Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2018, 08:52:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Reinstall Problem: on: November 21, 2011, 03:12:38 PM
I used to run Bitcoin but deleted it for unknown reasons.  I'm trying to re-install it and cannot get it to load.
I keep getting 'can't open blkindex.dat' This makes sense as there is no blkindex.dat file anywhere on my machine.

Obviously there is something wrong but hell if I know what it is.  

I'm running winXP if that helps. 


2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Lost large number of bitcoins on: August 17, 2010, 08:58:56 PM
I just want to add my voice to those recommending strongly that the client have an "Accounts" Tab showing an Address and amount stored in each Account.

This would be a natural place to add backup functionality and provisos and warnings.

I will 2nd (3rd, 4th... whatever) this suggestion.  This would help the accounting tremendously.

and, stone man, wow, my condolences.

3  Economy / Economics / Re: Universal Dividend on: August 17, 2010, 11:28:49 AM

BitCoin seems a very great project, we started to think the same idea (no center money system tool) in the LiquidBank project in France.

However we think limitating money is an error, money shood increase in regular basis of 5%/year given to each participant in the collectivity, accordingly with long term economic growth.

Could you take some time to read in French the "Universal Dividend" Money System ?

Or by Google Translation :

Please let us know about the monetary system you propose to use.

I suppose BitCoin is a tool able to be used for separates money systems ?

Thanks for the reading material.  I'll look into it.

As to the bolded:  That is the big fallacy promulgated by the Monetarists which is nonsensical.  There is no logical reason why the money supply must increase at the same rate as economic output.  What is needed is greater resolution (divisibility) of the monetary unit.  With a more diverse market for goods of ever increasing quality and decreasing costs of production (to their commodity value lower bound, obviously) there is a need to refine the comparison of one item to the other in terms of the medium of exchange.  It is the arbitrage between the perceived value of the two items that the market is seeking to reduce to zero.  Any monetary unit with an arbitrary limit on division (say the dollar at $0.01) will fail as a means of comparison without revaluation.  This is ultimately why the Monetarists adopted the slow but steady inflation scheme as their preferred method.

Bitcoin has built into its structure nearly limitless divisibility.  Satoshi currently has 8 decimal places programmed in, but that number can be changed at will due to market pressures and the open-source nature of the software, if we're ever so fortunate to get to that point.

4  Economy / Economics / Re: Porn on: August 17, 2010, 11:20:07 AM
Why does the government hates internet gambling? Huh

B/c they can't tax it.

5  Economy / Marketplace / Re: Some delicious marmalade.. on: August 11, 2010, 12:14:48 PM

Now we're beginning to talk marketplace.  It's too bad I don't eat marmalade. 

6  Economy / Exchanges / Re: New Bitcoin Exchange ( on: August 11, 2010, 11:53:11 AM
We (some people on the IRC channel) noticed what seemed to be unexpected behavior in the mtgox matchmaking system today. At one point, there was an outstanding offer to sell bitcoins at a price lower than the highest outstanding bid, and the transaction was at below-market rates. When we noticed this, it was possible to buy 1 bitcoin for six cents even at a time when there were outstanding offers at a higher price.

Very useful, MG, thanks.  Spif looking stuff is nice, but data now is better than data later. Wink

7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin minting is thermodynamically perverse on: August 10, 2010, 12:56:20 AM
I agree with nearly everything you said, but I disagree, fundamentally, with the bolded.  Gold mining is not a waste of energy.  It is the opposite of waste, it is the measure of value people place in the 'utility of having gold as a medium of exchange' or a store of wealth, jewelry around their body parts or connectors on their home theater system.  If there was no demand for gold, the price would be zero.  Hence it is not a 'waste,' by definition.

Not necessarily, digging out a little bit more gold just makes the existing gold a bit less valuable since the supply is increased. That is because its value is mainly derived from its scarcity. Its utility IS its scarcity. However, it is not a waste for the miner if the cost of mining can stay below the price of gold.

And it's scarcity is a product of its demand. Therefore, owing to the law of supply and demand which derives solely from human desires of turning "what is" into "what I want," any gold pulled out of the ground is a product of human desire, and, by definition is NOT WASTE.  If the price and quantity demanded by the market are below the extraction cost for the miner then that demand will remain unmet.  Again, this is the opposite of waste.

8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Difficulty 8-5-10 352.161209068 on: August 09, 2010, 02:26:32 PM
Should have mentioned in my first post, but everyone remember, during this last change, 0.3.6 came out and doubled the hashing rate... so that really just reflects the increase in efficiency of the new version.

That means that the net difficulty actually dropped back to a normalized 176, from 244.  Generation rates should then improve.

