Search content
Sort by
Showing 13 of 13 results by JohnRetardKeynes
What are the easiest ways to anonymously get bitcoins to start trading in in the first place? I know I can go through a trade exchange, but then I have to give them my paypal/bank account/blah details, and I'd rather not do that.
You could create your own bitcoins - mining. But takes fair amount of investment and even then it will take a while to generate any.
Or you could start selling things in bitcoins - drugs are good because most people understand that their dealer isn't going to show them his passport as ID when selling them.
I kill two birds with one stone and have my bitcoin mining operation in my meth lab as both require hefty ventilation.
While I don't really doubt you're a "legal company operating out of Atlanta", we really have no idea what you're even attempting to do. What exactly are "unused products?" I mean, are you selling condoms, or are you selling oven mitts? Or are you selling everything? Are you going to be selling off the shelf products, for bitcoins, or are you knitting sweaters and selling them for bitcoins?
I've got a pile of unused condoms if any one is interested. Probably past their sell by date, I haven't got any action for quite a while - will trade for bitcoins!
Satoshi uses British English and inserts two spaces between sentences. Does Paco Ahlgren?
Check for yourself: http://coinbits.com/bitcoin-cannot-fail.html
But i must warn you that wordpress sometimes auto-formats text depending on users settings, so, it may not mean much if he doesn't use the 2 spaces between sentences in his blog
About the british english, well... I can't pronounce myself because i learnt english watching to hollywood movies lol
The article definitely uses American english
criminalize (criminalise would be more common in UK, though ize is perfectly correct)
cell phone (a "mobile" in UK)
decentralized (again, ise ending more common in UK)
privatization
Occams Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) tells me that:
This Satoshi dude/dudes/dudette is a guy that hangs out of the crypto list, he/she/they
read Paco Ahlgrens book "Discipline", got inspired and created bitcoin.
Paco then found bitcoin and thought f*cking nice, this looks like the stuff in my book,
lets write about it.
All other explanations are less likely.
/GoK
This Satoshi dude/dudes/dudette is a guy that hangs out of the crypto list, he/she/they
read Paco Ahlgrens book "Discipline", got inspired and created bitcoin.
Paco then found bitcoin and thought f*cking nice, this looks like the stuff in my book,
lets write about it.
All other explanations are less likely.
/GoK
I'm with you all the way..... until...
why did Paco Ahlgren then decide to delete his blog post about bitcoin?
The attack you are suggesting is virtually impossible. What motive would people have for accepting a client that was rigged in such a way, particularly if the utility of bitcoin for them was harmed by such a choice? All that would happen if the developers did that is that their client version would quickly cease to be the official one.
And nothing stops anyone from writing their own client. So long as it follows the same network protocol, nobody need even ever know.
And nothing stops anyone from writing their own client. So long as it follows the same network protocol, nobody need even ever know.
Surely there is also the issue that some users are going to be using the older client, at least initially. So if they release a new client with this rather major change to the system in it, the vast majority of users would initially be rejecting those blocks that didn't follow the old rules. At this point it would become clear that there is something bad with the new client, that it was issuing bad blocks.
So one would have to ensure that it was hidden in the new client, but didn't start to create bad blocks until some point in the future when most if not all users would have upgraded. And being open source, its unlikely that such code could escape notice for long.
lolz newbies u got to get tor to go on a onion site like the silk road. plus its not down
Maybe he smoked a little too much crack and was hallucinating that it was down?
Why would an individual not wish to be associated with the creation of bitcoin?
It seems to me 2 likely explanations
One more: 3) They fear for their physical safety if it's known that they control millions of dollars in untraceable assets.It seems to me 2 likely explanations
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?
The assets are untraceable, but you know who owns them?
'control' is not a contradiction for 'own'. please re-read joel's post.
So you're talking about the "control" he has over the entire bitcoin system - not just Satoshi's own stash (which he "owns")?
I thought the whole idea of bitcoin is that our money is safe even from the creator of the system? IE Satoshi DOESN'T control it? Its peer to peer, the system controls it. Or did I miss something?
Are you telling me that if some gangsters start sticking things up Satoshis arse that my money is at risk?
