Bitcoin Forum

I propose an online government that allows everyone to participate based on an infallible voting system (presumably a fork of Bitcoin, perhaps with built in incentives for good participation.). It would become the de-facto standard and every denizen would be born with the right to operate it once they can prove their age and citizenship.

There are hundreds of millions of folk in the country and each of their so called votes for representatives and presidents is so watered down as to appear almost meaningless. Politicians are practically unaccountable and the common folk are separated by so many degrees from the policies and bills that determine their life's as to be laughable.

The political systems of the world only ends up serving to perpetuate the slavery whether by greed, negligence or corrupt business influence. In the end democracy has been shown to work somewhat however in it's current guise it appears to require too much trust in individuals who are too easily corrupted.

I say de facto standrad since, much like Bitcoin's rejection of central control and monetary policy, this project would simply side step all governments and allow the voice of the actual people to be heard.

All issues would be represented digitally and initially would simply compare the decisions of the people versus those of their politicians.

It's likely governments would reject this system outright however with enough participation the people would see just how disjoint the decisions they make versus what their so called leaders are backing and would eventually secede.

There are good reasons to delegate since there are always so many issues at hand however I believe it would be possible to design a system that could balance this deluge and allow normal citizens to make informed choices about real issues rather than voting for someone else who may or may not end up making the choice they wanted. Perhaps private aggregated information services could provide the required information.

Open Source, why not Open Government? It only seems to follow given the importance of the decisions those people are making on our behalf.

Current governments were designed as an evolution towards stripping control from the ultimately powerful in an attempt to empower those ruled and are essentially ancient artifacts that nontheless were and are still unduly influenced by the wealthy and powerful. The British house of Lords is a case in point, the US Federal reserve another where unelected officials wield unlimited power.

The forefathers came here to escape the nonsense of royal rule and yet time has managed to bring it all back.


Current list of resources:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin
http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page
http://eprint.iacr.org/2011/677.pdf : Commitcoin

For some reason these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_effect
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf


Articles of interest

Machinery of Freedom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#!

The author here describes the lack of online voting as a huge cyber threat:
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=746&doc_id=246047&

It's kind of funny that you propose to side step "nonsense governments" but at the same time apparently to maintain "nonsense citizenships"  ::)

I guess you have to start somewhere. Call the voters whatever you want?  :)

You need to implement a secure online voting system. Look up CommitCoin, a voting protocol based on bitcoins. Get that working and widespread, and suddenly political representatives will become more-or-less obsolete.

Basically you propose to automate a 51% attack, by which 51% of people make and violently enforce rules for the other 49%.

If you want to improve society, there are so many ways you could work towards a more pluralistic, less confrontational and less violent society. Trying to improve the efficiency of a defective system is missing the point.

I think more-or-less everyone on this forum would agree that the current western paradigm of government is a farce which gives sweeping powers and immunity to those who best abuse it. I hope you can at least agree that OP's proposal is a step forward.

Your post suggests you are pro-libretarian. What would your first step be towards returning power to the people? I mean your first step, so please don't reply and say "implement the NAP".  That would be the last step.

I think the trick will be setting up a "bicoin-like" fork and then designing carefully an ecosystem for generated credits for use. For example people could be paid for maintaining local public or private property using credits earned by running the client or doing community service yourself. Each jurisdiction could have their own fork to limit abuse and support local business.

I agree, of course in the end those politicians would most likely start using the system however their voice would now be in proportion to all the rest.

Yes I suppose I am, certainly pro liberty. I think my first step would be posting to this forum since this is one of the few places I can often get a sensible answer!

Thanks for the link!


Again agreed, it's important to have local decisions be effective locally. Politicians in London with no knowledge of local conditions in Scotland, for example, would often make ludicrous decisions effecting millions of people of whom they had no knowledge of at all. The Thatcher dynasty, for example, imposed Poll Tax on the Scots several years before it took effect in England and it was ended years after it was taken down there.

Politicians are rightly paid for their effort so in this system all voters would be paid for their votes from a fund that would be agreed upon and paid for by the system. Perhaps part of the process would see voters actually supporting good ideas by funding them with small amounts of Bitcoin?

It doesn't seem defective to allow everyone a say in the management of their world.
The current system is defective because we can't trust the arbiters of our choices in the same way we can't trust banks or governments with our wealth, I hardly see making choices on proposed issues as violent takeover.
Does anyone really believe Jeb Bush is going to make the right choices when he's president in 5 years?
What ratio would you want?

Excellent question. I'd say I'm waiting for an answer, but I can tell the response will probably be "you have to think outside the box. Instead of any one group deciding the rules for any other group, each group decides for themselves." The question to ask is whether such a system could actually work or not.

given that democracy has been turning into a convenient method of debasement

 we could do this with bitcoin right now to vote with real cash.

the winning vote could effect a change in who is able to spend the cash St the end of the affair. the whole thing could be enforced with crypto.

would get complicated pretty fast so let's keep it simple at first.

a bunch of people vote by sending btc to address a or b. after x number of blocks the greatest account effects a change, such as a payout to a number of addresses predefined.

more info and background knowledge on this ideal of democratic capitalism.

remember, voting in traditional democracy requires one vote per 'person' but proving identity not least the natural person is hard and ultimately impossible because in the end we are all one

To keep things fair, I would have a panel of "independent" judges from each proposed choice, who can also vote for one of the proposals other than their own.

