Right now I can purchase real goods in exchange for bitcoin, not all from private, criminal nor insignificant parties. The links are not hard to find and it's far more pursuasive to let people find them for themselves than to list them, but for a starter, check https://www.spendbitcoins.com/places/. Many businesses such as Paypal (so says Chief Executive John Donahoe said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal) are starting to work on methods of using them which is what is driving the speculation.
I said: The value of bitcoin has nothing to do with the ability to generate a bitcoin.
You said: For every other product; If you increase supply and demand remains constant, the price of said item goes down. For your statement to be true, the laws of supply and demand wouldn't apply to bitcoins. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
Fair enough. I'll concede that the value of a bitcoin is related to the ability to generate a bitcoin. The easier they are to come by, the lower the value will be as supply increases once demand reaches equilibrium with supply. However, reaching that equilibrium takes time and the desire to aquire bitcoin is still driving the value more than the supply. That's not what I was talking about though and why I said "bitcoin" (meaning the system) rather than "a bitcoin." The value of the system is about the use, not the individual coin. If 1000 bitcoins have the value of $0.01, it is just as useful as a system as if 1 bitcoin has a value of $1,000. This goes to many of your other arguments as well. Counterfeiting is a problem that isn't as simple for banks to get away with as you suggest, and various countries do engage in it and it does cause problems, potentially very big ones. (I work in the industry, I know whereof I speak but was indeed surprised to see your flat assertion that Iran has such a thing. I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar and http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-02/news/mn-1906_1_counterfeit-bills to see but didn't see conclusive information despite dire concerns about the impact on the value of the dollar, perhaps you have a better source?)
Sorry about my tone, you're right, it was condescending and I can be an asshole. If I'd realized I was replying to you I would have worked harder to be civil. I have seen your posts before and generally find them thoughtful enough to be worth considering whether I agree or not. I should have been paying attention to the person posting, you deserve more respectful responses than that.
I'll try to be more respectful in my replies, which I'll be breaking down into smaller bites to make it easier on other readers.
Who has been lying to you? I can't believe you're capable of making the arguments you've presented and yet incapable of understanding why they're based on lies or at the most charitable, misinformation. I'll try to sum up where you have been so grossly misinformed rather than write a book worth of responses. Please feel free to break the arguments down one by one in separate posts and I'll do my best to respond if you like.
The value of bitcoin is as a medium of exchange, not as a medium of creating wealth. The whole point is to be able to have something that can be reliably exchanged like traditional money. The value of bitcoin has nothing to do with the ability to generate a bitcoin.
Let me say that again because it seems to be the most fundamental point that you've missed: Bitcoin has value because it is a medium of exchange, not because you can mine them.
If you think that bitcoins only have value because they can be created, you're missing the point. If you think that bitcoins only have value as an investment strategy, you're missing the point. It would be silly to say that dollars only have value because they can be minted. It would be silly to say that dollars only have value because you can invest in them. Dollars have value because they can be used to purchase stuff. Bitcoins have value because they can be used to purchase stuff.
Dollars would lose their value if people didn't trust them. They're only trustworthy because they can't be easily created. In fact dollars are easier to counterfeit than bitcoins. It is the scarcity (like dollars, only more so) and the convenience for exchange (like dollars, but more so in some instances) that makes bitcoin a valuable method of exchange.
Bitcoins have value because they are a scarce resource that is easily exchanged and are accepted as a way to temporarily store the value of your efforts in order to be exchanged for something you want. That's what money is.
The cost of electrictity is certainly present, but it's nothing compared to the cost of armored cars, banks, ATMs, driving deposits to the bank, law enforcement hours spent fighting counterfeiting and minting. Even the cost of managing the exchange of dollars when measured in electrictity is wasteful compared to doing the same with bitcoins. You seem very concerned about the way people are using resources on a planatery scale. Traditional physically produced currencies are tremendously wasteful. How can you be so against something that cuts down on the waste?
This is a really interesting and good point. I wonder if Google could get much of the same desired result by offering a bounty on images/video/wifi to people with Google+ and Android phones. They could offer the legal protection of Google's legal team to each person who captures a legitimate data area. If this kind of event came up, Google's legal team could handle it in stride and there'd be no profit to be had by attacking the big bad Google.
Who'd be foolish to do that you might ask? Millions and millions of us. Imagine if Android users got a pop up message saying "Google is offering a 30 GB expansion to Google drive space to anyone who captures video and radio signal info for your current area, are you interested?" The thing is that I could do the exact same thing as Google is getting fined for and nobody would ever know or care. Nor should they.
I get it. Netflix relies letting me put something on my computer that I don't know how to keep on my computer and they only way to do that is to keep people from knowing how things are working. Open source browsers rely on people being able to tell how things are working.
I understand both issues, but is there a way to resolve the conflict?
I should have been more clear with the math. If you have a bitcoin and the choice of selling it to Bob or on the market, you'll make more money selling it on the open market since a bitcoin at this particular moment is worth $95.29 and 2g gold is worth $90.82. I suggested the idea since it would not encourage people to take Bob's offer but rather offer a little more stability. (People wouldn't be in such a hurry to trade if they knew that the value wasn't going to drop beyond 2.0g gold even though it is worth more than that.)
