you better have more than just a few Bitcoins when the banking system goes down, you better have actual stuff that would help you live through that calamity and some real money, and I don't mean money that you need a computer to use.
But you don't need a rainbow table of that size at all, you only need a small subset that results in hashes that start with a bunch of zeroes, it's a lottery, not a straight sequence.
Don't worry about changing the rules, they don't have to change the rules not to be able to keep their promises.
It doesn't matter if a gov't official tells you that your 'deposits' (credit you extend to the bank) are insured if there is no money.
Cyprus didn't have any money, they didn't have any money at all. What 'insurance'? How can the gov't give you any insurance if they have no assets, no money?
Trusting a gov't to give you insurance... this should sound familiar. FDIC, FHA, F&F, SS, Medicare, any other loan 'insurance', like student loan insurance, any money that gov't says it will give you later.... what money?
A gov't can be bankrupt, it's not true that a gov't cannot go bankrupt, many governments have and many will and USA and many European governments are bankrupt now. Bankruptcy is a simple thing really, you are taking in much less than you are paying out and your debts are such that lenders will no longer finance you. USA cannot repay any of its debts but lenders are still financing it (well, it's the Fed mostly now via all the inflation). USA is in a unique position of issuing the 'reserve currency'. The rest of the world uses the reserve currency as a backing for their currencies. Of-course they are coming to a realisation nowadays that there is nothing backing the reserve currency itself.
10 Trillion in loans of depositors to the banks. 25 Billion in so called 'assets' that FDIC holds.
Unless you are proposing that the only MB money there is the 25Billion, then I don't see how your comment on fractional reserve has any insight into this problem.
It is a scam and "FDIC works" is an oxymoron. In a free market there is no gov't telling banks how much money to have in reserves, it's up to the discretion of the bank in question and of its depositors how much the bank will have in reserves, how much will be loaned out, what the interest rates are. Depositors in a free market system understand that they can lose their money if their money is in a 'savings' account as opposed to 'checking' account, where in fact such notions have a meaning in a free market.
In an FDIC 'insured' (moral hazard ensured) system what you have is no reserve at all, the gov't makes everybody whole and there is no difference between a checking and a savings account, you can claim your entire amount immediately, which is physically impossible if in fact your money is actually loaned out in a real bank (I say 'real bank', meaning a bank working in a non-government screwed up system, or in a free market).
In a free market a bank that makes bad loans will lose the money, people will take whatever they can out and will lose some of it and it is the proper thing to happen. Bank depositors are LENDERS, they are not 'depositors' only unless they are specific about it (they have a deposit box as an example).
Really, a bank is a storage facility, if you use it as a storage facility, expect it to charge you fees for storing your valuables. If you expect a bank to loan out your money and give you a percentage of the gain (the bank makes a decision what businesses to loan the money to), then you have to pay attention as to what real insurance a bank has, what its real reserves are yourself.
Gov't makes you feel protected, in reality in case of USA you are only 'protected' to the extent that the Fed is willing to destroy the value of currency. You'll get your nominal dollars back, never mind that you are losing 5-10% annually in terms of purchasing power.
As to the nominal numbers, the 25Billion in debt that FDIC has (really, Treasuries are not assets, they are a liability, they have to be sold first, so the only true backing here is the Fed with its 'printing press'), it's not enough to bail out ANY USA bank.
There will be bail outs, if you have cash you need for business transactions, you are probably better off holding it in one of the 'too big to fail' banks, you know this way the gov't will make you whole regardless of the amount. 100K, 250K, 100Million, doesn't matter, you'll be given your nominal dollars back.
Yes, the US government (and other governments as well) does have a history of shutting down alternative currencies and imprisoning and even labelling the people behind them as terrorists.
On March 18, 2011, after a 90 minute jury deliberation, von NotHaus was found guilty on various counts, including the making of "counterfeit coins" (resembling legal tender coins).
Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, Anne M. Tompkins, described Bernard von NotHaus and the Liberty dollar as "a unique form of domestic terrorismâ that is trying âoeto undermine the legitimate currency of this country.â The Justice Department press release quotes her as saying: âoeWhile these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country"......
