Beautiful now, but not centuries later when people shift their beliefs. Capitalism is just a concept, and it can wane just as quickly as monarchy.
And when and if it does, those small communes will take up more and more of the people, and capitalism will die a slow, peaceful death. I don't care how people organize their society, so long as it's voluntary. Exactly. Though, your process is off. Communes are also unsustainable as we know them. It will be a form that is yet undiscovered that will replace capitalism. I'll just leave a quote here: Everything that can be invented has been invented.
This was 1899. |
|
|
|
"The whole affair started in March when hackers skimmed over 46 000 BTC from the exchange with an attack aimed at the Webhost, Linode. Three months later, Bitcoinica Consultancy, which has supposedly been handling the exchange since this April, announced that it lost another 4 ,000 BTC (about $350 at the time) through an unauthorized withdrawal from a Mt. Gox account that the company had set up while disbursing refunds to its customers."  http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/first-bitcoin-lawsuit-filed-in-san-franciscoMartian dollars, of course. |
|
|
|
I used to make my own custom circuit boards. The process is simple:
- You get a blank copper board from an electronic supply house(or ebay).
- Then you print out a negative of your circuit design on a transparency.
- You apply UV sensitive acid resistant ink to the whole board
- You put the transparency over the board and bake it with bright UV light
- Wherever the light goes through the transparency the ink will stay on, you wash the rest off with water
- Then you expose the board to acid and everywhere you don't have acid resist ink dissolves away
- You then wash off the acid and ink and have your design in copper
I just realized you could put a negative of your QR code and key strings on the board instead of a circuit and you would get a very resilient wallet.
Just an idea, have not actually tried it.
That's a cool idea. I would never trust copper to keep etched pattern safe from corrosion. Just think green patina on the roofs and statues. Copper lasts longer than: - Paper (used in "paper wallets")
- Hard drives (used in "digital wallets")
- (arguably) Humans (used in "brain wallets")
The corrosion rate of several types of copper in a 20-yr test averaged 1 pm/yr (0.05 mpy) in an industrial atmosphere and 0.8 pm/yr (0.03 mpy) in a marine atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair. False. Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair. I see. AnCap is unfair, because some people will want your stuff, and they can't just take it. Well, that sounds like my kinda unfairness, frankly. I don't mind it, but it is unfair because of that. Probably only a insignificant minority will think it is unfair, which is why it's such a good choice now. But the same was said about Monarchy back then: everyone thought it was great (or, was forced to think it was great). AnCap is excellent for today, but would not suffice for decades to centuries in the future. Think about it this way: all governments were invented, and we haven't invented all of them yet. From chaos came despots, and then monarchs. Then came direct democracy, then capital, then representative democracy and republics, then socialism. What next? Clearly, we haven't discovered it yet. Well, that's the beauty of AnCap. As long as they don't hurt anyone, they're welcome to share and share alike among themselves as much as they want. Beautiful now, but not centuries later when people shift their beliefs. Capitalism is just a concept, and it can wane just as quickly as monarchy. |
|
|
|
Oh, and he couldn't get firstbits 3gig right now anyway since firstbits doesn't seem to support those address versions either:  Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument. is probably more popular and does support version 5 address firstbits. |
|
|
|
structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair. False. Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair. I see. AnCap is unfair, because some people will want your stuff, and they can't just take it. Well, that sounds like my kinda unfairness, frankly. I don't mind it, but it is unfair because of that. Probably only a insignificant minority will think it is unfair, which is why it's such a good choice now. But the same was said about Monarchy back then: everyone thought it was great (or, was forced to think it was great). AnCap is excellent for today, but would not suffice for decades to centuries in the future. Think about it this way: all governments were invented, and we haven't invented all of them yet. From chaos came despots, and then monarchs. Then came direct democracy, then capital, then representative democracy and republics, then socialism. What next? Clearly, we haven't discovered it yet. |
|
|
|
structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair. False. Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair. |
|
|
|
I already tried with the Satoshi client. It doesn't allow sending to 3* addresses.
But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
I just tried again. It went through. Honestly, I'm not sure which "satoshi client" you people are using.  |
|
|
|
I already tried with the Satoshi client. It doesn't allow sending to 3* addresses.
