There seem to be some misunderstandings here about how bitcoins work:
Second, every transaction causes a work event that generates new bitcoins.
Blocks, which award bitcoins to the miners which generate them, are created about every ten minutes. This interval is regulated by periodically adjusting the difficulty threshold by consensus, and is independent of the number of pending transactions. When a block is generated, the miner that finds it decides which transactions it includes; if there is insufficient room for all the known transactions, they will typically be prioritized based on the fee offered (which goes to the miner). Real transactions will thus crowd out the "fake" high-speed ones which offer no fee.
The only reason to create fake transactions is to keep this pipeline full. If it's already full of real transactions then the bot miners will mine those. But the proceeds go to the bot masters not the people paying for the computing power. It does no good to dismiss this with a wave saying tough luck to those who got themselves rooted.
...but the harm is that the cost of processing the transaction is borne by the owner of the computer not the botmaster.
Well, true, but the answer to that is to secure your own computer. Would you prefer that the botnet's CPU time be spent cracking people's bank account passwords instead? At least processing transactions is a useful and perfectly legitimate service, even if the cost is externalized.
Which is a good point. THey could lose too. The point I was trying to get across is that copyrighting or trademarking something seemingly already out there or easily derived is not a reason to say they don't have a case. But if the term was already in use for the specific meaning and in the same manner it will be hard sleding.
So while you point out that.app was not original, the rest of the argument I made still is standing for now. "app" used in the context of a store name, may still be accepted. It might not be. It's just not as obvious as people seem to think. Just like Windows,.net, xerox, and yahoo were allowed.
First off physics says this is rubbish. They just re-invented super-resolution enhancement of point sources.
First you need to know why a "perfect" lens is special. When light leaves a small region the shape of the wavefront can be described in a Fourier transform sense as a set of plane waves with various K vectors. Now it turns out that not all K-vectors can propagate to the far field. Ones with K-vectors greater than the reciprocal wavelength simply decay a short distance from the source and never reach the far field.
Thus if you are in the far field and were to time-reverse all the wavefronts you recieved then it would back-propagate to the source but the phase front when it reached the source position will be a blurred version of the source. This is because it's missing all those critical K-vectors. This cannot be replaced because you simply did not know what amplitudes and phases they had.
A perfect lens is special because it captures those decaying k-vectors and effectively (resonantly to conserve energy) amplifies them. You can thus detect this formerly missing information. Therefore you can resolve the sub-wavelength features at full resolution.
SO there's the issue. what they claim is fundamentally not possible. They are claiming they can reconstruct the missing k-vectors. they can't. without nearfield imaging or a perfect lens, physics says those are bye-bye.
But you can "fake" it. this is called super-resolution. If you know something about the source. for example, that it's a point source or collection of isolated point sources then you can impose that information on the data to find the mathematical reconstruction of the image consistent with that information. Thus you can compute the missing K-vectors.
That cannot be done if the thing you are imaging is arbitrary. You have to know something to make up the missing information. It may be that this information is small: e.g. maybe you know the surface is not multi-scattering in depth or you know something about the derivative of the surface curvature or you know something about how it reflects different colors.
But this is "super resolution" enhancement not actual imaging. And that has been done for a long time before this.
Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").
Apple has been using the term and suffix.app since it bought NeXT.
Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called.Net and uses that suffix.
Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows. (recall that the original Windows was not really an OS but just a GUI window manager for DOS.)
It seems to me that apple winds on many grounds.
the term application has many meanings so it's use in the narrow term for an application on a computer is similar to the narrow usage of the generic words Apple or Amazon as company names in their fields not as fruit or rivers. Apple would probably get in trouble if they opened a store in the amazon basin and called it the Apple Amazon store.
So if Windows can bar Lindows and Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon since they are in the same field why can't Apple bar amazon from re-using it's coined app term.
Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.
Just because someone used a slang term "killer app" does not mean the slang can't be copyrighted.
Are they counting in free books on this? Roughly 70% of all my Kindle books are free books. Classics that I'm too cheap to pick up for $5 from Borders... And out of the other 30% about half of those were just a few dollars or less.
