Bitcoin Forum

Economy => Economics => Topic started by: someotherguy on February 23, 2011, 11:55:48 PM



Title: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: someotherguy on February 23, 2011, 11:55:48 PM
 

PLEASE ANSWER THE POLL ABOVE



How many Bitcoins have been lost, likely never to be claimed or used?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wobber on February 24, 2011, 02:12:30 PM
How many Bitcoins have been lost, likely never to be claimed or used?

You mean how many people lost their wallets or deleted them?

My personal assumption is that less than 2000 coins lost back when people could generate 50 fair easily. After that, they became too precious to waste. So the lost bitcoin can be neglected even now, at approx. 5 million.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: someotherguy on February 24, 2011, 02:48:00 PM
1.  I estimate 97% of the new users in the first 6 months of Bitcoin are still users that are active today.  That the remaining 3% will lose or have lost their wallets in some form or another.

2.  I estimate that .5-1.5% of current users over last 6 months will lose or have lost their wallets in some form or another.

3.  I estimate that their is a 1-236 chance that a large or series of large accounts (larger than 50,000bc) will be lost over the next 2 years.




Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: db on February 24, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
My personal assumption is that less than 2000 coins lost back when people could generate 50 fair easily. After that, they became too precious to waste. So the lost bitcoin can be neglected even now, at approx. 5 million.

A friend of mine bought 2000 coins for about 15 $ back then, later reformatted his hard drive and now regrets it bitterly.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: uck on February 28, 2011, 02:18:43 AM
At least none of the coins are lost inside sofas...


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: uck on February 28, 2011, 02:21:28 AM
There will also be, over time, people who die and their relatives don't know they had bitcoins or they can't get into the person's pc because it is password-protected. 


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Axel on February 28, 2011, 07:43:12 AM
i think lot of people might lost their bitcoins but later on these lost its values. Moreover people are still not careful about losing bitcoins .


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 01, 2011, 03:04:18 AM
Does anyone else think this might be a real problem in the long run? To me this sounds like bitcoins will be on a long, long deflationary slide the minute we hit the 21 million mark. Bitcoins are sure to be lost; if there is no way to reclaim them, that long deflationary slide could bode ill for our fledgling coin.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 01, 2011, 03:04:55 AM
Does anyone else think this might be a real problem in the long run? To me this sounds like BitCoins will be on a long, long deflationary slide the minute we hit the 21 million mark. BitCoins are sure to be lost; if there is no way to reclaim them, that long deflationary slide could bode ill for our fledgling coin.

Blah, we could run this economy on one bitcoin and it would be no problem.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 01, 2011, 03:18:44 AM
This is true. The decimal nature of bitcoins would let us do that. However (and I'm not sure if this is likely at all, but it seems a possibility) if the rate of deflation proceeds at too great a clip, couldn't that end up widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor, resulting in oligarchy? My concern is simply that we could end up creating an economy where those who are new to the bitcoin system are at a pronounced disadvantage when compared to those who are not.

At present this can be written off as a "finder's fee": we are the early adopters, the risk is ours, therefore we deserve to profit. However, if bitcoins gain global acceptance, we may have to face the fact that the "newcomers" may be drawn from among the young or freshly impoverished. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of a currency's structure to favor the upwardly mobile, but I am (presently) of the opinion that it would be beneficial to have that "upward mobility" element baked into the currency of a society.

I realize I may not have made my point very clearly, but I should be going now. I was supposed to be somewhere a little while ago and got sucked in by the discussion. I'll return, hopefully soon.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 01, 2011, 03:20:33 AM
However, if bitcoins gain global acceptance, we may have to face the fact that the "newcomers" may be drawn from among the young or freshly impoverished. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of a currency's structure to favor the upwardly mobile, but I am (presently) of the opinion that it would be beneficial to have that "upward mobility" element baked into the currency of a society.

I realize I may not have made my point very clearly, but I should be going now. I was supposed to be somewhere a little while ago and got sucked in by the discussion. I'll return, hopefully soon.

If you can save more than you spend, you're already upwardly mobile.  ;)


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 01, 2011, 04:12:21 AM
This is true. The decimal nature of bitcoins would let us do that. However (and I'm not sure if this is likely at all, but it seems a possibility) if the rate of deflation proceeds at too great a clip, couldn't that end up widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor, resulting in oligarchy? My concern is simply that we could end up creating an economy where those who are new to the bitcoin system are at a pronounced disadvantage when compared to those who are not.

At present this can be written off as a "finder's fee": we are the early adopters, the risk is ours, therefore we deserve to profit. However, if bitcoins gain global acceptance, we may have to face the fact that the "newcomers" may be drawn from among the young or freshly impoverished. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of a currency's structure to favor the upwardly mobile, but I am (presently) of the opinion that it would be beneficial to have that "upward mobility" element baked into the currency of a society.

I realize I may not have made my point very clearly, but I should be going now. I was supposed to be somewhere a little while ago and got sucked in by the discussion. I'll return, hopefully soon.

The richer people are the more people they can put in jobs and the more charity they can give money too.

Bitcoin is voluntary wealth distribution.



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 01, 2011, 05:09:22 PM
The richer people are the more people they can put in jobs and the more charity they can give money too.

Bitcoin is voluntary wealth distribution.

True. I guess I'm just concerned about hoarding. If the people with the bitcoins are willing to spend enough to create a large middle class, then awesome. But if deflation is such that they have little incentive to spend, I can see that causing problems.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 01, 2011, 06:04:08 PM
The richer people are the more people they can put in jobs and the more charity they can give money too.
Meh. Not a fan of trickle down economics. It only facilitates the exploitation of the masses. That said, nothing about Bitcoin requires its pioneers to exploit others. We ought to eschew interest, profit, and rent in favor of cooperative relationships.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 01, 2011, 06:15:53 PM
Meh. Not a fan of trickle down economics. It only facilitates the exploitation of the masses. That said, nothing about Bitcoin requires its pioneers to exploit others. We ought to eschew interest, profit, and rent in favor of cooperative relationships.

What is "exploitation"? What's wrong with profit? Have you been reading too much commie literature lately?



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: barbarousrelic on March 01, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
We ought to eschew interest, profit, and rent in favor of cooperative relationships.
I posit that these things are cooperative relationships.

Adam wants $500 per month more than he wants to use his basement. Bob wants to live in his basement more than he wants $500 per month. They cooperatively exchange these things to their mutual benefit.

Adam wants $6 in interest more than he wants to use his $100 this year. Bob wants that $100 now more than he wants $106 a year from now. They cooperatively exchange $100 now for $106 a year from now and they are both happier for it.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 01, 2011, 08:55:10 PM
What is "exploitation"? What's wrong with profit? Have you been reading too much commie literature lately?
It's the capitalist concept of profit that's the problem. If I build something with hired help, I can sell it in exchange for other goods, like bitcoins. If I were a capitalist, I would then keep as much of the bitcoins for myself and give my employees as little as possible. Compare that scenario to one where I divide the bitcoins between myself and the other workers according to the amount of work we've each contributed because we act as partners. The latter scenario exemplifies cooperation while the former exemplifies exploitation.

I posit that these things are cooperative relationships.

Adam wants $500 per month more than he wants to use his basement. Bob wants to live in his basement more than he wants $500 per month. They cooperatively exchange these things to their mutual benefit.
If Adam wishes not to exploit Bob, he should offer his basement at no greater cost than the expenses Bob would incur, like heat, water, and general maintenance. Providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough for Adam to allow Bob to live in his basement. Taking more than that is exploitation.

Quote
Adam wants $6 in interest more than he wants to use his $100 this year. Bob wants that $100 now more than he wants $106 a year from now. They cooperatively exchange $100 now for $106 a year from now and they are both happier for it.
Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 01, 2011, 08:59:56 PM
What is "exploitation"? What's wrong with profit? Have you been reading too much commie literature lately?
It's the capitalist concept of profit that's the problem. If I build something with hired help, I can sell it in exchange for other goods, like bitcoins. If I were a capitalist, I would then keep as much of the bitcoins for myself and give my employees as little as possible. Compare that scenario to one where I divide the bitcoins between myself and the other workers according to the amount of work we've each contributed because we act as partners. The latter scenario exemplifies cooperation while the former exemplifies exploitation.

I posit that these things are cooperative relationships.

Adam wants $500 per month more than he wants to use his basement. Bob wants to live in his basement more than he wants $500 per month. They cooperatively exchange these things to their mutual benefit.
If Adam wishes not to exploit Bob, he should offer his basement at no greater cost than the expenses Bob would incur, like heat, water, and general maintenance. Providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough for Adam to allow Bob to live in his basement. Taking more than that is exploitation.

Quote
Adam wants $6 in interest more than he wants to use his $100 this year. Bob wants that $100 now more than he wants $106 a year from now. They cooperatively exchange $100 now for $106 a year from now and they are both happier for it.
Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.

I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if both parties enter willingly, no matter how much the cost.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 01, 2011, 09:04:59 PM
Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.

Nefario is paying me to develop the software for his bitcoin corporation. I know he will try to make a profit off of it. Meanwhile, I will get paid 120 BTC a week. That's an actual agreement in real life.

Is that exploitation? No. I like the arrangement in question.

This is after all, an amicable agreement between two moral agents. You, the outsider, is just an observer, who have nothing to do with the exchange. Whatever you think is exploitation is completely irrelevant to what I thought is a good deal, or what is moral.




Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: barbarousrelic on March 01, 2011, 09:12:39 PM
If Adam wishes not to exploit Bob, he should offer his basement at no greater cost than the expenses Bob would incur, like heat, water, and general maintenance. Providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough for Adam to allow Bob to live in his basement. Taking more than that is exploitation.
I presume you mean 'no greater cost than the expenses Adam would incur' ?

If this is the case, you don't account for the expense to Adam of not having use of his basement. This is exploitative of Adam. He's losing something valuable and not getting it back from Bob.

Of course, if Adam agrees that providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough to allow him to live in the basement for free, than that's fine. If he does not think this is the case, then such an arrangement would be exploitative of Adam.

Quote
Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.
I'm not sure what you mean. Say Bob wants to borrow that money to pay his heating bill while he's in college, and he wants to pay it off a year later when he's got a high paying job. What would you say is fair interest?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ribuck on March 01, 2011, 09:26:39 PM
If I were a capitalist, I would then keep as much of the bitcoins for myself and give my employees as little as possible.
This problem solves itself in anarchism because barriers to becoming the capitalist employer are removed. Therefore the capitalist pig can't pay his workers too little or they set up in competition to him. Employee exploitation is only a problem in statist systems.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 12:22:21 AM
I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if both parties enter willingly, no matter how much the cost.
It doesn't matter that either party entered the agreement willing if one party only had a selection of exploiters to choose from.

Nefario is paying me to develop the software for his bitcoin corporation. I know he will try to make a profit off of it. Meanwhile, I will get paid 120 BTC a week. That's an actual agreement in real life.

Is that exploitation? No. I like the arrangement in question.

This is after all, an amicable agreement between two moral agents. You, the outsider, is just an observer, who have nothing to do with the exchange. Whatever you think is exploitation is completely irrelevant to what I thought is a good deal, or what is moral.
Just because someone is unaware that that others exploit him, doesn't mean that he isn't subject to exploitation. For the record, I don't think your relationship with Nefario qualifies as an exploitive one. You still have the the product of your labor, the software.

If Adam wishes not to exploit Bob, he should offer his basement at no greater cost than the expenses Bob would incur, like heat, water, and general maintenance. Providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough for Adam to allow Bob to live in his basement. Taking more than that is exploitation.
I presume you mean 'no greater cost than the expenses Adam would incur' ?
Yeah.

Quote
If this is the case, you don't account for the expense to Adam of not having use of his basement. This is exploitative of Adam. He's losing something valuable and not getting it back from Bob.
There is no such expense. Adam ought to get enough satisfaction out of simply housing Bob.

Quote
Of course, if Adam agrees that providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough to allow him to live in the basement for free, than that's fine. If he does not think this is the case, then such an arrangement would be exploitative of Adam.
If Adam doesn't get enough satisfaction out of housing Bob, he needs to do something else with his basement.

Quote
I'm not sure what you mean. Say Bob wants to borrow that money to pay his heating bill while he's in college, and he wants to pay it off a year later when he's got a high paying job. What would you say is fair interest?
Adam ought to enjoy that Bob has heat and can afford college. If not, he needs to do something else with his money.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 02, 2011, 12:24:53 AM
I don't think you have any say in what Adam "ought" to do with his basement and property.

If not, he needs to do something else with his money.


*sigh*

Whose money is it again?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 12:39:38 AM
This problem solves itself in anarchism because barriers to becoming the capitalist employer are removed. Therefore the capitalist pig can't pay his workers too little or they set up in competition to him. Employee exploitation is only a problem in statist systems.
It's in the capital holders' self-interest to create barriers to keep wages low and prevent the working class from revolting.

I don't think you have any say in what Adam "ought" to do with his basement and property.

If not, he needs to do something else with his money.


*sigh*

Whose money is it again?
Adam's, of course. And with it he can chose to exploit, cooperate, or keep to himself. I encourage the hypothetical Adam, and everyone, especially us bitcoin pioneers, to avoid exploitation and cooperate.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 02, 2011, 12:43:56 AM
This problem solves itself in anarchism because barriers to becoming the capitalist employer are removed. Therefore the capitalist pig can't pay his workers too little or they set up in competition to him. Employee exploitation is only a problem in statist systems.
It's in the capital holders' self-interest to create barriers to keep wages low and prevent the working class from revolting.

I don't think you have any say in what Adam "ought" to do with his basement and property.

If not, he needs to do something else with his money.


*sigh*

Whose money is it again?
Adam's, of course. And with it he can chose to exploit, cooperate, or keep to himself. I encourage the hypothetical Adam, and everyone, especially us bitcoin pioneers, to avoid exploitation and cooperate.
I simply cannot comprehend how letting somebody use your property at both parties consent could be considered exploitation in any way, despite all ignorance on either side. Your logic dictates that every individual is morally obligated to fix all ignorance they come about; however, that requires them to not be entitled to their own time.

In the end, it is not even realistic to enforce against such "exploitation".


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: barbarousrelic on March 02, 2011, 12:53:54 AM
If Adam doesn't get enough satisfaction out of housing Bob, he needs to do something else with his basement.

Quote
Adam ought to enjoy that Bob has heat and can afford college. If not, he needs to do something else with his money.
So Adam should either give these things away for free or not sell them at all. With only these choices, the world is going to be significantly more miserable. In an attempt to keep Bob from being 'exploited,' Bob is going to end up cold and homeless.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 02, 2011, 12:58:22 AM
If Adam doesn't get enough satisfaction out of housing Bob, he needs to do something else with his basement.

Quote
Adam ought to enjoy that Bob has heat and can afford college. If not, he needs to do something else with his money.
So Adam should either give these things away for free or not sell them at all. With only these choices, the world is going to be significantly more miserable. In an attempt to keep Bob from being 'exploited,' Bob is going to end up cold and homeless.
Property with terms and conditions isn't really property at all. I've only seen this ideal work in reality within hippy communes.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 02:16:37 AM
I simply cannot comprehend how letting somebody use your property at both parties consent could be considered exploitation in any way, despite all ignorance on either side.
It's exploitation when you don't have a free choice. Sure, we can choose our exploiters, but what kind of choice is that?

Quote
Your logic dictates that every individual is entitled to fix all ignorance they come about; however, that requires them to not be entitled to their own time.

In the end, it is not even realistic to enforce against such "exploitation".
The idea isn't to enforce against exploitation, but become aware and stop tolerating it.

So Adam should either give these things away for free or not sell them at all.
No. If you own that which your labor produces, you can sell it. Adam doesn't have anything to charge Bob for except maintenance. Merely letting Bob live in his basement doesn't require labor from Adam. So, charging rent means getting money for nothing.

Quote
With only these choices, the world is going to be significantly more miserable.
Why? You and I would control the products of our labor instead of having to hand over that control to our choice of a selection of exploiters.

Quote
In an attempt to keep Bob from being 'exploited,' Bob is going to end up cold and homeless.
No. In a world free of exploitation, Bob could construct his own shelter or share one with others, like Adam, and contribute his labor to its upkeep. Sounds pretty okay to me.

Property with terms and conditions isn't really property at all. I've only seen this ideal work in reality within hippy communes.
What terms and conditions?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 02, 2011, 02:21:16 AM
Tt's exploitation when you don't have a free choice. Sure, we can choose our exploiters, but what kind of choice is that?

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 02, 2011, 02:21:48 AM
Tt's exploitation when you don't have a free choice. Sure, we can choose our exploiters, but what kind of choice is that?

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: Work or die.

And if you don't like the other potential bosses, be your own!



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: barbarousrelic on March 02, 2011, 02:30:24 AM
No. If you own that which your labor produces, you can sell it. Adam doesn't have anything to charge Bob for except maintenance. Merely letting Bob live in his basement doesn't require labor from Adam. So, charging rent means getting money for nothing.

How do you know Adam didn't put any labor into his basement? What if Adam built this home including the finished basement? May he then rent it out?

What if he paid someone else for building and finishing the basement, with money he earned through his labor?

"Money for nothing" as you describe this situation, would be infinitely better than nothing for nothing, where Bob doesn't get to rent out the basement and he is forced to be cold and homeless or to build his own shelter.

Perhaps Adam is great at building houses, but Bob is very bad at building houses. Instead, Bob is great at growing food, which he can exchange for shelter (indirectly, through money.) You'd take away his ability to have a nice home through your attempts at avoiding 'exploitation.'


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 02, 2011, 02:31:39 AM
The numbers are hard to calculate base on varying ways of losing money but lets assume the following from 2003:

There was 630 Billion dollars in circulation. 7.3 Billion was burned up in fires. This seems a fair ratio for the BitCoin question, since some will back up, some will die, some will corrupt the file, etc..., etc....  

IRL:

Money can be replace by printing more. But it looks like just over 1% is lost each year. So the math would be easy, it will take 100 years to run out of money if you couldn't replace it. But the effects would be felt well before hand due to a lack of flow.

BitCoins.

At full implementation there would be 24 Quadrillion BitCoins. If the 1% hold true for lost BitCoins, the same amount of time. 100 years until Zero and failure since you can't replace them. It will actually be a little longer since we are still actually creating BitCoins. Probably another 15 years.

I think I have a solution that will keep the anonymity going.

When the statistical percentage based on probability reaches 50% of the BitCoins are lost. Start BitCoin v2 give everyone 2-3 years to transfer the BitCoins to v2.  Any lost or forgotten coins will be reclaimed and the process starts over. If you fail to transfer your money in 2-3 years worth of notice, to bad so sad.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 02, 2011, 02:33:35 AM
No. If you own that which your labor produces, you can sell it. Adam doesn't have anything to charge Bob for except maintenance. Merely letting Bob live in his basement doesn't require labor from Adam. So, charging rent means getting money for nothing.

How do you know Adam didn't put any labor into his basement? What if Adam built this home including the finished basement? May he then rent it out?

What if he paid someone else for building and finishing the basement?

"Money for nothing" as you describe this situation, would be infinitely better than nothing for nothing, where Bob doesn't get to rent out the basement and he is forced to be cold and homeless or to build his own shelter.

Perhaps Adam is great at building houses, but Bob is very bad at building houses. Instead, Bob is great at growing food, which he can exchange for shelter (indirectly, through money.) You'd take away his ability to have a nice home through your attempts at avoiding 'exploitation.'
He also neglects to place any value over time.

Also, check your PMs, Mr. Relic.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 02, 2011, 03:43:21 AM
At full implementation there would be 24 Quadrillion BitCoins. If the 1% hold true for lost BitCoins, the same amount of time. 100 years until Zero and failure since you can't replace them. It will actually be a little longer since we are still actually creating BitCoins. Probably another 15 years.

Technically there will be 21 million at full implementation. Technically if the 1% lost a year rate holds, it'll be much longer than 100 years before we run out of bitcoins. Never, if we have infinite decimals at our disposal.

When the statistical percentage based on probability reaches 50% of the BitCoins are lost. Start BitCoin v2 give everyone 2-3 years to transfer the BitCoins to v2.  Any lost or forgotten coins will be reclaimed and the process starts over. If you fail to transfer your money in 2-3 years worth of notice, to bad so sad.

Not a bad idea, though it seems like a bit of a hassle, especially considering the computing power it's going to take to get to our 21 million.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 02, 2011, 03:56:33 AM
At full implementation there would be 24 Quadrillion BitCoins. If the 1% hold true for lost BitCoins, the same amount of time. 100 years until Zero and failure since you can't replace them. It will actually be a little longer since we are still actually creating BitCoins. Probably another 15 years.

Technically there will be 21 million at full implementation. Technically if the 1% lost a year rate holds, it'll be much longer than 100 years before we run out of bitcoins. Never, if we have infinite decimals at our disposal.

When the statistical percentage based on probability reaches 50% of the BitCoins are lost. Start BitCoin v2 give everyone 2-3 years to transfer the BitCoins to v2.  Any lost or forgotten coins will be reclaimed and the process starts over. If you fail to transfer your money in 2-3 years worth of notice, to bad so sad.

Not a bad idea, though it seems like a bit of a hassle, especially considering the computing power it's going to take to get to our 21 million.

yea, I think that would work.

From my understand by Steve Gibson, although you don't see it yet. It is 24 or maybe 21 but that is to the left of the decimal places. There are 8 spots to the right of the decimal place. That would mean the founding BitCoin would be 0.00000001, our equivalent to the penny.

The reason you don't see it is the supply demand issue. He was a real genius to solve this problem by the mining concept. If it works correctly the supply should meet demand proportionately. If supply falls behind demand then the BitCoins become more valuable which will bring more people into the system to cash in by Mining. The added CPU will quickly create the supply to meet demand. Profits made in the interim.  The cool thing is your .05 BitCoins could actually be worth alot of money down the road. You won't know until full implementation but it could be worth 500 dollars. I read someone bought 2000 BitCoins for $15. That would a 1000% increase in investment in less than 2 years.

I check the PDF to see if I am correct.

Yea, Here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ

How divisible are Bitcoins?
Technically, a Bitcoin can be divided down to 8 decimals using existing data structures, so 0.00000001 BTC is the smallest amount currently possible. Discussions about and ideas for ways to provide for even smaller quantities of Bitcoins may be created in the future if the need for them ever arises. For convenience, the program currently accepts only 2 decimal places as quantities smaller than 0.01 BTC are considered of trivial value and are usually used only to attack the network.



If you had infinite decimals at your disposal the money would be worthless. 21 quadrillion is enough. If you could just arbitrarily add money without a policy, you could devalue the whole market. Quantitative Easing. And who, gets to decide? A Federal Reserve?, a programmer?, India, Russia, China. No there needs to be a finite amount of sufficient quantity.

And you were write on the amount it is : 20999999.999999999496 BitCoins under the algorithm.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 04:09:36 AM
Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like a justification for slavery.

And if you don't like the other potential bosses, be your own!
That's kind of the idea. The employee-employer relationship is exploitive and no good for employers and employees alike. Let's abandon it and form cooperative associations instead, where we, the workers, own the means of production and the products of our labor.

How do you know Adam didn't put any labor into his basement? What if Adam built this home including the finished basement? May he then rent it out?

What if he paid someone else for building and finishing the basement, with money he earned through his labor?
We can assume that Adam owns the house through his labor. Either he built it or bought it with the products of his labor. The landlord-renter relationship is still exploitive.

Quote
"Money for nothing" as you describe this situation, would be infinitely better than nothing for nothing, where Bob doesn't get to rent out the basement and he is forced to be cold and homeless or to build his own shelter.
No. Adam can also sell Bob a share of a house. Of course, Bob would then have the associated decision making power over that basement share.

Quote
Perhaps Adam is great at building houses, but Bob is very bad at building houses. Instead, Bob is great at growing food, which he can exchange for shelter (indirectly, through money.) You'd take away his ability to have a nice home through your attempts at avoiding 'exploitation.'
No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 02, 2011, 04:11:00 AM
Sounds like a justification for slavery.

What is slavery?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 07:23:46 PM
What is slavery?
According to the Wiktionary, slavery is a condition of servitude that a slave endures. A slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition.

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 02, 2011, 07:31:48 PM
What is slavery?
According to the Wiktionary, slavery is a condition of servitude that a slave endures. A slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition.

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships.

Many have no problem with these 'exploitative relationships'. Likely because there is nothing wrong with them. As long as all relationships are voluntary however, why does it matter? Without force or threat thereof, there is no slavery.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 08:13:59 PM
Many have no problem with these 'exploitative relationships'. Likely because there is nothing wrong with them.
Or, they simply aren't aware of the situation. They could even be convinced that they live under the best possible conditions. Slaveholders work hard to convince their slaves, and themselves, of such false realities. For example, they basked in the notion that slavery was their burden, that they toiled to save the poor Negros. Rebellious slaves were just ungrateful. Now we have wage slavery.

Quote
As long as all relationships are voluntary however, why does it matter? Without force or threat thereof, there is no slavery.
Via flight, revolt, or purchasing their freedom, couldn't slaves voluntarily chose to emancipate themselves? Slavery is a condition in which you have limited choices due to coercion, just like how the worker finds himself under capitalism.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: barbarousrelic on March 02, 2011, 09:17:02 PM
The coercion that a slave is subject to (whips, beatings, torture) is entirely different than the coercion that employer-employee financial exchanges supposedly entail (the need to work the sort of job you want in order to afford the standard of living you want). The difference is drastic enough to make the comparison ludicrous.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 09:30:00 PM
The coercion that a slave is subject to (whips, beatings, torture) is entirely different than the coercion that employer-employee financial exchanges supposedly entail (the need to work the sort of job you want in order to afford the standard of living you want). The difference is drastic enough to make the comparison ludicrous.
Today's workers obviously enjoy more comfort than slaves historically have, at least in the US. My point isn't to compare living conditions or the types of coercion that slaves and workers endure. Rather, that they both participate in coercive relationships and we should not tolerate either.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 02, 2011, 10:15:33 PM
The coercion that a slave is subject to (whips, beatings, torture) is entirely different than the coercion that employer-employee financial exchanges supposedly entail (the need to work the sort of job you want in order to afford the standard of living you want). The difference is drastic enough to make the comparison ludicrous.
Today's workers obviously enjoy more comfort than slaves historically have, at least in the US. My point isn't to compare living conditions or the types of coercion that slaves and workers endure. Rather, that they both participate in coercive relationships and we should not tolerate either.

I want to sell my services doing X for a certain amount of money (or more!) Y. If I can get Y for X, then it is not a coercive deal as I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, and, presumably the other party does as well.

FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 10:39:22 PM
I want to sell my services doing X for a certain amount of money (or more!) Y. If I can get Y for X, then it is not a coercive deal as I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, and, presumably the other party does as well.
Even if you desire such a relationship, you don't have a choice other than poverty, and that's not really a choice. You can become an employer, if you're lucky enough to control the means to do so or, more likely, you submit to an exploitive loan. In that case, you will have become a pimp, a monger, an exploiter yourself. At least you can dull the misery of that role by coddling yourself with petty luxuries.

Quote
FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.
Show me the flaw then.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: friendsofkim on March 03, 2011, 12:06:17 AM
Quote
I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if both parties enter willingly, no matter how much the cost.

That's a bit naive - if you were starving to death, I think you would work in my sweatshop for a piece of bread, water and a cell.

If I were a decent person, I would pay you what your work was actually worth, regardless of the fact that you have no choice but to work for with me.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 03, 2011, 12:09:33 AM

If I were a decent person, I would pay you what your work was actually worth, regardless of the fact that you have no choice but to work for with me.

What you're actually worth is based on supply and demand, what you can negotiate, and no more.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 03, 2011, 12:43:26 AM
21 quadrillion is enough.

And you were write on the amount it is : 20999999.999999999496 BitCoins under the algorithm.


Okay, I realize I'm probably being pedantic, but you realize that 20,999,999.9~ rounded up to 21,000,000 is 21 million, not 21 quadrillion, right? 1 quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. 21 quadrillion would be 21,000,000,000,000,000. Just thought I should make that clear.

If you could just arbitrarily add money without a policy, you could devalue the whole market. Quantitative Easing. And who, gets to decide? A Federal Reserve?, a programmer?, India, Russia, China. No there needs to be a finite amount of sufficient quantity.

Yeah, absolutely. Keeping the bitcoins locked at a finite amount is analogous to having a gold standard. And it would ruin the whole p2p, decentralized aspect of our currency to have a central issuing authority.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 03, 2011, 12:47:32 AM
To those who think adding decimal places is adding coins - it's not. There is still the same amount of things, we can just break it down more.

And FatherMcGruder - If you can't see the flaw in your argument, I can't show you. You think that a voluntary contract is exploitation. I think that's silly, because it's voluntary. We're spinning our wheels here.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 03, 2011, 12:55:26 AM
What you're actually worth is based on supply and demand, what you can negotiate, and no more.
Supply and demand determines what one can trade for with that which he produces. If one gets traded on the market, he is livestock. Workers deserve better than the likes of livestock. If you negotiate for anything less than the value of that which you produce and the decision making power over it, you have been coerced into such an arrangement, are ignorant or delusional, or deliberately giving your labor and self-determination away for far less than you deserve.

And FatherMcGruder - If you can't see the flaw in your argument, I can't show you. You think that a voluntary contract is exploitation. I think that's silly, because it's voluntary. We're spinning our wheels here.
Why do you think that voluntary contracts always signify a lack of coercion or exploitation? I can easily think of examples where they do not.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 03, 2011, 12:56:23 AM
Quote
Okay, I realize I'm probably being pedantic, but you realize that 20,999,999.9~ rounded up to 21,000,000 is 21 million, not 21 quadrillion, right? 1 quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. 21 quadrillion would be 21,000,000,000,000,000. Just thought I should make that clear.


No, I think the misconception is what is the base BitCoin.  

In USD the base the foundation is the penny 1¢.  

The misconception is the the base BitCoin is 0.01, it is not; the base BitCoin is 0.00000001  

So technically your 0.01 BitCoin is actually 1 Million BitCoin's  

Now take 0.00000001 and divide that into 21 Million.  That is how many BitCoins there will be.

People are already trading in the fractional amounts that get left over.

The starting point is the 0.01


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 03, 2011, 12:58:49 AM
What you're actually worth is based on supply and demand, what you can negotiate, and no more.
Supply and demand determines what one can trade for with that which he produces. If one gets traded on the market, he is livestock. Workers deserve better than the likes of livestock. If you negotiate for anything less than the value of that which you produce and the decision making power over it, you have been coerced into such an arrangement, are ignorant or delusional, or deliberately giving your labor and self-determination away for far less than you deserve.

And FatherMcGruder - If you can't see the flaw in your argument, I can't show you. You think that a voluntary contract is exploitation. I think that's silly, because it's voluntary. We're spinning our wheels here.
Why do you think that voluntary contracts always signify a lack of coercion or exploitation? I can easily think of examples where they do not.

Yes yes the old 'work for me for pennies or don't and starve'. Not a valid argument - someone else will come along who needs labor and offer a better deal, the hypothetical worker can start his own business, or do contract work if there is enough demand.



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 03, 2011, 01:17:01 AM
Yes yes the old 'work for me for pennies or don't and starve'. Not a valid argument - someone else will come along who needs labor and offer a better deal, the hypothetical worker can start his own business, or do contract work if there is enough demand.

There is at least one case when this argument is valid - when you're talking about state capitalism (rather than free market capitalism). In state capitalism, the capitalists pay the politicians for favors, which they redeem to tilt the labor market more in their favor. Minimum wage laws, licensing regulations, tax except employer health care... all of these things sound good, but put up barriers to entry to the market. This means that the "exploited" employee must remain exploited, because it costs too much to start a competing business.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 03, 2011, 01:21:11 AM
Wow, this discussion's gotten rather heated!

Quote
No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses.

But if he doesn't want an actual house, if he only wants a month's stay, then what? You're going to end up having a landlord/renter situation no matter what, unless Bob gives away his basement. Whether he gives it away or not, it's Bob's choice and I cannot assign morality to his decision to rent unless I know more facts about the situation. Is Bob putting himself and his possessions in peril by housing Adam? Then I couldn't blame him for charging a fee. If he suffers damage and Adam flees without helping repair the damage, then at least Bob has his fee. But will Adam die for want of shelter, and has Adam come to a want of shelter through no fault of his own, and will housing Adam do no harm to Bob? Then I would say it would be right for Bob to offer his basement on more lenient terms, perhaps for free. It would be wrong of Bob to leave Adam to die.

But you argue that the landlord arrangement itself is exploitative. You argue about straw men and abstractions that have little to do with reality. In a certain situation, yes, Bob's charging of Adam would be exploitative. If he raised his rent simply because he knew Adam needed it badly, and especially if his hike in rent locks Adam into his impoverished state, then yes, that is certainly exploitative. It is wrong in the same way that stealing from a baby is wrong. It is the gratuitous taking of what I do not need from someone who cannot afford to lose what I am taking and who is powerless to stop me. That is exploitation.

If Adam, however, is simply a wanderer by choice and wishes to lodge in Bob's basement for a time, and if Bob chooses to charge him for that, and if Adam accepts, then I see no wrong. From a certain perspective this is akin to charging Adam for shelter without which he would die: in both cases I am putting a barrier in the way of what he wants. And I think this is what you mean by exploitation, Father McGruder: putting a barrier between a person and what they want. Perhaps you would add the qualifier "needless" to the word "barrier," but I would have to stop you there. Because who is to say that Bob's need to accumulate capital by renting out his basement is any lesser than Adam's need to accumulate experience and contacts by wandering from town to town?

Your arguments work in the clean-room of idealism, but they cannot stand when they meet reality. Yes, it would be nice if everyone worked according to their ability and received according to their need. Unfortunately we live in a world of scarcity. Once that scarcity is gone, or far enough removed so as to be unknown to anyone first-hand, then we may begin talking about the even distribution of wealth. Even now we might be at the cusp of being able to talk about the even distribution of life's necessities.

But really, I would rather human labor be removed from the equation before we start spreading the fruits of that labor. Once we automate farming and have food coming from fields where no human need ever have set foot, once by the simple motion of the sun and machinery we find food on our tables, then let the distribution be equal.

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships.

No no, he said work or die, not be employed or die. Though I guess he did imply the latter, didn't he? But really, usually there's nothing to stop a person from becoming their own employer or from banding together with other workers to make a living. Sure, it'll take a lot of work, and sure, you might have to work at something you don't really care about, but at least nobody's employing you, right?

Quote
Even if you desire such a relationship, you don't have a choice other than poverty, and that's not really a choice. You can become an employer, if you're lucky enough to control the means to do so or, more likely, you submit to an exploitive loan. In that case, you will have become a pimp, a monger, an exploiter yourself. At least you can dull the misery of that role by coddling yourself with petty luxuries.
Um... actually, poverty is a choice. And it's not the only one. We can always become our own employers. If you desire emancipation from a regular paycheck, then learn a skill people will pay you for directly, or make something you can sell. Software is the best thing to sell, since you only have to make it once and can then sell it many times. (Bill Gates was smart about that one.)

And hiring people? How's that exploitative? If you pay fair wages, or if you give what you can give at the very least, then I can't find fault. The cooperation of a group to bring in greater wealth is still cooperation, even if the leader is somewhat autocratic.

Anyway, sorry about the dissertation! I get carried away sometimes, once I start typing.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 03, 2011, 01:27:49 AM
Quote
Okay, I realize I'm probably being pedantic, but you realize that 20,999,999.9~ rounded up to 21,000,000 is 21 million, not 21 quadrillion, right? 1 quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. 21 quadrillion would be 21,000,000,000,000,000. Just thought I should make that clear.


No, I think the misconception is what is the base BitCoin.  

In USD the base the foundation is the penny 1¢.  

The misconception is the the base BitCoin is 0.01, it is not; the base BitCoin is 0.00000001  

So technically your 0.01 BitCoin is actually 1 Million BitCoin's  

Now take 0.00000001 and divide that into 21 Million.  That is how many BitCoins there will be.

People are already trading in the fractional amounts that get left over.

The starting point is the 0.01

That... really doesn't sound right. I don't think you can say that 0.01 bitcoin is one bitcoin. Because to say 0.01 bitcoin is one bitcoin is the same as saying that 0.01 bitcoin is 1 bitcoin. That doesn't hold, logically.

0.01 != 1

Any time I see the number 0.01, I don't think "one." I think "zero point zero one," or "one hundredth."

Just to back me up, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin)) on bitcoins:

Quote
The amount of bitcoins created per batch is never more than 50 BTC, and the awards are programmed to decrease over time down to zero, such that no more than 21 million will ever exist.

A Google search also shows that most people agree with the terminology. It's 21 million, not 21 quadrillion.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 03, 2011, 02:01:11 AM
Ok,

I can see how people misconceive the concept. But lets look at it logically.

Lets just take the U.S. population not the world.

There are 300 Million people. Let assume BitCoin becomes a whopping success....

  How in the world can you support the economy on 21 Million BitCoins.  You Can't 

But the Genius behind it is the increase in value is built into the BitCoin. It is divisible because of the 8 places to the right of the decimal.

So lets take an example; lets assume there are currently 21 Million in existence.

21,000,000.00000000 would be the proper representation.

But the 21 Million are controlled by only 100 Million people but there is increasing demand, but you literally can't produce more. How do you meet demand. Just like this. Watch:

21,000,000.00000000 -> 210,000,000.0000000  The people that have 21 Million still have 21 Million but now there is another 189 Million to supply for the increased demand.  Basic example but you should get the idea.


Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy? There are over 800 Billion Physical Dollars in circulation just for our economy, and that doesn't include the electronic dollars that get sent everywhere.




Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Nekrobios on March 03, 2011, 02:04:38 AM
Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy?
No. That’s excactly why they are divisible. And this does NOT mean inflation, as the Bitcoins I hold will be divisible into as many parts as there are for everyone.

Seriously, I don’t see your problem.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 03, 2011, 02:12:53 AM
I want to sell my services doing X for a certain amount of money (or more!) Y. If I can get Y for X, then it is not a coercive deal as I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, and, presumably the other party does as well.

The mathematics on this is pretty simple to measure from a perspective of game theory.  If you have information and power symmetries all exchanges will tend toward mutual benefit.  As information or power asymmetries are introduced, the exchanger who is "upstream" of the asymmetry will tend to end up as the "more equal" partner, all other things being equal.

Information and power asymmetries are easy to measure and not even the most naive economist would pretend modern market scenarios are free of them, except as a simplifying assumption to perform large-scale simulation.  If you're familiar with game theory sitting down and modeling your "best guess" on many real-world situations might surprise you.

Given that we live in a real world where information and power asymmetries do exist, the natural conclusion is that without an intentional decision on the part of the "more equal" person many exchanges will not be mutually beneficial.  This can be hard to fit into human psychology, which is fair, and to be expected.  Many people don't seem to realise that a lot of "good people" on the upside of slavery, absent a careful re-examination, would have by default thought that things were as they should be.  Basic human psychology.  Food for thought.

Pretty much the only remaining route if the above paragraph is uncomfortable is to convert the asymmetries themselves into a "right" to profit by virtue of being smarter/stronger/etc.  I have a pretty massive IQ, and I find that difficult to stomach since I am very well aware that did not choose to be who or where I am, and my life has been pretty damn easy.

At the end of the day, no outside force is going to make the "more equal" behave one way or another.  But if they want to face their own consciences there's really no avoiding that they have to be the ones working to keep exchanges mutually beneficial.

FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.
I'd give him a little more credit than that.  If the answers to these questions were as obvious as many people seem to think, there would be a lot more unanimity on these issues.


Um... actually, poverty is a choice.
Categorical assertions like this seem pretty ridiculous given the extensive data available to us.  For example, in my comparatively wealthy country children are disproportionately poor compared to the general population, and minority children even more so.  If everyone "chose" to be poor such segments would be affected with equal probability, or possibly even less considering the fact that most societies invest heavily in their children.  Clearly other factors are at play.


sincerely,
eMansipater


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 03, 2011, 02:33:36 AM
Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy?
No. That’s excactly why they are divisible. And this does NOT mean inflation, as the Bitcoins I hold will be divisible into as many parts as there are for everyone.

Seriously, I don’t see your problem.

I was just trying to point out the absolute minimum amount is 0.00000001 not 0.01

If you are part of a mining group, you can better understand the fractional.  The problem comes in because any amount is called the same.

100 x 1 Cent =  $1 Dollar

100 x 0.01 BitCoin = 1 BitCoin 

There exist nothing less the 1¢ in our currency so it is the foundation from which we work. The same exists in every other currency.

The foundation of the BitCoin is not 0.01 but 0.00000001  That is the starting point. Jeez if people forget that, i want all the fractional money left over everywhere. I could start a new Wall Street.  ;D

So lets start the Naming of the amounts.

0.00000001 =  1 pence or maybe a bit
0.00000010 =  1 fallow or whatever

0.10000000 = 1 byte    0.20000000 is 2 bytes   ;D

and the all important 1.00000000  will equal the BitCoin

but until that is done, 0.00000001 will be the BitCoin unless no one wants them, then I will take them.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 03, 2011, 03:01:18 AM
Quote
The mathematics on this is pretty simple to measure from a perspective of game theory.  If you have information and power symmetries all exchanges will tend toward mutual benefit.  As information or power asymmetries are introduced, the exchanger who is "upstream" of the asymmetry will tend to end up as the "more equal" partner, all other things being equal.


Math?  That is Business 101

Let me ask; does the Math fit the People or the People fit the Math ?

On another matter you sound versed in high order math. I have been working on a formula compression algorithm in ternary logic where the resulting answer from a given formula is a large number resulting in 1's and 0's.  But the logic handles 3 states +0- for the calculations.

