There's a kernel of truth in here.

If someone writes software for you for free and you want something else from them, pay them (or someone else) to write it. If you don't want it badly enough to pay for it, write it yourself.

For YEARS there's a been a file named INSTALL_SOURCE or something like it. Indeed, there's a section on that, but a lot of the file is how to download and install precompiled binaries. It's a little thing, but it just bugs me ever time I have to skip past the stuff that shouldn't be in there to get the stuff that should.

I like Javadoc (or Doxygen, which I use often), but read the source is horrible advice. Source code can be anywhere from elegant and clear to $DIETY awful spaghetti. Source code tells you precisely what the code does, not what it was meant to do (sometimes those differ and we call them bugs) or why it was done that way.

i don't think the spin being placed here as it being an 'invasion' of privacy is accurate here considering my prior statement
you should thank google for helping to stop people invading the child's privacy by putting a stop to sharing of images like this

Actually, I was thinking the perhaps we shouldn't jump the gun because maybe Google was troubleshooting something and discovered the image accidentally.

The hash table of a lot of things could be a problem. I have a relative who sends me political memes. How hard is it to hash those and get a list of known Conservatives/Liberals/etc. McCarthy wasn't that long ago. Not too long ago being gay got you kicked out of the military. Drug laws are in flux. The list of things which are good or bad depending on either time or your own opinion goes on and on. The post office doesn't get to open your mail and compare the contents to a list of known bad things. Why does Google?

Look, if you've honestly put in the effort to research the issues and are satisfied with your conclusion that FRB is possible with bitcoin, than I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But as I stated earlier, I'm not interested in taking the time to spell out my position. Additionally, I'm certainly not interested in digging up the various threads/posts/papers I've read over the past years in order to spoon-feed them to "some guy on the internet". I pointed you in a direction where you might come across some good arguments challenging your position; if you went down that road and remain unconvinced, then so be it.

Lemme get this straight, you're claiming that:

• 1) because people had BTC on account with MtGox in order to facilitate trades, they were actually using MtGox as a bank
  2) MtGox could have started writing loans using its customer's BTC balances

...have I got that right?

OK, then. I think I now have a much better idea of where you're coming from.

Cheers!

So, your argument is that because a bad thing is probably going to happen eventually, we may as well just do it now?

I wonder if he's in any condition to ask if he wants to be transported to the US. If I volunteered to go try to cure people with Ebola, I think the last thing I'd want to do is bring a body-weight ebola culture back to a major US city.

And yes it is an excellent idea, because it gives the CDC a living "test tube" of the actual active Ebola virus, not a sample of infected blood collected, and shipped on ice.

Right, because it's absolutely impossible to ship a plane full of CDC scientists and equipment. Far, far, better to ship a live human body full of ebola over and to a densely populated area. What could possibly go wrong?

Apparently you didn't bother to click through the links on that page (or read any of the threads on the forum) that express opposing viewpoints. Now, I don't really follow bitcoin that closely anymore, but the last I checked the matter was hardly settled.

But hey, if you can point to a real world example of an operational bitcoin bank practicing fractional reserve banking, I'd certainly be willing to reconsider my position. : )

Please, spare me. I can assure you that my professional credentials in the banking arena are...well, let's say they're above average.

Off-topic, but you can't be serious. The total amount of stolen bitcoins compared to the total amount in circulation is staggering.

OK...did you find this page? Did you click the link on that page pointing to the debate on the topic here? Did you try searching Google using "fractional reserve" site:bitcointalk.org?

How dare you try to lay our sorry state of affairs at the feet of President Jackson! Don't you realize what a fucked up country he inherited from John Quincy Adams?!? You've obviously been spending WAY to much time in your RWEC. (Right-Whig Echo Chamber)

Nope. That's too much of a chore, boy.

Sorry, with bitcoin I'm afraid it's not that simple. At this point in the discussion, I'm not going to bother with writing out a treatise explaining my position. If you really want to understand the issues involved, I suggest you check the bitcoin wiki along with the many threads on the topic at bitcointalk.org.

[sigh]

Again, you seem to have a different definition than everyone else of what constitutes "lending". If individuals at MtGox were appropriating customer deposits, that's not a lending activity, that's a criminal activity. And it's still criminal even if they returned the BTC with interest.

Furthermore, at no time did MtGox sell or offer for sale any BTC loan products. If you're not making loans, you're not a bank by any generally accepted definition.

...only if one subscribes to your ridiculous position that appropriating customer deposits is equivalent to lending. But please, continue making up new definitions for common words...it's quite entertaining. I'm sure you're a real hit at cocktail parties.

Cheers!

You're right, I don't believe fractional reserve banking with bitcoin can exist, and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

So...in your mind, BTC exchanges are operating as fractional reserve banks. That's a rather...um, unique position to hold. I suspect the operators and customers of the exchanges would disagree with you, though.

Just because businesses are paying interest on bitcoin deposits and/or charging interest on BTC loans does not mean they qualify as fractional reserve banks. But since your definition of fractional reserve banking seems to differ from the generally accepted definition, I guess you can make any claim you want. In any case, it sure would help your argument(s) if you could back them up somehow.