|
Your the man, thank you for the great service and pool.
D
|
|
|
|
|
Should we use another pool until your patched up? We need to know if we are getting credited for the shares correctly?
|
|
|
|
I don't know what's funnier, that you spent so much time writing all of that, or that you think anyone is actually reading it.
And the intellectual acumen of the population slips another minuscule degree toward total animalistic barbarism. +1 |
|
|
|
Ok, now that I have read the meat. Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency. Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones. Without it you have goons or mafia. If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.
Allowing competition in the industries of protection and justice is a joke? Why do those industries require monopoly? They need to be uniform. If they are not then you are not applying justice equally across your society. Certain public services should not be effected by market forces, these are some of them. |
|
|
|
In October 2011 World population was estimated to have surpassed the 7 billionth person. Since then world population has increased by a net growth of around 45million people (August 11 2012, about 10 months later)
The current Bitcoin block reward payout of 50 coins is scheduled to decrease to 25Btc at the 210,000 block around early to mid December. The Bitcoin network is designed to mine around 144 blocks or currently 7,200Btc a day which equals ~2,628,000Btc a year
At the current rates the world population is increasing 17x faster than the yearly payout of mined Bitcoins.
Already we have diminishing returns of mined bitcoins when measured against population growth. The way the system is designed with a hard limit of 21 million bitcoins theoretically means that eventually they will all be lost due to forgotten passwords, deleted wallets, crashed computers without backups....etc.
I propose we should change the bitcoin protocol to leave block mined rewards at 50Btc indefinitely that way there will always be a steady predetermined supply of coins, that will grow at a much slower rate than the global population
It's my opinion that this will cause slightly less hording of bitcoins knowing there is no longer a hard limit to reach on the bitcoin network causing exchange price spikes and also prevent theoretical eventual loss of all bitcoins.
Your thoughts?
No, that would violate a basic tenant for Bitcoin and go against major principles. What will happen is the price will go up for a nominal Bitcoin ie: 1 and that may be very very expensive in time. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, now that I have read the meat. Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency. Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones. Without it you have goons or mafia. If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.
|
|
|
|
best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID
Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies. It sure starting to sound like a central government with all kinds of enumerated powers. Federated groups, Rights enforcers, etc... You wish I would troll you, I am just waiting for some real debate food. Why should I take time actually flexing intellectual muscle if your responses are weak with lots of solutions that really sound like what I believe is necessary no matter how it operates or what we decide to call it? You may even call me an anti-disestablishmentarianist. Have you read that article I linked yet? I browsed it but for you, I am going to read it right now and I will tell you what I think. I will really read it right now. |
|
|
|
The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.
Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position? How convenient for you to selectively quote me. I guess if you can't win the argument, then just selectively leave out the part I wrote that counters your position. Oh, that list of things were supposed to create desperation in people? I just thought it was your usual random list of unrelated concepts. Looking over them, I suppose some of them could, indeed. Of course, government makes most of them worse, and indeed causes a good many. Still, you did manage, I think, to put out a list of three possible causes of desperation not directly caused by government intervention. Of course, does that prove your point? No, it does not. I contend that removal of the State will reduce desperation. I don't claim to know by exactly how much. You are saying "You can't know by how much!", and then claiming that that refutes my claim. Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people. Now, in your above post, it appears that you concede that maybe that isn't the case, even while trying to insist otherwise. Pathetic and contradictory all at the same time. I will answer this: Its a lack of opportunity and a sense of fairness in the legal system is what creates desperation. People need hope and to know the rules are applied equally and fair. When that does not exist people lose faith in the system and then they are capable of many acts that you work to avoid in society. |
|
|
|
best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID
Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies. It sure starting to sound like a central government with all kinds of enumerated powers. Federated groups, Rights enforcers, etc... You wish I would troll you, I am just waiting for some real debate food. Why should I take time actually flexing intellectual muscle if your responses are weak with lots of solutions that really sound like what I believe is necessary no matter how it operates or what we decide to call it? You may even call me an anti-disestablishmentarianist. |
|
|
|
Don't forget the possibility of the use of economic incentives to get the robber to return the stolen goods. If the thief has been positively identified, then you can identify him to the rest of society, and inform them of the crime that was committed, and that he has not made restitution (given the stuff back). The rest of the society, then, could choose whether or not to deal with this person. I predict he would find many doors closed to him. If the choice is between starve or give back your stolen goods, then I know I would choose to return the goods, or their monetary equivalent, if I had sold them.
First off, I see you use the word "choose". I don't want to hear "choose" when it comes to applying the law to a criminal. If society doesn't "choose" to help me then I am forced to round up my friends and apply violence against him and any co-conspirators to get my stuff back. We have then be reverted back to Right of Might. There are piece of this AnCap that could be used in modern representative societies but overall this ideology is bankrupt for the most part because there the only enforcing body is the whole collective on a volunteer basis. We see this types of things happen in urban ghettos where people get killed or robbed, everyone knows who did it but because they know there will be a price to pay, they say nothing to the police. Would we really want this on a wide scale? Dalkore They say nothing to the police because the police are just as likely to beat or murder them as are the criminals who did the deed. At least they know the criminals. Do I really need to say anything except quote your flimsy claim? Yes there are cases of abuse but you will find that in any place where power concentrates. With less structured and mandatory oversight, you are just inviting more abuse. |
|
|
|
In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away.
I disagree. +1. Robber would be hunted down and shot, most likely. VIOLENCE. Your argument is really turning for the worst. This really shows the character of what you are advocating. Note that this is not the system I advocate. read the top of the quote pyramid "lack of... protection agencies". This is pure, unadulterated, everyone for themselves anarchy. Under such a "system" (lack thereof, really), yes, a robber would most likely simply be hunted down and killed by those he robbed. +1 something is a form of avocation. It shows a symbol of support. Governments are hear to stay because the vast majority of people want some 3rd party authority to enforce rights on their behalf. The vast majority does not want to have to use force to assert them directly through violence and hoping someone comes to arbitration. Yes governments are sources of all kinds of bad and evil so that tells me that we need reform, enforcement of laws equally across all classes and oversight from people that do not make it their career to do so. Bankrupt, I'll say it again. |
|
|
|
In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away.
I disagree. +1. Robber would be hunted down and shot, most likely. VIOLENCE. Your argument is really turning for the worst. This really shows the character of what you are advocating. |
|
|
|
Don't forget the possibility of the use of economic incentives to get the robber to return the stolen goods. If the thief has been positively identified, then you can identify him to the rest of society, and inform them of the crime that was committed, and that he has not made restitution (given the stuff back). The rest of the society, then, could choose whether or not to deal with this person. I predict he would find many doors closed to him. If the choice is between starve or give back your stolen goods, then I know I would choose to return the goods, or their monetary equivalent, if I had sold them.
First off, I see you use the word "choose". I don't want to hear "choose" when it comes to applying the law to a criminal. If society doesn't "choose" to help me then I am forced to round up my friends and apply violence against him and any co-conspirators to get my stuff back. We have then be reverted back to Right of Might. There are piece of this AnCap that could be used in modern representative societies but overall this ideology is bankrupt for the most part because there the only enforcing body is the whole collective on a volunteer basis. We see this types of things happen in urban ghettos where people get killed or robbed, everyone knows who did it but because they know there will be a price to pay, they say nothing to the police. Would we really want this on a wide scale? Dalkore |
|
|
|
Unfortunately government at best neglects to enforce rights and agreements, and at worst uses force to destroy rights and agreements. Government, in its Quixotic quest for human perfectibility, while almost entirely composed of sociopaths and those "just following orders", destroys any chance of human progress towards liberty.
What we are talking about here is a broken system. I agree, our system completely out of whack in almost every way, what I don't advocate this form of government, I don't see courts upholding these right with some central authority, what ever it may be. Dalkore |
|
|
|
|
Bottom-line is if you have no government then the only recourse you have to enforce contract and individual right is force. A strong majority of people would rather have a large body like government enforcing rights and agreements than direct application of force. What you are advocating is survival of the fittest and yes it is that way in nature and in pre-civilization human history.
BUT, this is why we decided to group up and form societies, nations and states. We all agree to give up a little so we can have a fairer application of force across the entire body of people with the same rule-set to create justice (fair).
People that advocate no rules or government in my opinion want to instead apply their force at their discretion and NOT be held accountable if they are deficient in an agreement. Those are not people I want to deal with. You need accountability and person responsibility to have markets functions and real justice.
|
|
|
|
This is for all the statists out there...
The defining characteristic of a State is that it is funded by taxation. All governments, throughout time, have had this feature, regardless of other trappings, ideologies,or policies.
My challenge to you is simple: Defend that practice.
My contention is that taxation is theft. Taxation is the extortion, by violence or threat of violence, of the funding necessary to run the government. Refute that, if you can.
Simple, we all live in a social group called a community. In that community there are services that the general public uses and needs to be maintained. The system we use to collectively pay for these services are called "taxes or taxation". To be specific here are some of the services that fall into this category: National defense, prison, major roads, Public Utilities, Fire & Police. You may feel compelled to challenge these but each one fits a very important public good. I do believe people can operate outside of a social group but those are rare and we are social beings at the core of our nature. Being that you call people who would give reasoning to taxes, a statist, lends me to believe you challenge the legitimacy of a state. Is this true? Dalkore  Yes, I challenge the legitimacy of the state. I'll be getting back to the other conversation in a little bit, but first, I wanted to take care of this post.
First, I don't deny that those are all useful and indeed in some cases, necessary services. (maybe not so much prison, but that's another debate)
What I contest is that those services need to be paid for by force. All of those, even prison, can be provided on the open market, and paid for, voluntarily, by those who need them. A little reference material for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism
Response:If you used a purely open market based system on essential services you would first institutionalize private and usually profit-seeking interests. This is hardly in the public good. Also with the prison example, you may have the tendency to shape laws that lend to more incarcerations because that would benefit your bottom-line. This is why you might want to take it out of the private market and place it into a public instrument of good or at least justice. I say "instrument" intentionally because I draw a distinction between a instrument and institution. Now if we agree it is a essential service that either a person needs right now or can be reasonable demonstrate that having the service ready for them for when is needed is the correct action (you don't want to start a emergency dispatch service the moment your having a heart-attack as an example for 911).
My question:My question is being that you see taxation as a use of force that doesn't mesh with your ideology, please describe in some detail this system you would use to get these tasks that a tax would accomplish for a society? Thank You, Dalkore |
|
|
|
good luck. I don't mean this in any way to be insulting, but have you considered trying to get elected locally and then expanding -->governor -->congress etc?..
I agree with this message. I am inclined to enter politics at some point and this is the manner I am going to choose so I can "cut my teeth". |
|
|
|
This is for all the statists out there...
The defining characteristic of a State is that it is funded by taxation. All governments, throughout time, have had this feature, regardless of other trappings, ideologies,or policies.
My challenge to you is simple: Defend that practice.
My contention is that taxation is theft. Taxation is the extortion, by violence or threat of violence, of the funding necessary to run the government. Refute that, if you can.
Simple, we all live in a social group called a community. In that community there are services that the general public uses and needs to be maintained. The system we use to collectively pay for these services are called "taxes or taxation". To be specific here are some of the services that fall into this category: National defense, prison, major roads, Public Utilities, Fire & Police. You may feel compelled to challenge these but each one fits a very important public good. I do believe people can operate outside of a social group but those are rare and we are social beings at the core of our nature. Being that you call people who would give reasoning to taxes, a statist, lends me to believe you challenge the legitimacy of a state. Is this true? Dalkore |
|
|
|
|
I agree that financial intermediaries like Mt. Gox are the most vulnerable point in the Bitcoin network.
|
|
|
|
You should not have sent a 50btc bet to a site that you didn't understand the mechanics of.
It sounds like it was a cut-'n-paste error, but yes - always double and triple check the address and the amount. If only SatoshiDICE had some sort of vanity prefix for their addresses...  This is what I have been thinking. Something doesn't add up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