I don't know what the cost of mining a bitcoin is, and I don't care since it's higher for most people than the value it generates and it is expected to continue to rise. The cost of mining is supposed to continue to rise so that the value of mining decreases to the point that nobody can make money doing it.
The point of bitcoins isn't as a mining opportunity, the point of them is for use as a medium of exchange. I think we're on the same page for that use. It has useful potential and risk due to the volatility.
You seem to be under the impression that mining is supposed to be profitible, but the opposite is true. Mining is intentionally designed to become less and less profitible over time.
Then we're on the same page, since I recognize the risk and am primarily interested in bitcoin as a convenient medium of exchange. I'm not interesed in treating mining as a source of income or bitcoins as a long term investment. Pretty much all the world currencies have some volitality, but bitcoin is the only one that bypasses the banks for exchange. Right now it's pretty volitale, but I'd still trust it to retain some value so long as my risk wasn't to big.
I should have made the math more obvious, his offer of grams of gold doesn't meet the current value, it just sets a base value. Currently a bitcoin is worth more than 2.0g gold, which means that it isn't worth cashing in bitcoin for his gold unless the market drops. That's what having a precious metal backed currency does, it gives peoople a minimum value they can trust in which is below the practical value. When a government does this with currency, it makes people comfortable treating a currency more as if it has intrinsic value so long as the government is stable. The reason I asked it as a hypothetical question like I did is that Bob isn't backing every bitcoin, just a significant portion of them which is different than a real gold standard... mostly.
It would be useful if the ownership were easily transferable, supply was limited and the market was international. Actually that's kind of the point I'm trying to make, so long as the medium of exchange is convenient and reliably available, I'm indifferent to the value of generation. Bitcoin has an edge over tea leaves and pork ears in that it's already being used as a common method of exchange and it is already convenient.
Thanks. You're a breath of fresh air in that you present your opinons thoughtfully and without just degenerating to arguing by authority of self but rather rely on concepts and thoughts.
I almost accepted your response without comment, a compliment to your proficiency in presenting your idea. I don't have a disagreement actually, just a couple questions that it brings to mind.
First, is this a solvable problem? Dollars are government backed, what if Cyprus, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain decided to use Bitcoin as a valid currency? (Please pardon the misnomer, as I am aware that the term currency generally refers to physical circulation rather than digital.) As an alternative, what if one or more of the major holders of Bitcoin decides to back their investment with gold? The current value of a Bitcoin is $94.02001. What if Bob the Bitcoin hoarder (obviously hypothetical) decides that he'll value every of his Bitcoins at 2.0 grams of gold?
Second, how do you track responses to AC? I'm envious of your ability to respond to me quickly despite having no handy place to click to see how people have responded to your comments?
..."is Bitcoin at a point now where you would consider generating Bitcoin as a retirement plan?" Of course not. That doesn't change its value as a method of exchange because a method of exchange isn't the same as generating Bitcoin. I question whether "most people want to invest" because that doesn't speak to the value of Bitcoin to me. The value to me is in that it can be exchanged for money I can use and conveniently, which makes it useful to me. I'll grant that the value is highly volitale, but I'm willing to accept that risk so long as the risk is limited, as in for a single agreed weekly contract as opposed to a yearly contract valued in Bitcoin.
"Why generate a useless encrypted token when you could sell that CPU usage toward solving a problem which requires up to millions of years of runtime." I answer that I would generate a token that has use as a method of exchange regardless of its inherent value, provided the generation is cost effective. Although "being paid -directly- for the work you're doing" is much more compelling to me; can you tell me how to do that?
..."are you seriously telling me you think Bitcoin is at the point where you could realistically quit working and use Bitcoin mining as a means of sustenance? You don't even think that it can pay for the power it took to make it, and it CAN'T!" Granted. However, I can't make money harvesting tea in China. That doesn't mean it is pointless for everyone. The point is that I can use Bitcoin as a means of exchange and that makes it useful. I would gladly take ownership of tea leaves as a form exchange if it was useful to me. The extended point is that some people can "use Bitcoin mining as a means of sustenance" which means that the mining has value (for a limited time.)
I don't really think we disagree on the fundamental issues. Is Bitcoin mining becoming something that is pointless for most people? Yes. Does a Bitcoin have any intrinsic value? No. Does Bitcoin have value as a means of exchange? So long as people treat it as if it does: Yes.
When people decline to treat the dollar as if it has intrinsic value, then it becomes worthless as a means of exchange. The same can be said for Bitcoin. So long as either is treated as if it has value, it is useful.
When they stop paying me for going to work I'll find a new job. That's capitalism. (So is doing genetic research necessary to provide better medicine.) Even if the grocery store, mortgage company, utilities companies and Wal-Marts said "take what you need" I'd still find a new job. I'd prefer to work at a Waffle House because I'd enjoy it more and it's frankly easier work. Capitalism doesn't mean that I wouldn't work at all without it, it just means that I do what's more valuable to society with my talents than I'd do without money as an incentive. Plus, I like the option to do what I choose rather than being subject to being told what I must do.
I'm fully capable of planting potatoes (and many other things) since I grew up farming. I don't spend my days doing it because what I contribute doing my job has a much higher value to society. As a result of people like me making the choices that capitalism drives, you and I both live better lives than we would without those incentives.
