My First Minecraft Mod: Endermen vs. Zombie Pigmen

endermen_vs_pigmen.zip Download this file

I wrote a tiny Minecraft mod for the 1.2.5 server.  It's not a bukkit plugin, just a regular mod to the official minecraft_server.jar.  So I doubt anyone will bother to try it.

My mod adds a new drop to Endermen.  If an Enderman is killed by a Zombie Pigman, the Enderman will drop Record 11.

You might wonder how this fight could ever happen in the first place.  Well, my mod also adds the ability for Zombie Pigmen to look at Endermen like players do.  And this angers Endermen, just like when players look at them, which causes the Enderman to attack the Pigman.

If the Pigman manages to kill the Enderman, then you get your record.

Normally, a Pigman will never spawn near an Enderman.  But it is possible.  Yes, you can spawn them together in Creative Mode.  But beyond that, you may be aware that it is possible for a Pigman to spawn if a regular pig is struck by lightning.

Also, Endermen are more powerful than Pigmen.  It takes about three Pigmen to kill one Enderman.

So if a Pigman ever spawns by lightning, it's a good idea to damage the Enderman before getting them together, since it's pretty much impossible to get enough Pigmen to do the job without help.  Or maybe you can buff the Pigman and poison the Enderman with potions before the fight.

Pro-tip: A Pigman is more likely to look at an Enderman if the Enderman is standing between a player and the Pigman.

So it's not an easy task, but I'm assuming it is possible, though I've only tested it with spawner eggs.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

iTheft

On Monday evening after work, some dude swiped my iPhone 4 while I was standing at the bus stop.  He grabbed it right out of my hands, ran, and jumped over a fence.  Several people witnessed it, including the bus driver.

The first thing I wanted to do was locate and wipe my phone.  You might wonder why I would be so eager to wipe it.  #1, I have a recent backup, so my data is safe.  #2, I didn't want the data (like all of my passwords) in the hands of someone who might know how to get it (very very unlikely, but still).  #3, I wanted to deactivate my phone service ASAP.  #4, I knew once I deactivate my phone service, I would no longer be able to locate or wipe it.

So after my hour long bus ride home, I did indeed manage to locate and wipe.  Then I told AT&T that my phone was stolen and that I wanted it deactivated.  The AT&T rep wanted to be sure it was in fact stolen.  They frequently hear of situations where the phone was just misplaced.  I told him I was certain it was stolen.  I asked him how often he hears people report the phone taken right out of their hands.  He said he'd never heard of it.

Next, I called my local police.  Right after I started explaining that I wanted to file a report, it dawned on me that I couldn't go to my local police department.  Why?  Remember the word "jurisdiction."  Since the crime was committed in Los Angeles, I couldn't report it to Torrance PD.  So I called Los Angeles Airport Police.

I started over, but the male officer stopped me and asked if I was at the front door.  I told him I wasn't, so he transferred me to a female officer who was playing Angry Birds.  I started over.  I used the word "stolen" so she told me I need to get a copy of my contact and bring it over to the station.

So I was a little confused already.  Apparently I needed to prove it was mine to begin with.  But keep in mind, I used the word "stolen."  My mistake.  In legal terms, that means something specific.  I'll get back to that.

Not having realized my mistake, now my goal is to find the six-foot-long receipt I got when I purchased my iPhone from the Apple Store.  I don't know where it is, but I find the box.  And Apple prints the unique serial number for each phone on the box.  So at least I had that.  But the sales contract is nowhere to be found.

So I decided that the phone bill will have to work.  They didn't say they wanted the phone bill, but come on.

Then I remembered that I opted for the paperless billing option with AT&T.  No problem, I'll just log into my account with their web site and print the last bill.  Nope.  Remember how I deactivated my service?  Well, that deactivates everything, including the billing tools.

Call AT&T again and explain the situation, again.  Plus added the detail about needing the contract but just wanted to print the last bill instead.  The rep said they would send me a copy of my bill at no charge, but it'll take 7 to 10 business days.

Later, I realize, that I don't need to deal with this.  My iPhone wasn't stolen, I was robbed, I thought.  I don't need a contract to move forward.  I just need to file a report that I was robbed.  Remember the word "robbed."

So the next day, I go to the Los Angeles Airport Police Department.

Me: "I've been robbed."

Male officer: "Ok, did this just happen?"

Me: "No, it was yesterday evening."

Male officer: "Why didn't you come in then?"

Me: "I didn't have any evidence for the report."

Male officer: "What kind of evidence?"

Me: "I have the serial number, the last ping location an hour after I was robbed."

The female officer, still playing Angry Birds, offers her insight at random.

He startes filling out the report, and asks where this happened.  I told him it was in the Parking Lot C Bus Terminal.  He pauses, then looks up and says, "Do you want to do this legitimately?"

I've learned to stop talking when someone says something completely, utterly stupid.  I kept silent and vacantly stared at him.

He went on to explain that the location where this happened was under the jurisdiction of LASO.  What is LASO?  LASO is the cute term they use to mean LASO, you idiot.  Don't you know what the LASO is?

Los Angeles Sheriff's Office.  Only, they don't officially call themselves that.  It's actually called Los Angels County Sheriff's Department.

Ok, so I wasted my time.  Funny thing is, I knew I was wasting my time from the beginning.  I knew the only reason I was filing a report was because people were going to tell me to file a report.  If I had said, "No no, I'm not going to file a report.  That's a waste of time," people would have said I was being hyperbolic or obtuse or Typical Anthony™.

Now, I have to actually waste my time in order to prove it's a waste of time.

So I go home and call the number I got from the "helpful" officer at Los Angeles Airport Police Department who wasn't playing Angry Birds but may as well have been.  It's disconnected.

Head, meet desk.

Google LASO.  No relevant results.  That's when I find out the real name of the department.  LASO must have been something they called it before the Internet or something.  I am now trying to locate the correct department among three regions of unincorporated sheriff departments.  None of them seem to be right.  There doesn't seem to be a central way to report crime.

So I start completely over.

I call METRO.  I ask them who I would contact iffen I have been robbed.  They give me a number to the Sheriff.