The final decision would be based on a 50-50 split between the results of this panel of judges, and the btc-weighted "votes".

Last but not least, each proposal would be required to sing a short pop song (about 3 minutes in length) before voting opened.

Sorted.

Nice one lol!

Perhaps signing the votes with a biometric private key, like a fingerprint, in combination with the individuals own Bitcoin address and other identifying information would solve that problem?

Actually I don't think that the OP's proposal would be a step forward. As I understand it, the OP is proposing that the public can vote on each and every issue on a 51%-wins basis. That just degenerates every vote into the situation of "13 men and 12 women on an island voting who has sex with whom". The current system, corrupt and inefficient though it is, at least provides the possibility for an elected representative to show some integrity and make some tradeoffs to avoid the situation of "every decision is a 51% attack".

There's not much point changing a government, either democracy-style (by voting) or Egyptian revolution style, or Afghanistan invasion style. It always boils down to "out with the old boss, in with the new".

Instead, one should strive to return power to the people by making government irrelevant.

So you shouldn't ask "what would be my first step?", rather you should ask "what steps am I already taking?".

I, along with millions of others, have been helping to move society beyond old-school IP laws by my support of and contributions to open source software, and by my support of and contributions to media freely licensed under creative commons.

I, along with millions of others, have been helping the people to obtain increased access to knowledge and information through my support of and contributions to Wikipedia, and my support of and contributions to OpenStreetMap and to other similar projects.

I, along with everyone else here, have been helping to make honest money become a reality, by facilitating the spread of Bitcoin.

I, along with some others here, are building trust by undertaking voluntary trade free of the invoked power of the state.

I have donated over a thousand bitcoins to worthy organizations who are working towards increasing people's liberty, opportunities and self-worth.

If more people would do things that empower individuals and make government less relevant, and if people bring up their children to respect the non-agression principle in public life as well as in private life, then eventually we will achieve a society where the application of the NAP is widespread.

However, tweaking the voting system is nothing more than a distraction. People should just stop voting, except for voluntary organizations. Voting just encourages those in power, and lends a veneer of respectability to their wars, their debasement of the currency, and their oppression.

Actually the various ratios would also be voted on.

So I take it that you don't want folk to have an opinion? Or at least that they ought not to be able to state that opinion?

If you have a family for example you have to sometimes take opinions and address local issues, like whose doing the dishes tonight or what channel will the tv be on, and so on. If you think that hundreds of millions of people, many of whom have been to court numerous times, are simply going start working together without being allowed some place to make their opinions heard or to resolve issues then it's going to be very difficult to have this discussion.

I agree with your position that we should all be involved , as I am also, and commend you for that however why not organize that involvement in a way that can be globally and locally effective and efficient. The 51% straw-man you keep mentioning has been addressed in the Bitcoin arena why not in the Political one also?

Additionally not everyone in the world is going to sit back and relax once they've found you have no organized sense of defense or policy are they? Does China agree with your NAP for instance? However a hive mind driven by pure democracy sounds quite powerful and agile to me particularly if those voting understand the idea of doing no harm. We cut out the middle men, who have so obviously been corrupted in many cases, and go directly to the source.

There is an argument relating to the NAP and private defense somewhere, but in a way this proposal could easily make all defense private for the whole country, while the watchful eye of the public could limit it's extent, rather than the case now where a limited few spend huge amounts of our money and resources on many wasteful projects with little oversight.

The NAP can't forget that each of us is sharing this one resource we all live on, it will not silence the opposition and will not serve to remove even a single persons opinion.

I'm not talking about tweaking, this is a major change. For example I personally use so little material I rarely put my garbage out but will this society and political system ever be able to reduce my taxes because of that. I really don't think so, no one has ever been able to change that except perhaps with private removal, but then what about the old lady who can't afford it, isn't the NAP about "do no harm"? Or are you just saying don't actively harm anyone but if they suffer it's not your fault? This proposal is trying to find the system that removes the need for undue trust, which has proven necessary for Bitcoin, while allowing even the most disadvantaged a say and position. Why is this such a bad idea?

Should we for example dismantle the national parks system, since private enterprise could use the space or drill for oil, who gets harmed if we do that? Is hydro-fracking a good thing? It is if it gets us cheaper gas but what about the people whose water is being contaminated. Do we bother helping the UK if Germany invades it again?

Would New Yorkers still be able to drink from 24oz cups if the New Yorkers had actually been asked?