That doesn't mean I'm incapable of making moral choices on how I spend my efforts. There are much more lucrative options I'm capable of pursuing but choose not to because of my morals. I don't eat money but I eat the things money buys. I recycle but I don't bicycle 30 miles to work because my options in a capitalism driven society make that the more moral choice for me and my family.
(I too have a Caps Lock key.) LEARN TO THINK.
Capitalism isn't inherently evil nor is socialism or pretty any economic system you prefer to name. Evil or just malicious ignorance is common in humankind. Some economic systems make it easier for those bad tendencies in people to have more significant impacts. I'm actually going to agree with you in believing that we should all be subject to a truely enlightened form of governance where our economic contribution is governed by what is actually best for us each and all. When such a thing happens I believe we'll both be better people doing what is best. However, short of the world governance by God himself, I'm stuck in a world where there is nobody I trust to have such power and insight. For now, I believe that the evil of regulated capitalism in a democratic republic is the least evil of options available.
Do you believe there is a better option? Lay off the caps and explain your reasoning because capital letters don't convince me, they just motivate me to argue.
Oops, I wrote "should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts." when I should have written "should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts, or be compelled against their will."
I've been bothered by a theory lately that some people, politicians in particular, may be manipulating public perception. What if there are people who recognize that a position is popular that they disagree with for really good reasons and act like they're in favor of the position with the intention to deliberately lose the public debates on the topic? My post above would be an example of me falling for such misdirection. What if "OhANameWhatName" and I were on opposite sides of the debate on whether genetic patents should be allowed. I was against them when I started reading but when I thought though his/her argument, I changed my mind because it became obvious to me how flawed the argument against them was. Now I'm in favor of regulated allowance for genetic patents and have made an argument in favor of them despite my initial contrary stance.
The same thing has happened to me on the subjects of AGW (initially against, but flawed arguments have been so effectively discredited that I'm now in favor of the theory) and gun control (initially I tended toward reasonable additional controls but all the misdirection to assualt wheapons and overreaching regulation moved me against it) and texting bans (initially I thought they were reasonable but all the research and bad arguments in favor combined with studies showing their failures shifted me against them.)
My firm belief is that a person should be willing to consider arguments for and against any subject rationally and change their opinions when they learn more if the evidence is sufficient. However, I'm inclined to read and think through the arguments that agree with my opinions first and that makes me subject to manipulation if the arguments that seem to favor my opinion are consistently flawed.
What bothers me is, what if the people who are making arguments that are flawed are only pretending to agree with my initial opinion but making arguments that are intentionally flawed?
I didn't really think I had decided where I stood on this issue until I read that. Thanks, now I know.
Money isn't just perception and power, it is a method of measuring the value of goods and services for the purpose of exchange. It seems almost stupid to have to say it, but it's the overlooked point here.
The absuridity that medicine and by extension human health shouldn't have a monetary value should be obvious to anyone. To say anything else is to say that doctors and researchers should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts. Do you honestly think that you should be able to get treatment for anything at no cost to you regardless of the cost to the people who provide it? Do you honestly think there should be no monetary incentives to learn to practice and regulate medical practice? Do you honestly believe there world would be a better place if nobody was allowed to profit from researching how to produce better medicine?
I want to live in a society where I and those I love can get treatment for illness that is expensive to provide. There would be far fewer options and far less general wellness if there were no monetary incentive to provide it. I might have a genetic time bomb ticking away in me right now that will either kill me, drastically reducing my ability to contribute to society, or be cured depending entirely on who has incentive to find a cure. If you successfully kill the incentive for the research necessary, then you're partially responsible for killing me.
Now it might be that the medicine necessary to cure my genetic time bomb would be so expensive to research and produce that I'd die for my inability to pay for it, but the other scenario is that I'd have no chance at all. Maybe it's not an all or nothing choice. Maybe the incentives are weighted to high and we should have better laws to balance the incentives for medical research, study and medicine production. Maybe it's common sense to consider how to best regulate that balance.
To say "human health can't be exempt from the pull of money" is to say that no amount of research or practice is worth paying for and it is better to let people die than to place value on that work.
I'm curious about your reasoning. I can buy bitcoin with dollars and sell bitcoin for dollars and use dollars to purchase goods and services. Bitcoin in itself may not replace dollars but offers an alternative exchange method which may be more convenient than dollars in some instances. For example, I might do some web design work for a company in Greece, and I'd gladly take payment in bitcoins which I'd then sell immediately to get dollars. I'd declare the value of the dollars as part of my income for tax purposes and be able to buy groceries and pay my bills with the result.
At the end of my day, I'd have used bitcoin because it was more convenient than going through banks and doing wire transfers and end up with payment that would probably be slightly higher since the cost of international wire transfers wouldn't need to be deducted from the exchange.
I have no intention of mining bitcoins because I don't believe that my computers are efficient enough to produce value at less than the cost I pay for electricity, but lack of mining has almost no effect on my interest in using bitcoins as a payment system. The environmental and computational cost of me using bitcoins as an exchange medium is almost not worth counting.
So how is it not useful to me to have bitcoin catch on?
