Admirable, but not quite sure how this is a charity :/

(I'm sure we'll all be sorry in the future, when AI comes to destroy us all!)

Oooh, I see. Yeah, I'm sorry, calling you a nanny was harsh, but it was kinda directed at everyone wanting to limit things here. I was thinking of "the nanny state" idea. I guess the difference is that BitPay chose to do what they do for their reasons - public image, regulatory issues -  and bitcointalk chose to do what they do for their different reasons - no need to attract customers, have a place for open discourse about Bitcoin and its economy and politics. Not censoring anyone allows for a place where we can truly experiment with ideas to see where they take us. For example
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108778.msg1181838#msg1181838

Each has its own purpose. Besides, I like that with this forum's open nature, I can actually see who is who, and what people are truly made of, instead of only seeing the nice parts, and having someone trying to convince me that all is well and everyone is trustworthy.

I wasn't aware that BitPay bans merchants from advertising or soliciting on this forum. Where did you get that information? As for Bitinstant's terms, what does any of that have to do with this forum?

Maybe, but, again, that's just piggy-backing on the OT network, which may be a bit more difficult, since a lot of OT will be for anonymous type stuff.The reason I thought of LocalBitcoin is because they already have a network within physical space. Should I go ahead and contact the guy running it to see what he thinks?

Can you, maybe, put some of those things into user.dat? It kinda sucks losing that file when you receive a corrupt message, and would make backing up much simpler. Plus you maybe would be able to encrypt and password protect that file to keep it from being stolen and someone else using your identity or listening in, which I guess would be simpler than encrypting the entire message db.

If the prophesy comes true, and we end up with one world currency, which leads to sin, deubachery, and wars, and results in the second coming of Jesus Christ, sure, maybe. If someone said "we will use a single currency," that's not much of a prediction. Otherwise, as soon as we get 3D printers working on a molecular level, we'll have to start having religious wars between those believing in the prophesy of Star Trek, and those believing in the prophesy of Diamond Age.

Hell, Second Life came out, which has a virtual world, avatars, and other computery stuff, yet we don't believe in Snow Crash that described many things about it, despite coming out years before SecondLife.

How does this apply to people who have no debt, yet still trade just to get things they need or want? For example, my net worth is positive. I don't really have any real debt (rather, I can pay off my debt with my assets at any time, and still have plenty left over). I still trade my labor for money, and money for food, electricity, gasoline, plane tickets, and hotels. Where does the debt come in? Am I indebted to my body that demands of me to continue living or something?

Ok, ignoring that, as generally understood, capitalism and collectivism are at the exact opposite ends of the economic spectrum...

Can you tell me what it is being replaced by, and what exactly we all have to look forward to?

I would say capitalism is a knife or nanobots, targeting very specific areas, while anticapitalism is holistic medicine and a huge mallet, i.e. something that doesn't work and just tries to fix a problem with a single, giant, unwieldy tool.


Toil is often better than the alternative, since if they didn't have to toil, toilers wouldn't put up with it. And is is being automated, but not by social or "mutual benefit" programs, but by capitalism, which recognizes that it's cheaper to use a robot that works 24x7 and never makes mistakes, than a person who can wear out after a few hours. Better yet, capitalism recognizes that toilers are much more valuable than thinkers, so, in every single economy, modern and present, the natural capitalism progression has been from toilers working on farms, workshops, and factories, to people working in offices, designing new products and inventing new ideas, leaving the farming and toiling to machines. I could write a book listing examples of this.

As for the idea that capitalism is dying, I have some horrible news. Since about early 2000's, we've had globalization really take off, which resulted in global corporations that do not answer to any specific country. They are as pure capitalism as you can get, picking and choosing where they want to work and which laws they want to follow. We also had this new invention called Bitcoin, which makes restricting or regulating capitalism difficult, if not impossible. Also, we have had very strong anti-capitalist states in Europe, Middle East, and South America experience a lot of turmoil and rioting, because their respective anti-capitalist governments have blown their banks with "mutual benefit" promises they can't keep any more. People there are either demanding for more socialist programs that are not impossible to provide, or for freedom to trade without interference from anti-capitalist government.