Even some sort of NAP based system needs a process to track difficult issues and spot places where harm is being done, at least I would imagine so? Or is it a magic word that just makes it all work? If so why didn't Bitcoin just work, why do we need all this crazy cryptography?

It's interesting to hear children talk about where meat and vegetables come from, "the supermarket daddy..". Who in your NAP society will talk to the Russians or the Chinese when they decide you've gone weak or negotiate with Mon Santo once they own all the food?

The only way the UK monarchy will ever be deposed is by referendum, this proposal allows that type of referendum to be decided not by an unelected House of Lords but by the decision of the people.  

Interestingly, whether fairly or not, you cite me as wanting to tweak the system but you yourself seem to want to do less to it than that?

Simply put n generalization:

If you have two people or groups who disagree and the outcome of their discussion effects everyone then everyone needs to be involved NAP or no.

Here are three questions:

1) Integrity is exactly the issue, how does anyone know that whomever happens to have been voted in hasn't been corrupted?
2) Why does Bitcoin need so much explicit protection of integrity?
3) Are political questions somehow simpler and less relevant than financial ones?

So when the miners vote with their feet for or against a particular BIP that's a violent takeover?

I'd like to know what would happen if finance and politics were fully integrated; if you want to have a say you have to pay for it

as for one vote per person - how many votes does a conjoined twin with 1.5 brains and no fingers get?

I like the anarcho-communist call to action there in that open source has sprouted something quite big really. there are plenty now against ownership.

I wonder though. there has been many against trade and cash in the past too but the problem was that the efficiency in decision making that money allows has led to that being more powerful. look at china. there is a need to address this

Of course that's not a violent takeover, and I don't see how you got that idea from my comments.

Miners voting with their feet is ethical and non-violent.

As far as I can tell, you are proposing that, provided there is an efficient voting system, it's ethical for 51% of the population to violently impose their will on the other 49%. As in the example of "13 men and 12 women on an island voting to decide who can have sex with whom". Yes or no?

You were the one to bring violence in to this discussion. Miners voting is non violent in exactly the same way the voting system proposed here is non-violent or at least we are searching for that. See the question mark in the proposal.

Aren't the 49% of miners who disagree with whatever being "violently overthrown" when 51% choose a different BIP in your own words?

What's the difference between a BIP and some other policy or bill?

To clarify this is a non-violent idea, however just as with your island analogy each individual in the system has to agree to non-violence. on the island if you're sexually unappealing you're out of luck, no amount of voting or non-voting or whatever you are or aren't suggesting is going to change that?

Bitcoin creates a larger democracy resting from the hands of a few a system that effects us all, this proposal is supposed to do the same for all political inequalities.

Why are you trying to frame the question any other way?

OK, then I misunderstood your original post. It seems to me that there's no point voting unless there's either (a) a government to enforce the outcome of the vote, or (b) an agreement amongst the voters to respect the outcome of the vote. In the absence of any suggestion of (b), I assumed you intended (a). Please clarify...

Suppose the following question comes up: "Should there be import tariffs on chairs made in Siberia?". The question is put to your voting system, and the result is that 51% of eligible voters favor import tariffs being levied on Siberian chairs.

What happens now? If someone tries to import a Siberian chair, does an import tariff get levied under threat of violence or not?

Bitcoin works because there are so many miners, our democracies fail because there are so few holding the power.

In my opinion political decisions like this are often going to be influenced by the idiots who think import tariffs are good for anything. In general I'd be against any tariffs unless there is a really good reason, the chairs are being made by slaves for example or are being subsidized by Russia to corner the fat ass market.

Again in my opinion any political system should be slow to arms unless under threat of violence from external forces or to the support of those we might be able or want to assist. Your arguments seem to suggest that we'd be sending the army out to resolve every issue?

I myself am currently under threat of losing my home and livelihood to the so called government here in Manchester, NH since I have been unable to pay property taxes. Apart from the fact that I resent paying incredibly high prices to live in such a city, freezing half the year and boiling the rest while living in a food desert, all while having supported the economy here with vast amounts of interest. I'm fairly certain that the US government is going to violently evict me. Tweak that? (No really if you could I'd be very grateful.)

You are framing a question that I can't answer but I believe if enough people are involved a more suitable answer can be found, that's what the voting system is for and scientifically that's what pure democracy is supposed to achieve.

You or I have brought up an issue and here we are discussing it, isn't that what living together is all about? Why not make it easy with a system that lets everyone actually participate just like this forum? The forum's software is not bad but I see we all still want an upgrade. There is no threat of violence here and yet we'll all probably end up choosing or writing a better forum eventually.

I could very well say that your idea of removing my ability to have an opinion that is heard is a violent attack on my right to have an opinion and that cities like this one would benefit from that silence since I'm fairly certain my proposed system would save me and many others from a similar fate I mentioned above by simply exposing how ludicrous it is.

The proposed system would naturally include user interfaces for input and study of detailed reasoning behind every voting issue and would eventually resemble a huge AI, entirely under the control of the population subjected to its/the peoples decisions of course.