I get through to a deputy who puts me on hold for a long time.  Apparently there was a train wreck or something.  Now, this guy is actually professional.  I'm not kidding.  I tell him I was robbed, he tells me he'll determine that.  Ok, good.  I tell him the facts, he tells me, no actually, since I wasn't physically on the bus when this happened, Los Angeles Airport Police Department is actually the correct jurisdiction and that the information I had been given earlier that day was in fact erroneous.

Like I said, he was actually professional.  He told me he was going to call the correct office while I was on the line and make sure I got to the correct department this time.

So these other departments managed to defeat this deputy's very professional strategy.  Here's how.  They wouldn't take the call.  I actually heard them hand this nice deputy off to different departments until he gave up and called some kind of central number.  The central number answered with a recording:

"You must tell the operator where you want officers and why you want officers."

"The following message is for the hearing impaired ... "

[SCREACH-SCREACH-BEEP-BEEP]

[Other languages]

They actually pump the TTY noise into the recording so you have to hold the phone away from your ear.

The deputy and I listened to this loop for about 15 minutes.  He finally gave up and asked if he could call me back.

He called back and said he got someone who will call me back.  I thanked him and told him he was very professional.

Now, apparently the correct department was calling me back, right?

Someone from Los Angeles Airport Police Department called back.  She wasn't playing Angry Birds and told me to call this other number.  It won't result in a police report.  She told me if I wanted to file an actual report, I should probably call my local jurisdiction to ask for a courtesy report.

So that's it.  I'm not filing a police report.  I'm done.  It's a waste of time.

There's always a chance that a larger crime will be committed with my iPhone somewhere in the vicinity.  In that off chance, it'll be confiscated during the course of such an investigation.  At that point, the serial number will be reported to Apple, and matched up with my name.  I might get it back then.  I'd have better odds winning the cost of the phone in the lottery.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Using The Higgs Boson To Prevent Terrorism

Imagine an elaborate system to prevent terrorism by using the theoretical quantum particle known as the Higgs boson.

To do this, one must build a rigid set of guidelines with a directed point of failure.  The point of failure will be used to decide if a Higgs boson particle should be created.

This boson doesn't "want" to be created.  The Higgs boson is a particle that should not exist in this spacetime frame.  It only exists in other frames of space-time.  If we cause this boson to appear in this frame of space-time, we will create a paradox.  But basic causality will prevent the Higgs boson from appearing in this frame.  It's just a fact of nature.  It's a scientific law.

In this way, it's similar to lightening.  Lightening travels through the path of least resistance.  In the case of a temporal paradox, causality will use the easiest effect to prevent a cause.  Cause and effect are reversed in the situation of a paradox framework.

When I say "easiest," I am not referring to Occam's Razor.  The actual effect that prevents the cause may appear to us as the least obvious effect.  So directing the effect is very difficult.

I think the best way would be to use encryption.  Each airplane that we would like to protect will carry several encryption keys all over the plane.  They will be made of very fragile material.  Under normal circumstances, if they plane remains intact, they keys will be retrievable.  If the keys are retrievable, they can be returned to the facility that will decide to then not attempt to produce the Higgs boson particle.

The keys are encrypted in order to prevent counterfeit keys from entering the equation.

That's the setup.  To summarize: Got all the keys?  Yes, we do?  Ok, then we will make no attempt to produce the particle today.  We'll try again tomorrow with new keys.

The tricky thing to remember is that the Higgs boson particle will only be produced if and only if a key is missing.  The idea is to build a system that will mean the easiest way to break down key retrieval is to destroy an airplane.  Since that is the easiest thing to do, causality will require terrorism to become harder.

Got all the keys?  No?  Uh oh, one or more is missing?  Ok, we shall now attempt to produce the particle that "doesn't want" to be produced (which then prevents the terrorist attack in the past).

It is important to ensure that the Higgs boson particle will be created in earnest if even one key is missing.  If the key is missing because a plane was destroyed, it is imperative that they attempt to proceed.  Doing so will then produce the effect to prevent the cause.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Bob the Builder Lives in a Socialist Society

Can I over-analyze everything?  Yes I Can!  Just remember that when you read this article.

So Bob the Builder is a children's TV show, depicting Bob as a building "contractor."  I use scare quotes because he doesn't ever formally contract with anyone. The show is broadcast in many countries, but originates from the UK.

One of the things I noticed is completely omitted from the show is the concept of money and economics.  Now, you might say that's fine because it's a children's show, so why complicate it with such ideas?

And you would be correct, except that I'm not talking about the lack of focus on these concepts.  I'm talking about the active and conscious omission of these topics.  Money in specific and economics in general are purposefully removed from the show.

Sure, maybe I'm over-analyzing.  Maybe I see things in a distorted way because of my views.  Not only that, but how does one prove a negative like this?  You can't.  So with that in mind, bare with me.

In "Snowed Under: The Bobblesberg Winter Games," there is a perfect opportunity to depict money or even just a credit card.  Bob checks into a hotel; Spud orders room service and even gets a job.  Yet there's no mention of cost or pay.

In "New To The Crew," the town's folk build all kinds of things out of an old willow tree.  "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!"  There is no association made between how much time it takes to do all these things and what the town's people could have been doing instead.  In economics, this is known as the "marginal alternative use" of resources.

The labor from the rest of the town is being hindered by the disposal of the old willow tree.  That is the marginal alternative use of this labor. Therefore, it is of utmost importance in this sector to be acquainted with the relevant investors and to manage the transaction process ideally.  That process is completely missing.  But it's not just ignored, it's actively omitted.

There are times when lack of labor is depicted.  But usually it is a result of poor character on the part of Bob's workforce (the machines do not represent automation, they represent labor only).  They are usually messing around and have a lesson to learn in the end.  Labor being misallocated never results in a labor shortage.  If there's a chance of labor shortage, Bob just brings in more machines with no explanation as to how they are acquired.

Bob and his team always evaluate the ability to accomplish the task by Bob asking, "Can we fix it?"  His team always enthusiastically responds with "Yes we can!"  But they never ask "Should we fix it?"  A socialist society would never be able to answer a question "Should we fix it?"

Is it better to have a bonfire with the wood from an old tree or have the whole town build random stuff with it?  Is it time to tear down a stricture or repair it?  They don't ever know the answers for sure.  This is because a socialistic society is blind without prices.

