Unqualified Reservations: Jacques Ellul on the demand for ...
Proposition : The only thing that matters for Bitcoin to ...
Sam Altman is not - Unqualified Reservations
Tracking and Rating Arizona State Legislative Campaign Filings for the 2020 Cycle (June 2019 Edition)
It's been a while since my last post highlighting the 2020 AZ legislative campaign, so I've decided to write an update on how things are looking in the Grand Canyon State. Unlike last post, there are 3 main lists: Incumbents (this includes State House running for State Senate), People I Have No Clue About, and Notable Challengers. When a specific filing has a discernable impact - i.e. "this is good for Democrats" - I'll say so. There's also an update to a January ranking that merits writing because I forgot which seat an incumbent held - instead of running for re-election in the House Kirsten Engel is running for Senate in D10, which could lead to her primarying our Senate Minority Leader. Don't worry that this batch of candidates is, on the whole, more bad for Dems than good. Some are incumbents, and them running for these seats was a foregone conclusion. Updates
Kirsten Engel, SD-10 (D) - in January I wrote "Rising star in the Democratic party, could potentially run for CD2 when it next opens up. Glad she's still in the fight". "In the fight" was probably an understatement, since Engel isn't the incumbent in SD-10 - instead, it's Senate Minority Leader David Bradley (D). Now, most Democratic leaders in Arizona are pretty competent - not Bradley. He only ran for Senate Minority Leader for the ability to fire some paid aides he didn't like who had been hired by a previous minority leader. Other Dem. senators think he's incompetent and lazy and often joke that House Minority Leader Charlene Fernandez is the de-facto Senate Minority Leader as well. Bradley has done practically nothing for the statewide cause and I hope he's retiring in 2020 (he's 67). If he runs for another term I pray Engel hands his ass to him on a platter. This is good for Democrats.
Kate Brophy McGee, SD-28 (R) - the Susan Collins of Arizona has filed to run for yet another fucking term in 2020. She held on last time by only 267 votes against 2016 Teacher of the Year Christine Porter Marsh. This seat would be a lot more winnable if it was open (I think Clinton won it by 3, Sinema by...9?) but if McGee is running for this she isn't primarying Stanton. This is bad for legislative Democrats, good for congressional Democrats.
Leo Biassuci, HD-5 (R) - nondescript GOP backbencher (and former Green Party candidate!). Very red district.
Richard Andrade, HD-29 (D) - progressive Dem. in a blue seat. Old backbencher, nice guy, glad he's running again.
Walt Blackman, HD-6 (R) - the AZ GOP's token black friend, a freshman incumbent in a very close House seat up north (where Dems lost by 577 votes last year). Blackman's a charismatic veteran and a minority and is probably the best candidate they can field in this seat - a mini John James. Him running for re-election, while expected, is bad for Democrats.
Isela Blanc, SD-26 (D) - not an incumbent in SD-26, but a House incumbent in the analogous district. She's primarying Sen. Juan Mendez for unknown reasons, having split from him and fellow district Democratic Rep. Athena Salman back before last year's election. Blanc and Mendez are both progressive as fuck, so I don't see the point of this primary.
Shawnna Bolick, HD-20 (R) - Bolick is the wife of AZ supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. After carpetbagging across the Valley of the Sun, Shawnna won a seat on her 3rd try - but not by much. Given how tight HD-20 is her re-election campaign is at worst neutral for Dems, and may be slightly good for Democrats.
Sean Bowie, SD-18 (D) - Bowie is a Blue Dog-ish Senator in a suburban district, having flipped the seat in 2016 and increasing his margin in 2018. On a personal level he's kind of a dick (you didn't hear it from me), but as a candidate he can run a damn good race and has a surprisingly loyal base among Dems in the district. Him running again is good for Democrats.
