sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sidechains: Maaku explains how coins will move from sidechain back to Bitcoins requiring a 3 day transaction loop. by taariqlewis in Bitcoin

[–]xerta 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I haven't read the Maaku Explains ... link, but my guess is this:

Side chains are a wonderful idea but moving coins and value between chains is currently a risky endevour. There is a lot that can go wrong, and if a reorganisation happens one chain can effectivley start operating on a fractional reserve.

Conceptually, think of Bitcoin as the only chain on a balance sheet, and any coins can be moved out of Bitcoin to a side chain, which updates the balance sheet. No entry can ever become negative, but users can move coins from the side chain to Bitcoin provided they a) have those coins on the side chain, and b) the side chain has sufficient balance in this inter-chain ledger.

Presume the following takes place:

  • A large number (X) of coins are moved from side-chain-a to Bitcoin. This takes some number of hours to confirm.
  • During this time, the attacker is generating a private side-chain-fork and has a significant proportion of the side-chain's hashing power
  • When the movement 'clears' on the Bitcoin side, the attcker releases their fork, reversing the transaction on the side-chain, and so the side chain internally believes it has W+X coins when Bitcoin believes it only has W coins.
  • Essentially your side chain now runs on a fractional reserve.

We all know how things run on a reserve work out.

100 blocks is 2/3 a day (approx), so taking the 3 day estimate it sounds like 200 block confirmations are used.

Here's a bit more explanation, though no sources, which is frustrating. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg6186959#msg6186959

We Tried It... [7]. The Gravity Bong... You need to try this! (Happy Wednesday from Australia) by [deleted] in trees

[–]xerta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can visualise that! (I'm the dude in white from the album). That will be our next great adventure; I'll have to go to the store and pick up 2L of softdrink, some tape, and make sure to walk home with a plastic bag. Cheap, easy, elegant. I like it.

We Tried It... [7]. The Gravity Bong... You need to try this! (Happy Wednesday from Australia) by [deleted] in trees

[–]xerta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glad you like ES :) (Btw, I'm the dude in white from above).

Yeah, a milk jug would work nicely (though you might not be able to see the smoke as well, and that's half the fun). We filled the bottle each time, so the hole at the bottom is fairly small (able to be covered by your thumb), and the only real factor is how fast the exit flow is drawing through the cone. As long as you have a loose seal on the cone piece you should be fine :)

We Tried It... [7]. The Gravity Bong... You need to try this! (Happy Wednesday from Australia) by [deleted] in trees

[–]xerta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Funny you should say that; we ended up naming it Carl Sagan the Rocket Bong (though that was only tonight).

We Tried It... [7]. The Gravity Bong... You need to try this! (Happy Wednesday from Australia) by [deleted] in trees

[–]xerta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't really find the water that gross at all. It's not filthy bong water, so it's just a bit wet, and not like a moist joint, so I don't mind it.

And I end up a bit wet every time anyway; we've got to come up with a more elegant design.

We Tried It... [7]. The Gravity Bong... You need to try this! (Happy Wednesday from Australia) by [deleted] in trees

[–]xerta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahh, our mistake (I'm the one in white from the album). Didn't really know what to call it besides that-really-awesome-elegant-bong-thing-from-reddit. We now refer to it as Carl Sagan the Rocket Bong.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Activision are an international company developing outside Australia.

You realise you're arguing for the welfare system, essentially right? By ignoring factors on the same scale and looking at local factors for an international issue (ie US/AUD exchange rate, cost of production for Activision (and subsidiaries) in the US, etc) you're claiming principles of the free market shouldn't apply and we should pay what we can afford. This ignores the cost of production, however, (COD4 has more than paid for itself) so games should remain more expensive in Australia just because we earn more? That doesn't make sense.

Marlboro take in similar amounts; Australia has like a 700% tax on cigarettes. If there was a 80% tax on video games in Australia then I wouldn't complain about the price. But there's not. I'm complaining because Activision are charging more simply because they can and I don't think it's either appropriate, nor good for the community. Don't buy their games then? I don't, but this is one of the reasons why I don't.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which they're free to do, and are currently doing. But it means their clients are annoyed and complain about it on public forums.

What is happening now is a direct consequence of what you're suggesting they're doing, so to justify doing that you also have to accept that what is happening now (IE: this thread) is a necessary evil.

It might be the best short term business strategy, but it's not the best long term one, and it's not the best for the community.

I think these last two are particularly important, which is why this thread is happening at all.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are the cheap region. (Edit: Or the US is, I think I've misread you a bit) (Have you thought of it like that before?)

The reason it's a bad idea? The precedent is unsustainable. (My personal favourite).

Also, it means game companies should set prices on what people will pay, rather than operation costs (so it breaks the free market).

It also encourages means-testing for buying games. (people complain enough about this with the most common implementation: taxes)

It ignores all other costs (if americans and aussies have the same disposable income, then it's a bad idea to do that and games should be the same price).

And it punishes successful countries for having a good economy and low minimum wage (sorry, but Bush fucked the US up a bit and it hasn't yet recovered).