You might say that depicting intricate economic concepts like this is beyond children.  Most children's shows skip money.  On the other hand, Bob talks about intricate environmental and ecological concerns all the time.  They depict civics and regulations.  They even depict endless paperwork.  Wait, what?  So why not at least touch on economic concerns then?  Why this and not that?

Instead, economic ideas are purposefully removed.  The desire to simplify can lead to economic illiteracy, which we have plenty of already.  Granted, the show is meant for a world-wide audience.  To depict prices means showing currency, which might tie the show to a specific geographical locale.  But that's a lousy reason to omit something.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

That Bin Laden Killing

I have some vague sense that many people are opposed to capital punishment, and for good reason, and especially when there is no trial and conviction, and yet we are expected uncritically to celebrate the death of Bin Laden at the hands of the U.S. state. The government needs glory and we are supposed to provide it, regardless of the cost (which, as Anthony Gregory points out, has been American liberty itself, in addition to possibly millions of lives). Lew Rockwell points out that there is a reason for the timing of this announcement. Regardless, so intense is the pressure not to question any aspect of this that the Cato Institute took the trouble to issue a note of congratulations and inform us all of what a “huge debt” we all owe to the government for its magnificence. The killing also permits simple minded people to imagine that all U.S. foreign policy struggles with Islam are due to one bearded guy with a grudge and have nothing to do with, for example, the American penchant for invading other people’s countries and stationing troops in the lands that Islam considers holy.

via blog.mises.org

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Road Trip, 2011

I meant to post this sooner but the time would always get away from me.  In fact, I started this post on the trip, thinking I'd be able to finish it along the way.  Yeah right.  I also lost part of the article in an error, so I had to reconstruct that part of it (mostly just image placement).  Anyway, here we go.

Karen let me load a GPS Tracker application on her phone so we could get data points for the entire trip.  I really appreciate her letting me record the data this way.  It meant she had to leave her phone in the GPS Tracker application, due to how it's designed.  Thanks, Karen.

This is more of an analysis of the road trip and the places we visited along the way.

We started our trip at about 10:00 AM on March 26th.  By the time we reached Richfield, nine and a half hours later, we had traveled 528.7 miles.  Well, you can see these kinds of stats in the map data.  And as I mentioned to my mother, 93 MPH is likely due to the speed required to overtake, and the fact that the speed limit in Utah is 80 MPH.

I could have also blamed GPS jitter on the recorded max speed.  GPS is not a reliable method for detecting speed.  A variance of 15% can easily be introduced by GPS technology.  But the fact is, I did indeed see the speedometer reach about 90+ MPH.

Of course, the "average speed" is incorrect.  This average is robotically calculated using the "portal-to-portal" method, not taking into account any stops along the way.

This route took us right through Las Vegas.  Hannah was impressed with the buildings, especially the ones with the gold windows.  The land forms gradually got more and more interesting as we briefly drove through Arizona then into Utah.  It really did look painted.  And in Utah, the land was just as colorful, but with the added detail of snow to top it off.

By the time we reached Richfield, the kids really had enough.  It really was "drive until you puke."  And it was a good thing we stopped when we did because there were no services for a very long time after that.

We stayed at the Comfort Inn, Richfield, at which Hannah was very impressed with the luggage cart she got to ride in.  Hannah also discovered a few constants.  She finds constants comforting, as many children do.  She is a self-saving princess when it comes to these details.  I guess it's a coping skill.  One constant she noticed was that each hotel has individually wrapped plastic cups.  They also usually have a pad of paper and a pen stashed somewhere for her to write with.

Also, come to find out, the room had quite a view, which the kids didn't notice until the next morning.  On your left was the indoor pool, in basically a greenhouse thing.  And directly in front was a giant pile of dirt.  If you know our kids, this view was absolutely mind-blowing.  Both Hannah and Benjamin were frantically working out their spacial reasoning to find a path to these attractions.  Didn't work.

We had our complementary breakfast and we were off again like a herd of elephants.

The snow was still high above us in Utah.  Notice the purple line along the 50, above.  This is a gap in the cellular signal for data (voice apparently worked alright, if you like that feature).  That purple line is also about the distance we saw "no services" signs, if I recall correctly.  There is really not a lot going on along the 50 in Utah.

Again the average speed was extremely low, this time because we stopped for lunch just after reaching the Colorado border.  We reached our first planned stop of the trip: Uncle Roddy & Aunt Heather in Eagle.  Or, as Benjamin and TJ would recall, if you asked them: The Place With the Working DVD Player!

The next morning, it snowed.

So I posted a picture of the snow on Facebook.  Not long after I posted the picture, I got a reply:

• • 

    Bruce Snow?! I'll bet he's excited to see it. We've got some here in Colorado this morning too, poor little wet flurries trying so hard. They don't stand a chance on the warm spring ground.

    March 28 at 11:07am 
  • 

    Anthony Yeah, that's Colorado snow, actually. :)

    March 28 at 11:59am 
  • 

    Bruce Anywhere near Lakewood? Coffee's on!

    March 28 at 12:25pm 
  • 

    Anthony It appears we are two or three hours away, and we're going in that direction. We'll bring the PB&J!

    March 28 at 2:08pm 

The drive out of Eagle seemed rather daunting due to all this new snow.  But the plows had already done their first passes, so we had asphalt most of the way.  Only commercial vehicles were "advised" to use chains.  Even so, all vehicles were expected (under threat of violence) to have chains just in case things got worse.

When we came down 5,000 feet, we were past most of the snow, for the moment.  It was a lovely visit Stormy and Bruce in Lakewood (except for the part where Benjamin threw a huge rock down the stairs).  We watched a Barney video, had PB&J, and talked.

• 

  Bruce

  Enjoyed our visit with Anthony Martin and family. Quote of the day: Hannah, on our porch, looking at the trees and the mountains - "Wow! Wow, this is so NICE! Wow! And in heaven it'll be even NICER!"

We found another Comfort Inn in Burlington just before entering Kansas.  The luggage cart was totally beyond Hannah's expectations.  It was gold and had a gold ball on top.  She thought it was simply lovely.  And Benjamin spotted a Doritos truck in the inn's parking lot and yelled "CHIPS!!"

