While the threat of a 51% attack may be blown out of proportion (a pool sells their cut of the coins that are mined and it is in their best interest that the coin remain as valuable as possible - attacking a coin would be counterproductive)
Why don't we just let ghash.io own the "official" copy of the ledger, and do away with mining entirely, then? After all, according to you, it would be against ghash.io's best interest to do anything to harm the value of bitcoin...
The corruption of the taxi industry is humanities last hope.
In the future, when robots and AI has taken over every available job a human being could do, the one remaining bulwark that saves the human race from destruction will be the taxi lobby. At that time, the only job for a human will be a taxi driver, and we will drive around robots (other humans will not be able to afford it).
On the whole, I like weapons being more selective, tends to cut down on civilian casualties, but I think that it's a topic more deserving of careful scrutiny than a reflexive ban.
Such as a weapon that can think for itself, like this?
In a pinch, power companies could protect valuable transformers by taking them offline before the storm strikes. That would produce local blackouts, but they wouldn't last for long.
Why not automatically releasing cages containing polar bears, killer bees, and tawny crazy ants to mess with the pirates electronics! (Sorry, too much coding and my brain is a little loopy today)
Or more better, take the password P, and arrays of random numbers, A, B, C... (the total number equal to the friends you have), and give the first friend A, the second, A xor B, the third B xor C, etc. and finally the last (last random string) xor P. Then when you need your password, ask all your friends to give you their code, and you then xor them all together, to reveal P.
What's the barrier to entry of creating a new credit card, VISA2, VISA3, etc? Merchants accept bitcoin because they trust it... and because merchants accept it people pay a premium for it. A new alt-currency has neither, and with no benefit over bitcoin will have a hard time establishing trust. Maybe a few currencies, LTC, NMC may survive just as we have Discover, AMEX and Mastercard, but as things gel over time, the barrier to entry will be there already is a currency out there that people trust a lot more. Not to mention the security of the huge collection of miners preventing a double spend attack (which new alt currencies will not have).
"Once they own all the Bitcoins, or a significant portion of them, the currency starts to lose all value, because nobody can afford it, and they stop trading them."
Is that like the Yogi Berra quote, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."?
Seriously, if the government threw $21 Billion into buying bitcoin right now, you think the price would go down? And since bitcoins can be infinitesimally split, whats to stop people from trading in partial bitcoins. Why do people trade in single bitcoins today but not 0.1 bitcoins tomorrow?
Besides, how would they justify it? What politician would rally behind something like this?
Imagine not investing in bitcoin 3 years ago. How would you feel about that today?
Sorry, but the whole argument that it is unwise to purchase things in bitcoin is missing the point. It was and unwise to not invest a portion of your savings into bitcoin, and this may still be true. I know, "Heresy! Bitcoin is not real! It will never succeed" and all that. The contrarian viewpoint would see this sentiment as an indicator to its future growth. Of course, do your own DD and decide whether you think Bitcoin can really succeed as money, but also view the loud braying of the naysayers as further reason to invest if you have not done so already.
They did address that point. In the actual paper, not the article they admitted their plan included the pool using the sybil attack to increase the chance that its block would be accepted at a greater percentage rate than the other.
Why is everyone so concerned about climate change now? What about eons ago when life formed? Talk about a radical change to earth's climate, it absolutely got smothered in life and its byproducts everywhere. Yet, no one even mentions that anymore. We should work on cleaning up the effect to the climate due to life *first*, then we can talk about this comparatively small after-effect from technology after that.
Imagine a rocky planet, with just clean water, minerals, rock, sand, dust. If we work together we can make it happen!
What about blindfolding them, tying them up to a pole, attaching some large feathers to their feet (so they land head first), and throwing them off a high perch? Much cheaper and safer then explosives.
What people seem to be missing is that getting a concave device out of a persons pocket would be much harder than one that is flat, since the edges on the concave side would drag and bunch up the fabric, skin and fat when trying to pull it out. Unless of course, you flip it so the concave side is on the outside of the pocket, but then it really wouldn't fit well. This is just a poorly designed gimmick.
It used to be true that carrier pigeon's were treated well. As technology increased, their homes were made to be better protected against predators, their food became healthier, and more plentiful, and they lived very well. Then one day they were no longer useful, being replaced by more efficient means of communication.
There is a line, beyond which a life form can no longer compete with technology out there. Until that line is crossed, technology will support the existence of that life form to achieve its maximum efficiency. When it is crossed, however, things change very quickly. If AI ever gets smarter than people, we are in real trouble.
Well, until the trend of oceans sinking up the carbon dioxide ends, it will become more and more acidic, killing all the marine life. Then, after it begins to heat up, much of the life will have already gone extinct. Just like when someone cooks your dinner, and then cools it down before it gets to your plate, it that doesn't reverse the process of cooking it.
Slashdot Mirror
While the threat of a 51% attack may be blown out of proportion (a pool sells their cut of the coins that are mined and it is in their best interest that the coin remain as valuable as possible - attacking a coin would be counterproductive)
Why don't we just let ghash.io own the "official" copy of the ledger, and do away with mining entirely, then? After all, according to you, it would be against ghash.io's best interest to do anything to harm the value of bitcoin...