Open Source is a powerful tool that allows many eyes to see the truth or fallacy of some proposed method of coding, why should a system that produces such good software fail when applied to other mechanistic environments?

From an anthropic perspective the fact that we don't seem to be achieving the equality, peace, and dreams that we are all looking for suggests the current route is the wrong one.

I read your post, and nowhere in there was there a yes or no answer. This is the closest, but even this is rather slippery. The vote says tarrif. Is it imposed under threat of violence to the importer if he does not pay?

I think you need to stop trying to frame this discussion with impossible questions. If you read the post it says that arms should only be employed when absolutely necessary. Your attempt to reduce this to a yes or no pissing contest is futile and depicts the current political scheme almost perfectly Donkey or Elephant?

If your government would enforce the use of arms to prevent the import of chairs from Russia then that is just an additional reason why this proposal is so important, imagine if you were the one in the political position to make that decision my nay vote would be meaningless without it.

But it's not my government. It's yours. You haven't proposed a change in the mechanism of enforcement, only in the decision making process. So let me answer for you. If the vote came down that 51% of the populace were in favor of imposing a tariff on Chairs imported from Siberia, it would be enforced, violently, if need be.

I say your government since you keep forcing words into my argument and answering for me.

Remembering that the entire country gets to vote on every issue I should imagine the answer to that would be no since it really doesn't seem like an issue worth wasting troop resources or another world war on and would surely end up as some sort of court settlement. I hardly imagine many people voting yes on the docket to "Should we attack Russia because they are flooding the market with cheap chairs."?

Why are you so desparte to resort to violence in your ideas? When you say "if need be" do you somehow expect the final result of every single discussion to come down to weapons and bullets?

Your own reasoning and attempt to frame my answer as you see fit exemplifies why this system is needed, imagine the outcome of the the Cuban missile crisis if instead of JFK George W or someone else less diplomatic altogether was in power? Although this does bring up a good point you'll always need people on the ground in the trenches as it were to represent the voters so I imagine a hybrid approach with politicians heavily controlled by the voice of the people.

As I said before presumably issues of force would remain solidly within the realm of last resort when the country or an ally is under attack.

Maybe you need to check the definition on "tariff". It is a tax imposed on importing an item. It's not "attack the importing country", it's "force the people importing chairs to pay us for the privilege". Bringing stuff in without paying the tariff is called "smuggling". Would you enforce your tariff, if it was voted by 51% of the people, by stopping smugglers? If so, how do you propose to do that non-violently?


Again, all you are proposing is a change in the decision making process, not the underlying system. The underlying system is a violent one, so every decision will, in the end, come down to the gun in the room.

Worse, such a system will make changes in course easier and faster. One of the biggest problems with many governments in the world is that people can't rely on their laws remaining constant and being enforced over a long period of time. An unpredictable government is generally worse than a consistently oppressive one.

One of the problems States like California have had with their public initiative systems is that a mere 51% vote can basically do whatever it wants. So you'll see things like initiatives prohibiting car pool lanes from being built because 53% of California doesn't car pool.

If 10% of the people really want a law and another 42% prefer having it to not having it, it doesn't matter if 38% are totally screwed by that law. They effectively don't count at all. And sooner or later, you'll be part of that 38% on one law or another. There is no effectively balancing of interests in direct Democracy -- no "you get this, but I get this". Representative Democracy tends to make this problem much less serious -- a politician can't afford to piss off 47% of the people on issue A and a different 43% of the people on issue B because now he has only 30% support.

Direct Democracy is not all good, by any stretch of the imagination.

It you could somehow have a coin where the winner of a digital election gets funding for a political campaign we actually might send some candidates to congress.

1. Johnson
2. Simpson
3. Hanks
4. Ruth
5. Lemmon

Lemmon wins you get all the transaction money for year 2015.  Congratulations you have won %3,565,555 election coins worth about $5,000,000 good luck on your campaign.  That is how you send anarcho-capitalists to win.

So let me get this right, it seems that many of you think people shouldn't be allowed to to be part of the decision process that guides and defines their life's because inevitably violence will be the outcome and that we should stick with a few people being allowed to make those decisions for us because an oppressive government is better than one owned by the people they are oppressing?

Isn't this the exact antithesis of the Bitcoin idea?

No, I believe that nobody should be making anyone else's decisions for them.

What if those decisions effect other people?

I take it you will never agree that you and other people may at some point need to make decisions in a shared environment involving shared resources or shared outcome?

I imagine that makes you very unpopular when trying to decide what movie to watch with your friends of a weekend?  ???
 
Can you provide a counter proposal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

Is it possible to make the process of Volunteering efficient by say listing what everyone can volunteer too?

If you read the thread you'll notice that all I want to do in the early days of this system is to highlight how much the opinions of those who have voted differ from their representatives. Is this a bad idea?

Bitcoin after all is really required in this world, is there a system that embodies the ideas in Bitcoin and that applies them to the interactions that Humans inevitably have to have?

