Live data from Hacker News

Please remove mitsuhiko/*

github.com

211–220 of 445 posts

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#211
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of tip4commit has already stated they're not from America. DMCA is only relevant within America as far as I know.

Their ISP appears to be LINODE-US. But the other commenters are right that DMCA probably does not apply to trademarks.

Also their domain name is registered via a company registered in US.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK? I agree with you. I never claimed they were holding it. Lots of Bitcoin-accepting businesses don't hold Bitcoin, and instead use it as a payment processor. I don't see the problem with it. They still accept Bitcoin, no scare quotes needed.

The point is that a corporation "accepting" Bitcoin is not an endorsement by the corporation for Bitcoin. And even if it were, corporations are hardly the pinnacles of ethics and legality.

Who said anything about ethics? Corporations accepting Bitcoin is evidence of its usefulness.

And by the logic you guys are espousing, then e-commerces don't accept any currency that isn't the one their government forces them to use either, because they do it through intermediaries like Visa.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If Bitcoin does fail, a large part of the blame will be one the shoulders of so many software and IT people who make a flash decision that Bitcoin was "tulips" or a "ponzi scheme", and who refused to change their minds in the face of evidence otherwise " The same can be said for Bitcoin believers who, in the face tremendous of evidence otherwise (BTC volatility, pleas from respectable folks who study currency and ec…

Could you explain what you think is flawed about the implementation? From a technological standpoint the incentives of mining and maintaining full network nodes have led to the first implementation of a public shared data store. Neither Bittorrent, Freenet, nor DHTs of any sort satisfy the conditions of being public, having equal access read and write privileges and data that is always available. You can't have the b…

IIRC, most of the flaws of bitcoin are in it's architecture as a Currency. A well designer currency is an efficient medium for the exchange of good and services. Ideally, a currency's utility is how easily and fluidly it can be spent. BitCoin does OK on these metrics.

But where Bitcoin falls down is in the long term model of currencies. Currencies should only be a medium of exchange, not a long term investment vehicle. We want people to spend or invest money in useful things rather than hoard money. Bitcoins deflationary model encourages hoarding, which in turn diminishes the amount of currency in active circulation, resulting in a sub-optimal medium of exchange.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#214
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can there be taxation consequences unless ... Tax? Perhaps not, but the OP was talking about tax and other legal consequences. These can vary wildly from country to country. My local legislation requires applying for a permit before asking for donations. If a 3rd party would add my projects to this website, I could face criminal charges and the proof of burden would be on me.

What? You live in a country where someone can use your name in a fund-raiser without your approval or authorization and you will face criminal charges with presumption of guilt? Some project on github is not even remotely your biggest problem here.

I would qualify as living in such a country: the USA.

Some unfortunate medical issues put me on disability, which means living off of SSDI for a while. For various reasons the social security programs in this country are run with a focus on "stopping fraud" instead of "helping people", regardless of little shrinkage and waste actually exists.

A consequence of this is that you are required to be "in need" which is usually defined as not having more than like $30 in cash to your name. This includes all possible recoverable sources modulo a few enumerated items (such as one cheap car). As part of the application process, I had to liquidate stuff like the $70 i had in a "mandatory contribution" retirement account from a short-lived tech support job I had when I was an undergrad. Of course, as this was WAY before you were supposed to withdraw that money, it came with penalties that made that ~$70 worth only about $10. That was still considered "recoverable".

I have some stuff up on github. At the moment, none of it is very interesting or worthy of any tip. I suspect that for now the IRS/H&HS hasn't even heard of this kind of income. They certainly are not currently looking at potential income sources this new and unusual. That could change in time.

Regardless of the probably-low actual risk, I would be required to liquidate this kind of tip right now if any existed. Failure to do so could cause cancel my SSDI. That loss could even be retroactive back to the date the tip was sent.

I have no idea how this would play out in practice. It might not be as problematic as I described. What I do know is that social security moves by the whim of politicians and bureaucrats, making the entire topic very hard to predict. So yes, someone using my name in a fund-raiser can not only cause "tax issues", it also caries a (probably-)small but very real risk of removing my only source of income (aka "rent", "food").

No, these rules are not sane (or useful). Yes, this is a big problem, that is much larger than github. Unfortunately, the potential risk to anybody in a situation like mine is still very real.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#215
post #124

Even ignoring all the legal implications, it's pretty damn rude to reach out to people contributing to open source projects on their own free time without asking for anything in return and offer them a few measly dollars for hours of work.

In fact, this communicates entirely the wrong information about the value of their work. If I were looking to encourage people to work on open-source projects, I certainly wouldn't try to entice them with a pittance too small to even buy a pack of gum.

Exactly. As an active open source contributor I'll be very insulted if someone offers this to me without me opting in.

If I want money I look for jobs or clients. Literally any other job in the world will pay more than this ever will. I'm not doing open source for the money.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#216
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has lived in a "developing" country, I disagree. I'm talking about potential here, not the current situation. And a lot of the early failures of Bitcoin in developing countries were the result of overzealous Bitcoin supporters rushing into a developing country with no prior experience, and then running into some of the inevitable problems (e.g., no reliable electricity). If it's going to work in these…

How would bitcoin be better than the mobile phone banking that is already quite popular in many developing countries?

In what developing country besides Kenya is there widespread mobile banking?

One advantage Bitcoin already has over m-pesa is that Bitcoin is an international currency, whereas m-pesa is confined to East Africa. This means that people in developing countries that sell their goods or services for Bitcoin have access to a currency limited, yet fully international market.

Or, why not both?

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#217
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has legal and tax consequences they seem to be blissfully unaware of To make matters worse, they have no idea about or no will to learn about foreign laws. If they listed any of my projects on their website, I, personally would be considered to be participating in illegal activities in my home country. Regardless of whether I would have ever received any money, asking for donations requires a permit ahead of t…

playing devil's advocate: may be tip4commit is not your problem, but rather your country's laws are if these allow to so easily mock anyone and risk of being convicted?

> rather your country's laws are if these allow to so easily mock anyone and risk of being convicted?

Does it really matter, it is a problem for the project owners. This third party claim to have an altruistic purpose yet they end up being a problem. And now you are suggesting to sovle the problem it is somehow more rational for the project owner to either 1) pack up and move to another countr or 2) start lobbying their local legislature to change laws to accomodate whatever this third party (tip4commit) thinks is a more rational approach.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#218

These kinds of episodes are making me increasingly depressed. On one hand, I'm incredibly disappointed in the ethics and morality of some of the people who have latched on to Bitcoin. And sadly, I'd have to include tip4commit in that group, particularly since they are "opt-out" and yet have been spamming people after each commit [ubernostrum points out below that they aren't even "opt-out", since they're not honoring…

>As just one example of what drew me to Bitcoin, Bitcoin holds (or used to hold) such tremendous promise for the developing world, and to people who are shut out of traditional banking. Vastly overstated benefits. http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-133-t... First 20 minutes goes into detail on how useful Bitcoin really is in the developing world. In short, if you've got access to a data plan and a…

As someone who lives in Mexico, I beg to disagree. Many unbanked have access to smartphones and data plans, unlike your country most don't buy into multi year contracts with carriers and don't require banking for cellular service, which many use as their primary number instead of a landline (which also doesn't require a bank account).

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#219

in a nutshell they're refusing to implement a blacklisting mechanism and being stubborn about it.

Since the project is open source itself, I wonder if they'd accept a pull request that implemented a blacklist.

That would be an interesting way to deal with the developer's response that he add one himself:

"Perhaps there should be a "black list" that prevents certain projects from being added. But I am not yet sure if we should develop this feature since motivation is not clear to me."

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#220

These kinds of episodes are making me increasingly depressed. On one hand, I'm incredibly disappointed in the ethics and morality of some of the people who have latched on to Bitcoin. And sadly, I'd have to include tip4commit in that group, particularly since they are "opt-out" and yet have been spamming people after each commit [ubernostrum points out below that they aren't even "opt-out", since they're not honoring…

> If Bitcoin does fail, a large part of the blame will be one the shoulders of so many software and IT people who make a flash decision that Bitcoin was "tulips" or a "ponzi scheme"

Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. That people think they have any value shows they have a fundamental misunderstanding of value. This group might include a lot of people, but the number of people who owned over-priced houses in 2008, or dot-com stock in 2000 was large as well.

HN'ers talk about how they are sober, logical, rational people who can see business (and engineering) opportunities that "traditional" business and finance can not. So Bitcoin is a good lesson in this regard, since the snake oil seems to have infected Silicon Valley like some west coast est cult, with lots of major VC's singing the praises of this scam they are running. Even people not interested in Bitcoins should pay attention to this aspect of Bitcoins, as familiarity with these scams is useful. You can see major VC's lying about the future of Bitcoin, the cluelessness of so many people here and so forth. Aside from understanding scams, you'll understand that there are some people, such as myself and others talking about tulips and ponzi etc., who understand the concept of value. The people hyping the Bitcoins, which will inevitably go to $0, do not understand value, but despite this, nothing will really change. The majority will still listen to the big VC and angel con artists peddling this type of scam, those of us who were prescient about it will be ignored - though inevitably proved wrong on Bitcoin, the VC scammers will still be considered "right". This will be one of the more instructive lessons, not that of Bitcoin. One of these more instructive lessons is that the VCs are fundamentally wrong about why a currency or commodity has value. We understand value, they don't, but that knowledge only helps us avoid scams like Bitcoin for now. They hold the microphone and those of us who are right will be marginalized even when proved correct. It's kind of like how Richard Dawkins, who is correct about reality, logic, Christianity and so forth, is a marginalized figure, because preachers shaking down their congregations for tithes and money are who have the microphone and the power. But in this case we're not talking about delusions infecting uneducated, rural yokels, we're talking about delusions that infect the educated, well-to-do denizens of the Bay Area. Bitcoin is down 7% today, and way down from last November, when Bitcoin was trading at $1160, and no matter how much the bagholders on HN downvote my karma, nothing will stop Bitcoin's drop from that $1160 peak last November to today's $326, to it's inevitable proper price of $0.

I've talked about WHY Bitcoin is worthless in previous posts, but to reiterate - the question is WHY is Bitcoin valuable? Ask that simple question before buying a Bitcoin, or spending thousands to get an ASIC on backorder (the major Bitcoin ASIC sellers, Butterfly Labs, were raided by the feds recently due to fraud). There is no answer. "It's valuable because people are buying it right now" is not a real answer. You could say that about new Sacramento real estate developments in 2008, or Pets.com stock in 2000. It's a tautological argument - if people are buying it for $326, according to that theory, it's worth that because people will pay that, if it drops to $2, it's worth that because people will only pay that. It's a tautological argument.

Commodities have a real value. Real, long-term currencies are just commodities with traits that make them good currencies. The traits are things like durability, portability, uniformity and divisibility. People have been trading for thousands of years, so what has been a currency for thousands of years? Gold has been one of the most popular - not because it is different than other commodities, other than those mentioned traits which make it a good currency. All of the precious metals make decent currencies.

Half a century ago US currency was paper with no inherent value, but with the promise that one could trade it for gold that was held in Fort Knox and other places. So through all these thousands of years, currency was tied to a real commodity, a precious metal. Bitcoin does not have such a link.

Of course in 1971, Nixon broke the link between Federal Reserve notes and gold. Other major currencies followed suit. Some Bitcoin advocates point to that event and say Bitcoin can float on thin air as well. Why that is not so is too much to go into in an HN comment. Suffice it to say, the US government holds over 10,000 tons of gold in Fort Knox and other places. If US currency ever began to collapse, a simple announcement that dollars were convertible to that gold at a certain price would stabilize the currency. Why does the US government spend all that money to hold 10,000 tons of gold? It's understood that that gold still backs US currency, in a more abstract, unpromised way. There are no 10,000 tons of gold backing Bitcoin.

Post reply on HN