Search content
Sort by
Showing 19 of 19 results by Innomen
they use your money to do their own trades against you, you then need to wait for them to complete their trades before they have the money to transfer to you. It is a scam, but they are getting away with it since most people don't notice what they are doing.
Who is they? Is this a hypothesis? Do you have a link or something to defend your assertion?
I just started a small withdraw from gox to okpay, will report when it clears.
Naw, avoiding percentages (20% is way too much) like that is why I'm trying to stay away from traditional currency in the first place. Besides, my book isn't for sale anymore. I want people to pay me after they read it, the more I think about it the more that's the only really fair way to do it.
The way I see it I'm privileged to have a reader, they aren't privileged to be reading my work no matter how hard it was or how long it took me.
The way I see it I'm privileged to have a reader, they aren't privileged to be reading my work no matter how hard it was or how long it took me.
Originally this ebook was for sale but now it's free and I accept bitcoin donations.
http://underlore.com/Food%20for%20Rage.html
I doubt anyone from here is just going to read it at random, let alone donate, but I wanted it on the record that I'm among those embracing bitcoin from a merchant(ish) perspective.
In fact, I'd prefer BTC to cash.
Thanks for your time
http://underlore.com/Food%20for%20Rage.html
I doubt anyone from here is just going to read it at random, let alone donate, but I wanted it on the record that I'm among those embracing bitcoin from a merchant(ish) perspective.
In fact, I'd prefer BTC to cash.
Thanks for your time
I've written a book and initially I was selling it but now it's free but I accept donations in btc.
The wiki doesn't seem to include a list of donation accepting authors or anything of the sort. The wiki's talk page seems to have a bit of discussion about changing this, but in the mean time is there anywhere on this forum where it's suitable to mention such things?
Thanks for your time
The wiki doesn't seem to include a list of donation accepting authors or anything of the sort. The wiki's talk page seems to have a bit of discussion about changing this, but in the mean time is there anywhere on this forum where it's suitable to mention such things?
Thanks for your time
I don't know why I was not informed of your reply. My apologies for the extreme delay. Normally subsequent replies alert me to these kinds of oversights a lot faster.
Awesome! Then you won't mind linking me to information which will help me correct them
Since you're clearly a fan, we won't quibble.
Yes and Nvidia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL#History
Since supply in the context of worth is defined by desire relative to availability the effect of "waking up to reality" was a sudden expansion of supply. Your comment seems to create a distinction without a difference. Also value is by definition subjective. There is no reality to wake up to, just a collective opinion. Even gold, while yes having objective physical traits does not have objective value.
But even if no one else on the planet wants them I'd want them for historical value if nothing else. I doubt I'm alone on this front. BTC will never totally lose value so long as they exist and I'm alive.
That's debatable, to put it mildly. http://www.realdanlyons.com/blog/2012/02/13/hit-men-click-whores-and-paid-apologists-welcome-to-the-silicon-cesspool/ (for a little taste of why that's debatable)
Granted. But they won't. BTC have a fixed scarcity.
Neither am I till someone demonstrates it or points out something I've specifically asserted which I cannot defend.
Thanks for the reply and again sorry about the absurd delay. And I guess nercopost at this point.
Quote
You have a lot of errors.
Awesome! Then you won't mind linking me to information which will help me correct them
Quote
You completely mischaracterize Ayn Rand.
Since you're clearly a fan, we won't quibble.
Quote
OpenCL is ATI/AMD.
Yes and Nvidia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL#History
Quote
You misunderstand that the tulip bulb crash was not a function of expanding supply, it was a result of simply waking up to reality.
Since supply in the context of worth is defined by desire relative to availability the effect of "waking up to reality" was a sudden expansion of supply. Your comment seems to create a distinction without a difference. Also value is by definition subjective. There is no reality to wake up to, just a collective opinion. Even gold, while yes having objective physical traits does not have objective value.
Quote
If other people stop valuing bitcoins, you will be in the same situation.
But even if no one else on the planet wants them I'd want them for historical value if nothing else. I doubt I'm alone on this front. BTC will never totally lose value so long as they exist and I'm alive.
Quote
Much like the dot-com crash.
