Thank you for telling the truth. Almost everyone in the USA wants to play a positive sum game as a winner takes all game. Most don't realize how bad they are losing with their current strategy.
"If you mean 'hamburger flippers and grocery store clerks', fine, but they're well below average." I'm not so sure. Without some good survey numbers it is hard to know what is average nationwide. How much is your perception of average being biased by your personal network of family, friends and acquaintances?
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Businesses that are growing borrow (and spend) more money than they make in profits each year. They are borrowing on expected future growth. When an individual buys a house, they borrow and spend many multiples more than their income. They are borrowing against expected future earnings. Governments can borrow in the same way against future tax revenues.
The research proves only that they are able to track transactions in a public database.
Why do you not identify this as a weakness in the nature of Bitcoin's ability to provide anonymity? It is identified as such by the creator's of bit torrent. This research merely provides an explanation of how track. It is direct evidence that it is not inherently anonymous. You must take additional steps to remain anonymous while using bitcoin. I don't understand why you seem to be denying this as evidence of that fact.
It would be conjecture to state that no identity will ever be revealed. But to claim that the ability to track an individual's translations is conjecture is to be obtuse. The research is evidence of bitcoin's weakness as an anonymous financial transaction network. It is not conjecture.
As has been seen in other networks. analysis of seemingly inert information can reveal other important information. For example, an analysis of facebook data has been able to predict sexual orientation and other personal information not explicitly shared on the Facebook network. The tie between public key and physical person is now harder to keep anonymous, especially for casual or less careful users, now that a "how to trace transactions of individual keys" of sorts has been published. It seems plausible that actions of others that use the network could break a more careful user's anonymity. But that is speculation.
What makes you consider their work conjecture? They showed quite clearly that anyone who is not careful to take steps to remain anonymous can have their transactions tracked using public information. But, as I said earlier that was already assumed by the creators of Bitcoins and any interested users. Now we have an example of how.
By law a percentage of the fund must give money to charitable causes to remain a charity in the eyes of the IRS. In addition the gates foundation has been pledged most of warren buffets money under the assumption that the foundation will remain a charity. I'm not sure how much $5 Billion is compared to the amount of money that was 'required' to be spent over that time period.
I'm not sure what your reply had to do with my post. However, I generally agree with you, except technically the part about, "the number of bitcoins in the system is hard coded and fixed". The bitcoin network can be forked by anyone with credibility. Credibility being highly subjective. Relative to the current bitcoin network a fork needs to have equal or better credibility to gain a better market share. But you alluded to that in your last sentence, "t's highly possible someone might create Bitcoin 2.0 and see success - since there's nothing backing the original Bitcoin, the barrier to entry is low."
It is possible, but highly unlikely that Bitcoin will be used on as widespread a basis as paypal, let alone Visa (and MasterCard). If you think that when widespread, that the bitcoin system will not be used by banks and intermediaries to perpetuate a fractional-reserve system of credit (possibly by forking the bitcoin system), I think that you are going to be disappointed even if bitcoin becomes popular. There might be a few takers on the other side of that bet on intrade or at the long now foundation.
Although I agree ideologically with the article. I worry that it is a completely void of references that would have been easily gathered but a news organization or journalist while coming from an openly bias organization. I could see the authors taking liberties with their interpretation of facts that most would not agree with. At the same time the questions seem well researched and thought out. I'm not sure how to interpret this information.
A fair point, if not an entirely accurate characterization of the article. However, in context with the consistent overt bias shown by Murdoch's media subsidiaries and the pattern of large settlements for similar lawsuits and the Catholic style movement of bad actors within Murdoch's media subsidiaries and quotes from eyewitness regarding the culture in the companies in question, one can entirely discount the lawyers' claims and come to my same conclusion. Murdoch established a poor culture within his media subsidiaries; now he's reaping what he's sown.
