I ask you to show me a post where I celebrated his endeavor. I merely said earlier that the force is strong with him as he saw an opportunity to make a point, and followed through with it. And there you go with your incessant "scam" mantra. I'm still waiting for facts in the Dash Nation thread, and am still hearing crickets, surprise, surprise. Don't make me post the Allen Iverson video again...
So you are condoning it? And at the same time asking Fluffy to renounce critics (who mind you, never asked for a dime from the dash community). Do I need to spell out the H word for you? Also, a scammer is someone who passes themselves, a product, or a business KNOWINGLY as something it is not--so, TAO, when I write that TheDashGuy is a scammer for pretending to be a Monero convert and asking for donations, I can assure you that the English language agrees with my usage. But thanks for illustrating again that you have no idea what a scam is or when you are actively condoning one. |
|
|
|
I look forward to Dash's peer-reviewed white papers that contain no mathematics. And I look forward to Monero's leaders standing up and publicly denouncing the wretched behaviour of their band of trolls that serve to make all of crypto look bad, not to mention hold Monero back. Alas, that will never happen either. We need to end this. I'm definitely not the only one who feels this way. I hope you are in agreement on that point. I will absolutely not denounce anyone. They are intelligent individuals who are welcome to say whatever they want. If I am to denounce them because they are critical of some other project, where does that end? What if some community members decide they don't like sushi, which I love - should I denounce them too? What if they have different moral beliefs, or religious beliefs, or they don't love dogs as much as I do? Your call for "Monero's leaders" (such as they exist) to denounce members of the community for this is a disgusting attack on free speech. Ok, fair enough. Let me ask YOU this, then. Do you condone the behaviour of these individuals? Do you think that is the direction that Monero (and crypto as a whole) should be taking? I've got my Twitter account waiting for your answer, either way... Have you denounced TheDashGuy? No, you celebrated his pretending to be someone else and taking people's money based on this false information. Once a house of scammers, always a house of scammers. |
|
|
|
Should we compare dog turds vs cat turds? This is basically what is being done here. No offense.  So in your view BTCD and DASH equal to turds? That's just one analogy. Both have huge issues. Look like many alt coin also have issues but as long as can make money people doesn't about it. Every coin is attempting to make (a new type of) money, but some of them are better at it than others--if you want the same old fiat, you'll get what you want, just don't count on one of the riskiest experiments ever (cryptocurrency) to provide you with more of it. As to which is a better technology--that's like asking which Manning brother would make a better Shakespearean actor (I'm sure one would be less terrible than the other, but that doesn't mean either is good). |
|
|
|
Rumor is Zcash investors are abandoning the project and moving to Monero. Can anyone confirm ?
EDIT: This definitely doesn't look like a typical monero pump, the hash rate has gone up considerably - Difficulty: 2067380883, that's some 4-5MH/s of brand new hash power in the last 48h alone.
Primer- is shilling Monero now? What is the world coming to? There a religious conversions, political conversions, and even sexual conversions, so why can't we have currency conversions? |
|
|
|
Dash's answer to complaints about centralization: Monero. (I love the subtleties of language) |
|
|
|
|
Irony is a coin named after a laundry detergent airing its dirty laundry for all to see.
|
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out what a "Dash Nation" is yet?
Yes, it's a centralized control system that feigns decentralization with the help of its constituents by means of using their greed as a chimerical illusion of a super-moonbeam-payday when they strike greater fool's gold. |
|
|
|
ARE YOU READY FOR THE 2016 MONERO WORLD CUP
awesomeness
 |
|
|
|
Why this topic is the most viewed one, no idea  Do you guys expect just a jump or you want a more stable coin which can take the place of btc? Since you have a Rise sig campaign this may come as a surprise to you, but there is much more to crypto than just 'the pump'. Similar to how pink sheet stocks are mostly fluff, with occasional real gems - this is one of those real gems. Success necessarily entails a large increase in price but that isn't the primary concern for many here. We are here because the technology really is the best in the world. I encourage you to do some research and discover why this honestly might replace/complement Bitcoin one day. In the coming months and years many will make money in crypto, but only a handful will make money that you want to keep. Had to make an editorial change to the last line. |
|
|
|
Oh shit--I forgot about the fourth type of sputz post: ignored.
So, generalize this, would u agree with me when I say that u're basically a Spoetnik fan? Because if u wouldn't I'd think that u're lying to us and to urself. ~CfA~ huh, and all this time I was criticizing george bush, I was secretly a fan of his dumb ass? Good to know. |
|
|
|
|
Oh shit--I forgot about the fourth type of sputz post: ignored.
|
|
|
|
Funny ppl think From Above is actually a monero shill
It's like the first time the head bangers saw a prep wearing a Metalica t-shirt in HS--they didn't know wtf was happening. |
|
|
|
If A.I. will just be another tool that humans use (as I have argued is the case), then I don't know why you brought up A.I. in the first place. All the value will still come from the creativity (serendipity) of humans.
You introduced ai's creativity and Kurzweil--I mentioned that computers can create (they are already producing music, paintings and drawings). I may not agree on your interpretation of creativity or intelligence, but if you are going to play the physics card, I can't argue along those lines anymore than you can argue about postmodern thought in literature to any great degree--we all have our own specialties. Now, Bloom argues that modern human thought was invented by Shakespeare, all the characters we portray in our lives are just poor to great portrayals of the Shakespeare character, which somewhat falls in line with poetry critics and poets thought that a poem is a new pattern of human thought aligning our neurons with patterns of sound (rhythm, rhyme, ect.) image and absractions that create an emotion in the hearer and that a great poem or play acts as a meme dispensary and changes the culture by breaking out of old thought patterns and into new ones. Your thoughts? To be honest, I think human thought and the evolution of thoughts can be replicated and created in such a way that it can evolve into new patterns. I have no way to state this with physics, but to my mind, most modern thought is run through the filter of primitive and modern language systems--but maybe it is that primitive brain signal(s) that got us where we are today, but that doesn't mean we can't and won't find artificial means to further help our brain development. |
|
|
|
What is creativity but the shifting of matter that already exist into new patterns? The whole universe does this, so why can't a computer? Algorithms have been creating music and drawings, so who gets to say that isn't creative? Also, you keep overlooking that humans augmented with artificial devices like nanobots are the AI Kurzweil thinks will most likely happen.
You are not comprehending what I wrote in my prior two posts. It is not the creation of patterns that is relevant, but rather the serendipity of the relevance of the timing of creating patterns. The entire point is that the universe is not deterministic. Thus no form of computation can be any more perfect than any other. What makes us human is what we evolve with the game of chance and that we don't need to have the right answer. We just are, for a little while any ways. The concept of a superior intelligence that is "correct" more often than any other, is futile because it isn't even wrong. There is no "correct". Our universe is game of dice. No intelligence can predict that which is random. Kurzweil seems to not comprehend basic computer science either. He should know that as the programmability increases, the opportunity for non-determinism does as well. This is what the entire failure of The DAO is about. The non-determinism of computation even comes into play for example as the distance between computing components increases (again because the speed-of-light must be finite, else nothing can exist). You can recall smooth and I discussing that in the context of Byzantine fault tolerance. Kurzweil seems to just really be full of shit and trying to sell books. He doesn't understand basic fundamental issues of physics and computer science. I've never heard Kurweil state that AI will be perfect, more that it will augment human intelligence with artificial means--if nanobots stimulate neural activity and help us make a direct link to a computer system to enhance our memory and available information, that is AI--and that will likely exist. You keep arguing with things that I never wrote, please stop. You are simply taking systems that help humans now and incorporating them into humans more directly, so it is symbiotic process that leads to greater human potential. If Kurzweil ever stated that AI is a perfection or anything else, you can go argue with him about it--I never made any such claim. |
|
|
|
Is there a way to make this thread sticky so that it will reside on the first page to warn newbies for the Monero scam?