Well, no, it is not, but it doesn't really solve anything, either.

Government is still, at best, a 51% attack.

It would seem that volunteerism is a form of voting, participants vote with their feet which is an idea I like however as with all organic systems efficiency is always an issue. Organic constructs like nerves and neurons came into existence to help with that in nature and this proposal is searching for the equivalent in human society. I'm not suggesting we all become a big brain but instead we decide on a framework and design a system that would allow everyone to be heard, whether anyone acts on that or not is an entirely different topic. The title OpenGov is probably at fault for some of the argument but then again argument is a good thing.

My belief is that highlighting exactly why the old system is failing so epically to those caught in it is part of the solution.

For the record, I'm with you and whether right or wrong I've never voted. 

Then you're on the right track with this system. And I applaud you for never attempting to force your decisions on someone else.

Yep, and that's one thing that China has going for it.  It's a fair bit more deterministic.

Thank you! Since I'm a software developer by trade I tend to see problems through those glasses on the other hand I love Firefly (an old canceled show) and believe no one should have the sky taken from them! :D

I'm a Browncoat myself.

+1

You said a lot of good stuff here.

I've been trying to say stuff like this for a long time. NAP has zero unification of community driven unified agendas needed to get us to protect resources which would otherwise be slowly (if not quickly) destroyed because others are selfish, ignorant, or both.

The landscape as a checkerboard of 64 squares:

The checkerboard (composed of black and white squares) where half are white and half are black and one color has value X and the other color has value Y is not valued at 32X + 32Y! This is due to the fact that each square loses value from the edges it shares with a square of a different color.

The landscape or society as a large square with 64 squares where the western half is white and the eastern half is black:

The shared edges between black and white in the second case are less, and thus each colored area has greater value. It's value comes closer to 32X + 32Y.

NAP gravitates to the checkerboard, where each individual is free to either preserve or fuck up his parcel.

All of the above is based on the study of edge effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_effect

Not only does it have consequences related the Earth's natural capital (which ultimately everything, including human society is derived from and supported by), it has effects with regard to urban planning.

Thank you for the link I like the analogy here.

Interestingly the board of the multiverse has no ultimate edges but does have the checkerboard. I mention this since although we are forced to make decisions that ultimately effect everyone and that we must monitor our consumption of resources we are in effect in an environment with no resource limitations.

I really don't understand what you just said here. Clarify.

Look up? We are living in the ultimate free lunch.

Free?

A few questions:

1. Did you think you'd get off so easy?

2. How much untapped and unstudied information and diversity is there in a tropical rainforest here on Earth vs. the atmosphere of Jupiter or the surface of Pluto?

3. How many Atlantic Bluefin Tuna do we have 'free' access to in the Universe today, tomorrow, or 100 years from now.

4. What are the currently most viable interstellar propulsion methods being studied today?

5. What is the cost of antimatter production for a propulsion system using antimatter?

6. Do you believe the Bussard Ramjet is feasible?

7. Are you familiar with the Icarus Project?

8. Have you read Entering Space by Robert Zubrin?

9. Have you read the book Interstellar Migrations and the Human Experience?

10. Do you regularly read the blog Centauri-dreams.org?

11. Do you understand the value of biodiversity?

12. What is the average velocity per year required for animal species to relocate to new habitats in order to remain viable due to climate change, and what are the barriers which prevent such relocation, and what effect will that have on biodiversity, and will we travel to the stars in time for this to be a non-issue?

13. Do you believe that the film Avatar serves as a model for the near term?

14. Do you really believe your last remark carries any substance at all?

Free in the sense that there will always be stuff there. Admittedly acquisition and balance are at issue and this adds to the so called "cost" which in the end would seem to be largely emotional as the candor of your post might suggest especially since that one liner has elicited a fairly hefty response (point 14).  

I could barrage you with all the philosophers and science I read every day but I'd prefer not to embarrass either of us and I appreciate your references. Let me clarify somewhat the position I'm trying to relay.

Bitcoin will never run out even from a mining perspective since its precision is really only dependent on the precision any future machine can produce. As a Lisp developer I'm used to arbitrary precision already, so from Zeno it's easy to see that halving the production rate every so often can never really reduce that number to zero. There's an amusing argument elsewhere saying that Bitcoin's precision isn't really a useful feature and yet Bitcoin's tiny fees and "end game" mean it is a requirement.

As mentioned elsewhere in the post I acknowledge the need for us to take care with what we have here but wished to broaden the discussion to include all that is beyond our own tiny little cheque and edge in the cosmos and you seem to agree. I guess I'm saying that sometimes the edge is very wide, that's all.

My own philosophy and scientific search would suggest there are infinites everywhere, not just in the size of the multiverse but at every point in it so I guess to point 14 I'd say yes quite a bit of weight. Sometimes a one liner can incite a firestorm and that's a good thing. Humans are the only species that have to pay to live, I have to wonder why that is.