Exactly it said more units were sold not more dollars.. Cheap books are being sold for cheap or free to pump up the numbers. Additionally the "sales" figures are for amazon not the book market as a whole. You buy kindle books from Amazon so it focuses the demand and is not representative.
Also I wonder if they are including "new" books or "used" books in that comparison. The used book market is not insignificant but there are no used kindle books.
I'm not trying to be rude but you truly do not understand M0, M1, and M2 measures of currency. Nor do you understand how bank deposits amplify money. nor do you understand the fractional reserve system. Your answers simply don't make sense though I think you think they do make sense. These things are confusion which is why it's worth arguing about them to solidify one's understanding through socratic dialog. But this can't be done in this case because you don't grasp how M1 and M2 are created from M0.
1. The former is outside the context. Bitcoin in and of itself doesn't deal with fractional reserve banking.
Well that's my point. Major currencies have a central bank which implements the fractional reserve. Bitcoin by design has no central bank and thus no fractional reserve.
2. That kind of transaction shuffling doesn't add much in the way of work really. The transaction list in a block is only hashed once, then that hash is included in the repeating hash calculation, which cycles millions/billions/trillions of times before a valid block is found.
There are two problems with the highspeed wash transactions. First it generates large numbers of events that have to be propagated across the whole network. (bitcoin requires all nodes know about every transaction). Second, every transaction causes a work event that generates new bitcoins. Not only can the bots compete for those new coins (which is why the non-sense transaction are useful) but also since the rate of new bit coin production is limited it means that other pending transactions, legitimate ones, are held up in a queue. the queue gets flooded by pending non-sense-transactions.
3. Amount of value added is not fixed. It decreases over time, specifically every 210,000 blocks (about every 4 years. It'll happen for the first time sometime between mid 2012 and early 2013), the block subsidy (the 50 BTC) is cut in half (25, 12.5, 6.75, 3.3525, and so on) and eventually caps off at roughly 21 million. At an intermediate time, transaction fees will become the dominant means of paying the miners.
so at that point you cannot expand the amount of bitcoin. Thus to get bitcoin people will need to borrow it. that is banks will lend it. And without a fractional reserve system it will semi-limitlessly expand the money supply (which history has show always leads to a crash when eventually there is a run on the bank for deposits). As for transaction fees instead of bitcoin mining then the wash transactions I describes are not valuable. Instead the bots will now process the transactions to gain the transaction fee. Now one might say, well good, let the bots do that what harm is that? but the harm is that the cost of processing the transaction is borne by the owner of the computer not the botmaster. I would also predict it would be an unstable source of transaction processors when it became the dominant source since botnets collapse.
The same thing that happens in the normal banking system. it's called a "run on the bank" and if the bank can't borrow money to pay off the debts it collapses. We just count on that not happening. that is not everyone takes out there money at once. When it does happen the appropriate agencies step in and seize the bank. the assets (the loans) get sold to a larger bank with sufficient reserves to cover the withdrwals. The FDIC sweetens the deal to make it worth while for the other bank. Because of the reserve holding the size of the problem never becomes unmanageable.
With bitcoin as far as I know there is no govt agency to handle that, nor an FDIC nor a reserve to prevent infinite expansion.
I'm not confusing anything. It's a huge problem and always has been. that is why there are reserve requirments in every central bank. But there is NO central bank for bitcoin. ergo, the problem is not resolved.
A major function of the federal reserve is to prevent the infinite expansion of the M1/M2 money supply. I don't understand how Bitcoin prevents this. Is there a mechanism?
worked example: I form a bank and I offer interest on deposits.
1) person A1 deposits M bitcoins in my bank. 2) I loan M bitcoins to A2 who promptl pays a debt for a purchase to A3. 3) A3 has to do something with his money so he deposits in my bank 4) I loan the new M dollars to A4 who promptly pays A5 for a purchase 5) A5 has to do something with his money so he deposits in my bank.
and so forth. in short order M bitcoins becomes K*M bitcoins in circulation.
The ferderal reserve prevents this by requiring all banks to trnsfer 10% of all deposited for holding by the ferderal reserve. That way I can only loan out 90 cents on every deposit. The net effect is that the money supply only can expand 10 fold at most. (indeed by modulating the holding factor the fed can modulate the amount of money in circulation). This effect does not depend upon if there is one or many banks because no matter where money gets deposited it gets loaned out again.
