69. Make your own joke.
69. Make your own joke.
Did the same thing when I turned 30; switched from Aerospace Engineering to Structural Engineering (i.e. buildings). I got a masters in the field I wanted to switch to and applied for jobs based on the new degree. Took me 2 years of evenings. And a 50% pay cut. Hey, I didn't say it was easy. (Oh, 15 years out I now gross 3-3.5x what I made when I left Aerospace, run my own consulting firm, and get to post on
Yes, you have 12.5 x 10^14 potential minimal units in circulation, but 10^8 units go out with every "bitcoin" which is rendered inaccessible. Losing, say, 4x10^5 bitcoin (if Satoshi died with the passwords in his head) seems small, except that it represents 4x10^13 units in your 12.5x10^4 world. Still not entirely disruptive, but if several large holders were to lose access to their BTC hashes, it could materially reduce the currency circulation.
There is a certain, finite attrition of coins over time through common failures (like the guy who forgot his wallet was on a laptop, and it got thrown away). The problem may be on a time scale larger than the expected life of bitcoin, but it is an endgame few people have talked about.
It wasn't "destroyed" in the physical or electronic sense. However, if you were to lose your cold-storage wallet (and it ended up at the bottom of a landfill), or you were to die, with your wallet encryption password only in your head, those BTC would still exist but would never be available for trading. They may as well be destroyed, since they can never, ever re-enter circulation, baring someone unlocking the encryption (which BTC has been designed to prevent).
Subdivision isn't, but elimination is. If we agree that all the BTC can purchase 100T of gold, and then we destroy half of the BTC, does that double the value of BTC? I t might, it might not. It's not pegged to a single standard, only what the market feels it is worth. It's run up has been predicated on a limited supply. What if that supply shrinks?
I was under the impression that there was a nearly-finite (what a funny term) about of BC that could be generated based on the underlying math. You would have to isolate the BC which was lost, but unless there's a good, untrimmed chain and the hashes of the wallets of a lost BC owner, you might never know. Which is why its such a big deal to keep track of your BC. It was set up with the purpose of a limited supply to avoid the pitfalls of fiat currency.
Of course, then there's the dark side. By eliminating lots of high-value bitcoin owners who don't have plans for untimely demise, you might increase the value of your own bitcoin holdings by reducing the overall supply.
How long would it take to eliminate enough bitcoins to make the currency unworkable? If many people with large amounts of BC die without revealing the location and passwords to their cold-storage wallets, a shrinking pool of tradable bitcoins would eventually render it inefficient, yes? Or will BC simply be expanded in subdividion, leading to massive deflation over time (in bitcoin value - an oz of gold = 1BC today, but maybe it would only be worth 0.01BC in ten years, or 0.00001 in a hundred, due to a smaller pool of tradable coin)
So this "fair" tax - it takes all the money we give to corporations and lets them keep it. And in return, for every dollar we give to corporations for private jets, seven and eight figure CxO benefit packages, and lavish corporate offices, we also get to give a percentage extra to the federal government?
How about this: a gross receipts tax. Instead of charging you EXTRA when you SPEND (which hampers spending and, hence, the economy), you kick in a percentage to the general welfare (in the constitutional sense) every time you RECEIVE money.
This whole idea of paying taxes on "profits" is silly. If governments wanted to get taxes, they'd switch to gross receipts tax. Of course, their corporate masters won't let them, but that's a whole different problem.
"I think we are settling for exploring close planets just because we have no technology to go to where we actually do believe life could survive."
You can't expect to successfully run a marathon on Saturday after if you haven't run a single mile in the past decade. Each step in exploration requires a previous step of smaller magnitude. Often it's the things we're not looking for when we explore that allow us to go further or explore deeper in future missions.
You mean "certificate".
Probably, they are not.
NSA has been doing hash collisions in MD5 space to get past this niggle. Your company, probably not. Yet.
I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American would sell out to a sleazebag liberal corporate-whore advertising goat-raper* like Facebook. In fact, I'm not even sure why this is on slashdot, since - based on most FB stories - almost nobody here is even signed up for the service.
*not my words, just repeating what I've read about FB on
Tough to detect with MOST browsers. They don't report cert chaining in a way that's useful for this. You COULD check the trust chain everytime you HTTPS. Firefox has the Lock icon to click. Same for Safari.
There are plugins for Firefox that alleviate this:
An indicator of changes in chain-of-trust, etc.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/perspectives/ Way cool "web-of-trust" validation infrastructure, with more info here:
People STILL ask me why I don't use Chrome or Surfari...
Additionally? Modify your workstations settings to use an authoritative external DNS server. OpenDNS is good... enough. Or your ISP servers from home. Then? Use TOR to browse. Be careful with your bank! They may close web-access to your account if TOR has it appear that you log in from Switzerland and Iceland!
These are not the best counter measures, and don't handle every case. TOR relies on SSL - but on a proxy-port, not 80, so usually outside the scope of these gateways. Depending how your company has it's CA published, they may still look "right" when using external DNS lookups, too.
Best of the best of the best, Sir!
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.