 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3]
|
Look, if you tell people that you are going to be debasing the currency and that they can use it or not then that isn't stealing. So it's wrong to call the method in the OP stealing.
But I don't want to invest into a system where my contribution is able to be watered down and given to everyone every year forever. It's also my guess that other producers won't want to get involved either. I wouldn't like to be in a money system where money globally inflate, and I receive nothing too. BUT you missunderstand Universal Dividend which is NOT such a thing. ALL members receive the Dividend. In fact you must understand the real effect of Universal Dividend on your own goods. Imagine you have a f fraction of the total money. You receive a 5% dividend, that is to say your money is then f + 5% / N where N is the number of participants. Your PERSONAL (Local IS NOT global) inflation of money is (NEW MONEY - OLD MONEY) / (OLD MONEY), that is to say : ... So your PERSONAL inflation MONEY rate DEPENDS exactly of the money you own, il you own exactly 1/N of money your personal inflation rate IS TOTALLY EQUAL than GLOBAL one, and you "lose" nothing in this point of view. If you have LESS money than 1/N than your personal inflation rate is HIGHER, and it's progressively LOWER if you keep more than 1/N fraction of money. This is a lie. Originally the premise was that new people (who did not have anything) would be given money and this would make it more fair. So which is true? Either value is taken from people with existing holdings (in order to add value to those who previously had nothing) or nothing is given to people who have nothing. It is one or the other. It is impossible to be both. |
|
|
|
The core of the argument that new comers are "owed" something simply because they are new. So the question becomes "who" owes them a share of the bitcoin stock. Exactly. I arrived in the San Francisco Bay area in 1964.. It seems I was a newcomer to the gold rush and I missed out. Who is going to pay up and give this newcomer my share of the gold? |
|
|
|
Equal has many different aspect. Equal in respect of rights, can include equal in respect of the right to evaluate what is value and what it is not.
Agreed. And that is the end of the agreement. What you call rights I evaluate to negative value and will not participate in such a system. By definition those rights must be forced on the participants by the system. As no individual has the right to force such on another individual, then no collection of individuals and thus no system has that right. Your proposed system is a violation of rights, not a guarantor of rights. Therefore, where such a system becomes apparent to me, I will fight against and attempt to destroy such system or the aspects of such system which attempt to extort any such so-called rights. |
|
|
|
The details differ from country to country, but the general idea is like this.
First you get a banking license (i.e. permission from the government to be a bank), which is not easy.
Then, you get someone to deposit money with you. Let's say they deposit $10000.
If the legal fractional reserve is 10%, you can now lend out $90,000 (because you retain a reserve of 10% of the total money).
Truly this is nonsense. If I have $10,000 from deposits, a 10% reserve means I need to reserve 10% of my deposits. So I must reserve $1,000. Therefore I can lend $9,000. That $90,000 comes from the central bank as a "book entry for a loan" at the central bank's current rate of interest.
I already have the $9,000 on hand. It's already borrowed from the depositor. I don't need to ask the central bank for anything. You could lend $9,000. Ideally you put it into an account at your bank where now you have $19,000 on deposit and $9,000 on loan. Now you can loan an addition $8,100. Then you can loan $7,290. Then you can loan $6,561. Etc. Sum up all those loans. The initial $10,000 causes the creation of far more than $9,000. It works the same way if there is more than one bank involved, as in that case it is "the banking system" creates all the new money in total, rather than just one bank where the initial deposit was made. Or you could use the $10,000 as collateral to borrow from the central bank. They will give you $100,000 to loan out. Of course, all those numbers assume a 10% fractional reserve. Currently in the U.S. the reserve requirement for savings accounts, certificates of deposit, etc. is 0% and for checking (demand) accounts it is 3%. (Read the fine print on your savings account, they are required to warn you that withdrawals might be denied until convenient for the bank up to typically 30 days.) |
|
|
|
You are wrong  You can not operate a fractional reserve bank using bitcoins, it's impossible by definition because you can lend only the money you actually own and no more. Fractional reserve system works such that you need only 10% reserve of actual money and you can create 90% out of thin air ... You could, in theory, have fractional reserves of bitcoins, as with dollars. Banks don't create dollars (FDR notes) out of thin air, they create bank account balance out of thin air, and that's is counted as actual dollars in the economy. Suppose some bank stores bitcoins. People would transfer their bitcoins to the bank and would have an account balance, that they could retrieve when needed. The bank could then lend part of this money without blocking your balance, thus creating fractional reserves. And just HOW are you going to do that with bitcoins? It's all nice to say "in theory" but in this case the theory has a huge hole so it is like saying "in theory gold is worthless because we could mine all the gold we want from other planets." So, what is the hole in the fractional reserve bitcoin bank theory? A "real" bank creates dollars and is allowed by the system to issue those new dollars into circulation. But you cannot issue more bitcoins into circulation than you have. You can only get bitcoins when they are created in the normal process either by you or transferred to you. Therefore you will not be able to accept bitcoins on deposit and loan bitcoins unless you loan those coins that are on deposit. If you loan them, they will not be on deposit any more and you cannot return them to the depositor. In a way bitcoins are like gold. If a bank accepted gold on deposit and all loans were made by gold going out of the bank, there would be no fractional reserve banking. The fractions happen if a substitute is allowed to circulate instead of gold. (E.g. warehouse receipts) There are not yet (to my knowledge) any "warehouse receipts" for bitcoins, and hopefully nobody is stupid enough to take a promise for bitcoins in lieu of actual bitcoins. Do you know of a substitute (a "warehouse receipt") for bitcoins that circulates equivalent to bitcoins? If that substitute can be created more easily than bitcoins then you could have fractional reserve bitcoin banking. |
|
|
|
Any combination of 90-percent silver U.S. coins which have a face value of US$1.00 contains 0.715 troy ounces of 99.9-percent silver (0.7234 troy ounces if uncirculated). In other words, a full troy ounce of 99.9-percent silver is contained in any combination of 90-percent silver U.S. coins which have a face value of US$1.40.
