Why so much hate on Dash? You can say what you like, tech wise superiour to any other anon coin in my book...
Your book is wrong. I'd read another one. |
|
|
|
Another insta-accident-mined coin with a brainwashed cult of NSA-node loving, centralization having, non-crypto knowing fuck-ups will replace dash. Or they'll just change the name again  |
|
|
|
The discussion in the comments between Rex Kerr and myself, on my philosophical claim that morality = self-interest is interesting (at least to me) and I think very relevant to the totalitarianism we are facing: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/is-it-immoral-to-download-music-illegally/25125#25125It is acutely relevant because most people are so attuned to subjugating their "self-interest" to the greater good of society, that they are destroying society. And those who have the talent to actually work on the actual self-interest and save society (such as Rex Kerr who is a talented programmer apparently) will not use their talent for such because they think it is immoral. It will only be after the SHTF and society perishes, that they realize their mistake. But that will be much too late for us. I can't find a programmer other than myself who thinks there is any urgency. Looks like I have to code it all by myself. Ridiculous. The world is facing a Dark Age collapse into totalitarianism and we have guys here masturbating with philosophical mumbo-jumbo and then others who get the epistemological arguments wrong and thus misapply their talents.  (fucking ridiculous, but should be expected and the rewards go to the wise)
Epistemological Rationality Of course until the tide goes out, we won't know who wasn't wearing underwear. So many Europeans think "wonderful life" is the norm. They have been raised in collectivism and have never experience total collapse. The reality is the total collapse comes around about every 79 years or so, and Dark Age collapse comes about every 309 years, and we are right on time on both of those cycles which have been backtested to Mesopotamia by a supercomputer which was fed $100 million (in 1980s dollars thus $1 billion now) or vast historical data. Problem is most people can't be rational even though they think they are because they are incapable of basing on data. Without looking at history, there can be no rationality. Also it is important to have clear thinking and articulation about epistemological taxonomy: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1247/are-different-values-of-nothing-equivalent/25124#25124Have you ever read (or heard) Nick Land's Meltdown? In it he mentions a cycle of dates: "Converging upon terrestrial meltdown singularity, phase-out culture accelerates through its digitech-heated adaptive landscape, passing through compression thresholds normed to an intensive logistic curve: 1500, 1756, 1884, 1948, 1980, 1996, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011 … Nothing human makes it out of the near-future." Do the cycles accelerate? I never knew for sure if his dates where random for effect or taken from actual data.... He disappeared from public , so no way to ask him.  |
|
|
|
And so is [Epicurus'] theory on death.  Maybe when there is more science on death we'll know. Maybe. Epicurus found that one dead does not, in any perceptible way, exist. You found that one can claim it does without any evidence thereof. if you are caught in a singularity between the moment of death and life, does epi's distinction matter to you--the one caught? He was observing the animate and the inanimate without any knowledge of time varying states or quantum states. I once experienced first hand a time sense shift when I had a syrian rue overdose and seconds seemed to last minutes and hours days--pretty fucking horrible--i imagine death can gum up the works worse when it is taking hold--but I don't have first hand knowledge and don't know anyone who has come back from the dead--maybe I'll ask jesus if epi was correct. Both epi and my own theory will have to be kept in the un-provable collection bin until we know more about the brain and death. I will not respond anymore as this is way OT. PM me if you want. |
|
|
|
And so is epi's' theory on death. Maybe when there is more science on death we'll know. Maybe. Can we get back on topic, now? Or am i gonna have to ignore you? |
|
|
|
Did epicurus come back from the dead to tell you this? Or did he make a big old fat presumption without any evidence? If there is no sense of time when you pass, you could very easily be trapped in what seems an eternal state (very easily a nightmare state) though physically to the outside observer this moment could be less than fractions of a second. Why don't you go test it and tell me what you find?
[Epicurus] regarded the unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as the primary cause of anxiety among human beings, and anxiety in turn as the source of extreme and irrational desires.
Because nothing exists beyond my own mind.  Doesn't disprove what I just said, nor Hamlet's fear. |
|
|
|
Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.