Too bad it is merely a academic explanation of what was already known about Bitcoin. At least I can point to this when someone asked for references when I criticize Bitcoin as impractical for the many purposes fanatic proponents advertise.
David Carr at the NY Times sums up the reason why I think Murdoch deserves what he gets from the outfall of this media cycle. He's established a poor culture within his media subsidiaries, now he's reaping what he's sown.
To sum up, you are saying that it is possible for someone to be justified in their dislike for something and totally batshit insane and wrong in their reaction to that disliked thing.
Any budget plan which refuses to change entitlements is doomed to fail before it even starts.
Just to counter that statement, if a budget were proposed that increased revenue enough to compensate for all current policy increases in entitlements for the next 15 years. Such a budget would seem to be less than doomed. It would in fact buy 15 years to decide how to deal with all current policy increases in entitlements in the 16th year and beyond.
I'm not advocating this as a solution, just a theoretical possibility.
You're not counting independent contractors, other ATM manufacturers, couriers for the currency, increased employment in bank and payment services for anti fraud, ATM operating firms (like vending machine companies, someone buys the ATM from diebold then finds lease/revenue share partners to locate the machines), employment from increased investment of business profiting from the machines (but this is a second order effect).
Your solution is worth the value of half of the total career wages of your current and future coworkers discounted to a present value. Sell your solution to a competing company. Or quit, find a temporary source of income, and sell your solution to the company you work for. Else, someone will sell a similar solution to your company and its competitors.
The vast majority of the volume-distance traveled by that oil is through pipelines. Based on that alone, it likely is less efficient to convert heat to electricity then back to heat.
Using the electronic lock analogy from before. Would you say that a lock's failsafe design will have failed in the event of an explosion that caused the lock to remain in a locked position when the intent was to remain unlocked when the power is lost?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for telling the truth. Almost everyone in the USA wants to play a positive sum game as a winner takes all game. Most don't realize how bad they are losing with their current strategy.
"If you mean 'hamburger flippers and grocery store clerks', fine, but they're well below average."
I'm not so sure. Without some good survey numbers it is hard to know what is average nationwide. How much is your perception of average being biased by your personal network of family, friends and acquaintances?
Businesses that are growing borrow (and spend) more money than they make in profits each year. They are borrowing on expected future growth. When an individual buys a house, they borrow and spend many multiples more than their income. They are borrowing against expected future earnings. Governments can borrow in the same way against future tax revenues.
The research proves only that they are able to track transactions in a public database.
Why do you not identify this as a weakness in the nature of Bitcoin's ability to provide anonymity? It is identified as such by the creator's of bit torrent. This research merely provides an explanation of how track. It is direct evidence that it is not inherently anonymous. You must take additional steps to remain anonymous while using bitcoin. I don't understand why you seem to be denying this as evidence of that fact.
It would be conjecture to state that no identity will ever be revealed. But to claim that the ability to track an individual's translations is conjecture is to be obtuse. The research is evidence of bitcoin's weakness as an anonymous financial transaction network. It is not conjecture.
As has been seen in other networks. analysis of seemingly inert information can reveal other important information. For example, an analysis of facebook data has been able to predict sexual orientation and other personal information not explicitly shared on the Facebook network. The tie between public key and physical person is now harder to keep anonymous, especially for casual or less careful users, now that a "how to trace transactions of individual keys" of sorts has been published. It seems plausible that actions of others that use the network could break a more careful user's anonymity. But that is speculation.
What makes you consider their work conjecture? They showed quite clearly that anyone who is not careful to take steps to remain anonymous can have their transactions tracked using public information. But, as I said earlier that was already assumed by the creators of Bitcoins and any interested users. Now we have an example of how.