The 0.715troy is a widely accepted figure accounting for typical wear, etc. Kennedy half dollars from 1964 will typically be a bit more because they did not circulate to any significant degree. A silver dollar is about 0.7734troy of pure silver unless worn smooth. But in any case, a silver dollar usually sells for a bit of a premium over the silver content. Of course, the higher silver values go, the less the silver dollar premium. In 1980 it got so high that the more common were melted down, leading to a situation where what was once most common now commands a premium for rarity. |
|
|
|
I don't know the current odds of a bitcoin... Forgot to mention... The odds of a bitcoin are not 1/2^256. IFF the hash were truly random, and IFF we were seeking a certain 256bit number, those would be the odds. A hash is not truly random. But for our purposes in calculating the odds, to a reasonable precision, the hash is probably effectively random. (Effectively random is a class of pseudo-random where it is random enough for the intended use. For example, generating white noise or pink noise does not require very good pseudo-random, but cryptography to access your bank account should probably use a better pseudo-random source.) And for bitcoin, we are not seeking a particular 256bit number, but rather a 256bit number whose leading bits are 0 (for a certain number of bits). Since we don't care about the rest of the bits, the odds are considerably better. If we need 'n' zero bits, then our odds are 1/2^n where n<256. |
|
|
|
The next "paradox" is that since I'm doing 1/3 of the hashes and winning more than 1/3 of the time is it actually better to run fewer hashes/second? No. In the coin example, the odds are not at all the same as "solving" bitcoin. First off, in bitcoin the players are independent. Your odds of winning are the same as my odds of winning, not 5/14 + 8/14 leaving 1/14 as nobody wins. In bitcoin "nobody wins" is a huge portion instead of a very small minority portion. It's essentially reversed. I don't know the current odds of a bitcoin, but if, for example, the odds were 1/1,000,000 then if I could "flip" twice as fast my odds would effectively be 2/1,000,000. Or in other words, first to flip 'tails' wins. Do you want to flip twice per second or once per second? And did I read bitcoin increments a seed value in the hash? I suspect (back to that gut feeling again) that some seeds will be (are) a very long way away from an acceptable hash. It might be better to use a random seed every time. Assuming that bitcoin has not and will not generate a hash collision (different contents, same hash) then the first one to arrive at the proper seed will win. Hence the importance of hash calcs/second. (Of course, since more leading 0's are OK, there are multiple seeds which will result in an acceptable hash even without a hash collision. Still, more tries/second are better.) |
|
|
|
I've been working on adding -port= / -rpcport= command line / config file options to bitcoin Nice. In addition it would be good to have an -ip= option for what address to bind the port. (rpcport binds to 127.0.0.1 but currently port binds to 0.0.0.0 which is all IP addresses on the machine. On my multi-homed system I'd like to bind bitcoin to the external address different from the bitcoin(s) that binds to the internal address(es).) |
|
|
|
It's mainly luck of the draw with those that have faster systems having a bit better luck.
Not really "better luck" but rather "more chances." A faster processor is just like buying more lottery scratch tickets. The more tickets you buy, the better your chance of winning. |
|
|
|
I think I read somewhere that if he has any connections, he is connecting to the IRC channel just fine... I think you're correct on the 8 connection limit without having port 8333 forwarded.
My thinking was that the static IP -addnode would help by providing a dedicated download source. If that still doesn't work well then I'd guess that laszlo has hit the nail on the head, and the constant full-rewrite of the file is to blame.
Oh, right. Missed that he had 40 connections.  But 0 blocks downloaded? My macmini is currently downloading blocks. It is up to 38xxx after about 4 hours. That is with two dedicated sources on the same lan plus another 6 it discovered out on the 'net. (It is a 2009 model with 4gb of ram using only a 150GB partition of a 500GB, 7200rpm, 2.5" drive, running the 0.30 .zip'd version as a -server.) The old macmini drive is in an atom D510 system and is a very slow hard disk. It took a long time (18+hours) to download the blocks even with a dedicated source. But even then it did not stay at 0 blocks for more than a minute or so. I wonder how much downloading to a ramdisk would speed it up... |
|
|
|
The question I have, though, is where the demand for the commodity that is a bitcoin going to come from other than as an academic exercise? In other words, what other use can it have to fall back on as a commodity rather than a medium of exchange?
Your question appears based on the assumption that bitcoin fits the austrian definition of money. It doesn't. bitcoin is (at least presently) nothing more than a medium of exchange. (And it is still very limited in its acceptance for even that purpose.) bitcoin is not a store of value (the energy or work needed to recreate each unit cannot be recovered). It might be considered a speculation of future value, but that is not part of the definition of money. bitcoin is not a measure or a standard of value (if it were there would not be so much speculation as to how to calculate its value). With that said, in the future it might evolve and gain more of the other attributes. No way to know at present. |
|
|
|
|
The static IP using addnode will probably work.
However the software is designed to bootstrap using IRC. Probably connecting out to the IRC server is being blocked either by Microsoft or his Linux firewall. Without IRC his system is unable to discover other nodes.
IRC has nothing to do with port 8333, but most likely the Linux firewall is blocking incoming port 8333, so bitcoin will need to establish outgoing connections to other systems with a 8333 open for incoming connections. Without opening incoming 8333 the max connections will be limited to 8 (I think).
|
|
|
|
|
