Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site April 24, 2014, 03:58:12 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?

Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.

You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
The N.A.N.Y. Challenge 2014! Download dozens of custom programs!
  Forum Home Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
      View this member's profile 
      donate to someone Donate to this member 
Pages: Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 357 Next
201  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage. on: October 25, 2013, 10:01:24 PM
Looks like more cracks are forming:


An effort in the United Nations by Brazil and Germany to hold back government surveillance is quickly picking up steam, as the uproar over American eavesdropping grows.

The German and Brazilian delegations to the U.N. have opened talks with diplomats from 19 more countries to draft a General Resolution promoting the right of privacy on the Internet. Close American allies like France and Mexico -- as well as rivals like Cuba and Venezuela -- are all part of the effort.

The push marks the first major international effort to curb the National Security Agency's vast surveillance network. Its momentum is building. And it comes as concerns are growing within the U.S. intelligence community that the NSA may be, in effect, freelancing foreign policy by eavesdropping on leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel.

More at the link.
202  Other Software / Developer's Corner / Re: Contest: DARPA offers $2 milllion for security software to be written on: October 25, 2013, 10:28:02 AM

I'm going to send them in a robot that unplugs computers! cheesy

203  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: October 24, 2013, 08:17:46 PM
Apparently American Banks think we're playing Monopoly
 (see attachment in previous post)

Gotta love that! smiley

204  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 24, 2013, 08:16:25 PM
Renegade are you posting in comments again?  Grin

Hahaha! Nope - wasn't me. He was far too polite. cheesy
205  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 24, 2013, 10:49:18 AM
Ok, check this fellow:


Wow. Just wow. It's amazing that he can pack in so much wrong information and idiocy into such a short space.

Many commenters are similarly clueless. It's like randomly vomited words on a page - incoherent nonsense. The article's author doesn't even understand inflation/deflation.
206  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Yay! New Laws for Crowdfunding! on: October 24, 2013, 08:45:59 AM
What do you think the law would look like if it were an API/SDK?

ROFL ...That could only happen in a mythical land where computers could count to at least 3.

Formatted for C++ with the GeSHI Syntax Highlighter [copy or print]
  1. BOOL bGuilty = 2 // Close enough because (house needs a win) defendant can't fight our need for a conviction.

Hahaha! Grin  Thmbsup

We could have a lot of fun writing "legal" code. Cool
207  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Collectorz' bold new subscription-based update plans - brilliant? or suicidal? on: October 24, 2013, 08:34:11 AM
Their subscription plan doesn't tie you in in any way. As 40 mentioned, the programs run even if you're not subscribed. You can actually use the new plan like a tradition one-time purchase option, all you need to do is opt out of the plan after the purchase is made. The update model is way more flexible - it ends up being cheaper if you don't want every new feature the minute it's released and lets users with a smaller budget catch up to the latest versions for a nominal charge, if and when they find it worthwhile. I honestly don't see any pitfalls - which is why I posted about this here, to see if there's something I missed. smiley

Reading again - I'd misunderstood what was going on there.

It's a bit of an odd way to do things, but it seems more than reasonable. The ability to update for $2.50? Pretty darn good. I wonder how it will work out for him. From a customer perspective, it makes sense to only pay for the month that you update in, and only do that once in a while when you need to. It almost seems like he's shooting himself in the foot.
208  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Collectorz' bold new subscription-based update plans - brilliant? or suicidal? on: October 24, 2013, 06:22:54 AM
@Ren- it's not really running as a service. Their apps download and run locally. It's their update mechanism that requires a subscription. It's more like a paid WSUS. You also don't need a web connection to use the app itself. Once the license gets validated you never need to go online to Collectorz again if you don't want to update it..

Blah - yes - I realize that. I should have phrased that differently - laziness on my part. The subscription model that you see in SaaS is rarely justified. It's basically the subscription model without the technical side of SaaS. Both parts are generally suspect.
209  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Sandboxie lifetime license discontinued on: October 24, 2013, 06:02:35 AM
I can understand why they did that.

6 years ago I wrote this:


Software Licensing - I'm on Your Side
Oct 13

Written by: Renegade
Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:00 AM

I get people asking me about my upgrade policies for Guitar & Drum Trainer every now and then. I don't have an “official policy” for upgrades posted. I suppose I really should though. The problem for me in posting one is that software licensing isn't all that easy or straight-forward. Sometimes it's just downright complicated. And that makes things tough for me to simplify.

I don't ever want to charge for upgrades. I'd like to say “free upgrades forever!” But I know that's just not possible.