That's debatable, to put it mildly. http://www.realdanlyons.com/blog/2012/02/13/hit-men-click-whores-and-paid-apologists-welcome-to-the-silicon-cesspool/ (for a little taste of why that's debatable)
Quote
You can't do much with a tulip bulb if other people stop valuing it. The same is true of stocks of money-losing companies. If other people stop valuing bitcoins, you will be in the same situation.
Granted. But they won't. BTC have a fixed scarcity.
Quote
I'm not sure that your critique is any less wrong.
Neither am I till someone demonstrates it or points out something I've specifically asserted which I cannot defend.
Thanks for the reply and again sorry about the absurd delay. And I guess nercopost at this point.
I don't put "windows" and "security" in one sentence.
I see, so then all I have to do to get the average man off the street to safely adopt bitcoin (and declare war on the fiscal system) is teach them linux, cryptography, and vmware. >.> Why didn't I think of that?
I am so sick and tired of attitudes like this making all of open source look downright smug and mean. Not to mention devoid of vision or common sense. I'm so tired of this petty divisive clannish crap.
Newsflash: Not Everyone Is A Nerd And This Is Not A Personal Failing. (I'm reminded of ethnocentrism, but that's the wrong word.) Society is full of specialists. Demanding that everyone who wants to use something as basic as Currency adopt Your specialty is unrealistic and arrogant to put it mildly.
It reminds me of some ivory tower obsessive compulsive math professor demanding that children be required to pass calculus 4 before leaving grade school just because you happen to have a gift for numbers. Or some crotchety old fossil demanding that everyone should have to churn their own butter just because he can and does.
Bitcoin is unsafe so long as the wallet file system persists.
Think of it this way. If every single bit coin were legally treated like an image of child porn, how long would it take before they were all destroyed? The fact that the system allows bitcoins to effectively be destroyed is a huge, obvious, glaring, deal breaking, weakness. If it can't be coded around or even conceptualized around then bitcoin is dead.
You people don't seem to fathom the damage a functional crypto currency would do to government power, nor the lengths to which they will go to preserve that power. Think secret service anti-counterfeiting efforts times a billion.
Perspective: ultimately, we are attempting to usurp the power of the global financial industry and trying to talk people out of using dollars at the same time.
We are trying to unrig THE game.
Your technically skilled naivete would be adorable and entertaining if the loss humanity might incur (the wholesale rejection of virtual currency as unsafe thanks to a lousy first impression and poor initial marketing) as a result was not so severe.
Why don't you stop thinking about your ego for 30 seconds and think about humanity and it's future? This isn't about how smart YOU are! Its about making average people comfortable enough to trust their lives to this abstraction. This is about perception management along with ideological and cyber warfare.
Look at the damage controlled currency has done to history.
Quote
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." ~Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Are you really going to get all defensive and snide with newbies when we have a real chance to prevent that damage?
I guess you are.
Your children and their children will probably die slaves of the banking system like we both will because of it, but hey at least you got to feel like a computer god for a little while. Fair trade yeah? >.>
You know, it dawns on me, at this point people like you are a worse threat than the ones I've mentioned.
You're like the techs at Chernobyl that said yeah sure an RBMK graphite-moderated reactor design allows for melt down, but our awesome technical skill and professional vigilance will be enough to prevent disaster, we have no need to consider the much safer PWR design.
It's probably too late already and I'm wasting my time.
Enjoy the last word, I'm done.
Then people using bitcoin will simply switch to Linux, or have a separate Linux partition just for bitcoin.
If you use Linux only with software from signed repositories, it is virtually impossible to catch a virus.
If you use Linux only with software from signed repositories, it is virtually impossible to catch a virus.
You are thinking of the traditional garage made or botnet data thief virus that gets instantly detected and patched. You might want to brush up on the reality of actual state-level cybercrime or cyberwarfare.
I explained myself more fully in the other thread.
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=111.msg39486#msg39486
Stuxnet is a weaponized virus. Its a scary example of what can be achieved against a countries infrastructure.