Although he was convicted in March 2011, the U.S. government has still not reached a sentencing decision for Von NotHaus. Since his trial, The New York Times has described Von Nothaus as "the Rosa Parks of the constitutional currency movement", for his creation of an alternative currency that is valued at "more than 60 million dollars." Von Nothaus presently resides in a Malibu mansion that was lent to him by a friend, where he faces a possible sentence of upwards of 20 years in prison, for the crime of making his own money.
I agree with you. However in case of Bitcoin the currency is not minted by the originators of the protocol and there is nothing to 'shut down', the currency cannot be shut down. Individual businesses can be forced not to accept Bitcoins, that's true. One way for gov't to 'shut down' Bitcoins is to buy them off of the hands of all people who hold them and keep buying as long as Bitcoins are generated, but that's a stupid thing to do, it would drive the perceived value through the roof, giving huge incentives for people to start their own clones of Bitcoin in hope to have gov't buy those up as well (obviously with inflation, with printed money).
Without the 10 Trillion Euro bailout by the rest of EU nobody would have 1 red cent in Cyprus. While the gov't promised to insure deposits of up to 100K Euro, the reality is that there is no such insurance, there is no money.
In USA in a very perverted way the Too Big To Fail will be bailed out again with the tax payer money (actually with everybody's money due to inflation) when the Fed will just print and give the money to FDIC to 'cover losses'.
The reality is that Cyprus had no insurance, neither does USA.
25Billion in FDIC 'assets' (Treasuries are not assets), to cover 10 Trillion USD of bank deposits. If that's not a scam of massive proportions then I don't know anything.
Uh, no. Somehow I sleep a little better knowing my money is backed up by the FDIC if I keep it in a real bank.
- I don't want to cause insomnia here, but 10 Trillion USD worth of bank credit (so called 'deposits') are covered with 25 Billion USD worth of Treasury notes that FDIC has as 'assets' (which are of-course also a liability, Treasury notes need to be sold first).
25 Billion of debt to cover 10 Trillion of debt. Cyprus salutes you.
Bitcoin exchanges are a target right now at the current exchange rates, but I was thinking just a little while back, isn't it strange that somebody who released the original protocol is unknown and wishes to stay anonymous? I thought about that for a little bit, there are a number of possibilities. Of-course somebody who had the original idea could run the hash generation for a much longer time before anybody started doing it as part of a mining (proof of work) network. I don't know, it's hidden in plain sight
This feature is then used in the Bitcoin network to secure various aspects. An attacker that wants to introduce malicious payload data into the network, will need to do the required proof of work before it will be accepted. And as long as honest miners have more computing power, they can always outpace an attacker.
- good, what if somebody had a much longer stretch of time to work out the answers before they could even become questions? It's not like those transactions are random.
What other motives can somebody have to release a protocol like this one potentially to be used by millions of people who see this as a way to make money? Giving people incentives to come up with faster SHA generators? Somebody who wants to break encryption mechanisms by generating huge amounts of SHA codes against various data?
I think without actually getting into the source code it's impossible to read the answers to any of these questions, so maybe that's the next step, read the source code.
An employer SHOULD be able to discriminate against any employee, an employee SHOULD be able to discriminate against any employer, I don't have any role for government in private property and private contracts matters except for actually defending those rights (right to own and operate private property and contract law).
Congress does not have power to pass laws that either prohibit individuals asking such things from other individuals or require that anybody complies under any type of penalty to provide such information.
The fact that government can even attempt to dictate any of it one way should be extremely disturbing, but I see that most people here object to the government imposing an obligation upon an employee, but I don't think most people would blink an eye if an obligation was imposed upon an employer.
An employer can ask an employee for any of this info, an employee can absolutely refuse (or comply, up to him). Neither action nor response to either action should be legislated and the government officials that cannot recognise this simple fact should be summarily removed from power at once.
Of-course so should any government officials that vote for things like the Patriot Act or NDAA or that work in the executive branch and use various unconstitutional tactics to get their desired results or SCOTUS that does not rule based on the constitutionality of a law but based on personal preference, party line or desire to be popular. So should POTUS that thinks he can just point a finger at a person and make that person disappear either in a prison without any evidence and access to a lawyer or by murdering them.