There are things that I'd like to put in GDT that would cost money that I couldn't afford to not charge for. e.g. AAC support. AAC is a patented technology and bears royalties. To put that in GDT without a token fee would be very difficult and entirely not practical. It's not like some software where I could just plop down a few hundred dollars and be done with it. To start, I'd have to plop down thousands of dollars. To start...

There's one thing that I'd like to do, but dropping $25,000 on it seems a bit much. That certainly wouldn't be possible for free upgrades as I'm not independently wealthy. Let's all hope that I win a lottery because then it's not a problem at all! smiley

So saying “FREE UPGRADES” is pretty much out of the question if I'm going to be honest about it. The alternative is to say “free upgrades withing a major version,” but I don't want to charge for major version upgrades.

Having ruled out both upgrade policies, how do I post a policy? Catch-22.

I suppose the way around that is to have those things that would cost too much to put in as extra “add-ins” for GDT. But that seems unnecessarily complicated and not something that I'd want to deal with as a customer.

There's still time though, as I haven't added any of those things in to GDT.

I get a good amount of email from GDT users, and really, I consider myself very lucky. They are some of the nicest people you'd ever meet. I've been very blessed with a fantastic customer base of people that love music, and find my software is something worth spending a few dollars on to help them with their music.

Some people email me and tell me that they used to use the competition software, but needed to pay for the upgrade, found mine and bought it instead. I suppose I need to thank the competition for that! smiley The best part of those emails is when people tell me that they like GDT better!

At the end of the day, I suppose I'm just another sucky guitarist with a problem to solve, and a solution to that problem that I can make available to other people. My take on it is that I like to be treated well, and I should pass that on as much as possible.

So, in short, I hate being milked with upgrade fees (yes - I still have software licenses where they royally milk me for money and I keep upgrading...) and will do everything I can to not be a “software milkmaid.” smiley

Upgrades are free whenever possible.



My next release won't be a free upgrade. I'll be making a blog post for reasons when I'm near to release.

210  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Collectorz' bold new subscription-based update plans - brilliant? or suicidal? on: October 24, 2013, 05:27:34 AM
I can understand why so many people would be upset. SaaS is rarely justified, and most often simply a tool of greed. Very little software needs to run as a service.
211  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: The Free Videos Thread on: October 24, 2013, 04:58:45 AM


If you're happy and you know it,
Set your phaser on stun!
212  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Leap Forward in Aviation Tech on: October 24, 2013, 01:10:33 AM
Bombardier is already the world’s third-largest aircraft manufacturer, but that’s just a nice way of saying that it’s really “the best of the small players”—an apt metaphor for Canada itself.


^ and the Mosquito bombers that my grandfather helped build.

Hehe! Mine was a radar tech. smiley Just keeping track of all those flying contraptions buzzing around in the skies! smiley
213  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Yay! New Laws for Crowdfunding! on: October 23, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Not all regulation is automatically bad. Cool

Please name some regulation that isn't bad. But before you tell me what it is, ask yourself if there isn't already some law to deal with the situation already in place. It's harder than it sounds.

Nothing in that law is remotely needed. There are already laws against fraud.

If the point is to prevent scams/fraud, well, how about start by enforcing existing laws against criminal organizations that are guilty of fraud?

However, I'm thinking about this all logically. Programming has that affect on you. e.g. If there's a method to handle A, then use it and don't create another method.

We don't need lawyers and politicians creating more laws. We need programmers, coders, system architects, information architects, etc., working to destroy as many laws as possible. What we want is something neat, clean, and easy to use.

What do you think the law would look like if it were an API/SDK?

214  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Is the day of the paid OS over? on: October 23, 2013, 09:58:10 PM
This gets us back to our discussions of how the entire internet is becoming an advertising delivery platform.

Apple can give away the OS because they make a fortune on the hardware and they can kill off any competition that is charging for the operating system.

Google can give away its services and kill off all competition, as long as they are making huge profits off of forcing ads down our throats.

These corporations are always happy to make half their product free as long when doing so kills their competition and doesn't interfere with the way they are getting rich.

The real question I think we are going to be asking ourselves in a decade is, how can we get back to a world where we just PAY reasonable amounts for the things that we value.  Instead of playing this game where everything *SEEMS* free but in reality it's just a bait and switch or a delay until they become a monopoly.

I'm really starting to long for products and services that charge enough for each item/service to make a reasonable profit on that item/service.  What a crazy idea.

+1 for all of that.