Anecdotal evidence is just that. I've used them all through my house and bought different qualities. I find that in general they either stop working in the first two months or keep working through several years. My power supply is very good.
I was irritated by that too, but it is a direct quote from the article. I'm not sure if it is fair, but it immediately made me doubt the reliability of the information in the article.
I want my speed, distance and map in a heads up display when bicycling. My smartphone does that except for the heads up display but that part is pretty important since looking down means I'm missing a lot of the stuff that I need and want to see.
I'd also like to have it provide one of the video feeds from the person speaking during company video conferences. We have multiple feeds but having one coming from the speaker, or potentially letting the speaker see someone remotely asking questions would add a good bit to the experience.
It would be great for taking remote tours when you're getting ready to move as well. Your real estate agent (thanks for earlier post to get the idea) could take you on a tour of several houses before you go to the site so that you'd have a narrow list of final home candidates as well. You could do it with a smart phone but a display from a wearer would give you a better virtual experience and be more natural for the real estate agent to use.
How about attending a class lecture when you're sick or called away for a family emergency? Again, a smart phone could do it, but a classmate with Google Glass wouldn't have to worry about working the video and you'd look at the things the classmate does, like other students asking questions, answering them and so on.
I doubt many of these things will be justified considering the cost, but I'm hopeful the price will come down.
Two things: 1) The lack of a provision in the constitution doesn't seem to deter Congress from making laws as a general observation. 2) I'm pretty sure that if challenged, they would cite the Commerce Clause.
Oh, I like this suggestion. Experience and knowledge isn't a matter of secrets, it is a product of time, effort and study. If you're to train a replacement to handle your work with your competency then by all means attempt to spend the time on the education and experience it takes to match your own. It's practically a job for life. (Even if you train to today's competency, you won't catch up to the level you'll have after doing that training.)
Unless your secret is that you're overpaid or an idiot. If that's the case and you want to continue to get paid for it, then lay traps, misdirect and discourage. If you can get him to quit in disgust after damaging various things and costing the company loads of money only to swoop in for the rescue yourself, then you're set.
I quit buying music albums when they were still on cassettes. The return simply wasn't worth the cost for me. I appreciate music in my life but not enough to spend much money, particularly when I was content with radio.
Then Pandora caught my attention. I enjoyed it enough that I actually paid (and have continued paying) for the upgrade. It's a small cost for getting to hear what I want and being able to get a wide variety. I don't really have to pay for those two things, but I get a slightly higher quality and no ads for the price of the upgrade, plus I'm supporting a company I want to succeed.
Recently I've begun buying albums and tracks again. I only do it on systems where I get a downloaded copy of the music that I can move to whatever device I desire. I don't have a tremendous collection by any means, but I appreciate being able to hear what I want, when I want to, and not pay for full albums when I only like one or two songs.
I am aware that I could download the same songs and albums without paying for them but generally speaking my Pandora subscription, the convenience and the quality of the download I'm able to get at the price I pay makes it worth more than the effort of attempting to do it illegally.
Even if there were no risk whatsoever, my history of purchases shows that I still pay for quality and convenience, particularly where I value the success of the company I'm dealing with.
I know that one user doesn't make the case, but thunderclap is right: Do it well and at a fair price and people like me are willing to pay even if they could get it for free.
I know it sounds silly the way you phrased it, but it isn't so silly when you look a bit deeper. People actually naturally prefer a 25 hour day. Given the option to turn lights off and on, as most of us have, we'd be more productive and enjoy life a little more if we actually were allowed to have our preference in sync.
There are about 24 extra hours every four years, thus Feb. 29, or about six extra hours every year. If we sleep in an extra hour every two months, we are on a mostly perpetual cycle. Combined with our natural tendency to want each day to be a little longer than it actually is, that extra hour of sleep adjusts to our slight sleep depravation habit quite nicely.
So not everybody will be comfortable with slightly shifting daylight hours. That means that they'll have to publish a schedule or define their workday by daylight hours. It isn't so hard compared to all the gyrations we already do to meet the demands of working in a society where the person you're interacting with may be on a different time zone schedule anyway.
I can't say that I really think everyone should adopt an extra hour of sleep every two months schedule now, but I do think I'll try it if I ever break free of a corporate workday.
I have never seen the reason for the wrath some people have toward Unity
That's because you're one of the elite. I can switch to a new windows manager. I can modify a program if I don't like how it behaves. My guess is that you have similar capabilities. That puts us in a category of user that Ubuntu isn't really targeting.
To the target user, the idea of fixing their window manager to behave the way they want is something they understand in theory but in practice will never accomplish. They know that somebody else could fix Unity or switch to a different option but they don't know how and have trouble understanding the instructions to make those changes. To them, Unity is something that the elite force on them. Because of the elite, they are forced to deal with things they don't understand.
Unity is hurting the Linux experience for many new users and they feel justifiable frustration and those of us who want Ubuntu to be a welcoming experience for them share that frustration. These days I recommend Mint instead. I've tried it and set it up for people and it really is what Ubuntu used to be: easy. The only downside is that when they have questions, the vast majority of Internet information that might apply has "Ubuntu" on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now I can purchase real goods in exchange for bitcoin, not all from private, criminal nor insignificant parties. The links are not hard to find and it's far more pursuasive to let people find them for themselves than to list them, but for a starter, check https://www.spendbitcoins.com/places/. Many businesses such as Paypal (so says Chief Executive John Donahoe said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal) are starting to work on methods of using them which is what is driving the speculation.