How does bitcoin deal with this?
Second I don't see how bitcoin gets rid of the zombie bot miners. three bots start trading 1 bit coin in a circle as fast as they can. Each transaction must be validated, therefore other bots can do work to validate it and thus they can mine bit coins. Nearly 100% of all transactions thus become fake (circular) transactions. This has to be propagated across the entire bitcoin network which means lots and lots of work for all the legit nodes.
Third the way bitcoin is set up, with a fixed amount of value to be added per year, the value of the coins must decline due to all this bot induced trnasaction minting. In addition to inflation the value of mining decreases. soo the only miners who can do are the ones that don't pay for their own electricity. that is to say the bot miners. Even the website miniers will be driven out since they have costs associated with sending out many copies of the mining software for little return.
I would argue that Linux, which gets updated VERY frequently would have significantly less open flaws which can allow drive-by-downloads. So that's one problem stopped.
Ha ha hahahahahha
what a load of rubbish. My decades of experience with linux is that people are frightened to patch a working linux server. they get updated less frequently than macs by far.
Secondly, the Software Center/repositories/whatever mean that you can install stuff from there. Any updates will happen from the update manager which requires sudo. In fact, if you're a normal user - and its not the Software Center or the Update Manager which is asking for that password, you deny it. Simple. Something anyone can remember.
Where is the Bitcoin federal reserve? without that you can have infinite inflation overnight. I create a bank that pays 5% interest on deposits.
1) player A1 deposits M0 bitcoins in my bank. 2) Player A2 borrows Mo bitcoins from my bank 3) player A2 pays M0 to player A3 for some service 4) Player A3 decides to deposit M0 in my bank 5) the bank now has 2*M0 deposits, and M0 is loaned out. 6) The bank now loans out M0 to A4 7) A4 pays A5 who then deposits M0 back in the bank 8) the bank now has 3*M0 deposits and 2*M0 is loaned out.
repeat forever:
even though there was only M0 bitcoins minted, the money supply has expanded to K*M0 where K is arbitratrily large.
THe federal reserve was set up to prevent this infinite expansion of money.
Who is the federal reserve for the distributed bitcoin system?
Could not botnets create zillions of wash transactions. Bot Alice trades 1 bitcoin to bot-Bob who trades 1 bitcoin to bot-Charlie who trades 1 bitcoin to Alice. That's three transactions and all need to be validated. So some other bots will get 150 bitcoins for the service of validating the 3 transactions. Now rinse, lather repeat.
do this with enough velocity and what happens is 99.999% of all transactions in the system are bot-bot wash transactions. This creates huge loads for legitimate nodes. Next the bit coin system notices that the bitcoin expansion rate per year has reached it's cap. It either has to raise the cap, let the money devalue or reduce the compensation for validation. So we either have rampant inflation or all non-bots verifiers are driven out of the system by the below-cost validation payment.
meanwhile all the record of all those wash transactions has to be recorded by all the nodes, valid and bot.
As I understand the system, every transaction gets validated by other machines. The computational cost of this validation is compensated by the award of bitcoins. This means that every time a transaction occurs a miner can profit. Hence a bot net miner is constantly able to make money. The more transactions the more profit.
Next following what I understand to be the logic here. If it appears that the validation is too easy then the price of computation will be increased. This will mean that eventually only miners with the lowest overhead costs -- the bot nets-- will be in the business of validation.
I guess one could look at this and say, "well good, now those tards that click on trojans will be performing a public service and paying for their indilligence". Everyone wins in a way. The tards get to be slothful at a price. the rest of us get our transactions validated. And the botnets are busy doing something actually useful to society.
But another way to look at this is that if you leave out food for rats you get more rats not just occupying the same number of rats. With profit to be made we will get more people in the trojan business.
The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?.
Well yes and no. If Coffee intake is what promotes the alternative lifestyle rather than the converse then increasing coffee intake will be beneficial. even if it is just the affect of drinking 6 cups of hot water-- it's still easier to persuade people to drink a stimulant than to drink hot water (otherwise that would be a habit by now.)