The other way that companies/industries kill off competition is through legislation and regulation. e.g. It costs over $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) to drive a taxi in New York. It destroys the ability of normal people to enter the market.

None of these things are good for us in end-user-land.

I'm really starting to long for products and services that charge enough for each item/service to make a reasonable profit on that item/service.  What a crazy idea.

I'm on the yes/no edge of the fence there. I'm willing to pay, but I'd rather go down the GNU GPL road, even if I'm paying. I'm more interested in using software that I trust, and the GPL gives a lot of credibility there. e.g. What is MS/Apple/Google doing under the hood? God knows. They've been complicit in dealing with the NSA, so we know that we cannot trust them. The GPL helps there.
215  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Is the day of the paid OS over? on: October 23, 2013, 09:22:59 PM
My setup for the last while has been:

1) Desktop - Windows 7 - running VMs inside with various flavours of Linux
2) iMac - OS X
3) Laptop - Windows 7

I've been using my Linux VMs more, and am getting more comfortable with Linux.

I've also found that OS X isn't really any better than Linux. I still end up needing to drop to the terminal (which I expect on Linux, but did not expect on my Mac).

My next machine will be server hardware running a virtual environment then VMs with Windows, OS X, and Linux.

I've started with Apple a bit... it's depressing, but I just haven't had good experience with Linux when I tried it before. I'm past the point of wanting to learn how to use something... I just want it to work.

That's one of the biggest things, and one of the reasons I want to run a VE with shared storage. That way I can "get things done", but try to move over to Linux as much as possible with minimal inconvenience.
216  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 23, 2013, 11:32:22 AM
@Tomos - Dammit! You're making work harder here! Wink Grin (I understand many of these things far above my ability to explain/teach on the topic.)


Cumulative inflation from 1800~1899: -0.547%
Cumulative inflation from 1900~1999: +315.70%
Cumulative inflation from 2000~2013: +34.30%

For comparison - first 13 years of each century:

Cumulative inflation from 1800~1813: +15.80% <--- War of 1812 is 14.7% here.
Cumulative inflation from 1900~1913: +17.60%
Cumulative inflation from 2000~2013: +34.30%

In the 1900s, the first 13 years represent 5.6% of the inflation for the century.

Keep in mind that I'm using Federal Reserve Bank numbers there. I think this kind of sort of maybe puts my claim there out of the "skewed" category. I'm taking numbers out of the enemy's camp.

Now, to go back further... sigh... too lazy to look that up now. I've seen the numbers before, but don't remember where at the moment. Anyways, moving on and skipping the 1700s...

I was thinking more in term of a comparision with 1800 or even 1900 (referencing your quote that money had lost so much value in the last 2 to 300 years). It's easy to cherry pick a very short period of time when average people did reasonably well, and say that's what the world would be like if [xyz].

I didn't cherry pick 1964. I picked it because 1965+ coins aren't silver; they're copper/nickel.

But I dont see much logic there, nor much to convince me of anything really. I could just as easily argue that times were good then because banks were much more regulated (and we might both be right - or wrong, or it might just be the case that there's an awful lot more going on at any time, than any simple idea/concept can explain).

Dunno what to say there.

Why do I feel like I'm being cheated when you compare minimum wage in 1964 and today in terms of silver undecided

Not sure. Perhaps because I've pulled a fast one and compared money to currency. They're not the same. As you can see above, the US currency isn't worth much now. In 1964 it was worth something and was tied to money (silver coins).

We've touched on this before (my post in basement thread about greenback dollars). SeraphimLabs claims a deflationary model is unstable (second post @ the link above). I dont know about his qualifications, but you didnt respond directly.

I did respond directly to most of that. I didn't go over (primarily) deflationary currency directly though. That would have taken more time than I can reasonable spare.

It can be summed up like this:


People WILL spend. They MUST spend. They MUST eat. They MUST use resources to live, etc. etc.

Deflationary fears are mostly paranoia. What's wrong with people not using more than they need? Is that a bad thing? etc. etc.

To be honest, fears about deflation seem simply silly to me, and not really worth addressing any more than Hollow Earth theories or reptilian aliens - they're fun, and perhaps interesting, but not particularly useful.

As I say I'm not qualified to talk about it, but off the top of my head, if money was related to, say, silver, and silver was increasing in value all the time, then wages would probably have to be reduced proportionately, otherwise companies would go bust. Not sure that would go down too well...

WHOA THERE~!~!~!~!

Ok, this part:

if money was related to, say, silver...

Good so far...

