In what are these various common data-structures supposed to be implemented? Also in a language that already has them?
We have to keep building and maintaining a kernel, a libc, and other basic infrastructure software. Should we also do that in a language that implements the missing things already? Maybe the CPU itself should implement these common data structures?
There is a mismatch in duration. The obligation on the side of the employer is a one-off payment. The obligation on the side of employee is ad vitam aeternam (forever). If the employer wants to keep the employee to his obligation, he will have to make additional payments for additional periods of non-disparagement.
The G4 (USD,EUR,JPY,GBP) may last for somewhat longer than the other fiat currencies, but that does not detract from the fact that currency crises in the smaller fiat currencies are very common (think Argentina).
People who live in a G4 country are apparently incapable of imagining that the situation elsewhere is seriously different than in their own country.
There are lots of Mickey Mouse fiat currencies around issued by the banana republics that keep debasing them until they collapse. Even the Russian ruble is a joke that became entirely worthless, three times, in the span of two decades.
Instead of dollarizing during a monetary crisis, as these smaller/weaker fiat currency areas used to do in the past, they may elect to bitcoinize.
If that happens, you could end up with an entire country using bitcoin. As soon as this happens, nobody will ever manage to eliminate bitcoin in that country.
History does not repeat itself. Collapsing currencies now face a prospect of hysteresis. Reintroducing fiat currency will not work if people have already moved over to bitcoin.
With smaller fiat currencies collapsing one by one -- as they always do -- bitcoin will keep growing stronger and stronger.
> Reintroducing fiat currency will not work if people have already moved over to bitcoin.
Why not?
> With smaller fiat currencies collapsing one by one -- as they always do -- bitcoin will keep growing stronger and stronger.
Why would Bitcoin be immune from the factors that cause fiat currencies to collapse? If strong fiat currencies can suddenly lose value, it seems likely that Bitcoin could suffer the same fate. Do you have reason to believe that Bitcoin is different?
> Why would Bitcoin be immune from the factors that cause fiat currencies to collapse?
I think the argument is that the more people whouse it the stronger the currency becomes. It has an extremely low barrier to entry because it can be used alongside other currency, and on top of this is decentralized (no "off" switch).
If fiat currencies are replaced by bitcoin, then yes it probably would become "stronger" (ie, more value in relation to other currencies). That's assuming a country who's currency/economy collapsed decides to use bitcoin as the national currency. I don't see why they would at this point, though.
I do think it's entirely susceptible to sudden value loss, at least for the next 5-10 years.
Why would Indian people have to die of cancer, for the profits of the colluding US pharma oligarchy and their captive regulators?
Both India and China are nuclear powers. Between them, half of the world population lives there.
If I were India, I would not give in one single inch. Eventually, all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals. Just as a matter of principle, I would rather press the nuclear button.
The Bombay terrorist bombings are indeed -- like so many terrorist attacks -- a false-flag operation, organized by the United States' intelligence services.
You are threatening to "proclaim that the tin foil hat brigade has now thorougly infiltrated HN." based on one single post made by one person in a community of thousands? Did you go to a school specifically to learn how to create logic this poor?
In a community where skepticism is valued there will exist the lazy quota who will look at popular opinion, assume the antithesis must be true and in turn, begin looking for supporting 'facts'. Don't be so surprised. :P
Your justification for the murder of innocent civilians falls short in many ways. You have simply rationalized the murderous ideological propaganda of the US military-industrial complex.
As long as you keep murdering just goatherders, you may indeed still get away with this kind of impunity. You fail to understand, however, how vulnerable the ones doing the killing are, to reprisals and retaliations.
It only takes a small bit of serious hacking and/or data mining to figure out the home addresses of everyone involved in these massacres, and from there to schedule them one by one for termination. The 40 million Target credit cards were much more difficult to obtain than that.
There is a tremendous asymmetry of information between your centralized murder engine and your decentralized enemies. The database of everyone involved on your side exists and can be stolen. The other way around is not true, regardless of all the surveillance that the NSA does. Therefore, the murderers are guaranteed to lose this conflict.
The deliberate balkanization of all finance in fiat money will backfire big time. The dinosaurs are simply herding everybody in the direction of bitcoin, and there will be no turning back ;-)
Sure, bitcoin is free to transfer for now, but soon exchanges will have to start charging a fee.
Currently the "proof of work" kills two birds with one stone: it allows transfer of the currency and also mines new coins for the exchanges doing the transfer. But that only lasts until the 21 million cap is reached; after that, no mining, no free money for exchanges, but since someone still has to do the work ... it'll be for a fee.
It's also not a cap, it's a target. "Reaching" the target means either:
1) all of our speculative bitcoin money becomes worthless as miners stop mining because it ceases to be profitable, so new blocks are not produced, so transactions don't flow.
2) miners stop processing transactions below a certain size or without a certain fee included, so only poor peoples' money becomes worthless as they can't afford the fees, don't meet the size limit, etc. or
3) the algorithm works, all of the money is fungible, and fees that are a fraction of what you and I would consider money today are enough for miners to make a living, as long as they are contributing a fraction of a percent of the hashes that sustain the whole network globally.
There's nothing "Free" about the miner fees. The subsidy of block rewards are meant to compensate early adopters for their hardware and electricity costs. If miners don't horde bitcoins to themselves, they don't "need" the money to be viable, once their investment is paid off they can just as well unplug the machines and let them sit on a shelf, assuming it's not worth their time and electricity to go on mining.
Bitcoin is "free to transfer" at exchanges because exchanges collect their fees through other vectors than transfer... eg, trade fees, merchant fees, venture capitalist infusion, ... there's no free money, and if you think there is, ask anyone who's already become rich on bitcoin how many they're keeping "in case the value goes sky high" eg. so others can make money off of us all.
This type of story in which they initially sentenced him to 8 years in jail, has zero deterring effect on me. As far as I am concerned, it only strengthens our libertarian resolve to break through the politically controlled monopoly on the use of force.
We have to keep building and maintaining a kernel, a libc, and other basic infrastructure software. Should we also do that in a language that implements the missing things already? Maybe the CPU itself should implement these common data structures?
What solution do you propose?