The New Economy


Recommended Posts

So getting back to the subject of bitcoins....

Dean,

1. What hash algorithm is used or did the designer create a new one?

2. Do prices of items fluctuate based on the current value of bitcoins?

3. You've done a code review, but what's to keep the owner of the code from changing it? Someone does own the code, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

God gave us free will because he was bored.

He made us in his own image so he could have someone to talk to.

The idea of heaven and hell is just to keep us in line. The only real heaven and hell is here on earth.

--Brant

actually, God did not make us in his own image, we made God in ours

religious theater is psychological genius and as inevitable as language

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of heaven and hell is just to keep us in line. The only real heaven and hell is here on earth.

I totally agree.

And each is self generated, or self inflicted, by our own actions. There's no need to wait until after you're dead to get what you deserve when it's served up fresh and piping hot right here and now. :laugh:

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I never watch the network or any other kind of news, it looks like I will merely need to examine my life more.

I'd say so.

Your view that you can do what's morally wrong while evading the consequences of your own actions would be easily shattered with even a modest amount of honest introspection of your life. But at least you have the consolation of knowing that your view is shared by the larger popular collective consensus, just as it is shared by most of the folks here.

Most people believe that they can do what's morally wrong and get away with it.

Just curious: When you were secretly recording your friend Carlos Castenada, how did you experience negative consequences for such morally reprehensible behavior?

There were no negative consequences because filming a public personality in a public setting isn't the least bit immoral. We had no end of fun for years, and it did not come at Carlos' expense, as neither his life or his death were altered one tiny bit by our actions.

I fully understand that your opinion is different and will never change. It is necessary for you to perceive me as immoral so as to invalidate my view of moral accountability while legitimizing your own view that you can escape the moral causality of your own actions.

P.S.: Your snipping of my replies to make them fit your worldview would more be annoying were it not for the fact that everybody is pretty much on to your game by now.

That's because I choose to respond to legitimate comments while leaving out the nastiness.

Greg

Did this "public personality" Carlos Castaneda give you permission to film him in what you are now calling "public settings"?

This should only require a short answer. Maybe even a yes or no, if clarity has any virtue here. I've only asked you this about 5-6 times, so let's have an answer, if you don't mind.

If you received no such permission--and it is quite obvious that you never did-- then your behavior was immoral. Period. As such, according to your own, ahem, "beautifully constructed" argument, you should have suffered negative consequences, and those consequences shouldn't be difficult to name. This is the syllogistic nature of the argument you are professing.

Own it, Greg. Don't abandon your argument when the going gets rough. :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I never watch the network or any other kind of news, it looks like I will merely need to examine my life more.

I'd say so.

Your view that you can do what's morally wrong while evading the consequences of your own actions would be easily shattered with even a modest amount of honest introspection of your life. But at least you have the consolation of knowing that your view is shared by the larger popular collective consensus, just as it is shared by most of the folks here.

Most people believe that they can do what's morally wrong and get away with it.

Just curious: When you were secretly recording your friend Carlos Castenada, how did you experience negative consequences for such morally reprehensible behavior?

There were no negative consequences because filming a public personality in a public setting isn't the least bit immoral. We had no end of fun for years, and it did not come at Carlos' expense, as neither his life or his death were altered one tiny bit by our actions.

I fully understand that your opinion is different and will never change. It is necessary for you to perceive me as immoral so as to invalidate my view of moral accountability while legitimizing your own view that you can escape the moral causality of your own actions.

P.S.: Your snipping of my replies to make them fit your worldview would more be annoying were it not for the fact that everybody is pretty much on to your game by now.

That's because I choose to respond to legitimate comments while leaving out the nastiness.

Greg

Did this "public personality" Carlos Castaneda give you permission to film him in what you are now calling "public settings"?

No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in a public setting. Especially today when everyone is fliming everyone else with their phones. That's why it's called "public". Do you know what "public" means? Hint: it's not private.

So the answer is no... and neither do you, or I, or anyone else needs to give permission to be filmed in a public setting. Do you have even the foggiest notion of how much you are being filmed in public and on private property by security cameras? I think not. You would need to be totally oblivious to that reality in order to respond as you have.

Since Carlos lived and died never knowing he was filmed, it had zero effect on his life. But please don't let facts get in your way. Because I can understand your need to try to make a "moral stand" in an attempt to invalidate my point about moral accountability, and to try to posit your view that you can do evil and get away with it. It's only making you look silly.

When neither party will change their view, arguing is pointless. You will continue to hold your view that you can escape the moral causality of your own actions, just as I will continue to hold your view that you can't escape, and I can't, and neither can anyone else for that matter.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, Please for respect of my and other participants time can you start a new thread? Maybe also start a new thread with the purpose of repeatedly declaring that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? And leave this thread to genuine novel Q&A on the topic?

Deanna,

I almost didn't come back to look for new bitcoin comments...