See: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/04/30/could-paypal-be-on-horizon-for-bitcoin/
I said: The value of bitcoin has nothing to do with the ability to generate a bitcoin.
You said: For every other product; If you increase supply and demand remains constant, the price of said item goes down. For your statement to be true, the laws of supply and demand wouldn't apply to bitcoins. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
Fair enough. I'll concede that the value of a bitcoin is related to the ability to generate a bitcoin. The easier they are to come by, the lower the value will be as supply increases once demand reaches equilibrium with supply. However, reaching that equilibrium takes time and the desire to aquire bitcoin is still driving the value more than the supply. That's not what I was talking about though and why I said "bitcoin" (meaning the system) rather than "a bitcoin." The value of the system is about the use, not the individual coin. If 1000 bitcoins have the value of $0.01, it is just as useful as a system as if 1 bitcoin has a value of $1,000. This goes to many of your other arguments as well. Counterfeiting is a problem that isn't as simple for banks to get away with as you suggest, and various countries do engage in it and it does cause problems, potentially very big ones. (I work in the industry, I know whereof I speak but was indeed surprised to see your flat assertion that Iran has such a thing. I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar and http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-02/news/mn-1906_1_counterfeit-bills to see but didn't see conclusive information despite dire concerns about the impact on the value of the dollar, perhaps you have a better source?)
Sorry about my tone, you're right, it was condescending and I can be an asshole. If I'd realized I was replying to you I would have worked harder to be civil. I have seen your posts before and generally find them thoughtful enough to be worth considering whether I agree or not. I should have been paying attention to the person posting, you deserve more respectful responses than that.
I'll try to be more respectful in my replies, which I'll be breaking down into smaller bites to make it easier on other readers.
Who has been lying to you? I can't believe you're capable of making the arguments you've presented and yet incapable of understanding why they're based on lies or at the most charitable, misinformation. I'll try to sum up where you have been so grossly misinformed rather than write a book worth of responses. Please feel free to break the arguments down one by one in separate posts and I'll do my best to respond if you like.
The value of bitcoin is as a medium of exchange, not as a medium of creating wealth. The whole point is to be able to have something that can be reliably exchanged like traditional money. The value of bitcoin has nothing to do with the ability to generate a bitcoin.
Let me say that again because it seems to be the most fundamental point that you've missed: Bitcoin has value because it is a medium of exchange, not because you can mine them.
If you think that bitcoins only have value because they can be created, you're missing the point. If you think that bitcoins only have value as an investment strategy, you're missing the point. It would be silly to say that dollars only have value because they can be minted. It would be silly to say that dollars only have value because you can invest in them. Dollars have value because they can be used to purchase stuff. Bitcoins have value because they can be used to purchase stuff.
Dollars would lose their value if people didn't trust them. They're only trustworthy because they can't be easily created. In fact dollars are easier to counterfeit than bitcoins. It is the scarcity (like dollars, only more so) and the convenience for exchange (like dollars, but more so in some instances) that makes bitcoin a valuable method of exchange.
Bitcoins have value because they are a scarce resource that is easily exchanged and are accepted as a way to temporarily store the value of your efforts in order to be exchanged for something you want. That's what money is.
The cost of electrictity is certainly present, but it's nothing compared to the cost of armored cars, banks, ATMs, driving deposits to the bank, law enforcement hours spent fighting counterfeiting and minting. Even the cost of managing the exchange of dollars when measured in electrictity is wasteful compared to doing the same with bitcoins. You seem very concerned about the way people are using resources on a planatery scale. Traditional physically produced currencies are tremendously wasteful. How can you be so against something that cuts down on the waste?
This is a really interesting and good point. I wonder if Google could get much of the same desired result by offering a bounty on images/video/wifi to people with Google+ and Android phones. They could offer the legal protection of Google's legal team to each person who captures a legitimate data area. If this kind of event came up, Google's legal team could handle it in stride and there'd be no profit to be had by attacking the big bad Google.
Who'd be foolish to do that you might ask? Millions and millions of us. Imagine if Android users got a pop up message saying "Google is offering a 30 GB expansion to Google drive space to anyone who captures video and radio signal info for your current area, are you interested?" The thing is that I could do the exact same thing as Google is getting fined for and nobody would ever know or care. Nor should they.
I get it. Netflix relies letting me put something on my computer that I don't know how to keep on my computer and they only way to do that is to keep people from knowing how things are working. Open source browsers rely on people being able to tell how things are working.
I understand both issues, but is there a way to resolve the conflict?
I should have been more clear with the math. If you have a bitcoin and the choice of selling it to Bob or on the market, you'll make more money selling it on the open market since a bitcoin at this particular moment is worth $95.29 and 2g gold is worth $90.82. I suggested the idea since it would not encourage people to take Bob's offer but rather offer a little more stability. (People wouldn't be in such a hurry to trade if they knew that the value wasn't going to drop beyond 2.0g gold even though it is worth more than that.)
