|
Is there anything that prevents someone from a regularly updated blockchain snapshot download via Android Market, so that new users (or users that haven't permitted their Bitcoin Android client to update recently) can slurp down a recent snapshot, verify it, and then bootstrap from there?
|
|
|
|
people are watching and examining deepbit like hawks, I doubt deepbit will do anything fraudulent. Plus why would any established pool destroy their own investment by destabilizing bitcoin network? the reward is tiny vs the potential loss. What we need to watch for is if any non-established source has control of hash power over 50%.
But what if someone hacks deepbit and gains control of the pool? It would be a short lived win, because deepbit doesn't control the pool's nodes. As soon as the breech was noticed, and it wouldn't take all that long, the nodes' owners would just starve deepbit of it's collective resources and the takeover attempt would be useless. But couldn't someone with control of 51% script it so they 'found' 1,000,000 blocks in the span of several seconds? No. |
|
|
|
I didn't. The classical definition of inflation/deflation has never been a change in the general price level. As I have already said, and changes in the general price level could be a symptom of inflation or deflation; but it is, itself, not either. Inflation/deflation can be considered the absolute change in the monetary base, or alternatively, the change in the monetary base relative to the size of the economy that it represents. Either definition is valid, but both are fundamentally dependent upon a determination of the size of the monetary base. The changes in the general price levels are always and effect, never a cause.
And as I have already asked: sources please. Okay, I'll post this again, since some people seem unable to either do some research of their own, or even read the older posts. http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/InflationAmong the Economics texts that use this definition.... Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt http://www.lfb.org/product_info.php?products_id=38The Road to Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek http://www.lfb.org/product_info.php?products_id=49The Law, by Fredric Bastiat, I think also uses this definition implicitly, but it's not really an economics text, per se. http://www.lfb.org/product_info.php?products_id=96Capitalism & Freedom, by Milton Friedman http://www.lfb.org/product_info.php?products_id=103Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, by Thomas Sowell probably uses this definition either explicitily or implicitly, although I haven't read this one. http://www.lfb.org/product_info.php?products_id=300Whatever Happened to Penny Candy by Rich Maybury of Chaostan.com fame, but that is a children's textbook. http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Explanation-Economics-Investments/dp/0942617525Other's can provide more, I'm sure. If you have been taught otherwise by any formal Economics instructor, you need to ask for your money back.
Why don't you let me decide what I need?  Because you seem to be incapable of independent thought, so I thought I might help out. |
|
|
|
|
How to I know if it's downloading the blocks? I can't even see a count anywhere.
|
|
|
|
people are watching and examining deepbit like hawks, I doubt deepbit will do anything fraudulent. Plus why would any established pool destroy their own investment by destabilizing bitcoin network? the reward is tiny vs the potential loss. What we need to watch for is if any non-established source has control of hash power over 50%.
But what if someone hacks deepbit and gains control of the pool? It would be a short lived win, because deepbit doesn't control the pool's nodes. As soon as the breech was noticed, and it wouldn't take all that long, the nodes' owners would just starve deepbit of it's collective resources and the takeover attempt would be useless. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, this conversation has gone all over the place. Too much noise. Too much emotion, also. Considering locking this thread and forcing the party to start another thread.
Just as a general comment. There is nothing in libertarian ideology that is against drivers having insurance, but not having insurance doesn't change the liabilities of the drivers. It only transfers the costs of those liabilities to the insurance company hired to underwrite the drivers. Uninsured drivers are still responsible for the damage that they cause. This is generally true now.
Likewise, libertarian thought is not against an organization such as the FDA, so long as it's not a government monopoly. Consumer Reports and Underwriters' Labs are two examples of private institutions that perform similar functions to that of regulatory oversight, and do it well, without restricting the individual to the choice of ignoring their advice. If the FDA only warned me against using certain drugs, but didn't actually prevent me from the choice, then I'd be okay with it (yes, even though it's funded by taxation; but that's a pragmatic compromise not an ideal).
