Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate. In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong. Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact? Debate: The process of arguing about propositions. Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another. Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate. I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact. |
|
|
|
Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate. In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong. Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact? |
|
|
|
But real quick: “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
That is false. In order to live it's not merely preferred to breathe, drink, eat ect, it is required. Same goes for anything else. As soon as you have an subjective goal(staying alive), you also have objective requirements(breathing, drinking, ect). Without a goal you merely have a subjective preference. Subjective preferences != objective requirements. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate. Btw look at politicians on TV having a debate, does your definition apply to them? No. But they still call it a debate. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.
Therefor UPB is invalid. And there you go. It's all just Stef's opinion, nothing less, nothing more, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
All ethics is based on opinions, not facts.
Is that an opinion? He is merely stating that there is no proof to support a conclusion to the contrary therefor not an opinion. I'm sure if you can prove as a matter of fact that ethics aren't just based on opinion he will admit he was wrong. Ok, I'm sure you (hazek) are familiar with this argumentation: Universally Preferable Behavior in a Nutshell (by Stefan Molyneux) Below, please find a summation of the core argument for morality. Reality is objective and consistent. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. Yes of course, unfortunately UPB is invalid as I show here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34084.aspx (my OP isn't as clear as it could be but if you read all my posts you'll see exactly why it's invalid) Stef makes the preposterous mistake of pretending that preference = requirement which is the same as if I claimed 2+2=5 but also 5=4, as soon as he does that he renders his whole argument invalid by his own standards. |
|
|
|
All ethics is based on opinions, not facts.
Is that an opinion? He is merely stating that there is no proof to support a conclusion to the contrary therefor not an opinion. I'm sure if you can prove as a matter of fact that ethics aren't just based on opinion he will admit he was wrong. |
|
|
|
The observation that it is unethical to use force to control people’s private financial transactions is not an opinion. People who advocate the control of others by force and by default can be demonstrated to be immoral and unethical from first principles and logic. Stopped reading right there. Ethics is subjective by nature, first principles (axioms) are always unprovable and often arbitrary, even more so in ethics. Furthermore, humans and systems created by humans are not mathematical constructs and binary logic need not apply. All ethics is based on opinions, not facts. Some opinion may hold true given a certain set of axioms but that doesn't make it an absolute truth outside that system, no matter how much you wish it to be true. I agree completely, I really want someone to prove to me as a matter of fact that ethics exists and that there is such a thing as objective morality but I haven't found one single person that can do that. Btw bitplane, could I perhaps get you interested in this thread I wrote on another forum? It goes into how to bring about a voluntary society upon realizing that ethics are subjective and "rights" an illusion: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34237.aspxYou seem like a likeminded person so I'd really appreciate your opinion. |
|
|
|
Hmmm maybe I should start a pool and then after a while of mining pretend my pool got jacked by a hacker  |
|
|
|
Have you picked up on the new transparency trend getting started by MtGox yet? Have you thought about being more transparent in order to better promote and raise the confidence in your services? Here is my list of suggestions I gave to cryptoxchange, ICBIT and that mtgox has just implemented: Have a transparency page that shows:
-how many users are signed up
-how many of them active in the last 1/7/30 days
-how much fiat is deposited
-how much btc is deposited
-show volume of new deposits for 1/7/30 days periods
-show volume of new withdrawals for 1/7/30 days periods
-show all orders, all of them, none of the dark bs
-show us your entire profit history
-show us the entire costs of running your business
-show us everything, be as transparent as you can without it becoming a security risk
Of course the fiat part doesn't apply to you but the general idea of transparency does so I really hope you'll consider making a step in that direction. Cheers! |
|
|
|
If I were you I would somehow try and 1 up mtgox's level of transparency  but yes, at the min what they did. |
|
|
|
I have a sneaky suspicion that my rant in the cryptoxchange suggestions thread might had something to do with this new transparency by mtgox given that they disclosed almost word for word what I asked cryptoxchange and also ICBIT's Fireball to disclose. If this is indeed the case I'd feel really proud to have affected the Bitcoin community in such a way especially if this leads to more transparency by competitors to mtgox and also by other Bitcoin businesses! p.s.: Isn't it funny how both cryptoxchange and ICBIT initially had objections to this level of transparency saying that a business just can't show this kind of information and all kinds of excuses.. and then BOOM, here comes the king in the market and does just that. It made my day that's for sure!  EDIT: I just noticed this: Hip hip hooray!?  |
|
|
|
|
If I was going to ask him anything I'd ask him this:
"What would you say if I told you someone invented a digital commodity that behaves much like gold in the real world and people actually believe in it for $6 a pop?"
|
|
|
|
And you can verify your books by getting a reputable 3rd party auditor to audit your figures and verify them for us to see. As I remember, mtGox's user database was stolen during "3rd party audit"  I did say "reputable".. |
|
|
|
If clients use bip16/17 before 51% of the miners support it, invalid P2SH transactions can end up in the chain, because old miners will think they are valid.
