But actually, the users of those services pay more to avoid converting the infrastructure. (Although, rather than a direct monetary cost, it often comes in the form of things like bugs or missing features that could've been developed/fixed if developer time wasn't being spent dealing with NAT.)
Loops like for i in {1..50}; do ssh host${i}.cluster1.domain.com stuff; done work just fine with v6, and are no harder to remember than the same thing for v4 (since all you do is use AAAA records instead of A records.)
That's possible, but it's pretty sucky (do you really want all of your broadcast traffic to go to your ISP?).
The right way to do this is to do exactly what the GP suggested: get a block of public addresses routed to your router from your ISP, and then use those on your LAN.
Anyway, I'm hoping a set of brilliant engineers comes forward to invent IPv5, where we still use 32 bit public address to be backward compatible with today's routing equipment, but uses some brilliant hack re-using unused IPv4 headers to allow direct address through a NAT.
We already have essentially that: it's called 6to4.
I just wanna know why Bitcoin is a scam. If it is one, then I really do genuinely want to know -- but, since you've avoided explaining for so long, it looks like you don't have a clue, despite claiming quite strongly that it is. (In which case, I'm curious as to why you go around telling people it is.)
(How does that make me an amoral weasel, by the way?)
I guess they're stuck with reading the paper itself, the client source or asking other people.
Since, as you say, Satoshi is unavailable, you must have done one or the other of those in order to work out why Bitcoin is a scam. Why don't you explain to me why it is? I'd honestly like to know.
Here is Satoshi's original whitepaper, and the source code to the main Bitcoin client is available here. Please point to the bits where it tries to scam you.
I'm not attempting to "convince a mark" here, I just want an explanation of why Bitcoin is a scam. I've asked you repeatedly to explain that, and you haven't. Is there a reason for that? It's almost as if Bitcoin isn't a scam, and the reason you can't answer me is because there is no answer to give.
Like I said, the link you provided talks about Bitcoin exchanges, not Bitcoin. It doesn't explain why Bitcoin is a scam. It's a bit like showing me your email inbox and saying "Look, there's a Nigerian 419 scam email in here. Therefore, e-mail is a scam." (which, of course, makes no sense). Do you actually have an explanation? I'd like to hear it.
Because you haven't even managed to spell it out once yet, and at the moment it looks like you can't.
That post only covers Bitcoin exchanges, not Bitcoin itself. Yes, I know it's possible to pull scams involving Bitcoin, but that should hardly be surprising (you can pull scams involving dollars, or whatever takes your fancy) and it doesn't make Bitcoin a scam.
So... do you have anything to back up your claim, or should I take your inability to come up with anything relevant as an indicator that it isn't a scam?
I asked you to explain it, not just declare it blatant again...
with massive hardwired potential gains to the unknown founder
Okay, I'll take this as the explanation. This, by itself, is not enough to make something a scam. For example: every time you pay your monthly electricity bill, your electricity company gets richer. Does that mean you're being scammed? No, of course not.
If Bitcoin really was a scam, I think you would've been able to articulate why by now.
Yet you still haven't answered my question. How is it a scam? Don't just point to Wikipedia and say "it's a blatant scam". If it really is so blatant, you'd be able to actually explain why yourself.
Because just pointing at the Wikipedia entry for Ponzi schemes doesn't make Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, and I've already explained why Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme in one of my above posts. It's now on you to explain why I (and the Bitcoin FAQ) are wrong.
Just to reiterate: Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme because it makes no guarantee of profits. Also, in a Ponzi scheme, only early investors can benefit (at the expense of later investors). With Bitcoin, everybody benefits from the existence of a peer-to-peer payment network.
If you believe Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, that means you must believe it makes a guarantee of profits, and you must also think that a system for making payments to people isn't useful. So, where does Bitcoin make that guarantee? And how do you justify claiming that being able to pay people money isn't useful?
There is also the slight issue of not being permitted, under copyright law, to give a copy of the proprietary software to the programmer, and of the programmer not being permitted to give you the modified version back.
I'm not sure why RMS should care about my choices of license, or my choices in what software I use, as long as I am willing to live with the consequences of my own choices.
That sounds good if you're only thinking as far as yourself.
The problem comes when you pass software on to somebody else. As you say, people should be able to choose what they do. But only a copyleft license actually gives that person a guarantee that they'll be able to do that. That's the whole point of the GPL -- it's to make sure that anybody that gets a copy of the GPLed software is actually in a position to make their own choices and live with the consequences.
RMS doesn't particularly care what you do to yourself, but he cares a lot if you restrict somebody else from doing something. (And, by extension, that means he cares if other people restrict you from doing something -- which sounds like it's something you support!)
Are you trying to say that Bitcoin is a scam because you think it's a Ponzi scheme?
Bitcoin makes no guarantee of profits, so it's not a Ponzi scheme. Early adopters took a bigger risk dealing with it, and ended up with a bigger payoff for that, and I'm certainly jealous of them for doing so, but that doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme either. And I see no reason to deny myself the useful aspects of it just because some other people took a gamble that paid off.
What's the point in recreating something that already exists? It'd be better for everybody if the point of your business was to actually create something new.
With GPLed software, they're free to do go anybody who can do something about it. With propriety software, there was only one place to go, and if they say "no" or they screw it up then you're fucked. Personally I wouldn't call those two situations exactly the same.
Russian Roulette isn't a scam. And I'm asking why Bitcoin is.
Your problem with Bitcoin is that you think it's a way to make money. It's not. It's a payment network. You use it for payments. You don't keep bitcoin; you give it to other people. The only people who lose out when the exchange rate changes are the people trying to make money from holding it (i.e. investors/"stock market players").
Now, as it happens, depending on how you do it, you do sometimes end up having to hold bitcoin for short periods of time as part of using it to pay somebody, so you have a small chance of being affected yourself. But guess what? That doesn't make it a scam. Having a small chance at needing to pay $1 extra on your transaction doesn't make you a deluded sucker.
Slashdot Mirror
But actually, the users of those services pay more to avoid converting the infrastructure. (Although, rather than a direct monetary cost, it often comes in the form of things like bugs or missing features that could've been developed/fixed if developer time wasn't being spent dealing with NAT.)
Grownups that work at proper telcos replace their entire infrastructure on a regular basis anyway, so that part has already happened.
v4 to v6 migrations are pretty well thought out, people just need to actually do them.
Loops like for i in {1..50}; do ssh host${i}.cluster1.domain.com stuff; done work just fine with v6, and are no harder to remember than the same thing for v4 (since all you do is use AAAA records instead of A records.)
Thankfully they keep discovering new fields of IPv4 addresses. Peak IP is never going to happen!
That's possible, but it's pretty sucky (do you really want all of your broadcast traffic to go to your ISP?).
The right way to do this is to do exactly what the GP suggested: get a block of public addresses routed to your router from your ISP, and then use those on your LAN.
Anyway, I'm hoping a set of brilliant engineers comes forward to invent IPv5, where we still use 32 bit public address to be backward compatible with today's routing equipment, but uses some brilliant hack re-using unused IPv4 headers to allow direct address through a NAT.
We already have essentially that: it's called 6to4.
I just wanna know why Bitcoin is a scam. If it is one, then I really do genuinely want to know -- but, since you've avoided explaining for so long, it looks like you don't have a clue, despite claiming quite strongly that it is. (In which case, I'm curious as to why you go around telling people it is.)
(How does that make me an amoral weasel, by the way?)
Uh... are you getting angry at me over your inability to back up your own position?
Seems I'm not the only person that needs to take a hint here.
I guess they're stuck with reading the paper itself, the client source or asking other people.
Since, as you say, Satoshi is unavailable, you must have done one or the other of those in order to work out why Bitcoin is a scam. Why don't you explain to me why it is? I'd honestly like to know.
Let's hear you explain why it is.
Here is Satoshi's original whitepaper, and the source code to the main Bitcoin client is available here. Please point to the bits where it tries to scam you.
Except you were unable to explain why... because it's not. Bitcoin isn't a scam because Bitcoin doesn't promise that you'll make money with it.
(If I'm wrong, then please show me where that promise is made. I'd really like to know about it.)
I'm not attempting to "convince a mark" here, I just want an explanation of why Bitcoin is a scam. I've asked you repeatedly to explain that, and you haven't. Is there a reason for that? It's almost as if Bitcoin isn't a scam, and the reason you can't answer me is because there is no answer to give.
Like I said, the link you provided talks about Bitcoin exchanges, not Bitcoin. It doesn't explain why Bitcoin is a scam. It's a bit like showing me your email inbox and saying "Look, there's a Nigerian 419 scam email in here. Therefore, e-mail is a scam." (which, of course, makes no sense). Do you actually have an explanation? I'd like to hear it.
Because you haven't even managed to spell it out once yet, and at the moment it looks like you can't.
That post only covers Bitcoin exchanges, not Bitcoin itself. Yes, I know it's possible to pull scams involving Bitcoin, but that should hardly be surprising (you can pull scams involving dollars, or whatever takes your fancy) and it doesn't make Bitcoin a scam.
So... do you have anything to back up your claim, or should I take your inability to come up with anything relevant as an indicator that it isn't a scam?
Blatant pyramid
I asked you to explain it, not just declare it blatant again...
with massive hardwired potential gains to the unknown founder
Okay, I'll take this as the explanation. This, by itself, is not enough to make something a scam. For example: every time you pay your monthly electricity bill, your electricity company gets richer. Does that mean you're being scammed? No, of course not.
If Bitcoin really was a scam, I think you would've been able to articulate why by now.
Yet you still haven't answered my question. How is it a scam? Don't just point to Wikipedia and say "it's a blatant scam". If it really is so blatant, you'd be able to actually explain why yourself.
Because just pointing at the Wikipedia entry for Ponzi schemes doesn't make Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, and I've already explained why Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme in one of my above posts. It's now on you to explain why I (and the Bitcoin FAQ) are wrong.
Just to reiterate: Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme because it makes no guarantee of profits. Also, in a Ponzi scheme, only early investors can benefit (at the expense of later investors). With Bitcoin, everybody benefits from the existence of a peer-to-peer payment network.
(Here is the FAQ entry if you want it explained in slightly different words.)
If you believe Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, that means you must believe it makes a guarantee of profits, and you must also think that a system for making payments to people isn't useful. So, where does Bitcoin make that guarantee? And how do you justify claiming that being able to pay people money isn't useful?
There is also the slight issue of not being permitted, under copyright law, to give a copy of the proprietary software to the programmer, and of the programmer not being permitted to give you the modified version back.
I'm not sure why RMS should care about my choices of license, or my choices in what software I use, as long as I am willing to live with the consequences of my own choices.
That sounds good if you're only thinking as far as yourself.
The problem comes when you pass software on to somebody else. As you say, people should be able to choose what they do. But only a copyleft license actually gives that person a guarantee that they'll be able to do that. That's the whole point of the GPL -- it's to make sure that anybody that gets a copy of the GPLed software is actually in a position to make their own choices and live with the consequences.
RMS doesn't particularly care what you do to yourself, but he cares a lot if you restrict somebody else from doing something. (And, by extension, that means he cares if other people restrict you from doing something -- which sounds like it's something you support!)
All we've been trying to do is get you to explain why you called it a scam -- and the answer appears to be because you misunderstood it.
Are you trying to say that Bitcoin is a scam because you think it's a Ponzi scheme?
Bitcoin makes no guarantee of profits, so it's not a Ponzi scheme. Early adopters took a bigger risk dealing with it, and ended up with a bigger payoff for that, and I'm certainly jealous of them for doing so, but that doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme either. And I see no reason to deny myself the useful aspects of it just because some other people took a gamble that paid off.
(This is covered in the FAQ.)
Seems a bit like broken window fallacy to me.
What's the point in recreating something that already exists? It'd be better for everybody if the point of your business was to actually create something new.
With GPLed software, they're free to do go anybody who can do something about it. With propriety software, there was only one place to go, and if they say "no" or they screw it up then you're fucked. Personally I wouldn't call those two situations exactly the same.
Russian Roulette isn't a scam. And I'm asking why Bitcoin is.
Your problem with Bitcoin is that you think it's a way to make money. It's not. It's a payment network. You use it for payments. You don't keep bitcoin; you give it to other people. The only people who lose out when the exchange rate changes are the people trying to make money from holding it (i.e. investors/"stock market players").
Now, as it happens, depending on how you do it, you do sometimes end up having to hold bitcoin for short periods of time as part of using it to pay somebody, so you have a small chance of being affected yourself. But guess what? That doesn't make it a scam. Having a small chance at needing to pay $1 extra on your transaction doesn't make you a deluded sucker.
So... what's your basis for saying that?
How is it a scam if I can do my transaction without getting burnt?
You can usually get away with free for the Bitcoin transaction itself, but you're right that exchanging at either ends generally isn't free.
Still, I don't think that's quite enough to justify calling the people who do it scammed deluded suckers.