Incidently, US building codes just about everywhere require that installed products sport a 'listing mark', but does not require a particular listing mark. This means that, in practice, products must have been tested by UL or a competitor to be installed in any new or existing structure in the United States. UL has few competitors, because they do their job so well, but there are a couple. I've seen products 'listed' by the Canadian counterpart to UL (which I believe is a government operation) but very few of them. This is because, even though the building codes don't require a particular testing lab, many insurance companies do. So it's not like the FDA does anything that can't be done by the marketplace.
|
|
|
|
It sure does. I think that murder, rape and theft are wrong and if you disagree, tough shit. I am a tyrannical bastard when it comes to you keep your hands to yourself unless you have permission otherwise.
What are you going on about? Honestly. It must really suck to have to argue from your point of view. I said earlier that the world and human society are of great complexity, and the confluence of the two doesn't make it less so. Why the fuck do you think everything is the same as rape and murder? I challenge you to make a clear point going forward. It's just never going to happen. He's hopeless. Moonshadow, since I've given up on rape and murder boy, please address the point I mentioned earlier in post #221 in regards your to explanation of coercion, re: why that definition shouldn't also be applied to large, influential market players in a free market. I already addressed post #221. But with regard to large market players, it should where appropriate. You seem to forget that the vast majoroty of 'market makers' in our modern version of corporatism are sanctioned and protected by the government regulators, not limited by them. It's the little guy that gets hit with charges of insider trading, not the corporate backed investor. Much of what you object to, although not impossible within a libertarian or anarchist marketplace, would be transient events in a truely free market. Admittedly, I'm not sure that a truely free market is any more possible than a true communist economy, wo for myself it's more a matter of degree. |
|
|
|
I think that you guys are really overreacting. It's as likely as not, that this lawyer trademarked Bitcoin in defense of the bitcoin community, before anyone else with ill intent did so. After all, there are lawyers on this forum. Perhaps there was an unaddressed legal threat there, that this lawyer knew that he could do something about. Has anyone bothered to ask him his intent? It's not like his email address isn't all over his website. He's certainly not anonymous.
Do you really belive that? Do you seriously think someone who had intentions of 'protecting' Bitcoin would do so without saying anything to any one? And, would they be so defensive to respond with this, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435For a well educated lawyer type his spelling and grammar sure went all to hell in his response.. That certainly doesn't bode well, but why evidence is there that this response was actually written by the same guy? Whoever wrote this has no concept of what Bitcoin actually does, and is a crappy lawyer to boot. He's going to get hammered someday, even if he survives the CP that the black hats are likely to put all over his home computer. |
|
|
|
at one time i had a stash stored at Credit Suisse in Switzerland but got spooked about them during the banking crisis of 2008 before bringing it home. i also considered storing it in a safety deposit box at my local bank but was advised that if the banking system went insolvent they could repossess it.
You feared that the bank will steal your money because their business is bad? Wow, Bitcoin really is for you. It's happened in the past. What would prevent it in the future? |
|
|
|
Name a capitalist country that had a famine with a million deaths in the past year. Name one in 2000, 1990 or 1980. Show me a million deaths in any year, since WWII, within a predominately capitalist society that wasn't at war at the time. You can't because it hasn't happened since 1933, and even then it's questionable.
There are 35 million deaths caused by famine every year under capitalism. 17 million people every year die because of obesity. There are 850 million people suffering severy hunger, there are more than 1000 million obeses. Links or it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
|
I think that you guys are really overreacting. It's as likely as not, that this lawyer trademarked Bitcoin in defense of the bitcoin community, before anyone else with ill intent did so. After all, there are lawyers on this forum. Perhaps there was an unaddressed legal threat there, that this lawyer knew that he could do something about. Has anyone bothered to ask him his intent? It's not like his email address isn't all over his website. He's certainly not anonymous.
|
|
|
|
I didn't say any such thing. Are you confusing me with someone else, or do you have a reading comprehension issue?