The next day, it snowed.  Again.  And it rained the whole time we were driving in Kansas.  In fact, this part of our journey has the best travel stats of all legs going in that direction ...

One state.  One day.  Did you know Kansas has about fifty Oz Museums?  We did stop for Burger King in Kansas City.  We stated at the Econo Lodge, Chillicothe, which is a type of Best Western (according to a traceroute I ran out of their WiFi).  It was probably the best of all on this trip, except that they had no luggage cart.  There was no need for one since we parked right in front of our room.

Missouri is the state I got pulled over for driving too fast on the wrong lane (that's only the passing lane, I guess).  After presenting our papers, the trooper let us go with a wink and sort-of a verbal warning.  I didn't have to try to convince him that states don't exist or anything like that.  Yay!

Eventually we made our way to the house of my friend Aaron and his family.  Now Aaron would have me believe the Jackson Family was just on their best behavior due to the presence of the Martin Family.  But I think they're a nice bunch and he doesn't give them enough credit.

We also stopped off for a while at a mall in Indianapolis before reaching Columbus Ohio.  We stayed at the Super 8 in Ohio.

There is a really neat Burger King in Fredrick, Maryland.  That's where we had dinner before reaching our destination in Middletown, Delaware.  Here's the Burger King:

So we stayed a week in Delaware, on a farm.  Karen's grandparents have such a nice home.  Take a look:

We also visited some family in Virgina.  We had a blast spending the day with them.  We met everyone at Red Robin then set the kids loose at a nearby park.

I mostly documented the trip home on Facebook, so take a look at my wall for details about that.  We went to Virginia to see some more of Karen's family, saw the sites there, drove down to North Carolina and stayed a couple days.  After that, it was the long drive home.  Apparently we just missed the biggest tornados anyone has seen in a long time.

Would we do it again?  I think most certainly.  The drive was long, but I think it was worth it.  If anything, the country is smaller now to us because of this trip.  Now I personally know what we can tackle in a day and what we can tackle in a week.

All GPS tracking information provided on behalf of InstaMapper.com

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

An Evening of Eschatology The Meaning of the Millennium

You’re listening to An Evening of Eschatology

• Watch:
• Full Length
• Listen:
• Full Length
• Download
  • Video: Full Length
  • Audio: Full Length

The following is background by John Piper on this event and the issues being discussed. Listen to the audio or watch the video for the conversation itself.

On September 27, 2009, Desiring God and Bethlehem College & Seminary hosted “An Evening on Eschatology” at the Downtown Campus of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. It was attended by about 800 people who sat in the darkened sanctuary while six cameras were trained on the brightly lit roundtable where the four participants sat in a circle.

via desiringgod.org

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Toy Story Birthday

See the full gallery on Posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Pie Index (final)

Well, looks like this is my last entry for Pie Index. I haven't been updating this section of my blog because the price hasn't really changed for quite a while. Then this happened:

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Literally

via i.imgur.com

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Question Digested!

Question Digested: 1470

The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply.  Your question was:

Oh great and powerful Oracle ...

I like your Old Spice commercials.  Keep up the good work.

And in response, thus spake the Oracle:

Hello supplicant.  Look at your query, now look at me, now back at your query, now back to me.

Sadly, it isn't a query.  But if your query stopped using a ladies scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, it could ask me a real

question.

Look down, back up, where are you?  You are asking a question that is truly a question and not merely suck up to the Oracle.

What's in your hand?  Back at me, I have it.  Its an oyster with two tickets to that thing that you love.  Look again, the tickets are now

diamonds.  Anything is possible when your query smells like a man and not a lady, and actually poses a question for the Oracle.

You owe the Oracle some lavender scented bubble bath.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Anatomy of a Straw Man | The Threshing Floor

Practice dummies used for military training are supposed to represent the enemy, but are much easier to attack and defeat.  When it comes to arguing a theological position, Strawman argumentation is far too common place.  When arguing against a particular position, you should be able to state the opposing position in such a way that someone who holds to it would say in response to your summation of it “Yes, that is what I believe.”  However, far too often the one engaging in apologetics will rather confuse his own assessment of an opposing position for that position itself.

What do I mean?

Let’s take Calvinism as an example.  The stock objections to Calvinism (that it makes all men out to be puppets or robots, that it contradicts the love of God for every sinner, etc.) have been answered ad infinitum in many forums.  Yet, when the assessment comes from the opponent of Calvinism, it is based on a faulty understanding of the doctrines of grace.   Usually the critic’s arrows are aimed at Hypercalvinism and not Calvinism properly so called.  Be that as it may, the objections are continually re-asserted and usually without the benefit of addressing the proponent’s specific defense of what he holds to be revealed in Scripture.

So, here’s a little exercise for you.  When an opponent’s assertion is made, ask someone (if possible) who holds that position “Do you believe {fill in the blank}?  I think you’ll find the answers interesting.

What’s the anatomy of the Straw Man?  Let’s consider:

Bob holds position X.

Larry disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.  Therefore Y is a distorted view of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1.  Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.

2.  Quoting an opponent’s words out of context–i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions

3.  Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments–thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

4.  Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5.  Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

That’s why when I read apologetics, one of the first questions I ask before I dig too far into the argumentation is, “Does this person really understand the position he or she is attempting to refute?”  Look for the  summation statement of what the author is attempting to attack.  The answer will be very telling.  It will also save you a lot of time, as you would best be served by reading the critics who actually understand the “enemy”.

[reference Wikipedia under "Straw Man]

via winnowingfork.wordpress.com

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Bitcoin Mining Cartels: A Total Non-Threat

The short SHORT version of the problem: Cartels are bad.

My short SHORT version of the solution: Fix bugs.  Focus on p2p.  Stay the course.  Ignore the cartels and they'll go away.

There is an interesting discussion on the Bitcoin forum about mining cartels. Some of the forum members are worried that a group of individuals might mount an attack on the Bitcoin network using a cartel style attack.

How is a cartel style attack potentially more of a problem than a non-cartel style attack?

Any cartel entity coordinates itself to represent a threat to the non-cartel entities.  It is comprised of people who want to subvert their target by allying themselves together to share resources and maintain "out of band" communication to that end.

In this case, the worry is that mining cartels will form to target the Bitcoin network.

