Bitcoin mining made easy

[KingRaptor]

Jesus motherlovin' Christ if I hear the "Bitcoin will allow the poor people of the world to participate in the global economy" glibertarian bullshit again I will punch my monitor through a wall.

Yeah, I'm sure the reason the reason the 1.2 billion people on the world without electricity or the 2.8 billion that live on USD 2 or less per day "have no connection to the world of money" is simply because they didn't have a decentralized currency technology!

If you're going to make claims of solving a huge world problem, make them when you have tangible evidence of accomplishing this goal. Not before.

And that lovely way it says "bringing 6.5 billion into productive society" - the implication that 91% of the world's people are currently not productive? Die in a fire.

[PicassoCT]

I find the idea of a currency without a state having a say on it good.

Anything that gives a psychopathic chieftain the unsettling feeling that all these "brainless" puppets can strangle there player.

[Kloot]

Did the internet transform Africa...?

Also, the claim that the BGP (or to be more accurate BFT) was unresolved prior to bitcoin is verifiably false.

[varikonniemi]

Jesus motherlovin' Christ if I hear the "Bitcoin will allow the poor people of the world to participate in the global economy" glibertarian bullshit again I will punch my monitor through a wall.

Yeah, I'm sure the reason the reason the 1.2 billion people on the world without electricity or the 2.8 billion that live on USD 2 or less per day "have no connection to the world of money" is simply because they didn't have a decentralized currency technology!

If you're going to make claims of solving a huge world problem, make them when you have tangible evidence of accomplishing this goal. Not before.

And that lovely way it says "bringing 6.5 billion into productive society" - the implication that 91% of the world's people are currently not productive? Die in a fire.

2 billion people have a mobile phone but don't have bank access. Why? Because there is none, or it is too expensive. Both of those flaws are now fixed.

They are not productive in a optimal sense. We could use their cheap labour, and they could use our plenty money. Bitcoin is the technology which makes this exchange possible. Before we were artificially isolated from this mode of operation.

If the guy making 2 dollars a day does some coding to a westerner for 5$ a hour, both parties benefit greatly. Traditional money transfer business would take such a cut, that only they would be happy.

kloot: no, because they have no bank access. Financial utilization of the internet is hard then. This is now changed. They already have the local m-pesa payment system, so Bitcoin will be very familiar there.

The byzantines problem you may very well be right. Please elaborate? I thought that Bitcoin actually solved the weaker, not 100% deterministic variation of the problem. And therefore it would not be solved in theory only in practice.

[Cheesecan]

How can a currency that so heavily favors early adopters benefit the poor of the third world?

[varikonniemi]

Because they don't have to take on a currency risk if they don't want to. They can use only the technology if they think the currency is worse than their own.

[cheapsheep]

How can a currency that so heavily favors early adopters benefit the poor of the third world?

I don't see the connection between "benefit the poor" and "favors early adopters". If you believe there is a simple connection because it is a zero-sum game, you are probably forgetting about the rest of the picture. Someone will lose money... my guess is that it will be those who act like vampires in the current system.

I see a connection between cutting 5-10% in remittance fees and improving the life of those on the receiving side of remittance money. This could be possible soon thanks to Bitcoin, by competing with Western Union and similar companies. If workers sending money home get 5% better rates, does that bother you if early adopters also benefit from it because of the (likely) increased bitcoin valuation?

I'm not convinced by the whole "people without access to banking now get it thanks to bitcoin and a cellphone", because the cellphones they have in africa are mostly not smartphone, so they'll probably end up as customer of some sms platform, which does not need Bitcoin and does not provide the benefit of it.

[Cheesecan]

I don't see the connection between "benefit the poor" and "favors early adopters". If you believe there is a simple connection because it is a zero-sum game, you are probably forgetting about the rest of the picture. Someone will lose money... my guess is that it will be those who act like vampires in the current system.

I see a connection between cutting 5-10% in remittance fees and improving the life of those on the receiving side of remittance money. This could be possible soon thanks to Bitcoin, by competing with Western Union and similar companies. If workers sending money home get 5% better rates, does that bother you if early adopters also benefit from it because of the (likely) increased bitcoin valuation?

I'm not convinced by the whole "people without access to banking now get it thanks to bitcoin and a cellphone", because the cellphones they have in africa are mostly not smartphone, so they'll probably end up as customer of some sms platform, which does not need Bitcoin and does not provide the benefit of it.

To me, bitcoin sounds like a globalist capitalist's wet dream.
"Here, you poor can have the bread crumbs."
The same people who have 12 million bitcoin today, and the 21 million of tomorrow, earn a lot more than $2/day.

Decreased remittance fees will just increase globalism. Globalism leads to things like this and this in poor countries.

