I prefer to not let human judge say if it is right to appropriate money from thief. It is introducing a level of uncertainty.

This stem from what I called The Principle of Least Violence.(Totally invented on the spot...may or may not coincide with actual principle)


Even if it is libertarian theory, proper, to confiscate possessions to be returned to their rightful owners.......one must use least violence amount possible to exact punishment and overcome incentive to steal from others.

The goal is to discourage thievery, not necessary to get your property back.

Because if you use more violence than necessary:

1. You will involve some kind of court system, which may or may not rule that your property is valid for taking.
2. You are creating complication in the common law system. This make the law less predictable.
3. You may create more cost than benefit, leading to a downward spiral of societal and rule of law.

The bitcoin system encourage people to be more careful with their money and create amicable relationships, thereby eliminating the need for the court. Only when extraordinary circumstance required, that a naturalistic court system will be established. Even so, the court should endeavorer as much as possible eliminating the need for their service.

I have blacklisted a forum member for spreading or attempting to spread libel against bitcoin speculators. Others had joined me into the cause.

Group ostracism and blacklisting people is the primary system of enforcement by bitcoiners. Other than that, we expect that some people will take advantage of our trust and adjust accordingly.

Thus, some of the rule of thumbs are:

1. For reversible transaction such as paypal, used trust members.

2. Never believe a deal until you demand proof/evidence.

3. Use escrow service.

Let me ask you a question:

Do you really really really really want a judge deciding all of this?

I am already calling mtgox and mybitcoin banks.

There's no byline that tell us it's written by Satoshi Nakamoto.

But wallets are, until you back them up multiple time and encrypted all of them...

Please refrain from your overly long posts. It's a waste of time for everyone.

The economic advantage of open source is not a distribution policy but a development policy. This development policy implies a distribution model that is quite...open.

The GPL is however, not without cost. The term of the GPL is tricky and overly complicated. The proof is that I failed most of the question offered by the GPL. Thus, here lies the transaction cost of the GPL. The GPL is quite indifferent to the development methodology of open source projects. The development methodology of Linux would hardly change if it switch to BSD or more liberal licenses.

From there, we can infer that the GPL offer little economic advantage at all from the perspective of open source projects.

However, to address your concern about no growth: It mainly have to do with authors not adopting public domain and instead prefering copyright. Thus, we don't see much growth of public domain.

Experimental data suggests that people do pay for copyfree stuff, at least Jason Rohrer(About 42,000 USD in a few month) and me(bitcents but earning nonetheless).

http://buildingreputation.com/writings/2010/02/on_karma.html

TL;DR summary:

1. Robust karma - quality of contribution and quantity of contribution is key.

2. Simple and complex reputations. Simple are evaluation made directly by users, easy to understand. Complex are multiple evaluations based on a variety of factors such as search engine results.

3. Don't display karma frequently but also make sure that karma are narrow and contextual as possible.

4. Avoid negative karma lest you get "karma bankruptcy" in which a user start a new account.

Than we need to grow the copyfree movement.

If we could get a coalition of artists and programmers, we could shut down or at least bring a showdown with malicious collection societies.

Personally, I just use BTC.

Apparently, you send it to a new randomly generated address and then send that to the address you want.

I think we all agree here. It's just that....

Intrinsic and intrinsic value of theory  got confused together.

Please, put your site up so that we can actually provide you with real feedback.

It's a human valuation and human use that determine the usefulness of an object. That's subjective theory of value.

Perhaps say, humanity don't value or use gold at all. That automatically make gold worthless.

Intrinsic theory of value say that each object have an objective value that can be determined without the need of human judgement.

It is settled.

Bencoder's download site will be used by Kiba from now on.

Bencoder's terms are VERY FAVORABLE compared to ubitious.

1. I don't have to pay a fee just to make money.

2. He only take 10% or .01, whichever is higher.

3. Files don't expire, period.

Latest report:

Begun 8 days ago.
Total expense: 2.84 USD
Total pageviews: 50,729 impressions.
Total clicks: 23
CPM: 0.06 USD
CPC: 0.12 USD
CTR: 0.05 %

This is merely a semantic game.

I don't believe each objects have an inherent value of its own.

I started working on bitpredict's user registration and user login/user sessions and the whole nine yard that come with setting up an account system.

I will come up with an accountless system for those who are too lazy to register.

Oh please. It's a very specific definition.

An object is said to have an intrinsic value if humans can find ways to use it other then...money.

So cows, cars, houses, etc have intrinsic value. It's not in conflict with subjective theory of value at all.

Now, why gold? Well, because gold is the mean of starting over from a barter economy. Bitcoins have no value in a barter economy and cannot arose as money until gold or some other form of money emerge.

Therefore, gold is the best form for storing your wealth over the long term. We also see that gold have thousand years of experience as money, while bitcoin...is only 2 years old at best.

People trust gold coins more than they trust some new fanged thing called bitcoins.

Fair enough. Let me try an answer.

Mises' Regression Theorem shows us how money's value is established.

The reason why gold arise as the money of choice is because it is a useful commodity under barter(intrinsic value). In other words, gold got its start because it is valuable in an a barter economy, not because it was a good medium of exchange. That come later.

Does bitcoin have any value in a barter economy? Nope.

But if you can exchange bitcoin in term of gold, than you seed a way for price estimation.

Thus...

Sheeps -> Gold -> paper money -> unbacked FR notes -> Bitcoins. <- Gold again.

IF our economy were to crash and the bitcoin network is wiped out, we have to start with gold again before we can start using bitcoins.