Of course one can. I am trading my labor and time for currency, putting that currency into investments and property, and will within a few years trade it back for someone else's labor and time. I'll have all the free time I want, and will be able to do all the labor I need, without actually doing any of the laboring myself. That's how retirement, and investing for it, works. Also, I don't need the state to recognize this property. A chunk of my property is in Bitcoin. Which state is recognizing that property? Another chunk of my wealth is invested in companies, based on our mutual agreement, with the company wishing to maintain it's reputation. What state forces citizens to feel a company is reputable? Even my house is jointly owned by myself and my bank. I don't trust the bank because the government forces recognition of property on them. Over the last few years we've found that you can't trust the government to do anything at all about banks. I only trust them because I hope they themselves wish to do good business. If they break my trust, I'll go to another bank.



Nope. Serious. Why is trading something you have for something you want, bad? Unless that's not capitalism in your opinion.

The problem is that we are arguing for the original "idea" or capitalism, while you are arguing for something that is not exactly capitalism, while arguing against something you call capitalism, which isn't capitalism, either. So, essentially, we are trying to argue for A, while you are arguing for B while arguing against C. We're not arguing against C.



Ugh. I read that as Hail Stalin at first. Too much Soviet talk in here.

This sounds way too close to "abortion is bad, because even though the parents can't afford their baby, there is a chance that baby eventually grows up to be an Einstein or a president?"
Regardless, it doesn't matter what may or may not have been, unless and until something happens. People trade for what each person believes is their best price, based on whatever information they have. In this system, it is in each person's interest to have as much information as possible. Do you propose to reward those who have made a bad decision, and punish those who have done their homework and have made a good one?


They are almost all bias/discrimination. People discriminate against things they find less valuable, and are biased towards things they want and need.


One-sided? Were they forced into the trade? Were they forced to give up something for less than they knew it was worth?


What's wrong with a little education and life experience? Should we have government hold everyone's hand and make all their decisions for them, just to make sure no one makes a bad trade? And what about the people who have actually put their own time and energy into learning about and picking the good trades? What do we do with them?



So why not just put up PSAs that doing so and so is bad? You're free to volunteer your time to do so. And why do you believe that your opinion of what is good or bad is the same for everyone else? How will you keep from making mistakes due to not noticing that what may be a bad trade for almost everyone out there, may be a good trade for some specific people?


No one discounts externalities. And the parties can be two people, two corporations, or one corporation and the society it serves. No one is disputing that. The question is, why should that watchdog be a government? Especially since governments both can set laws AND be bought. Personally, I have been arguing that it is WAY more effective to have a private body fighting negative externalities, be it boycott organizers, private courts, or even privately funded guerilla warfare (I mentioned earlier, "imagine what Greenpeace could do if they had a small fleet of privately funded warships). In contrast, government enforces regulations that are actually written by the companies they are regulating. Everywhere. No exceptions. Why? Because government employees are not working in the business they are regulating, so they are not experts on the business, AND because government employees are people, just like the employees of those companies and its customers, and thus can also be bought, bribed, or otherwise incentivised to act based on their personal gain. And once government passes regulations, everyone else is screwed. In a private system, you can at least opt out of supporting the private regulators.

And yet, that's what surgery actually is  

Perhaps you got stabbed by capitalism which was a bit reckless, and perhaps tinged with malice and corruption, and are now over-reacting by claiming all stabbings are bad, even when used to remove economic tumors, so to speak.


You keep saying "toilers" as if it's a bad thing. People sell their trade (product/skills). If their trade doesn't sell for much, they can improve their trade, or do something else. It's either toil, or live off of discarded scraps of other toilers who actually did improve their trade. I wouldn't say being that way is parasitic, but it's certainly not beneficial to the rest of society in any way.


Of course not. Its mutual trade and recognition or property and all that.


Why is willingly trading something you have for something you want bad?


Because we are using the word as what it actually means. Why abandon it because some others are trying to redefine it or give it bad connotations?