"Free"? As in: somebody else picks up the tab, even if that somebody never actually has gone to a university himself?
I can see how this is in line with the kind of thinking that never caused any problems, like: everybody should have an affordable house, everybody should have social security, everybody should have medicare, everybody should have risk free bank deposits, everybody should have minimum wage, everybody should have this and that, yeah, that always works in the long run, all of it is a great idea and it doesn't cause damage to the economy in reality by completely misallocating resources and causing massive moral hazards.
It makes sense to pay per weight, it's a good idea the question is: will you be able to get a larger sit? If they could fold sits somehow to make 2 into 1, I can see people buying those types of sits even if they don't need to. Actually 2 economy sits cost less than 1 business class (and definitely more than 1 first class), but if the picture ITFA is of their plane, then I am probably taking it too far.
Don't forget all the legalised theft that is happening in USA on daily basis, with cases not even making it to any court.
Property is being seized by cops every day in America, this includes cash, cars and even buildings, apartments and hotels because 'authorities' (authorised racket that everybody assumes is the government) say that it had something to do with drugs. Even if you prove (good luck) that it had nothing to do with drugs, you are probably not going to see your property back.
He is a political prisoner in USA political prisoner camp system.
The government is not authorised to legislate morality, to tell people what to eat, drink, who and how to fuck, what guns they can or cannot buy, what drugs they can or cannot buy, sell, grow, create, etc.
This is an oppressive government system using oppressive government tactics to scare people into submission and to punish them if they don't submit, nothing less than that.
This could not have started if the mob did not violate the principles, upon which the Republic was founded and had not given the green light to the politicians to do the dirty work of the mob, to discriminate against some to subsidise others. The power of government starts growing when the mob gives it the green light to discriminate against a minority and in case of USA the minority discrimination started again in 1913, with the IRS and Fed.
I am completely against all patents and copyrights.
However as long as patents and copyrights exist, I am for making everybody as aware of them as possible, so I would be that "hard nosed penny pinching corporate drone" in your estimation then, saying: fuck them, they want to support governments that create the monopolies in the market by issuing patents, then let them suffer the consequences.
India is doing the right thing in 1 instance, while doing the wrong thing in all the other instances of patents and copyrights, they should completely abolish the idea of government protection to any monopoly, regardless if they are an inventor or copyright holder, it's irrelevant.
There should be one way in the free market to keep your secrets: keep your secrets. Don't disclose any information about the process, the details of manufacturing, etc., keep your secret that way, not with gov't creating an unnatural advantage by law. Trade secrets and being first to market, that's all you would have in a free market.
BUT governments also shouldn't be forcing companies to spend extraordinary amounts of money artificially to come to market to comply with nonsensical shit that FDA forces companies to comply with, which only allows the biggest companies to put forward new drugs and procedures because it takes hundreds of millions of dollars and years to comply with all the nonsense (beyond the general testing for harm that could be done by the drugs), I am talking about "evidence of effectiveness".
One thing is to show that a drug is safe or at least list its side effects, the other thing is to have an expensive and prolonged study of effectiveness, where in reality the market would be doing it much faster and with no expense to the company, but allowing it to bring the medication to the market quickly and much cheaper.
There was something unsettling about Bitcoins as I read through the protocol, I finally figured it out. It's in the plain site, right in front of me, Bitcoins rely on the fact that it is not feasible to reverse the block chain (the proof), however if you have enough time, you don't need to reverse it. But who has enough time with Bitcoins?
The people who invented the algorithm, they had plenty of time to run the generators before they became used by the public. The code is deterministic, no part of it is random, somebody with prior access to the generator code could run the entire sequence (or a large part of it).
Slashdot Mirror
you better have more than just a few Bitcoins when the banking system goes down, you better have actual stuff that would help you live through that calamity and some real money, and I don't mean money that you need a computer to use.
But you don't need a rainbow table of that size at all, you only need a small subset that results in hashes that start with a bunch of zeroes, it's a lottery, not a straight sequence.
Don't worry about changing the rules, they don't have to change the rules not to be able to keep their promises.