I see. Well then you explain to me how you arrived from the classical definition of inflation/deflation being change in prices to your "inflation/deflation is an increase/decrease in the money supply"? I didn't. The classical definition of inflation/deflation has never been a change in the general price level. As I have already said, and changes in the general price level could be a symptom of inflation or deflation; but it is, itself, not either. Inflation/deflation can be considered the absolute change in the monetary base, or alternatively, the change in the monetary base relative to the size of the economy that it represents. Either definition is valid, but both are fundamentally dependent upon a determination of the size of the monetary base. The changes in the general price levels are always and effect, never a cause. If you have been taught otherwise by any formal Economics instructor, you need to ask for your money back. |
|
|
|
Read up on Urban Sprawl on wikipedia, it explains why Americans would get mad at higher gas prices. To summarize, and from personal experience, a lot of Americans cannot get anywhere without a car because a lot of cities are designed like a bowl of shit. To add to the shitty design, most can't/don't find work within 10 miles of where they live. Source: I live in a suburb of Kansas City.
I disagree with this position. Americans can find housing within 10 miles of their work, they just don't. I did that, intentionally, four years ago and have ridden a bicycle to work for over 3 years. Ironicly, I just bought a car for myself yesterday. |
|
|
|
|
You could release a modified bitcoin client that structures peer connections in any way that you like. If I think that it is safe, I'd use it.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your advise, the truth is I've read many textbooks on economics and have considerable life experience in this area myself, so my knowledge is not purely academic. The definition I provide is accepted by many economists, including those leaning towards Austrian school's perspective (I am one of them) and has nothing to do with what media presents (which I try to stay away from). Nonetheless, can you please point me to an Economics textbook or a published paper that defines inflation/deflation as an increase/decrease in the money supply? I'd be curious to check it out (a link to a wiki would not be considered a credible source).
Maybe later. What you seem to be saying, if I understand correctly - "inflation/deflation is an increase/decrease in the money supply" is really putting two observations into one and creating a causal link between the two, namely, 1) traditional money supply increases (governments print money) and 2) prices rise. Your definition is simply a jump to a conclusion that inflation (rise in prices) is caused by increase in money supply and lumps them together.
I didn't say any such thing. Are you confusing me with someone else, or do you have a reading comprehension issue? |
|
|
|
Also, you can refer to Karl Marx all day but that's just going to make you look like a literal communist.
Well, I couldn't care less about what other people might think. Also, I don't see why people are scared of communists, I think most of them are good people. Most are fine people. They are just ignorant. And terminally so.
- Millions of people die because of famines every year under capitalism's rule.
Name a capitalist country that had a famine with a million deaths in the past year. Name one in 2000, 1990 or 1980. Show me a million deaths in any year, since WWII, within a predominately capitalist society that wasn't at war at the time. You can't because it hasn't happened since 1933, and even then it's questionable. I really wish you kids would study History. |
|
|
|
I mean, I'm not discrediting Republican libertarians who think the US dollar is going to plummet to nothingness, but they aren't the whole of everyone who uses bitcoins.  I doubt Atlas was remotely a repub. Perhaps you don't understand what a libertarian actually stands for? |
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't miss the point. And I don't disagree that taxes can be levied in other ways. There are many other ways to tax than direct taxation of income. I was talking about regulation of Bitcoin or the economy around it. Taxation is but one form of regulation.
Why would I need to regulate Bitcoin? I can just regulate you. Only the part of me that you know. You can't know all. Can you regulate the tunnel people in NYC's abandoned train tunnels? Can you regulate the Appalation hillbillly making meth in the woods? I think that you overestimate your capacities as a government. |
|
|
|
None of these are regulations upon Bitcoin, or it's economy. This would require the implimentation of a total police state. I don't consider that much of a threat, myself.
Totally missing the point. If I can't monitor your Bitcoins, that doesn't preclude me from taxing you. Oh, I didn't miss the point. And I don't disagree that taxes can be levied in other ways. There are many other ways to tax than direct taxation of income. I was talking about regulation of Bitcoin or the economy around it. Taxation is but one form of regulation. |
|
|
|
|
Oh, I see.
I misunderstood. I thought that you had killed your persona long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