I would still really love to see this idea become a reality, and just thought that one of the biggest obstacles to making that happen is establishing a network (same problem as establishing a mesh network). Easiest way to get over that problem is to piggy-back on an already established network. And then I remembered that we already have an established P2P physical network: LocalBitcoins.com.
Opinions on whether we should start bugging the localbitcoins guys, and get some coding done to incorporate exchange of stuff along with exchange of bitcoins?

Are you a troll? You sound like Betty Bowers, a "better bitcoiner than us"

If not, you seem to be a bit overly concerned about Bitcoin's image. First, why? And second, sketchy ads are the least of your worries on a sketchy forum full of sketchy characters like this one.

Also, why are so many of you demanding regulations? Why are you demanding a successful forum fold to your personal wishes over the wishes of others? Why are you demanding that theymos work as a nanny for some other people you don't even know? Why do you think donations should be considered purchases? And why not just make a forum of your own? I know Bruce Wagner made one, as did BFL, so why not you?

Perhaps tat was a bit too much of an extreme statement. I guess "we do not pay almost anything at all for people's labor" and more specifically "labor, alone." Those food service employees, groundskeepers, movers, and even garbage collectors, know how to do their specific skill, and after training know how to do it well. We pay them for their knowledge, and to apply their knowledge, and we pay those who know how to apply it, the most. Especially so in third world countries, where people have to know how to survive. Incidentally, I worked in fast food, retail, and other menial jobs as well.

 


People put effort until the loss from their effort equals the gain. As to companies. As for making a basic living, that is typically a market force, outside of people's control. If my skill set, be it labor or products, only allows me to make $10 a day, and I need $20 a day to survive, I can't simply demand a job from someone else that pays me $20, or demand that customers buy my products when they don't want to. I can only get paid what I, or my products, are worth. Inflating prices won't work, because everyone will buy cheaper from my competitors. Manipulating markets won't work, because I would get caught for the crime, and I probably can't afford to, anyway. Advertising might work, but that adds to my expense, and can hurt me if the claims are false.



Speaking from some experience, that's actually what happens the rarest, but is just heard about most often. What actually happens most often is that the innovation is done by the very people who run or start the business, or that those with a lot of money fund and hie innovators, giving them loads of money in hopes they create something for them. The few cases involving inventors coming up with something and getting help from an entity that tells them they are taking a substantial risk, they aren't lying. Most businesses fail, and most venture capital investments fail. I know this because I deal with business, I deal with venture capital, and I have an invention I am also trying to sell. This isn't something I can simply "prove" to you, without spending an enormous amount of time looking for sources, but I hope may be intuitive to you if you think about how large businesses actually compete. That is where a lot of innovation happens, most of the time in small tweaks and adjustment to process here and there, not in tinkerer's garages.


Sorry, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Why would a confirmer charge anything? Do you mean "accept transactions with fees?" Why would someone not accept certain cheaper fee transactions, if the effect of including them in the block they are mining are negligible?


Ah, I sort of see. First, how would someone have faster confirmation speeds? Speeds are locked to 10 minutes per block. Do you mean someone who has more hashing power to find a higher percentage of blocks? As for the idea that "once enough people decide to do the same," that idea will be spoiled as soon as someone decides to make more that everyone else by taking the 2% and 1% fees that are lying around that no one else is taking. Banks can get away with it because you can't switch easily. You, as a customer, have what is called a "switching cost," which is also why you can be locked into an iPhone and be gouged by ridiculous music prices and app restrictions. With mining, all the customer knows is that higher fees put the transaction at a higher priority within the code, so higher fees should be pad for fast transactions, and lower or zero fees for money you don't mind taking hours to move. Someone, somewhere, will be mining and accepting zero fee transactions, and ruining it for all the other organized price gouging miners.