Coffee increase libido. So maybe coffee drinkers just jerk off or have sex more often. Does this matter to the conclusion? it's still coffee causing the behavior change.
Your point is that perhaps chronic masturbation causes a thirst for coffee.
The problem with decaf is that since it lacks the positive reinforcements of the perk and taste it is less likely one will drink 6 cups.
past studies have hinted that paper filters may remove some benefits from coffee. But others have claimed brown paper filters remove toxins (but bleached ones add dioxins). I wonder if this study used brewed or unfiltered coffee?
Does the roast matter? I like dark roasts. One could speculate roasting could affect the outcome 1) perhaps roasting solublizes or activates the "good" chemicals 2) perhaps roasting destroys the good stuff 3) perhaps, like frying, roasting also creates carcinogens. Just perhaps not ones that impact the prostate.
Maybe the reason for the 20% decline is that they died of something else caused by coffee (e.g. extreme sports, excessive sitting, being shot by jealous due to the libido enhancment of coffee) or pehaps they received treatment for something else cause by the coffee (kidney dialysis) that had some preventative side effect on Prostate cancer.
I tried to interest people in redistricting on the same idea. Have the politicians state what their trade-space is? state the value of having districts simply shaped versus ones that include more diverse/less divers people or follow natural contours like housing development or rivers. Then have a computer bark out lors of possible district maps.
No interest.
The problem is that politicians are interested in their own power not fairness. THey want certain companies in their districts. They want mayors that owe them favors in their districts. they want gerry mandered advantages.
If you want this you have to impose it by referendum or other force. they will not agree on their own accords.
In the case of the tax code. How is a politician supposed to promise intel a tax break if they give him a boatload of money? he can't unless the tax code is adjustable.
Why is it that every explanation of bit coin, including your attempt, is incoherent. Given it can't be explained I think it's a scam.
I have many questions in part because the basic schema is not clear. I've watched the videos and read the sites. But there just is no explanation that makes a whole coherent sum and there are contradictions when you piece the various explanations together.
1) On a torrent network, not every node knows where all the slices are. Not all nodes are in communication. Thus what happens if I sent 30 bit coins to Amy and then I sent the exact digital copy of those coins to Brad who is on a network remote from Amy. It sounds like Amy will query the local network to see if I own the coins and so will Brad. But because those queries never intersect on the same node both appear to be valid when in fact I just copied the money. Later on perhaps the system can't reconcile two people owning the same coins but by then I'm gone.
2) Suppose I send money to Alice. then a fraction of a second later Alice tries to send the same Money to Bob. How does Bob determine that Amy owns the coins? No node on BoB's network can validate my transfer to Alice.
3) the description has this trail of signed hashes being appended. Does this grow forever and can it be inverted to follow the money?
4) is each coin signed? or is it transactions?
5) if someone invents a way to make coins cheaply does this doom the system? What regulates the produciton rate? does this work if I have 1 million different user identities? if there is a central signing authority for this then what keeps this from getting cracked or printing their own money to flood the system?
6) what happens if botnets start mining?
how does this actually work, end to end, technically not operationally?
Y'know I never got the memo. Seriously I never heard of this before today. I don't think this is my fauly either. I own dozens of books on python and am well read. As a check to see if I'm the lone idiot, I just went through a bunch of random files in python libraries I've downloaded over the years. Only one of them had// in it. So apparently no one else got the memo either.
I think you are missing his point. So you create a syntax that is an error that will be accepted. Billions of programs have this error. Then one day the syntax changes and no error messages are generated.
Consider is some language had = and == be the same thing, then they changed it so that = meant copy a pointer and == meant copy a value. your head would explode trying to track all that down.
Re:The question nobody wants to ask....
on
Perl 5.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
There seem to be some misunderstandings here about how bitcoins work:
Second, every transaction causes a work event that generates new bitcoins.
Blocks, which award bitcoins to the miners which generate them, are created about every ten minutes. This interval is regulated by periodically adjusting the difficulty threshold by consensus, and is independent of the number of pending transactions. When a block is generated, the miner that finds it decides which transactions it includes; if there is insufficient room for all the known transactions, they will typically be prioritized based on the fee offered (which goes to the miner). Real transactions will thus crowd out the "fake" high-speed ones which offer no fee.