Paul Boyer, SD-20 (R) - Paul Boyer is a freshman Senator in District 20 who for some reason is running for re-election (instead of opting for something less stressful, like the Phoenix City Council) despite being threatened with blacklisting by his GOP colleagues for having the gall to hold his budget vote hostage until a law defending sexual assault victims was passed. He's a kinda-moderate guy, teacher - decent fit for a suburban district that Dems won statewide last year. Him running for re-election is bad for Democrats.
Noel Campbell, HD-1 (R) - nondescript backbencher in deep-red seat.
Andrea Dalessandro, SD-2 (D) - nice Dem. backbencher in a safe D district.
Mitzi Epstein, HD-18 (D) - nice Dem. backbencher in the same district as Bowie. Speaks softly but runs a big campaign when you need her to. This is good for Democrats.
Karen Fann, SD-1 (R) - GOP Senate President who lives in a stupidly-red seat. Not much to analyze.
David Farnsworth, CorpComm (R) - Average GOP Senator in a deep red seat, trying to run statewide this time around for the utility board. I don't really know his utility positions and he's not much of a bombthrower so I can't give an impact of this filing at this point in time. I guess it makes the primary for the GOP slightly more contentious which might be slightly good for Democrats.
Charlene Fernandez, HD-4 (D) - if you read the Engel blurb above, Fernandez is the House Minority Leader that pulls double duty by covering for the incompetence of the Dem. Senate Minority Leader. Charlene's a goddamn tank and may run for Congress once Grijalva retires, or for the governorship in 2022. But she seems damn set to be Speaker of the House for a couple of years before that. The Democrats in AZ need her - so her running again is good for Democrats.
John Fillmore, HD-16 (R): GOP backbencher in a deep-red district.
Randall Friese, HD-9 (D): Randy Friese is the current Democratic Assistant House Minority Leader, the surgeon who saved Gabby Giffords's life, and amateur Jeremy Corbyn lookalike. He's a great legislator and campaigner and helped fundraise for competitive seats across the state. He was a presumptive candidate for the US Senate, but with Kelly running I'm glad he's sticking in the legislature. This is good for Democrats.
Rosanna Gabaldon, HD-2 (D) - nice Dem. backbencher in a safe D district.
Travis Grantham, HD-12 (R) - typical GOP douche dude in a dark-red seat.
Jennifer Jermaine, HD-18 (D) - the third Democrat in District 18 (along with Bowie and Epstein), Jermaine is a former Moms Demand Action and public school funding campaigner who ran a damn good race last year to win her seat. The fact that she's running again is good for Democrats.
Sine Kerr, SD-13 (R) - GOP backbencher in a dark-red seat. This is getting repetitive, I know.
Jay Lawrence, HD-23 (R) - Lawrence is a kinda-Trumpy Representative who holds court in his Scottsdale-centered district, an incredibly wealthy suburb of Phoenix. He's not as vocally and visibly horrible as Kern, but he's still quite the nut. Lawrence is 84 years old and is slowing down with every passing day. I don't know if he can put on a solid campaign, which is why this filing might be slightly good for Democrats.
Vince Leach, SD-11: Kinda-nutjobby Senator in a exurban district of Tucson. Probably won't be in play next year but if Leach and his seatmates keep running their mouths...I dunno. His bomb-throwing might be slightly good for Democrats.
David Livingston, SD-22: Deep red seat for a meh GOP backbencher.
Jennifer Longdon, HD-24: Longdon's an incredibly inspirational and powerful freshman legislator, who ousted an incumbent on her way to winning a deep blue downtown seat. She's a rising star in the party and her staying around for another two years is good for Democrats.
Otoniel Navarrete, SD-30 (D) - Navarrete is a strong progressive voice in the Senate, albeit also a Meza ally. I'm glad he's in the seat and I like his work, but christ, dude can choose better allies.
Jennifer Pawlik, HD-17 (D) - Pawlik is often Klobuchar-esque in her management of campaign staff and employees (I know from firsthand experience), but is a decent campaigner in a suburban seat - the only elected Democrat above the school district level in Arizona's 5th Congressional District. Her running for a second term is good for Democrats.