As soon as they put a sticky on how spell lose versus loose (it's your signature for god's sake, no place to play fast and lose with your spelling). |
|
|
|
Apologies for losing my couth in the prior post. I am a bit frustrated with people who follow Kurzweil. I ask them to please consider the point I have made about physics. For A.I. to beat creativity, then perfection must be possible. Else A.I. has to become imperfect just like humans and nature, then it is no longer beating us every time. It is really simple to understand that Kurzweil is dead wrong. What else can I say? Also, what the hell is so organic about our thought, most of our capacity is built on abstract language systems. Also, if a few human jobs remain, that doesn't undermine the net effect I'm talking about, so it's a bit of a strawman. Even if you are right about creativity (I doubt it) that doesn't change the fact that I am talking about artificial intelligence, in the sense of augmented humans too. The whole concept of the singularity is that it is a world that organic humans can't fathom (at least not its technical workings) without the aid of artificial brain augmentation (I don't think you get Kurzweil on this).
Without creativity, then there is no value. What ever can be replicated becomes nearly free. The creativity is where all the value will remain. Our existence is a game of chance. Without the chance, there isn't a game. Poof its gone. As for privacy, let me repeat for the third time: the corporate systems will most likely embrace anonymity while they are disrupting the current system--saying it is the same system to those who run it (state controlled governments) probably won't help them get over their loss. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme*"--but that doesn't invalidate my point of the corporate system wanting privacy to undermine the current infrastructure (let's not get into semantical nitpicking).
The destruction of the nation-state system is coming via a debt implosion. The destruction of the hierarchical structures of the industrial age, is coming due to technological disruption such as open source and a decentralized DAO concept. Anonymity seems to have nearly nothing to do with it as far as I can see. What is creativity but the shifting of matter that already exist into new patterns? The whole universe does this, so why can't a computer? Algorithms have been creating music and drawings, so who gets to say that isn't creative? Also, you keep overlooking that humans augmented with artificial devices like nanobots are the AI Kurzweil thinks will most likely happen. As for anonymity's place in the future, we can agree to disagree--time will probably prove us both wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Learn physics? What do physics (I mean in the abstract point you were making as it's obvious you need physics to build systems) have to do with machines being creative? Also, what the hell is so organic about our thought, most of our capacity is built on abstract language systems. Also, if a few human jobs remain, that doesn't undermine the net effect I'm talking about, so it's a bit of a strawman. Even if you are right about creativity (I doubt it) that doesn't change the fact that I am talking about artificial intelligence, in the sense of augmented humans too. The whole concept of the singularity is that it is a world that organic humans can't fathom (at least not its technical workings) without the aid of artificial brain augmentation (I don't think you get Kurzweil on this).
As for privacy, let me repeat for the third time: the corporate systems will most likely embrace anonymity while they are disrupting the current system--saying it is the same system to those who run it (state controlled governments) probably won't help them get over their loss. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme*"--but that doesn't invalidate my point of the corporate system wanting privacy to undermine the current infrastructure (let's not get into semantical nitpicking).
*Mark Twain at his best
(edit: I mentioned this in our pm and just saw it here--you were in fact the one who brought Kurzweil's name up.)
|
|
|
|
Although that is a part of the equation the bottom line is control. Even if/though TPTB are corp controlled (it matters not) there is infrastructure and services that are mandatory that continue to increase and the Gov by current law must support those. There are movements to remove that support for the under represented and corporate welfare increased and the 99% are losing that battle as the system is rigged because those that make the laws are beholding to those that put them there. Even the well meaning ones do not see the small changes they make to support their benefactors all add up in the end to devastating effect on the lower classes. This is the reality of the new ruling class you can see it in every day life easily enough. Do a test, in America drive through a affluent neighborhood in a junk car and see how quickly you are pulled over and checked and then do the same in a new car. you will be amazed at the different manner in which the enforcers treat you. Politicians do not have the power to take it from the 1% (mostly corporate) and therefore must find new ways to take it from those that are least able to defend against it. This is why the under classes must have some monetary security, the laws are written so that if you cannot afford a lawyer to protect you then you are guilty by default and are forced to continually forfeit your wealth/assets accordingly. The average person needs a private store of wealth that is hidden. Why do you think every transaction that is made above a certain limit is noted and must be justified and you do not have the right to move amounts the gov has set without them knowing? They assume if you have hard currency then you are guilty of obtaining that by illegal means. Have you not been watching the asset seizing that has been going on of people just driving down the road with a few grand?
Why are people assuming I'm talking post-corporate takeover with regard to privacy? I'm talking pre-corporate take over. After that, who knows? |
|
|
|
What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?
Costs go closer to zero, so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.
Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?
What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.
We are moving towards a boon, and yes, that boon will be built on machinic labor, rather than human labor. I doubt we will actually produce much, if anything, ourselves--as even music and art can be produced by programs--my guess is we will busy ourselves with video game-like jobs within VR culture or produce blogs about our kids and dogs, and create art and other hobby/busy work to give ourselves the satisfaction of feeling productive--my guess is a lot of people will just sit on their asses. Corporations will likely spread further from the planet collecting resources that, when compared to our present state, will seem infinite. Though, I guess atomic printers essentially do just that without us needing to leave the planet. Think of us moving from a tribal state to a parasite state--where our existence is subsidized by machinic labor capacity. I'm sure some (maybe all that survive) will cross the bounds into cryberhumanity, but then you will a world no one 100% human can comprehend, and certainly not one living before it happens. My guess is that we will have multiple systems competing with each other until a dominate form takes shape (much as today)--But I'm betting on the corporate model pre-singularity, efficiency trumps tradition. I don't agree with those who think A.I. will replace human creativity. I wrote a blog post on that: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_EntropyUntil a computer learns how to become one with nature (i.e. the necessity of imperfection! c.f. my explanation that time must be finite...), then it can't compete on creativity. And if it becomes one with imperfection, then it has no advantage over the human genome entropy in this regard (and the computer will need to consume resources as well). Sorry Kurzweil is wrong! The key question to answer is what is the economic motivation of the corporation. The corporation wants to amass as much power as possible as the oligarchy is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So the corporation wants to do what will maximize its global share of the economic profits. It wants to eliminate competition to maximize profits, but it must also allow degrees-of-freedom else creativity is lost and it will crumble under its own inability to adapt/improve (as Communism does). The larger the corporation the less adept it is. Thus the larger corporations depend on their ability to use their control over politics and large capital, to swallow all the innovation of the smaller ventures. So I continue to foresee large corporations pandering to the unproductive majority, for the power to steal from the productive minority. This is the Iron Law of Political Economics. Your mistake is that for corporations to view their fees as sufficient, there must be a level playing field between corporations (i.e. their fees not raided). But there is not. Thus a collective will be required to decide what is fair, and of course the large corporations will game that politik. So the large corporations (i.e. the government by any other name) will not allow the smaller corporations to collect fees anonymously. Realize the individual will become a company. Companies will become much smaller and more adept. We are moving to a do-it-yourself open source world, e.g. 3D printing. If we solve the political problem, then we don't need anonymity any way. In an open source world, who cares who knows who my customers are. And the world is moving away from being ashamed when your grandmother knows one has some bizarre fetish. Your grandmother probably will have one too. I think the world will view privacy as a pita. And focus more on creativity and maximizing production. Once you say "Kurzweil is wrong," you set yourself up for failure--no one in the modern era has been more correct at predicting technology's development. As far as creativity goes, I think your bias will be meet the same end as those who believed a computer could never beat a man in chess or at trivia or parallel parking--it's more a matter of when, than if. I believe we will still compete for resources, but it will be machinic created resources (same as ticks or tapeworms), followed by ai competion (remember Kurzweill predicted that we likely become the AI). Anyway, you are getting the anonymity timeline wrong (also, thinking the move will be everyone all at once, the world over, look outside at the states of technology that live side-by-side from different eras), because the corporate system desires anonymity for itself to disrupt the old political system, it will push for anonymous systems, after that, who knows? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