How can this approach succeed against the Bitcoin network?  A cartel could generate blocks ahead of the network, holding out on announcing these new blocks until they get an advantage by manipulating these withheld blocks.  In other words, they can try to hoard new blocks while they monkey with them by creating cartelized blocks.

A cartelized block contains cartel approved transactions.  If you are being rewarded by the cartel, your transaction will be included in the block.  If you are being punished by the cartel, your transaction will be delayed or dropped completely.

I left out a lot of details in my explanation above.  If you want to know more, take a look at the original thread.

The reason I am skeptical that a mining cartel would ever represent a threat to the Bitcoin network is that in order for the cartel to succeed, it would have to run a very tight ship.

The folk in the thread I mentioned shows that there are all kinds of technical roadblocks to prevent this attack.  The most likely roadblocks typically implement more p2p solutions, not less.

In other words, add more p2p oriented features to Bitcoin so the cartel must cope with things like keeping timestamps in the proper sequence.

And I'm totally in favor of a greater p2p focus, beyond what is already implemented.  The more, the better.

Beyond that and fixing bugs, nothing formal should be done to deal with mining cartels.

Why?  Because they'll do what every other cartel has done in history.  They will self destruct on their own.  It may take some time, but down the line, I can tell, that every cartel in history either self destructs or gets violent.

An example cartel in history may have started off as a friendly pact among good business associates.  But once someone inside the cartel betrays his buddies, something has to give.

And the more p2p focus there is, the less likely violence will be possible in any meaningful way, so the mining cartel can only self destruct.  Maybe it can try to start over with a smaller, more trusted circle.  That's the only option for it: cartel fragmentation.  Fragmentation reduces the chance of a successful attack.

In historical examples, cartels get overtly violent or they join up with government so that the violence becomes legitimized by law.  Cartels benefit from the "captured regulator" effect when they join up with government so they can regulate away competition.  That's just not an option for a well focused p2p implementation.

So what if the cartel is able to maintain control of its members to keep them from breaking ranks?  Well, that's the ultimate boogie-man, isn't it?  It only takes one member to take it down.  But ok, let's say it happens.  Then what?

I'm not suggesting this would be a quick fix, but if the cartel has really done damage to the integrity of the network, then set up a new p2p currency and abandon Bitcoin, if it really is that bad off.  Call it Bytecoin or something.  Or Twobitcoin.  I liked the name Hashcash, but the name doesn't matter.  The cartels can have their own private currency all to themselves.  Either they keep spending CPU time on the old abandoned network they just took over or they start completely over with a brand new network.  Competition makes everything better.

And as Fred Brooks said, "Make one to throw away, you will anyway."

If you liked this post, send me a tip: 1PEVK4G27Lp8q8GnAbBiJqVQzCAK5hZGcB

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Did You Give Up On Bitcoin?

One of the more compelling ideas of Bitcoin is that everyone has a chance to be the Ben Bernanke.  Meaning, everyone has a chance to "print money out of thin air."  The specification of Bitcoin is such that its money supply is "generated" by individuals who run the client on the network in "generate mode."  If you run it long enough, at least for now, you have a chance to produce 50 BTC (BTC is the currency code that stands for Bitcoin).

But if you were attracted to this idea, lately you may have noticed that it has been harder and harder to generate.  The simple fact is, the more people trying to produce, the less of a chance you'll have yourself.  On top of that, there are more people who resort to using their GPUs (graphics card) these days than ever before.  In a matter of months, the opportunity to generate Bitcoins seems to have dried up.

The good news is that there are new opportunities.  If you want to generate, I would like to recommend the Bluish Coder:

http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/bitcoin-pool/

This is the group that picked the Bitcoin Remote Pooled Mining application to collect lower powered machines together so they can have a chance to generate.  If you have Windows or Linux (Mac OS X has limited support if you really dig), you can contribute your own CPU time to the mix and get a cut.  It's not 50 BTC, but it's something.

The amount you generate depends on the speed of your system, how long you participate, and how many other users are in the pool.  Yes, the amount is much smaller, but it's much better than nothing.

Of course, just like the carrot of 50 BTC, there's a chance your efforts will not pay off.  But you never know unless you try.  Since the time this pool was established, it generated 2 blocks, which means it distributed 100 BTC, so far, among all those who participated.  But the more people who participate, the smaller the winnings.

The advantage of pooling in this way is that none of the participants work against each other.  If you have two systems churning away on the official client, they are working against each one another by definition.  But in an alternative system like this, none of the systems in the pool do redundant work.

It is even possible to set up your own private pool with this kind of software, if that's what you want.  That way, if you have multiple computers, they would no longer work against each other.  But if you have only two computers to devote to Bitcoin generating, you may not see any results.

If you liked this post, send me a tip: 1PLoWWLHU27p1c66r9S3wkjRCNcL8AcY8D

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Bitcoin Declines After Rally to Record Prompts Investor Selling

Bitcoin declined after a rally to a record prompted some investors sell and as the strengthening dollar reduced the appeal of the crypto-currency as an alternative asset.

Recent price gains have led to profit-taking by some investors but it has probably not lead to an overall digital cash downtrend.  This is likely temporary profit-taking before the end of the year.  Bitcoin will continue to be favored through next year as a haven.

The dollar rose for a third day against most of its major counterparts on expectations an extension of tax cuts will bolster an economic recovery in the U.S. President Barack Obama agreed to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years. A report tomorrow is forecast to show U.S. initial jobless claims declined.  Bitcoin typically moves inversely to the greenback.

Bitcoin has jumped 29 percent these last months after governments spent trillions of dollars and kept borrowing costs low to bolster economies hurt by the most severe global recession since World War II.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

US Judge OKs confession extracted by threatening suspect with rape #09CARACAS442

Original story reported back in May by Reuters:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCATRE63R2DF20100506

Now it's being reported that this a perfectly valid form of:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/15yearold-gitmo-detainee-threatened/

"In one of the first military commissions held under the Obama administration, a US military judge has ruled that confessions obtained by threatening the subject with rape are admissible in court."

There's also a leaked cable that lists rape threats as one of the methods "Cuban Police" use to coerce CMPP applicants of something called a "US Embassy issued YY visa foil."