I don't know what the cost of mining a bitcoin is, and I don't care since it's higher for most people than the value it generates and it is expected to continue to rise. The cost of mining is supposed to continue to rise so that the value of mining decreases to the point that nobody can make money doing it.
The point of bitcoins isn't as a mining opportunity, the point of them is for use as a medium of exchange. I think we're on the same page for that use. It has useful potential and risk due to the volatility.
You seem to be under the impression that mining is supposed to be profitible, but the opposite is true. Mining is intentionally designed to become less and less profitible over time.
Then we're on the same page, since I recognize the risk and am primarily interested in bitcoin as a convenient medium of exchange. I'm not interesed in treating mining as a source of income or bitcoins as a long term investment. Pretty much all the world currencies have some volitality, but bitcoin is the only one that bypasses the banks for exchange. Right now it's pretty volitale, but I'd still trust it to retain some value so long as my risk wasn't to big.
I should have made the math more obvious, his offer of grams of gold doesn't meet the current value, it just sets a base value. Currently a bitcoin is worth more than 2.0g gold, which means that it isn't worth cashing in bitcoin for his gold unless the market drops. That's what having a precious metal backed currency does, it gives peoople a minimum value they can trust in which is below the practical value. When a government does this with currency, it makes people comfortable treating a currency more as if it has intrinsic value so long as the government is stable. The reason I asked it as a hypothetical question like I did is that Bob isn't backing every bitcoin, just a significant portion of them which is different than a real gold standard... mostly.
It would be useful if the ownership were easily transferable, supply was limited and the market was international. Actually that's kind of the point I'm trying to make, so long as the medium of exchange is convenient and reliably available, I'm indifferent to the value of generation. Bitcoin has an edge over tea leaves and pork ears in that it's already being used as a common method of exchange and it is already convenient.
Thanks. You're a breath of fresh air in that you present your opinons thoughtfully and without just degenerating to arguing by authority of self but rather rely on concepts and thoughts.
I almost accepted your response without comment, a compliment to your proficiency in presenting your idea. I don't have a disagreement actually, just a couple questions that it brings to mind.
First, is this a solvable problem? Dollars are government backed, what if Cyprus, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain decided to use Bitcoin as a valid currency? (Please pardon the misnomer, as I am aware that the term currency generally refers to physical circulation rather than digital.) As an alternative, what if one or more of the major holders of Bitcoin decides to back their investment with gold? The current value of a Bitcoin is $94.02001. What if Bob the Bitcoin hoarder (obviously hypothetical) decides that he'll value every of his Bitcoins at 2.0 grams of gold?
Well said.
..."is Bitcoin at a point now where you would consider generating Bitcoin as a retirement plan?" Of course not. That doesn't change its value as a method of exchange because a method of exchange isn't the same as generating Bitcoin. I question whether "most people want to invest" because that doesn't speak to the value of Bitcoin to me. The value to me is in that it can be exchanged for money I can use and conveniently, which makes it useful to me. I'll grant that the value is highly volitale, but I'm willing to accept that risk so long as the risk is limited, as in for a single agreed weekly contract as opposed to a yearly contract valued in Bitcoin.
"Why generate a useless encrypted token when you could sell that CPU usage toward solving a problem which requires up to millions of years of runtime." I answer that I would generate a token that has use as a method of exchange regardless of its inherent value, provided the generation is cost effective. Although "being paid -directly- for the work you're doing" is much more compelling to me; can you tell me how to do that?
..."are you seriously telling me you think Bitcoin is at the point where you could realistically quit working and use Bitcoin mining as a means of sustenance? You don't even think that it can pay for the power it took to make it, and it CAN'T!" Granted. However, I can't make money harvesting tea in China. That doesn't mean it is pointless for everyone. The point is that I can use Bitcoin as a means of exchange and that makes it useful. I would gladly take ownership of tea leaves as a form exchange if it was useful to me. The extended point is that some people can "use Bitcoin mining as a means of sustenance" which means that the mining has value (for a limited time.)
I don't really think we disagree on the fundamental issues. Is Bitcoin mining becoming something that is pointless for most people? Yes. Does a Bitcoin have any intrinsic value? No. Does Bitcoin have value as a means of exchange? So long as people treat it as if it does: Yes.
When people decline to treat the dollar as if it has intrinsic value, then it becomes worthless as a means of exchange. The same can be said for Bitcoin. So long as either is treated as if it has value, it is useful.
I'm still here. It's my planet too.
When they stop paying me for going to work I'll find a new job. That's capitalism. (So is doing genetic research necessary to provide better medicine.) Even if the grocery store, mortgage company, utilities companies and Wal-Marts said "take what you need" I'd still find a new job. I'd prefer to work at a Waffle House because I'd enjoy it more and it's frankly easier work. Capitalism doesn't mean that I wouldn't work at all without it, it just means that I do what's more valuable to society with my talents than I'd do without money as an incentive. Plus, I like the option to do what I choose rather than being subject to being told what I must do.
I'm fully capable of planting potatoes (and many other things) since I grew up farming. I don't spend my days doing it because what I contribute doing my job has a much higher value to society. As a result of people like me making the choices that capitalism drives, you and I both live better lives than we would without those incentives.