Warren Petersen, HD-12 (R) - Petersen is the Republican House Majority Leader and a former State Senator. It makes sense he's running again. Deep red district although tiny clumps of it are starting to swing blue.
Pamela Powers Hannley, HD-9 (D) – progressive seatmate of Dr. Friese. Nice lady, glad she’s still in the fight.
Bret Roberts, HD-11 (R) - not as bombthrowy as Leach or Finchem, but still hopefully too conservative for his purpling district. Might be slightly good for Democrats.
Amish Shah, HD-24 (D) - a physician by trade, Shah snuck into office last year in the bloody primary that also catapulted Longdon to her seat. He's surprisingly conservative for a deep blue seat (cosponsored a bill calling porn a public health crisis), although not Robert Meza levels. His political views aren't much of an impediment in the minority, but if Dems get the majority his presence in the caucus might be slightly bad for Democrats.
Jeff Weninger, HD-17 (R) - Weninger is a weird Bitcoin fan and quasi-libertarian who represents the same suburban seat as Pawlik. He's too much of a doofus to have any dirt on him, so if Dems field a candidate next fall he'll probably have a slight incumbency advantage. This is slightly bad for Democrats.
People I Have No Clue About
George Algozzini, HD-20 (I) - George is a very interesting character running for an important district next year. On his Twitter account, this "Christian veteran and Independent voter" has retweeted former Gov. Jan Brewer (R), Donald Trump, and oddly enough Pete Buttigieg - whom he is seemingly supporting in the presidential race. George leans conservative and might be an interesting spoiler in this race, but his issues and donation links are both broken on his website so I doubt he'll run a decent race. Might be slightly good for Democrats if he qualifies.
Seth Blattman, SD-23 (D) - Blattman's a small business owner with local connections who's running in SD-23, facing 2018 nominee Daria Lohman in the primary. Lohman ran a stupidly bad campaign so any warm body may be better than her, and Blattman's no warm body from the looks of his LinkedIn. This is probably good for Democrats.
Nick Fierro, HD-16, (I) - Fierro is a left-leaning independent in a dark red district who's trying to outperform the baseline by not running as a Dem. I mean, I'm glad they have someone there.
Edward Hampton, SD-6 (R) - some ranod, can't find anything about him online. If he makes the R primary at all contentious in this super-close race, it might be slightly good for Democrats.
Nadia Hanif, HD-4, (R) - Hanif is a doctor in Yuma running for a deep blue seat. She can knock herself out for all I care but I doubt anything will happen.
Suzanne Hug, HD-25 (D) - Hug's a random activist in HD25 who's better than the candidate last year, but that's a pretty low bar to clear. It's a ruby red district so there's no real impact here.
Justin Laos, HD-24 (R) - Justin's a software engineer with seemingly no prior political experience and with very little presence online. The district he's running in is quite blue so he's more or less an afterthought.
Kim Owens, CorpComm (R) – Experienced political operative with a legal background to boot. Could make the GOP primary pretty contentious, which might be slightly good for Democrats.
Felipe Reyes Perez, HD-11 (D) – random doctor in Tucson. Seems like a decent guy, might be able to put up a fight in the campaign. Might be good for Democrats.
Jon Saline, HD-6 (R) – Random rural attorney paranoid that we’re all gonna turn into Venezuela, per his Facebook’s “Why I’m Running”. This primary is looking like it’ll be a goddamn clusterfuck, which is good for Democrats.
Selina Bliss, HD-1 (R) – President of the Arizona Nurses’ Association. Hopefully a tick more moderate than the past occupant of that seat (David Stringer).
Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, HD-10 (D) - Small business owner, church camp leader, and liberal activist in Tucson. Very involved in the local political spheres. Decent replacement for Engel, who's moving on to the Senate.
Daniel Toporek, HD-20 (D) – Army Air National Guard warrant officer and Afghanistan vet. Little presence online but if he gets his campaign up to speed he could be a strong option for the seat, and his filing therefore might be good for Democrats.