Globalism is the worst thing to ever happen to third world countries. It's just a politically correct continuation of colonialism. When the foreign companies have stripped a poor country of all its resources, they leave with all they won and condemn the local population to even more years of poverty and misery. At best, this will have allowed an elite class to become established. That elite class will then subjugate the rest and fuck up the country even more.

How are you going to explain bitcoin to somebody who thinks HIV can be cured by raping babies? Talk about starting in the wrong end. Bitcoin is just another form of banking, and banking never created anything but more wealth for the already wealthy.

[smoth]

all of cheesecans points are valid imo

[cheapsheep]

To me, bitcoin sounds like a globalist capitalist's wet dream.
"Here, you poor can have the bread crumbs."
The same people who have 12 million bitcoin today, and the 21 million of tomorrow, earn a lot more than $2/day.

Decreased remittance fees will just increase globalism. Globalism leads to things like this and this in poor countries.

So these articles show how US/Europe is losing influence to China in those regions. The title of the 2nd article is unequivocal: "How China's taking over Africa, and why the West should be VERY worried". Interestingly, the article is not titled "... why Africa should be VERY worried".

Whoever fucks Africa, be it France, the US, or China, it doesn't change the situation of those who leave their country to work somewhere else and send money home. Having to pay 10-15% to a company such as Western Union only to send money earned in Europe to Morocco or Kenya to help the family has nothing to do with who has fucked up the situation in their country, or who is trying to fuck up the country in order to get cheap oil or uranium.

Using your argument, one would be led to the conclusion that if Western Union (just an example) was cutting their fees by 50%, it would increase exploitation of Africa by foreign entities. I don't think it is the case.

When a french employee from Areva goes to Arlit in Niger, he does not have remittance fee problems. When a chinese state company goes to another country for wood, their employees do not have problems sending money home. Remittance fee is affecting individual workers (often illegal immigrants) in "rich" countries, with poor families in poor countries. Remittance is about individuals, not about concerted effort led by multinational companies, using deception, corruption or sheer force. You are mixing up things. Multinational companies just use the banking system and bags of cash for corruption... not Western Union.

Globalism is the worst thing to ever happen to third world countries. It's just a politically correct continuation of colonialism. When the foreign companies have stripped a poor country of all its resources, they leave with all they won and condemn the local population to even more years of poverty and misery. At best, this will have allowed an elite class to become established. That elite class will then subjugate the rest and fuck up the country even more.

How is Bitcoin even implicated in this? You are mixing up an argument against Globalism, colonialism and Bitcoin and it does not make sense.

And also, did you forget to talk about US and Europe subsidies to agriculture? Not that it is important in a discussion about Bitcoin, but since you are mixing up everything, I find it interesting how selective you are in singling out China as the bad guy with the 2 chosen articles...

How are you going to explain bitcoin to somebody who thinks HIV can be cured by raping babies? Talk about starting in the wrong end. Bitcoin is just another form of banking, and banking never created anything but more wealth for the already wealthy.

Huh... so the problem is Bitcoin (or even banking in general), or the fact that people think that HIV can be cured by raping babies? I don't think anyone said that Bitcoin will cure people from HIV or stupidity.

You argument is deeply flawed on so many levels. Mixing up the situation of individuals sending money home and multinational companies exploiting 3rd world countries for the benefit of stakeholders is gross.

But I got your point. You have a problem with early adopters.

[Cheesecan]

My point? Don't know that I have one, I just see no reason to be as excited as varikonniemi, and to a lesser extent you sheep.
You don't even know for sure who created bitcoin, what their end-game agenda is, yet think it's purely utilitarian for the benefit of all mankind(??). When reality it just seems to be another ruthless tool of capitalism.

Here's what I see:
1) Chinese bought a lot of bitcoin
2) Chinese are now ruthlessly exploiting third world countries
3) People in third world countries
a) don't have skills that are competitive in the west (since many of them only attain ~1 year of schooling e.g. Myanmar/Burma before they become child laborers)
b) can't afford to travel elsewhere to work and can't get work visas in EU/US
c) can't afford bitcoin services intermediaries e.g. local business acting as some form of bitcoin agent

Ergo, it must be goverments like the PRC who stand to benefit the most from bitcoin. Also perhaps criminals as seen by the Silk Road raid.

But okey let's look at it another way. Here in Sweden, we currently have a problem with beggers from Bulgaria/Romania etc poor EU-countries. Organized crime is collecting people on the streets there and driving them up here in minivans, to beg on street corners in the freezing cold 24/7 with just a few blankets for warmth. One beggar was interviewed around the christmas-shopping spree and said he made about €5/day on one of the most crowded commercial streets in the capital. That's a lot more than he could make in his home country.

Now with bitcoin, maybe (somehow) he can send some more of that money back home to his family... The result? even more beggars.