The corruption of the taxi industry is humanities last hope.
In the future, when robots and AI has taken over every available job a human being could do, the one remaining bulwark that saves the human race from destruction will be the taxi lobby. At that time, the only job for a human will be a taxi driver, and we will drive around robots (other humans will not be able to afford it).
1. Give vasectomies and tubectomies to everyone on alien worlds
2. ?????
3. Profit!
If you bought Comcast in 2009, you'd probably have a different opinion :). https://www.google.com/finance...
He should make them all wear dresses..
On the whole, I like weapons being more selective, tends to cut down on civilian casualties, but I think that it's a topic more deserving of careful scrutiny than a reflexive ban.
Such as a weapon that can think for itself, like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
How would taxing help? The regular investors would still getting screwed, the profits just now being split by the HFTs and the government.
Then DO SOMETHING!
From your link:
In a pinch, power companies could protect valuable transformers by taking them offline before the storm strikes. That would produce local blackouts, but they wouldn't last for long.
It doesn't seem as bad as you make it out to be.
From Nigeria?
Easy! Touch sensitive screens with pinch to zoom
Why not automatically releasing cages containing polar bears, killer bees, and tawny crazy ants to mess with the pirates electronics! (Sorry, too much coding and my brain is a little loopy today)
The only fair way to do this is if we all play russian roulette. You first
Or more better, take the password P, and arrays of random numbers, A, B, C... (the total number equal to the friends you have), and give the first friend A, the second, A xor B, the third B xor C, etc. and finally the last (last random string) xor P. Then when you need your password, ask all your friends to give you their code, and you then xor them all together, to reveal P.
What's the barrier to entry of creating a new credit card, VISA2, VISA3, etc? Merchants accept bitcoin because they trust it... and because merchants accept it people pay a premium for it. A new alt-currency has neither, and with no benefit over bitcoin will have a hard time establishing trust. Maybe a few currencies, LTC, NMC may survive just as we have Discover, AMEX and Mastercard, but as things gel over time, the barrier to entry will be there already is a currency out there that people trust a lot more. Not to mention the security of the huge collection of miners preventing a double spend attack (which new alt currencies will not have).
"Once they own all the Bitcoins, or a significant portion of them, the currency starts to lose all value, because nobody can afford it, and they stop trading them."
Is that like the Yogi Berra quote, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."?
Seriously, if the government threw $21 Billion into buying bitcoin right now, you think the price would go down? And since bitcoins can be infinitesimally split, whats to stop people from trading in partial bitcoins. Why do people trade in single bitcoins today but not 0.1 bitcoins tomorrow?
Besides, how would they justify it? What politician would rally behind something like this?
Imagine not investing in bitcoin 3 years ago. How would you feel about that today?
Sorry, but the whole argument that it is unwise to purchase things in bitcoin is missing the point. It was and unwise to not invest a portion of your savings into bitcoin, and this may still be true. I know, "Heresy! Bitcoin is not real! It will never succeed" and all that. The contrarian viewpoint would see this sentiment as an indicator to its future growth. Of course, do your own DD and decide whether you think Bitcoin can really succeed as money, but also view the loud braying of the naysayers as further reason to invest if you have not done so already.
If you just bought it or mined it when it just started you'd be rich now, too.
They did address that point. In the actual paper, not the article they admitted their plan included the pool using the sybil attack to increase the chance that its block would be accepted at a greater percentage rate than the other.
Why is everyone so concerned about climate change now? What about eons ago when life formed? Talk about a radical change to earth's climate, it absolutely got smothered in life and its byproducts everywhere. Yet, no one even mentions that anymore. We should work on cleaning up the effect to the climate due to life *first*, then we can talk about this comparatively small after-effect from technology after that.
Imagine a rocky planet, with just clean water, minerals, rock, sand, dust. If we work together we can make it happen!
Bring out the clowns (... err lawyers): http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/31/rockstar-consortium-nortel-patent-google-lawsuit/
What about blindfolding them, tying them up to a pole, attaching some large feathers to their feet (so they land head first), and throwing them off a high perch? Much cheaper and safer then explosives.
What people seem to be missing is that getting a concave device out of a persons pocket would be much harder than one that is flat, since the edges on the concave side would drag and bunch up the fabric, skin and fat when trying to pull it out. Unless of course, you flip it so the concave side is on the outside of the pocket, but then it really wouldn't fit well. This is just a poorly designed gimmick.
It used to be true that carrier pigeon's were treated well. As technology increased, their homes were made to be better protected against predators, their food became healthier, and more plentiful, and they lived very well. Then one day they were no longer useful, being replaced by more efficient means of communication.
There is a line, beyond which a life form can no longer compete with technology out there. Until that line is crossed, technology will support the existence of that life form to achieve its maximum efficiency. When it is crossed, however, things change very quickly. If AI ever gets smarter than people, we are in real trouble.
Well, until the trend of oceans sinking up the carbon dioxide ends, it will become more and more acidic, killing all the marine life. Then, after it begins to heat up, much of the life will have already gone extinct. Just like when someone cooks your dinner, and then cools it down before it gets to your plate, it that doesn't reverse the process of cooking it.
Here is another link describing what AC is talking about! http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html