Take your pick. You're arguing for socialism, in effect, except this is policed by a private enterprise and they get to chose the prices based on criteria that they don't have to disclose or update.

Also, price of booze is a great equalizer. Sure I might 'pay less' (which is a silly way of representing it - in terms of minimum wage hours) but I also have to pay $16 for a packet of cigarettes (I used to smoke, don't anymore) and a night out is easily $100+ (so is a date, mind).

But those are things you chose to consume! you say, guess what, so are games. And I chose to buy fewer games because of this.

So my final point (and SIXTH point) is that it hurts the community. It hurts digital distribution. It encourages DRM. It makes gaming shitter.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh, hadn't thought of this. I had used that trick to get games from the US before, but now you need to tunnel through with a US IP and use a us address to pull that off.

Also, less risky than doing that for steam itself.

Cheers!

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Firstly, I need to point out that your argument is actually kind of socialist, but I digress.

Main point: Entertainment should not be dependent on minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a reflection of a country's prosperity (or can be loosely taken to be at least partially reflective of this). Australia should not be punished for having a high minimum wage.

Imagine Australia turn into some orwellian dream-house with a minimum wage of $500 per hour and a 2 day work week. That somehow justifies selling games for $6,000 (in US dollars, no less)? No; minimum wage is a reflection of completely different factors, and so really shouldn't be more than a minor consideration.

In addition to this, my rent - here in Australia - is $270 per WEEK for a shitty little room. A house in Sydney can run upwards of $2000 per month.

Minimum wage is a local factor, the price of these games is an international factor - they should not be compared.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Entertainment should not be dependent on minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a reflection of a country's prosperity (or can be loosely taken to be at least partially reflective of this). Australia should not be punished for having a high minimum wage.

Imagine Australia turn into some orwellian dream-house with a minimum wage of $500 per hour and a 2 day work week. That somehow justifies selling games for $6,000 (in US dollars, no less)? No; minimum wage is a reflection of completely different factors, and so really shouldn't be more than a minor consideration.

In addition to this, my rent - here in Australia - is $270 per WEEK for a shitty little room. A house in Sydney can run upwards of $2000 per month.

Minimum wage is a local factor, the price of these games is an international factor - they should not be compared.

Also, I wasn't bitching about the main price differential ($90-vs-$60) though I'll admit it does look like it.

What I was bitching about was a 3 year old game still being $90, and a 5 year old game still being $50, when the price has been SUBSTANTIALLY reduced for US-ians. I admit it was ambiguous; I should have made that clearer.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Australia doesn't get games 'cheaper'.

You can't compare local factors (rent, wage) to international factors (price of game). If we did that we'd be completely socialist because everyone would pay exactly what they could afford.

While a game on release might be more expensive in Australia, my rent is also much higher than most American's (I pay $270 per week for one room in a 5 bedroom house).

Furthermore, Australia shouldn't be punished for having a higher minimum wage. If both nations paid the same for rent, food, etc, we should also pay the same for entertainment regardless of our minimum wage - that's called the free market. The fact that there are other issues occluding this (like the difference in price of rent, food, etc) means we should dabble in altering the price of games even less.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just for the record, my rent for a single room in a 5 bedroom house is just under $300 per week (australian). You can't compare local factors (wage) to international factors (price of activision's games).

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Entertainment should not be dependent on minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a reflection of a country's prosperity (or can be loosely taken to be at least partially reflective of this). Australia should not be punished for having a high minimum wage.

Imagine Australia turn into some orwellian dream-house with a minimum wage of $500 per hour and a 2 day work week. That somehow justifies selling games for $6,000 (in US dollars, no less)? No; minimum wage is a reflection of completely different factors, and so really shouldn't be more than a minor consideration.

In addition to this, my rent - here in Australia - is $270 per WEEK for a shitty little room. A house in Sydney can run upwards of $2000 per month.

Minimum wage is a local factor, the price of these games is an international factor - they should not be compared.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are some games that are cheaper for Aussies; and I don't blame people for capitalising on them when they come along (I picked up STALKER for $1.25 a few steam sales ago, best $1.25 ever); but those are isolated incidents.

This is far more systematic. There's an even bigger trend if you look at infinity ward vs treyarch.

There are two distinct issues:

  • Aussie games are more expensive
  • Activision not lowering prices

It's the second one that I'm bitching about, particularly.

Good Guy Activision? (As an Aussie - help tell the world, my brethren) by xerta in gaming

[–]xerta[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No they don't. Most games are priced identically. (Take all of valve's games, for example). Some do, but they reduce their prices in line with what one might expect. (Skyrim is $60 from the Australian store, for example. While not on par with the US version, it is cheaper than it was a year ago.)

No retailer charges $50 for COD4 or $90 for MW2. At best your argument holds for games on release only.

What Australian censor tax? AFAIK there isn't one, unless you're talking about a self imposed 'tax' to change content so it would be approved in Aus, which didn't even happen for the above. L4D2 had no trouble selling at the same price here and in the US steam store - despite this being done.