If scientists stubbornly continue to imagine there are no infinites their science will stubbornly refuse to predict them?

Thank you for those excellent links and references FirstAscent!
I do apologize for my pat one liner but hey this is fun and in answering your other points I will endeavor to persevere! :D

I hope so, because your last post had a lot fluffy nonsense and was very low on informational content, data and facts. Sad to say it, as the post you made which I originally responded to in this thread showed such promise.

And I suggest you learn more about edge effects, and apply their concept at a lower level where it actually is relevant. Think in terms of square miles.

Also...

I don't think Bitcoin is relevant to my points, and it certainly has nothing to do with finite resources. The analogy falls flat on its face.

As for Lisp, well, all I have to say is this: S-expressions beat XML, code is data, Lisp macros are great, all languages keep adding a little bit more until they become Lisp, SHRDLU was pretty damn impressive, and so was Lenat's AM and EURISKO, and Schank's AI programs were pretty awesome as well. Oh, and Paul Graham writes interesting stuff. So there.

Bitcoin is a finite/infinite resource?

[snip]
"Do you believe that the film Avatar serves as a model for the near term?"
[/snip]
Did you expect me to answer that? ???

Why do you want to make this an unpleasant conversation?

Lisp rocks :)

Bitcoin is not a worthy example to discuss such things as oil, sunlight, biodiversity, and natural capital in general.


Absolutely.

Explain why you think mathematical beauty is not worthy?

So you find Zeno fluffy then?

I love mathematics.

Please answer the questions I posed to you, as you made the claim that the Universe is essentially our free lunch.

I'm really curious why you don't rate Math along with the other things you think are so important like my position on a movie I may not have seen for example?

I would probably go on to say that some of your questions seem rather like "fluffy nonsense" but I prefer to keep the conversation less inflammatory and out of grade school and not for example fire back with a question like "How many dinosaurs are left on the planet?", although it does seem apropos.

A discourse on the Infinite should probably have started with a discussion of fractals or Cantor and Diagonalization not a list of seemingly pointed questions. Pointing at what is yet to be ascertained and no less interesting, though I assume you have some sort of trump card to play in an argument manufactured out of a simple comment and thin air.

The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing and yet somehow embedded in human society and the human psyche is the idea that there is no free lunch, so much so that we enslave ourselves and others by insisting that there can be nothing for nothing. Our schools, tenure, business/governments/trolls then go on to enforce this fallacy and see us languishing in failed closed time loops for eternity.

Einstein wasted thirty years of his life looking for the wrong theory of unification because his own religious beliefs forced him to imagine "God does not play dice." and Hawking willfully rejects an infinite universe not because of a failing in Math though he scrambles to design his theories to make it so, but why then? Could that also be an emotional hang up?

His argument is so weak as to beggar the question what he was thinking "The universe can't have infinite suns because then the sky would be ablaze.". Why not place the majority so far away, in theory, such that we'll never see or feel any of them? Isn't that how infinites work?

You might find emotions "fluffy nonsense", if that's what you are referring to, but they've played a part in keeping Humans in the dark ages ever since they existed. However useful or non-sensical they can be they certainly are not fluffy and when thrown about like a battering ram not pleasant at all.

Please understand I'm not rejecting some of your questions as unimportant and would happily spend hours discussing the "cost" of interstellar flight or building a fleet of ships to take us there but I'm rejecting the idea that those hours or years cost me anything since I would have enjoyed every minute as I believe the whole world should enjoy the idea of spreading our life to the rest of the galaxy and further, like your Dolphins who didn't ask for a penny surviving, or perish here alone for the "price" of a ticket out.

After all the Hydrogen and Oxygen or even anti-matter were here long before our ancestors put a price tag on them.

It's nonsense governments and ideas that will fail us however benevolent we think we or they are. Bitcoin solves part of the problem by removing some of that fluffy nonsense therefore empowering a financial system that doesn't keep its population in abject poverty and debt.

I obviously touched a nerve and I'd prefer and even enjoy to answer your questions when everyone is calm.

I made two separate statements, independent of each other.

Please address how the Universe is a free lunch for the taking.

I'm really curious why you don't rate Math along with the other things you think are so important like my position on a movie I may not have seen for example?

I would probably go on to say that some of your questions seem rather like "fluffy nonsense" but I prefer to keep the conversation less inflammatory and out of grade school and not for example fire back with a question like "How many dinosaurs are left on the planet?", although it does seem apropos.

A discourse on the Infinite should probably have started with a discussion of fractals or Cantor and Diagonalization not a list of seemingly pointed questions. Pointing at what is yet to be ascertained and no less interesting, though I assume you have some sort of trump card to play in an argument manufactured out of a simple comment and thin air.

The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing and yet somehow embedded in human society and the human psyche is the idea that there is no free lunch, so much so that we enslave ourselves and others by insisting that there can be nothing for nothing. Our schools, tenure, business/governments/trolls then go on to enforce this fallacy and see us languishing in failed closed time loops for eternity.

