I think we all underestimate the number of people on these boards who's native language isn't English.
Can't really blame them for not using lose vs. loose. Their grammar is probably better than most Americans on here. #justsaying
It's not the hon-native English speakers. If they are advised of an error they will correct it because they want to speak the language properly. They have something lacking in native speakers.............pride in their ability to correctly read, speak and write the language. I'm not a native English speaker, but even when writing something in my mother language, I am still trying to be as correct as possible. In short, I just feel obliged to write without errors... |
|
|
|
10 days, 5 hours and 31 minutesDo you guys even come online?   Yes, we do! Total time logged in: 15 days, 20 hours and 59 minutes |
|
|
|
I hope you are not one of them? By the way, Bitcoin has already reached $1000, is it still worth joining that party in your signature? Shouldn't it better be renamed to something along the lines of Bitcoin reaching one million dollars in price? |
|
|
|
The selection of the metric that you're going to use to measure "effectiveness" is going to be, inherently, a moral issue.
I don't think so. And if, nevertheless, you are going to insist on this, please provide some convincing evidence for your assertion or give strong reasons why measuring the "effectiveness" should necessarily be a moral issue... |
|
|
|
Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts. In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...
Okay, what metric shall we use for effectiveness? I would say we should use freedom/liberty as our metric. That again gives us anarchy, succeeding at 100%. Actually, there are many objective metrics to measure the efficiency of the state existing nowadays for this very purpose. Economic growth as one of the most evident and encompassing example of such a metric. Also, how are you going to define freedom/liberty in more or less objective terms and would it be a moral issue then? |
|
|
|
Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts. In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...
without moral standards you have no criteria by which to judge what is and is not effective. should a government protect people from harm? if so than arnt you making the claim that people shouldnt be harmed? if so than why shouldnt people be harmed? Please could you give more cogent reasons why you think that without moral standards we can't assess the efficiency or performance of the state? People shouldn't be harmed not because it is immoral to harm them (I talk on behalf of the state here), but because this could render state less efficient in terms of some objective metrics. In short, the powers that be are interested that the governed wouldn't be harmed. It just happens that these things coincide here (though not accidentally) and this coincidence is often used to say that at least some moral principles are not alien to state. This is false |
|
|
|
|
Подтверждаю получение денег. Хотелось бы высказать несколько соображений по поводу работы сервиса. Поскольку я воспользовался банковским переводом, то и говорить, соответственно, буду о нём
1) Во всех интернет-банках что я пользовался, используется функция автоподстановки при вводе БИК банка, т.е. мне достаточно ввести его идентификатор (БИК), а название банка автоматически проставляется без необходимости ручного ввода
2) Отсутствует возможность проверить (посмотреть) полностью все реквизиты платежа и при необходимости внести корректировки (конечно, при условии, что платёж ещё не в обработке). Сейчас можно видеть только номер банковского счёта, который почему-то представляется как номер кошелька
3) Мне пришлось ждать поступления денег почти неделю, поэтому правильным, на мой взгляд, решением было бы автоматически предоставлять скидку спустя заданный период ожидания (скажем, свыше трёх дней), даже если изначально была выбрана опция без соответствующей скидки. Так как у меня сумма перевода незначительная, то для меня это не так критично, однако при значительном размере перевода, это стало бы поводом для серьёзного недовольства
Ну и, конечно, стало бы ещё красивее, если бы комиссия была меньше...
|
|
|
|
So the value of bitcoin is that I can dump it on the next guy?
What good is a commodity you cannot convert into another form? You could argue that anything which cannot be used to directly purchase something will get "dumped on the next guy" when it is converted into an alternate form to make a purchase. Don't waste your time. Some people learn only the hard way, and some are not capable of learning at all until you literally beat the crap out of them. You could just as well talk to a bot with the same level of success and intelligence... |
|
|
|
But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually?
It's not necessarily about dismantling the state. The state, as it currently exists, provides certain services, principally protection. All we are saying is that for all of those services, people should be able to either continue to use the state or use other services that people provide in the market and not have to pay the state. That then allows people like yourself who want the state to continue to pay for it, and people like me who don't want the state to use other services instead. On the whole, I agree with your idea, something along these lines has likely already been taking place. But there are functions which simply can't be privatized or demonopolized, since duplicating some public institutions would be equal to creating another state inside or alongside the original one (that's what mafias are permanently trying to do). I think that would wreak havoc as it happens when organized crime is able to snatch some power from the state. In short, power demonopolized is no longer power, so what you say in essence amounts to abolishing the state... |
|
|
|
I would like to allow an arbitrary number of governments in my area, but this is illegal. If anyone attempts it, they will face coercion (government force). As someone else mentioned, this should be just as legal as picking a competing ISP.