The only reason to create fake transactions is to keep this pipeline full. If it's already full of real transactions then the bot miners will mine those. But the proceeds go to the bot masters not the people paying for the computing power. It does no good to dismiss this with a wave saying tough luck to those who got themselves rooted.
...but the harm is that the cost of processing the transaction is borne by the owner of the computer not the botmaster.
Well, true, but the answer to that is to secure your own computer. Would you prefer that the botnet's CPU time be spent cracking people's bank account passwords instead? At least processing transactions is a useful and perfectly legitimate service, even if the cost is externalized.
Sigh... we're talking physics not pixels.
Information Purification App Devices.
Interpolation is faking it. Interpolation is just assuming a cap on a derivative. It's an assumption. Perhaps a good one but it's not imaging.
Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT
My 1985 Atari ST with GEM used .app as extension for applications (and .prg for programs. Apparently there was a difference).
"start GEM and run INSTALL.APP"
http://www.retroarchive.org/cpm/archive/unofficial/gemworld.html
Which is a good point. THey could lose too. The point I was trying to get across is that copyrighting or trademarking something seemingly already out there or easily derived is not a reason to say they don't have a case. But if the term was already in use for the specific meaning and in the same manner it will be hard sleding.
So while you point out that .app was not original, the rest of the argument I made still is standing for now. "app" used in the context of a store name, may still be accepted. It might not be. It's just not as obvious as people seem to think. Just like Windows, .net, xerox, and yahoo were allowed.
First off physics says this is rubbish. They just re-invented super-resolution enhancement of point sources.
First you need to know why a "perfect" lens is special. When light leaves a small region the shape of the wavefront can be described in a Fourier transform sense as a set of plane waves with various K vectors. Now it turns out that not all K-vectors can propagate to the far field. Ones with K-vectors greater than the reciprocal wavelength simply decay a short distance from the source and never reach the far field.
Thus if you are in the far field and were to time-reverse all the wavefronts you recieved then it would back-propagate to the source but the phase front when it reached the source position will be a blurred version of the source. This is because it's missing all those critical K-vectors. This cannot be replaced because you simply did not know what amplitudes and phases they had.
A perfect lens is special because it captures those decaying k-vectors and effectively (resonantly to conserve energy) amplifies them. You can thus detect this formerly missing information. Therefore you can resolve the sub-wavelength features at full resolution.
SO there's the issue. what they claim is fundamentally not possible. They are claiming they can reconstruct the missing k-vectors. they can't. without nearfield imaging or a perfect lens, physics says those are bye-bye.
But you can "fake" it. this is called super-resolution. If you know something about the source. for example, that it's a point source or collection of isolated point sources then you can impose that information on the data to find the mathematical reconstruction of the image consistent with that information. Thus you can compute the missing K-vectors.
That cannot be done if the thing you are imaging is arbitrary. You have to know something to make up the missing information. It may be that this information is small: e.g. maybe you know the surface is not multi-scattering in depth or you know something about the derivative of the surface curvature or you know something about how it reflects different colors.
But this is "super resolution" enhancement not actual imaging. And that has been done for a long time before this.
Hmmm.
Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").
Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.
Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.
Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows. (recall that the original Windows was not really an OS but just a GUI window manager for DOS.)
It seems to me that apple winds on many grounds.
the term application has many meanings so it's use in the narrow term for an application on a computer is similar to the narrow usage of the generic words Apple or Amazon as company names in their fields not as fruit or rivers. Apple would probably get in trouble if they opened a store in the amazon basin and called it the Apple Amazon store.
So if Windows can bar Lindows and Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon since they are in the same field why can't Apple bar amazon from re-using it's coined app term.
Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.
Just because someone used a slang term "killer app" does not mean the slang can't be copyrighted.
Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.
Are they counting in free books on this? Roughly 70% of all my Kindle books are free books. Classics that I'm too cheap to pick up for $5 from Borders... And out of the other 30% about half of those were just a few dollars or less.
