It's possibl that there was never any intention either from the EU or the UK politicians to let it happen. Actual nations have split into separate countries with far less messing around than has happened in this situation. The truth is that the will to make it happen didn't exist, the politicians on both sides simply didn't want to do it, and lied to everyone's faces that they were attempting it in good faith. Media were either complicit, or at least willfully ignorant.

I suspect that, one way or another, the Brexit vote will be reversed. And the tortuous show that has been put on will serve as a reminder to both British people and the people in other EU countries: this is what you get when you try to leave. For some reason, everyone will forget that Greenland or Iceland split with Denmark into completely new countries with no weekly soap-opera headlines at all. Make of that what you will.

Compiling now...

Hmmm. Isn't that a little manipulative though? The IMF have a printing press recognised by their subordinate central banks. Maybe they're trying to give the impression that although they can print SDRs, they can only do so as a part of responsible monetary policy!

Investment banks and hedge funds would love that policy to exist during another financial crisis, as the lack of liquidity in the first wave of such a situation would allow them to acquire some incredibly cheap assets. Then the same investment banks and hedge funds just need to remain solvent until IMF breaks their own policy in order to save the system, and they'll be first in line to receive trillions of freshly minted SDRs at negative interest rates.

There's only really one form of financial crises to which Bitcoin could respond positively: a worldwide currency crisis, especially one that includes USD RMB and EUR. The conditions for that kind of crisis do actually exist, at least potentially, which is why "the financial crisis" gets invoked as a byword for the rise of alternative currencies.

A worldwide currency crisis can and will be mitigated though, the IMF exist in at least part of their capacity to do that job. Depending on the medicine they administer, cryptocurrencies can capitalise during the fallout period. Any IMF remediation in such an event that curtails the ability of individuals to use their own money will aid cryptocurrencies, but even without that there would still be a crypto-positive effect, as the old-world financial system would be forced into alot of changes. The sheer fact that Bitcoin wouldn't need to change to survive would work in it's favor. Confidence perception would change; against fiat and the incumbent financial system, and the cypto-asset sector would pick up the balance.

However much crypto gains, we don't want such a crisis to happen. It's unlikely that cryptocurrency makes massive progress in days or weeks, and while the necessary time passes, life would be painful.

If there are 2 or more networks, there are 2 or more totals

I agree that the SEC are looking progressively less relevant to the cryptocurrency market as time goes on. How many failed BTC ETF applications were there? And now they're hoping people might take seriously their latest equivocating response ("BTC market is manipulated"). How many SEC administered markets are regularly manipulated by former and future SEC senior employees? They hardly have the cleanest shirts when it comes to dirty markets.

But the SEC is relevant in other ways; the other (heavily rigged) markets they oversee. Bitcoin needs a solid trading platform that trades commodities and equities with BTC denominated contracts before it can completely transcend the SEC. It will be amusing to take their client base away in such an event.

Regulation is needed. We need and want rules.

What people like the SEC don't like is

• a free market for rules
• rules enforced by cryptography, not politics

This way regular people choose rules that work for them. The SEC wants to choose the rules that they want, not what regular people want.

Notice that the common factor in all the different systems you're talking about is state power. The state, and the corruption it attracts, is the problem, not capitalism or communism.

In the end, the state and the church will run out of money. Charities could continue, as long as people feel wealthy (and generous) enough.

The ethical argument is problematic. You present it as ethically absolute, but not everyone sees it that way.

This to me is a major issue with politics in general; it's an argument that never ends (until everyone literally kills one another, of course). Everyone thinks they're ethically correct, despite the fact that that's a complete contradiction of the fact that everyone has different ethics.

It's not possible to mix coins to remove taint. You can spread the taint around, or add different sources of taint (they're both kind of the same thing really)

All insurance



It's not much of a marketplace if you have no choice but to pay something to someone. That's called a racket, not a marketplace. It's a hard problem to solve though; roads (or railways) are natural monopolies because of the physical reality of the infrastructure (there's only 1 surface a road can be built on, and the routes are limited by other infrastructure that obstructs those possible routes)



Is it practical or ethical to socialize all healthcare, and pay for it with socialised debts that can't be paid at some point in the future? It's easy to say "socialize it to simplify it" now, and forget about how everyone maintains that long term. But remember why we're here on bitcointalk: government debts all over the world have increased more since 2008 than they have since the year 1908. That means big expenses like socialized healthcare are gonna either end or get drastically cut the world over once the government debt market reverses trend.

Has anyone made a case for layering capitalist and socialist ideas on top of each other, seeing as that's what actually works in reality?