That's what I mean by compelling people to just have one government. If they try to start another, they will be forcibly put down as a "rebellion." And 99% of the population seems to think that this is good and ethical. But clearly this is the exact opposite of freedom. Now I see your point. Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government (as you confirm yourself). Though it's still beyond my understanding how there could possibly be more than one government at the same time in the same area. If this is not what you actually mean here, aren't elections what would go for "picking a competing ISP"? |
|
|
|
12) Limited number of bitcoins to ever enter circulaton
Bitcoins are conceptually strong in the sense that inflation is controlled and will eventually cap itself off once there are enough bitcoins in circulation. Thats a bonus that was not yet mentioned but is pretty big.
With this feature it will not be able to become a proper medium of exchange. Any currency to work properly should be constantly depreciating to avoid its being squirreled away, whereas Bitcoin deflationary nature will wreak destruction on the economy. In short, this won't work... |
|
|
|
Why has the bitcoin value. "Because I can dump it on the next guy" does not address the question. That sounds like a pyramid. Nobody actually wants bitcoin. They all just want to dump it on the next guy. Even if it IS a pyramid, this doesn't change a thing. At the moment of the exchange he who buys bitcoin values it higher than what he gives in exchange for it, otherwise the exchange simply wouldn't happen. You just can't get away from this fact, whether you like it or not. It is subjective value that matters here. Why it is valued I have already explained earlier... |
|
|
|
Yes value is subjective, but you cant explain to me what I CAN DO WITH BITCOIN. Get that?
You can exchange it for something you value from those who value it higher than what they exchange for it. Does it really require so much effort to understand this? Don't repeat your posts and be concise No. Exchanging it for something does not make bitcoin valuable. I am asking why somebody would exchange a bitcoin for something? Because they value it higher than what they exchange for it. Why should I repeat this again and again and how many times will this take till you finally get it? |
|
|
|
Stop with the intrinsic value bullshit. Cant you see it? Our value judgements are to a certain extend unalterable. We always want water and we always want food as we depend on these things for survival. Again for every thing I can list some use case.
Have you ever heard about the law of marginal utility? If you are thirsty and hungry at the same time, then a bottle of water will be more valuable to you than any food, but once you have satisfied your thirst, you would be happy to exchange a second bottle of water for some food. How can this ever be possible if our value judgments were hard to change? If you had a million bottles of water, then what value would they be to you? |
|
|
|
Yes value is subjective, but you cant explain to me what I CAN DO WITH BITCOIN. Get that?
You can exchange it for something you value from those who value it higher than what they exchange for it (provided you have it in the first place). Does it really require so much effort to understand this? Don't repeat your posts and stop shouting |
|
|
|
repeating the tired arguments of a bitcoiner I have refuted up thread already.
Where? Show that piece now. I think you can't even fancy what real refutation looks like... |
|
|
|
To paraphrase Eric Voorhees,
Bitcoin is unfortunately the name of two things.
1) it is the name of the Bitcoin protocol, which describes how the block chain, mining, etc. works.
This protocol performs some useful functions that no other money system can currently match. (Fast cheap transfer to any where in the world, robust etc etc) The Bitcoin protocol clearly has a value, and the value comes from its utility.
2) The Bitcoin protocol has been implemented to allow transfer of a digital currency, this currency is also called Bitcoin. A Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and is commonly misuderstood to be what Bitcoin is all about.
As far as modern economics is concerned there is no such notion as intrinsic value. It does really exist in finances but it has very specific usage which has nothing do with what is being discussed here. To say that Bitcoin as a currency doesn't have intrinsic value would automatically imply there is something which has such value. This is false |
|
|
|
Though I didn't expect that you would like this alternative, which was pretty clear right from the start The problem with your alternative is that it's immoral to make that the only choice. Another point that I don't quite understand. You seem to erroneously assign me as the true culprit here whereas, actually, it was exactly my alternative of moving to another country in the first place that was torn to pieces and thrown out of the window. May I hope for a bit of objectivity here? Is it immoral too or what? Moving is not immoral, but when people want to secede, telling them they shouldn't be allowed that option because moving is good enough is wrong. But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually? |
|
|
|
Anyway see here if you're interested; Walter's pointing out that, if you do not want someone else to force their political philosophy onto you, you shouldn't do the same; to do to others what you would not want to happen to you is immoral, for it is inconsistent and requires one group of people (even if it's just you) to have special rights over another, i.e. the state in microscopic view. Though this may look very true, I wouldn't take this logic as definitive. Actually, there are many other ways you can instill your political views or philosophies onto your opponent (this thread can be a good example of this), even without sticking to force, if this was your point... |
|
|
|
|
Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts. In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
