Links update soon , follow us

iERO is soon to be released / NO PRE-MINE/ NO ICO/NO PRE-SALE

iERO is a 100% Miner coin.

Total Supply: 265420800
NO Pre-mine
NO ICO
NO Pre-Sale
First halving:10800
Blockchain Info
Block Time 2 minutes
Masternode reward:35 % of the block
Masternode confirmations:6



iERO's Vision

We believe that iERO will be a greener, faster, and fairer version of bitcoin, moving back to the original ideal of a currency that anyone could mine, manage, and use.



 
Email：info@iero.io
www.iero.io (come sooning)

Didn't have anything in there, I keep my coins in an airgapped wallet unless they need to be somewhere else for a reason.

761

If a bunch of people did this it would basically be a leverage fueled price bubble in bitcoin, it would undermine bitcoin as much as it would the banks in the long run.

Yeah I realized later that they already accept donations, but I didn't know it at first because there is no way to do it through the vodo site.  A simple mybitcoin payment button where the paypal donation buttons are now would do, vodo should at least offer it as an option to the authors.  I'm waiting to see the second part of zenith before I form an opinion on it.  So far the only problems I had with pioneer one were some really bad goofs on the sound editing (for example a minute long sequence or so in episode two where 60 Hz buzz was bleeding in when they recorded).  Given the budget though, it's hard to be too hard on them for that.  Although, "Primer" had a similar budget and was shooting a feature length production on film, so it can be done.

Anyone else been watching pioneer 1?  It's a freely distributed series, available as xvid over torrent from vodo.  They take donations, and when they raise a certain amount of cash they release the next episode.  I like the business model, I emailed requesting that they accept donations in bitcoin.  If anyone else thinks that's a good idea why don't you shoot them an email too, and see if we can't get them to embrace bitcoin.  Paying for media distribution and creation, since it is purely virtual goods, seems like an ideal task for bitcoin.

It might be a bit late to make this post, but there are already a number of private and semiprivate organizations that provide non binding codes for various things.  W3C for web standards, Underwriters Laboratories for all kinds of stuff, in Germany TUV (with dots over the U sorry, on a US keyboard) started as a  private organization to make steam engines safer (though I'm not sure how it's run now), FAA doesn't regulate skydiving dropzones, but there are rules set up by the amateur organizations.   There is no reason to believe that buildings would be any different, it is almost certain the building codes did save some lives, since without coercion there would be less than 100% compliance with any code, but if I want to build a building that is going to fall down, and it won't damage the neighbors buildings when it does, I should have the right to do that.  Obviously telling tenants that it is up to some earthquake code, then knowingly constructing to lower standards would be fraud, and very few libertarians would say that is ok.  As for the more complex issue, of say, skyscrapers that cannot collapse without significant damage and loss of life on neighboring properties, I don't really see much way around regulation there. 

Oddly enough, the triffin dilemma is sort of a larger version of the mortgage crisis in the US.  The banks knew that their debtors could not pay them back, and yet in the short term the loans were still mutually beneficial.  The banks got a mortgage agreement, that could be used as a cash like asset, and the debtor got a house, which he had no intention of paying for.  Until it exploded it looked great for everyone, because the debtor assumed the house would go up in value and he could sell it for a profit at any time, and the banks assumed the debt was backed by the value of the house, which would increase anyway.  The inflation of housing prices due to the fraudulent creation of money (creation of debt is creation of money in the current system), led the asset (housing) to form bubble that popped, and now the entire world is paying the price for what was, in essence, a giant counterfeiting scheme.

This is a very old scheme and one  that gets trot out every now and then.  Keynes suggested the development of a global fiat currency.  The idea being that keynes felt a debt backed fiat currency was good, because it allowed manipulation of the markets by the central bank to even out cyclical economic developments.  I think we've all seen how well that idea works in the last few decades, but nonetheless.  Instead of instituting the Bancor, the USD became the world reserve fiat currency through the bretton woods agreement (more on the details of the original plan for bretton woods can be found on wikipedia).  This eventually fell apart, and all ties to the gold standard, as well as the pegging of several international fiat currencies to the dollar, were lost under nixon's administration, partly due to out of control spending in vietnam and domestically under LBJ (sound familiar?) and international discontent with US foreign policy in the early 1970s.  Part of the problem with having the USD as a reserve currency, which is IMHO causing many of the current economic woes, is the issue with trade deficits.  The issue is known as the Triffin dilemma:


Triffin dilemma

This is where short-term domestic and long-term international economic objectives can conflict when a currency is also a reserve currency. [1]