Einstein wasted thirty years of his life looking for the wrong theory of unification because his own religious beliefs forced him to imagine "God does not play dice." and Hawking willfully rejects an infinite universe not because of a failing in Math though he scrambles to design his theories to make it so, but why then? Could that also be an emotional hang up?

His argument is so weak as to beggar the question what he was thinking "The universe can't have infinite suns because then the sky would be ablaze.". Why not place the majority so far away, in theory, such that we'll never see or feel any of them? Isn't that how infinites work?

You might find emotions "fluffy nonsense", if that's what you are referring to, but they've played a part in keeping Humans in the dark ages ever since they existed. However useful or non-sensical they can be they certainly are not fluffy and when thrown about like a battering ram not pleasant at all.

Please understand I'm not rejecting some of your questions as unimportant and would happily spend hours discussing the "cost" of interstellar flight or building a fleet of ships to take us there but I'm rejecting the idea that those hours or years cost me anything since I would have enjoyed every minute as I believe the whole world should enjoy the idea of spreading our life to the rest of the galaxy and further, like your Dolphins who didn't ask for a penny surviving, or perish here alone for the "price" of a ticket out.

After all the Hydrogen and Oxygen or even anti-matter were here long before our ancestors put a price tag on them.

It's nonsense governments and ideas that will fail us however benevolent we think we or they are. Bitcoin solves part of the problem by removing some of that fluffy nonsense therefore empowering a financial system that doesn't keep its population in abject poverty and debt.

I obviously touched a nerve and I'd prefer and even enjoy to answer your questions when everyone is calm.

Your replies are not calming me. I think you need to get grounded in reality. Your responses are very fluffy. Cute philosophy and bitcoins are not going to help us out here.

Question: In two or three sentences, can you summarize the point I'm trying to make? Either I'm not doing a good job of it, or you're being obtuse, or you think my point is not relevant. You're free to state which it is, but in doing so, please answer if you are indeed able to summarize the point I'm trying to make, and if so, what is that point?

I'm sorry can you point me to any point you've made other than to frame everything I am saying as fluffy or a failed argument (providing no evidence), Lisp is good, that you love mathematics and that you think the NAP can't protect nature without some central control because we are all so selfish?

I think edge theory might have to contend with fractal theory in a similar way as Four Color Theorem has to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem) since it's possible to have lines that don't end.

This is a forum about Bitcoin and this is a thread about Bitcoin and its forks and the social and political impact it/they can and will have it's not my fault you can't see that. Money touches everything in our daily lives if Bitcoin succeeds it will do the same minus the corrupt middlemen who in the end cause a great deal of the environmental destruction you are alluding to.

Gold is frequently used analogously with Bitcoin so why does the analogy "fall flat on its face" if both are a precious resources?

You also appear to have taken offense at my indication this is an infinite universe that came from nothing and at my intimation that that is a free lunch and have failed to address this presumably because it doesn't support whatever argument you're implying. Furthermore you don't seem to want to address why you think Math is not comparable in weight to the environmental point you might be making presumably for the same reason.

I wasn't suggesting that my comments would calm you I was telling you this would be more amiable if you calmed down. I think I'm probably being obtuse because you were being so inflammatory?

If you want I can make an attempt at ripping apart the psychology of exactly what you are trying to say in your 14 questions but again I would prefer to take them at face value.  

From your first question who's getting off with what easily?

What sort of reality do you want me to be in and exactly where have I been cute? (Other than this sentence duh.)

I must say I'm impressed if you find Quantum Theory, Big Bang Theory, Zeno, Cantor, Fractals and Multiverse Theory fluffy then I need to bow out of this discussion since I'm definitely out of my depth.

Perhaps we ought to end this here and return to the topic?

You have spent a huge amount of time pretending to engage in a meaningful dialog, while saying essentially nothing. The usage of scientific terminology such as fractals, quantum theory, and referencing the Big Bang in random form does not make for a cogent answer. Please continue to read...


Just because I made a comment about Lisp because you brought it up and just because you made a comment about mathematics has nothing to do with the fact that you said the Universe is our free lunch. You still haven't answered how the Universe is our free lunch. Therefore, once again...

How is the Universe our free lunch?


You've brought fractal theory up twice and again it has nothing to do with the statement you made about how the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?


Regardless of whether this is a forum about bitcoin and this thread is about Open Government, you made the statement that the Universe is our free lunch.

So, once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?


If you think gold and bitcoin are analogous to a resource which undergoes destruction to use it, then you better start thinking. And besides, you said look up at the stars and said the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?


I have taken offense because you have not backed up your claim that the Universe is our free lunch. As for mathematics, you dragged that into the thread out of the blue. It doesn't answer how the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?


Once again, you made the claim that the Universe is our free lunch, and after I have pointed out over and over again that you can't seem to back up your statement, but instead choose to sidestep it, you have the nerve to say I'm being inflammatory?