9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin minting is thermodynamically perverse on: August 09, 2010, 02:23:15 PM
It's the same situation as gold and gold mining.  The marginal cost of gold mining tends to stay near the price of gold.  Gold mining is a waste, but that waste is far less than the utility of having gold available as a medium of exchange.

I think the case will be the same for Bitcoin.  The utility of the exchanges made possible by Bitcoin will far exceed the cost of electricity used.  Therefore, not having Bitcoin would be the net waste.

I agree with nearly everything you said, but I disagree, fundamentally, with the bolded.  Gold mining is not a waste of energy.  It is the opposite of waste, it is the measure of value people place in the 'utility of having gold as a medium of exchange' or a store of wealth, jewelry around their body parts or connectors on their home theater system.  If there was no demand for gold, the price would be zero.  Hence it is not a 'waste,' by definition.

I object strenuously to this idea, promulgated by the Monetarists, that the production of money is wasted capital which could be spent on other wealth-building projects.  It's a short-sighted argument which does not fully encompass the value we place in our money.

It's semantics, yes, but the negative connotations associated with the word "waste" is a tool of the money masters designed to confuse us and elevate their bankrupt system.

10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin insurance company. on: August 03, 2010, 02:27:30 PM
If my wallet would be big enough I would take the insurance if it existed and only costed a small percentages of what I have.

The only problem is, how would the insurance company verify if you indeed lose your wallet?
How could they see if the amount you take the insurance for is really the amount you own?

I could take an insurance for 100.000BTC and than claim I lost my wallet.
How would you verify that this is true and not that I had only 50BTC at the moment I lost my wallet, or that I even lost it.

I imagine a copy of your wallet would be stored in their vault and would therefore lessen your premium....

That would be, in effect, no different than gold storage fees.  Cheaper, sure, but ultimately, you would be paying to maintain their infrastructure for off-site backup of your wallet.  That would be the cheapest service.  It would also be the least secure.  So, a real insurance plan like you originally suggested would be a premium on your ability to maintain your own wallet.  Those premiums would be higher but more secure/anonymous.

11  Economy / Marketplace / Re: Local bitcoin market. on: August 02, 2010, 05:49:11 PM
Obviously, we're too dispersed to have a bitcoin economy. But I think we could advertise and get people in certain area to use bitcoins though. Specifically, I am thinking of a town in New Hampshire with lot of agorists in it.

It is why craigslist for bitcoins is an excellent idea.

12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: There might be another bitcoin bubble.... on: August 02, 2010, 05:42:00 PM

I sent an email to Lew Rockwell the other week regarding bitcoin but I never got a reply....untill now.


Lew didn't solicit the article, I solicited him after seeing a reference to Bitcoin on the Daily Paul.  Came here, checked it out and thought about it for a few days before deciding to put something together.

13  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: BitCoin Wikipedia page DELETED!!! on: August 02, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
Well, wikipedia is not a public driven project. It is driven by a limited community of it's editors,
that is for a long time. Wikipedia represent collective and often inconsistent point of view
of a small (compared to society) group of people.
"Playing by the rules" is a favorite game of them. Don't play that game, do not entertain them.

I believe, it is some form of sexual perversion, wikipedism or like that...  Lips sealed

Just find another wikipedia editor and he will play instead of you.

There is Wikipedia and its hierarchy, just like government and their hierarchy. The idea that the government could represent the people is laughable.

Similarly, the Wikipedia hierarchy devolved into politicking, no sexual perversion needed.

When they moved to that model the outcome was inevitable.... personal empire building.  If it continues to a point where it destroys the product, something else will rise to challenge it, as long as they don't use the gov't to enforce their 'right' to be the arbitrators of 'editorial standards.'

14  Economy / Marketplace / Re: Local bitcoin market. on: August 02, 2010, 11:15:09 AM

North Florida.  Grin

15  Economy / Economics / Re: Who's going to make out like a bandit... on: August 02, 2010, 11:13:15 AM
yeah maybe you should reconsider this guys arguments:

So why aren't you spending all your money on bitcoins then? And why is the market rate not 1000 USD / BTC?

They might well be worth that much or more some day but there is also the risk of them becoming worthless through bubbles or not catching on.

Such is the problem of the entrepreneur, forever balancing fear and greed.  The early-adopters of any technology are due to make out well if that technology is accepted in the marketplace.  The amount of resolution built into Bitcoin will make it a much more liquid market than a physical commodity with similar valuations due to a limit on fungibility.

But, in order for anyone to make out like a bandit, as the thread implies, the market for Bitcoins needs to improve dramatically. 

16  Economy / Exchanges / Re: New Bitcoin Exchange ( on: July 30, 2010, 02:17:47 PM
The fee makes the market less liquid, and by a lot more than 2%. People offering trades going both ways trying to make a profit drives this together which means a better price for people who come to buy or sell. The fee, in addition to making a 2% spread the absolute minimum disincentive this behavior. The spread was at 15-20%, it's going to get a lot closer now.