The Triffin dilemma or paradox: the conflict between the benefits and costs of a country with a reserve currency running a large current account deficit. The reserve-currency country enjoys the consumption benefit of running a trade deficit, while the rest of the world benefits from the additional liquidity, which helps facilitate trade, The cost comes from the declining value and credibility of any currency which runs a persistent trade deficit - eventually leading to a reluctance of creditors to hold the reserve currency. [2]

(from lexicon.ft.com)

In other words, it is, in the short term, both beneficial to the US to borrow money, and beneficial to our creditors, because it injects liquidity into their markets (effectively printing them money).  Long term, however, the currency is devalued and everyone will end up sitting on useless assets backed by unmanageable debt.  This is the state we are now in, I don't know if total collapse is coming, but I would be extremely surprised if the status quo of the USD being the world reserve currency can be maintained much longer.  Currently, however, there is no replacement.  The bancor would be a hard sell, given the incompetence of the UN and the IMF, and each member state's sovereignty issues, the euro is only marginally healthier than the dollar at the moment, the chinese refuse to even float the renminbi so it's unrealistic to expect central banks to hold it as a reserve.  In short, barring a return to an commodity based reserve (gold? palladium? silver? oil? a basket of valuable commodities?) the system is going to fall apart sooner or later, creating the bancor now, or worse (and more likely) trying to use SDRs as an international reserve, is too little too late.

Probably quite a few people under 18 but I'm guessing.  Going back to how to promote bitcoin, I know they are kinda on the fringe, but how about things like Coast to Coast AM and Alex Jones. I mean, like I say they are kinda on the fringe, but they have a fairly large listening audience, and I get the feeling a lot of them are the type that tend to do things like hoard gold now.  I listen to coast to coast, I don't hoard gold but I don't have the money for that, plus I expect the govt will simply make trading gold illegal when the dollar crash comes.  FDR did it before after all.  I also think Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck weren't stupid ideas, although I sincerely doubt glenn beck would understand the technical aspects of bitcoin, he would understand that it's about getting away from the Fed and the market manipulation that goes along with it.  A lot of people on the far right are very worried about the state of the FRN right now (justifiably IMHO), and we might be able to get acceptance through this. 
On a completely different note, but also in line with getting more people to use bitcoin, there are a lot of business models that are completely legal, but extremely difficult to find a CC processor for.  Things like online tobacco sales, online ammunition sales, private firearms sales (would only be legal in US if you held an FFL or only did business in your state), and even "adult content".  Also, bitcoin could have a role as an in game payment currency for mobile and social network games.  I realize that long term micropayments aren't a very good thing for the network, but what some of the mobile apps are referring to as micropayments aren't micro at all.  Also, maybe an android app store run using bitcoin, the overlap between developers that opt to use a linux based mobile platform and libertarian minded hackers might be all that would be needed to gain acceptance.

I've noticed the stability as well.  I'm quite happy about it, widespread use as a payment method will only happen if people can count on the price staying stable for at least a few days until they can get it out of bitcoin.  I'm a bit worried about the state of the exchanges for a few reasons, not the least of which is that they seem to be mostly dependent on LR staying good, and the thread about LR possibly going to hell has me worried.  There  is still bitcoin-otc, and bitcoin2cc, and bitcoin4cash, but all of those services seem like it might be difficult to use for even medium sized businesses.  It would be nice if ExchangeZone would add bitcoin to the currencies they support.

OK, criticism withdrawn, I'll wait and see how it turns out and then decide whether to participate.

You misunderstand my meaning, of course you are free to apply market pressures by spending or not spending with various merchants.  The thread proposed a system of laws and arbitration.  That goes far beyond market pressures, and people who are identifiable in real life will not be able to follow community laws before following local laws that are enforced with physical force.  If allegiance to a parallel court system is the price for using bitcoin, it will always remain a rand minority that uses it.  If that's what some people want fine, it's not what I want for the future of bitcoin. 

Lol, sorry about that. I kind of have a stream of consciousness writing style.  I'll try harder.

This is pretty much my point, if you are a mainstream business person, that is identifiable in real life, you need to observe local laws.  You (the customer) don't have to care about that at all, but you can't set up some sort of bitcoin community law in order to do business using the currency.  In fact, this is sort of a nonsensical discussion anyway, since you have no authority and no ability to enforce such a system, and a system of voluntary contracts would only be enforceable through local courts.  Mainstream businesses will need to do business according to their local laws, that includes bankruptcy protection and all the risk that comes with it, private individuals can rely on bitcoin to be more or less like cash, and simply rely on being under the radar if they choose.  The idea of having a separate system of economic regulations for the bitcoin community is not feasible, however, and if widely supported would just alienate mainstream businesses, because they cannot comply with such a system while still obeying their own laws.  For arguments sake Amazon could accept bitcoin at some point in the future, and it would be fantastic for the currency, but they have business licenses, tax IDs in almost ever US state and lots of other countries, if you think you can somehow make them comply with some sort of bitcoin community law before their other obligations, which are enforced with monopoly of violence in real geographic jurisdictions, you are delusional.  If bitcoin works well, such a parallel legal system will be unenforceable for private transactions as well.  So while I understand the ideals behind this whole discussion, I think it's misguided.  I should add that if you simply mean to set up some sort of community standards system in which reputation counts and violation of the "laws" cause a lowering of "credit rating" that's fine... that's totally doable, and in fact is already being done at bitcoin-otc.

A lot of people don't use western union for that very reason, and it's a common one to use for scams for that reason too.  This is not a bug, it's a feature, just for specific things.  Bitcoin has a lot of the advantages of western union, with less hassle and WAY less cost.   The whole point of bitcoin is to be digital cash.  Cash is fungible, and if it is stolen, you have no practical recourse, since you aren't likely to be able to prove anything in court.  When using a system based on cash, like western union, people just need to be careful.  If you are dealing with an untrusted merchant, don't do a transaction so large that the risk is out of proportion with the benefit.  This should be pretty basic thinking, since nearly everyone has a debit card, and a small amount of cash on them, for the very same reason.  The bitcoin "banks" for lack of a better word, such as mybitcoin, are still in their infancy, and for the amount of money I have in btc, I'd rather store my own coins, but you can assess the risk any way you want.  The primary benefit of bitcoin for the everyday person is that it enables peer to peer transactions with almost no processing cost, no middlemen, internationally, and without needing to even expose one's true name.  This means if you meet someone in IRC and they say "Hey, I'll do that XYZ you've been wanting for 50 coins" you can say "ok, half now, half later" and no one has to worry about paypal freezing accounts, banking regulations, FICO scores, or any other nonsense that makes the normal banking system so complex that you need a CPA to feel safe.  The risk is fairly high, but it's understandable, it's just like meeting someone at a bar and they say "give me 50 bucks in cash and I'll do XYZ".  It's a currency made for internet commerce, and I'm pretty confident it's going to gain acceptance for that purpose.  After it's proven it's value for that, maybe it will work it's way into the world of brick and mortar businesses. 

I'd just like to point out something that seems obvious to me.  Any central exchange/business selling for bitcoins/private party that reneges on debt, is an actual person, who already lives in a meatspace jurisdiction.  Bitcoin transactions are simply viewed as barter under normal state laws, and there are already bankruptcy systems and court systems.  If we set up a system for the bitcoin community, it is not enforceable without coercion, since we do not have a monopoly on force in any meatspace jurisdiction, attempting to enforce community rules will likely involve things that are technically illegal, and limit acceptance of bitcoin as a whole.  This is all very nice to try to make a working anarchocapitalist platform, but if you want mainstream acceptance we can't set up our own system of laws and courts, real world businesses will simply not participate in such a thing.  It is better to just view this as a parallel market where, while normal laws apply, they are very difficult to enforce, and exercise due caution because of this. 

I've already made some comments on my views on this, but I think this whole affair is a symptom of a greater problem.  We have a functioning medium of exchange that is roughly (very roughly) equivalent to digital cash, backed only by market pressures and community interest, and the problems are cropping up at the interface between this and the highly regulated world of national currencies.  Try to walk into a bank with 45k in 100 dollar bills and exchange them for euros and see how they look at you.  The future of bitcoin is clearly dependant on the availability of direct peer to peer exchange of currency, rather than some sort of central exchange point.  I'm going to look into bitcoin otc now, this thread has taught me a lesson.   The primary problem with only doing peer to peer exchanges is the ability to create a false persona when you get caught scamming, this problem was solved with cryptographic signatures decades ago. I'm thinking of a system in which a market is created where you can buy and sell bitcoins for any currency, any payment method, peer to peer, and your identity is attached to a gpg key generated for this purpose, and kept on your own computer.  Each time a transaction goes through another member of the community can sign this key.  The obvious flaw here is that I could make a hundred identities and sign my own keys.  I think if scammers could be identified with a sort of negative signature, that would show up as a demerit against their credit rating this might be held in check.  Any thoughts of a better implementation of some sort of scheme like this?

That doesn't help much when you are the merchant.