Did epicurus come back from the dead to tell you this? Or did he make a big old fat presumption without any evidence? If there is no sense of time when you pass, you could very easily be trapped in what seems an eternal state (very easily a nightmare state) though physically to the outside observer this moment could be less than fractions of a second. Why don't you go test it and tell me what you find? |
|
|
|
I = space + time. I = spacetime I am non-trivial, why are you?  This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.
A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith. (There is not particular point where probability waves become a human; therefore, the "I" is an element of the hyperreal - a symbol that references other symbols (namely, those of a self-concept) yet not the real.) "Non-trivial," however, as "I" used it, indicates that the investment - whatever form it could assume - was of a nature that left imprudent an attempt upon the PoW of the PoW-coin therewith. I wrote a poem about a man who lived out the idea of being a symbol. https://generalizethis.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/4/ He made one of the most powerful album covers of all time--but I'd hardly call it success. Now Hamlet let it all go and drove himself as far as anyone in his time and probably ever since, but he was smart enough to value his existence in that he talked himself out of suicide by the knowledge that worse nightmares may follow--that's valuing your life. now Socrates was so set on the value of being right that he talked himself into drinking poison--Hamlet was quantum, Socrates was binary. For Hamlet everything was possible and nothing. For Socrates the question became,: If nothing can be proven, then nothing can be certain. Hamlet would have talked Socrates out of suicide only to talk him back into it once he realized Socrates couldn't value anything but the idea of being right, that he couldn't accept that everyone's perception was playing out a quantum cosmos where words, desires, genius, and madness where all singular moments of the observer--all equally valid and equally absurd. So you can keep repeating your mantras, but remember each word has its own histories, presents and futures and we are combining them here, not with the idea that ideas can be pinned down and robbed of their mulltiness, but that thoughts can launch forward to new destinations, new paths, new memes or worse--at least that is why I'm here. Not really sure what your agenda is, not sure i care. If you want to talk about how economic totalitarianism might emerge, you should probably start doing that--I believe corporations will swallow governments and those corporations will be swallowed up by DACs. What is your theory or stance? |
|
|
|
Lets make this simple. I say: Time + Space = non-trivial investment. And further, I say: non-trivial investment = a value.
( Time + Space = Space-Time ) ∧ ( For all A, and for all B, in the universe of discourse, if A is an investment and A is non-trivial then it is not prudent to attempt an assault on PoW-coin B of investment A with A. )
I = space + time. I = spacetime I am non-trivial, why are you? |
|
|
|
The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor.
I'm trying to determine what makes a non-trivial investment, non-trivial. You are arguing why a non-trivial investment holds value for a crypto currency. What it does versus what makes it do. I'm going to write some poems . I could have written a sestina with the time I've wasted on you. This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.
A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith. Lets make this simple. I say: Time + Space = non-trivial investment. And further, I say: non-trivial investment = a value. Do you have a problem with that? I edited two poems in my time away. I'd say I'm using my time wisely by spending less of it on you. |
|
|
|
What you're missing is that if you are evaluating the non-trivial investment, you can't disengage it from what makes it a non-trivial investment if you want to do a an honest (thorough) evaluation.
The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor. I'm trying to determine what makes a non-trivial investment, non-trivial. You are arguing why a non-trivial investment holds value for a crypto currency. What it does versus what makes it do. I'm going to write some poems . I could have written a sestina with the time I've wasted on you. |
|
|
|
That's a labor theory of value and, thus, inaccurate. PoW merely ensures that one's (monetary) interests are best served through a coin and not against it (for the non-trivial investment that is the common PoW-coin mining operation).
Time + space = non-trivial investment What's being gotten at, however, is that the investment itself does nothing to bolster the assorted (sensible) valuations of a PoW-coin: it prevents the coin from coming under attack by malevolent-thereto miners (or, in other words, "crypto- assassins"). What you're missing is that if you are evaluating the non-trivial investment, you can't disengage it from what makes it a non-trivial investment if you want to do a an honest (thorough) evaluation. |
|
|
|
Bringing it back OT: Isn't this what a POW system represents: Input of time + space (energy?) = symbolic output?