Exactly it said more units were sold not more dollars.. Cheap books are being sold for cheap or free to pump up the numbers. Additionally the "sales" figures are for amazon not the book market as a whole. You buy kindle books from Amazon so it focuses the demand and is not representative.
Also I wonder if they are including "new" books or "used" books in that comparison. The used book market is not insignificant but there are no used kindle books.
I'm not trying to be rude but you truly do not understand M0, M1, and M2 measures of currency. Nor do you understand how bank deposits amplify money. nor do you understand the fractional reserve system. Your answers simply don't make sense though I think you think they do make sense. These things are confusion which is why it's worth arguing about them to solidify one's understanding through socratic dialog. But this can't be done in this case because you don't grasp how M1 and M2 are created from M0.
1. The former is outside the context. Bitcoin in and of itself doesn't deal with fractional reserve banking.
Well that's my point. Major currencies have a central bank which implements the fractional reserve. Bitcoin by design has no central bank and thus no fractional reserve.
2. That kind of transaction shuffling doesn't add much in the way of work really. The transaction list in a block is only hashed once, then that hash is included in the repeating hash calculation, which cycles millions/billions/trillions of times before a valid block is found.
There are two problems with the highspeed wash transactions. First it generates large numbers of events that have to be propagated across the whole network. (bitcoin requires all nodes know about every transaction). Second, every transaction causes a work event that generates new bitcoins. Not only can the bots compete for those new coins (which is why the non-sense transaction are useful) but also since the rate of new bit coin production is limited it means that other pending transactions, legitimate ones, are held up in a queue. the queue gets flooded by pending non-sense-transactions.
3. Amount of value added is not fixed. It decreases over time, specifically every 210,000 blocks (about every 4 years. It'll happen for the first time sometime between mid 2012 and early 2013), the block subsidy (the 50 BTC) is cut in half (25, 12.5, 6.75, 3.3525, and so on) and eventually caps off at roughly 21 million. At an intermediate time, transaction fees will become the dominant means of paying the miners.
so at that point you cannot expand the amount of bitcoin. Thus to get bitcoin people will need to borrow it. that is banks will lend it. And without a fractional reserve system it will semi-limitlessly expand the money supply (which history has show always leads to a crash when eventually there is a run on the bank for deposits). As for transaction fees instead of bitcoin mining then the wash transactions I describes are not valuable. Instead the bots will now process the transactions to gain the transaction fee. Now one might say, well good, let the bots do that what harm is that? but the harm is that the cost of processing the transaction is borne by the owner of the computer not the botmaster. I would also predict it would be an unstable source of transaction processors when it became the dominant source since botnets collapse.
The same thing that happens in the normal banking system. it's called a "run on the bank" and if the bank can't borrow money to pay off the debts it collapses. We just count on that not happening. that is not everyone takes out there money at once. When it does happen the appropriate agencies step in and seize the bank. the assets (the loans) get sold to a larger bank with sufficient reserves to cover the withdrwals. The FDIC sweetens the deal to make it worth while for the other bank. Because of the reserve holding the size of the problem never becomes unmanageable.
With bitcoin as far as I know there is no govt agency to handle that, nor an FDIC nor a reserve to prevent infinite expansion.
I'm not confusing anything. It's a huge problem and always has been. that is why there are reserve requirments in every central bank. But there is NO central bank for bitcoin. ergo, the problem is not resolved.
A major function of the federal reserve is to prevent the infinite expansion of the M1/M2 money supply. I don't understand how Bitcoin prevents this. Is there a mechanism?
worked example: I form a bank and I offer interest on deposits.
1) person A1 deposits M bitcoins in my bank.
2) I loan M bitcoins to A2 who promptl pays a debt for a purchase to A3.
3) A3 has to do something with his money so he deposits in my bank
4) I loan the new M dollars to A4 who promptly pays A5 for a purchase
5) A5 has to do something with his money so he deposits in my bank.
and so forth. in short order M bitcoins becomes K*M bitcoins in circulation.
