For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.

Okay, but a voluntary collective must also respect the right of members to leave the collective at will.  This also means that such collectives are not stable social constructs lacking the force of law.  Thus, although a libertarian society can coexist with a collectivist sub-culture; a collectivist society cannot coexist with a libertarian sub-culture; because the growth of the libertarian ideals are destructive to the collectivist social order.  So, in the end, a society that is libertarian with minority collectivist population is still a libertarian society; not a communist society.  Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

Therefore one cannot be a marxist and a libertarian at the same time.

European Anarchists aren't libertarians, primarily they are marxists.  Marx himself regarded the destruction of the capitalist order a necessary step towards communism.  Libertarians who can rationally be considered anarchists (in the literal, 'no ruler' root meaning) don't have a further political goal.

The problem with you guys is not that you don't understand collectivism, you all seem to.  You guys don't understand libertarianism.  The ideology requires economic liberty of individuals; which in turn requires a community standard for private property rights.  The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems.  No matter how I feel about the effectiveness of such an economic system, central planning of anything is invariablely opposed by some minority group.  The smallest minority is the individual.  Follow out the implications of your thought patterns and you will reach a different end than any that a libertarian can support.

Personal freedom is about economics & property.  No matter how many times you say it, a collectivist cannot be a libertarian.  The two worldviews are mutually exclusive by nature.

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

Such fears are based upon a fundamental lack of understanding about what the Internet actually is. 

And as for smartphones, ever heard of 'rooting'?

Anyone else care to weigh in?

Any other radio geeks with an opinion on the best band to use, or the best mode?

This is something that I expect to see in the next five years regardless.  It's already being done in many cities.

If the Internet is brought down as a whole on a temporary fashion, Bitcoin will just pick up right were it left off upon the reformation of the network.  There is only one way to stop the Internet long term, and that's a global nuclear war.  If that happens, your gold is worthless too.

Bullets, maybe not.

That said, even the compete destruction of the Internet does not necessarily result in the breakdown of the Bitcoin network, although it would certainly disrupt it.  If two bitcoin clients survive, and can establish a direct link to each other, then Bitcoin survives.  Many copies keep data safe, and bitcoin takes that method to an extreme.

I can't see these.

You don't actually have to change anything to the server code to permit Tor access.  You have to add a tor node to run along side your server on the same machine, and set up a 'hidden service'.  I don't claim that is an easy task, nor that it's likely to be used by more than a small minority of people unless a version of bitcoin spinner is released that uses tor natively.  That is why I asked if the server code would be released, so I could do it myself.

There would be more words, not necessarily more content.

Are there any plans to release the server code so that users can set up their own servers and redirect Bitcoin Spinner to use that server?  If not, is there any plans to add the option of using Tor, so that even the presence of such a client cannot be determined?

I know almost nothing.

I do know that this server isn't the original bitcoin forum that Satoshi actually used to make those posts.  I also know that he was an incredibly privacy aware person who was at least as well educated about how he leaves digital tracks as anyone here who might pursue him.  If anyone would have had the wherewithall to ask the admins to spoof his connection data, it's him.  If anyone on this forum could have actually got cooperation in such an endeavor, it's him.  If I were Satoshi, I would have had my connection data randomized & selectively deleted.  If I were an admin with the right & ability to honor such a request from the founder of Bitcoin, I also would have done so while taking that to my grave if necessary.  I am not either person, however; but I think that you all are just spinning wheels.

You assume that the admins here havn't been complicit in screwing with such data.  I will say this much, once upon a time Satoshi & those who ran this forum at the time were mighty tight, and all of them were aware of such techniques.

Can't.  Part 15 devices that are intentional emitters are limited to the ISM bands, otherwise everyone who has such a device must also have a license with the FCC.  That would kinda kill any anonimity of using bitcoin with an offline device.  I'm mostly trying to start a conversation about starting a standard, so that hardware experimenters can use a common set of standards to make their devices comminicate more effectively with a bit of prior planning; rather than just let some incompatible devices talk past each other until a defacto standard arises.  First the transaction broadcasting method, then perhaps the block data method if one is necessary.  I don't think that they will be, because an offline device that can occasionally connect via wifi to collect updated info concerning it's own address balances and new transaction inputs can create transactions and continue to spend it's own known change until it's balance is zero.

That's fine too, but that is a different goal.  It's not enough to just send a transaction to your seller, although that's certainly possible with any direct wireless peer model, because if I were to buy something of great value from you, and have a deal with a local thug that if he mugs you before you can get to a signal to send that transaction to the Internet, then all the security against double spending is useless.  Thug just mugs you, steals your device, and smashes it and I give him half and keep the bitcoins to spend again.

No, the idea here is different than just the ability to trade person to person while offline, the idea is to have a standardized (& relatively cheap) method of broadcasting that transaction to the wild, so at least the parties involved don't know that said transaction hasn't been heard by other bitcoin devices nearby.  A bitcoin gateway, such as I am presenting here, doesn't need to even have a transmitter, and as such isn't limited in the quality of the receiving equipment.  Done right, even low power burst transmissions of transactions could travel for miles in the open or blocks in the city.  Using an offline device affords a different kind of security model, even where Internet access is readily available, but there needs to be some method of getting those transactions out there.  There also needs to be some way of getting block data processed and into the devices, but one thing at a time.

While this is true, the higher frequency ISM bands are in heavy use by existing part 15 technologies.  Obviously, Wifi dominates 2.5 & 5 gigahertz, but many other techs compete for this same band.  433 Mhz is commonly used by simpler devices, such as garage door openers and car remotes, but is still a very viable band.  I reject it only because of the potential that Dash7 transceivers could come to dominate the band if they ever make it into cell phones.  Dash7 would make an ideal p2p meshing tech for bitcoin to piggyback  upon, but that would happen regardless of any alternatives.


And some are Europe only, which is another reason that the higher ISM bands are so crowded, because they are nearly worldwide.  No ISM band is universal, however.  I'm considering only the best solutions wherein realistic enforceablitly of public spectrum regs exist.  No one cares what laws Iran may pass, they can't prevent such devices from their public anyway.


Yes, 433 Mhz is a near-global ISM band.  More widely respected than 900Mhz, less than 2.5 Ghtz or 5 Ghtz.  I doubt that 40 Mhtz is a worldwide ISM band, but it is in USA, Canada and Europe.  The rest of the world can adapt or use a different band.

The comments are filled with patheticly uneducated perspectives.

Good God, those are expensive!