Luckily bitcoin is not a country
Luckily bitcoin is not a country
Fascinating. And a fine example of what I was talking about in the other thread. Thank you for your research. That is exactly the kind of attack I am speaking of. A well funded well organized intelligence community backed scorched earth attack on the bitcoins themselves. They'd only have to do it once and it would permanently wound the very notion of cryptocurrency despite the reality of any subsequent situation in much the same way as Chernobyl slaughtered nuclear power despite it over all being infinitely better for humanity than burning fossil fuels for power.
We have to do it right, and we have to do it right the first time or it will be the last time.
I actually think what Innomen is saying makes a lot of sense. Switching to Linux will not be possible for people who can barely operate Windows. It is not us, the technical people that need to worry about this, but since we try to convince more and more people to start using Bitcoin (for example I got a few of my friends into using Bitcoin, but most of them have no idea how it all works and I doubt they encrypt their wallet with TrueCrypt after every transaction and copy it to five different places), they will be the ones affected by the viruses. Once virus' authors realize there is money in it, they will save no effort to get to one's wallet.
Another VERY important aspect of this is that people need to be aware of the fact that after they copy their wallet into a safe place they should start using a new one. Why? Because most people make backup copies after a new transaction (I personally do that after a big transaction). Now, if an attacker or a virus manages to transfer coins from your account - your backup copy is useless. It's actually better if the virus corrupts your wallet instead of using it (if you have a backup). And, since the wallet is not encrypted, I suppose this is not impossible? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Another VERY important aspect of this is that people need to be aware of the fact that after they copy their wallet into a safe place they should start using a new one. Why? Because most people make backup copies after a new transaction (I personally do that after a big transaction). Now, if an attacker or a virus manages to transfer coins from your account - your backup copy is useless. It's actually better if the virus corrupts your wallet instead of using it (if you have a backup). And, since the wallet is not encrypted, I suppose this is not impossible? Please correct me if I am wrong.
This. (And thank you.)
agree, winning the hearts of populace should be high on the list of priorities for bitcoin proponents when planning the roadmap.
Exactly, and to do that all reasonable concerns must be addressed and the demands/realities of non technical end-users must be considered reasonable, especially at this stage.
Re: Will occasional losses of bitcoin wallets limit available maximum bitcoins?
Complete nonsense. The supply doesn't matter when you can divide forever. Even 1 BTC is enough to run the whole economy. It's just a fucking integer, for Eris' sake.
You're being hopelessly ignorant of how the mind actually works, and at this stage of the currency's propagation, perception is rather important.
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2436.msg34820#msg34820 <---< this also
Also, please reframe (sic) from making such a gigantic post.
Oh I'm sorry am I pushing your minuscule attention span? Well I tell you what, you can just divide my post into nanoposts so it's easier to handle. It's just a #$%^ing integer for FSM's sake.
Re: Will occasional losses of bitcoin wallets limit available maximum bitcoins?
Trading unpredictable central bank inflation for predictable annual coin loss seems like a good design decision to me.
But why pick between bad options when a perfect option can be created? God I am so tired of this blind slave consumer "only what's on the shelf" wysiwyg attitude.
But I don't think it's anything that needs to be worried about right now.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this economic mess in the first place. Now is precisely the time to think about it while the system is still small enough for real change to be adopted. The larger the number of people using the existing system the harder it will be to make sweeping updates.
What is the difference between lost coins, and coins that people have been saving for a long time?
None, it is mearly psychological.
Uhhhh, no. The difference is that lost coins are lost. That's like saying the difference between giving away a dollar and burning it is psychological. Man this really exposes the flawed thinking in people. This is the same logic that allows a baby to think the world has vanished when it's covered its eyes.
A lost coin has no potential to be spent, only potential to be stolen in some remote hypothetical future.
If a wallet.dat file is destroyed, and transactions orphaned, there is no way to use those coins ever again.
Well, not without a forced address collision, but I'm presuming that we would wish to spend those coins before the sun burns out.
Well, not without a forced address collision, but I'm presuming that we would wish to spend those coins before the sun burns out.
Exactly. And that's exactly the kind of thinking enemies of this system would use. When you're trying to destroy competition (traditional currency vs cryptocurrency) a scorched earth policy is acceptable, if not preferable.
Maybe I am missing something, but what exactly is the point of reintroducing lost coins?
Because when more than 4 people use this currency people aren't going to want share the remaining 2 coins out to 50 decimal places. A net wide wallet attack could reduce the total amount of coins to an absurdly low amount overnight. It's all well and good to talk about magic future computers and super updates and deflation value but the fact is the system right now is perceived to be vulnerable. Whether that perception is a result of ignorance is irrelevant.
21 million for an entire global economy is ludicrously low to begin with when you think long term and large scale. Imagine trying to operate in an economy where a single penny will buy you an air craft carrier. You'd need the intellectual equivalent of a clean room and an electron microscope just to buy a pack of gum.
Do you people not realize the heat that will come down the second this currency starts being used by people any large government feels like calling terrorists? Wake up.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png
The system does not need to liberate lost coins.
First, there's no solution because there's no way to know they're actually lost. A bank could be holding some coins as collateral for hundreds of years and never touch them.
Secondly, there is no reason to do it. It just doesn't matter whether coins get lost. The price of the coins will naturally rise as the market realizes there are fewer coins that will "budge" to higher demand.
Thirdly, the U.S. likewise does not care about lost coins. If a federal reserve note (dollar bill) get mutilated or destroyed beyond recognition, the government never does anything to redistribute that lost dollar.
First, there's no solution because there's no way to know they're actually lost. A bank could be holding some coins as collateral for hundreds of years and never touch them.
Secondly, there is no reason to do it. It just doesn't matter whether coins get lost. The price of the coins will naturally rise as the market realizes there are fewer coins that will "budge" to higher demand.
Thirdly, the U.S. likewise does not care about lost coins. If a federal reserve note (dollar bill) get mutilated or destroyed beyond recognition, the government never does anything to redistribute that lost dollar.
First, if the system has a provision for liberating dormant coins then institutions will simply refresh them from time to time by moving them from one account to another.
Secondly, I don't care about the value of the coin if there is only one coin to go around. Do you understand how damaging to the perceived value of the system all those decimals places will be? The problem existing makes the whole thing look slipshod and unprofessional, regardless of the metaphisyical actuality of the situation. A currency only has value because we all agree it has value. Marketing concerns here are as real in this context as any other concern, and I for one will not use this system until these problems are addressed.
Thirdly, except print more? Where do you think inflation comes from? The controllers of the currency are strongly motivated to create more currency.
Quote
I don't think this works.
Agreed.
Don't use it.
*facepalm* Oh for the love of...
Here we go, the classic head burying, if you don't like it get out, intellectually/politically/ethically lazy motto. The real reason real changes to the system are already impossible. Because of entrenched defensive elitists. The same crowd (literally in some cases I have no doubt) that uses telnet to browse the Internet and thinks user friendliness is weakness. The digital crotchety Amish waving slide rules at the kids on their lawn.
I guess Rosa Parks should have just walked to work. Screw trying to fix the system right?
I'm so tired of that whole sycophantic and yet egotistical mentality.
It's called backing up and encrypting it.
It's called control being an illusion. This is the exact same logic that people who don't wear helmets and seat belts use to disastrous effect. "I'll just be careful, I don't need basic safety precautions." Please.
Such a mechanism would make bitcoin network unnecessary more complex.
Right, because it's not necessary to address a basic, widespread, and obvious concern during the infancy of a currency you're trying to get people to adopt. >.>
I'm not going to literally bet my life savings on my ability to out-tech the entire hacker community; regardless of what color their hat is. And neither will anyone else with any rational understanding of reality.
Anyway, this is not really a problem, because modern banks all use electronic currencies already, and if their computer systems failed, people would lose money the same way as they would lose bitcoins...
No, because the currency actually exists somewhere in some form. One person losing access to their funds is not that same as the currency being effectively annihilated in all cases as it is under bitcoin. And so long as I have to be have a masters in comp sci (public perception, regardless of how easy you think things actually are) just to buy a loaf of bread I'll avoid the currency.
Also, new, better clients will be created with built-in multiple automatic wallet backups & data redundancy (or it will be implemented in the default client). So the losing of a wallet will become less common.
No they won't for the same reasons everyone here is basically talking smack to those with concerns right now. As the system grows resistance to change and intractability will as well. It will be like trying to convert America to metric. Those with a desire for user friendliness and security will be called newbs and lamers and the techno Luddites will run the show like always seeing to it that we all remain in the digital dark ages to preserve their own profit margin.
And if you don't see that mechanism at work already in virtually every other area of technical endeavor well I just don't think there's help for you.
Personally i simply double-backup my whole partition every day (weird RAID configuration).
Also, i backup my wallet on a pendrive every longer period of time.
Also, i backup my wallet on a pendrive every longer period of time.
Can an older wallet file be used to partially recover funds?
I was under the impression that after so many transactions are made older backups were rendered worthless.
If loss of a current wallet file only means loss of funds since last backup, and not loss of all funds then much of my concern is alleviated since I could at the very least print my wallet file once a year and physically secure it.
Not that I would actually do that for the same reason I don't buy gold and bury it, but I like having the option.
I don't see how people working for free could hurt society.
I'm sure American blacks in the pre-civil war era would disagree.
But seriously. The point isn't to evade damage to society, but to address legitimate concerns with the system to foster adoption.
I'm not using the currency till they are addressed. My labor has the same value regardless so I can afford to wait. I don't feel like dedicating a computer to the creation of new coins. It's just a currency and I'll use whatever one I judge is best until things change. The question is, how many other people will judge bitcoin too risky, and will that number be significant enough to A. force changes to the system. B. Damage the perceived value of bitcoin (and other cryptocurrency schemes) sufficiently to sink it/them.
Copy your wallet somewhere else.
*facepalm* Why do I bother? Did you even read what I said? It's not that simple. How do I know where I copied it is safe? You are demanding that everyone who uses the currency be tech savvy. I don't care how reasonable you think that demand is because you happen to be tech savvy, it isn't.
The second a common good problem crops up and people are afforded the opportunity to be callous, snide, and unhelpful to new people, they make a career out of it.
You'll change your tune the first time you have your wallet burnt by a DOD professionally crafted virus.
You answer is as dim as saying "don't crash your car" in response to issues of vehicle safety. No one plans on getting in a car wreck and sometimes it's not your fault, worse, sometimes, it's no one's fault.
Re: Will occasional losses of bitcoin wallets limit available maximum bitcoins?
Allowing this weakness to persist just because of the individual gain incurred by deflation is callous and corrosive to the system as a whole.
One need not be "stupid" to have an ill-timed (redundant?) house fire, or be the subject of a clever coordinated attack.
The system at the very least needs a way to liberate lost coins.
Coins that stay dormant for say 100 years are divided up among all current users? Is something like that possible? Ideally the problem should be obviated in some way, but as I say in the following post, those most capable of solving the problem are those least motivated to do so.
It's exactly why trickle down was laughable.
Related: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2436.msg33326#msg33326
One need not be "stupid" to have an ill-timed (redundant?) house fire, or be the subject of a clever coordinated attack.
The system at the very least needs a way to liberate lost coins.
Coins that stay dormant for say 100 years are divided up among all current users? Is something like that possible? Ideally the problem should be obviated in some way, but as I say in the following post, those most capable of solving the problem are those least motivated to do so.
It's exactly why trickle down was laughable.
Related: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2436.msg33326#msg33326
Just to contribute a potential attack methodology...
Wallet eating viruses. Since there is a fixed number of bitcoins, the system in effect has hit points and consistent wallet attacks could crush the currency by attrition and give rise to something akin to a deflationary spiral.
The nature of the wallet is in my opinion the weakest link of the bitcoin system followed closely by the inability to readily exchange them to other currencies.
I would like to somehow store my wallet in the network itself, or dispense with the wallet entirely somehow, so if my computer is destroyed or I am prevented from accessing it, my money is not destroyed/lost.
This problem will only get worse over time when one realizes the majority of Internet connected devices on the planet are phones, this pretty much assures us that eventually we'll have mobile versions of bitcoin, making wallet loss and destruction ever more common.
Forcing end users to secure their wallet file in effect forces them to be techies to feel safe enough to use the currency. This is a non-trivial problem because perception is a huge part of any currency's value. And right now the number one biggest problem I would have in convincing family and friends to use the currency is when they realize they have to treat a file on their computer like a sock full of life savings.