Shea Stanfield, CorpComm (D) - Stanfield is a former teacher, counselor, and local environmental board member. Decent experience for the CorpComm position imo, and is hitting the ground running.
Jacqueline Parker, HD-16 (R) - former CorpComm staffer who likes to post incredibly racist "memes" about Obama on her personal FB page. Somehow might not be the most unqualified person running for this seat.
Ted Carpenter, HD-28 (R) - now that's a name Arizona hasn't heard in a while! Carpenter is a former State Representative, serving from 1998-2006 before losing in a State Senate primary in 2006. Carpenter hails from a by-gone era of slightly-less-combative GOP candidates, and is definitely a more moderate option compared to the nutjobs HD28 has elected in the past, like Trump inauguration donor Maria Syms. In the short term, this is bad for Democrats - but the recruitment of an old warhorse is a telling sign that the local party knows it's losing ground. They hear the drumbeat of progress in the district, and they're scared shitless.
Paul Newman and Bill Mundell, CorpComm (D) - Mundell and Newman are both former CorpComm members, trying to run to get back on the board. Paul Newman served on the board from 2009-2013, Mundell from 1999-2009 as a Republican, after serving in the Arizona House of Representatives, also as a Republican. Mundell previously ran in 2016 and 2018, losing twice. In 2018 his campaign went extremely in the primary, implying a fellow Democrat was a puppet of the utilities in this state, and had supporters get mildly-moderately stalkish trying to prove a non-existent connection. Mundell lost in the primary, and that Democrat (Sears) lost in the general. I'm no fan of the guy, explicitly because of stunts like this. This pairing is slightly good for Democrats - they bring a lot of star power, but also a lot of hairbrained insanity on the part of William Mundell.
Debbie Nez-Manuel, HD-26 (D) - A Native American activist living on the Salt River reservation, Nez-Manuel originally primaried Sen. Mendez in 2016. Narrowly losing, she's filed this year for the open House seat that Rep. Blanc is vacating. I haven't heard of any other candidates running for the seat besides her and Rep. Salman, so hopefully that primary isn't as contentious as the Senate mess. Debbie's a great person and I'm glad to have the opportunity to vote her in while still keeping Mendez in the Senate.
Wendy Rogers, SD-6 (R) - The worst carpetbagger ever is back at it again. Rogers had an illustrious career in the Air Force, followed by a slightly less-illustrious career of losing four elections in a row (2010 SD-17, 2012 CD9 GOP Primary, 2014 CD9 General, and then the 2018 CD1 General). She's a loose cannon with a small base of support that seemingly will never die. She's gonna add her own spice to a primary that already has Hampton, Rep. Bob Thorpe (he has yet to actually file so no blurb about him), and possibly incumbent Sen. Sylvia Allen. It will be a shitshow, and that is good for Democrats.
David Alger, SD-24 (R) - a perennial candidate for the seat who sometimes runs with his wife Vicki on a House/Senate slate, Alger's not much to worry about or write about.
Kenneth Bowers Jr., HD-28 (R) - Bowers is another perennial candidate who's been pinging around District 28 for quite a while, angry that McGee wasn't Trumpy enough. He's never won a race a probably never will, but this distraction for Carpenter is at least slightly good for Democrats.
Forest John Moriarty, HD-16 (R) - Close Townsend ally, private school and religious rights campaigner. Goddamn patriot. Probably will take this seat, because God hates us all. Like I said, if two Republicans had to win, I'd pick Parker over this fuck.
Felicia French, SD-6 (D) - Ran for HD-6 last year and lost by only 577 votes. French is a decent campaigner with a nice background, and if the SD-6 primary on the GOP side is the mess it looks like it's gonna be, she may have a shot at this seat. Her return to the fray is good for Democrats.
Coral Evans, HD-6 (D) - Mayor of Flagstaff, the largest city in HD-6. Her recruitment for this seat is a sign that the party's going all-or-nothing in the district. If she can't win this seat this year, I dunno who can. It's critical that we pick this seat up. Very good for Democrats.
Sharon Girard, HD-8 (D) - While she wasn't the worst campaigner out there (see Lohman, Daria), Girard made several rookie mistakes in 2018 and ran a poor campaign in a rural district that required 100% effort and focus. It's disappointing that she's running again. If the party doesn't find other people there who can win the primary this could be bad for Democrats.
Michael Hernandez, SD-16 (R) - Libertarian-ish dude in SD16 who ran for Senate last year. Honestly a pretty nice guy and a relatively moderate R, although not the best campaigner. At least he'll give Townsend somewhat of a fight in the primary.
Eric Sloan, CorpComm (R) - Trumpist candidate who ran for the same position last year. His campaign imploded after it came out he racially harassed coworkers at his past job, and he ended up getting 14.5% in a 5-way race. Probably will be toast next year as well, but if he adds to the shitshow of a primary that could happen on that front then this could be slightly good for Democrats.
And that's finally it! Took me most of my morning to type up. I'm gonna try to push out another update in a few months - although I won't wait until December because this was such a large backlog.
This could have been a link post rather than a text post, but "Technology, communism and the Brown Scare" is a huge wall of text, much of it irrelevant. And it just goes on and on and on. Did I mention it was huge, as in ten thousand words of huge, and meanders onto twenty different subjects, and posts one of Plato's dialogues as an interlude? So I'm reposting the parts I found most relevant, because I think it still has some useful commentary today: The linked post is from about a year ago, before GamerGate, but in a similar case of dickwads at Gawker attacking unbelievers and labeling them horrible evil bigots. The author writes something which seems to apply quite well to GamerGate too:
What the bully needs is to provoke mild approval, from the vast majority of ordinary, decent people who don't care about politics or power and are really not involved with the game at all. It's this abuse of common decency that offends me most about the witch-hunting process. The ordinary observer does not, really, believe in witches - or disbelieve in them, either. Rhetoric about black cats, third nipples and secret meetings with Satan doesn't make much impression on her at all. But what she knows is that Goody Hannah is a strange, mean old lady with no husband and a snippy tongue, who smells funny and sleeps way too late in the morning, and once yelled at her when she was a little girl. Left to her own devices, our decent observer would never think of reasoning from this to the proposition that Goody Hannah needs to be drowned. On the other hand, when the crowd (consisting mostly of decent observers) is about to drown Goody Hannah, she's not exactly about to speak up and stick out her neck. For a strange, mean old lady with no husband and a snippy tongue? That no one speaks up, of course, is no more and no less than the witchfinders need.
I think that's a good summary of the Gawker tactics here: paint us as basement-dwelling misogynerds. They don't need to call us Hitler, they just need to call us unsympathetic enough that they can get away with it unchallenged by the outside observers. After all, reasonable people don't have enough hours in the day to investigate every allegation of assholery in detail, and they know there are real assholes out there. The dickwad of the day, rather than Sam Biddle, was Anil Dash, who wrote this screed:
There was also a pretty dogged pitch for his startup, which will get all kinds of warm huzzahs from the intersection of MRAs, Bitcoin fans, NSA critics and Redditors. I was pretty amazed that he went for it. He flat out said that he wants his startup to be funded and wasn't sure if it'd be possible after all of his, and I replied that it realistically wasn't going to happen without the say-so of someone like me, and I wasn't inclined to give some VC the nod on this. On reflection, I'll be explicit: If you're a venture capitalist, and you invest in Pax [Dickinson]'s startup without a profound, meaningful and years-long demonstration of responsibility from Pax beforehand, you're complicit in extending the tech industry's awful track record of exclusion, and it's unacceptable.
Change a few words like "startup" and "tech industry" and it's practically current. Moldbug refers to the SJW movement and its panic as the "Brown Scare" because of the analogy to the Red Scare, with a little search-and-replace for the acceptable targets of the day:
There was also a pretty dogged pitch for his film, which will get all kinds of warm huzzahs from the intersection of atheists, pacifists, communists and Jews. I was pretty amazed that he went for it. He flat out said that he wants his film to be funded and wasn't sure if it'd be possible after all of his, and I replied that it realistically wasn't going to happen without the say-so of someone like me, and I wasn't inclined to give some producer the nod on this. On reflection, I'll be explicit: If you're a producer, and you invest in Dalton Trumbo's film without a profound, meaningful and years-long demonstration of responsibility from Dalton beforehand, you're complicit in extending the film industry's awful track record of communism, and it's unacceptable.
One thing seems to have changed, and arguably for the better, in the year since then. It gives me hope for the success of GamerGate:
The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins' day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. We do not see Pax Dickinson and Paul Graham ganging up to destroy Gawker. We see them curling up into a fetal position and trying to survive. An America in which hackers could purge journalists for communist deviation, rather than journalists purging hackers for fascist deviation, would be a very different America.
This time, we're hardly curling up into a fetal position. We're fighting back. The gawker dickwad squad and their friends still own enough media to launch a coordinated "Gamers are over" offensive, but they haven't crushed or purged us yet! Again with the similarities to GamerGate:
Furthermore, if you can present a natural force as a human force, it is possible to attribute almost infinite power to the witch conspiracy. Jews, for example, cause droughts. It's easy to see how strong the Jews are - it hasn't rained for a month! Throw the Jews down the well! In this particular case, it's an observation only slightly more obvious than that the sky is blue - especially for those of us who are grownups not born in the 1990s, with, like, wives and daughters and stuff - that (a) geeks are born not made, and (b) a Y chromosome is a major risk factor for geekiness.
Or as the gawkerlogic runs in our case: Not enough female games programmers? Must be some kind of evil at work. Clearly the men are sexist, backwards, bigoted, hateful, boorish, neckbearded troglodytes, and the gaming community must be purged of the malevolent excluders. Whom it is proving very difficult to find, so let's spread some blame around on "gamers" as a whole.
Are Gawker and its ilk genuinely interested in bringing women into technology? Do they genuinely like either (a) (other) women, or (b) technology? Because it would sure seem, to the uneducated observer, that the actual effect of their actual actions is to scare women away from programming careers - on the grounds that, if they so much as master MySQL, they will be instantly raped by a pack of Satan-worshipping "brogrammers."
Yeah, this sounds familiar.
Do you know what women who actually want to help other women learn programming look like? They look like this.
Replace Hackbright Academy with The Fine Young Capitalists and you've got today. And finally, good advice on dealing with internet trolls:
Can men be assholes to women? Can women be assholes to men? Well, actually, it's usually men who are assholes and women who are bitches - though not without exceptions. But broadly speaking, can everyone be assholes to everyone else? They can. They are. And if you're genuinely mentoring a younger person, with genuine empathy and a genuine interest in their genuine success, what you say in every case is: life is full of assholes. When someone is an asshole (or a bitch) to you, ignore him and have as little to do with him as possible.
