment is bullish (except during that 2011 slide, where it was even). |
|
|
|
So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.
Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks. If you do something stupid on your parcel, there will be coalitions of people to sue. If you reject arbitration, there will be severe sanctions applied. If you do something stupid again, good luck keeping your land. Think about it: if a forest is in your land, but by cutting it down you will have caused damage to the thousands of landowners adjacent to you, how will you win? |
|
|
|
If other miners use small blocks, and you mine large ones, then you have a profit. Why? Because people are paying the same high tx fees for all blocks, but you're getting more.
If other miners use large blocks, and you mine small ones, then you have a loss. Why? Because people are paying the same low tx fees for all blocks, but you're getting less.
Yeah, that much is obvious. However, we are talking about a protocol change here. Accepting a protocol change by itself doesnt earn you more, there is no competitive pressure since the change is either adopted or not, and then applied to everyone; if miners think it through, they will understand it likely reduces everyone's profits. Thats why I said miners are likely to resist a protocol change like that. In advance, a release is made to the default client and alternate clients that allows the client to accept larger blocks. Miners continue to have code to reject larger blocks. After everyone upgrades, another release is made that allows miners to mine and accept larger blocks. Miners that continue to reject larger blocks will be dominant, and for a while they will own the longest chain. But as other miners upgrade, eventually 51% of miners will begin to mine larger blocks. At this point, miners who have not upgraded will be stuck on an isolated chain, while all clients have switched to the long chain. |
|
|
|
Can someone please let me know the easiest way to start mining! And how much can really be made?
First, you need a lot of starting capital. Mining is no free lunch, and GPU mining is on its way out. Next, you need to consider your situation. Where do you live? Do you air condition during the summer? How do your heaters run in the winter? How cheap is the electricity? Then, you need to calculate your projected reward. There is no single way of doing this. I would suggest making your own projections about difficulty for the next periods, assuming you will buy ASIC. Estimate the block reward at 52 BTC now (50 BTC + 2 BTC tx fees), and 28 BTC after the block cut in early December. Now, calculate your projected costs. This includes: electricity, cooling, space, repairs, hardware depreciation, and most importantly, your time. It should then be easy to see if you will break even. Do this for each option right now (FPGA now, or ASIC later, etc.). Make sure to consider delays in getting everything ready. If you're ready to take the risk, then place your orders. |
|
|
|
Fractured ownership, different values, different agendas, different levels of understanding, etc. lead to a checkerboard effect, which really devalues everything. Best to have commonly designated areas as being treated uniformly.
As an example, Los Angeles can stay the concrete jungle it is. Change it if you want. Improve it if you want. Rebuild if if you want. But don't go create a new Los Angeles in Oregon old growth forests. It seems almost inevitable, and one has to recognize the possibility and understand the importance of such things happening, and be aware that such things happen in a creeping almost invisible way.
I think every human should have the opportunity to live in a forest for a while, so they can appreciate how important they are. And I mean live in one, not participate in commercialized, noisy camping grounds. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