Once again, you said the Universe is our free lunch. Care to answer how?


I'm afraid you never took my 14 questions at face value. You did not answer them, and you did not use the information implicit in them in attempting to answer the following question posed to you: How is the Universe our free lunch?


I didn't say you're cute. I said you seem to be spouting philosophy instead of answering my question. I want you to back up your claim you made that the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?


I never made any such claim. What I did do is accuse of you of loading up your response with those terms in a meaningless way and out of context to my question to you. By doing so, your answer is low on content and high on fluffiness.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?


You've had the opportunity to end it a long time ago. Simply answer the following question:
In light of the information I provided to you in the form of 14 questions, how is the Universe our free lunch?

If you can't answer the question because you've realized your statement that the Universe is our free lunch is in fact a load of shit, then simply 'fess up, and continue with the original premise of this thread. Otherwise, answer the question that has now been posed to you ten times in this post and several times in other posts, in reference to your claim that the Universe is our free lunch.

Oh, and in case you missed it, the question that has now been posed to you ten times in this thread in response to the claim you made that the Universe is our free lunch is:

How is the Universe our free lunch? That makes it eleven. Care to answer that question? You asserted that the Universe is our free lunch. Answer how.

LOL!!!

Did you miss :

"..The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing.."

Why is it difficult to understand this statement? Do you want me to write the formulas?

dEdT~h/2pi

from the Uncertainty Principle for a start.

Should I repeat that 11 times? There was no Universe then there was a Universe ergo Free Lunch. Perhaps I should have said look at the Universe, but up seemed more appropriate for some reason. One more time, the multiverse has always been here, we came after and there is no one we needed to pay to exist, how can you spin that any other way?

Try telling some of the folk who've lost their wallets that Bitcoin can't be destroyed. Presumably, if in a sort of reverse Alchemy or if some idiot decided to transmute it or the RHIC used huge amounts of it in its experiments Gold was destroyed its value would increase, the same can be said of any resource, it's a very simple analogy, maybe not a perfect fit but nevertheless an analogy.

My fractal quote is a counter point to your link about Edge theory since Edge Theory seems to fail to address infinite distances if I'm not mistaken. For example if you try to measure the length of the UK in one meter increments it's one length then if you do the same at one cm it's another length and in fact the closer you get the longer the distance Ad Infinitum. Did you miss the link between Four Color Theory and the link you posted?

It's likely that prior to the Big Bang (if that actually is what happened) the Quantum froth could be considered as not nothing (uncertainty) but that just becomes a recursive argument that gets us nowhere, similar to the way this thread is heading sadly.

Why do you think the Universe is not from nothing and qualify your position on Mathematics (but perhaps for the sake of the thread you should PM me or we both risk the troll moniker?) unless anyone else is interested?

No, I didn't miss that. But it is not relevant. Just because something came into being and exists does not mean it is accessible. Why do you keep saying stuff that is irrelevant?


It's not difficult to understand. Merely irrelevant to our discussion.


Umm, no. Lunches need to be in your hand to use. The 500 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars in our own galaxy are not in our hand. Thus, no lunch, let alone a free lunch.


How can I spin it any other way? I just did, and in a way that is actually relevant.


Sorry, but I think you need to learn more about resources and how markets work with regard to them. Bitcoins and gold are not sufficient examples to use as models.


The only failure here is your subversion of Edge Effects. If you want to play it your way, then let's talk ratios just to demonstrate the futility and stupidity of using fractals to analyze the utility of the Edge Effects theory. Do you understand what I mean when I mention ratios? Let me spell it out for you: In your insistence on the useless notion of discussing fractals with regard to Edge Effects, revisit my checkerboard, and using your fractal idea, determine the ratio of edge lengths regardless of fractal depth between the two scenarios I laid out for you. 64 sections vs. 2 sections.

Hello?!? Do you get it now? All of your going on about fractals doesn't change a thing. I think you just had your fractal ideas and the idea of infinite coastlines and your ass handed back to you. Either admit defeat on the applicability of fractals to Edge Effects or expect to continue the discussion until you are defeated. You will not win this one, and mathematics will demonstrate why.


Once again, the Big Bang and it's result does not imply a free lunch unless that lunch is accessible to us at zero cost.


You're the one who made a statement saying the Universe is our free lunch. It's not wrong to call you out on it, and point out that flinging mathematical terms and concepts about cosmology do not constitute an answer.

Oh, and about the fractals: I suspect you don't understand yet. But I will explain it to you if that is required.

Feel free to start a new thread. You obviously need to have your brain rewired and I'll be happy to oblige.

Rather like you threw in the math relating to Edge Theory?

How much did it cost to the first life on this planet to come into existence. How much did the first human who discovered how to control fire charge us all?

Who paid for Panspermia?

One thing I can say for certain is that you've lost the right to say you're not being inflammatory.

Please see the pdf attached to the first message.

I will now leave this thread, as I think you like to fling about nonsense instead of discuss concrete workable theories.

http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf