|
Comparing the United States to Japan or European countries is pretty ridiculous. The cultures and ethnic makeup between these areas are extremely different. The history and culture of the United States more accurately reflects the areas of Latin America, with our similar histories of racism, slavery, and class warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
I still think with only a theoretical AnCap society there is little debate to be had. I believe we are in an engineering time for AnCap that will be realized through in a crypto-anarchist society. Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies are really the glue that allows for these crypto-economies to function. There needs to be better ways to plug into these economies while maintaining ultimate anonymity. While the use of Tor, bitcoin, and other technologies are easy to use for many people, they still have initial road blocks for other people. The technologies just need to work.
|
|
|
|
If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer. Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.
If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution? If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him. If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative. It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info. I am not saying blockchain.info has to give back money. I am only saying, I don't accept the apology. A worded apology is not worth much to me. Put your $$ where your mouth is. The company violated its own terms of service. If the company wants its customers to not violate its terms of service in the future then they need to show that the company will take a financial hit to show that the are sincere. |
|
|
|
Overall I think that it is good for the community if dishonest people get outed.
(and no repaying a mistaken payment is dishonest and shows poor character).
I agree. It is also good that flaws in some of the BTC businesses here were recognized and repaired. What isn't good are the people still flailing around looking for attention because they have some imaginary axe to grind.  Can we label shad0wbitz and stochastic "Public Flailers"? How am I flailing? A company offers an apology to "the community" because of "The community has been outraged at this invasion of privacy." The apology was not offered because of the invasion of privacy and the breaking of the terms of service of blockchain.info. The apology is because "the community" is outraged. I am saying talk is cheap. I will believe someone is sorry if they are justly punished for the breaking of terms of service and the violation of a customers privacy. |
|
|
|
Talk is cheap, I think the real victim is the person who's privacy was invaded. That person should be given compensation for this cheap attack and it should be more than 4 BTC.
It's clear that you haven't run or owned a business. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so cavalier about rewarding criminals and thieves. It is not a scam if someone gives extra money as a refund. When you click send on the bitcoin client you are confirming the sending of that amount. The person that receives that amount is under no obligation to return that money. The user signed up for nonreversible payments when they used bitcoin. They also agreed that the owner of that bitcoin address is the new owner of the amount of bitcoins sent to them. In fact an investor of blockchain.info violated its terms of service. If I violate the terms of service of a service I use then I may lose my account or have to pay a fine. If an company breaks its own terms of service of its account and and released that information to a third party then that business needs to pay a fine to the customer that was harmed. Below sums up the problem very well. It is inappropriate for someone who has admin access at blockchain.info to use that information for the benefit of some other business. As a matter of fact it is explicitly against the blockchain.info privacy policy: We will . . . distribute . . . your personal information to third parties unless we have your permission or are required by law to do so.
This is why blockchain.info has removed your access. They do not allow it to be used in this way, and you violated their trust. In this instance bitcoinstore.com is a third party, and you have distributed the personal information of one of their users to that third party without the user's permission and without being required by law to do so. If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer. Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough. |
|
|
|
|
Talk is cheap, I think the real victim is the person who's privacy was invaded. That person should be given compensation for this cheap attack and it should be more than 4 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Just wait until the 3D printers are fully capable of printing copies of itself and self assembly, then everyone would have their own 3D printer.
|
|
|
|
Comparing today's corporations, hiding behind the regulations they paid for, to companies that would operate in an AnCap environment is like comparing a wolf to a dog. Sure, they're both canines, but one is a dangerous beast, and the other is tamed.
Oh so you say that AnCap corporations would be tamed. Where is your proof of that? Corporations would have the same motivations as they do now except they would have less rules and regulations because the people who would be the most capitalistic in the AnCap society would not "voluntary" agree to more rules and regulations. I see this aspect of society regressing if we had AnCap than a Nation-State. ...you have to realize that rules and regulations exit to protect corporations, not to restrict them... It is hard for some people to grasp that corporations as entities never existed before the state made the laws to create them. It is just like patent laws and antitrust laws. The state is the entity that grants patent and copyright monopolies, then claims it has to regulate the monopolies that it helped create. This is a common scenario. A organization is created to solve some problem but its own creation creates another problem. Instead of going extinct to solve this new problem, it instead tries to find a solution to the problem of its own existence. |
|
|
|
All this arguing is pointless. Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.
Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.
Then with your own statement, we will never be without Aggression. A person murders in cold blood - He will be executed Feeling pain is part of life and a survival function People will be imprisoned when they are a threat to society and if their crime was heinous enough, possible executed. Once the biological problem of dying is solved then there will be no more aggression. As people cannot die, cannot feel pain, and cannot be imprisoned due to technological advances, then the government and other people cannot use aggression to gain a benefit for themselves. Aggression is just a tool for the aggressor to get something that they want. When that tool has no more power then it won't work. I know this is hard to imagine at some time in the future (if we don't cause our own extinction) immortality is a real possibility. We have been a species for 100,000 years yet within the last 100 years we have tremendously increased our technological advances. Imagine a time when people can backup their own mind and have an non-aging body and you can see that the use of aggression as a tool to coerce others to do things against their will is over. |
|
|
|
All this arguing is pointless. Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.
Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.
Just you wait for the robot rebellion. We will be the robots. |
|
|
|
|
All this arguing is pointless. Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.
Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.
|
|
|
|
I believe you're talking particularly about their military guns. If I'm not mistaken they can buy other guns, with different (less strict) restrictions.
But... how is this post of yours a reply to the one of mine you quoted?
Because statistics are useless. I hear a lot that swiss have machine guns and that's why its such a low crime over there.... They can buy only handguns and hunting rifles (no semi autos), you cannot get a CC unless you're in security. Are you saying the Swiss only can own revolvers? |
|
|
|
|
Once we figure out how to end the benefits of being aggressive then aggressive actions will end. Once aggression has no positive benefit for the aggressor then there won't be any aggressive actions that a person would do toward others. Once there are no more aggressive people then there won't be any need for a state. This is because of two things. (1) the state will lose its ability to use aggression to coerce other people, and (2) it would lose its legitimacy because it cannot say it is needed to subdue 'criminals' or other nations.
|
|
|
|
The Osaka School Massacre took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan.
At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers
This week there was also a school attack in China too. A knife-wielding maniac slashed 22 children at a kindergarten. Not a single child died. Do you really think that upgrading the tools available to killers is a good idea? I also don't think you want to bring up Japan (Japan has very strict gun control, though not as strict as Singapore). In 2006, there were 2 gun related deaths of any type in Japan, a country of about 130 million. By contrast, in the US, there were 642 fatal firearm accidents in 2006. In addition, there were about 30,000 homicides involving gunshot wounds. The point is that banning of weapons will not stop these kinds of massacres. We live in a dangerous world and taking away a person's right to self defense will not make it safer. I don't see how anyone can tell a victim of a crime that they do not have the right to protect their body's using the most efficient method possible, a firearm. For example, I don't see how anyone can tell a woman that has been raped that she does not have the right to carry a firearm. Where do you get your 30,000 homicides from gunshot wounds in 2006? In 2009 there were only 11,493 firearm homicides according to the CDC. I like the WSJ's database on homicides in the United States. http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata----- Edit ------ You know Singapore is very interesting. It has a civilian homicide rate 0.3 per 100,000 people of but a state homicide (execution) rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Sorry, I was including gun-mediated suicide in cases of homicide which is pretty questionable. There are about twice as many firearm-related suicides as there are firearm-related homicides. Suicide is quite different from homicide. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that suicide has a high failure rate and the use of a firearm vastly increases success probability. The Singaporean execution rate used to be that high during the 1990s. However, it has dropped a lot in recent years. In the last few years, it has been closer to 0.4 per 100,000. Most of that is just our drug laws. 30 grams of cocaine = swinging from a rope if caught in possession. I was thinking that you included suicides but I was unsure. One interesting thing is that men are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than other forms like overdose of medication. Men also make up about 90% of all gun related homicides. |
|
|
|
|
From a QQ chat:
Chinese friend 23:26:57
he didnt stab
Chinese friend 23:27:01
just chop
Stochastic 23:27:27
oh like a chicken?
Chinese friend 23:28:25
yea
Chinese friend 23:28:40
a stupid guy
Chinese friend 23:29:00
he should have killed some rich leaders
|
|
|
|
|
My vice is going to news.google.com when I have nothing else to do for the next 30seconds to 2 minutes. I am trying to give it up but it is hard. It is like trying not to look at the car accident that you drive past.
|
|
|
|
I don't think enough people can agree to a nonaggression pact
While this might be true, at least in an ancap society aggressors will get killed or ostracized, which is an improvement to what happens in a statist society, where they get to be presidents and cops and judges and soldiers, killing / ruining / caging / robbing everyone by the millions, with absolute impunity. How about we work on the AnCap society with the bitcoin economy first then move into more mainstream economic areas next. The Securities forum is a good place to start with enforcement of contracts. Most scams degenerate into reporting the scam to the statists when it should be handled in another way. This is some solid advice. Maybe Phinn can run a doxxing service to help keep scammers from just making a new ID. Seriously though. Getting anarcho-capitalists together and actually doing something is like herding cats. I believe the only way to actually initiate an AnCap society is through cyrpto-anarchy. The only way to do that is to set up online PAZ where members can stay anonymous yet set up trust ratings that are dependable and intuitively easy to use. The fact that SR is the most successful PAZ is frustrating. |
|
|
|
I'd support redirecting 50% (or more) of revenue toward growth. I believe that is the only way to stay on top of the curve and keep the dividend steady. As long as difficulty is going up there are only two paths Cognitive can take:
A) Spend a chunk on growth, pay the remainder as a (steady and reliable) dividend.
B) Spend nothing on growth, pay a diminishing dividend until there's not enough coming in to keep the lights on.
I agree. This and utilizing a futures fund when and if we want to issue more shares to expand. I will raise a motion for this after the current one ends. As an aside, I've noticed that I agree with nearly all suggestions made on this thread. This just goes to show that intelligent people invest in Cognitive  Edit: Now we just have to decide the percentage of the revenue to be dedicated to growth. I suppose this could be done by using multiple motions. One (that needs 70%) to determine whether we dedicate x% of revenue to growth, and the others (that need best yes:no ratio) to decide the percentage to be reinvested in growth. I think 50% would be optimal. We will likely be able to keep up with the latest in mining technology without temporarily diluting current shares before new hardware arrives. I forgot about this. Is there still plans to to issue a motion to save a percentage of revenue for growth? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