That's a labor theory of value and, thus, inaccurate. PoW merely ensures that one's (monetary) interests are best served through a coin and not against it (for the non-trivial investment that is the common PoW-coin mining operation). Time + space = non-trivial investment |
|
|
|
Please stop feeding that troll who wants to pump his nebulous Great Empire Coin™ into every discussion that is proximate to the nature of money and society. It is burying this thread in pages and pages of neologisms and obscure philosophical quotes which are all OT of this thread which as stipulated in the opening post of this thread is supposed to be about practical solutions to Economic Totalitarianism. (note I have been very patient with him over the past year, so please don't accuse me of not being open to tangential discussion)
I just wish he would stop his apparently intentional efforts to take practical discussion off on philosophical abstractions which are often not even clearly correct or at least not precisely relevant. I mean we are in a crisis mode right now and need to focus our energies on tangible efforts.
I have debated Chomsky for example on Hume. I aced the course in Philosophy at the university and even I have corrected an IQ test on a philosophical test question. I can go there, but please not here and not now. Because for one reason is I am a reductionist and will pour energy into sieving the generative essence which consumes much effort, especially when we are referring to the wide open abstractions of philosophy.
The solution is simple and it will never become a reality. All value is based on time. Isn't that essentially all you are born with? Time (*and space)? Perhaps this is why the idea (value) of martyrdom is so powerful: you sacrifice your current time and space for a chance to expand your value into the greater expanse of communal time and space? Bringing it back OT: Isn't this what a POW system represents: Input of time + space (energy?) = symbolic output? |
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that we need to learn how to terraform our own planet before we waste the resources on going to others. Not to mention the fact we need to overcome the hurdle of the cost of putting mass into space. What ever happened with that elevator Idea?
AFAIK, the elevator was dependent on nanotube development. Though, if you have a small mining operation in space, you could use the resources that you are mining to expand the mining operation indefinitely--this may be a good application of drones and 3-d printers--so becomes a question of getting enough resources into space for the first operation; from there you can keep expanding. OT, so I'll say those drones will use monero to transact their energy cost from one drone to another <---square'd hole, round peg. |
|
|
|
Did you know that an uncle of mine say one day on Facebook that he loves dark spaghetti. Don't know, but I think I''ll make a thread about this.
Yes it's true!
If your uncle was Gordon Ramsey and dark spaghetti was a brand, you'd have a decent thread. Even better if that spaghetti tasted like ass and was made from recycled motor oil (what sheen! what flavor!) and Gordon said as much. |
|
|
|
Once Masternode blinding is released Mr MoneroRunner here will have nothing left to ramble about just like IceTroller had nothing left after Evan removed the reference node. So it's a waste of time. They'll both just revert to Insta-trolling and we're back at status quo.
source code for instantx needs to be fixed before masternode blinding. Instantx is not a secure system from a cryptographic standpoint Also, as long as humans can be subpoenaed or coerced by law enforcement, you can gain enough network to break anonymity. Otoh probably owns a million dash and Evan probably owns a million dash--LE would only need their compliance to have 2000+ masternodes--that's why centralization and instamines and masternodes make a terrible mix. |
|
|
|
^Isn't it funny how he accuses people of being "selective" when he explicitly chooses the one only broken Masternode-counting site? Try these kiddo: https://dashninja.pl/https://dash-stats.firebaseapp.com/First calculates ACTIVE Masternodes in real time from what I can tell. Second one updates every couple minutes. And yeah: Both show almost 2900 full nodes strengthening our network. Go on, DDoS them all. I'll make some popcorn. ^Funny how you missed the other attack vector, but thanks for links; I'll check to see how many are actually active and how centralized they are by country this weekend--maybe even get a fix on all the ones that are using hosting companies again. Again, thanks. Also, is partially active, active? Seems like a half-phrase. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