1. Bitcoin uses SHA256 which is currently one of the most standard accepted hash (deterministic diffusion) algorithms. There is an alternative ledger to the original bitcoin which uses a different novel hash algorithm that was designed to use more memory (litecoin uses the scrypt hash algorithm). SHA256 is primarily ALU intensive.
2. The dollar is still the most accepted and stable currency in the world. So people still currently price things in USD, and then they use an exchange or a volume exchange weighted price. Currently I really like the price at http://www.kitco.com/finance/bitcoin/.

3. No one owns bitcoin. There are people who work on a code repository that was originally started by bitcoin developers... but anyone is free to make a copy of the code and make changes in their own client. Basically... its each individual who runs bitcoin like software who determines for themselves which ledger to use and what algorithm determines which bitcoins are valid. I for myself have actually completely re-written bitcoin in c# and verify that transactions conform to the original bitcoin specification using my own software.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean, thank you for all the very well thought out posts on this interesting topic. What do think about Litecoin and all the other cryptocurrencies?

Long time no see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas,

My thoughts on altcoins:

First let me say that the inventor of bitcoin must have understood austrian economics... and there are many features of bitcoin that are important to ensure its security and value as a currency. And some alt coins are made by people who don't understand why a particular feature, such as proof of work is so important. So many alt coins are garbage... anything that uses "proof of stake" or consensus is garbage.

Litecoin retains all of the technological features of bitcoin... so this altcoin does not have a fundamental flaw. I think its stated goals are nonsense, disingenuous. It has two primary differences: a larger memory requirement to perform its deterministic diffusion (hash) algorithm used for proof of work, and a faster block solve rate. The hash algorithm was disingenuously preported to not be optimizable for gpu nor asics, which was obviously false. The faster block solve rate does not increase the speed of transaction irreversibly confidence, instead its only a matter of network hashing power, distributedness to centralisation, and how much proof of work time has buried old transactions.

I've yet to see an altcoin that is technologically superrior nor has a novel feature.

Now one thing that I would be interested in for altcoins would be if someone made a set of bitcoin clones who each had different inflation models. In the original bitcoin ledger, there will only ever be 21 million bitcoins. I would like to see ledgers that inflate at between 0 and 5 percent per year, and let the market decide which model is most reliable. I'd also like to see an altcoin that has a more continuously decreasing block reward. Bitcoin's transition from funding transaction verification by block rewards to entirely tips might result in a less secure system than an altcoin that inflates its money supply a certain percent each year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What will give alt-Tulip-Bulb or bit-Tulip-Bulb its value? It sure is not use value such as gold and silver have. You can actual -do- stuff with gold and silver.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean, thank you for all the very well thought out posts on this interesting topic. What do think about Litecoin and all the other cryptocurrencies?

Great to see you back!

An unepected positive result from Deans OL presence.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, Please for respect of my and other participants time can you start a new thread? Maybe also start a new thread with the purpose of repeatedly declaring that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? And leave this thread to genuine novel Q&A on the topic?

Sorry about that, Dean. That topic has run its course and I won't be adding anything else to it.

Since you enjoy the freedom to claim that bitcoin is a completely fool proof system which could never become corrupted. (heh)... I'll continue to exercise the same freedom to state that the bitcoin pyramid is full of those with the expectation of getting something for nothing at someone else's expense as long as they can continue to convince others to jump on the bandwagon. This is based upon the principle of whenever the value of a bitcoin increases... some sucker has paid for it.

In this regard bitcoin is very much akin to a religion. So you have the religious freedom to prosthelytize as if the value of your bitcoins depended on it...

...because it does. :wink:

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, Please for respect of my and other participants time can you start a new thread? Maybe also start a new thread with the purpose of repeatedly declaring that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? And leave this thread to genuine novel Q&A on the topic?

Sorry about that, Dean. That topic has run its course and I won't be adding anything else to it.

Since you enjoy the freedom to claim that bitcoin is a completely fool proof system which could never become corrupted. (heh)... I'll continue to exercise the same freedom to state that the bitcoin pyramid is full of those with the expectation of getting something for nothing at someone else's expense as long as they can continue to convince others to jump on the bandwagon. This is based upon the principle of whenever the value of a bitcoin increases... some sucker has paid for it.

In this regard bitcoin is very much akin to a religion. So you have the religious freedom to prosthelytize as if the value of your bitcoins depended on it...

...because it does. :wink:

Greg

Sounds like momentum "investing."

--Brant

Bitcoin is worth what someone else will pay for it, same as gold--money as a store of value requires other valuers than yourself--the hog you are going to slaughter for supper and bacon is between you and the hog

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that bitcoin is backed by the internet and computers in general. So by investing in them you are more or less saying you think we are going to have this hugely connected world for some time to come. I was shocked to see I could buy some shoes online with bitcoin the other day. Its no more a pyramid scheme than any other currency, in fact, it doesn't seem to be able to be devalued by over production like other currencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that bitcoin is backed by the internet and computers in general. So by investing in them you are more or less saying you think we are going to have this hugely connected world for some time to come. I was shocked to see I could buy some shoes online with bitcoin the other day. Its no more a pyramid scheme than any other currency, in fact, it doesn't seem to be able to be devalued by over production like other currencies.