Insurance is a great example of that. A profit making company (capitalist outermost layer) that administers a money pool (socialist inner structure) that people join voluntarily (capitalist at the individual level) to manage risks.


Here's how you fuck that up: insurance companies convince government to add an extra layer; coerced standards (aka "regulations"). This makes it very difficult to break into the market as a startup. Then the existing companies can easily charge too much, because they haven't got any competition (and can make deals with their existing competition not to undercut each other). Next, the insurance company cartel can get government to force people into buying insurance for various risks, and present it as "keeping everyone safe".


Supply side distortions (standards that prevent new entries to the market) and demand side distortions (forcing all people to buy something at fixed prices) completely destroys the market, but it's apparently easy to convince people that this is free market capitalism in action.

But if everyone is forced to buy and there is no competition, how is that different from socialism? The method is different to outright socialism, and complicated: 5 layers of socialism and capitalism nested inside or across each other. But what's the outcome? Very similar to what happens in total socialism: friends of the government run massive companies that don't have any incentive to do a good job.

Right, jewellery is often alloyed to make it more resistant to scratches of breakage (that's why I said only "part" of the reason why it's more expensive)

But what I'm referring to is a real phenomenon. Archeologists have exemplars of thin coils of gold and silver that were made that way to enable a low-tech way to assay precious metals. It makes a lot of sense that a medium of exchange that's thousands of years old would have a very simple method for determining it's purity, and using very thin pieces that were easy to cut was that way.

What they could do is use the BTC at the blacklisted address to pay transaction fees. That completely taints the block reward (and is significant reason why so much of the BTC supply is tainted with i.e. coins linked to Silk Road). If the owners of the blacklisted coins also know a miner they can do a deal with, then the blacklist can be very thoroughly neutralised.

---

Remember too that these are unilateral sanctions, only the USA government is enforcing this. If all governments start to come up with conflicting sanctions, the more people are likely to ignore all of them. Once confidential transactions tech is implemented in Bitcoin it's all pointless anyway

Thanks arulbero & HCP.

So I removed all quote marks around the inputs and around the outputs from the .json text files, and removed all spaces except for the space between the inputs and outputs. I also removed all array brackets (square brackets like these [ ] ) from around the outputs.


tx.json:

command:

...and it works fine.



To send yourself change, the outputs must be as below

anotherTx.json:

2 inputs instead of 2 outputs goes like

yetAnotherTx.json:

The same command works for both: bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction $(cat anotherTx.json)


...again, 1 space only in the entire string that is between the ins and the outs, no returns, and no quotes around anything except the fields and their values. These magic spells on the linux CLI

This might be part of the reason why gold jewellery has an effectively higher spot price than coins or bars; it's really easy to do a crude assaying job on a ring or a chain, providing they're not too thick. Just cut the thing gently with bolt cutters, and check if the metal is consistent throughout. You can't do that with bars or coins, you need an x ray machine (which most people tend not to have)

Well, I'd considered that, and have tried using the escaped quote marks (\") way also, same error. Certainly bitcoin-cli needs double quotes around $(cat filename), else space characters stop any data after a space character from being supplied to bitcoin-cli.

Like I said, the error message returns the exact sequence of characters that does work if used as a literal string, so you're probably right that there is something in that string of characters that is being handled in an unexpected way.

I've done some research on the cat command today, nothing obvious stood out as being relevant.

So, issues

Here's what I'm trying:


It should work, but doesn't (sendrawtransaction does work this way, eg. bitcoin-cli sendrawtransaction $(cat hextxsavedtoafile)


However, it works if I supply the json directly to the command:


That's the same json that gets rejected when trying to use "$(cat file)" to supply the json data


Is this a bug in bitcoin-cli, or am I being naive about what the cat command is actually sending to the createrawtransaction command? Seems strange that sendrawtransaction can work this way, but createrawtransaction will not.

It'll be interesting to see how the independent journalism outfits funded by billionaires (The Intercept, Democracy Now etc) get their organisations into these sorts of schemes.

It'll probably be double narrative; the "rebels" will "fight" over the course of a few years using "truth" to get into the "trusted" club, and this will "prove that the people have won". The so-called truth will become carefully diluted, and mixed together with appraisals of the status quo ("this democracy is still worth fighting for!"), making it look like "the outsiders" shook up the news industry, when in fact they were just a well designed front to keep the public on-side with the establishment. Bit of New York Times/The Guardian cross-branding, then everything's exactly as it was again, except foolish people will buy the storyline and believe that everything's honest again.

Bitpay: another nail in the coffin of their incompetence