One thing I found a bit alarming is that the FAQ page says advertising funds are held by the site. It's good they realize the threat though and say a multisig solution will be rolled out. I hope this multisig solution will be rolled out quickly, otherwise I don't see big advertisers trusting the site with a lot of money.
This especially worries me for a site where the contact page doesn't list any names or addresses. A site with no address that only wants BitCoin screams scam to me.
So, do you think that if enough people want to peacefully live without government interference at all (e.g. without a government) they don't deserve to do so and they don't deserve, for example, to be sold a piece of land to completely secede from state?
The idea of "owning" a piece of land yet seceding from the state is itself a totally ridiculous concept. Without the state, you "own" what you can defend. God won't come down and defend your "natural right" of property ownership. If you can defend a piece of land against the established states, then good for you. Set up whatever anarchist utopia you want in there. But if you find that a voluntarist society doesn't allow you to defend yourself from aggressive outsiders, then you have to concede the failure of the concept, because one of the most fundamental tasks of being a human, right up there with eating and breathing, is defending your tribe against other tribes. If your model of society doesn't allow you to do that, then talking about it makes about as much sense as talking about a utopia in which people don't need to eat or breathe.
We should all sit down sometime and compare notes, the core group of people simultaneously sane enough to write comments like this over and over yet insane enough to keep writing comments like this over and over again.
You can give us the script for explaining rights and the state of nature. I'll tell you guys which of urandom, random, and arc4random to use. 'gruseom can give us a cheat sheet on what Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso did and didn't say. Patrick can give us each a laptop sticker that says "raise your rates and never work for free". 'tzs will explain the secret trick for rolling the score over on the 1982 stand-up Galaga, and also the difference between first-to-invent and first-to-file.
Then we can all sub for each other. Maybe we can use a single account: 'tptzseominer11.
In the United States, we fought an entire war over the question of whether or not a state had the authority to secede from the federal government (the Union). The seceding states lost that fight.
It would be very hard to argue that individuals have that right when the states do not.
You may wish that it were different, but the fact is that individuals do not have this right, according to virtually any constitutional interpretation since the mid-19th century.
>In the United States, we fought an entire war over the question of whether or not a state had the authority to secede from the federal government (the Union). The seceding states lost that fight.
It's not about right and wrong, it's about what you can and can't do. If you do something and the US decides to go to war with you over it, you are SOL.
Philosphers may claim you have a natural right to buy and consume drugs the US government considers illegal, since you aren't harming others; you can then scream about your natrual rights from prison all you want.
In the area that would become the United States, we also fought an entire war over the question of whether colonies had the authority to secede from their empire. The seceding colonies won that fight.
It's more of a get-off-my-land issue. No government is going to secede land to some fringe group (let alone another government). Look at the situation in Ukraine. The only reason the Crimeans are able to secede from Ukraine is Russia's backing. If you remove Russia from the equation then the Crimeans are left to fight the Ukrainian army and its allies.
The point is you are going to be forced to live under the rules of another no matter where you live (I'm sure there are some Crimeans that would rather not be part of Russia or any other country). Bitcoin has the potential to disrupt the economy, but it cannot provide freedom of movement or freedom from taxation.
tl;dr He probably got flagged for being a day old account (and being argumentative). I try not to say anything too controversial on here since I do not want to meet the same fate.
That's not like that at all. As far as I understand all answers doctors give are open to the public on the site, so everyone else on the internet, including other doctors, can read them and say if it's a good answer or a bad answer. I imagine if this sites starts issuing bad advice, no one would want to go there. However, as of right now, it appears you are wrong and answers are getting paid for by willing customers.
Now, this idea may be far from perfect. But comparing it to the existing system while having a blind faith in it is wrong. In our existing system patients don't have many options of checking what their doctor tells them; they are referred to doctors by other doctors and very often have no way of checking on the reputation (% of successful operations this doctor conducted, for instance). The current system is very inflexible and not consumer oriented at all. Consumer interests are sacrificed in the name of their supposed safety, without first giving said consumers options to decide what they actually want and consider safe.
I am not referring to CoinMD so much but this paragraph...
"Imagine a future where renegade doctors shun licensing laws and practice medicine over the internet. They build up a reputation around an anonymous identity. Use public key cryptography to sign their diagnosis, reassuring the patient that it really came from them. It’s not hard to imagine this would create a demand for anonymous accreditation agencies. These agencies could issue exams and then use their digital signature to sign the credentials of doctors who pass the exam. Patients pay for these services in anonymous currency ― Bitcoin ― and pay fraction of the price they would pay to the government enforced monopoly."
Do pipes have a good mechanism for communicating over a network in Linux? Genuinely curious. Seems like the benefit of http is that services can live on the same machine or some other machine or a cluster of machines and it won't require anything but changing an address in a config file.
No. Pipes are a local only bidirectional data stream meant for inter-process communication. Sockets were created to be the network form of a data stream. You can get data sent over socket connections using things like netcat or ssh-based IO redirection if you want to get a little creative.
If the benefit of a microservice is that you can distribute it across multiple machines then you really just have SOA.
ZeroMQ is a great idea, but the implementation falls far short of the project's stated goals.
I've tried to use it several times but I've run up against limitations built into the design that make it infuriating to use. Mostly this is due to how ZeroMQ goes out of its way to hide the networking details and refuses to expose them even if you need to know.