This is Coin-a-Week, the laziest coin coverage yet. We reprint coin-a-day archives with minimal revision and marginalia, not because the original was spectacular, but because we have it at hand and we have plenty more where that came from. For a behind-the-scenes view of lazy coverage, send a message to coinaday (that's me) or /coinaweek (also obviously me) or request a subscription in the comments. [There was a reference to the dogecoin post following being caught in the filter, then:] Fixed; spam filter issue. Thanks ThePiachu ! Coin-a-Day Jan 1stWeek February 14th Welcome to the first Coin-a-DayWeek post, as introduced yesterdayintroduced "about a week ago"(tm)! Today I'm talking about Bitcoin, since it's the foundation for everything. This gives us an opportunity to review my format: what else should I have included? This post is something of a template for how I will be covering other coins. Up next for tomorrow"in a week"(tm) is dogecoin. I have not yet decided upon the next one after that, although I have an extensive list to choose from based on just the list I started with off the top of my head and the comments from yesterday. Summary: • 21 million coins limit; 13,675,325 13,837,675 currently  • All-time high: $1124.76 [0.1] • Current price: ~$314 256  • Current market cap: ~$4.3 3.5 billion  • Block rate (average): 10 minutes [0.2] • Transaction rate: 58882 transactions in the last 24 hours, estimated $22.6 million [0.3] 83,982 transactions in the last 24 hours (covering about Jan 2nd), estimated ~$230 million. [0.3] (revised) 96,919 transactions in the last 24 hours (around Feb 14 2015) [0.3] • Transaction limit (current): 7 transactions/second [0.4] (This varies based on transaction sizes but is a commonly cited estimate.) [3 transactions / second estimated at normal / current transaction sizes; I use the 7 transactions / second and "theoretical maximum" values for this series] • Transaction cost: 0.0001 BTC standard fee (or free under certain conditions) [0.5] • Rich list: Top 100 addresses hold 20.36%20.9% [0.6] (I know I've seen a better richlist with a pie chart but forget where) • Exchanges: Many. [0.7] (There are also many notable direct sellers not listed on there.) • Community: Extensive. Highest merchant adoption. • Processing method: Proof-of-work; paid with block reward + transaction fee • Code / Development: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin ; strong developer team and community • Distribution method: mining • Innovation or special value: First cryptocurrency; largest market cap Description Bitcoin is the gold standard of cryptocurrencies. It came first, it has the largest market share, and it has one of the highest unit prices. It is the foundation upon which substantially all alt-coins have been based, so it will be described here, and referenced frequently in later articles in comparison. Bitcoin is based upon a distributed transaction-processing system called "mining". In it, computers race to solve a problem (making a hash less than a given value) which allows them to add a set of transactions to the ledger (add a "block" to the "blockchain"), and gain a reward in bitcoins. This reward acts as the incentive for transaction processing as well as providing new bitcoins. This reward is progressively halved over time until eventually there will be 21 million bitcoins  There is also a transaction fee (technically optional, see reference for details) [0.5]. Transactions are a combination of inputs (which are previous unspent transaction outputs or miner rewards) and outputs. The inputs must be greater than or equal to the outputs, and the difference is the transaction fee. Bitcoin uses "addresses" which are hashes of public keys. An input must be properly signed by the private key in order to be spent. This provides the cryptographic security of the network: as long as the mathematical models and program implementations used are correct, then the system will behave as expected (money cannot be spent twice; money cannot be spent by someone who doesn't own it; etc.). This is the "trustless" and "decentralized" nature of the system: there is no central authority relied upon to validate transactions (like a payment processor). Instead, this functionality is implemented by independent 'nodes' following a public protocol and monitored by other independent sources. For instance, if any miner were to attempt to add a block which spent bitcoins which did not exist, or for which a proper signature was not provided, other miners acting in accordance with the protocol would refuse to build upon this block and clients (wallets) would also not recognize it as valid. Most of these features are common to the alternative coins ("altcoins") which were developed after bitcoin and are based upon it ["clonecoins"]. Its code is also the basis for many of the alt coins. Community Without being too inflammatory and with tongue-slightly-in-cheek, Bitcoin has developed a userbase of crazy libertarians who constitute the coin's greatest strength and greatest weakness. Most of them deny the value of any alternative coin. Some of them believe that bitcoin will inevitably become the global reserve currency . Merchant adoption is currently the strongest of any cryptocurrency. It has grown very significantly in the past year. It varies by country, industry, and in-person versus online, but there have been many major adoptions. They use payment processors rather than accepting it directly for the most part. Rather than attempting to put