There is another market, so if yo have a high spread and they don't you will always have the worst bid and asks.

An exchange site wants the spread down because that attracts customers. Once there is a thriving market is a better time to monetize with small fees or ads.

I donated. I think the site is coming along nicely.

Ads are perfectly acceptable to me.  A smaller than 2% spread fee is acceptable as well.  I agree the site is coming along nicely.  Just put a bid up on the exchange yesterday. 

17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Network-wide self-corecting mechanisms on: July 29, 2010, 03:56:47 PM

BitCoin should not aspire to replace money (what is money: gold, fiat?), but aspire to replace what works as money (= the money supply, which includes credit).

Money is whatever people agree to use as a medium of exchange. Thus, bitcoins are money.

The problem is that credit constitutes the vast majority of the (fiat) money supply, not cache. BitCoin should not be overwhelmed by the same issue (because that credit is a centralized monetary mechanism).

And with the correction going on right now... most people call it 'recession' or 'depression' or 'slow-down' credit is being de-valued.  What is being destroyed right now is credit, but not money.  The AMB and M1 are rising, meaning the Fed has increased the size of the base money supply it is doing so to reflate the credit markets, but those markets are not needed right now, hence the value of them is falling and the price of commodities is rising in relation to its supply. [1]  Therefore, the commodity value of money is rising due to a liquidation of the malinvestment brought on by the manipulation of interest rates, which coordinate capital needs (commodities) through time.

The failing of many of the current crop of deflationists (Prechter, Mish, Denninger) is that they have this quaint notion that credit money is indistinguishable from commodity money [2] and the destruction of it means the destruction of commodity prices along with it.  They are wrong.  They are two distinct types of money and one can rise while the other falls.  This sends mixed pricing signals in the market and breeds all kinds of confusion, especially amongst economists, most of whom are morons.


[1] - by holding steady, ie. the CCI is in a tight trading range, commodities are rising in value vs. the amount of credit available. 
[2] - in a fiat system, the monetary base, as defined by the central bank's balance sheet acts as the 'commodity' money.
18  Economy / Economics / Re: Mises' Regression Theorem. on: July 27, 2010, 06:12:28 PM
But I'm not part of any of the above and I don't have any problem with fiat currencies, the Federal Reserve, the current banking system or the current majority party in the United States or the general direction the current government is moving. There are some things I don't like about government and a few decisions from the current administration that I strongly disagree with, but I'm a very traditional USA democrat, so I'm quite content with the general direction in which things are moving.

This is a fascinating admission, honestly, and ironic.  Thanks.

19  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin does NOT violate Mises' Regression Theorem on: July 27, 2010, 06:06:28 PM
Excellent breakdown.  That helps satisfy my worries about the process by which one type of money can supplant another.  I have not read Man, Economy and State (though I really should) and therefore, missed that portion of Rothbard's analysis. 

Thanks again.

20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin at on: July 25, 2010, 12:45:30 PM
I was very surprised and pleased to see an article at about bitcoins. Did anyone from here wrote it or at least knew about it?

Also, I think this could count as reference for the wikipedia article.

I wrote it.  I hope you enjoyed it.  Let's see if it results in some new interest.


Nice, I finished reading it and I did enjoy reading this article. Any chance of getting it cross-posted to or another site with less of a stigma attached to it? I've found that unfortunately, the quickest way to get labelled as a loon is to refer someone to a site like LRC. It sucks but I prefer to be able to inject ideas into people's minds without them shooting the messenger!

Thanks for the feedback. 

As for the cross-posting, that's completely up to Lew, since he's in charge of both of them.  I have no control over that.  I see LRC as no more loony than the HuffPo, WND, or  All are unapologetic in their agendas and equally polarizing.  I gave up years ago about worrying about being labeled anything.  I'm a full-on anarchist so LRC is the appropriate site for when the spirit moves to write.  LRC is the politically aggressive site, is more of the pure intellectual one.  They both have their uses.  I would argue that LRC is more influential.  By a long shot.  I refer people to both depending on which approach will work better with that person. 

In the end, though, those that do not have eyes to see or ears to hear won't listen to either.  I've learned that planting seeds is all you can do and you'd be amazed at how long it takes for some people to sprout.  But, it happens.


You can't just throw someone into an ice-cold lake. You gotta ease their minds into it. I find it's easier to get people to listen and learn when you start from a point of common reference. Agreed about planting seeds Smiley

I'm usually a big enough splash of cold-water.  The recommendations to LRC and happen after a fair bit of ground work has been laid.  What I've found is as events unfold people start coming to you looking for answers b/c you've established yourself as an 'expert' on these things that they've never spent a minute caring about.

Pages: [1] 2 3 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!