That doesn't mean I'm incapable of making moral choices on how I spend my efforts. There are much more lucrative options I'm capable of pursuing but choose not to because of my morals. I don't eat money but I eat the things money buys. I recycle but I don't bicycle 30 miles to work because my options in a capitalism driven society make that the more moral choice for me and my family.
(I too have a Caps Lock key.) LEARN TO THINK.
Capitalism isn't inherently evil nor is socialism or pretty any economic system you prefer to name. Evil or just malicious ignorance is common in humankind. Some economic systems make it easier for those bad tendencies in people to have more significant impacts. I'm actually going to agree with you in believing that we should all be subject to a truely enlightened form of governance where our economic contribution is governed by what is actually best for us each and all. When such a thing happens I believe we'll both be better people doing what is best. However, short of the world governance by God himself, I'm stuck in a world where there is nobody I trust to have such power and insight. For now, I believe that the evil of regulated capitalism in a democratic republic is the least evil of options available.
Do you believe there is a better option? Lay off the caps and explain your reasoning because capital letters don't convince me, they just motivate me to argue.
Oops, I wrote "should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts." when I should have written "should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts, or be compelled against their will."
I've been bothered by a theory lately that some people, politicians in particular, may be manipulating public perception. What if there are people who recognize that a position is popular that they disagree with for really good reasons and act like they're in favor of the position with the intention to deliberately lose the public debates on the topic? My post above would be an example of me falling for such misdirection. What if "OhANameWhatName" and I were on opposite sides of the debate on whether genetic patents should be allowed. I was against them when I started reading but when I thought though his/her argument, I changed my mind because it became obvious to me how flawed the argument against them was. Now I'm in favor of regulated allowance for genetic patents and have made an argument in favor of them despite my initial contrary stance.
The same thing has happened to me on the subjects of AGW (initially against, but flawed arguments have been so effectively discredited that I'm now in favor of the theory) and gun control (initially I tended toward reasonable additional controls but all the misdirection to assualt wheapons and overreaching regulation moved me against it) and texting bans (initially I thought they were reasonable but all the research and bad arguments in favor combined with studies showing their failures shifted me against them.)
My firm belief is that a person should be willing to consider arguments for and against any subject rationally and change their opinions when they learn more if the evidence is sufficient. However, I'm inclined to read and think through the arguments that agree with my opinions first and that makes me subject to manipulation if the arguments that seem to favor my opinion are consistently flawed.
What bothers me is, what if the people who are making arguments that are flawed are only pretending to agree with my initial opinion but making arguments that are intentionally flawed?
I didn't really think I had decided where I stood on this issue until I read that. Thanks, now I know.
Money isn't just perception and power, it is a method of measuring the value of goods and services for the purpose of exchange. It seems almost stupid to have to say it, but it's the overlooked point here.
The absuridity that medicine and by extension human health shouldn't have a monetary value should be obvious to anyone. To say anything else is to say that doctors and researchers should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts. Do you honestly think that you should be able to get treatment for anything at no cost to you regardless of the cost to the people who provide it? Do you honestly think there should be no monetary incentives to learn to practice and regulate medical practice? Do you honestly believe there world would be a better place if nobody was allowed to profit from researching how to produce better medicine?
I want to live in a society where I and those I love can get treatment for illness that is expensive to provide. There would be far fewer options and far less general wellness if there were no monetary incentive to provide it. I might have a genetic time bomb ticking away in me right now that will either kill me, drastically reducing my ability to contribute to society, or be cured depending entirely on who has incentive to find a cure. If you successfully kill the incentive for the research necessary, then you're partially responsible for killing me.
Now it might be that the medicine necessary to cure my genetic time bomb would be so expensive to research and produce that I'd die for my inability to pay for it, but the other scenario is that I'd have no chance at all. Maybe it's not an all or nothing choice. Maybe the incentives are weighted to high and we should have better laws to balance the incentives for medical research, study and medicine production. Maybe it's common sense to consider how to best regulate that balance.
To say "human health can't be exempt from the pull of money" is to say that no amount of research or practice is worth paying for and it is better to let people die than to place value on that work.
Because that's where this ends.
I'm curious about your reasoning. I can buy bitcoin with dollars and sell bitcoin for dollars and use dollars to purchase goods and services. Bitcoin in itself may not replace dollars but offers an alternative exchange method which may be more convenient than dollars in some instances. For example, I might do some web design work for a company in Greece, and I'd gladly take payment in bitcoins which I'd then sell immediately to get dollars. I'd declare the value of the dollars as part of my income for tax purposes and be able to buy groceries and pay my bills with the result.
At the end of my day, I'd have used bitcoin because it was more convenient than going through banks and doing wire transfers and end up with payment that would probably be slightly higher since the cost of international wire transfers wouldn't need to be deducted from the exchange.
I have no intention of mining bitcoins because I don't believe that my computers are efficient enough to produce value at less than the cost I pay for electricity, but lack of mining has almost no effect on my interest in using bitcoins as a payment system. The environmental and computational cost of me using bitcoins as an exchange medium is almost not worth counting.
So how is it not useful to me to have bitcoin catch on?