By law a percentage of the fund must give money to charitable causes to remain a charity in the eyes of the IRS. In addition the gates foundation has been pledged most of warren buffets money under the assumption that the foundation will remain a charity. I'm not sure how much $5 Billion is compared to the amount of money that was 'required' to be spent over that time period.
touché
I'm not sure what your reply had to do with my post. However, I generally agree with you, except technically the part about, "the number of bitcoins in the system is hard coded and fixed". The bitcoin network can be forked by anyone with credibility. Credibility being highly subjective. Relative to the current bitcoin network a fork needs to have equal or better credibility to gain a better market share. But you alluded to that in your last sentence, "t's highly possible someone might create Bitcoin 2.0 and see success - since there's nothing backing the original Bitcoin, the barrier to entry is low."
It is possible, but highly unlikely that Bitcoin will be used on as widespread a basis as paypal, let alone Visa (and MasterCard). If you think that when widespread, that the bitcoin system will not be used by banks and intermediaries to perpetuate a fractional-reserve system of credit (possibly by forking the bitcoin system), I think that you are going to be disappointed even if bitcoin becomes popular. There might be a few takers on the other side of that bet on intrade or at the long now foundation.
I was imagining a conversation between myself and a reasonable person that has been informed by fanatics.
Although I agree ideologically with the article. I worry that it is a completely void of references that would have been easily gathered but a news organization or journalist while coming from an openly bias organization. I could see the authors taking liberties with their interpretation of facts that most would not agree with. At the same time the questions seem well researched and thought out. I'm not sure how to interpret this information.
Of course. But in this case, there appears to be more to it than a witch hunt of a rival.
A fair point, if not an entirely accurate characterization of the article. However, in context with the consistent overt bias shown by Murdoch's media subsidiaries and the pattern of large settlements for similar lawsuits and the Catholic style movement of bad actors within Murdoch's media subsidiaries and quotes from eyewitness regarding the culture in the companies in question, one can entirely discount the lawyers' claims and come to my same conclusion. Murdoch established a poor culture within his media subsidiaries; now he's reaping what he's sown.
Too bad it is merely a academic explanation of what was already known about Bitcoin. At least I can point to this when someone asked for references when I criticize Bitcoin as impractical for the many purposes fanatic proponents advertise.
David Carr at the NY Times sums up the reason why I think Murdoch deserves what he gets from the outfall of this media cycle. He's established a poor culture within his media subsidiaries, now he's reaping what he's sown.
To sum up, you are saying that it is possible for someone to be justified in their dislike for something and totally batshit insane and wrong in their reaction to that disliked thing.
Any budget plan which refuses to change entitlements is doomed to fail before it even starts.
Just to counter that statement, if a budget were proposed that increased revenue enough to compensate for all current policy increases in entitlements for the next 15 years. Such a budget would seem to be less than doomed. It would in fact buy 15 years to decide how to deal with all current policy increases in entitlements in the 16th year and beyond.
I'm not advocating this as a solution, just a theoretical possibility.
I'm not the person you replied to, but I thought I'd share.
Open/Libre Office is my preference. I've used R to do that which i feel a spreadsheet is inefficient or inappropriate.
You're not counting independent contractors, other ATM manufacturers, couriers for the currency, increased employment in bank and payment services for anti fraud, ATM operating firms (like vending machine companies, someone buys the ATM from diebold then finds lease/revenue share partners to locate the machines), employment from increased investment of business profiting from the machines (but this is a second order effect).
Your solution is worth the value of half of the total career wages of your current and future coworkers discounted to a present value. Sell your solution to a competing company. Or quit, find a temporary source of income, and sell your solution to the company you work for. Else, someone will sell a similar solution to your company and its competitors.
Look for graphs on employment to population ratios. It will show the difference that you explained here.
The vast majority of the volume-distance traveled by that oil is through pipelines. Based on that alone, it likely is less efficient to convert heat to electricity then back to heat.
Using the electronic lock analogy from before. Would you say that a lock's failsafe design will have failed in the event of an explosion that caused the lock to remain in a locked position when the intent was to remain unlocked when the power is lost?