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:
Monday, February 14, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
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.
Friday, December 31, 2010
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]
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
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.
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.
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
Saturday, December 11, 2010
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:
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
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