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09CARACAS442.html

So this is yet another "do as I say, not as I do" situation.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup #09TEGUCIGALPA645

This one really bugs me for some reason.  It reminds me of the School House Rock spoof video "Pirates and Emperors."

First of all, I think it's interesting that Wikileaks is being lambasted for releasing these cables.  But I do have a question.  Is there a given cable that should have been kept a secret?  Taken as a whole, it's easy to be critical.  But if you look at them one-at-a-time, specifically which cable do Wikileak's critics claim should not have been released?  If you can find one, I'd be willing to evaluate it.  But all collectivists always love to generalize everything (that's a little dry humor, by the way, I realize I just generalized).  The point is, what is so critical to national security?  Please be specific.

I know it would take quite a while to look at them one-at-a-time.  And sometimes the problem isn't readily apparent on both sides.  So I'll agree that not all of these cables are smoking guns if the critics are willing to admit not all of them as a whole represent a breach of national security.

Taking them each carefully, there are some examples of U.S. "Hegemony" demonstrated in specific cables.  In the political game, you can't be against hegemony if you are nationalistic.  So that's simple, I'm not nationalistic.  Do I like the regimes that the U.S. government is monkeying with?  No, not really.  But not liking a regime doesn't mean I want to topple it using a relativistic approach.

I can be against elected national socialistic regimes without undermining them by using relativistic means.  I guess the democratic process is the best in the world until it isn't.  That seems to be the criteria the U.S. government uses.

U.S. "interests" trump everything, apparently.  Why would we support it?

The article below mentions an Oliver Stone documentary at the end called "South of the Border."  It's a bit dry.  It makes the point over and over that the U.S. foreign policy is being used all over South America.  The cable confirms this notion.  Internally, the U.S. has no issue secretly attempting to topple governments it doesn't like.  And while these South American governments are socialist regimes that are totally wrong, it doesn't mean anyone has to police them and "fix" them, at tax payers expense.

Believe me, I think people like Hugo Chavez and his ilk are a desease of South America masquerading as its own cure.  But U.S. involvement is like recommending cancer as a cure for AIDS.

All the U.S. does is make enemies for itself.  It spreads the IMF and the DEA which actually create more problems than they solve.  And this is the democracy that is so wonderful?  Really?

The Oliver Stone documentary also holds out the hope that the Obama Administration would correct the mistakes of past administrations.  It looks like this specific leaked cable proves nothing of the sort.  No administration is willing to leave its neighbors alone.  Yet supposedly the U.S. is hated for its freedom.  But we all suffer the consequences, giving ammunition for our neighbors hate us.

By July 24, 2009, the U.S. government was totally clear about the basic facts of what took place in Honduras on June 28, 2009. The U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable to Washington with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." The Embassy listed arguments being made by supporters of the coup to claim its legality, and dismissed them thus: "none... has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution." The Honduran military clearly had no legal authority to remove President Zelaya from office or from Honduras, the Embassy said, and their action -- the Embassy described it as an "abduction" and "kidnapping" -- was clearly unconstitutional.

It is inconceivable that any top U.S. official responsible for U.S. policy in Honduras was not familiar with the contents of the July 24 cable, which summarized the assessment of the U.S. Embassy in Honduras on key facts that were politically disputed by supporters of the coup regime. The cable was addressed to Tom Shannon, then Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; Harold Koh, the State Department's Legal Adviser; and Dan Restrepo, Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council. The cable was sent to the White House and to Secretary of State Clinton.

But despite the fact that the U.S. government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the U.S. did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by U.S. law.

Instead, a month after this cable was sent, the State Department, in its public pronouncements, pretended that the events of June 28 -- in particular, "who did what to whom" and the constitutionality of these actions -- were murky and needed further study by State Department lawyers, despite the fact that the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, knew exactly "who did what to whom" and that these actions were unconstitutional at least one month earlier. The State Department, to justify its delay in carrying out U.S. law, invented a legal distinction between a "coup" and a "military coup," claiming that the State Department's lawyers had to determine whether a "military coup" took place, because only that determination would meet the legal threshold for the aid cutoff.

QUESTION: And so - sorry, just a follow-up. If this is a coup - the State Department considers this a coup, what's the next step? And I mean, there is a legal framework on the U.S. laws dealing with countries that are under coup d'état? I mean, what's holding you guys [back from taking] other measures according [to] the law?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think what you're referring to, Mr. Davila, is whether or not this is - has been determined to be a military coup. And you're correct that there are provisions in our law that have to be applied if it is determined that this is a military coup. And frankly, our lawyers are looking at that exact question. And when we get the answer to that, you are right, there will be things that - if it is determined that this was a military coup, there will be things that will kick in.

As you know, on the ground, there's a lot of discussion about who did what to whom and what things were constitutional or not, which is why our lawyers are really looking at the event as we understand them in order to come out with the accurate determination.

 

But the July 24 cable shows that this was nonsense. The phrase "military coup" occurs nowhere in the document, a remarkable omission in a cable from the Embassy presenting the Embassy's analysis of the June 28 events, their constitutionality and legality one month after the fact, if that were a crucial distinction in assessing U.S. policy. And indeed, initial press reports on the statements of top U.S. officials in response to the coup made no such distinction, using the descriptions "coup" and "military coup" interchangeably.

Why did the State Department drag its feet, pretending that facts which it knew to be clear-cut were murky? Why didn't the State Department speak publicly after July 24 with the same moral clarity as the July 24 cable from the Embassy in Honduras? Had the State Department shared publicly the Embassy's clear assessment of the June 28 events after July 24, history might have turned out differently, because supporters of the coup in the United States -- including Republican Members of Congress and media talking heads -- continued to dispute basic facts about the coup which the US Embassy in Honduras had reported were not subject to reasonable dispute, and U.S. media reporting on the coup continued to describe these facts as subject to reasonable dispute, long after the Embassy had firmly declared that they were not.

As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted in an August 2009 report, in the previous 12 months the U.S. had responded to other coups by cutting U.S. aid within days. In these cases -- in Africa -- there was no lengthy deliberation on whether a "coup" was a "military coup."

What was the difference?

