Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please remove mitsuhiko/*

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 445 posts

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#411

Post by lotsofmangos »

wyager wrote: post #402
lotsofmangos wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friction, lowest friction tends to win and bitcoin demands friction to run the blockchain. I don't think electronic exchange mechanisms are daft, but I do think the bitcoin model is.

>bitcoin demands friction to run the blockchain It requires (electrical) power. I don't think this could reasonably be called "friction". When I think "friction", I think of burdens imposed on users. Bitcoin has relatively few of those.

Cost per transaction of $19 is a fair amount of friction - https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#412

Post by LordHumungous »

Ologn wrote: post #220
jnbiche wrote: post #119

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…

A Ponzi scheme is an investment scheme in which new capitol is used to pay investor returns. Since Bitcoin is not an investment vehicle and does not promise a return, it cannot be considered a Ponzi scheme.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#413

Post by sjs382 »

pbreit wrote: post #400
sjs382 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would being opt-in kill the project?

Because instead of having a million projects, you'd have 3. The power of defaults and opt-out is pretty well-understood to the point I'd call it non-controversial.

They would have projects from people who are interested in their services, and interested in having them accept money on the projects behalf. If that number is 3, so be it.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#414

Post by LordHumungous »

twa927 wrote: post #365
sjs382 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Btw, if you think this project shouldn't exist - welcome to https://github.com/tip4commit/tip4commit/issues/157 - that could be the easiest solution for all of us. The project should be opt-in or shouldn't exist at all.

I think that implementing "opt-in" is the natural solution and yet the maintainer writes that it will "brake everything". I don't understand this extreme reluctance of Tip4Commit to acknowledge the right of owners of projects to control things tightly related to the projects they own.

Devil's advocate: If you wish to tightly control everything related to your project then perhaps use a private CVS rather than a public repo on Github. By using Github's free and very social oriented service you are implicitly giving up some control over the project.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#415

Post by Vendan »

tim333 wrote: post #335
Vendan wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, their subjective value? Gold has no value to me at all, as I don't have any use for it. If you tried to sell me gold, the only reason I'd buy it is if I could immediately resell it for a profit. My subjective value of gold is, therefore, $0.

The price of gold is not really determined by it's subjective value. It's determined by the cost to mine the stuff. The reason 5 lbs of potatoes cost like $5 and 5 lbs of gold costs like $90,000 is because that's what it costs to dig them up even if you prefer the potatoes.

Congrats, you just decided that gold miners are the most altruistic people in the world, charging people only what it costs to mine the gold, not what the market would bear. I wish other companies could be so generous!

Also, I would recommend "Making Money" by Terry Prachet. Good book that actually explores a lot of the same ideas behind gold as the basis of a currency. In essence, the main character eventually realizes that the gold doesn't actually mean much, the true value of currency is that the society says x money gives you y goods.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#417

Post by wyager »

ayrx wrote: post #404
wyager wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>With the difference that other fiat currencies are spectacularly unlikely to be declared illegal in your jurisdiction. So we've gone from "it's volatile" to "it's maybe, potentially, illegal at some point in the future"? Well, there are a few reasons I wouldn't be worried about this. A) It's not likely that Bitcoin will be banned outright in most countries. B) If it were to be banned outright, you'd likely have plen…

> If it were to be banned outright, you'd likely have plenty of notice and be able to sell it before the laws took effect. Ah, but who would want to buy Bitcoin in that scenario?

People in countries where it was not going to be outlawed, or customers who planned to use it for illegal purposes anyway.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#418

Post by wyager »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #411
wyager wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>bitcoin demands friction to run the blockchain It requires (electrical) power. I don't think this could reasonably be called "friction". When I think "friction", I think of burdens imposed on users. Bitcoin has relatively few of those.

Cost per transaction of $19 is a fair amount of friction - https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

>Cost per transaction of $19 is a fair amount of friction

Haha, I have no idea what that chart is talking about. It might be in cents. Even then, it seems expensive.

My phone client uses a ~$0.05 fee, I think.

All fees are optional. Your transaction might just take longer without one.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#419

Post by Vendan »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #394
Vendan wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife's dentist didn't use gold for her teeth, Copper and silver are better conductors. Gold's only useful quality is that it doesn't tarnish. Ask yourself this, on a desert island, what's more valuable, 5 pounds of potatoes or 5 pounds of gold? I'd pick the potatoes, myself. Sounds like the value is subjective to me...

sure, but I think the point was that if suddenly everyone stopped trading gold it could still be useful to someone. Whereas if everyone stopped trading bitcoin it would not be useful to anyone.

everyone stopping trading gold would only happen if everyone stopped using gold, so how is it still useful. Imagine, if you would, a machine that can make as much of something as you want, replicating it from nothing. Put gold through it. Is there anything about the gold that would prop it's value up above the pure value of the effort required to push the button? If gold is valued because of both scarcity and subjective value, what makes bitcoin any different? It has scarcity, and people subjectively value it.

Re: Please remove mitsuhiko/*

#420

Post by pbreit »

sjs382 wrote: post #413
pbreit wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because instead of having a million projects, you'd have 3. The power of defaults and opt-out is pretty well-understood to the point I'd call it non-controversial.

They would have projects from people who are interested in their services, and interested in having them accept money on the projects behalf. If that number is 3, so be it.

Which is why you have to be way more aggressive in just about any endeavor.
Post reply on HN