But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
I just tried again. It went through. |
|
|
|
I'm not understanding how the 3 addresses aren't valid...their relation to op_eval, multisig, hashes of scripts, etc....but by this link it appears to me that a 3 address can both store Bitcoins and transfer them to a 1 address: https://blockchain.info/address/3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYtNow, please, I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone...if you feel you might rupture an intracranial aneurysm, please stop reading and go see an interventional neuroradiologist or neurosurgeon. OK so differentiating between "valid" and "usable" is a bit pedantic IMHO but let's go ahead and change the language we're using anyway. Whether or not they're valid, they're not USABLE. Let's see what happens if we try to send coins to 3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYt with some various clients/services: Blockchain.info wallet:  MtGox withdrawal:  BitcoinSpinner Android Client:  Bitcoin Wallet for Android by Andreas Schildbach:  I haven't had a chance to test with the Satoshi client yet since this is a work PC and I don't (can't) have Bitcoin installed on it, will update when I get home. At the very least I can say at this moment that none of the web-based or Android-based clients support this Bitcoin address version yet, which makes it largely unusable. I suspect that the 0.6.3 Satoshi client doesn't support them without special configuration either. Even if it does, none of the exchanges, eWallets or other services will send to such an address so it would only be usable in the one direction. I suspect that all the 3* addresses in the blockchain folks are linking to as "proof" are live tests of OP_EVAL using experimental forks. Satoshi client will send to 3* addresses. It's also the most common client. 3 addresses are usable, Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
Well, I suppose if you could manage to buy all of North America that would indeed be centralization. You could, then, strip-mine Alberta. Of course, where are you going to get all that money? And how are you going to convince everyone to sell? Buying an entire continent would require massive amounts of capital. Even if your plan is to strip mine entire provinces, I doubt the profit could ever outweigh the capital expenditure of buying all that land. Remember, the more you buy, the more expensive the next purchase is.
Obviously this is an extreme example, but your argument was that private ownership will decentralise control of nature. This seems clearly untrue. Bitcoin is designed to limit the accumulation of power of any individual -- one needs 51% of network power just to reverse transactions. This is important because reversing transactions potentially affects everyone in the network. However there is nothing about private land ownership that limits accumulation of power. Even if I own a small plot of land, I can affect thousands of future generations that will inhabit it, and all of the earth's systems that come into contact with it. Yet you suggest that I should have no limit on the power I have over this plot. Besides this, with regard to bitcoin mining, even if I have 40% of hashing power I still cannot reverse transactions, whereas controlling just North America, or even a couple of states, I have already significantly centralised and consolidated my power. It is inevitable that some people will control exponentially more land than others - as is already true with bitcoin mining. Except that land is fundamentally different from Bitcoin mining. It is more closely analogous to Bitcoins themselves. Buying lots of them is increasingly expensive, and is only possible currently due to the relatively low price. Land is already expensive, and I would wager there simply does not exist enough capital to purchase an entire continent, or possibly even a few states, and certainly, that much capital isn't in a single person's hands. You are fearing something that is, frankly, impossible. And even if it were, the answer to a feared concentration of power is not a concentration of power. And yes, your actions on even a small plot of land do indeed affect all future owners of that land. This is reflected in the reduction, or increase, in the value of the land. A blasted wasteland is not worth as much as a verdant forest, even assuming that the creation of that blasted wasteland from the verdant forest doesn't effect - and thus, incur damages from - other people's properties. (Which is not a valid assumption.) I don't really want to read the entire story. Could you summarise it for me? TL;DR version: Techno-democracy devolves to techno-dictatorship because direct democracy takes up too much time. It's well known that direct democracy doesn't scale, true anarchy is not sustainable, and structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair. That's why all those governments will eventually be obsolete (after all, Monarchy was the preferred government in the past; look how well that works now). But none of this really matters. What matters is that the current states that ruin the Earth by warring over it, scorching it, deforesting it, and mining it to oblivion are eliminated. |
|
|
|
 Missed these? |
|
|
|
So should there be any limits to private property, then? Can somebody in theory buy the oceans, the atmosphere, the underground water systems? In the Nordic countries there is the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam which places limits on ones' rights even within their private property. There is a difference between having freedom to live your life as you want on your own ranch, say, and controlling so much resources that allows you to impudently affect the lives of millions of people, and even a significant portion of the earth, under the protection of private property laws. The fact is there are hardly any non-chlorinated lakes or rivers left in the world where one could safely swim. Here in Sydney, Australia, fishing is banned in Sydney harbour due to DDT poisoning, and the Parramatta river has turned brown and is lifeless. Whatever laws allowed this to happen, libertarian private property laws or government misusing public property, to me seems like a crime against humanity and against nature in general. My view is that not everything in this world should be for sale. Should a successful investor, beyond having the capital to direct resources and labour in the economy, also have the right to make decisions that will affect the earth for thousands or even millions of years ahead? This kind of decision should be beyond any individual's right to make. In answer to a previous posters' question regarding how to enforce an 'environmental paradise', I would suggest direct democracy; i.e any project that affects the earth (which we and our descendants all share whether we own this piece of land or not) in any significant and non-reversal way, has to come before a referendum, giving every person on earth the option to vote. If you don't care, you don't have to vote. But since your children and your children's children ewill likely end up being affected by this project, you should have a say in it, regardless of your financial clout. The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitable it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise. In ideal anarcho-capitalism, someone can't own something unless they either buy it from someone who owned it or can persuade the market to accept their ownership (this is done by producing value from it). If people disagree, they won't have the rights to own it unless they can economically convince those people to agree. Of course, direct democracy is an excellent solution if and only if it is scalable. It doesn't seem so yet. |
|
|
|
More tx per block = More fees in total.