a big list here we'll make today's 10,000 NYAN challenge to the reader with the best source listing all or as many merchants accepting it as possible. C'mon people, I swear I've seen this on /bitcoin before. Footnotes  http://coinmarketcap.com/ [0.1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin (Wikipedia used as a source for 'general knowledge' confirmation) [0.2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Why_do_I_have_to_wait_10_minutes_before_I_can_spend_money_I_received.3F [0.3] https://blockchain.info/statshttps://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/ [0.4] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Current_bottlenecks [0.5] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees Transactions fees can be omitted. For most transactions, this causes a much longer time until confirmation. For a transaction less than 1000 bytes, with outputs greater than 0.01 BTC, and with a higher priority, they may be safely omit the fee. [0.6] http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100 [0.7] http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#markets  There were various precursors in cryptocurrencies, notably Hashcash, the proof-of-work function (not a currency as the name might imply). And there had been other digital currencies previously. But this was the first virtual currency introduced which revolved around decentralization powered by cryptography. These two aspects: decentralized exchange and a reliance upon cryptography will generally define cryptocurrencies here. "Centralized cryptocurrencies" may also be considered, but are considered atypical. [This footnote was also in the Dec 31st launch; this may be made broken into a separate topic eventually.]  Requiring a hash to be less than a given value forces the solver to try many values of an otherwise irrelevant value. This requires processing time, thus "proof-of-work". The "difficulty" is a parameter which decides how small a hash must be to be accepted. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty This is called "proof-of-work" (as opposed to "proof-of-stake", a later development based on demonstrating ownership in a currency) and its purpose is to regulate the average speed of the block generation as well as provide a mechanism for determining whose block is allowed to be added to the chain.  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction  https://www.quora.com/What-does-Yishan-Wong-think-about-Dogecoin/answeYishan-Wong  Based on the author's reading of /bitcoin. This may not be representative of more sane communities like Bitcointalk or the broader community.  http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/ Additional Reading • Original whitepaper - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf • bitcoin wiki - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page • bitcointalk (general source) - https://bitcointalk.org/ • bitcoin.org - A general reference • /bitcoin On second thought, let's not go there. 'Tis a silly place. Disclosure I am unqualified. These posts are known to the state of California to be made from products which may induce cancer under certain circumstances. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to all discussion and critique! [edits complaining about formatting issues removed for brevity]
Patri Friedman (born July 29, 1976) is an American libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and theorist of political economy. He founded the nonprofit Seasteading Institute, which explores the creation of sovereign ocean colonies. Patri Friedman - WikiMili, The Free Encyclopedia - WikiMili, The Free Encycl This post has moved to the permanent location for Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug: Technology, communism and the Brown Scare posted by Mencius Moldbug at 1:37 PM 1 Unqualified Reservations: Bitcoin is money, Bitcoin is a bubble ... Bitcoin is not “based” on a theory, because Bitcoin is an empirical phenomenon, not a fundament of human action. The emergence of Bitcoin conforms to the liquidity theory of media of exchange (Mengerian/Misesian approach) and the implied assumption of practically all economic schools that media of exchange emerge and are chosen because they ... How Bitcoin dies (unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com) 55 points by pavel_lishin on Jan 24, 2013 hide past web favorite 77 comments: fatbird on Jan 24, 2013. This is by Mencius Moldbug, a coder who made off with enough options money just prior to the dot-com crash to basically be retired in the Bay Area, reading and writing. He's ...
J'AI REÇU MA MACHINE DE BITCOIN ! feat. Hasheur - YouTube
VINwiki is a social vehicle history reporting platform that invites you to add to the stories of your cars and the cars you love. Download our free iOS or An... Join us as we sit and talk forever about everything under the sun. PARTICIPANTS: WILLIAM SCOTT BILL MARCHANT Twitter: https://twitter.com/billmarchant222 Blo... I've been researching 'map downloads' that I received starting around Nov/Dec 2015. Because this information is so strange and synchronistic in nature, I didn't know what to make of it. I felt ... ABONNE-TOI ! http://bit.ly/2wEZoXo ⬅ (juste ici) Le site Just-Mining : http://bit.ly/2OP8FEE Acheter du Bitcoin : http://bit.ly/2YQs10q Payer des produits H... For Gold, Silver & Platinum purchases, that I use, with real 100% allocated Bullion & named bar reservation, cheaper than Maloney or Schiff, click here: ... BITCOIN, Key decision point, ...