Anecdotal evidence is just that. I've used them all through my house and bought different qualities. I find that in general they either stop working in the first two months or keep working through several years. My power supply is very good.
I was irritated by that too, but it is a direct quote from the article. I'm not sure if it is fair, but it immediately made me doubt the reliability of the information in the article.
Totally.
So where is this app? You know, just so I can avoid it.
I want my speed, distance and map in a heads up display when bicycling. My smartphone does that except for the heads up display but that part is pretty important since looking down means I'm missing a lot of the stuff that I need and want to see.
I'd also like to have it provide one of the video feeds from the person speaking during company video conferences. We have multiple feeds but having one coming from the speaker, or potentially letting the speaker see someone remotely asking questions would add a good bit to the experience.
It would be great for taking remote tours when you're getting ready to move as well. Your real estate agent (thanks for earlier post to get the idea) could take you on a tour of several houses before you go to the site so that you'd have a narrow list of final home candidates as well. You could do it with a smart phone but a display from a wearer would give you a better virtual experience and be more natural for the real estate agent to use.
How about attending a class lecture when you're sick or called away for a family emergency? Again, a smart phone could do it, but a classmate with Google Glass wouldn't have to worry about working the video and you'd look at the things the classmate does, like other students asking questions, answering them and so on.
I doubt many of these things will be justified considering the cost, but I'm hopeful the price will come down.
Two things: 1) The lack of a provision in the constitution doesn't seem to deter Congress from making laws as a general observation. 2) I'm pretty sure that if challenged, they would cite the Commerce Clause.
Oh, I like this suggestion. Experience and knowledge isn't a matter of secrets, it is a product of time, effort and study. If you're to train a replacement to handle your work with your competency then by all means attempt to spend the time on the education and experience it takes to match your own. It's practically a job for life. (Even if you train to today's competency, you won't catch up to the level you'll have after doing that training.)
Unless your secret is that you're overpaid or an idiot. If that's the case and you want to continue to get paid for it, then lay traps, misdirect and discourage. If you can get him to quit in disgust after damaging various things and costing the company loads of money only to swoop in for the rescue yourself, then you're set.
If you're unfamilar with either, you should read The story of Mel and The story of Terry Childs.
I quit buying music albums when they were still on cassettes. The return simply wasn't worth the cost for me. I appreciate music in my life but not enough to spend much money, particularly when I was content with radio.
Then Pandora caught my attention. I enjoyed it enough that I actually paid (and have continued paying) for the upgrade. It's a small cost for getting to hear what I want and being able to get a wide variety. I don't really have to pay for those two things, but I get a slightly higher quality and no ads for the price of the upgrade, plus I'm supporting a company I want to succeed.
Recently I've begun buying albums and tracks again. I only do it on systems where I get a downloaded copy of the music that I can move to whatever device I desire. I don't have a tremendous collection by any means, but I appreciate being able to hear what I want, when I want to, and not pay for full albums when I only like one or two songs.
I am aware that I could download the same songs and albums without paying for them but generally speaking my Pandora subscription, the convenience and the quality of the download I'm able to get at the price I pay makes it worth more than the effort of attempting to do it illegally.
Even if there were no risk whatsoever, my history of purchases shows that I still pay for quality and convenience, particularly where I value the success of the company I'm dealing with.
I know that one user doesn't make the case, but thunderclap is right: Do it well and at a fair price and people like me are willing to pay even if they could get it for free.
I know it sounds silly the way you phrased it, but it isn't so silly when you look a bit deeper. People actually naturally prefer a 25 hour day. Given the option to turn lights off and on, as most of us have, we'd be more productive and enjoy life a little more if we actually were allowed to have our preference in sync.
There are about 24 extra hours every four years, thus Feb. 29, or about six extra hours every year. If we sleep in an extra hour every two months, we are on a mostly perpetual cycle. Combined with our natural tendency to want each day to be a little longer than it actually is, that extra hour of sleep adjusts to our slight sleep depravation habit quite nicely.
So not everybody will be comfortable with slightly shifting daylight hours. That means that they'll have to publish a schedule or define their workday by daylight hours. It isn't so hard compared to all the gyrations we already do to meet the demands of working in a society where the person you're interacting with may be on a different time zone schedule anyway.
I can't say that I really think everyone should adopt an extra hour of sleep every two months schedule now, but I do think I'll try it if I ever break free of a corporate workday.
That's because you're one of the elite. I can switch to a new windows manager. I can modify a program if I don't like how it behaves. My guess is that you have similar capabilities. That puts us in a category of user that Ubuntu isn't really targeting.
To the target user, the idea of fixing their window manager to behave the way they want is something they understand in theory but in practice will never accomplish. They know that somebody else could fix Unity or switch to a different option but they don't know how and have trouble understanding the instructions to make those changes. To them, Unity is something that the elite force on them. Because of the elite, they are forced to deal with things they don't understand.
Unity is hurting the Linux experience for many new users and they feel justifiable frustration and those of us who want Ubuntu to be a welcoming experience for them share that frustration. These days I recommend Mint instead. I've tried it and set it up for people and it really is what Ubuntu used to be: easy. The only downside is that when they have questions, the vast majority of Internet information that might apply has "Ubuntu" on it.