The concept is to reduce extremely large numbers to a basic formula of  x^y^z with each having 256 possibilities. And with encoding the meta data for a file and looping at each stage and keeping track of the loops and metadata while encoding such into the original binary file: to end up with a extremely small file <1000 Kb that represents the variables to be put into a Universal Formula that when decompress represents the original file.

I have achieved a 98% compression on a 1 MB randomly generated file. Most of the remaining 2% is metadata for the program.  Scaling is the issue, if versed in complexity theory (which is what most people quote to prove a flaw in the logic) I state that because the resulting answer will "Always" be consist of 1's and 0's that theory does not apply.

I need to prove the algorithm with large files, the down side is on decompression the file must expand to 8-10 times its original size.
Thats fine with relatively small files but in order to add to the Complexity Theory, I need to prove extremely large numbers. That is where thine problem lie.

Any thoughts?   

The cool thing so far, is a 1 Gb file can be compress to the 1Mb or less. The bandwidth savings will be a fortune for lots of people. Not to mention say good bye to file sharing. My ultimate goal is to be able to print out a single sheet with the variable and meta data that can be physically entered into a program to be decompressed to the original file. 

Track That !!! 



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 03, 2011, 03:28:22 AM
Ok,

I can see how people misconceive the concept. But lets look at it logically.

Lets just take the U.S. population not the world.

There are 300 Million people. Let assume BitCoin becomes a whopping success....

  How in the world can you support the economy on 21 Million BitCoins.  You Can't 

But the Genius behind it is the increase in value is built into the BitCoin. It is divisible because of the 8 places to the right of the decimal.

So lets take an example; lets assume there are currently 21 Million in existence.

21,000,000.00000000 would be the proper representation.

But the 21 Million are controlled by only 100 Million people but there is increasing demand, but you literally can't produce more. How do you meet demand. Just like this. Watch:

21,000,000.00000000 -> 210,000,000.0000000  The people that have 21 Million still have 21 Million but now there is another 189 Million to supply for the increased demand.  Basic example but you should get the idea.


Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy? There are over 800 Billion Physical Dollars in circulation just for our economy, and that doesn't include the electronic dollars that get sent everywhere.




I'm reading your posts as you arguing that the moving of the decimal point is creating more bitcoins. Please correct me if I'm wrong - the rest of my post is in this context.



Okay. Say you have an block of gold. For whatever reason it is the only block of gold in existence, and more gold cannot be created. Trades will start off with you spending a large shaving of that block for a certain amount of work. Eventually, as the entire economy turns to running on gold, you will pay for that same amount of work with a smaller piece of gold.

The same is happening with bitcoins - the base value of a bitcoin is too much for smaller transactions because a bitcoin will be worth too much. To solve this problem, people will trade 'pieces' of a bitcoin, eg nanobitcoins, microbitcoins, etc. You aren't making more bitcoins, you simply trade fewer bitcoins for a given service.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 03, 2011, 03:52:22 AM
Yea, I tried to keep it simple.

I get your point. I know the actual decimal won't move. My point is that the base the smallest amount of gold that you will shave off of the  bar is 0.00000001 BitCoin 

That represents the foundation of all larger BitCoin amounts. 

The 21 Quadrillion is the real amount of currency.  Just like that $1 just represents 100¢ or 0.01 BitCoin is 1 Million 0.00000001 BitCoin

If 0.00000001 achieves parity with the 1¢ then the practical thing to do is to move the decimal place to 0000000.01 BitCoin

The one problem I see with fractional currency is the same thing that happened on Wall Street. 6 5/12 for example. People just forgot or didn't care about the left over unused fractional amounts less than a penny.

On an individual basis it seemed worthless and not worth the hassle. But when the firms took all the left overs and summed them together for the day they made millions from other peoples money.

The Mining Groups are running into this problem already. If you leave the group and your balance is 10.01653401 you only get 10.01 Bitcoin, they keep the 0.00653401 BitCoin.  No big Deal unless that happened to 1 million people. Then it is 65,340.10 BitCoins for left for the operator.

I don't want people to forget the fractional's that is where the scams will hit hard. Stealing a dollar from a 100 people is safer than stealing a $100.00 from one. Especially if were talking fractionals.





Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 03, 2011, 03:58:48 AM
FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.
I'd give him a little more credit than that.  If the answers to these questions were as obvious as many people seem to think, there would be a lot more unanimity on these issues.

True. However, regardless of how hard these questions are to answer, a person can still have trouble understanding another. To such a person, the one speaking would make little or no sense, regardless of whether they have a valid point or not.

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.
Categorical assertions like this seem pretty ridiculous given the extensive data available to us.  For example, in my comparatively wealthy country children are disproportionately poor compared to the general population, and minority children even more so.  If everyone "chose" to be poor such segments would be affected with equal probability, or possibly even less considering the fact that most societies invest heavily in their children.  Clearly other factors are at play.

Well yes. I didn't mean that people are necessarily poor because they choose to be. I meant that one can choose to be poor. It's an option.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 03, 2011, 04:05:56 AM
The 21 Quadrillion is the real amount of currency.  Just like that $1 just represents 100¢ or 0.01 BitCoin is 1 Million 0.00000001 BitCoin

If 0.00000001 achieves parity with the 1¢ then the practical thing to do is to move the decimal place to 0000000.01 BitCoin

The one problem I see with fractional currency is the same thing that happened on Wall Street. 6 5/12 for example. People just forgot or didn't care about the left over unused fractional amounts less than a penny.

Actually, I think once the bitcoin gets that strong, we'll start seeing people listing prices in terms of micro-bitcoins or something to that effect.  When everything was super cheap (by face value, anyway) here in the States, back during the Great Depression, a lot of shops began listing prices in terms of cents if they were cheaper than a dollar.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 03, 2011, 04:07:02 AM
Yea, I tried to keep it simple.

I get your point. I know the actual decimal won't move. My point is that the base the smallest amount of gold that you will shave off of the  bar is 0.00000001 BitCoin 

That represents the foundation of all larger BitCoin amounts. 

The 21 Quadrillion is the real amount of currency.  Just like that $1 just represents 100¢ or 0.01 BitCoin is 1 Million 0.00000001 BitCoin

If 0.00000001 achieves parity with the 1¢ then the practical thing to do is to move the decimal place to 0000000.01 BitCoin

The one problem I see with fractional currency is the same thing that happened on Wall Street. 6 5/12 for example. People just forgot or didn't care about the left over unused fractional amounts less than a penny.

On an individual basis it seemed worthless and not worth the hassle. But when the firms took all the left overs and summed them together for the day they made millions from other peoples money.

The Mining Groups are running into this problem already. If you leave the group and your balance is 10.01653401 you only get 10.01 Bitcoin, they keep the 0.00653401 BitCoin.  No big Deal unless that happened to 1 million people. Then it is 65,340.10 BitCoins for left for the operator.

I don't want people to forget the fractional's that is where the scams will hit hard. Stealing a dollar from a 100 people is safer than stealing a $100.00 from one. Especially if were talking fractionals.





If the smallest unit of bitcoin gets to be too expensive for standard transactions, I'd imagine the only people holding onto a wallet.dat would be using it as a long term wealth storage. Account hubs would be the main ways of transferring wealth in smaller amounts, and they'd just settle accounts with each other internally.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 03, 2011, 06:29:05 AM
Actually, I think once the bitcoin gets that strong, we'll start seeing people listing prices in terms of micro-bitcoins or something to that effect.  When everything was super cheap (by face value, anyway) here in the States, back during the Great Depression, a lot of shops began listing prices in terms of cents if they were cheaper than a dollar.

The term is Satoshi. .00000001 bitcoin is a Satoshi. Should that achieve Parity with the penny, I will be a very happy man, even with only 666000000 of them. (Yes, my bitcoin balance is 6.66. Anyone who is paranoid about that number is welcome to remedy that using the address below. ;))


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ryepdx on March 03, 2011, 10:36:56 AM
Wait, so what about this?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units

According to that page, 0.00000001 bitcoin is a bitcoin-bong...


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 03, 2011, 10:50:11 AM
Wait, so what about this?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units

According to that page, 0.00000001 bitcoin is a bitcoin-bong...

huh. Well, use whatever terminology you like. Personally, I think bitcoin-bong sounds like just another way of saying "water pipe priced at 1 bitcoin", but that's me. There is no "official" term for anything other than the base unit: the bitcoin.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 03, 2011, 10:52:06 AM
deal, 1 water pipe for 1 bitcoin-bong

How do we make the trade? and is there residue?  ;D



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ribuck on March 03, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
Wait, so what about this?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units

According to that page, 0.00000001 bitcoin is a bitcoin-bong...

Don't worry about that. There is one user of Bitcoin who is pushing that system of measurements and nomenclature. No-one other than that user will ever use "BitCoin-bong" as a serious unit.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 03, 2011, 03:01:33 PM
There is at least one case when this argument is valid - when you're talking about state capitalism (rather than free market capitalism). In state capitalism, the capitalists pay the politicians for favors, which they redeem to tilt the labor market more in their favor. Minimum wage laws, licensing regulations, tax except employer health care... all of these things sound good, but put up barriers to entry to the market. This means that the "exploited" employee must remain exploited, because it costs too much to start a competing business.
Capitalists inevitably support the state because it helps to increase and secure their profits. Up and coming capitalists, who want to topple the state, just want to have an easier time competing with the legacy capitalists who currently enjoy state support. The up and coming capitalists will eventually create a state, in one way or another, as newer capitalists and the indignant masses come to threaten their profits.

State capitalism is actually communism, wherein the state controls the capital and acts as everyone’s employer.

Quote
No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses.

But if he doesn't want an actual house, if he only wants a month's stay, then what? You're going to end up having a landlord/renter situation no matter what, unless Bob gives away his basement. Whether he gives it away or not, it's Bob's choice and I cannot assign morality to his decision to rent unless I know more facts about the situation. Is Bob putting himself and his possessions in peril by housing Adam? Then I couldn't blame him for charging a fee. If he suffers damage and Adam flees without helping repair the damage, then at least Bob has his fee. But will Adam die for want of shelter, and has Adam come to a want of shelter through no fault of his own, and will housing Adam do no harm to Bob? Then I would say it would be right for Bob to offer his basement on more lenient terms, perhaps for free. It would be wrong of Bob to leave Adam to die.

But you argue that the landlord arrangement itself is exploitative. You argue about straw men and abstractions that have little to do with reality. In a certain situation, yes, Bob's charging of Adam would be exploitative. If he raised his rent simply because he knew Adam needed it badly, and especially if his hike in rent locks Adam into his impoverished state, then yes, that is certainly exploitative. It is wrong in the same way that stealing from a baby is wrong. It is the gratuitous taking of what I do not need from someone who cannot afford to lose what I am taking and who is powerless to stop me. That is exploitation.

If Adam, however, is simply a wanderer by choice and wishes to lodge in Bob's basement for a time, and if Bob chooses to charge him for that, and if Adam accepts, then I see no wrong. From a certain perspective this is akin to charging Adam for shelter without which he would die: in both cases I am putting a barrier in the way of what he wants. And I think this is what you mean by exploitation, Father McGruder: putting a barrier between a person and what they want. Perhaps you would add the qualifier "needless" to the word "barrier," but I would have to stop you there. Because who is to say that Bob's need to accumulate capital by renting out his basement is any lesser than Adam's need to accumulate experience and contacts by wandering from town to town?

Your arguments work in the clean-room of idealism, but they cannot stand when they meet reality. Yes, it would be nice if everyone worked according to their ability and received according to their need. Unfortunately we live in a world of scarcity. Once that scarcity is gone, or far enough removed so as to be unknown to anyone first-hand, then we may begin talking about the even distribution of wealth. Even now we might be at the cusp of being able to talk about the even distribution of life's necessities.

But really, I would rather human labor be removed from the equation before we start spreading the fruits of that labor. Once we automate farming and have food coming from fields where no human need ever have set foot, once by the simple motion of the sun and machinery we find food on our tables, then let the distribution be equal.
You confused Adam and Bob somewhere in there. It was Adam who had the house with a basement, and Bob who needed shelter, wasn’t it? Also, you quoted me a little bit out of context.

If Bob only need shelter for one month, then Adam can shelter Bob for one month, assuming that Adam has the ability and desire. The problem arises when Adam attempts to exploit Bob’s need for shelter by charging more than the costs associated with Bob’s stay. Adam has done no extra work to deserve the extra fee. For Adam to force anyone to overcompensate him is rotten. I understand the scarcity of housing. It rightfully enables a builder to sell a house for a given price, but to collect without transferring ownership is abuse. That’s the reality. Your landlord is screwing you. Your employer is screwing you. Your lender is screwing you.

Quote
Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships.

No no, he said work or die, not be employed or die. Though I guess he did imply the latter, didn't he? But really, usually there's nothing to stop a person from becoming their own employer or from banding together with other workers to make a living. Sure, it'll take a lot of work, and sure, you might have to work at something you don't really care about, but at least nobody's employing you, right?
Yes, we must work for food, shelter, and fun, but why should my work provide those things to employers, lenders, and renters? Perhaps the exploitation we experience forces some of us to become exploiters, too, but we ought to band together and cease to tolerate it.

Quote
Um... actually, poverty is a choice.
Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.

Quote
And it's not the only one. We can always become our own employers. If you desire emancipation from a regular paycheck, then learn a skill people will pay you for directly, or make something you can sell.
With what means? Capitalism compels us to either appeal to a lender or exploit someone else.

Quote
Software is the best thing to sell, since you only have to make it once and can then sell it many times. (Bill Gates was smart about that one.)
Don’t get me started on intellectual property.

Quote
And hiring people? How's that exploitative?
Because you are living off their labor, instead of yours. Because despite the fact that they contribute most of the labor to the business, you retain all of the ownership.

Quote
If you pay fair wages, or if you give what you can give at the very least, then I can't find fault. The cooperation of a group to bring in greater wealth is still cooperation, even if the leader is somewhat autocratic.
The only fair “wage” is the ownership of that which you produce.

Quote
Anyway, sorry about the dissertation! I get carried away sometimes, once I start typing.
It’s cool.

At the end of the day, no outside force is going to make the "more equal" behave one way or another.  But if they want to face their own consciences there's really no avoiding that they have to be the ones working to keep exchanges mutually beneficial.
+1

Incidentally, if one wants to live without employing, lending, renting, or otherwise exploiting others, he will have to work.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 03, 2011, 03:10:03 PM
McGruder, I think what you don't understand about the employer-employee relationship is that the employer bears the majority of the risk. The employer stands to lose his investment at any time, the employee merely loses his job. At any point the employee could take that risk upon himself and strike out on his own.

Now, I agree that in our current situation, this proposition is less desirable for most, but I contend that it is due to the state's interference in labor markets, not something inherent in a non-socialist society.

All that said, I don't call myself a capitalist, or an anarchist, but a voluntaryist. I found this to be a good read on the topic of the state's use of force distorting labor markets: http://c4ss.org/content/4043

Quote
My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

    Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
    Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
    Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

Quote
As the price of capital is diluted, the share of production that goes to the workers increases.  What we would eventually see is essentially, a permanent global labor shortage.  Companies would compete for workers, rather than the other way around.

Quote
There’s nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than they’d prefer.  Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than they’d prefer.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 03, 2011, 03:13:25 PM

Quote
Um... actually, poverty is a choice.
Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.


Poverty and wealth are comparison concept. It does nothing to tell us if the poor is happy with their life or not. What is certain though that the average poor person in the US today is far richer than the kings of the past.

As for me, I do not associate rich, poor, or inequality with ethics. Hence, wage-slavery don't exists to me. There's nothing to fret over.

So this whole capitalist exploiting people are total blank to me.  ???


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: barbarousrelic on March 03, 2011, 03:47:30 PM
If Bob only need shelter for one month, then Adam can shelter Bob for one month, assuming that Adam has the ability and desire. The problem arises when Adam attempts to exploit Bob’s need for shelter by charging more than the costs associated with Bob’s stay. Adam has done no extra work to deserve the extra fee. For Adam to force anyone to overcompensate him is rotten. I understand the scarcity of housing. It rightfully enables a builder to sell a house for a given price, but to collect without transferring ownership is abuse. That’s the reality. Your landlord is screwing you. Your employer is screwing you. Your lender is screwing you.

Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent.

Quote
Quote
Um... actually, poverty is a choice.
Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.
Slaves fleeing plantations were subject to manhunts with dogs coming to forcibly return them, often accompanied by whippings and torture. A person in poverty is subject to no such manhunts.

I will qualify the previous poster's statement "poverty is a choice" - I believe it is a choice IF:

1) the person is in an area with adequate economic opportunity
2) the person is of sound mental health
3) the person is not phyiscally handicapped


Additionally, the person may not be able to get out of poverty due to previous bad choice they have made, but that's a distinction between 'a choice a person can make right now' and 'a choice a person has already made that they can't un-choose.'


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 03, 2011, 04:20:15 PM
So, McGruder, What's your opinion on Hotels?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 03, 2011, 07:08:00 PM
McGruder, I think what you don't understand about the employer-employee relationship is that the employer bears the majority of the risk. The employer stands to lose his investment at any time, the employee merely loses his job. At any point the employee could take that risk upon himself and strike out on his own.
An employer only risks not making a profit. An employee always loses on his labor investment.  Furthermore, an employer can always pass the risk down to the employees in the form of higher expectations, furloughs, reduced pay, and layoffs.

Quote
Now, I agree that in our current situation, this proposition is less desirable for most, but I contend that it is due to the state's interference in labor markets, not something inherent in a non-socialist society.
I contend that capitalists naturally create states to reduce risks and secure profits. A little bit of welfare helps to pacify the working class.

Quote
All that said, I don't call myself a capitalist, or an anarchist, but a voluntaryist. I found this to be a good read on the topic of the state's use of force distorting labor markets: http://c4ss.org/content/4043

Quote
My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

    Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
    Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
    Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

Quote
As the price of capital is diluted, the share of production that goes to the workers increases.  What we would eventually see is essentially, a permanent global labor shortage.  Companies would compete for workers, rather than the other way around.

Quote
There’s nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than they’d prefer.  Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than they’d prefer.
That was a good read.


Quote
Um... actually, poverty is a choice.
Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.


Poverty and wealth are comparison concept. It does nothing to tell us if the poor is happy with their life or not. What is certain though that the average poor person in the US today is far richer than the kings of the past.

As for me, I do not associate rich, poor, or inequality with ethics. Hence, wage-slavery don't exists to me. There's nothing to fret over.

So this whole capitalist exploiting people are total blank to me.  ???
So what? One can still be happy while under someone's subjugation. That doesn't make subjugation a good thing.

Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent.
It's unfair that Bob should pay Adam for work that Adam isn't doing. Adam can enjoy the benefits of doing those things if and when he does them.

Quote
Slaves fleeing plantations were subject to manhunts with dogs coming to forcibly return them, often accompanied by whippings and torture. A person in poverty is subject to no such manhunts.
In our society, those who refuse exploiters are subject to poverty. The poverty one experiences may or may not include such treatment, but that's irrelevant. As Siddhartha demonstrated, poverty isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, it always is if someone forces it upon you.

Quote
I will qualify the previous poster's statement "poverty is a choice" - I believe it is a choice IF:

1) the person is in an area with adequate economic opportunity
2) the person is of sound mental health
3) the person is not phyiscally handicapped


Additionally, the person may not be able to get out of poverty due to previous bad choice they have made, but that's a distinction between 'a choice a person can make right now' and 'a choice a person has already made that they can't un-choose.'
4) Others do not extort a profit from you for the resources you need to live.

Without that fourth qualification, others can force you into poverty against your will.

So, McGruder, What's your opinion on Hotels?
Here's one acceptable model: The workers own the hotel. They accept guests and only charge for the cost of house keeping, supplies, any damage they might cause, and any other services they require. The workers share these earnings according to how much they contribute. They are free to spend these funds as they please, be it on the hotel or themselves. If they buy something for the hotel, any new income associated with that investment goes to pay back the workers who contribute toward it before getting shared as normal.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 03, 2011, 07:10:43 PM
What is exploitation, again?  ???


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 03, 2011, 07:34:51 PM
What is exploitation, again?  ???
When one party takes advantage of another party with no consideration except for the first party's own gain. A party will often employ trickery, deception, and coercion in exploiting another.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 03, 2011, 07:38:24 PM
When one party takes advantage of another party with no consideration except for the first party's own gain. A party will often employ trickery, deception, and coercion in exploiting another.

So you're saying Bob is exploiting Adam by making use of his basement and offering little to nothing in return?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 03, 2011, 07:45:28 PM
So you're saying Bob is exploiting Adam by making use of his basement and offering little to nothing in return?
Adam inviting Bob to use his basement, at cost, is a completely fair exchange.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 03, 2011, 07:48:21 PM
Adam inviting Bob to use his basement, at cost, is a completely fair exchange.

What if it is offered at a profit?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: carp on March 03, 2011, 08:39:52 PM
So you're saying Bob is exploiting Adam by making use of his basement and offering little to nothing in return?
Adam inviting Bob to use his basement, at cost, is a completely fair exchange.