...and silver was increasing in value all the time...

We just went off the rails.

You sound like you're buying into my trick above where I compared fiat currency to money (silver) in the inflationary context. Silver *IS* money. Currency, like the USD or EUR, is *NOT* money - it is just "currency". Perhaps I should have not slid that in there without making it explicitly clear what the actual comparisons are.

Silver doesn't increase in price like that. What happens is that the value of the currency falls.

The value for a loaf of bread doesn't really change. What changes is the value of the currency.

Same thing for eggs, milk, gasoline/petrol, whatever -- their values do not change. The value of the currency used to buy them changes.


"Oh my! Milk is $5.50 and only last month it was $4.50. Milk is getting so expensive!"

Is just WRONG.

This is more accurate:

"Oh my! Milk is $5.50 and only last month it was $4.50. The central banks are raping us with inflation that devalues the crappy currency we're using!"

Don't belive me? Hehehe! Check the first link above. Wink From the Fed even! Cool

...then wages would probably have to be reduced proportionately, otherwise companies would go bust.

From what I've illustrated above, that doesn't follow.

If gold/silver were used, wages would be stable. You can look at the historical prices of silver and see very, very little fluctuation until the central banks get their clutches on the currency and debase the hell out of it. At the same time, you can also see that inflation was about zero.

e.g. In any given year a loaf of bread, stick of butter, and litre of milk will cost the same amount of silver/gold. (This has become distorted due to EFT manipulations in the last few decades, but holds for true prior to that.)

Does that make more sense now?

I know that you know a lot about the flaws in fiat money Ren. But I get the impression that you dont know a whole lot more about economics than I do, yet you seem so very sure about your ideas. That sets off alarm bells for me. No offence intended - it's the ideas I'm on about Wink

No offence taken. I'm not really good at explaining some of these things, and I hate going back to look up references that I've forgotten.

I'm pretty certain about a few things, but my reasons are generally either for reasons of math or because I don't like looking at naked Emperors, e.g. taking perfectly good paper and ink and making them both worthless. smiley
217  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Yay! New Laws for Crowdfunding! on: October 23, 2013, 10:10:17 AM
The SEC is apparently creating laws to do away with bad laws so that people can start businesses.


Entrepreneurs and start-up companies looking for backing will be able to solicit small investments over the Internet from the general public under a new proposal to be released by U.S. regulators on Wednesday.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's "crowdfunding" plan is a requirement in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, a 2012 law enacted with wide bipartisan support that relaxes federal regulations to help spur small business growth.

Equity crowdfunding lets small companies raise money by pooling together tiny investments from people around the country in exchange for a potential financial return.

If adopted by the five-member SEC, the rule would be a major shift in how small U.S. companies can raise money in the private securities market.

Private companies are now only allowed to solicit investors deemed to be "accredited," meaning they have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of their home, or an individual annual income over $200,000. The crowdfunding rule would let small businesses raise over $1 million a year by tapping unaccredited investors.

Companies could sell stakes to mom-and-pop investors without registering the securities with the SEC, a move designed to make it cheaper and less cumbersome for struggling startups trying to get their businesses off the ground. They would still be required to raise the money through regulated broker-dealers such as CircleUp or through crowdfunding portals.

Good news for Kickstarter and Indiegogo? They seemed to be doing fine and regular people seemed to be able to use them.

I'm just confuzzled. More bewilderment at the link.
218  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 23, 2013, 03:26:25 AM
So, if it cost $0.05 to buy a loaf of bread 100 years ago (when the standard of living was lower), and today it costs $5.00 (with a higher standard of living), then, when a loaf of bread costs $500.00 then what?

I dont really care what something costs in comparision to x years ago (maybe I should) - I care what it costs in relation to what I can earn/make in an hour/day/week/month/year. That's my point when I ask "can you seperate the "value" of e.g. the dollar from the standard of living?".

Ah. Gotcha. I know what you mean now.


Minimum wage workers in 1964 made about 30% more than minimum wage earners now. *IF* you look at fiat, only.

Minimum wage for 1 hour in quarters in 1964 was about 0.82 troy ounces of silver.


Today that's worth more than $18.50. (@ $22.60 per ozt)

Somebody... please tell me that you'd rather have $4.87 worth of purchasing power than $18.50 worth of purchasing power. Do it with a straight face. Anyone? Anybody?

<crickets />

Please keep in mind that the current value of silver has been manipulated to be artificially lower, with the greatest manipulator being JP Morgan, who is facing $13 billion in fines to start with, as well as pending criminal charges. (Goldman Sachs stays more on the gold market manipulation side...) They are manipulating precious metal prices through ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). These are not backed up by physical metals. Resolution is done in $$$ instead of through physical delivery. The ETF markets are used to manipulate the physical markets. You can see this in the large spike in physical premiums we had a few months ago when GS & JPM along with their central banking buddies assassinated gold & silver. (There are other price manipulations going on, e.g. copper, but what I've got there should be enough. Please do go out and fact check me if you don't believe me.)

So that $18.50 number is extremely conservative.

When did Classical Greece fall? After it had debased its currency.

When did Rome fall? After it had debased its currency.

When will we fall? Wink

Now, for "standards of living", we cannot conflate "available gadgets" with the standard of living. The things to look at are life expectancy, home ownership, available leisure time, number of working parents in a family, etc. Not how many people have a big screen TV and gaming console. But... That gets into a very long discussion and I'm simply too lazy to do the research to post links here.


But, no matter how you cut it, debasing a currency is not a good thing. I utterly fail to understand how people can think that it is.
219  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Lavabit's court documents unsealed; what THEY wanted, and Lavabit's appeal... on: October 23, 2013, 12:53:27 AM
I have nothing but respect for Ladar. I hope that he wins, but what the law actually is and what they do are different things.
220  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 22, 2013, 09:45:37 PM
@Ren - your inner Libertarian Voluntarist/Anarchist is showing again. Grin tongue (kidding!)

FTFY. Wink

Libertarians actually think that government is ok. Wink

e.g. A lot of people got angry at the Republicans for shutting down the US govt. I was angry that they didn't finish the job! tongue Grin Cool

Cue someone complaining about "who will build the roads" in 5... 4... 3... Wink
221  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 22, 2013, 08:44:00 PM
I'm never convinced by that argument - can you seperate the "value" of e.g. the dollar from the standard of living?

So, if it cost $0.05 to buy a loaf of bread 100 years ago (when the standard of living was lower), and today it costs $5.00 (with a higher standard of living), then, when a loaf of bread costs $500.00 then what?

Inflation is theft. It robs you of purchasing power. Allowing governments and central banks to inflate currencies is simply criminal negligence.

Today I save enough to buy a loaf of bread. Tomorrow I can't buy that same loaf of bread because of inflation. That's an insidious form of theft.

But confusing the purchasing power of the dollar with standard of living just doesn't follow.

Here are the basic characteristics of money/currency:


(1) durability,
(2) divisibility,
(3) transportability, and
(4) noncounterfeitability.

The USD doesn't fit that definition, and that's a loose definition. It fails #4. Similarly, other fiat currencies do not fit that definition. Japan, Canada, the EU, Australia, etc. etc., are all engaging in quantitative easing, which is nothing more than a fancy word for "counterfeiting".

Note that the source is incredibly deluded:

An economy needs government, ABSOLUTELY NEEDS government, to regulate the total quantity of money in circulation.

Bitcoin is proof positive that the claim there about government being needed is purely false.

Just look at how well bitcoin is doing without government. Can't people see what's right in front of them?
222  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 22, 2013, 08:20:05 PM
I'm not so sure about that.

Hehe! Here we go...~!

If anybody today thinks the economy and standard of living in the western world during the 1800s was preferable to that of the 1900s, you'd have to turn a blind eye to most of the history of the 20th century.

That conflates far too many different issues together.

It's like saying it was impossible for people to enjoy cake in the past because they didn't have gas ovens to bake in.

The point I made above was about the stability of market prices.

Standards of living, the industrial revolution, modern science, etc., were all well on their way up prior to the current incarnation of how our money is being debased.

I think you're giving far too much credit ( tongue ) to the banking & finance industry.

If anything, we are doing as well as we are in spite of them, and certainly not because of them.

The increase of total money in the system is what led to much of the economic advances the western world experienced.

So, then you're on board with Ben Bernanke firing up the printing presses for QEternity?

1 word:


Or 3 words:

Weimar Republic hyperinflation.

Take your pick. smiley

Currency is a measure of wealth. Wealth is a product of time and effort expended in the past and stored in some form or other. e.g. Cleared land for farming, precious metals, works of art, whatever.

You can't "print" time and effort. You can't print prosperity. If you could, Zimbabwe would be the wealtiest country in the world with everyone there being multi-trillionaires.

Even the depression in the 20s wasn't enough to tank the economy permanently - or seriously slow it down.