The ferderal reserve prevents this by requiring all banks to trnsfer 10% of all deposited for holding by the ferderal reserve. That way I can only loan out 90 cents on every deposit. The net effect is that the money supply only can expand 10 fold at most. (indeed by modulating the holding factor the fed can modulate the amount of money in circulation). This effect does not depend upon if there is one or many banks because no matter where money gets deposited it gets loaned out again.
How does bitcoin deal with this?
Second I don't see how bitcoin gets rid of the zombie bot miners. three bots start trading 1 bit coin in a circle as fast as they can. Each transaction must be validated, therefore other bots can do work to validate it and thus they can mine bit coins. Nearly 100% of all transactions thus become fake (circular) transactions. This has to be propagated across the entire bitcoin network which means lots and lots of work for all the legit nodes.
Third the way bitcoin is set up, with a fixed amount of value to be added per year, the value of the coins must decline due to all this bot induced trnasaction minting. In addition to inflation the value of mining decreases. soo the only miners who can do are the ones that don't pay for their own electricity. that is to say the bot miners. Even the website miniers will be driven out since they have costs associated with sending out many copies of the mining software for little return.
thus the whole thing implodes.
I would argue that Linux, which gets updated VERY frequently would have significantly less open flaws which can allow drive-by-downloads. So that's one problem stopped.
Ha ha hahahahahha
what a load of rubbish. My decades of experience with linux is that people are frightened to patch a working linux server. they get updated less frequently than macs by far.
Secondly, the Software Center/repositories/whatever mean that you can install stuff from there. Any updates will happen from the update manager which requires sudo. In fact, if you're a normal user - and its not the Software Center or the Update Manager which is asking for that password, you deny it. Simple. Something anyone can remember.
exactly like macs.
Where is the Bitcoin federal reserve? without that you can have infinite inflation overnight.
I create a bank that pays 5% interest on deposits.
1) player A1 deposits M0 bitcoins in my bank.
2) Player A2 borrows Mo bitcoins from my bank
3) player A2 pays M0 to player A3 for some service
4) Player A3 decides to deposit M0 in my bank
5) the bank now has 2*M0 deposits, and M0 is loaned out.
6) The bank now loans out M0 to A4
7) A4 pays A5 who then deposits M0 back in the bank
8) the bank now has 3*M0 deposits and 2*M0 is loaned out.
repeat forever:
even though there was only M0 bitcoins minted, the money supply has expanded to K*M0 where K is arbitratrily large.
THe federal reserve was set up to prevent this infinite expansion of money.
Who is the federal reserve for the distributed bitcoin system?
replying to my own post: additional thoughts:
Could not botnets create zillions of wash transactions. Bot Alice trades 1 bitcoin to bot-Bob who trades 1 bitcoin to bot-Charlie who trades 1 bitcoin to Alice. That's three transactions and all need to be validated. So some other bots will get 150 bitcoins for the service of validating the 3 transactions. Now rinse, lather repeat.
do this with enough velocity and what happens is 99.999% of all transactions in the system are bot-bot wash transactions. This creates huge loads for legitimate nodes. Next the bit coin system notices that the bitcoin expansion rate per year has reached it's cap. It either has to raise the cap, let the money devalue or reduce the compensation for validation. So we either have rampant inflation or all non-bots verifiers are driven out of the system by the below-cost validation payment.
meanwhile all the record of all those wash transactions has to be recorded by all the nodes, valid and bot.
As I understand the system, every transaction gets validated by other machines. The computational cost of this validation is compensated by the award of bitcoins. This means that every time a transaction occurs a miner can profit. Hence a bot net miner is constantly able to make money. The more transactions the more profit.
Next following what I understand to be the logic here. If it appears that the validation is too easy then the price of computation will be increased. This will mean that eventually only miners with the lowest overhead costs -- the bot nets-- will be in the business of validation.
I guess one could look at this and say, "well good, now those tards that click on trojans will be performing a public service and paying for their indilligence". Everyone wins in a way. The tards get to be slothful at a price. the rest of us get our transactions validated. And the botnets are busy doing something actually useful to society.
But another way to look at this is that if you leave out food for rats you get more rats not just occupying the same number of rats. With profit to be made we will get more people in the trojan business.
The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?.
