|
a) Nothing is Unhackable.
b) This is stupid! the whole concept of bitcoin banks is ridiculous.
c) DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY WANT TO "STORE" YOUR BITCOINS!
|
|
|
|
In after hitler.
Socialism is fractal. Naziism is macro, within a eurocentric framework.
Globalism is an extention of this macro scale. Statism is the object being measured.
The state itself is also fractal, the micropart being the mechanism of consent.
Kinda like metric divisibility once one identifies with a value.
no idea about what you are saying... |
|
|
|
|
is it live in the network?
|
|
|
|
I'll play.
And to the people that say this isn't a good model for reality, of course simplification of any system isn't going to have direct correlation to a specific situation. However, the game does showing that cooperation is the best general practice, whenever possible, does seem to bear out in evolutionary biology, and economics.
I could come up with a game where cooperation is a bad strategy, just as easily as i can tell you that NAP is bad for the world. This game favors NAP-players, you cannot say that it reflects the real world. |
|
|
|
nope, that would just make a democracy based on threats, those who are most wins.
Actually, what I described was a war, not a democracy. I don't have much hope for you if you can't tell the difference. its the same, or at least it is when you people describe it. "states are killing people!" also the people who wishes to attack me first, are breaking their precious NAP.
No, they're not. You threatened them. That makes you the aggressor. Besides, it's a game, in which all players agreed to the rules. The non-aggression principle doesn't mean you can't throw the first punch in a boxing match, as boxers consent to getting punched as part of the sport (provided said punches conform to the rules of boxing, of course). It's the same here. You want to play this game, you have to accept the risk that someone will "kill" you first, because the rules of the game allow it. what if i told you i wanted to fuck with your minds and choose trade in the first round? now you people are the bad ones. in this game i would always gain a lead, if i was playing only against one NAP player.
Obviously. It's easy to defeat someone if they're alone and you shoot first. But how well will you do against multiple opponents? True. but this game is nearly equivalent til the prisoners dilemma, where cooperation between aggressive(Non-NAP) entities wins big time. See my style of playing a sort of Nazism. protect your own kind, kill the rest. but this style of playing will not work when im having no one to cooperate with. http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2004/oct/04_151.shtml |
|
|
|
99% doesn't sounds that great when your money is at stake. What % do you think bitcoin is? Has to be over 99%.
It is 51% in the absolute best-case scenario. Where have you been hiding? 51% attacks is possible in your currency too. people can and will ALWAYS disagree. |
|
|
|
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
Unless they do exactly the same thing. It's a perfectly symmetrical game, after all. nope, that would just make a democracy based on threats, those who are most wins. in this forum there are most anarchist, it would therefor be unwise of me to play this game with an aggressive strategy against anarchists. in the real world however there are most statists, that wants to play aggressive against anarchists. I would join them. also the people who wishes to attack me first, are breaking their precious NAP. in this game i would always gain a lead, if i was playing only against one NAP player. Sacrifice the NAP and win draw. |
|
|
|
|
i will say a few things to this game:
a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).
b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
|
|
|
|
I do not mock you, I consider you a criminal, an enemy. You, by your own words, have no problem with murder for profit, thus, you are my enemy, as I can never know when you may try to kill me in order to take my money.
...and by doing so you are aggressing first, thus im allowed by NAP to act on it, without Myrkul interfering. everyone happy now? |
|
|
|
agree, as long as i have the "right" to kill people when it benefits me, with everything taken into account.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
Sure, just as long as you remember that each of your actions is not an isolated event. It's not like you can lie or kill when it benefits you, and then come back and trade and donate as if nothing happened. Lying costs you trust, meaning you could get ripped off, and killing costs you in increased personal security expenses. If you add all your options and all their costs together, you'll still see that being honest and trading has a higher overall payoff than lying, stealing, and killing. Sure, there are outliers where doing the bad things is more profitable, but only if you can get away with it, and then you still risk being found out. Thank you! First one in this thread that actually understands, and does not mock me for my opinion. +1 and of course my actions are not isolated events, i have never claimed that. In fact the opposite, i take calculated risks when the chances are high enough for success and the possible benefits outweighs the costs, with everything taken into account, including my status in society afterwards. |
|
|
|
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten. AnCap society is extremely dangerous to bullies like you, you wouldn't even be an appetizer compared to the bullies that would be outed and forced into labor, or killed. by saying that you will not kill(pasifist), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival. by saying that you will not make unprovoked attackes(NAP), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival. making arbitrary rules for yourself, limits your possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival(generalization of the two previous statements). forcing other to obey your rules, gives you a bigger chance of survival, if they do not rebel against you. Agree? Your options are not limited to kill and take or be killed and taken from. You are completely forgetting trade. You can kill and take, but then you are limiting your options when it comes to trade. No one will buy or sell with you, so you are limited to killing to survive until you yourself are killed. If you don't kill, but trade instead, your options are vastly more numerous. You can sell your stuff, you can buy whatever you need, and you can make partnerships to develop more complex products. History is full of examples of warring countries switching to trade, because they can both make much more money (be more profitable) from trade than from war and pillaging each other's resources. Agree? agree, as long as i have the "right" to kill people when it benefits me, with everything taken into account. but its still the same game of eat or be eaten: I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me. I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder. This is the consequence of darwinism in any society. im just arguing in favor for a state the pushes the cost-benefit coefficients in favor for a "no-murder, go-trade"-society. And im going as far as saying that a AnCap society would be worse then a state in "rigging the game". |
|
|
|
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten. AnCap society is extremely dangerous to bullies like you, you wouldn't even be an appetizer compared to the bullies that would be outed and forced into labor, or killed. by saying that you will not kill(pasifist), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival. by saying that you will not make unprovoked attackes(NAP), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival. making arbitrary rules for yourself, limits your possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival(generalization of the two previous statements). forcing other to obey your rules, gives you a bigger chance of survival, if they do not rebel against you. Agree? |
|
|
|
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten. |
|
|
|
So, we've established that you are a liar, and have no issues with mugging folk, armed robbery and murder for profit. No wonder you hate AnCap so much, you'd be dead in short order.
in AnCap there would more violence because there is no force(police, government) trying to make it more profitable to behave peacefully. Um... What? You still don't understand AnCap, do you? He has no desire to understand. I posted a link to the .pdf for "The Machinery of Freedom", and he replied that he refused to read my capitalist propaganda. Funny that, we've both no doubt read Marx and Mao; we have no problems reading socialist dogma, but the socialists won't read our material. I think that's a telling fact. I have understood AnCap and the NAP. and i have found it to be less secure then statism. |
|
|
|
So, we've established that you are a liar, and have no issues with mugging folk, armed robbery and murder for profit. No wonder you hate AnCap so much, you'd be dead in short order.
i AnCap there would more violence because there is no force(police, government) trying to make it more profitable to behave peacefully. AnCap would, as any other society, be under the law of natural selection. In a AnCap society it would be the strongest(most guns and ammo) who is the most fittest... in a statist society it would be the smartest. im more smart then strong, i choose the statist society. (and you are stupid!) To be fair, that was in Norway. and the dude was crazy too. but then again he did accomplished what he wanted, he believed that the benefits was grater then the costs(him and his course, not his victims). |
|
|
|
He's a Dane, and has probably never touched a gun, much less fired one.
and im proud of living in a society that ables me to survive without touching one. gun nuts! Such dishonesty! The Assault rate in Denmark is 17% higher than in the USA. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Denmark/United-States/People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevelence. in other words, people in Denmark believe in the authority of the police, while USA is afraid of it. You just can't post without telling another lie, can you? 25% more in USA believe in police efficiency than in Denmark. True(according the these numbers). But the quote is still valid. |
|
|
|
He's a Dane, and has probably never touched a gun, much less fired one.
and im proud of living in a society that ables me to survive without touching one. gun nuts! Such dishonesty! The Assault rate in Denmark is 17% higher than in the USA. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Denmark/United-States/People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevelence. in other words, people in Denmark believe in the authority of the police, while USA is afraid of it. People other than you, who would make unprovoked attacks for profit. of course i do that! who would not? survival of the fittest, you know? in most cases of course it would be way to risky to do that because of the police. there are just higher costs then benefits to going around killing people. but if it is best solution(chance of survival, profit, other benefits...) for me: sure, kill them all! |
|
|
|
He's a Dane, and has probably never touched a gun, much less fired one.
and im proud of living in a society that ables me to survive without touching one. gun nuts! Such dishonesty! The Assault rate in Denmark is 17% higher than in the USA. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Denmark/United-States/People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevelence. in other words, people in Denmark believe in the authority of the police, while USA is afraid of it. |
|
|
|
He's a Dane, and has probably never touched a gun, much less fired one.
and im proud of living in a society that ables me to survive without touching one. gun nuts! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