I don't know how much we will disagree in the end. I mostly agree with the concepts that you espouse on some level. That said, I have both been a landlord for several years, and spent some time thinking about these issues and what I could reasonably do to avoid being an exploiter.... and what that even means.

I think the problem here is that many of these things are only easy to define well in very simplistic examples, like we see here. Once you start looking at a real situation, things get murky really fast.

First of all, Adam, in the real world, is oftenly not a free man himself. He is someones wage slave. He is in an exploitive relationship with a bank, who has a lien on his house. Unless he is independently wealthy, or his wage slavery pays him enough to afford the place enitrely, he may, in fact, be risking more than profit.

For example, if Bob moves out, having the space empty may reduce some costs, but, likely its not 100%, in fact, the cost reduction may be more in the realm of 50% or less. As such, any time the space is empty, Adam is in fact losing. Finding new tennants can take time, depending on time of year and economics.... so this is a real risk.

More than that, Bob can cause problems, do damage. As someone who has had to clean up after tennants, and listen to the complaints of neighbors (as often as not, unreasonable complaints).... there are indeed costs, if not always direct financial ones.

What do we include in Adam's costs? Do we include the fact that maintaining his standard of living past his useful working years as a wage slave will require a reserve of money? What about the reserve of money he may need when the heating oil tank leaks (I had that happen last year, over $20k out of pocket unexpected, not something I was at ALL prepared for and left me in a very nasty financial situation), or the roof needs to be fixed, etc.

For a while I kicked around the idea that the house should be owned by everyone in the household... but that makes things very hard if you still want people to be mobile. Not everyone wants to pick a place to live for the next 5-10 years, some people don't want to commit to something longer than a year.... some wont last more than a year before others are saying "its him or me".

I just... don't see how to apply these ideals unless you have a group of interested and dedicated people who want to come together into a commune. Not that I am against this concept but, I have yet to find myself in the situation where I knew enough people who were interested and I would feel comfortable entering into such a situation wtih.... well thats not true.... I met one such person.... and I married her....  but so far thats about it.

Honestly, I think people who look at rents as exploitive discount too much the exploitation of the landlords by the banks. Ive done some basic math crunching and, maybe its different elsewhere but, I look at rents vs mortgages and tend to think things are generally much closer to equity than it may seem.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 03, 2011, 09:34:27 PM
Tell me, why does a monetary incentive to provide services to people bother you so much?

Especially since nobody's forcing anyone to charge, or accept, any specific price, so if one person is charging enough that another can undercut him profitably, they will.

The "evil landlord" that I always hear the proudhoun crowd whining about has to live somewhere, too... and eat, pay the bills, etc. Not to mention pay for upkeep on the space they're renting out. Which, of course, is ignoring the opportunity cost of not using the space themselves. If the tenant doesn't like paying rent, there are plenty of other options: Home ownership. Other apartments, with lower rent. Buying a tent and living out in the woods (Which, in a 100% free society, would amount to Home Ownership).

Nobody's locking them in at night and marching them to their job at gunpoint. It's an apartment, not a prison.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 03, 2011, 09:38:39 PM
Nobody's locking them in at night and marching them to their job at gunpoint. It's an apartment, not a prison.

There are, however, coercive forces at work and I think it is important that we acknowledge that. Capitalism as we know it would not exist without the state, but that doesn't mean that employer-employee or landlord-tenant relationships are inherently coercive.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 03, 2011, 09:55:22 PM
There are, however, coercive forces at work and I think it is important that we acknowledge that. Capitalism as we know it would not exist without the state, but that doesn't mean that employer-employee or landlord-tenant relationships are inherently coercive.

Capitalism as we know it is not Capitalism. What the world knows as "Capitalism" is in fact best described as Fascism That's not a popular term, but what it boils down to a partnership between government and business. This isn't even necessarily overt, it's just that it's cheaper to buy support a politician so that he will pass legislation benefiting the company than to actually out-compete other companies. Landlord-tenant and employer-employee relationships are not inherently coercive. The current economy places the balance of power with the employer in one case, and the landlord in the other. In a market with more jobs than workers, and more homes than landlords, the balance of power would be in favor of the worker and tenant.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 03, 2011, 10:21:23 PM
The balance of power in a free market is a dynamic relationship, but it always end at two parties agreeing to a particular scheme.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 03, 2011, 10:29:48 PM
The balance of power in a free market is a dynamic relationship, but it always end at two parties agreeing to a particular scheme.

Yup. Without coercion, both parties end up happy. Since they're both happy, both are better off than when they started. Both profit.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ribuck on March 03, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Yup. Without coercion, both parties end up happy.

Sure. So the focus should be on getting rid of the coercion. But not everyone is ready to accept that the dominant coercive force is the state.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: barbarousrelic on March 04, 2011, 02:15:40 AM
I was talking to my Muslim neighbor today who was telling me how he was trying to sell his house through self-financing to the buyer, but his religion requires that he can't charge interest. He gets around this, however, by just going into an agreement with the buyer to sell for a higher selling cost, but without any interest in the payments. 

This discussion made me think of this thread.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: barbarousrelic on March 04, 2011, 02:19:57 AM
Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent.
It's unfair that Bob should pay Adam for work that Adam isn't doing. Adam can enjoy the benefits of doing those things if and when he does them.
But he can't do them because of Bob, which is why it is fair to expect Bob to compensate Adam for the loss Bob is causing.


If Adam breaks Bob's leg, and this causes Bob to be out of work for a month, would it be fair or unfair for Adam to pay Bob his month's wages as compensation for the loss Adam caused Bob to take?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: carp on March 04, 2011, 01:05:59 PM
Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent.
It's unfair that Bob should pay Adam for work that Adam isn't doing. Adam can enjoy the benefits of doing those things if and when he does them.
But he can't do them because of Bob, which is why it is fair to expect Bob to compensate Adam for the loss Bob is causing.


If Adam breaks Bob's leg, and this causes Bob to be out of work for a month, would it be fair or unfair for Adam to pay Bob his month's wages as compensation for the loss Adam caused Bob to take?

Not if Bob wanted Adam to break his leg. :)

I think this is a really hard area beacuse free market and anti-exploitation arguments tend to argue right past each other. I think both tend to have some interesting, and even valid points. However, I tend to feel like anti-exploitation is making a statement about how we as individuals should want to act towards eachother, whereas free market arguments seem to avoid any talk of motivation, and focus solely on the transaction.

At Yale some professors (or at least a math one) put lectures on youtube, I watched a few on "game theory" recently. So I am no expert, but I feel qualified to now talk out my ass like I think I am one. This all reminds me of the Nash Equilibrium. The set of moves where everyone has played his best possible move, in relation to everyone else's move. Nash himself postulated that you would have a very stable society without wars if everyone had a paranoid fear of everyone else and acted in complete self-interest. Nash was also a paranoid schizophrenic, so this concept may have come naturally to him :)

The interesting thing is, that depending on the definition of the game, there can be multiple such equilibriums, and they are not all equal, that is to say, some raise the overall score more.

So to half ass connect this. If Adam rents Bob his basement. The free market argument is, Adam could have made more money setting up a workshop down their with Carol, or brewing beer with Dave. So if Adam feels he should charge more for the basement to justify not using it for that, then thats what he does, and that price is of course fair by definition because, its his to sell.

The exploitation argument is that if Adam is going to rent to Bob, he should do it because he wants to do it, because he values giving Bob shelter. Of course, he incurs risks and costs, and needs to ask that Bob "pull his weight" and make sure Adam isn't just incurring more cost for slogging his dead weight along.

The thing is.... if Adam has other uses for it, and deicdes that he doesn't value (or can't afford to value) housing Bob above other things he can use the space for, then he should do those other things right? So... both arguments seem to end up at the same place.... but they are not even trying to talk about the same aspects of the transaction.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 04, 2011, 02:03:56 PM
Not if Bob wanted Adam to break his leg. :)

I think this is a really hard area beacuse free market and anti-exploitation arguments tend to argue right past each other. I think both tend to have some interesting, and even valid points. However, I tend to feel like anti-exploitation is making a statement about how we as individuals should want to act towards eachother, whereas free market arguments seem to avoid any talk of motivation, and focus solely on the transaction.

I don't understand what exploitation is. To me, the question is "am I in a better situation now than I was before" is way more important than anything else. I am concerned with maximizing prosperity for everyone, not what's fair and what's non-exploitative, who profit more, how equal is our society, etc.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 04, 2011, 04:44:35 PM
If Adam wants a person to live in his basement, that has some value which would make the rent cheaper for Bob. But Adam doesn't want someone living in his basement - he does however want money. They will come to an agreement at the point where Adam gets enough money to part with his basement, which he doesn't want to do. Again, if he does, rent very well may come close to minimum required.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 04, 2011, 09:22:18 PM
I don't understand what exploitation is. To me, the question is "am I in a better situation now than I was before" is way more important than anything else. I am concerned with maximizing prosperity for everyone, not what's fair and what's non-exploitative, who profit more, how equal is our society, etc.
Well, slave owners make tons of profit. You would tolerate slavery in your society?

If Adam wants a person to live in his basement, that has some value which would make the rent cheaper for Bob. But Adam doesn't want someone living in his basement - he does however want money. They will come to an agreement at the point where Adam gets enough money to part with his basement, which he doesn't want to do. Again, if he does, rent very well may come close to minimum required.
Bob should compensate Adam for supplies and labor, no doubt. However, Adam does not do any labor or contribute any supplies in simply letting Bob occupy the basement. Why should Adam get something for nothing?

Carp: Thanks for your thoughtful responses. For the record, I have nothing against landlords, employers, and lenders as people. All the ones that I've met seem very nice. You seem nice, too. For the most part, exploiters operate under the coercion of their own exploiters. Exploiting others may make them comfortable, but it will not make them free, kind of like kapos. Even though many kapos weren't very nice prior to their promotion, they got ahead by exploiting others on the order of their own exploiters.

You mentioned some of the problems that crop up in cooperative situations. These problems happen in exploitative ones, too. In the case of an apartment building, residents, whether they own their dwellings or not, can disrupt each other. In an exploitative situation, a the plaintiff resident will appeal to the landlord who may or may not use his authority to fix or at least eliminate its symptoms. The landlord's solution may not satisfy the residents, but that's irrelevant. All bets are off if the resident has a dispute with the landlord. In a cooperative situation, residents will have to work things out amongst themselves. Of course they can try to do the same in an exploitative situation, but the landlord can rule out whatever solution they come up with. Ten thousand Internets to whomever can guess what solution I came with for my neighbor's disruptions.

As Bitcoin pioneers, many of us may have a choice between engaging in exploitative relationships or cooperative ones. I encourage everyone to choose the cooperative path and not seek undeserved positions of power over one another.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 04, 2011, 09:27:31 PM
I encourage everyone to choose the cooperative path and not seek undeserved positions of power over one another.

It seems to me that your problem isn't with the systems used (renting, employment, etc) but with the coercion used by some people using those systems.

As long as there isn't any coercion, then both people are better off by the deal, regardless of the exact nature of the deal, whether it's a co-op, or an employee/employer relationship, or something else entirely.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 04, 2011, 09:38:13 PM
It seems to me that your problem isn't with the systems used (renting, employment, etc) but with the coercion used by some people using those systems.

As long as there isn't any coercion, then both people are better off by the deal, regardless of the exact nature of the deal, whether it's a co-op, or an employee/employer relationship, or something else entirely.
If an employer isn't exploiting you, he's your partner. If a renter isn't exploiting you, he's your seller. If your lender isn't exploiting you, he isn't charging you to borrow from him.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 04, 2011, 09:49:06 PM
If an employer isn't exploiting you, he's your partner. If a renter isn't exploiting you, he's your seller. If your lender isn't exploiting you, he isn't charging you to borrow from him.

Please explain to me exactly how exploitation is inherent in each of these situations:

Employment

rental property

charging interest

because I don't see how, in the absence of coercion, any of these things is bad.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 04, 2011, 09:50:09 PM
If an employer isn't exploiting you, he's your partner. If a renter isn't exploiting you, he's your seller. If your lender isn't exploiting you, he isn't charging you to borrow from him.

If an employer offers me a certain amount of money for my services and I accept, we are both in a better position than before. If a landlord offers me a place to live for a certain amount of money and I accept, we are both in a better position than before.

Tell me how you fit in to this transaction, and how you can determine if I am being exploited or not.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: error on March 04, 2011, 09:52:51 PM
It would seem that he thinks any exchange in which someone realizes a monetary gain is "exploitative." This is so utterly absurd that I hardly know where to begin.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 04, 2011, 09:54:52 PM
It would seem that he thinks any exchange in which someone realizes a monetary gain is "exploitative." This is so utterly absurd that I hardly know where to begin.

I do. In order to determine whether or not any transaction I engage in is "exploitative", I must know exactly how much it costs the seller to produce the good or service.

Ridiculous.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 05, 2011, 02:25:56 AM
Well, slave owners make tons of profit. You would tolerate slavery in your society?

As far as ethics goes, it's wrong to enslave people not because it's "exploitative" but because it's a violation of self-ownership.

Slaveowners profit for themselves, but it doesn't mean it's in their long-term interest to enslave people.

It's also wrong not to strive toward prosperity too. If you want to alleviate human suffering, you need an efficient economy.

I still don't understand "exploitation".


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 05, 2011, 03:34:28 AM
Wow, this thread was going crazy while I was away.

Quote
The mathematics on this is pretty simple to measure from a perspective of game theory.  If you have information and power symmetries all exchanges will tend toward mutual benefit.  As information or power asymmetries are introduced, the exchanger who is "upstream" of the asymmetry will tend to end up as the "more equal" partner, all other things being equal.
Math?  That is Business 101

Let me ask; does the Math fit the People or the People fit the Math ?

On another matter you sound versed in high order math. I have been working on a formula compression algorithm in ternary logic where the resulting answer from a given formula is a large number resulting in 1's and 0's.  But the logic handles 3 states +0- for the calculations.

The concept is to reduce extremely large numbers to a basic formula of  x^y^z with each having 256 possibilities. And with encoding the meta data for a file and looping at each stage and keeping track of the loops and metadata while encoding such into the original binary file: to end up with a extremely small file <1000 Kb that represents the variables to be put into a Universal Formula that when decompress represents the original file.

I have achieved a 98% compression on a 1 MB randomly generated file. Most of the remaining 2% is metadata for the program.  Scaling is the issue, if versed in complexity theory (which is what most people quote to prove a flaw in the logic) I state that because the resulting answer will "Always" be consist of 1's and 0's that theory does not apply.

I need to prove the algorithm with large files, the down side is on decompression the file must expand to 8-10 times its original size.
Thats fine with relatively small files but in order to add to the Complexity Theory, I need to prove extremely large numbers. That is where thine problem lie.

Any thoughts?  

The cool thing so far, is a 1 Gb file can be compress to the 1Mb or less. The bandwidth savings will be a fortune for lots of people. Not to mention say good bye to file sharing. My ultimate goal is to be able to print out a single sheet with the variable and meta data that can be physically entered into a program to be decompressed to the original file.  

Track That !!!
Lol--nice try, but you're about 7 years too late to snipe me on bogus compression schemes (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3899.0).  Have fun writing your Universal Formula though :).  Regarding "does the Math fit the People or the People fit the Math?" I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Surely you're not arguing that descriptions of "the way things are" should be considered normative!  Because if you are....well.....entropy.  Hope you didn't just commit suicide there.  Or go all Agent Smith trying to take down the planet.  Order of any kind is an aberration.

At the end of the day, no outside force is going to make the "more equal" behave one way or another.  But if they want to face their own consciences there's really no avoiding that they have to be the ones working to keep exchanges mutually beneficial.
+1

Incidentally, if one wants to live without employing, lending, renting, or otherwise exploiting others, he will have to work.

Not sure where you get the idea that all employing, lending, renting, etc. is exploitation.  Power/knowledge asymmetries provide the opportunity for exploitation, but definitely don't necessitate it.  Just like I can continue being smarter than the general population and still act morally I can be in roles of leadership and responsibility, genuinely working away providing real value for myself and others.  Sameness and fairness are very different.  I just have to face my own conscience for how I discharge myself in those situations.  And my presence in the market as a leader helps to destroy the competitiveness of unethical power-holders.  I just need to be wary of my own desire to exploit my position for personal gain, like any other leader.  When you realise that CEO's, etc. are just social leaders like any other power holders, you begin to be scared that we have a tendency to select heavily for narcissism in those roles.

As an aside, I'm a business owner.  But there are definitely differences amongst my peers for those who try to make their businesses' operations mutually beneficial, and those who are ultimately just exploitative.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 05, 2011, 04:16:08 AM
 
Quote
Surely you're not arguing that descriptions of "the way things are" should be considered normative!  Because if you are....well.....entropy.  Hope you didn't just commit suicide there.  Or go all Agent Smith trying to take down the planet.  Order of any kind is an aberration.

Point Being - Since I sincerely feel there are no certainties, but only the probability of occurrence with in a defined set, your application of Game Theory was presented as a proof. But all theories have their exception. Game Theory is the Prisoner's Dilemma. Now did the math match the study or did the mathematician apply the theory to the expected outcome.

Order of any kind is an aberration, is an order.  But assume no order and only random occurrence (which in reality is only a construct), the absolute randomness of everything would be an order but an impossible one. Everything reacts, that reaction will alway prevent randomness. The closest we come is in the Quantum world, but even there since we can predict the possibilities suggest that although we don't know what are causing the reactions, something is. Maybe the Higgs Boson, the observer effect, etc...

One can most definitely see a pattern in random data depending on the size and placement of the data set. So, in order to determine true randomness, you would have to see the whole data set in order to determine that it is random.  

  1234 is it random, 23949394293841234329892839283912839283 is it random, 2394939429384123432989283928391283928323949394293841234329892839283912839283 is it random now.

Point being in order to declare true randomness you would have to put the brackets around [∞].

On the compression, curious and SVG file can be shown as a 72x72 or a ∞x∞ and still be the same size. hmm, possible for graphic but not 0's and 1's. I guess that I have to give up the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) algorithm for the Navy. Oh, well.

BTW, Do you happen to have any Ternary computer parts hanging around, they are hard to come by these days.  


Curiously, Hashes are judged by not having collisions. Basically no two alike with a given data set.  PseudoRandom. Which is funny, a true Random hash would have collisions everywhere. I propose any hash will have collisions in the algorithm, we just need a bigger data set. And when we have enough collisions, well there goes that hash system.  MD5, Sha1, 256, 512, etc... It won't matter.



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 05, 2011, 07:22:17 AM
Silk Road order just came in, huh?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 05, 2011, 07:46:37 AM
Define: Misconstrue -  Reading stories and putting assumptions into them. 

What did you get out of Catcher and the Rye?  ;D  Or my favorite: Sid Hartha


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 05, 2011, 07:57:39 AM
Define: Misconstrue -  Reading stories and putting assumptions into them. 

What did you get out of Catcher and the Rye?  ;D  Or my favorite: Sid Hartha
You may very well be on to something incredible, my friend, but these disparate phrases are not coalescing into communication for me.  They end up as apparently just a stream of consciousness.  Which is cool and everything, but just thought I'd let you know there's no particular image or concept being formed in my mind by them.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 05, 2011, 08:19:52 AM
Bummer, Oh well...

If I am onto something, unfortunately I like many others won't get any credit. Not our money, Not our reward. But the knowledge can't be destroyed.

Sad, that no image of either negative or positive could be formed. Some of the greatest things come from the image of the possible or not possible. For me, I love win some one says: Impossible, Can't be done, etc....  Makes me think of the how it can be done, if even having to take different routes to accomplish the task.

To many believe in the static laws, when there are none. Or belief in purposely mis-stated laws to make things seem simpler but leads many down the wrong path because of the simply stated law.

For Example:

An object at rest, tends to stay at rest unless acted upon. Should be: An objects vector tends to stay the same unless acted upon, etc...

There is not one object ever found in the macro or micro at rest. In fact the primal force of everything is motion.

Perspectives matter, Time itself is just a matter of perspective.

Imagine the amount of public keys that would be generated if the BTC indeed becomes a global currency. Collisions should occur.

But I digress, sorry to have bothered.  I bow, and bid adieu, til next time.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 05, 2011, 09:19:11 AM
Wow... You got the good stuff, Didn't ya?

Or.. Maybe there are some drugs you SHOULD be taking?

Either way, Thanks for sharing, but it still doesn't make much sense.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 05, 2011, 09:23:42 AM
yea, I re-read it, sound way off and out there.

Been working on this thing for 2 days now straight, you know how it goes sometimes, I guess its time for a nap. Getting goofy, been using the forum for breaks.

Nighty, Night.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 05, 2011, 09:33:27 AM
yea, I re-read it, sound way off and out there.

Been working on this thing for 2 days now straight, you know how it goes sometimes, I guess its time for a nap. Getting goofy, been using the forum for breaks.

Nighty, Night.

Ah! Sleep-dep. Yeah, that will do it. Sleep well, and awaken.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 07, 2011, 04:03:20 AM
Please explain to me exactly how exploitation is inherent in each of these situations:

Employment

rental property

charging interest

because I don't see how, in the absence of coercion, any of these things is bad.
An employer takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital in order to direct them has he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by charging them for the privilege to use his.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 07, 2011, 04:07:19 AM
An employer takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital in order to direct them has he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by charging them for the privilege to use his.

??? ??? ??? ???

You see, it just doesn't resonate with me.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2011, 04:22:23 AM
The default human condition is nothing. Absolute poverty. I see nothing wrong with that. I certainly don't see a problem with the occasional ignorance that is exploited that may deduct from the exploitees upgrade, that we subjectively consider the hospitable standard of living. Honestly, I don't see why anyone gives a fuck.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 07, 2011, 04:26:37 AM
Please explain to me exactly how exploitation is inherent in each of these situations:

Employment

rental property

charging interest

because I don't see how, in the absence of coercion, any of these things is bad.
An employer sometimes takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital or market positioning or opportunity or vision or leadership in order to direct them as he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord often takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital or connections or desire/ability to manage a property in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A common type of lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by overcharging them for the privilege to use his.

I genuinely think that exploitation is much easier and common in the heart of business than anyone these days seems to want to admit, but that conclusion only means something if you're willing to engage the complexity of the real world when you're coming to it.  None of these issues are black and white--often only the actual person in the position of power truly knows whether exploitation is going on.  I am pretty confident, though, that making blanket categorisations like this is totally ineffective at calling anyone to a higher standard--mostly because it's wrong.  In the sense of being inaccurate, that is--I'm sure you mean well.  But when you sit back and consider the lives that you've impacted, are there a lot of people in the business world on that list?  Because if so, I could be completely off base.  But if not, maybe this is why.  We do need a much higher standard in the marketplace, especially for those that hold the reins more often than not.  People who are going home saying to themselves, "that's just business" or even "that's just good business" need to know that they're lying to themselves so they can actually deal with what they're doing to themselves and others.  But you can't get there by painting the whole canvas with one giant brush, because that's not how art is done unless you're Kazimir Malevich.  And accountability is an art, make no mistake.  Anyone benefiting from an exploitative situation is going to have built themselves some pretty big psychological defenses.  And those things can blow holes in overgeneralisations from miles away.  Trust me, I would know.  My two cents.


eMansipater


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 07, 2011, 04:40:55 AM
The default human condition is nothing. Absolute poverty. I see nothing wrong with that. I certainly don't see a problem with the occasional ignorance that is exploited that may deduct from the exploitees upgrade, that we subjectively consider the hospitable standard of living. Honestly, I don't see why anyone gives a fuck.
Actually I think the second law of thermodynamics shows pretty clearly that the default human condition is nonexistence, or death if you prefer.  But since all of us are trying to avoid that by swimming upstream in the entropy flow, maybe defaults don't have anything to do with that.  The reason I see something wrong with that is that I've seen someone I love die simply because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time; for lack of something you could afford with your pocket change.  Our experience as the wealthy and secure of the world teaches us to ignore that because the weight of other human beings' suffering, if we actually dared to allow it into our minds, is too much for an unprepared mind to process.  Same underlying psychological issue as survivor's guilt--we wouldn't be able to handle it if we truly had to justify our lives to someone, so we find ways to avoid it (especially if that someone is ourself).

But don't kid yourself, Atlas.  Everyone gives a fuck.  Human to human attachment is so deeply wired into our psychology that those who differ even slightly in that regard (say, along the autistic spectrum) are clearly and noticeably different from the neurotypical.  It may be the hip thing in our day and age to pretend that you, or I, or any of us is somehow not human, not having to play by those rules.  To cool for it.  Above it.  But if you look deeper I think you'll find that the only reason it's important to post your not-give-a-fuckness on an internet forum in the first place is because you already do.  Our differentiated experiences as people is definitely a hard thing to understand--I can tell you that as someone who's spent a lot of time trying.  But if you want any kind of real justification you're probably going to have to work on that yourself.  Hit me up if you're curious though--I've had my life dump a fair bit of perspective in my lap from time to time.  There's plenty to go around.

eMansipater


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 07, 2011, 04:44:26 AM
Our experience as the wealthy and secure of the world teaches us to ignore that because the weight of other human beings' suffering, if we actually dared to allow it into our minds, is too much for an unprepared mind to process.  Same underlying psychological issue as survivor's guilt--we wouldn't be able to handle it if we truly had to justify our lives to someone, so we find ways to avoid it (especially if that someone is ourself).

Than our job is to push against human suffering is it not?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 07, 2011, 04:56:30 AM
Our experience as the wealthy and secure of the world teaches us to ignore that because the weight of other human beings' suffering, if we actually dared to allow it into our minds, is too much for an unprepared mind to process.  Same underlying psychological issue as survivor's guilt--we wouldn't be able to handle it if we truly had to justify our lives to someone, so we find ways to avoid it (especially if that someone is ourself).
Than our job is to push against human suffering is it not?
Well, once you take a good square look at things that's pretty much the only route to a sound sleep at night, imho.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 07, 2011, 06:47:11 AM
An employer takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital in order to direct them has he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by charging them for the privilege to use his.

Um... No.

An employee takes advantage of an employer's abundance of capital in order to receive a regular paycheck in exchange for a little bit of his time.

A tenant takes advantage of his landlord's abundance of capital in order to receive a roof over his head (as well as potentially appliances and furniture) in exchange for an affordable amount of his capital.

A borrower takes advantage of his lender's abundance of capital to achieve goals that would be beyond his reach on his own.

So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 07, 2011, 08:16:34 AM
So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: error on March 07, 2011, 09:31:44 AM
So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.

And who held a gun to your head to stay in such a relationship?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 07, 2011, 01:05:18 PM
Um... No.

An employee takes advantage of an employer's abundance of capital in order to receive a regular paycheck in exchange for a little bit of his time.

A tenant takes advantage of his landlord's abundance of capital in order to receive a roof over his head (as well as potentially appliances and furniture) in exchange for an affordable amount of his capital.

A borrower takes advantage of his lender's abundance of capital to achieve goals that would be beyond his reach on his own.

So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.
Both parties benefit, but one much more than the other, because one has more capitalist power than the other. If employees, tenants, and borrowers had an even playing field, they would own their workplaces, their homes, and wouldn't pay interest. But they do not, because capitalism reigns.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 07, 2011, 01:38:55 PM
Can Employee/Employer or Landlord/Tenant or Lender/Borrower relationships become manipulative?

Yes, just like any relationship can. Depending on the society they're established in, they may even start that way, with one party having a clear advantage, such as a high unemployment rate giving employers an advantage, while a severe labor shortage gives the advantage to the workers.

Does that mean that they are inherently so? No. No mutually consensual relationship is inherently manipulative.

While we're at it, Let's look at the dictionary for a sec...
Quote from: Dictionary.com
–noun
1. use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Now, It's obvious, that when McGruder and other Proudhoun anarchists use the word, they mean the second definition, "selfish utilization". And on the face of it, they're entirely correct. An employer selfishly utilizes his employees for profit. That's what the business is there for. But they conveniently ignore one crucial fact, that I pointed out, before: The employee selfishly utilizes the employer for profit, too. He turns hours of his day, that he otherwise would have spent doing something else, into money, which he otherwise would not have gotten, or at least, had to get in another manner.

This also makes one very flawed assumption: that being selfish is somehow bad. It's not. That's not to say altruism is bad, because it isn't, it helps the survival of the society, as well as the species as a whole. One cannot be selfless all the time, however. At least some self-interest is required for the continued survival of the individual.  Obviously, if all the individuals die, the society is dead too, and along with it, the species. So each person must look after themselves first, and others second.

Combining this concept with the knowledge that things go a whole lot easier if everyone cooperates, and you get the free market: Everyone puts out there what they want, and what they're willing to offer. When someone finds someone else who happens to be offering what they want, they enter into negotiations to get it, haggling until both people agree that the deal is acceptable. Since both people are better off than before, both have profited.

Both parties benefit, but one much more than the other, because one has more capitalist power than the other. If employees, tenants, and borrowers had an even playing field, they would own their workplaces, their homes, and wouldn't pay interest. But they do not, because capitalism reigns.

Could you please explain, exactly, how an employer gains more from his employee than his employee gains from him? (we'll stick to one example case, for clarity)


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 07, 2011, 03:25:13 PM
Can Employee/Employer or Landlord/Tenant or Lender/Borrower relationships become manipulative?

Yes, just like any relationship can. Depending on the society they're established in, they may even start that way, with one party having a clear advantage, such as a high unemployment rate giving employers an advantage, while a severe labor shortage gives the advantage to the workers.

Does that mean that they are inherently so? No. No mutually consensual relationship is inherently manipulative.

While we're at it, Let's look at the dictionary for a sec...
Quote from: Dictionary.com
–noun
1. use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Now, It's obvious, that when McGruder and other Proudhoun anarchists use the word, they mean the second definition, "selfish utilization". And on the face of it, they're entirely correct. An employer selfishly utilizes his employees for profit. That's what the business is there for. But they conveniently ignore one crucial fact, that I pointed out, before: The employee selfishly utilizes the employer for profit, too. He turns hours of his day, that he otherwise would have spent doing something else, into money, which he otherwise would not have gotten, or at least, had to get in another manner.

This also makes one very flawed assumption: that being selfish is somehow bad. It's not. That's not to say altruism is bad, because it isn't, it helps the survival of the society, as well as the species as a whole. One cannot be selfless all the time, however. At least some self-interest is required for the continued survival of the individual.  Obviously, if all the individuals die, the society is dead too, and along with it, the species. So each person must look after themselves first, and others second.

Combining this concept with the knowledge that things go a whole lot easier if everyone cooperates, and you get the free market: Everyone puts out there what they want, and what they're willing to offer. When someone finds someone else who happens to be offering what they want, they enter into negotiations to get it, haggling until both people agree that the deal is acceptable. Since both people are better off than before, both have profited.

Both parties benefit, but one much more than the other, because one has more capitalist power than the other. If employees, tenants, and borrowers had an even playing field, they would own their workplaces, their homes, and wouldn't pay interest. But they do not, because capitalism reigns.

Could you please explain, exactly, how an employer gains more from his employee than his employee gains from him? (we'll stick to one example case, for clarity)
Employee spends eight hours building a widget. Employer pays employee 80 bitcoins (10 BTC/hour) and takes the widget. Employer sells the widget for 800 bitcoins. The employer hasn't added any work to the widget. It's the same as when he got it from the employee. The employer gets 720 bitcoins without having done any work. The employee concedes those 720 bitcoins and submits to his employer's direction because the employer will prevent him from working otherwise. Even if his former employer doesn't blacklist him, the worker will encounter the same deal with every other employer.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 07, 2011, 03:38:18 PM
The employer hasn't added any work to the widget.

That's nonsense, plain and simple. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Sure, the employer may not have done any work directly to the widget, but they have provided a place to work with the necessary tools and quality control, as well as providing a steady source of work, regardless of if one particular product fails or succeeds. The employee is offering work in exchange for the above, realizing that while he could work on his own, the capital costs and potential for failure are greater.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 07, 2011, 04:03:51 PM
Allow me to address each of your assertions individually:

The employer hasn't added any work to the widget. It's the same as when he got it from the employee. The employer gets 720 bitcoins without having done any work.
No, it isn't. It's packaged, assembled into a group with other like widgets and then packaged, or compiled into a full device by adding other doodads and whatsits and widgets, and then packaged. It's changed in a myriad of ways, and each of those processes he had to either do himself, buy the machinery to do, or hire someone else to do. There is considerable further processing to be done after the initial production. Don't forget other costs, such as overhead on the factory itself, maintenance on the machines, marketing expenses, etc.
Quote
The employee concedes those 720 bitcoins and submits to his employer's direction because the employer will prevent him from working otherwise.
I think, perhaps, you ascribe too much power to the average Capitalist. The only people who have enough influence in a field to blacklist someone are the "captains of industry", the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, as it were. Nobody is going to care if you quit say, Trend Micro because they weren't paying you enough, Especially when you offer your talents to their competitor. Additionally, let me remind you that there are always those who do not listen to the "power elite", those willing to bypass Bill Gates saying not to hire him, if his skills are good enough.
Quote
Even if his former employer doesn't blacklist him, the worker will encounter the same deal with every other employer.
Not so. In the free market, there are options for every level of compensation. If his skills are not sufficient to warrant a higher rate of pay, then he is free to seek employment using a different set of skills, or apply those same skills on his own, fashioning widgets from his own raw materials, packaging and marketing them himself, and if his widgets are of a competitive quality with those of the company he left, he can charge a comparable price, gaining the profit for himself. Of Course, if he starts selling too many widgets, he may find that he can't keep up with production and have to hire an employee...


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 07, 2011, 04:33:27 PM
That's nonsense, plain and simple. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Sure, the employer may not have done any work directly to the widget, but they have provided a place to work with the necessary tools...
This is not work.

Quote
...and quality control...
This is work.

Quote
...as well as providing a steady source of work, regardless of if one particular product fails or succeeds.
This is not work. Furthermore, when the product fails, the employees lose their income.

To the extent that an employer does work, he deserves compensation. To the extent that he merely gives permission for others to work at his direction, he does not.

Quote
The employee is offering work in exchange for the above, realizing that while he could work on his own, the capital costs and potential for failure are greater.
The workers could work on their own were it not for the fact that capitalists withhold from them the equipment and resources to do so.

No, it isn't. It's packaged, assembled into a group with other like widgets and then packaged, or compiled into a full device by adding other doodads and whatsits and widgets, and then packaged. It's changed in a myriad of ways, and each of those processes he had to either do himself, buy the machinery to do, or hire someone else to do. There is considerable further processing to be done after the initial production. Don't forget other costs, such as overhead on the factory itself, maintenance on the machines, marketing expenses, etc.
See my response to TheKid.

Quote
I think, perhaps, you ascribe too much power to the average Capitalist. The only people who have enough influence in a field to blacklist someone are the "captains of industry", the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, as it were. Nobody is going to care if you quit say, Trend Micro because they weren't paying you enough, Especially when you offer your talents to their competitor. Additionally, let me remind you that there are always those who do not listen to the "power elite", those willing to bypass Bill Gates saying not to hire him, if his skills are good enough.
Employers never ask for references from potential hires?

Quote
Not so. In the free market, there are options for every level of compensation. If his skills are not sufficient to warrant a higher rate of pay, then he is free to seek employment using a different set of skills, or apply those same skills on his own, fashioning widgets from his own raw materials, packaging and marketing them himself, and if his widgets are of a competitive quality with those of the company he left, he can charge a comparable price, gaining the profit for himself.
What if capitalists control all the resources?

Quote
Of Course, if he starts selling too many widgets, he may find that he can't keep up with production and have to hire an employee...
Or, he could do the right thing and recruit someone as a partner.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2011, 04:43:47 PM

Quote
Not so. In the free market, there are options for every level of compensation. If his skills are not sufficient to warrant a higher rate of pay, then he is free to seek employment using a different set of skills, or apply those same skills on his own, fashioning widgets from his own raw materials, packaging and marketing them himself, and if his widgets are of a competitive quality with those of the company he left, he can charge a comparable price, gaining the profit for himself.
What if capitalists control all the resources?


We have an entire universe full of them.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: error on March 07, 2011, 04:45:29 PM
This ridiculous theory of "capitalist" "exploitation" has been debunked so many times by so many different people that I am starting to wonder what you're up to. Employers do no useful work?! Clearly you've never been an employer, and probably never even known one, or you would know this is completely untrue. Oh, and the value of something bears absolutely no relation to the amount of labor used to produce it; its value is wholly subjective. Once you understand this simple fact, the rest of your whole economic quackery falls apart.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 07, 2011, 04:55:04 PM
The workers could work on their own were it not for the fact that capitalists withhold from them the equipment and resources to do so.
Pardon? I don't recall any regulations or restrictions on buying industrial machinery, or raw materials, or any of the required equipment to do exactly the same thing he's doing for the employer on his own. Or are you suggesting that the employer make him a gift of the factory?
Quote
No, it isn't. It's packaged, assembled into a group with other like widgets and then packaged, or compiled into a full device by adding other doodads and whatsits and widgets, and then packaged. It's changed in a myriad of ways, and each of those processes he had to either do himself, buy the machinery to do, or hire someone else to do. There is considerable further processing to be done after the initial production. Don't forget other costs, such as overhead on the factory itself, maintenance on the machines, marketing expenses, etc.
See my response to TheKid.
Really? Expending resources (saved work from before) isn't the same as expending effort directly? Money is representative of value, regardless of how you define "value".
Quote

Quote
I think, perhaps, you ascribe too much power to the average Capitalist. The only people who have enough influence in a field to blacklist someone are the "captains of industry", the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, as it were. Nobody is going to care if you quit say, Trend Micro because they weren't paying you enough, Especially when you offer your talents to their competitor. Additionally, let me remind you that there are always those who do not listen to the "power elite", those willing to bypass Bill Gates saying not to hire him, if his skills are good enough.
Employers never ask for references from potential hires?
Of course they do. But a smart job-seeker uses people he didn't piss off as his references. As I said, there are always people who don't care what your prior employers say, they want your skills.
Quote

Quote
Not so. In the free market, there are options for every level of compensation. If his skills are not sufficient to warrant a higher rate of pay, then he is free to seek employment using a different set of skills, or apply those same skills on his own, fashioning widgets from his own raw materials, packaging and marketing them himself, and if his widgets are of a competitive quality with those of the company he left, he can charge a comparable price, gaining the profit for himself.
What if capitalists control all the resources?
Good! Then they will allocate them to the best uses, as those are the most profitable. You seem to be forgetting that a "Capitalist" isn't some big fat dude in an office, lighting his cigars with $100 bills. The worker who owns nothing more than his clothes and car is still a capitalist. He still seeks to offer his services at the best rate, and will seek that whenever possible.
Quote

Quote
Of Course, if he starts selling too many widgets, he may find that he can't keep up with production and have to hire an employee...
Or, he could do the right thing and recruit someone as a partner.
That's an option... If he could find someone who contributes equally. If the new hire is just running the drill press, there's no reason from him to profit from the marketing, and packaging, and, and, and, etc.

tl;dr: Welcome to the 21st Century. It's not 1840 anymore.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: gene on March 07, 2011, 05:14:59 PM
FatherMcGruder, don't worry. Those of us who know anything about history know that what you are saying is correct. The rest of them, well... the propaganda of the American right works wonders on comfortable middle-class suburbia dwellers. They are the target of the "education," after all.

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories. It's called a co-operative, and it is a wonderfully democratic way to have an industrial society.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2011, 06:11:36 PM
And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.
>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 07, 2011, 06:17:37 PM
And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.
>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

Or the desire! Not everyone wants that much stress on a daily basis.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: LMGTFY on March 07, 2011, 06:24:05 PM
And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.
>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

Or the desire! Not everyone wants that much stress on a daily basis.

The stress would be spread, however. I found being a sole-proprietor very stressful; bringing in a partner dramatically reduced that. If all the workforce were partners (like this UK department-store and supermarket chain (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership)) the stress of management would be spread much more thinly.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2011, 06:26:38 PM
And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.
>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

Or the desire! Not everyone wants that much stress on a daily basis.

The stress would be spread, however. I found being a sole-proprietor very stressful; bringing in a partner dramatically reduced that. If all the workforce were partners (like this UK department-store and supermarket chain (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership)) the stress of management would be spread much more thinly.
However, most factory workers are factory workers because all they are good at is their specialized jobs. There shouldn't be an obligation for them to have a stake in the company. Why should John Doe be forced to have a role in management duties when all he wants to do is screw caps on tubes?

Sure, partnerships are fine and dandy but they should be voluntary.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 07, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
We have an entire universe full of them.
Which contributes to the present suckage of unemployment. You can't even go and grow your own food or build your own shelter without appeasing some capitalist for the right to use land that he owns but isn't using.

This ridiculous theory of "capitalist" "exploitation" has been debunked so many times by so many different people that I am starting to wonder what you're up to.
Debunked? At least one capitalist, or devil's advocate, in this thread has agreed with my association of the two terms, just not that it's a bad thing.

Quote
Employers do no useful work?! Clearly you've never been an employer, and probably never even known one, or you would know this is completely untrue.
Except for the fact that I am not presently an employer, I can assure you that you are wrong. I don't know how it affects my argument though.

Quote
Oh, and the value of something bears absolutely no relation to the amount of labor used to produce it; its value is wholly subjective. Once you understand this simple fact, the rest of your whole economic quackery falls apart.
So, workers should sell that which they produce at market prices. If they contribute their labor to a larger product, they deserve a proportional share of the sale price. That's what I'm advocating.

Pardon? I don't recall any regulations or restrictions on buying industrial machinery, or raw materials, or any of the required equipment to do exactly the same thing he's doing for the employer on his own. Or are you suggesting that the employer make him a gift of the factory?
Beyond the restrictions and regulations set forth by the state, capitalists will set their own the resources they control. The builder of the factory can gift it if he likes. I recommend that he sell it to a party that will actually use it.

Quote
Really? Expending resources (saved work from before) isn't the same as expending effort directly? Money is representative of value, regardless of how you define "value".
Right, and you can put your efforts towards exploiting others and gaining at their expense or not. For example, you can work to obtain a lock-picking set. With it, you can either use it to take other people's hard work or you can use it to do honest work as a locksmith.

Quote
Of course they do. But a smart job-seeker uses people he didn't piss off as his references. As I said, there are always people who don't care what your prior employers say, they want your skills.
Perhaps it isn't profitable for employers to be vindictive. However, it's profitable for employers to find obedient hires. A worker's reputation had better befit that requirement.

Quote
Good! Then they will allocate them to the best uses, as those are the most profitable.
Profitable use != best use. See slavery.

Quote
You seem to be forgetting that a "Capitalist" isn't some big fat dude in an office, lighting his cigars with $100 bills. The worker who owns nothing more than his clothes and car is still a capitalist. He still seeks to offer his services at the best rate, and will seek that whenever possible.
I find it rather sad that even union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they deserve to own that which they produce.

Quote
That's an option... If he could find someone who contributes equally. If the new hire is just running the drill press, there's no reason from him to profit from the marketing, and packaging, and, and, and, etc.
The drill press operator still deserves his fair share of the final product.

Quote
tl;dr: Welcome to the 21st Century. It's not 1840 anymore.
People are still people. 171 years hasn't changed that.

FatherMcGruder, don't worry. Those of us who know anything about history know that what you are saying is correct. The rest of them, well... the propaganda of the American right works wonders on comfortable middle-class suburbia dwellers. They are the target of the "education," after all.

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories. It's called a co-operative, and it is a wonderfully democratic way to have an industrial society.
+1 However, the capitalist delusion affects all members of society.

>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.
The workers can delegate such duties to those most fit.

Or the desire! Not everyone wants that much stress on a daily basis.
A supporters of slavery used a similar argument against abolitionists. "Who says the slaves want to be free?"



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: LMGTFY on March 07, 2011, 06:32:32 PM
However, most factory workers are factory workers because all they are good at is their specialized jobs.
I think that's an overly pessimistic view of humanity: my experience is that most people have surprising capabilities when given the freedom to use them. Factory workers have lives outside work, in which they may run household budgets, manage local sports teams, volunteer for church fund-raising drives, etc. Few, if any, factory workers are mere drones, only able to focus on one task.

There shouldn't be an obligation for them to have a stake in the company. Why should John Doe be forced to have a role in management duties when all he wants to do is screw caps on tubes?

Sure, partnerships are fine and dandy but they should be voluntary.
I agree with this. If all someone wants to do is screw caps on tubes, that's all they should do!


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: grondilu on March 07, 2011, 06:34:46 PM
And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.

Let's assume they do.  Let's assume all the factory belongs to workers.

What happens if, for some reason, one of the workers wants to sell his share?  He may need some money in short term, he may just not be interested in taking part of the organisation of the factory.  For whatever reason, he has the right to sell his part of the factory, even to someone who doesn't work in this factory.  It's his concern.

What I mean is that giving a factory to workers would not change the system, it would just consist in stealing present owners to give to others.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2011, 06:38:11 PM
We have an entire universe full of them.
Which contributes to the present suckage of unemployment. You can't even go and grow your own food or build your own shelter without appeasing some capitalist for the right to use land that he owns but isn't using.
We have unemployment because of a declining entrepreneurial spirit. The state thinks it can usurp the role of innovation through perversive subsidization. It's not in the capitalists best-interest to defend land he has no stake in unless he has the force to collect fees from all who inhabit it, aka government. There is little incentive to hoard and you can't really hoard what you can't defend.

Quote
Employers do no useful work?! Clearly you've never been an employer, and probably never even known one, or you would know this is completely untrue.
Except for the fact that I am not presently an employer, I can assure you that you are wrong. I don't know how it affects my argument though.

Quote
Oh, and the value of something bears absolutely no relation to the amount of labor used to produce it; its value is wholly subjective. Once you understand this simple fact, the rest of your whole economic quackery falls apart.
So, workers should sell that which they produce at market prices. If they contribute their labor to a larger product, they deserve a proportional share of the sale price. That's what I'm advocating.
They only deserve the pay they voluntarily agreed to.


>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.
The workers can delegate such duties to those most fit.

...or they can do duties they voluntarily agree to.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: gene on March 07, 2011, 06:51:58 PM
The talk of how workers really need to be told what to do is the height of arrogance. Like others stated before, this is the same argument used to justify slavery and many other despicable institutions "because they can't manage themselves."

It is strange how people act like the idea of worker-owned business is just some pipe dream. Examples of it exist this very day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

Here is one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Bauen

Maybe you should ask these people how they manage. There are some small shops in the US that are run this way. If only more abandoned factories in the midwest had been recuperated, perhaps the US would still have some industrial capacity. Of course, this sort of democratic structure is absolutely hated by those who control the majority of the productive capital. In fact, they would rather keep the empty factory and let it rot than sell it to those who would wish to set up some sort of cooperative (yes, this has happened). Why? Simple -- first, they don't play in any real market. The big guys want to capture and control the market - to distort it for their own purposes. Selling their capital to those who could use it to sustain an economy independently would "set a bad example." Second -- it is very important that they demonize democracy and keep the middle class fighting over scraps, like those of you who support the current status quo.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2011, 06:55:21 PM
The talk of how workers really need to be told what to do is the height of arrogance. Like others stated before, this is the same argument used to justify slavery and many other despicable institutions "because they can't manage themselves."

It is strange how people act like the idea of worker-owned business is just some pipe dream. Examples of it exist this very day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

Here is one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Bauen

Maybe you should ask these people how they manage. There are some small shops in the US that are run this way. If only more abandoned factories in the midwest had been recuperated, perhaps the US would still have some industrial capacity. Of course, this sort of democratic structure is absolutely hated by those who control the majority of the productive capital. In fact, they would rather keep the empty factory and let it rot than sell it to those who would wish to set up some sort of cooperative (yes, this has happened). Why? Simple -- first, they don't play in any real market. The big guys want to capture and control the market - to distort it for their own purposes. Selling their capital to those who could use it to sustain an economy independently would "set a bad example." Second -- it is very important that they demonize democracy and keep the middle class fighting over scraps, like those of you who support the current status quo.
I have nothing against partnerships. I am only against forced and government-subsidized partnerships.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 07, 2011, 07:10:00 PM
Warning! Wall of text imminent!

Sure, partnerships are fine and dandy but they should be voluntary.
Exactly. And that's the advantage Market Anarchy has over the other types, imo: It can encompass, within its philosophy, acceptance of the practices of the others: An overall Market Anarchy would tolerate having enclaves of Mutualists, while an overall Mutualism would not tolerate, but would inevitably suffer, enclaves of Market Anarchy.

Which contributes to the present suckage of unemployment. You can't even go and grow your own food or build your own shelter without appeasing some capitalist for the right to use land that he owns but isn't using.
You could always... I donno... what's the word... oh yeah: Buy. You could always go and buy the land you want to use. Of course, that's a larger upfront cost, but you save on overhead.
Quote
Debunked? At least one capitalist, or devil's advocate, in this thread has agreed with my association of the two terms, just not that it's a bad thing.
Tell you what... When you can take care of everyone else who asks you, and still manage to feed yourself, I'll sign up for the Proudhoun Kool-aid. Until then, you are still a selfish being, and that's a good thing, because it means you can eat.
Quote
Except for the fact that I am not presently an employer, I can assure you that you are wrong. I don't know how it affects my argument though.
Thus re-enforcing my conception that anyone who says "Stop people from doing X!" is really saying: "Please stop me from doing X!" As an employer, did you stick to your convictions, or did you "exploit" your workers?
Quote
So, workers should sell that which they produce at market prices.
They are. Market price is what they can get for it. Since what they can get for their labor is (in the example provided) 10 BTC/hr, That's the market price.
Quote
Beyond the restrictions and regulations set forth by the state, capitalists will set their own the resources they control. The builder of the factory can gift it if he likes. I recommend that he sell it to a party that will actually use it.
He is using it. He goes in every day, probably. He has an office there, from which he does his work. Some of that work is delegating other work.
Quote
Right, and you can put your efforts towards exploiting others and gaining at their expense or not. For example, you can work to obtain a lock-picking set. With it, you can either use it to take other people's hard work or you can use it to do honest work as a locksmith.
Apples and Oranges are both fruit. That doesn't make a tangerine the same as a Granny smith. In other words, Picking other peoples locks to steal their stuff is not the same as employing people.
Quote
Perhaps it isn't profitable for employers to be vindictive. However, it's profitable for employers to find obedient hires. A worker's reputation had better befit that requirement.
Indeed. It also behooves a company to pay its workers enough to keep them.
Quote
Profitable use != best use. See slavery.
Slavery was not the most profitable way of doing things, mechanization was. That's why slavery was slowly losing out to mechanization. Had the civil war not occurred, slavery would still have ended, with some estimates placing it within just a few years.
Quote
I find it rather sad that even union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they deserve to own that which they produce.
I find it sad that Union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they are sucking the company dry. So I guess that's one thing we have in common.
Quote

The drill press operator still deserves his fair share of the final product.
And he's getting it. If he does not like the wages offered, he can seek employment elsewhere, or seek a raise. If his skills are sufficiently valuable, he will get it.
Quote
Quote
tl;dr: Welcome to the 21st Century. It's not 1840 anymore.
People are still people. 171 years hasn't changed that.
No, But I'd like to think we've learned a few things since then.
Quote
The workers can delegate such duties to those most fit.
Which they are doing, by working for them, as opposed to attempting to go solo.
Quote
A supporters of slavery used a similar argument against abolitionists. "Who says the slaves want to be free?"
I'd say the running away is a pretty clear indication... Don't see a bunch of factory workers throwing down their tools and demanding ownership of the company.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 07, 2011, 09:35:12 PM
Let's assume they do.  Let's assume all the factory belongs to workers.

What happens if, for some reason, one of the workers wants to sell his share?  He may need some money in short term, he may just not be interested in taking part of the organisation of the factory.  For whatever reason, he has the right to sell his part of the factory, even to someone who doesn't work in this factory.  It's his concern.
I would think that workers would reinvest their earnings from one batch of product to pay for repairs, upgrades, and supplies for the next batch. If you needed some extra money, you could simply contribute less of your earnings from the previous batch than you normally would.
If you really had to, you could promise some your future earnings to someone in exchange for some money now (without interest). But a worker wouldn't get much for selling a share of the building that houses the cooperative because only work done entitles one to a portion of the final product. Also, owning a building is expensive because you have to maintain it. Only it's occupants would be interested in that.

Quote
What I mean is that giving a factory to workers would not change the system, it would just consist in stealing present owners to give to others.
In the case of a revolution, the workers would just be taking back what belongs to them. I'm not too big on that though. I advocate simply divesting ourselves from capitalism.

I have nothing against partnerships. I am only against forced and government-subsidized partnerships.
The employee-employer relationship is forced.

You could always... I donno... what's the word... oh yeah: Buy. You could always go and buy the land you want to use. Of course, that's a larger upfront cost, but you save on overhead.
With what? Furthermore, why pay someone for land that he isn't using?

Quote
Tell you what... When you can take care of everyone else who asks you, and still manage to feed yourself, I'll sign up for the Proudhoun Kool-aid. Until then, you are still a selfish being, and that's a good thing, because it means you can eat.
Well, I take care of my employer, landlord, and lender, for what it's worth.

Quote
Thus re-enforcing my conception that anyone who says "Stop people from doing X!" is really saying: "Please stop me from doing X!" As an employer, did you stick to your convictions, or did you "exploit" your workers?
I couldn't maintain a cooperative, friendly relationship with my single worker while treating her like a worker. I don't see how anyone can. That was a long time ago and I've matured since then. It's definitely besides the point though.

Quote
They are. Market price is what they can get for it. Since what they can get for their labor is (in the example provided) 10 BTC/hr, That's the market price.
Voluntarily selling that which you produce on a market and having to sell yourself are different things.

Quote
He is using it. He goes in every day, probably. He has an office there, from which he does his work. Some of that work is delegating other work.
To that extent he is a worker, yes, he deserves a share of the product that he helps to produce, but only to the extent that the other workers agree.

Quote
Apples and Oranges are both fruit. That doesn't make a tangerine the same as a Granny smith. In other words, Picking other peoples locks to steal their stuff is not the same as employing people.
My point is that you can use your capital to exploit or not.

Quote
Indeed. It also behooves a company to pay its workers enough to keep them.
But only just enough. ;)

Quote
Slavery was not the most profitable way of doing things, mechanization was. That's why slavery was slowly losing out to mechanization. Had the civil war not occurred, slavery would still have ended, with some estimates placing it within just a few years.
I doubt that. Blacks can operate machines just fine. Besides, de facto slavery has persisted since the abolition of the official institution.

Quote
I find it sad that Union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they are sucking the company dry. So I guess that's one thing we have in common.
Well, you lament that employers don't make as much as they would in the absence of worker solidarity. I lament the dearth of worker solidarity.

Quote
And he's getting it. If he does not like the wages offered, he can seek employment elsewhere, or seek a raise. If his skills are sufficiently valuable, he will get it.
...At the mercy of an employer or other exploiter.

Quote
No, But I'd like to think we've learned a few things since then.
So would I.

Quote
Which they are doing, by working for them, as opposed to attempting to go solo.
This arrangement does not represent a democratic decision as much as it does a shakedown. Having to choose between starvation and a set of extortionists does not equal freedom.

Quote
I'd say the running away is a pretty clear indication... Don't see a bunch of factory workers throwing down their tools and demanding ownership of the company.
At least the slaves had Canada to look forward to. Historically, factory workers did resist the capitalist employee-employer relationship and they paid dearly for it. I'm just doing my part to reawaken workers' sense of indignation. Too many years of servitude have dulled it.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 07, 2011, 10:14:14 PM
Why can't employees work on their own/for themselves?

If you say that it is because the cost of entering business (buying machines, buying a factory, whatever), then that is what the employer is being paid for - rental of the machines and space, as well as providing a steady source of income rather than a more risky solo business.

My point earlier was that a business, run by an employer, absorbs a large portion of the risk by making many things or doing many jobs, then if one or two fails or is less profitable than expected, the employees can still pay their rent or taxes or whatever.

And here's a question: the workers should only sell their products at the cost of the materials that went into the product, yes? If you say that the work should count for something too - that's what we've been saying this entire time. You just want to have everyone avoid paying market rates for things.

Can't stand communists/syndicalists/whatever myself. Philosophy doesn't make sense at all.

And like someone said earlier - an anarcho-capitalist society can host an anarcho-communist one, but not the other way around.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 07, 2011, 10:53:43 PM
Why can't employees work on their own/for themselves?

If you say that it is because the cost of entering business (buying machines, buying a factory, whatever), then that is what the employer is being paid for - rental of the machines and space, as well as providing a steady source of income rather than a more risky solo business.
When you charge another party for the use of something without transferring ownership, you get a piece of their work without having done any work yourself. Meanwhile, they lose a portion of their work and do not meaningfully gain anything. The only reason you can do so is because you have the means to prevent them from using it without your permission. That is a type of blackmail.

Quote
My point earlier was that a business, run by an employer, absorbs a large portion of the risk by making many things or doing many jobs, then if one or two fails or is less profitable than expected, the employees can still pay their rent or taxes or whatever.
Employees often do work, especially in the case of small businesses. That they possess more capital than the other workers ought not to give them special decision making or apportionment powers.

Quote
And here's a question: the workers should only sell their products at the cost of the materials that went into the product, yes? If you say that the work should count for something too - that's what we've been saying this entire time. You just want to have everyone avoid paying market rates for things.
Wat? I don't really have a problem with people selling goods that they rightfully own on a market. Not sure where you got that. I'm against lending with interest, renting, and employing.

Quote
Can't stand communists/syndicalists/whatever myself. Philosophy doesn't make sense at all.

And like someone said earlier - an anarcho-capitalist society can host an anarcho-communist one, but not the other way around.
How did you get on the topic of anarchist communism?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Dude65535 on March 07, 2011, 11:00:57 PM
If someone does not have enough money to buy a place to live, can't borrow the money to do it, and can't rent a place to live what are they supposed to do?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 07, 2011, 11:11:14 PM
So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.

And who held a gun to your head to stay in such a relationship?

lol, again with the guns.  Thankfully I'm speaking a lot more from second person experience than first, but I seriously hope you're joking.  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider dependent children's relationships with their parents, abused spouses when children are involved, etc.  Human psychology has a heck of a lot more to it than just threats of physical force--and anyone who's really gotten down into the guts of it will tell you physical force is by no means the strongest tool for manipulation.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 12:21:48 AM
If someone does not have enough money to buy a place to live, can't borrow the money to do it, and can't rent a place to live what are they supposed to do?
Make a place to live like most organisms on this planet do.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 12:24:49 AM
So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.

And who held a gun to your head to stay in such a relationship?

lol, again with the guns.  Thankfully I'm speaking a lot more from second person experience than first, but I seriously hope you're joking.  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider dependent children's relationships with their parents, abused spouses when children are involved, etc.  Human psychology has a heck of a lot more to it than just threats of physical force--and anyone who's really gotten down into the guts of it will tell you physical force is by no means the strongest tool for manipulation.

Meh, a human that allows himself to succumb to words and assault isn't very hardy to begin with. A gun and other weapon allows other individual to take a life. That's far greater and is nearly impossible to consent to.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 08, 2011, 01:55:46 AM
So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.
Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.
And who held a gun to your head to stay in such a relationship?
lol, again with the guns.  Thankfully I'm speaking a lot more from second person experience than first, but I seriously hope you're joking.  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider dependent children's relationships with their parents, abused spouses when children are involved, etc.  Human psychology has a heck of a lot more to it than just threats of physical force--and anyone who's really gotten down into the guts of it will tell you physical force is by no means the strongest tool for manipulation.
Meh, a human that allows himself to succumb to words and assault isn't very hardy to begin with. A gun and other weapon allows other individual to take a life. That's far greater and is nearly impossible to consent to.
And with those words, it's amply clear to me that you've never been near a war, or an abused child.  Pretty safe place from which to "meh".  Nobody said anything about succumb--the people who survive either situation are probably stronger than you can begin to understand from that armchair.  The idea that having been exploited makes you weak or inferior is very twisted.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: dirtyfilthy on March 08, 2011, 02:24:47 AM
Meh, a human that allows himself to succumb to words and assault isn't very hardy to begin with. A gun and other weapon allows other individual to take a life. That's far greater and is nearly impossible to consent to.
And with those words, it's amply clear to me that you've never been near a war, or an abused child.  Pretty safe place from which to "meh".  Nobody said anything about succumb--the people who survive either situation are probably stronger than you can begin to understand from that armchair.  The idea that having been exploited makes you weak or inferior is very twisted.

+1 for this.

The whole victim blaming fuck-you-buddy-i'm-ok the poor deserve what they get attitude makes hardcore freemarketeers seems slightly sociopathic to me.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: error on March 08, 2011, 02:29:51 AM
So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.

And who held a gun to your head to stay in such a relationship?

lol, again with the guns.  Thankfully I'm speaking a lot more from second person experience than first, but I seriously hope you're joking.  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider dependent children's relationships with their parents, abused spouses when children are involved, etc.  Human psychology has a heck of a lot more to it than just threats of physical force--and anyone who's really gotten down into the guts of it will tell you physical force is by no means the strongest tool for manipulation.

I'm well aware of such relationships, and I even have firsthand experience with them. And yes, with the guns, because there WAS somebody with an actual gun to force me into such an unwanted abusive relationship. He was called a "police officer." And he even pulled his gun. It was quite surreal, to learn as a teenager that cops weren't (always) the good guys.

When the gun is in YOUR face, you will have that moment too. And while I hope it never happens, it seems that for some people that's the only way they will learn the truth.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 02:36:51 AM
Meh, a human that allows himself to succumb to words and assault isn't very hardy to begin with. A gun and other weapon allows other individual to take a life. That's far greater and is nearly impossible to consent to.
And with those words, it's amply clear to me that you've never been near a war, or an abused child.  Pretty safe place from which to "meh".  Nobody said anything about succumb--the people who survive either situation are probably stronger than you can begin to understand from that armchair.  The idea that having been exploited makes you weak or inferior is very twisted.

+1 for this.

The whole victim blaming fuck-you-buddy-i'm-ok the poor deserve what they get attitude makes hardcore freemarketeers seems slightly sociopathic to me.

Governement aid programs take 70% off the top for beuracrat fees. Charities take 10-20 %  .  Want to help the poor? Donate to charity....

If they really cared about the homeless government buildings should be used to house them. Just saying. :)


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 08, 2011, 03:10:16 AM
again with the guns.  Thankfully I'm speaking a lot more from second person experience than first, but I seriously hope you're joking.  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider dependent children's relationships with their parents, abused spouses when children are involved, etc.  Human psychology has a heck of a lot more to it than just threats of physical force--and anyone who's really gotten down into the guts of it will tell you physical force is by no means the strongest tool for manipulation.
I'm well aware of such relationships, and I even have firsthand experience with them. And yes, with the guns, because there WAS somebody with an actual gun to force me into such an unwanted abusive relationship. He was called a "police officer." And he even pulled his gun. It was quite surreal, to learn as a teenager that cops weren't (always) the good guys.

When the gun is in YOUR face, you will have that moment too. And while I hope it never happens, it seems that for some people that's the only way they will learn the truth.
I'm very sorry that you had to experience that.  I've faced guns multiple times myself, including during wartime, and I wouldn't minimise the intensity of those moments.  We might be closer to the same page than it seems, because what I was thinking when I wrote the above paragraph was that I'd rather be back in front of those guns than face some of the abusive situations others close to me have been through.  For me only my life was at stake, and only for a moment.  The price I've seen others pay is far higher--and I would never begin to blame them for what some sick bastard did to them.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 03:20:42 AM
I am in a bad mood today.  I don't know what I am saying. Really it shows my distaste for the volatility of man. I wish we are all strong enough to completely eliminate the terrors that affect us all. If I had one wish, it would be immortality for all.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 03:24:26 AM
So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.
Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.
And who held a gun to your head to stay in such a relationship?
lol, again with the guns.  Thankfully I'm speaking a lot more from second person experience than first, but I seriously hope you're joking.  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider dependent children's relationships with their parents, abused spouses when children are involved, etc.  Human psychology has a heck of a lot more to it than just threats of physical force--and anyone who's really gotten down into the guts of it will tell you physical force is by no means the strongest tool for manipulation.
Meh, a human that allows himself to succumb to words and assault isn't very hardy to begin with. A gun and other weapon allows other individual to take a life. That's far greater and is nearly impossible to consent to.
The idea that having been exploited makes you weak or inferior is very twisted.
You're putting words in my mouth.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 08, 2011, 03:24:45 AM
I am in a bad mood today.  I don't know what I am saying. Really it shows my distaste for the volatility of man. I wish we are all strong enough to completely eliminate the terrors that affect us all.
I appreciate your honesty--fair enough.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 03:26:45 AM
I am in a bad mood today.  I don't know what I am saying. Really it shows my distaste for the volatility of man. I wish we are all strong enough to completely eliminate the terrors that affect us all.
I appreciate your honesty--fair enough.
My perception of life has been dulled. I don't know if it is due to my nihilism or what but I don't like it. As myself being life, I certainly want to have sensitivity to life around me. I hope I figure it out.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 08, 2011, 03:35:02 AM
+1 for this.

The whole victim blaming fuck-you-buddy-i'm-ok the poor deserve what they get attitude makes hardcore freemarketeers seems slightly sociopathic to me.

No, I don't think like this. Rather, only the two persons who entered in an economic relationship or exchange get to decide what's fair and what's not. Anybody who don't have a damn stake in the matter should get the fuck out of the way.

Some people thought the low payment for freelancing gigs I got were exploitation against me. Fuck them. They don't know a damn thing about my life situation.

FatherMcGruder thought paying interest rate is evil. I was given a loan at interest rate by Nanotube and I was perfectly happy with it. Fuck FatherMcGruder for thinking that my affair as exploitative.

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on March 08, 2011, 03:36:20 AM
I am in a bad mood today.  I don't know what I am saying. Really it shows my distaste for the volatility of man. I wish we are all strong enough to completely eliminate the terrors that affect us all.
I appreciate your honesty--fair enough.
My perception of life has been dulled. I don't know if it is due to my nihilism or what but I don't like it. As myself being life, I certainly want to have sensitivity to life around me. I hope I figure it out.
That's a tough place to be in.  Something that's worked for me from experience is to make sure you spend time around people who live with purpose, and it never hurts to do some volunteering around kids and young people--there's a lot of wisdom in the perspectives of the unjaded.  Coax a smile right up out of you:  help you remember what that part of you inside is connected to.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 03:45:13 AM
I am in a bad mood today.  I don't know what I am saying. Really it shows my distaste for the volatility of man. I wish we are all strong enough to completely eliminate the terrors that affect us all.
I appreciate your honesty--fair enough.
My perception of life has been dulled. I don't know if it is due to my nihilism or what but I don't like it. As myself being life, I certainly want to have sensitivity to life around me. I hope I figure it out.
That's a tough place to be in.  Something that's worked for me from experience is to make sure you spend time around people who live with purpose, and it never hurts to do some volunteering around kids and young people--there's a lot of wisdom in the perspectives of the unjaded.  Coax a smile right up out of you:  help you remember what that part of you inside is connected to.
This is a bit contradictory but I think I am going to go visit an old folks home. Thanks for the idea, albeit indirect.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Garrett Burgwardt on March 08, 2011, 03:46:40 AM
And of course, Atlas, my suggestion remains to try and find a purpose for yourself. Sure, we live pointless lives on a small rock hurtling through space, but fuck it I'm going to have some fun with it.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 08, 2011, 03:49:02 AM
FatherMcGruder thought paying interest rate is evil. I was given a loan at interest rate by Nanotube and I was perfectly happy with it. Fuck FatherMcGruder for thinking that my affair as exploitative.

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.
Take a Midol, already.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 06:37:07 AM
Quote
No, But I'd like to think we've learned a few things since then.
So would I.

Then why are you still using outdated arguments?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 06:55:31 AM
No, I don't think like this. Rather, only the two persons who entered in an economic relationship or exchange get to decide what's fair and what's not. Anybody who don't have a damn stake in the matter should get the fuck out of the way.

...

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.

+1


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 08, 2011, 02:47:05 PM
Then why are you still using outdated arguments?
Why is the age of an argument relevant?

No, I don't think like this. Rather, only the two persons who entered in an economic relationship or exchange get to decide what's fair and what's not. Anybody who don't have a damn stake in the matter should get the fuck out of the way.

...

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.

+1
I don't recall ever getting in anyone's way. I merely called out capitalism for the exploitative relationships it promotes and suggested that Bitcoin pioneers embrace cooperation instead. Kiba caught me by surprise with his resounding butthurt.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 03:18:39 PM
Then why are you still using outdated arguments?
Why is the age of an argument relevant?
When newer argument supplants or disproves them, it is.
Quote
No, I don't think like this. Rather, only the two persons who entered in an economic relationship or exchange get to decide what's fair and what's not. Anybody who don't have a damn stake in the matter should get the fuck out of the way.

...

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.

+1
I don't recall ever getting in anyone's way. I merely called out capitalism for the exploitative relationships it promotes and suggested that Bitcoin pioneers embrace cooperation instead. Kiba caught me by surprise with his resounding butthurt.

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people.  ::)


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 08, 2011, 03:35:20 PM

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people.  ::)

Wrong. I am culturally western, but my homeland was Vietnam.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 08, 2011, 03:46:43 PM
When newer argument supplants or disproves them, it is.
No one has done that with the arguments I've presented here.

Quote
You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.
Lies! I don't recall advocating anything of the sort.

Quote
It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people.  ::)
Communism, wherein the state owns all of the capital and controls its citizens' access to it, is just state capitalism. In other words, the state is the capitalist and its citizens are its employees. In oppressing its people, a communist state simply intends to secure its profits, like any other capitalist.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 08, 2011, 04:10:28 PM
I've come up with a scenario and would appreciate if any of the "rent/profit is exploitation" people could answer the questions that follow.

Alice, after working for the same employer for 10 years, saved $50,000 to start her own business designing and creating extravagant widgets. She purchased widget making machinery, materials and set up a small production area attached to her home. The first year, business was slow and she spent half of her remaining savings keeping the business operating. The second year, some publicity brought in new clients, a tickle at first, then a flood. Soon, she did not have enough time to both design and produce the widgets alone. She decides to bring in one or more additional people to handle the manufacturing process.

Alice has clearly put much work into her business. If she needs to someone to merely operate a machine, why must she be morally obligated to reward the newcomer as highly as herself? If her business fails, she loses her savings, the results of the time expended up until this point, and all of the equipment and materials purchased (capital). On the other hand, her employees lose nothing but a guaranteed salary, which they can find elsewhere, or start their own business.

Assuming nothing about the labor market (it could be that employment is high, which means business fight for employees, not the other way around), why is it that an agreement between Alice and her new employee Bob is exploitative? Alice made Bob an offer for compensation, and Bob either accepted or negotiated a higher price, but it is still a wage. If Bob agreed to it, how can it be bad?

I feel that this is important
It seems that the main point of contention between our ideologies is one of causality. My belief is that once there is no state, there will be a fundamental change in business. Your belief is that once there is a fundamental change in business, there will be no state. We both seek the end the prominence of violence in human relationships, though we may each see certain relationships as violent that the other does not. What if instead of arguing about those aspects on which we disagree, we work together to change minds about those aspects on which we agree?

For instance, as has been said before, a society that reflects market anarchist principles would have a place for communes, syndicates, or whatever your favorite brand of non exploitative business arrangement. It would also have a place for some form of capitalism, though I happily accept that it will look nothing like what we know as capitalism today, since I have no particular fondness for this kind of capitalism. On the other hand, however, a society that reflects anarcho-socialist principles would have no place for any other type of business arrangement, even though there would be some individuals willing to participate in alternate arrangements.

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

To be fair, McGruder has stated that he does not advocate violent revolution. Similar to myself, it seems, as an anarchist (voluntaryist/market anarchist) that does not advocate violent revolution. Though, he does seem to think that such property taking would be justified. Though, if employment and rent are considered exploitation, is such revolution truly violent?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 04:21:24 PM
When newer argument supplants or disproves them, it is.
No one has done that with the arguments I've presented here.
All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf (http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf)
Quote
Quote
You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.
Lies! I don't recall advocating anything of the sort.
Oh? and just how do you propose to "fix" the "injustices" of Capitalism?
Quote
Quote
It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people.  ::)
Communism, wherein the state owns all of the capital and controls its citizens' access to it, is just state capitalism. In other words, the state is the capitalist and its citizens are its employees. In oppressing its people, a communist state simply intends to secure its profits, like any other capitalist.
I believe Lenin, and certainly Marx, would Disagree...


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 04:23:21 PM
When newer argument supplants or disproves them, it is.
No one has done that with the arguments I've presented here.
All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf (http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf)
Quote
Quote
You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.
Lies! I don't recall advocating anything of the sort.
Oh? and just how do you propose to "fix" the "injustices" of Capitalism?
Quote
Quote
It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people.  ::)
Communism, wherein the state owns all of the capital and controls its citizens' access to it, is just state capitalism. In other words, the state is the capitalist and its citizens are its employees. In oppressing its people, a communist state simply intends to secure its profits, like any other capitalist.
I believe Lenin, and certainly Marx, would Disagree...
I think he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: gene on March 08, 2011, 06:57:13 PM
Quote
I thin he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.

I can't speak for him, but there are real examples of people working towards some of these ideals today. He probably has a far clearer idea of how to achieve his ideals than you do yours.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 07:00:45 PM
Quote
I thin he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.

I can't speak for him, but there are real examples of people working towards some of these ideals today. He probably has a far clearer idea of how to achieve his ideals than you do yours.
I have no plan to achieve any ideals. I believe society will reach a suitable system over gradual failures and successes. Evolution, if you will. If we are ever going to achieve anything remotely close to utopia, we will have to learn from history.

The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 07:18:27 PM
The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.

Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 07:21:56 PM
The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.

Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?
Well, what survives will certainly be better than its dead predecessors.

I completely agree. If I have any preference when it comes to current political systems, it's decentralized competition.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 08, 2011, 07:30:50 PM
I've come up with a scenario and would appreciate if any of the "rent/profit is exploitation" people could answer the questions that follow.

Alice, after working for the same employer for 10 years, saved $50,000 to start her own business designing and creating extravagant widgets. She purchased widget making machinery, materials and set up a small production area attached to her home. The first year, business was slow and she spent half of her remaining savings keeping the business operating. The second year, some publicity brought in new clients, a tickle at first, then a flood. Soon, she did not have enough time to both design and produce the widgets alone. She decides to bring in one or more additional people to handle the manufacturing process.

Alice has clearly put much work into her business. If she needs to someone to merely operate a machine, why must she be morally obligated to reward the newcomer as highly as herself? If her business fails, she loses her savings, the results of the time expended up until this point, and all of the equipment and materials purchased (capital). On the other hand, her employees lose nothing but a guaranteed salary, which they can find elsewhere, or start their own business.

Assuming nothing about the labor market (it could be that employment is high, which means business fight for employees, not the other way around), why is it that an agreement between Alice and her new employee Bob is exploitative? Alice made Bob an offer for compensation, and Bob either accepted or negotiated a higher price, but it is still a wage. If Bob agreed to it, how can it be bad?
I have no problem with Bob paying for his share of the expenses. He should give to Alice some of that which he produces until he has paid for half of the building and the equipment. The problem occurs when Alice continues to collect from Bob until after he pays for his fair share. In that case, Alice is exploiting Bob with her ability to prevent him from working at the shop.

Quote
I feel that this is important
It seems that the main point of contention between our ideologies is one of causality. My belief is that once there is no state, there will be a fundamental change in business. Your belief is that once there is a fundamental change in business, there will be no state. We both seek the end the prominence of violence in human relationships, though we may each see certain relationships as violent that the other does not. What if instead of arguing about those aspects on which we disagree, we work together to change minds about those aspects on which we agree?

For instance, as has been said before, a society that reflects market anarchist principles would have a place for communes, syndicates, or whatever your favorite brand of non exploitative business arrangement. It would also have a place for some form of capitalism, though I happily accept that it will look nothing like what we know as capitalism today, since I have no particular fondness for this kind of capitalism. On the other hand, however, a society that reflects anarcho-socialist principles would have no place for any other type of business arrangement, even though there would be some individuals willing to participate in alternate arrangements.
Here's the thing, I oppose the state because it is capitalistic. Agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and the like oppose the state because they think it opposes capitalism. That makes no sense to me. The state is profitable because one can use it to better exploit others. In the absence of states, capitalists will compete to create new ones. They do so even in the presence of states by creating corporations, amorphous kingdoms. I will not help a capitalist topple one state so he can subject me to one of his own creation.

To be fair, McGruder has stated that he does not advocate violent revolution. Similar to myself, it seems, as an anarchist (voluntaryist/market anarchist) that does not advocate violent revolution. Though, he does seem to think that such property taking would be justified. Though, if employment and rent are considered exploitation, is such revolution truly violent?
I think revolutionaries treat violent revolution like self-defense and its spoils like restitution. I can understand that, but I don't advocate it because I have capitalist friends and family and I don't want anyone to hurt them. Besides, using violence or the threat of violence to make someone behave differently seems counterproductive.

All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf (http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf)
How are all capitalists not red-marketeers?

Quote
I believe Lenin, and certainly Marx, would Disagree...
They might. Then again, they might say that the state, in a communist society, is merely the last capitalist and it will surely whither away. Either way, what if they would?

I think he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.
I may not have stated it clearly enough, but I think we can reach this end by embracing cooperative relationships and divesting ourselves from capitalism.

The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.
So might is right? I cannot agree.

Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?
If any enclave refused to honor your property and thereby threatened your profits, as a capitalist, you would not tolerate it. Besides, why would a cooperative society compete?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 07:34:20 PM
The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.
So might is right? I cannot agree.
Not necessarily. Tyrannies can be brought down just as free societies are usurped.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 08, 2011, 07:38:12 PM
Not necessarily. Tyrannies can be brought down just as free societies are usurped.
But so long as tyranny prevails, it is right?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2011, 07:42:02 PM
Not necessarily. Tyrannies can be brought down just as free societies are usurped.
But so long as tyranny prevails, it is right?
There is no objective way to describe it. It is what it is and I live my life around it.

Before a just and stable society can be reached, individuals must voluntarily agree to act in their best-interest and cooperatively (not democratically) define what exactly is best-interest. This will require significant evolution as a species, if it ever happens.



Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 08, 2011, 07:53:24 PM
All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf (http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf)
How are all capitalists not red-marketeers?
Red marketeers ply their trade by violent means, and resolve their disputes with violence. Anarcho-capitalism upholds the Non-aggression principle, and proposes arbitration/mediation as the preferred dispute resolution method. Violence is only supported in defense against violence.
Quote
Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?
If any enclave refused to honor your property and thereby threatened your profits, as a capitalist, you would not tolerate it. Besides, why would a cooperative society compete?
If an individual from an enclave decided that they wanted to use my property and refused to recognize my rights to it, I would treat it as any theft. That does not mean I would enter the enclave seeking to convert or extort the residents.

 A cooperative society is in competition with the market society simply by existing. It offers an alternative to the market society. If the market society cannot keep the standard of living above that of the cooperative society, people will seek to join the cooperative society, and the market society will lose people. The same goes for the cooperative society, of course, either it will be growing, dying, or in a perilous equilibrium.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 08, 2011, 08:16:07 PM
Red marketeers ply their trade by violent means, and resolve their disputes with violence. Anarcho-capitalism upholds the Non-aggression principle, and proposes arbitration/mediation as the preferred dispute resolution method. Violence is only supported in defense against violence.

Quote
If an individual from an enclave decided that they wanted to use my property and refused to recognize my rights to it, I would treat it as any theft. That does not mean I would enter the enclave seeking to convert or extort the residents.
There's the problem. You would claim that a given area of land, which you aren't actively using, and a party, meaning no offense to you, starts using it because they do not recognize vacant or unused property, you will try to drive them away or destroy them thereby plying your trade--land ownership, if you could call it a trade--by violence. Perhaps you will hire someone else to do it. What other recourse does a capitalist have? The two ideas aren't compatible.

Quote
A cooperative society is in competition with the market society simply by existing. It offers an alternative to the market society. If the market society cannot keep the standard of living above that of the cooperative society, people will seek to join the cooperative society, and the market society will lose people. The same goes for the cooperative society, of course, either it will be growing, dying, or in a perilous equilibrium.
It just seems like an oxymoron to me.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 08, 2011, 09:05:21 PM
I have no problem with Bob paying for his share of the expenses. He should give to Alice some of that which he produces until he has paid for half of the building and the equipment. The problem occurs when Alice continues to collect from Bob until after he pays for his fair share. In that case, Alice is exploiting Bob with her ability to prevent him from working at the shop.

Bob made an agreement with Alice that she would pay him 1 BTC per hour for his work. Assume this is occurring in a society such as you envision. Does this seems like impossibly abberent behavior based on the way you think this society would operate? If no, then can you explain how such an agreement is exploitative of its very nature, even in such a society? Otherwise, does it bother you that your ideology cannot withstand an agreement between two individuals that you find unsatisfactory?

Here's the thing, I oppose the state because it is capitalistic. Agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and the like oppose the state because they think it opposes capitalism. That makes no sense to me. The state is profitable because one can use it to better exploit others. In the absence of states, capitalists will compete to create new ones. They do so even in the presence of states by creating corporations, amorphous kingdoms. I will not help a capitalist topple one state so he can subject me to one of his own creation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you support private property, just not of land and capital? Why do you oppose the private ownership of capital? Additionally, how do you define capital? It seems to me anything from a hammer to a factory falls in that category. If I'm not using my hammer, can someone else just take it as long as they use it? What about my car, because they can put it to better use than sitting in my driveway?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 08, 2011, 09:23:24 PM
There's the problem. You would claim that a given area of land, which you aren't actively using

Who said he's not using it? Say he's a farmer and he just planted his fields. Is he no longer "using" that land and that equipment? Does it matter if he is "using" it or the people who agreed to work on his behalf? What if he builds or purchases robots to work on his behalf?

a party, meaning no offense to you, starts using it because they do not recognize vacant or unused property

Are you saying that the syndicalists do not understand the concept of private property, not just disagree with it? They don't realize that by using the equipment or land, they are depriving the person who claims to own it of its use at a time of their discretion?

you will try to drive them away or destroy them thereby plying your trade--land ownership, if you could call it a trade--by violence.

The non aggression principle only justifies a proportional amount of force to be used in self defense.

Perhaps you will hire someone else to do it. What other recourse does a capitalist have? The two ideas aren't compatible.

Would the type of society you envision not have any sort of protection measures? How does this society respond when one or more individuals decide they can own private property? It starts off with a group of people building a machine that makes really useful widgets. Soon, everyone wants to use the machine to make their own really useful widgets, but the creators don't think it's fair that they put in all the work and everyone else reaps the rewards. So they start denying people use of the machine, first using words, and then physical force. Would all of society be obligated to prevent this violence, or would there be a specialized group of people that do so?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: grondilu on March 08, 2011, 09:39:09 PM
a. Less than 1 %
b. Less than 5 %
c. Less than 10 %
d. Less than 15%
e. More than 15%


Personnaly I'd add:

f.  Who cares?  Mines are not lost ;)


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 09, 2011, 02:40:19 AM
There's the problem. You would claim that a given area of land, which you aren't actively using, and a party, meaning no offense to you, starts using it because they do not recognize vacant or unused property, you will try to drive them away or destroy them thereby plying your trade--land ownership, if you could call it a trade--by violence. Perhaps you will hire someone else to do it. What other recourse does a capitalist have? The two ideas aren't compatible.
It's not a "trade". It's a right. by taking my property, regardless of whether or not I am actively using it at the time, you are taking away the resources i have invested in that property. In the terms of the "philosophy of liberty" video, you are stealing my past.
Quote
Quote
A cooperative society is in competition with the market society simply by existing. It offers an alternative to the market society. If the market society cannot keep the standard of living above that of the cooperative society, people will seek to join the cooperative society, and the market society will lose people. The same goes for the cooperative society, of course, either it will be growing, dying, or in a perilous equilibrium.
It just seems like an oxymoron to me.
Where did I lose you?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 09, 2011, 03:33:29 PM
Bob made an agreement with Alice that she would pay him 1 BTC per hour for his work. Assume this is occurring in a society such as you envision. Does this seems like impossibly abberent behavior based on the way you think this society would operate?
It would be aberrant behavior although not necessarily impossible. It would be unlikely that Alice would find someone like Bob to accept anything less than ownership of that which he produces because most people would expect to own the product of their labor.

Quote
If no, then can you explain how such an agreement is exploitative of its very nature, even in such a society? Otherwise, does it bother you that your ideology cannot withstand an agreement between two individuals that you find unsatisfactory?
It's exploitation because Alice gains more than Bob in the exchange due to her position of power. And it's exploitation whether Bob likes the arrangement or not, unless he specifically wants to be exploited as in the case of a fetish. Perhaps he submits to exploitation so as to support a system that he thinks will allow him to exploit in the future. I guess that's the corrupting promise of capitalism. We should reject that promise because it makes it difficult to impossible for any of us to avoid exploitation.

Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you support private property, just not of land and capital? Why do you oppose the private ownership of capital? Additionally, how do you define capital? It seems to me anything from a hammer to a factory falls in that category. If I'm not using my hammer, can someone else just take it as long as they use it? What about my car, because they can put it to better use than sitting in my driveway?
As long as you put work into something or do work with it, it’s yours. Some members of some communities will choose to use and take care of things communally. Others will use and take care of things individually. Of course, owning something doesn’t give you any right to exploit others with it. So as long as you put work into your car and do not neglect it, it will be in your driveway every morning. If you do neglect it, you cease to own it. If someone comes along and restores it, it becomes theirs.

Who said he's not using it? Say he's a farmer and he just planted his fields. Is he no longer "using" that land and that equipment?
It is in use and it will look as such. If the discoverers aren’t sure, they can wait for the farmer to come back to maintain the field. If he does not come back, and the discoverers start to take care of the field, they will own that which they produce from it by their own labor. If the farmer ever comes back and can prove that he didn’t really neglect the crop, he can have the share of the harvest that his labor in planting the crop entails him.

Quote
Does it matter if he is "using" it or the people who agreed to work on his behalf? What if he builds or purchases robots to work on his behalf?
The harvest belongs to whomever actually works the field. If the farmer uses robots to work the field, the harvest belongs to whomever works to maintain and operate the robots.

Quote
Are you saying that the syndicalists do not understand the concept of private property, not just disagree with it? They don't realize that by using the equipment or land, they are depriving the person who claims to own it of its use at a time of their discretion?
I’m saying that the discoverers of the field only expect to get that which they produce from their labor. If the field’s official owner does not work the field, he should not get anything.

Quote
The non aggression principle only justifies a proportional amount of force to be used in self defense.
You do not defend something you haven’t worked for. Instead, you take it. But, assuming that a capitalist really believes that he owns something for which he has not worked, how much force might he ascribe to an infidel who refuses to play along with capitalism?

Quote
Would the type of society you envision not have any sort of protection measures? How does this society respond when one or more individuals decide they can own private property?
Communities will determine their own protection measures. Perhaps volunteers will supervise known exploiters for a time and prevent them from exploiting again. If the exploiter will not reform, community members can always shun him.

Quote
It starts off with a group of people building a machine that makes really useful widgets. Soon, everyone wants to use the machine to make their own really useful widgets, but the creators don't think it's fair that they put in all the work and everyone else reaps the rewards. So they start denying people use of the machine, first using words, and then physical force. Would all of society be obligated to prevent this violence, or would there be a specialized group of people that do so?
First of all, the people working the machine would owe its builders for their expenses, including their labor, but no more. If the builders try to take more than their fair share from the workers, the workers ought to defend themselves. Anyone else with an interest in preventing exploitation should help them.

It's not a "trade". It's a right. by taking my property, regardless of whether or not I am actively using it at the time, you are taking away the resources i have invested in that property.
Well, think about it. The only way you can get an income from a piece of land without working it is by working to keep others from working that land unless they pay you a tithe. I imagine a land owner patrolling his property claim trying to keep workers out. But that’s tiring, and he can only patrol so much land himself, so he hires thugs to do the task for him. But that’s expensive, so with the help of other land owners with similar concerns, he sponsors a government that will help him and do so at least partly on funds extorted from the workers themselves.

Quote
In the terms of the "philosophy of liberty" video, you are stealing my past.
If you’d like to make that argument, please present it.
 
Quote
Where did I lose you?
You didn’t. A cooperative society will simply exist while a neighboring exploitative society will just try to eat it. Naturally, the cooperative society will resist, but this is not competition because the two societies do not want the same thing. You can compare the two ideas in your head though, if that’s what you mean by competition.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 09, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
It's exploitation because Alice gains more than Bob in the exchange due to her position of power. And it's exploitation whether Bob likes the arrangement or not, unless he specifically wants to be exploited as in the case of a fetish.

I already said that this arrangement takes place in your hypothetical society, so there is no position of power. Bob can work elsewhere, but he chose to work for Alice instead. Your ideology cannot handle two people making a voluntary agreement without labeling it as exploitative, so I think we're not going to be able to have any further rational discussion.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 09, 2011, 04:02:07 PM
I already said that this arrangement takes place in your hypothetical society, so there is no position of power. Bob can work elsewhere, but he chose to work for Alice instead. Your ideology cannot handle two people making a voluntary agreement without labeling it as exploitative, so I think we're not going to be able to have any further rational discussion.
Sorry, I misread. In the case of a cooperative society, if Bob gives Alice the product of his labor in exchange for anything less than she might turn around and sell it for, the he is either foolish (and Alice is taking advantage of his foolishness), a fetishist, or doing Alice a favor.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 09, 2011, 04:04:36 PM
foolish (and Alice is taking advantage of his foolishness), a fetishist, or doing Alice a favor.

It's called a mutually profitable exchange.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 09, 2011, 04:22:07 PM
It's not a "trade". It's a right. by taking my property, regardless of whether or not I am actively using it at the time, you are taking away the resources i have invested in that property.
Well, think about it. The only way you can get an income from a piece of land without working it is by working to keep others from working that land unless they pay you a tithe. I imagine a land owner patrolling his property claim trying to keep workers out. But that’s tiring, and he can only patrol so much land himself, so he hires thugs to do the task for him. But that’s expensive, so with the help of other land owners with similar concerns, he sponsors a government that will help him and do so at least partly on funds extorted from the workers themselves.

Quote
In the terms of the "philosophy of liberty" video, you are stealing my past.
If you’d like to make that argument, please present it.

I did. let me put it in terms you will understand. My money is the condensed product of my labor. when I give my money to someone in order to acquire property, that property becomes mine through the actions of my labor. when you come along and take it, you are stealing the results of that labor.

let me break it down even more:

labor --> money --> property

when you take the property, you break that chain, rendering my labor moot. I should not need to continue laboring in order to keep my property. In order to extract more money from it, perhaps, but not simply to keep it. Follow?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 09, 2011, 04:44:41 PM
Interesting:


Labor --> Money --> Property

Correct, but a trick.  No matter how much you think, you do not own your property. It must continually be paid for to retain or replace it.

The entity that controls the money is the trickster.

Think of it in terms of Swimming Pools and Horses.  If I give you a pool, did I give you anything or do you now have to buy chemicals.

The only way out of this is to trick the trickster, Labor --> Money --> Buy Labor.  Now the Money Trickster is relying on your labor force for its using of Money. You are now in control, of the system.

If you think you own anything, you are fooling yourself, maybe with the help of time and position but still a misperception. Even Kings loose their possessions.

Your only value is in the amount of ManHours that can be produce from your direction.  The more people you can get to work with out money, the more power and control you have.  Think of the big families of the past. Now why would authority not want big families but small disorganized and broken families? To prevent other systems from gaining control.

One close family, over 3 generations, utilizing nepotism can have "a lot" of power and control over a system.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 09, 2011, 04:46:08 PM
Sorry, I misread. In the case of a cooperative society, if Bob gives Alice the product of his labor in exchange for anything less than she might turn around and sell it for, the he is either foolish (and Alice is taking advantage of his foolishness), a fetishist, or doing Alice a favor.

Or perhaps he does not wish to expend the time and effort to start a business himself, and wishes to use the resources Alice has made available to make some easy, risk-free money.

Again, your proposed society and the ideology it embodies leaves no room for individual desires different from your own. Anyone who agrees to accept a wage is either a fool, and anyone who offers a wage is an exploiter. The idea that one party is putting themselves at much more risk, and both parties enter into the agreement willingly flies completely above your head. I would like to see you explain why Bob is being exploited, why he deserves to be paid "fairly" (at the same rate as Alice, who has more risk). You have provided no such explanation as yet, only that you know better than everyone else, including Alice and Bob.

*actually, I agree he deserves to be paid fairly, but only Bob can make that designation


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 09, 2011, 04:49:29 PM
Think of it in terms of Swimming Pools and Horses.  If I give you a pool, did I give you anything or do you now have to buy chemicals.

wb3 = Charlie sheen?

I think it might be nearing bedtime again, my friend.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 09, 2011, 04:50:18 PM

*actually, I agree he deserves to be paid fairly, but only Bob can make that designation

Only Alice and Bob can make that designation as to what is fair and what is not fair. Everybody else who are not involved in the affair, GTFO.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 09, 2011, 04:51:13 PM
Think of it in terms of Swimming Pools and Horses.  If I give you a pool, did I give you anything or do you now have to buy chemicals.

wb3 = Charlie sheen?

I think it might be nearing bedtime again, my friend.


Mardi Gras was fun  ;D  but I do need some rest. Thnx.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 09, 2011, 05:01:22 PM
Think of it in terms of Swimming Pools and Horses.  If I give you a pool, did I give you anything or do you now have to buy chemicals.

wb3 = Charlie sheen?

I think it might be nearing bedtime again, my friend.


Mardi Gras was fun  ;D  but I do need some rest. Thnx.

You did hit a major, relevant point, however: upkeep. You DO need to keep investing labor into a piece of property to keep it in the same condition. If you're fine with your house falling apart after you've bought it, feel free to do no maintenance on it. The resale value will go down, as will any potential income you might make from renting it, until it's worth nothing at all for either purpose, but you can do it.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 09, 2011, 06:07:47 PM
It's called a mutually profitable exchange.
Yes, but this rarely happens in a capitalist society because one party exercises his power over the other in order to get more than he would if he hadn't.

I did. let me put it in terms you will understand. My money is the condensed product of my labor. when I give my money to someone in order to acquire property, that property becomes mine through the actions of my labor. when you come along and take it, you are stealing the results of that labor.

let me break it down even more:

labor --> money --> property

when you take the property, you break that chain, rendering my labor moot. I should not need to continue laboring in order to keep my property. In order to extract more money from it, perhaps, but not simply to keep it. Follow?
I say you create property through labor and then exchange your surplus for something you need. Money can facilitate that exchange. If you tolerate the exchange of labor for property, between people, then you must also tolerate people owning other people as property because you cannot separate a person from his labor. Why anyone would participate in such an exchange comes from the fact capitalists will use coercion to increase the value of their property to the point where an individual, who has less capability to coerce, must exchange more property than he would have in the absence of coercion to get what he needs. Considering that capitalists can call land and other resources, which they haven't worked, property by using force to keep workers out, the workers have nothing to turn into property with their own labor, and therefore nothing to trade except themselves. As long as cooperatively minded workers remain in the minority, they must submit to the capitalist despots.

Or perhaps he does not wish to expend the time and effort to start a business himself, and wishes to use the resources Alice has made available to make some easy, risk-free money.
Perhaps he does. He still should own that which he produces from his own labor. If Alice is good at making organized workplaces he can pay her for the organized workspace that she produces.

Quote
Again, your proposed society and the ideology it embodies leaves no room for individual desires different from your own. Anyone who agrees to accept a wage is either a fool, and anyone who offers a wage is an exploiter.
You forgot that Bob could also be doing Alice a favor.

Quote
The idea that one party is putting themselves at much more risk, and both parties enter into the agreement willingly flies completely above your head.
You mean the risk of default against her lenders? This risk is the product of exploitation.

Quote
I would like to see you explain why Bob is being exploited, why he deserves to be paid "fairly" (at the same rate as Alice, who has more risk). You have provided no such explanation as yet, only that you know better than everyone else, including Alice and Bob.
Just because Bob is foolish doesn't mean he deserves to own less than the product of his labor. If Alice uses her greater intelligence to take too much of what Bob has produced in exchange for too little of what she has produced, that is exploitation. If Bob is aware that he is getting too little for too much and is okay with it, that's a favor. If Bob gets off on getting too little for too much, that is a fetish.


*actually, I agree he deserves to be paid fairly, but only Bob can make that designation

Only Alice and Bob can make that designation as to what is fair and what is not fair. Everybody else who are not involved in the affair, GTFO.
If Alice uses coercion, trickery, or deception to affect the exchange, it is objectively not fair.

You did hit a major, relevant point, however: upkeep. You DO need to keep investing labor into a piece of property to keep it in the same condition. If you're fine with your house falling apart after you've bought it, feel free to do no maintenance on it. The resale value will go down, as will any potential income you might make from renting it, until it's worth nothing at all for either purpose, but you can do it.
If you choose not to maintain the house you live in, you still own it because you occupy it. If you abandon it, you cease to own it.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: error on March 09, 2011, 07:42:30 PM
While I'm not generally one for shameless self-promotion, I think this classic celebrity video is relevant here.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/25/glen-jacobs-why-liberty-is-inevitable/


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: myrkul on March 10, 2011, 12:25:49 AM
If you choose not to maintain the house you live in, you still own it because you occupy it. If you abandon it, you cease to own it.

I give up. it's like trying to convince a jew that pork is good for you. I will tell you this: Don't expect to keep any property past the time the owner comes back. When I get home from the store to find squatters have moved in during my absence, I will treat them like any other infestation.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: kiba on March 10, 2011, 12:53:07 AM
I give up. it's like trying to convince a jew that pork is good for you. I will tell you this: Don't expect to keep any property past the time the owner comes back. When I get home from the store to find squatters have moved in during my absence, I will treat them like any other infestation.

Is this a debate about the stickiness of property?

I supposed a property abandoned for really long period of time will be free to homestead.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 10, 2011, 01:02:08 AM
Is this a debate about the stickiness of property?

I supposed a property abandoned for really long period of time will be free to homestead.

FatherMcGruder's view seems to be that if a piece of land or machinery is not in use, it is nobody's property and may be used by anyone. I just don't see this extremely short term property ownership working for everybody. Who determines when property is abandoned for long enough to be claimed? Can you, noticing that I haven't used my tractor in days (I'm in the hospital), take my tractor to your farm?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 10, 2011, 01:49:54 AM
I think communities will most likely determine the status of a thing, as someone's property or something up for grabs, on a case by case basis. Of course, their determination will respect gains through work and not gains through exploitation.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2011, 03:23:54 AM
Is this a debate about the stickiness of property?

I supposed a property abandoned for really long period of time will be free to homestead.

FatherMcGruder's view seems to be that if a piece of land or machinery is not in use, it is nobody's property and may be used by anyone. I just don't see this extremely short term property ownership working for everybody. Who determines when property is abandoned for long enough to be claimed? Can you, noticing that I haven't used my tractor in days (I'm in the hospital), take my tractor to your farm?
In the end, property is only achieved when its ownership can truly be enforced, whatever the means. Tack on whatever you like but it really means nothing.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 10, 2011, 03:44:53 AM
In the end, property is only achieved when its ownership can truly be enforced, whatever the means. Tack on whatever you like but it really means nothing.
So, if I successfully take something that you produced, you won't mind?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2011, 03:57:30 AM
In the end, property is only achieved when its ownership can truly be enforced, whatever the means. Tack on whatever you like but it really means nothing.
So, if I successfully take something that you produced, you won't mind?
I prefer you wouldn't and I will use all available means to prevent such acquisition. If I fail, I fail.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on March 10, 2011, 05:37:34 AM
So, if I successfully take something that you produced, you won't mind?
He's not making a value judgement. Any claim to ownership is worthless without the ability to protect that claim.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 10, 2011, 04:51:43 PM
So, if I successfully take something that you produced, you won't mind?
He's not making a value judgement. Any claim to ownership is worthless without the ability to protect that claim.


Ah the old cliche, "The only rights you have, are the ones you can defend"   A truism.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: FatherMcGruder on March 10, 2011, 05:07:32 PM
Ah the old cliche, "The only rights you have, are the ones you can defend"   A truism.
Without a government, a capitalist might have a hard time defending frivolous land claims. What's to stop him from reforming a government to help him defend such claims?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: wb3 on March 10, 2011, 05:38:20 PM
Ah the old cliche, "The only rights you have, are the ones you can defend"   A truism.
Without a government, a capitalist might have a hard time defending frivolous land claims. What's to stop him from reforming a government to help him defend such claims?

A capitalist and/or socialist has nothing to do with it.

Without a government, I would bet many conservatives would be able to "defend" themselves. The whole second amendment and all. The true conservatives don't trust their government, they don't "expect" help to come, they question decisions, they are leery when rights are stripped from them for the "public" good.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ChupacabraHunter on May 01, 2011, 10:39:16 AM
Adam's fair interest is that which Bob intends to accomplish with the $100. Demanding any more, beyond external transaction fees, is exploitation.

Nefario is paying me to develop the software for his bitcoin corporation. I know he will try to make a profit off of it. Meanwhile, I will get paid 120 BTC a week. That's an actual agreement in real life.

Is that exploitation? No. I like the arrangement in question.

This is after all, an amicable agreement between two moral agents. You, the outsider, is just an observer, who have nothing to do with the exchange. Whatever you think is exploitation is completely irrelevant to what I thought is a good deal, or what is moral.




I wholeheartedly have to agree! :)


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Clarithium on May 01, 2011, 09:12:37 PM
But what if it really wasn't a good deal and you just didn't know it wasn't?

Isn't that still exploitation?


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: Prze_koles on May 01, 2011, 11:51:58 PM
wtf? this is like uber-off-topic thread. I think about 10% bitcoins could be lost in early stages of bitcoin creation.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: eMansipater on May 02, 2011, 06:33:31 AM
Every single discussion like this should be forked and go in off-topic.  These forums are getting cluttered enough as it is, and the problem will only get worse as BitCoin continues to grow.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: BitterTea on May 02, 2011, 02:40:10 PM
I don't know, this thread has been "off topic" for most of its existence:

first derailment (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3793.msg57147#msg57147)

second derailment (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3793.msg57561#msg57561)

Since the first page, the topic of discussion has been wage exploitation.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ChupacabraHunter on May 02, 2011, 11:25:07 PM
hehehe

I am new here, just reading all the "off topic" messages, and they're fun, and a good read.

just my 0.02 BTC


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ribuck on May 03, 2011, 10:55:01 AM
"The Times" newspaper today claimed that approximately 2% of all the gold that has ever been mined is lost. That's less than I would have thought. Sorry, no link because I read the dead-tree version at the coffee shop.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: ThaMunsta on June 09, 2011, 07:51:56 PM
Not sure if this 90% off topic thread will get me any answers but...
Is there even anyway to detect abandoned bitcoins? If we could some how round them up and redistribute them evenly...
Could we "mine" abandoned coins? Haha


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: dserrano5 on June 09, 2011, 08:23:32 PM
Is there even anyway to detect abandoned bitcoins?

Old, not redeemed coins *could* be considered to be lost. But no one can get them, they have an owner and they could actually live in a wallet right now.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: TheVirus on June 09, 2011, 09:36:57 PM
Is there even anyway to detect abandoned bitcoins?

Old, not redeemed coins *could* be considered to be lost. But no one can get them, they have an owner and they could actually live in a wallet right now.

If they are active in the block chain, then aren't they 100% in someone's wallet? How can coins exist without an owner (meaning, the coins were, at one time, owned, regardless to whether or not they are currently owned or lost)? In my eyes, it's impossible to determine if coins are lost and I think that's by design. I guess you can find an address that has had coins in them for years and has never sent a payment anywhere and one can consider those 'lost', but there's no way to tell if they are truly lost or if the owner just has them stored in a safe place somewhere.


Title: Re: Bitcoins Lost
Post by: dserrano5 on June 09, 2011, 09:41:56 PM
In my eyes, it's impossible to determine if coins are lost

That's why I said "could".