It doesn't matter if a gov't official tells you that your 'deposits' (credit you extend to the bank) are insured if there is no money.
Cyprus didn't have any money, they didn't have any money at all. What 'insurance'? How can the gov't give you any insurance if they have no assets, no money?
Trusting a gov't to give you insurance... this should sound familiar. FDIC, FHA, F&F, SS, Medicare, any other loan 'insurance', like student loan insurance, any money that gov't says it will give you later.... what money?
When a city goes bankrupt because it spends too much and promises too much to various special groups, where is it going to get the money?
A gov't can be bankrupt, it's not true that a gov't cannot go bankrupt, many governments have and many will and USA and many European governments are bankrupt now. Bankruptcy is a simple thing really, you are taking in much less than you are paying out and your debts are such that lenders will no longer finance you. USA cannot repay any of its debts but lenders are still financing it (well, it's the Fed mostly now via all the inflation). USA is in a unique position of issuing the 'reserve currency'. The rest of the world uses the reserve currency as a backing for their currencies. Of-course they are coming to a realisation nowadays that there is nothing backing the reserve currency itself.
10 Trillion in loans of depositors to the banks. 25 Billion in so called 'assets' that FDIC holds.
Unless you are proposing that the only MB money there is the 25Billion, then I don't see how your comment on fractional reserve has any insight into this problem.
It is a scam and "FDIC works" is an oxymoron. In a free market there is no gov't telling banks how much money to have in reserves, it's up to the discretion of the bank in question and of its depositors how much the bank will have in reserves, how much will be loaned out, what the interest rates are. Depositors in a free market system understand that they can lose their money if their money is in a 'savings' account as opposed to 'checking' account, where in fact such notions have a meaning in a free market.
In an FDIC 'insured' (moral hazard ensured) system what you have is no reserve at all, the gov't makes everybody whole and there is no difference between a checking and a savings account, you can claim your entire amount immediately, which is physically impossible if in fact your money is actually loaned out in a real bank (I say 'real bank', meaning a bank working in a non-government screwed up system, or in a free market).
In a free market a bank that makes bad loans will lose the money, people will take whatever they can out and will lose some of it and it is the proper thing to happen. Bank depositors are LENDERS, they are not 'depositors' only unless they are specific about it (they have a deposit box as an example).
Really, a bank is a storage facility, if you use it as a storage facility, expect it to charge you fees for storing your valuables. If you expect a bank to loan out your money and give you a percentage of the gain (the bank makes a decision what businesses to loan the money to), then you have to pay attention as to what real insurance a bank has, what its real reserves are yourself.
Gov't makes you feel protected, in reality in case of USA you are only 'protected' to the extent that the Fed is willing to destroy the value of currency. You'll get your nominal dollars back, never mind that you are losing 5-10% annually in terms of purchasing power.
As to the nominal numbers, the 25Billion in debt that FDIC has (really, Treasuries are not assets, they are a liability, they have to be sold first, so the only true backing here is the Fed with its 'printing press'), it's not enough to bail out ANY USA bank.
There will be bail outs, if you have cash you need for business transactions, you are probably better off holding it in one of the 'too big to fail' banks, you know this way the gov't will make you whole regardless of the amount. 100K, 250K, 100Million, doesn't matter, you'll be given your nominal dollars back.
That's the problem, that's the scam.
Yes, the US government (and other governments as well) does have a history of shutting down alternative currencies and imprisoning and even labelling the people behind them as terrorists.
On March 18, 2011, after a 90 minute jury deliberation, von NotHaus was found guilty on various counts, including the making of "counterfeit coins" (resembling legal tender coins).
Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, Anne M. Tompkins, described Bernard von NotHaus and the Liberty dollar as "a unique form of domestic terrorismâ that is trying âoeto undermine the legitimate currency of this country.â The Justice Department press release quotes her as saying: âoeWhile these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country". .....
Although he was convicted in March 2011, the U.S. government has still not reached a sentencing decision for Von NotHaus. Since his trial, The New York Times has described Von Nothaus as "the Rosa Parks of the constitutional currency movement", for his creation of an alternative currency that is valued at "more than 60 million dollars." Von Nothaus presently resides in a Malibu mansion that was lent to him by a friend, where he faces a possible sentence of upwards of 20 years in prison, for the crime of making his own money.
I agree with you. However in case of Bitcoin the currency is not minted by the originators of the protocol and there is nothing to 'shut down', the currency cannot be shut down. Individual businesses can be forced not to accept Bitcoins, that's true. One way for gov't to 'shut down' Bitcoins is to buy them off of the hands of all people who hold them and keep buying as long as Bitcoins are generated, but that's a stupid thing to do, it would drive the perceived value through the roof, giving huge incentives for people to start their own clones of Bitcoin in hope to have gov't buy those up as well (obviously with inflation, with printed money).
Without the 10 Trillion Euro bailout by the rest of EU nobody would have 1 red cent in Cyprus. While the gov't promised to insure deposits of up to 100K Euro, the reality is that there is no such insurance, there is no money.
In USA in a very perverted way the Too Big To Fail will be bailed out again with the tax payer money (actually with everybody's money due to inflation) when the Fed will just print and give the money to FDIC to 'cover losses'.
The reality is that Cyprus had no insurance, neither does USA.
25Billion in FDIC 'assets' (Treasuries are not assets), to cover 10 Trillion USD of bank deposits. If that's not a scam of massive proportions then I don't know anything.
Uh, no. Somehow I sleep a little better knowing my money is backed up by the FDIC if I keep it in a real bank.
- I don't want to cause insomnia here, but 10 Trillion USD worth of bank credit (so called 'deposits') are covered with 25 Billion USD worth of Treasury notes that FDIC has as 'assets' (which are of-course also a liability, Treasury notes need to be sold first).
25 Billion of debt to cover 10 Trillion of debt. Cyprus salutes you.
Bitcoin exchanges are a target right now at the current exchange rates, but I was thinking just a little while back, isn't it strange that somebody who released the original protocol is unknown and wishes to stay anonymous? I thought about that for a little bit, there are a number of possibilities. Of-course somebody who had the original idea could run the hash generation for a much longer time before anybody started doing it as part of a mining (proof of work) network. I don't know, it's hidden in plain sight
This feature is then used in the Bitcoin network to secure various aspects. An attacker that wants to introduce malicious payload data into the network, will need to do the required proof of work before it will be accepted. And as long as honest miners have more computing power, they can always outpace an attacker.
- good, what if somebody had a much longer stretch of time to work out the answers before they could even become questions? It's not like those transactions are random.
What other motives can somebody have to release a protocol like this one potentially to be used by millions of people who see this as a way to make money? Giving people incentives to come up with faster SHA generators? Somebody who wants to break encryption mechanisms by generating huge amounts of SHA codes against various data?
I think without actually getting into the source code it's impossible to read the answers to any of these questions, so maybe that's the next step, read the source code.
Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, is that you?
An employer SHOULD be able to discriminate against any employee, an employee SHOULD be able to discriminate against any employer, I don't have any role for government in private property and private contracts matters except for actually defending those rights (right to own and operate private property and contract law).
Congress does not have power to pass laws that either prohibit individuals asking such things from other individuals or require that anybody complies under any type of penalty to provide such information.
The fact that government can even attempt to dictate any of it one way should be extremely disturbing, but I see that most people here object to the government imposing an obligation upon an employee, but I don't think most people would blink an eye if an obligation was imposed upon an employer.
An employer can ask an employee for any of this info, an employee can absolutely refuse (or comply, up to him). Neither action nor response to either action should be legislated and the government officials that cannot recognise this simple fact should be summarily removed from power at once.
Of-course so should any government officials that vote for things like the Patriot Act or NDAA or that work in the executive branch and use various unconstitutional tactics to get their desired results or SCOTUS that does not rule based on the constitutionality of a law but based on personal preference, party line or desire to be popular. So should POTUS that thinks he can just point a finger at a person and make that person disappear either in a prison without any evidence and access to a lawyer or by murdering them.
So... sit happens. Seat mishappens?
I should have used the word 'sit' a few more times, I was wondering who was going to get annoyed about it.
"Free"? As in: somebody else picks up the tab, even if that somebody never actually has gone to a university himself?
I can see how this is in line with the kind of thinking that never caused any problems, like: everybody should have an affordable house, everybody should have social security, everybody should have medicare, everybody should have risk free bank deposits, everybody should have minimum wage, everybody should have this and that, yeah, that always works in the long run, all of it is a great idea and it doesn't cause damage to the economy in reality by completely misallocating resources and causing massive moral hazards.
It makes sense to pay per weight, it's a good idea the question is: will you be able to get a larger sit? If they could fold sits somehow to make 2 into 1, I can see people buying those types of sits even if they don't need to. Actually 2 economy sits cost less than 1 business class (and definitely more than 1 first class), but if the picture ITFA is of their plane, then I am probably taking it too far.
Don't forget all the legalised theft that is happening in USA on daily basis, with cases not even making it to any court.
Property is being seized by cops every day in America, this includes cash, cars and even buildings, apartments and hotels because 'authorities' (authorised racket that everybody assumes is the government) say that it had something to do with drugs. Even if you prove (good luck) that it had nothing to do with drugs, you are probably not going to see your property back.
Frequency of use for designed purpose does not change the designed purpose.
- precisely. So in reality the guns in USA haven't been used for their designed purpose since 1945, the end of WWII.
Guns are designed to protect you against oppression, which includes oppression by foreign and domestic tyrants.
He is a political prisoner in USA political prisoner camp system.
The government is not authorised to legislate morality, to tell people what to eat, drink, who and how to fuck, what guns they can or cannot buy, what drugs they can or cannot buy, sell, grow, create, etc.
This is an oppressive government system using oppressive government tactics to scare people into submission and to punish them if they don't submit, nothing less than that.
This could not have started if the mob did not violate the principles, upon which the Republic was founded and had not given the green light to the politicians to do the dirty work of the mob, to discriminate against some to subsidise others. The power of government starts growing when the mob gives it the green light to discriminate against a minority and in case of USA the minority discrimination started again in 1913, with the IRS and Fed.
I am completely against all patents and copyrights.
However as long as patents and copyrights exist, I am for making everybody as aware of them as possible, so I would be that "hard nosed penny pinching corporate drone" in your estimation then, saying: fuck them, they want to support governments that create the monopolies in the market by issuing patents, then let them suffer the consequences.
India is doing the right thing in 1 instance, while doing the wrong thing in all the other instances of patents and copyrights, they should completely abolish the idea of government protection to any monopoly, regardless if they are an inventor or copyright holder, it's irrelevant.
There should be one way in the free market to keep your secrets: keep your secrets. Don't disclose any information about the process, the details of manufacturing, etc., keep your secret that way, not with gov't creating an unnatural advantage by law. Trade secrets and being first to market, that's all you would have in a free market.
BUT governments also shouldn't be forcing companies to spend extraordinary amounts of money artificially to come to market to comply with nonsensical shit that FDA forces companies to comply with, which only allows the biggest companies to put forward new drugs and procedures because it takes hundreds of millions of dollars and years to comply with all the nonsense (beyond the general testing for harm that could be done by the drugs), I am talking about "evidence of effectiveness".
One thing is to show that a drug is safe or at least list its side effects, the other thing is to have an expensive and prolonged study of effectiveness, where in reality the market would be doing it much faster and with no expense to the company, but allowing it to bring the medication to the market quickly and much cheaper.
Oh, and remember, next Friday is a Hawaiian shirt day.
Doesn't it look like Lumbergh is running /.?
I tried posting in binary, /. complains with this:
Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
BUT BUT BUT, I think the entire /. is lame right now and they have the gall not the remove the 'lameness filter'?
There was something unsettling about Bitcoins as I read through the protocol, I finally figured it out. It's in the plain site, right in front of me, Bitcoins rely on the fact that it is not feasible to reverse the block chain (the proof), however if you have enough time, you don't need to reverse it. But who has enough time with Bitcoins?
The people who invented the algorithm, they had plenty of time to run the generators before they became used by the public. The code is deterministic, no part of it is random, somebody with prior access to the generator code could run the entire sequence (or a large part of it).
Oh, come on.
At least something my silly FF extension is still good for - April fool jokes.