Regardless of the reality of the situation the perception will be that your money could vanish at anytime and as a result of that adoption rate be pressured downward as the acceptance of the currency climbs. Or, as bitcoins become more worth stealing, the anxiety of the wallet file will increase.
to make matters worse there also seems to be a conflict of interest with regard to wallet files and this problem generally since the more coins that are destroyed the more the rest of the coins are worth. We've created a common good problem where it makes individual sense to encourage the destruction of wallets to inflate your own assets.
Wallets need to be made secure and permanent along with the rest of the system, and yet those most in a position to do this are most motivated not to.
In my opinion if bitcoin ultimately fails, this will be why and a cunning government will exploit that truth to disastrous effect.
Wallet eating viruses. Since there is a fixed number of bitcoins, the system in effect has hit points and consistent wallet attacks could crush the currency by attrition and give rise to something akin to a deflationary spiral.
The nature of the wallet is in my opinion the weakest link of the bitcoin system followed closely by the inability to readily exchange them to other currencies.
I would like to somehow store my wallet in the network itself, or dispense with the wallet entirely somehow, so if my computer is destroyed or I am prevented from accessing it, my money is not destroyed/lost.
This problem will only get worse over time when one realizes the majority of Internet connected devices on the planet are phones, this pretty much assures us that eventually we'll have mobile versions of bitcoin, making wallet loss and destruction ever more common.
Forcing end users to secure their wallet file in effect forces them to be techies to feel safe enough to use the currency. This is a non-trivial problem because perception is a huge part of any currency's value. And right now the number one biggest problem I would have in convincing family and friends to use the currency is when they realize they have to treat a file on their computer like a sock full of life savings.
Regardless of the reality of the situation the perception will be that your money could vanish at anytime and as a result of that adoption rate be pressured downward as the acceptance of the currency climbs. Or, as bitcoins become more worth stealing, the anxiety of the wallet file will increase.
to make matters worse there also seems to be a conflict of interest with regard to wallet files and this problem generally since the more coins that are destroyed the more the rest of the coins are worth. We've created a common good problem where it makes individual sense to encourage the destruction of wallets to inflate your own assets.
Wallets need to be made secure and permanent along with the rest of the system, and yet those most in a position to do this are most motivated not to.
In my opinion if bitcoin ultimately fails, this will be why and a cunning government will exploit that truth to disastrous effect.
We should not adapt to people's intellectual laziness. Ultimately they'll grow up and understand why a plain ASCII address is better.
Ugh! I am so tired of that attitude!I am always flabbergasted at the irony of cyber-luddites whining about how ease of use and user friendliness are abominations unto the net.
I for one am in favor of options and choice, there is no logical or ethical defense of the reverse.
In the real world people use web pages with images and buttons. Some may want the whole world to go back to amber text and CRTs, but too bad. If one wants to browse via telnet, that's their business. But they shouldn't get uppity and try to force everyone else into their anti-technology Unabomber fantasy land just because their elitist $%#s can't handle seeing fresh faces at the country club.
The people that like to use terms like "intellectual laziness" in a scolding do-it-my-way-or-you're-stupid context are attempting to impose their subjective and intolerant whims onto the community and it makes me sick because the whole point of Bitcoin and indeed open source generally is freedom of the very choice they're attempting to step on.
With the recent Wikileaks madness, and as a political blogger, I am eager to see a truly free PayPal alternative. This means replication of every feature PayPal has. And that includes making it easy on donors and buyers. Duh. I guess you're against point of sale machines as well. Much better to force card users to memorize huge account numbers and replace magnetic strips with keypads, right? Please.
If you want to turn your webpage into some techie-bootcamp, fine, but I don't feel like running my users and readers through an obstacle course just because I think they could use the exercise. Not all of them are tech minded and I don't have any pressing need to try and force them into that role, or indeed to be more like me at all.
Rant concluded. ---
For the record I vote for the solution put forth by mikegogulski or whoever else. The URI solution is ideal.
I would love to have a Bitcoin button on my page that works like PayPal donate, and the URI solution seems like the most flexible and user friendly solution.
Just to be intellectually lazy can someone link me to the appropriate place to make this feature request or to do whatever else I can do to support the adoption and inclusion of such a feature?