Bitcoin value is solely determined by how many people who have already been convinced to buy into it can convince others to buy into it just like any other pyramid.

This is a classic Sucker Chart:

chart.png?width=940&m=mtgoxUSD&SubmitBut

I think bitcoin would have been an excellent idea if it only wasn't for its zero sum pyramid quality. And it might become a useful medium of exchange in the future, but only after the pyramid collapses and the suckers get fleeced.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, Please for respect of my and other participants time can you start a new thread? Maybe also start a new thread with the purpose of repeatedly declaring that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? And leave this thread to genuine novel Q&A on the topic?

Sorry about that, Dean. That topic has run its course and I won't be adding anything else to it.

Since you enjoy the freedom to claim that bitcoin is a completely fool proof system which could never become corrupted. (heh)... I'll continue to exercise the same freedom to state that the bitcoin pyramid is full of those with the expectation of getting something for nothing at someone else's expense as long as they can continue to convince others to jump on the bandwagon. This is based upon the principle of whenever the value of a bitcoin increases... some sucker has paid for it.

In this regard bitcoin is very much akin to a religion. So you have the religious freedom to prosthelytize as if the value of your bitcoins depended on it...

...because it does. :wink:

Greg

Sounds like momentum "investing."

Precisely, Brant.

The "investment" can only turn a "profit" as long as someone else takes a loss. And because nothing is actually produced... neither is wealth. For money is only being transferred from prey to predator within a zero sum system.

This is why I only invest in reality: real land, real homes, real businesses, real vehicles, real tools, real food, real clothing... and other practical useful real items.

--Brant

Bitcoin is worth what someone else will pay for it, same as gold--money as a store of value requires other valuers than yourself--the hog you are going to slaughter for supper and bacon is between you and the hog

"He who slaughters the hog of another will become the slaughtered hog of another."

--Greg :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the 21 million cap that I keep getting hung up on probably because I don't understand how the cap is maintained.

It is based on the happy horseshit assumption of a software system that cannot be hacked.

As my grandmother of blessed memory used to say (in Yiddish) "bald es villkommen". Translation: Yeah. Right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deanna,

The original Bitcoin ledger is generated via the original Bitcoin algorithm that only makes 21 million bitcoins. If you follow the original algorithm and original ledger, then there can only be 21 million. If you use a different ledger, or a different algorithm, then the limits are different.

So the limit is only maintained by each individual who uses it. Its up to you to decide whether you will accept a payment that you verify to be one of the original bitcoin ledger, or some other ledger. You limit it for yourself. Each participant in the free market limits currencies for themselves on whether they accept Bitcoins or whatever currency as payment.

USD could be limited in a similar way: Say people said "We are only going to accept dollars that have been printed before the year 2010". Now USD is much more easily counterfeited because its just paper... so that is a problem.

Baal Chatzaf is right in that there is the potential that there might be a fundamental flaw with the encryption technology that might allow people to one day double spend or steal bitcoins that we haven't discovered yet. He seems so confident in this that he'd not even try using bitcoins himself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baal Chatzaf is right in that there is the potential that there might be a fundamental flaw with the encryption technology that might allow people to one day double spend or steal bitcoins that we haven't discovered yet. He seems so confident in this that he'd not even try using bitcoins himself?

Federal Fiat Confetti is bad enough, but at least it is legal tender. I am distinctly underwhelmed by computer created Tulip Bulbs who main function (apparently) is to be an object of speculation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baal Chatzaf is right in that there is the potential that there might be a fundamental flaw with the encryption technology that might allow people to one day double spend or steal bitcoins that we haven't discovered yet. He seems so confident in this that he'd not even try using bitcoins himself?

There is no computer program which is beyond being hacked or hijacked. But the fault is not in the program. The fault lies in the people who feel entitled to get something for nothing at someone else's expense.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am distinctly underwhelmed by computer created Tulip Bulbs who main function (apparently) is to be an object of speculation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You hit the target, Bob.

Pure virtual speculation as its own end... which is devoid of any useful production.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

GS Finally someone else gets it! No Weimar republic style runaway printing with this currency. A finite number will only EVER be made, making it inflation proof. Also now that more an more businesses are ACCEPTING it as valid currency means it is here to STAY. The only thing that could throw a wrench into it is if the Internet itself is destroyed in which case we are all fuxored anyway and so will all currencies which mostly move electronically now as well.. If it gets to the point where your gold or silver will actually be needed to buy stuff there will at that point be a far more valuable commodity.

Bullets, food and water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now