A key difference was that Honduras is in Central America, "our backyard," so different rules applied. Top officials in Washington supported the political aims of the coup. They did not nominally support the means of the coup, as far as we know, but they supported its political end: the removal of the ability of President Zelaya and his supporters to pursue a meaningful reform project in Honduras. On the other hand, they were politically constrained not to support the coup openly, since they knew it to be illegal and unconstitutional. Thus, they pursued a "diplomatic compromise," which would "restore constitutional order" while achieving the coup's central political aim: removal of the ability of President Zelaya and his supporters to pursue a meaningful reform project in Honduras. The effect of their efforts at "diplomatic compromise" was to allow the coup to stand, a result that these supporters of the coup's political aims were evidently content with.

Why does this matter now?

First, the constitutional and political crisis in Honduras is ongoing, and the failure of the U.S. to take immediate, decisive action in response to the coup was a significant cause of the ongoing crisis. After nominally opposing the coup, and slowly and fitfully implementing partial sanctions against the coup regime in a way that did not convince the coup regime that the U.S. was serious, the U.S. moved to support elections under the coup regime which were not recognized by the rest of the hemisphere, and today the U.S. is lobbying for the government created by that disputed election to be readmitted to the Organization of American States, in opposition to most of the rest of the hemisphere, despite ongoing, major violations of human rights in Honduras, about which the U.S. is doing essentially nothing.

Second, the relationship of actual U.S. policy -- as opposed to rhetorical pronouncements -- to democracy in the region is very much a live issue from Haiti to Bolivia.

Yesterday there was an election in Haiti. This election was funded by the U.S., despite the fact that major parties were excluded from participation by the government's electoral council, a fact that Republican and Democratic Members of Congress, in addition to NGOs, complained about without result. The Washington Post reports that the election ended with "nearly all the major candidates calling for the results to be tossed out amid 'massive fraud.'": "12 of the 19 candidates on Sunday's ballot appeared together at a raucous afternoon news conference to accuse the government of President Rene Preval of trying to steal the election and install his chosen candidate, Jude Celestin."

Yesterday's election in Haiti had the fingerprints of the U.S. government all over it. It was funded by the U.S. "Security" for the election was purportedly provided by UN troops, paid for by the U.S. And the crucial historical context of the election was the 2004 coup that deposed democratically-elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide, a coup engineered by the U.S. with years of economic destruction clearly intended to topple the elected government.

Last week, Bolivian President Evo Morales called out the U.S. for its recent history of supporting coups in the region.

AP's treatment of President Morales' remarks was instructive:

Morales also alleged U.S. involvement in coup attempts or political upheaval in Venezuela in 2002, Honduras in 2009 and Ecuador in 2010.

"The empire of the United States won," in Honduras, Morales said, a reference to the allegations of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya that the U.S. was behind his ouster.

"The people of the Americas in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, we won," Morales continued. "We are three to one with the United States. Let's see what the future brings."

U.S. officials have repeatedly denied involvement in all of those cases and critics of the United States have produced no clear evidence. [my emphasis]

It's certainly true that critics have produced "no clear evidence" of U.S. "involvement" in any of these cases -- if your standard for "clear evidence" of U.S. "involvement" is a US government document that dictated in advance everything that subsequently happened. But this would be like saying that critics have produced "no clear evidence" for the Armenian Genocide because researchers haven't yet found a Turkish Mein Kampf. [Some who dispute that there was an "Armenian Genocide" do actually claim something like this -- "there is no proof of a plan" -- but claims like this are generally not taken seriously by U.S. media -- except when the U.S. government is an author of the crime, and the crime is recent.]

 

In the case of the coup in Venezuela in 2002, we know the following:

- Groups in Venezuela that participated in the coup had been supported financially and politically by the U.S.

- The CIA had advance knowledge of the plans for a coup, and did nothing to warn the Venezuelan government; nor did the US do anything meaningful to try to stop the coup.

- Although the US knew in advance about the plans for a coup, when these events played out, the US tried to claim that there was no coup.

- The US pushed for international recognition of the coup government.

- The International Monetary Fund, which would not take such action without advance approval from the United States, announced its willingness to support the coup government a few hours after the coup took place.

These facts about U.S. government "involvement" in the coup in Venezuela are documented in Oliver Stone's recent movie, South of the Border. This is why it's so important for as many Americans as possible to see this movie: because there are basic facts about the relationship of actual U.S. government policies -- as opposed to rhetoric -- to democracy in Latin America that major U.S. media simply cannot be counted upon to report straight. In order to successfully agitate for meaningful reform of U.S. government policy in Latin America, Americans have to know what the actual policy of the U.S. government has been, something they are unlikely to learn from major U.S. media.

And this is why Just Foreign Policy is urging Americans to organize house parties on December 10 -- Human Rights Day -- to watch South of the Border. You can sign up to host a screening here.

Here is a clip from South of the Border, in which Scott Wilson, formerly foreign editor of the Washington Post, describes the "involvement" of the U.S. in the coup in Venezuela:

And here is a clip from South of the Border in which President Morales talks with Oliver Stone about the role of the media:

Oliver Stone: "Now [Morales] is joining the Hugo ranks, becoming more the 'bad left' in the American media."

President Morales: "The media will always try to criminalize the fight against neoliberalism, colonialism, and imperialism. It's almost normal. The worst enemy I have is the media."

 

South of the Border Clip #2 from Cinema Libre Studio on Vimeo.

 

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman

via huffingtonpost.com

 

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Private Banking and Other Free Market Myths

It's time to have an adult conversation about private vs. public.  There is no private banking system, at least not on the large scale.  If we had a private banking system, it would be able to go under.  The ability to fail is one of the main criteria that makes something private.  Safety nets obscure this notion.  It blurs this distinction.  If the safety net is big enough and strong enough, it obliterates this distinction.

No organization that is shielded from failure is private.  It can't be.  Failure avoidance is the incentive that makes organizations efficient.

If you could eat ten cheesecakes with no risk, wouldn't you?  I mean no risk at all.  If the cheesecakes were free ... if you knew you wouldn't feel sick later in the short term ... if you knew you wouldn't gain weight in the long term ... if you knew you would have no chance of a coronary in the very long term ... what would stop you from eating ten cheesecakes every day?

Failure and risk are natural checks and balances.  It's the ultimate cost of doing business.