when 51% of the miners upgrade invalid p2sh transactions will be rejected by minersand will never end up in the block chain- so even if an old client thinks it's valid - it doesnt matter , because there wont be any invalid transactions in the blockchain
I'm starting to get the feeling the whole BIP12, 16 or 17 ordeal is a big PR mess brought about by not stressing enough the most important points of it all. I now have a much clearer picture about what's going on and I think my OP was flawed by my lack of understanding of how the Bitcoin system works. Thanks everyone for clearing it up for me. I still have a concern about how we would deal with 100% of hostile miners which I believe is a possibility but I now believe even that is survivable. |
|
|
|
Did you see? Mtgox implemented my proposals to you almost word for word. Time to up your game if you want to stay competitive! |
|
|
|
Ok. I can't for the life me then understand why you need the majority to support your BIP16 before your role it out? Couldn't you just role it out and let a small minority start using it and see where that takes us? (I know you answered this somewhere before, but I can't remember where exactly it was) I want to try to clear up two misconceptions: 1. The original implementation of OP_EVAL was not "exploitable", but it did have bugs. 2. The Feb. 1 deadline was explicitly designed to be a "soft" deadline; here is what BIP 16 says about it: To judge whether or not more than 50% of hashing power supports this BIP, miners are asked to upgrade their software and put the string "/P2SH/" in the input of the coinbase transaction for blocks that they create.
On February 1, 2012, the block-chain will be examined to determine the number of blocks supporting pay-to-script-hash for the previous 7 days. If 550 or more contain "/P2SH/" in their coinbase, then all blocks with timestamps after 15 Feb 2012, 00:00:00 GMT shall have their pay-to-script-hash transactions fully validated. Approximately 1,000 blocks are created in a week; 550 should, therefore, be approximately 55% of the network supporting the new feature.
If a majority of hashing power does not support the new validation rules, then rollout will be postponed (or rejected if it becomes clear that a majority will never be achieved). So the only reason for the vote is to gauge whether or not the proposal would eventually achieve majority? If I understood this correctly, maybe you should have stressed that point more. |
|
|
|
Dear Mt.Gox Users, It’s no secret that since Tibanne took over Mt.Gox in March 2011 we’ve had a bumpy road, both in terms of growth and security. The violation of our exchange that took place in June has left an ominous cloud hanging over us and in part, Bitcion and the community. It has taken us several months to reestablish the level of trust we have now, and we feel as the leading Bitcoin Exchange it is our place to continue to set the model of trust for companies whose business revolves around Bitcoin. Today we will be putting up a deck, aptly called “Transparency” where you will find basic information about Mt.Gox including operation cost, basic security details, revenue, turnover and so on... A update to this document will be done every three months or so and we plan to provide as much information as possible without breaching our companies security or competitive advantage. Also, please note that this iteration is a first attempt and we plan to refine subsequent attempts in an effort to be continually more accurate and clear. Your feedback on this deck is of course welcome! Also, we plan to have this document verified by third party auditors for future releases, however we want to set a realistic expectation this may not happen by the next quarter. We sincerely hope that our effort here will be mirrored by other exchanges, Bitcoin related business, and that we have the communities backing on this “move”. Transparently, The Mt.Gox Team. Excellent! As a customer I couldn't be happier to read this and I feel now more assured about having my business with you than ever before. Really huge props for being first to make this move which is word for word what I suggested to cryptoxchange! You see cryptoxchange? This is what you could have done and been first to get an edge, but you dropped the ball.. Again, major props to MtGox! |
|
|
|
|
Ask him if he believes the free market to be the toughest and sufficient regulator or if he believes there needs to be a central authority regulating either the market or at the bare minimum the monetary policy and then cry when he picks the later.
Jim Rickards knows what's up, he is an insider and will tell the truth but he is not an Austrian economist who believes in the free market, he would want to go back to a managed gold standard which is just as flawed as what we have today. I want to go forward to a free market of competing currencies where the market picks the money and it's value.
So I believe pitching Bitcoin to him will be kinda pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
I did a quick search for backwards compatibility and I didn't find an explanation, so I'd second FreeMoney.
|
|
|
|
My understanding is that those BIPs can lead to miners accidentally making blocks that won't be accepted. Users don't need to get a new version.
Even once multisig transactions are getting put into blocks??? I'm confused because you are sorta telling me it goes both ways, users can reject blocks found under invalid rules but they also wont reject blocks with multisig transactions even if they aren't updated.. |
|
|
|
|
1st: this means that all merchants and users need to be downloading the blockchain which I thought there was a consensus that eventually this isn't going to be possible anymore which again leads to centralization..
2nd: wouldn't this mean that when either BIP12, 16 or 17 get rolled out those clients that wont update will essentially ignore the new transactions so Gavin has to get the support from every single user, not just the majority of the miners in order to successfully implement that change?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