You mean the depression in the 30s, right? (Roaring 20s - dirty 30s)

I somehow doubt that. But I think we've been reading different history books when it comes to the origins of the stock market crash of '29 and the subsequent depression. I'll see if I can dig up some references for you later and then I'll post back.

223  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 22, 2013, 11:50:17 AM
It's very much like gold, IMO, and the reason that we moved away from the gold standard (and the reason that I think it was a good thing to move away from it).

Errr... uh, I'm not so sure about that being a good thing. Look at people's purchasing power over the last 200 or 300 years or so. The last 100 years have been a train wreck.
224  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: October 22, 2013, 11:46:42 AM
^Again, if Bitcoin is officially supposed to be a currency alternative and not an investment, why does it's constantly spiraling value keep being touted as a proof of concept?

Its increasing value is an illustration of confidence in it.

Please name another currency that has confidence within an order of magnitude like bitcoin. Wink

Currency needs to maintain a fairly stable and predictable value in order to be a usable medium of exchange.

That doesn't follow.

If by "fairly stable" you mean its purchasing power doesn't change, then no currency is "fairly stable". If you mean that the rate of change is slow, then no - bitcoin is not stable compared to other currencies.

Perhaps that would be better phrased as "volatility".

However, it predictably goes up.

The USD predictably goes down. As does the CAD, AUD, GBP, EUR, CNY, JPY, KRW, etc. etc. etc.

This is relevant:


But none of that matters in the least. You're wrong about "in order to be a usable medium of exchange". The problem has been solved by BitPay. (** This is about frames of reference, but that gets icky.)


So you can accept bitcoins, and have them instantly turned into fiat.

Here's a fun example with you and me as the main characters! cheesy

Say you are selling nice, super-sexy CentOS servers that you've tweaked out yourself for the paultry price of only USD $2,000.

Now, I on the other hand am but a mere customer. I drool over those wonderful machines you've built, and start saving up.

However, being a smart saver, and knowing that it will take me some time (say 4 months), I buy bitcoins.

Let's also assume that by the time I have the $2,000, your prices will likely go up about 5% or so ($2,100).

However, being somewhat forgetful and not very good with numbers, I spend $2,000 worth of fiat on bitcoins over that 4 months, and when I check the current value, my bitcoins are worth $3,200.

Now, I can either cash them out and purchase your server, or if you accept Bitpay, I can pay you the $2,100 for the server in bitcoins.

Bitpay processes the transaction and delivers either BTC or USD to you, the merchant. You choose what you want to "get out" of the transaction.

I then take the other $1,100 in bitcoins and throw a sexy-server party. (That means at a joint with topless waitresses!) cheesy

Otherwise it gets dumped whenever it drops and hoarded when it's rising.

That doesn't follow. Bitpay has solved that problem.

Here's the quick summary of the above:

1) I take my fiat and dump it into BTC.
2) When I need to buy something, I use a merchant that uses Bitpay.

I end up ahead because by doing that (1) I have increased my purchasing power in the future.

It is then ALWAYS in my best interest to dump fiat into bitcoins in so far as I have access to merchants that use Bitpay (or a similar solution) and sell the products/services that I will need.

When the products/services I need/want aren't offered by a merchant that accepts bitcoins, then I need to balance the liquidity of immediate fiat cash on hand vs. the inconvenience of exchanging BTC for fiat.

There's also balancing for volatility, but it's not that hard.

e.g. If you put in $10 today, and next week it's worth $12, but when you get to the store to pay, it's only worth $11, what do you really have to complain about? You had X amount of purchasing power last week, and when you bought some product, you had 10% more purchasing power.

Think of it as putting food in the freezer. The food is preserved there for when you need it. Leave it out on the counter, and it will rot. Inflation is destructive like rot. It destroys your ability to save wealth for the future. I've just outlined how to preserve purchasing power similar to how you'd freeze food.

So, have I convinced you any yet? Wink
225  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: October 22, 2013, 09:30:17 AM
^that's a wonderful image/images Ren Kiss

 I have no idea what it's saying embarassed
- dont know if that's cause of me - or cause of the image, or somewhere in between (anyone else understand it?)

Or is the whole thing taking the piss out of us cause we cannot get the joke or reference - or is it only when we realise that we cannot get it, that we do get it (getting very zen there)...

I'm not sure if you're joking there or not. The thing is, it's just ironic. There's a phrase in English, "the joke just flew over his head" (or, "it went over his head"), which means that someone didn't get/understand the joke.
Pages: Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 357 Next
DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.083s | Server load: 0.05 ]