The same is true financially as with the cheesecakes.  There is no credible risk of a large bank going under.  Even if a bank looks like its at risk, it will be absorbed by another.  Assets will be transferred, liabilities will be wiped out.  The executives get their pay.  Their bonus will resume.  Did you know CEO bonuses are higher today than they've ever been, even in the middle of this recession?

 

I don't want to focus on the bonuses.  They are a drop in the bucket.  Focusing on executive bonus is just an indicator, similar to porkbarrel spending, which is also a drop in the bucket.  But if you want to know the health of an institution, take executive bonuses for banks and porkbarrel spending for legislators to extrapolate.  When they're out of whack, the institution is in trouble.

"Too Big To Fail" is just a cute euphemism for nationalization.  The banks have been nationalized long long ago.  You could say it happened in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created.  It took a long time to devalue the currency to this point.  It's just like the frog in luke-warm water.  The frog has been in there a very long time.  It's a very tender frog.

In the real private industry, if you do a bad job, your profits are hit at some point.  You might be able to shield or cloak your losses for a while.  But eventually, reality sets in and you have to deal with the problem.  The more deception used to shield the loss, the more the losses pile up.  And if you can just call your "uncle" to make the losses just disappear, then guess what?  You are no longer in the private industry.  You've been nationalized.  It's that simple.

So what's wrong with nationalization?  Well, the failure guarantee is no longer implicit.  The failure guarantee becomes explicit.  Is there an implicit guarantee for banks anymore?  No.  It's completely explicit.  Therefore, they are a nationalized industry.  There's no need for speculating when nationalization will happen.  It's a done deal.  The implicit guarantee is an indicator that will lead to the explicit guarantee.

Has healthcare been nationalized?  Yes it has.  Is the doctor guaranteed to get paid?  Well, at the moment, the guarantee is just implicit.  If enough of them suffer devastating losses (high malpractice, financial ruin from non-payment, anything you can think of), they will become "Too Important To Fail" (or come up with some other cute euphemism).  So while doctors are still at risk of financial ruin at the moment because the relationship between doctor and government hasn't been completely hammered out in practice, there is no doubt in my mind, if a sudden crisis hits the medical field, government will pull out the safety net.  If the sudden crisis isn't forthcoming, it will be created.  "Never waste a disaster," as they say.

Is this all some big mistake?  Nope, it's by design.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Reply to The Underground Economist, Why Bitcoin can't be a currency

I wasn’t going to make a post bashing Bitcoin because their FAQ clearly states that its value only stems from the fact that merchants are willing to accept it. Unfortunately, this hasn’t stopped people from pushing it as the currency of the future, so regretfully, I feel compelled to post why this is not so.

While Bitcoin has managed to bootstrap itself on a limited scale, it lacks any mechanism for dealing with fluctuations in demand. Increasing demand for Bitcoin will cause prices in terms of Bitcoin to drop (deflation), while decreasing demand will cause them to rise (inflation). What happens in each of these cases?

Let’s start with deflation, because right now demand for Bitcoin is on the rise. What do people do when they think something’s value will be higher tomorrow than it is today? Well, they acquire and hold on to it! Who wants to give up money that’s constantly rising in value? In other words, rising demand causes demand to rise further. Irrational exuberance at its finest. Deflation begets deflation, ad infinitum, or at least until something breaks. You could make lots of money on Bitcoin, provided you get out of the market at the right time.

Eventually, of course, prices won’t be able to fall any further. Either people won’t be spending their Bitcoin anyway because they’re making so much money just by holding it, or the merchants will get tired of changing their prices every few seconds, assuming they don’t hit technical issues first, like the indivisibility of coins or their software not being able to handle all the zeros after decimal points.

At this point or shortly before, people will start taking their profits. They’ll start spending or selling their hoarded coins. If this manages to start any inflationary momentum at all, you’ll see the deflation scenario played out in reverse. And who’s going to stop it? The supply of Bitcoin is fixed and there is no other use for it besides as a currency. I doubt prices will have much of a chance to rise, since this will happen so fast. Merchants will go from taking one coin for a year of porn to not taking Bitcoin at all, and a bunch of people will be left with worthless Bitcoin.

The reason this can’t happen with government currencies is that government currencies *are* backed. They’re backed by bullets. If demand for USD starts to fall faster than the USG would like, the USG can just raise taxes without increasing spending, increasing demand and reducing supply simultaneously. There’s a bunch of stuff the FED can do, of course, and the FED tends to act first, but its operations are harder to explain. This is obviously not a perfect mechanism, since bubbles are still blown and popped, but even this mechanism is not available with Bitcoin.

Negative feedback loops like this are basically homeostasis. In nature, positive feedback loops like exist with Bitcoin are lethal; the only thing that’s even kept Bitcoin alive this long is its novelty. Either it will remain a novelty forever or it will transition from novelty status to dead faster than you can blink.

via undergroundeconomist.com

This is an interesting and honest critique. I especially like the part about how governments can protect their currencies with bullets. That is so true.

It is true that merchants must update their prices to reflect the current market price of Bitcoin. But there are mechanisms to make this less tedious. For instance, if you use the MyBitcoin.com shopping cart integration, you can peg your product against USD so your BTC price stays in sync. This isn't a perfect solution because getting an accurate peg relies upon the fledgling market data that comes from the Bitcoin exchanges.

Another barrier against the falling price against the BTC value is the use of inventory. This is something somewhat unheard of in USD denominated economies. If you prepare your inventory blocks for multiple sets of price, when you run out of inventory at one price, then inventory in another price becomes available. Welcome to the deflationary economy. It's fun!

Another problem cited by the author above is the problem of having to handle all the zeros after the decimal point. But many government currencies have this same problem in reverse. I.e., they have to handle all the zeros *in front* of the decimal point.

So the author is very worried about Bitcoin deflation. But I am looking forward to it very much. If demand for Bitcoin is that high, it should be very interesting indeed. I, for one, think the coin division isn't prepared *enough*. I think we should be expecting 10^-32, just to be on the safe side. If you have even 50 BTC, right now, hold it. When scarcity *really* sets in, that will be a tidy sum (e.g. if you think 20¢ one-month rise against USD is a lot, you ain't seen nothing yet).

If you liked this post, send me a tip: 1DfDcStVbwjWtuuxQs6vNj1zG7KKDDrekA

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog