 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
|
Sometimes when starting up Armory, it will get stuck showing the number of blocks that are left to download. After waiting 20 minutes or so like that, I have to restart Armory for it to actually start downloading. I guess this is some problem with running bitcoind. I have armory 0.93.0.70 and bitcoin 0.10.
|
|
|
|
|
When you update the git, do I need to make clean && make or just make will do to incorporate the updates?
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'm all good now after updating to fixes branch. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'm all good now after updating to fixes branch. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I keep getting the error "Armory scanning interrupted unexpectedly". Armory then asks me to check the box to re-scan and rebuild the database on next time Armory starts. If I do not check the box I get prompted with the same error on restart. This happened two times already in the last few days.
I'm running the latest armory on 64-bit linux with 16gb ram. My internet connection is fairly slow though, especially upload speed.
|
|
|
|
|
I like this knife but it would probably get confiscated by Australian customs..
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to throw in my 2 cents. I would like to see the block size cap removed. I think the decentralization of bitcoin could be similar to the decentralization of science, in that not everybody checks everything but everybody *can* check anything with a certain investment of time and money. As long as anyone can become a miner with an investment of $50k in today's dollars, it ensures there will always be competition and the profit margins for miners won't grow too high.
We cannot predict how miners will behave and almost certainly many of them do not act not in the best interests of bitcoin. As long as the barrier of entry is not too high though, it should keep the mining community more or less honest. Compare that to the banking community, where no new banks have been approved in the US or the UK in the last 100 years afaik.
|
|
|
|
Thank you developers! PS. The ubuntu ppa maintained by Matt Corallo is not updated yet  |
|
|
|
|
IMO it is because of counterparty risk. Counterparty risk is the biggest risk!
Between now and December the site could go down. How can you be sure your contract will be honored? If this was a very big site with a number of years of reputation, large amount of liquidity etc etc then this condition would be very unusual. As it stands this is all normal. You can often get really good deals from new sites/businesses trying to establish reputation and a user base.
|
|
|
|
|
Well re the OP's concern about the type of community this forum fosters, I think many people realise we live in a deeply troubled society, and bitcoin is not going to cure that in a few months. Everybody that has grown up in the extreme capitalism of the 2000s would have to be pretty resilient to keep their civility.
Anyway I don't think we should be too discouraged about a lack of a general plan or the type of stuff that goes on in the bitcoin community. It would be like asking what is the plan for the internet during the 90s. BTW, as pointed out by Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish pirate party, one of the main catalysts for the internet's growth in the early days was the porn industry. Only later did many 'wholesome' businesses find they can make use of the internet. Similarly, when Bram Cohen created bittorrent, he gave away free porn in order to get people to join in. Eventually though bittorrent and the internet became about a lot more than just porn. The same way bitcoin will become about a lot more than drugs and gambling, I hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Ha ha yes that is an excellent comment. Anyway we cannot win the propaganda war, that much is clear. Whatever happens next is not going to be good..
|
|
|
|
Well, you have a point with the water supply, intentionally doing something like that ranks up there with Hitler-level of evil, and all you can really do at that point is erase that shit-stain. Of course, I don't need to own the headwaters of a river to do that, I could simply dump a barrel of poison into a water reservoir.
The second point is holding him financially responsible for repaying his victims, not just tossing him in a cage. Put him to productive work, and let him pay off his debt, not to society, but directly to his victims.
As to the renters, it's a proven fact that people are rougher on things that aren't theirs. I agree that considering the land you own to actually be on loan from your children is a pretty good way to look at it, though, because it drives home the fact that you have to retain the value of the land for your kids. (also, loaned items get treated differently than rented ones, so there's that working in the benefit, as well)
And lastly, due diligence happens before you do something, not after. You get the approval of everyone, but if you missed someone, or your project has greater or wider effects than you anticipated, then you'll end up paying damages. And if you run off to the Bahamas with a suitcase full of cash, there'll be someone behind you looking to bring you back to pay up.
I mostly agree with you, but OK let's keep Madoff financially responsible. How is he going to pay back the tens of billions of dollars that he lost? That's a lot of manual labour. Or maybe he can run a new ponzi scheme in order to pay back the losers of the previous one?  So you would be a proponent of this, then? This actually looks very interesting to me at first glance. I will look into it more. However I question the idea of 'improvements'. Rather to me it seems almost any effect we have on nature tends to be a negative impact, or at best neutral. The idea of improvements seems subjective anyway. |
|
|
|
|
In the case that we will be doing a hard-fork at some point in the future, in order to increase the number of transactions-per-second for example, would it make things easier if a larger number of people were on thin clients like electrum? We know it is very hard to get people to update to the newest version of bitcoin-qt. Perhaps if bitcoin-qt is only run by geeks and miners and such, a hard fork might be easier to do? Or will the hard-fork also cause a fork for all of the thin clients as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify by 'renting' I don't mean renting from another private owner, but rather renting from nature. I don't mean this in a legal sense, but rather just to show that land shouldn't be seen as a possession with which one can do whatever they want, IMO.
|
|
|
|
You don't seriously equate detriment to your property to holding a gun to your head? Violent situations are different. The problem with the Ponzi scheme operators is that they're anonymous. Give your money to someone you don't know, whose fault is it when they run off with it? With Madoff (and other Ponzi schemes), people don't get their money back because it's already gone. But holding the perpetrator responsible for paying them back will eventually result in them getting their money back - if he's held to it. Simply finding him "guilty" and tossing him in a cage doesn't help anything, especially if you then force his victims to pay for the cage. You need to make him pay restitution, and that's how a private decentralized court would get a different result.
As for the property, renters have historically been much worse on their property than have owners. And I propose that projects that would impact more than just the owner of the land require not just a democratic approval (simple majority, usually), but approval of all affected people. Due diligence, remember? If you don't get approval of someone who is affected, you have to pay damages.
In fact I consider damage to property or to the environment in general as even worse than having a gun to your head. If I can poison a water supply, I can kill a million people. What legal restitution can there be then? I don't really understand your second point. They confiscated all the money they could find from Madoff. They even took all the money from his wife. However there were tens of billions of dollars, and most of it will never be found. A lot of it was already paid to early investors, or lost in the market. He is being held responsible, but the money is gone. So again what will a private libertarian court do different to get the money back? Obviously fear of the law did not have much effect. I would have to disagree about renters as well. For example, the native peoples of Australia see their land as being 'borrowed from our children', as corny as it sounds. Their civilization was sustainable for a long time and they contributed a lot less environmental damage than our private land ownership model. Finally, all affected people agreeing to a project seems like a good idea; my only difference to you here is that they have to agree before the project is put into action rather than after -- since by that time profits could already be booked and somebody could be on their way to the Bahamas with a suitcase full of cash while we get to deal with the consequences. This has happened so many times that it's not even worth giving examples. |
|
|
|
Then what do you propose instead?
I would argue that if there is any unequal power relationship, it's the neighbors who have power over the landowner, not the other way around. He is very narrowly confined in what he can do without negatively affecting his neighbors, and as soon as he does, he'd be in deep trouble, to pay all those damages to his neighbors. As for the concentration of power, I would say you'd be hard pressed to say that a single arbitrator has any concentration of power.
So if I hold a gun to your head, you have the power because you can sue me? Are all of the ponzi scheme operators at a disadvantage because they face legal repercussions if they lose their clients' money? They have the money now, and it's a whole struggle to get justice after the fact. Just look at all the recent cases of fraud and negligence. With Madoff, the court found him guilty but still the clients didn't get their money back. How would a private decentralised court get a different result? My proposition is simply that not everything should be for sale. Land ownership should be thought of more like long-term renting, and projects that can affect the community at large should go through a democratic approval process. |
|
|
|
Why would the land owner agree to be arbitrated by some private court?
For the simple reason that if he did not, he would not be protected by that court system. Along the same lines, he might have difficulty entering into any private contract, since he's already violated one, or at the very least, demonstrated his willingness to refuse arbitration in the face of having caused damages. Well I suppose this makes sense. But you have to trust the courts and the individuals that work there. You have to trust the land owner to abide by his contract. What if he can make a lot of money by breaking the contract? For eg. how many of the ponzi scheme operators on these forums are going to abide by all of their contracts? Will the bitcoinica customers get any restitution? Probably a decentralised court system is better than the traditional one, but it not true decentralisation. In this model, the land-owner has an unequal power relationship with all his neighbours (unless you count that they can fight him by destroying their environment as well -- something that happens a lot in neighbourly disputes). The court has a concentration of power. I guarantee you that in practice this will never work and the environment will just continue to degrade, while we squabble about money. |
|
|
|
|
Right so basically like bitcoin court. So since we have entities like bitcoin court, why do we need strong ownership in bitcoin? Why not just use the courts?
From wikipedia's article on decentralisation:
"A central theme in decentralization is the difference between:
a hierarchy, based on authority: two players in an unequal-power relationship; and
an interface: a lateral relationship between two players of roughly equal power.
The more decentralized a system is, the more it relies on lateral relationships, and the less it can rely on command or force."
But in the case of libertarian private land ownership, you have the land-owner party that has power to physically affect the lives of many others, and then you have private courts that you hope to use to control this. Doesn't seem like decentralisation to me. Why would the land owner agree to be arbitrated by some private court?
|
|
|
|
|