Fuck yeah?

Why should you need to save $1 on fees unless you earn an awful salary in the first place??

What you're pushing makes no sense, I for one think the burden of proof is on you. I'm not the one pushing bitcoin.

PS. I also see mining rig manufacturers earning millions, AMD earning million from cryptocoin craze, etc. How is such an idiotic bubble in the west benefiting the rest??? !

[PicassoCT]

Did the internet transform Africa...?

Also, the claim that the BGP (or to be more accurate BFT) was unresolved prior to bitcoin is verifiably false.

Actually cellphones did..
But the actual benefit is still hidden.. basically its near impossible by now to burn down the bibliothek of alexandria again. If everybody can get to wikipedia from a smarthphone.. doesent matter if school has closed. Your online course awaits you.

So the damages of civil war are somewhat reduced. It also helps to reduce the conformity preasure of society, in dictatorships and/or for example traditional societys were you get attacked with witchcraft if you dont share, the internet is a window to the world. It helps those who are exiles of the mind, to not despair. Also it allows to hide your possesions from mafia like structures.

So bitcoin might have some uses. Agreed.
But not yet.

[smoth]

now wikis and more specifically wikipedia needs more props..

[cheapsheep]

What you're pushing makes no sense, I for one think the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on people making strong claims. It has nothing to do with which side you are on or who is making claims.

[KingRaptor]

I was writing an Argh-length post on this, but then I realized I could convey the exact same point better by cutting out most of it and getting straight to the money shot. So I'll just say this:

If the guy making 2 dollars a day does some coding to a westerner for 5$ a hour, both parties benefit greatly.

The fact that you came up with this example and didn't stop to think "hey, there's something seriously surreal about this scenario" reinforces my view that you completely overlook every factor in the problem that isn't covered by your Bitcoin magic wand, either due to ignorance of those factors or simply failing to take the time to consider them.

I'll also take a moment to question the currently unsupported assumption that avoiding single-digit percentageor double-digit (USD) absolute costs on money transfers can resolve huge qualitative and quantitative differences in socioeconomic factors between different social strata.

[cheapsheep]

This thread is really strange. I don't know if people are trolling or just fanatic about saying that Bitcoin will fail to solve all the world's issues. When I joined the thread, it was because I thought the pro-bitcoin arguments were a bit too enthusiastic, but I see that a lot of anti-bitcoin arguments are a joke too.

If Bitcoin is unable to ...

resolve huge qualitative and quantitative differences in socioeconomic factors between different social strata.

... is it then absolutely worthless?

I find that my computer or the internet are fairly useful tools... yet I am aware they do not "resolve huge qualitative and quantitative differences in socioeconomic factors between different social strata". BTW, this is a lot of mumbo-jumbo just to say that Bitcoin will not solve inequality...

By raising the bar of utility to that insane level, you sure can prove that Bitcoin is not a silver bullet. Great for the debate.

avoiding single-digit percentage or double-digit (USD) absolute costs on money transfers

http://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comment ... g_bitcoin/

[KingRaptor]

If Bitcoin is unable to ...

resolve huge qualitative and quantitative differences in socioeconomic factors between different social strata.

... is it then absolutely worthless?

I find that my computer or the internet are fairly useful tools... yet I am aware they do not "resolve huge qualitative and quantitative differences in socioeconomic factors between different social strata".

By raising the bar of utility to that insane level, you sure can prove that Bitcoin is not a silver bullet. Great for the debate.

Seriously, sheep?

Can you point to any instance of me saying, anywhere, that bitcoin is "absolutely worthless" or even anything close to it?
Did you miss the part where vari approvingly quoted, in its entirety, an article that says things like "with a simple application download, they can immediately become participants in an international economy" and "The possibility of bringing 6.5 billion* into productive society by connecting them to the rest of the world is truly revolutionary"?

*For context: this is more people than the entire world population outside of Europe.

[cheapsheep]

Seriously, sheep?

Sorry about that... I didn't realize you were quoting his article :)

I was a bit carried over by other posts and the whole thing about beggars and China taking over Africa.

[Cheesecan]

The possibility of bringing 6.5 billion into productive society by connecting them to the rest of the world is truly revolutionary.

I am proud to tell you my name is Chief Mkumbu.

Please send me 50 BTC. I will return to you 100 BTC in the next day.

/Chief Mkumbu
1F1tAaz5x1HUXrCNLbtMDqcw6o5GNn4xqX

[cheapsheep]

Please send me 50 BTC. I will return to you 100 BTC in the next day.

:)
Interestingly, charge back scam and the typical fake cheque-based 419 are not possible with bitcoins, so scammers have to request a payment first which is more suspicious.

But creative scammers will always find a way, and naive persons will be duped.