Well yes and no. If Coffee intake is what promotes the alternative lifestyle rather than the converse then increasing coffee intake will be beneficial. even if it is just the affect of drinking 6 cups of hot water-- it's still easier to persuade people to drink a stimulant than to drink hot water (otherwise that would be a habit by now.)
Coffee increase libido. So maybe coffee drinkers just jerk off or have sex more often. Does this matter to the conclusion? it's still coffee causing the behavior change.
Your point is that perhaps chronic masturbation causes a thirst for coffee.
The problem with decaf is that since it lacks the positive reinforcements of the perk and taste it is less likely one will drink 6 cups.
past studies have hinted that paper filters may remove some benefits from coffee. But others have claimed brown paper filters remove toxins (but bleached ones add dioxins). I wonder if this study used brewed or unfiltered coffee?
Does the roast matter? I like dark roasts. One could speculate roasting could affect the outcome
1) perhaps roasting solublizes or activates the "good" chemicals
2) perhaps roasting destroys the good stuff
3) perhaps, like frying, roasting also creates carcinogens. Just perhaps not ones that impact the prostate.
Maybe the reason for the 20% decline is that they died of something else caused by coffee (e.g. extreme sports, excessive sitting, being shot by jealous due to the libido enhancment of coffee) or pehaps they received treatment for something else cause by the coffee (kidney dialysis) that had some preventative side effect on Prostate cancer.
I tried to interest people in redistricting on the same idea. Have the politicians state what their trade-space is? state the value of having districts simply shaped versus ones that include more diverse/less divers people or follow natural contours like housing development or rivers. Then have a computer bark out lors of possible district maps.
No interest.
The problem is that politicians are interested in their own power not fairness. THey want certain companies in their districts. They want mayors that owe them favors in their districts. they want gerry mandered advantages.
If you want this you have to impose it by referendum or other force. they will not agree on their own accords.
In the case of the tax code. How is a politician supposed to promise intel a tax break if they give him a boatload of money? he can't unless the tax code is adjustable.
Why is it that every explanation of bit coin, including your attempt, is incoherent. Given it can't be explained I think it's a scam.
I have many questions in part because the basic schema is not clear. I've watched the videos and read the sites. But there just is no explanation that makes a whole coherent sum and there are contradictions when you piece the various explanations together.
1) On a torrent network, not every node knows where all the slices are. Not all nodes are in communication. Thus what happens if I sent 30 bit coins to Amy and then I sent the exact digital copy of those coins to Brad who is on a network remote from Amy. It sounds like Amy will query the local network to see if I own the coins and so will Brad. But because those queries never intersect on the same node both appear to be valid when in fact I just copied the money. Later on perhaps the system can't reconcile two people owning the same coins but by then I'm gone.
2) Suppose I send money to Alice. then a fraction of a second later Alice tries to send the same Money to Bob. How does Bob determine that Amy owns the coins? No node on BoB's network can validate my transfer to Alice.
3) the description has this trail of signed hashes being appended. Does this grow forever and can it be inverted to follow the money?
4) is each coin signed? or is it transactions?
5) if someone invents a way to make coins cheaply does this doom the system? What regulates the produciton rate? does this work if I have 1 million different user identities? if there is a central signing authority for this then what keeps this from getting cracked or printing their own money to flood the system?
6) what happens if botnets start mining?
how does this actually work, end to end, technically not operationally?
Shucks, I stopped reading them after the first 200 I guess. Who has time to keep up with mere proposals. This is a bewildering way to run a railroad.
Y'know I never got the memo. Seriously I never heard of this before today. I don't think this is my fauly either. I own dozens of books on python and am well read. As a check to see if I'm the lone idiot, I just went through a bunch of random files in python libraries I've downloaded over the years. Only one of them had // in it. So apparently no one else got the memo either.
I think you are missing his point. So you create a syntax that is an error that will be accepted. Billions of programs have this error. Then one day the syntax changes and no error messages are generated.
Consider is some language had = and == be the same thing, then they changed it so that = meant copy a pointer and == meant copy a value. your head would explode trying to track all that down.
bite_me() if abs($x-$y)> $epsilon;
$t =~ tr/e/e/;
eat_me_raw() if $t eq $s;