Why would an individual not wish to be associated with the creation of bitcoin?
It seems to me 2 likely explanations
One more: 3) They fear for their physical safety if it's known that they control millions of dollars in untraceable assets.It seems to me 2 likely explanations
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?
The assets are untraceable, but you know who owns them?
That's the point, nothing stop them to just disappear with your BTC. Read the "TRUST NO ONE" thread, here in this world it is a very possible thing
Isn't that true of most banks? Banking revolves around trust. I'm sure there will be a market for trustworthy bitcoin banks. In these early days where major ones aren't established, one just has to be careful. I know at present i feel safer keeping my own bitcoins.
One has to consider why would he wish to remain anonymous?
One theory is that Satoshi is a number of people, a group.
If so, why pretend to be one person? A group could still be anonymous - eg "Anonymous" "Lulzsec" etc.
Why would an individual not wish to be associated with the creation of bitcoin?
It seems to me 2 likely explanations
1) they didn't wish bitcoin to be seen in the context of their previous writing. I've not read this Discipline book, but if it advocated a political line and the author of it were the creator of bitcoin, it might cast bitcoin in a political light. Eg if it predicts that a crypto currency could topple the US government, then bitcoin would be seen in light of that - ie an attempt to do that, which might turn many (but no means all) against it.
2) they intend to profit from bitcoin. Whoever invented bitcoin stands to make a lot of money as the currency appreciates (as they'd have got the first bit coins very cheaply). The very limited supply of bitcoins makes vast currency appreciation a certainty if they catch on (as appears to be happening). The creator might not wish people to see quite how well he's doing from it. Personally I don't see why the creator of something successful (eg Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Page, etc) should not make a fortune from it, but many people might use the growing wealth of the creator of the system as a criticism of it.
One theory is that Satoshi is a number of people, a group.
If so, why pretend to be one person? A group could still be anonymous - eg "Anonymous" "Lulzsec" etc.
Why would an individual not wish to be associated with the creation of bitcoin?
It seems to me 2 likely explanations
1) they didn't wish bitcoin to be seen in the context of their previous writing. I've not read this Discipline book, but if it advocated a political line and the author of it were the creator of bitcoin, it might cast bitcoin in a political light. Eg if it predicts that a crypto currency could topple the US government, then bitcoin would be seen in light of that - ie an attempt to do that, which might turn many (but no means all) against it.
2) they intend to profit from bitcoin. Whoever invented bitcoin stands to make a lot of money as the currency appreciates (as they'd have got the first bit coins very cheaply). The very limited supply of bitcoins makes vast currency appreciation a certainty if they catch on (as appears to be happening). The creator might not wish people to see quite how well he's doing from it. Personally I don't see why the creator of something successful (eg Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Page, etc) should not make a fortune from it, but many people might use the growing wealth of the creator of the system as a criticism of it.
An easier solution would be to make a note of a bitcoin addresses held on your laptop and then instruct slush to send all of your mining payouts to that address. The coins will be waiting for you at that address and they'll be yours when you turn on your laptop and update the blockchain. Because there is no time limit for claiming your coins the only time you would have to turn on the laptop and update the blockchain would be when you want to spend some coins.
Also if you're the kind of person who enjoys watching his BTC balance grow ( I am ) you can keep track of how many coins your address has at blockexplorer.com
Also if you're the kind of person who enjoys watching his BTC balance grow ( I am
) you can keep track of how many coins your address has at blockexplorer.comThis chap is on the money
cheers, a question i do have:
I see that the puzzle algorithm gets more complex as time goes by.
by what mechanism is this decided?
And how would it react to a billionaire buying all the bitcoins on the market?
I see that the puzzle algorithm gets more complex as time goes by.
by what mechanism is this decided?
And how would it react to a billionaire buying all the bitcoins on the market?
The algorithm to create bitcoins gets increasingly more difficult over a specified time period.
A billionaire buying all the bitcoins would not affect the creation of new bitcoins at all.
Of course what would happen is that the price of bitcoins would rocket as the billionaire started buying up bitcoins - so it would cost much more than the apparently total cost of all bitcoins currently in circulation.