Not necessarily. If transactions take too long to be included in a block, it will create an incentive to pay higher transaction fees. Right now you can usually get away with paying zero or close to zero transaction fees. Many times (almost) zero is still (almost) zero. Miners can chose to include only the highest paying transactions, so it would be against their interest to include many more, almost free ones, particularly since it would eliminate the incentive to pay higher fees. Now arguably thats already true today, and miners (/pools) could already refuse more low fee transactions, but it doesnt really matter because there is ample room in the blocks and transaction fees dont account for much anyway. But both those things might change. The situation is as follows. 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. Eventually, these two processes will force miners to mine small blocks. That is unless either all or all but an insignificant minority of miners agree to mine small blocks, which is unlikely. Think of it akin to a baking industry. If all bakers sell at high prices, then they may collectively and individually be better off. But as soon as one baker lowers their prices, others will be forced to follow or be individually worse off. |
|
|
|
Trying out a new navigation system using links, hopefully this will accommodate the huge volume of thefts. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could fill me in on the thefts that don't have commentary (you will, of course, be listed in the credits section).
Also, retroactively added the Betcoin Theft (#13).
I like how comprehensive the list is, as well as having several lists with different focus. Well done! :-) Ohe hint: With these large numbers, it does not really make sense to give the full decimal number. It just makes it harder to read. In most cases, the numbers are estimates anyway.. I would suggest to cut off the decimals or round to nearest bitcoin, depending on number. Noting better than waking up and reading through that list, to get your bloodpressure up, right? heh Ente I made the decimals smaller when exact, and put them to the side when it is a lower/upper bound or about. The numbers now have descriptors now (l.b. = lower bound, u.b. = upper bound, a. = about, est. = estimate). While reviewing the list, I revised the Bitcoin7 estimate down 4000 BTC (from 15000 BTC to 11000 BTC) after using a new rationale. This may be either too high or too low, but should be better than the previous value (which is now listed as an upper bound). Also added a table of contents to organize the list better. |
|
|
|
At current levels, blocks have the ability to include 400% more transactions than they currently are including. (e.g., only 20% of capacity is being used). If that becomes a problem for bitcoin, the limit can actually be doubled to 1MB per block, but that would require a new client that implements this to be accepted and adopted. Further capacity expansion would require a hard fork to the protocol.
Hmm.. that sounds like a potentially serious pothole down the road. Well, one that can be solved of course, but a 10 folding of transaction count would still account for precious few transactions in the grand scheme of things. I can also see miners might resist a change here, because a "shortage of transactions" would lead to higher transaction fees, which is in their interest. Could become interesting. thanks for the elaborate explanation btw. More tx per block = More fees in total. To solve the hard fork, a solution like FAN nodes is probably needed. FAN nodes avoid most hard-forks. |
|
|
|
Maybe instead of tags, we could have a crosspost feature that allows posting a topic in two sections. The full tag system seems like it would be hard to manage, with a load of tags.
The point of the tag system is so that you don't have to read both crossposted topics. Once you have read a tagged topic, it shows up as already read in the other sections that it is tagged for. I think I misstated. I mean that a thread can have up to two sections: a main section, and a crosspost section. The crosspost section will display the thread in grey and thinner, without counting towards the threads on the page (similar to how ignored threads look, but maybe a bit fatter). There could also be an option to turn off viewing of crossposted threads. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