Well, 51% would be really bad for the Big Three, since people would lose faith in the system they are making money off of. As for fixing prices, it might happen. Personally I still doubt it. Mainly because the actual mining is easy to get into (no barriers to entry is the business term). Anyone can (or will be able to) go out and buy an ASIC, and it won't be all tat much worse than what the Big Three have. Sure, you won't have terahashes at your disposal, but the proportion of costs to returns will likely be close enough. I expect there will be hobbyist miners around the world. The other big thing is that, while it may eventually take a lot of capital to support the blockchain files, that, again, doesn't apply to the actual mining. So what I suspect we will have is the same pool structure we have now, with pools providing the infrastructure, and anyone with an ASIC being able to freely join and contribute. In this case it won't be a collusion between Big Three as to what to do, it will be the thousands of miners arguing and debating about what fees the pool should take, and the pools competing for miners just as much as for the fees.



Of course it can be. And it will be. It's just that all the innovators will innovate on the currency that everyone else is using, too. And everyone else will be using the currency their friends are using, and which is being the most innovated on. Bitcoin is just a set of communication protocols, with some software to make it work, but the software can be changed and improved upon. Why replace it when you have an established network of users and contributors already? Again, look into network effect.


What makes you so sure other currencies will give them a profit? First, miners don't make a currency. No one using dollars or euros cares what kind of printing presses that cash goes through. People who use currency only care about what kind of software, hardware, and services are available (hardware wallets, point of sale systems, web wallets), and whether everyone else they know, like their friends and stores they shop at, use it to. Second, what do you think will happen when miners leave in droves to mine elsewhere? I would think that mining difficulty will drop, making bitcoin mining profitable again.


If they are jumping ship because ASICs are too powerful and are contributing more hashing power that these miners can, then I would suspect those same ASICs would confirm those transactions. The miners are basically being kicked out because they are insignificant, and at the same time you are suggesting that the network won't be able to work without them.


See above regarding miners not being important and network effects for rest of users.


P.S. It's late and I have a headache, so sorry if this came out sounding a bit too strongly argumentative. Please let me know if you have any more objections and such.

Sorry I haven't done much in a bit. I haven't had a free evening in a while, and was away this weekend. I had a few solicitations from charities, and I'll put them up for people to comment on tomorrow evening.


Sadly, I agree. I am all for MyRefugeHouse, because they seem to be "help women that escaped" first, and "spiritual" second. This one sems to be mainly about getting churches into NK. Their mission statement even starts off with "Alpha Relief mobilizes and educates the global Body of Christ."

Sorry the "rules" aren't posted somewhere front-and-center, but the general guidelines are: non-political, non-religious, and a charity instead of just a non-profit. This would disqualify missionary organizations, libertarian ones (even though many of us are), and groups like the RIAA or even Wikipedia and EFF. The reason is simply because all the money we are holding and continuing to receive is coming from a very diverse group of people with varying religions and political ideologies. Over the many pages, we have had discussions and arguments over who should and should not qualify, complaints about certain suggested organizations, and even threats of pulling support if we donate to someone dissagreable. So have eventually simply settled on donating only to non-controversial secular organizations (or as non-controversial as we can get) that most of our donors would be ok with.

My personal definition of capitalism, as well as that of those arguing on my side, and that of the economists that taught me classes on it, is that capitalism is the voluntary exchange of personal property and services. If you have an old fridge to sell, and I am in need of a fridge and have $100 burning in my pocket (or some computer monitors I don't need that you want), we can meet, and trade, and that would be capitalism. The trade was voluntary, and we both came off better from it. Can you explain to be where government or state fits into this trade?

Or if that's not it explain what is your specific definition of capitalism is, that apparently isn't at all the same definition that the rest of us use?

So why is it that one must be a physicist, a biologist, a psychologist, a tax accountant, or a mechanic to give sound advice on those topics, but anyone living under a bridge with $0 to their name and no experience in the field can give authoritative statements on economics and capitalism? Your "under bridges, $0 net worth" claim only shows you have little to no experience in the very thing you are arguing against.

Actually, it was thepiratebay that floated this "server in the literal clouds" idea in the first place.

They could, but I would rather have them donate money to actual Bitcoin related projects, instead of general charities. There are a lot of starving software developers out there