If I had to rank Asian girls for hotness it would be:
1 Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia
2 Mongolia
3 Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia
4 Siberia
5 Kazakhstan
Not in Asia, but also very hot women:
1.5 Ethiopia
2.5 Finland/Lapland
3 Choctaw
3.5 Norway
There are notable exceptions to all, but I haven't found a connection to this personal preference list.
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_InternetIt took 7 years for the internet to go from handling 1% to 51% of all two-way information. Another 7 years it went from 51% to 97%. It only took that long because the internet didn't already exist. The world's transition from fiat to crypto will be at least one order of magnitude faster. Meaning we're looking at 3-5 years for massive global adoption similar to what happened with the internet itself. What I'm saying to you, dear reader, is that you should melt as much of your fiat into crypto as possible ASAP. My house has a For Sale sign in front. Just sayin. |
|
|
|
|
I would change the heading to "If Bitcoin became the world RESERVE currency"
Sovereign nations will probably choose to premine a POS cryptocoin you can exchange for bitcoins on their exchanges.
|
|
|
|
But really, it's much simpler than that. Treat others like they are your family and don't profiteer. Animals don't use money. Humans don't need money either. It's a choice. We need science and technology to promote progress. We can do it together by aggregating resources smartly. Unfortunately, most of us aren't smart enough to agree upon the best use of resources. We need tools that will assure us that our needs are met and that we have fulfilling lives. That takes a great deal of patience and care. Most humans are incapable of that. Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day.
So... instead of capitalism we just need almost all humans to be very patient and careful, extremely smart, and treat all strangers like family? You have a problem with a theoretical consequence of capitalism based on questionable logic and supported by crony-capitalistic examples so you counter-propose a system of social order in which several of the axioms are blatantly false, two of them by your own admission! Even without calling out many of the dubious claims in your argument, and paying no heed to the bias, you still quickly begin to consider the necessity of intelligent machines just to make your proposal tractable. Fail. Exactly. But to elaborate to cbeast why  Animals do use money. Male chimpanzee trade fruit with females, so they repay later with sex. Money is basically just information, which tells the traders the relative scarcity of the goods at THAT moment, and also tries to predict the future scarcity of the given resource. Also, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value, as long as value is subjective, and lacks any determinism, you MUST have a tool to communicate this information about demand-supply. Because people change their minds. Because resources gets depleted/new sources found/new technologies found etc. Or just shit happens none expected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theoryThe economy is never and can not be in a state of equilibrium! And at the same time, it is always in it, because for that moment, the moment you pay - voluntary trade -, you just set a new equilibrium! I hate this notion, you said "Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day" Every collectivist thinker starts from the failed Platonic logic of "philosopher kings" type of society, where someone or something will force us to do good, for our own sake. Free will exists. Get over it. Be self reliant, spend energy, adapt, adopt, improve  Now, you see why people long for socialism, where everything gets handed to them, and they do not have to think and risk, and choose. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiMYou two need to get a room. Giving food to a mate is not and economy. Do you get sex from your children when you give them food too? Save the Econ 101 Wikipedia blabla. I am interested in objective empirical science. The point was that only technology solves our survival needs as we overpopulate. The intelligent machine conjecture is symbolic and for the most part we already use them to keep our electricity flowing, our tap water clean, and to run most of our machines. It's pretty simple. I'm sorry if you want to believe in magical "invisible market hands" and other such religious nonsense. You have not answered the money=information argument. You just twisted it, and draw a straw man, "sex with children".... I will not save 101 economics Wikipedia, since you obviously have not read them, if you were, you would not call the money transaction of an animal an economy. Economy needs production and trade, and innovation by conscious individuals. There is no production in animal kingdom. Also, i do not BELIEVE in the "invisible hand", i KNOW it, the evidence is overwhelming. You can see it every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU this speech explains it very clearly, what the free market in REALITY does every single minute! If you can not comprehend it, that is not my problem, reality will just leave you behind. It is just weird, to deny the existence of the free market on the Bitcoin forum. Your confirmation bias is strong. This whole conversation gets twisted away from the problem of monopoly and violence, the weapons of choice in capitalistic societies. Economics is pure bullshit. It's the astrology of our era and economists are shamen. Go read your tea leaves and crystals and leave science to scientists. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin won't ever become a world currency. Go look at places below or at the poverty line. They can't afford to own a Bitcoin wallet or have access to one.
Your bitcoins are stored for free on the blockchain. The problem is getting poor people to access them. There are cheap solutions. We just need to develop them. |
|
|
|
|
It looks like 650 is the new 130.
Now. We. Wait.
|
|
|
|
But really, it's much simpler than that. Treat others like they are your family and don't profiteer. Animals don't use money. Humans don't need money either. It's a choice. We need science and technology to promote progress. We can do it together by aggregating resources smartly. Unfortunately, most of us aren't smart enough to agree upon the best use of resources. We need tools that will assure us that our needs are met and that we have fulfilling lives. That takes a great deal of patience and care. Most humans are incapable of that. Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day.
So... instead of capitalism we just need almost all humans to be very patient and careful, extremely smart, and treat all strangers like family? You have a problem with a theoretical consequence of capitalism based on questionable logic and supported by crony-capitalistic examples so you counter-propose a system of social order in which several of the axioms are blatantly false, two of them by your own admission! Even without calling out many of the dubious claims in your argument, and paying no heed to the bias, you still quickly begin to consider the necessity of intelligent machines just to make your proposal tractable. Fail. Exactly. But to elaborate to cbeast why Animals do use money. Male chimpanzee trade fruit with females, so they repay later with sex. Money is basically just information, which tells the traders the relative scarcity of the goods at THAT moment, and also tries to predict the future scarcity of the given resource. Also, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value, as long as value is subjective, and lacks any determinism, you MUST have a tool to communicate this information about demand-supply. Because people change their minds. Because resources gets depleted/new sources found/new technologies found etc. Or just shit happens none expected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theoryThe economy is never and can not be in a state of equilibrium! And at the same time, it is always in it, because for that moment, the moment you pay - voluntary trade -, you just set a new equilibrium! I hate this notion, you said "Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day" Every collectivist thinker starts from the failed Platonic logic of "philosopher kings" type of society, where someone or something will force us to do good, for our own sake. Free will exists. Get over it. Be self reliant, spend energy, adapt, adopt, improve Now, you see why people long for socialism, where everything gets handed to them, and they do not have to think and risk, and choose. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiMYou two need to get a room. Giving food to a mate is not and economy. Do you get sex from your children when you give them food too? Save the Econ 101 Wikipedia blabla. I am interested in objective empirical science. The point was that only technology solves our survival needs as we overpopulate. The intelligent machine conjecture is symbolic and for the most part we already use them to keep our electricity flowing, our tap water clean, and to run most of our machines. It's pretty simple. I'm sorry if you want to believe in magical "invisible market hands" and other such religious nonsense. |
|
|
|
What is the advantage of this over a concept like sigsafe (NFC & microprocessor combo signs tx it receives from POS).
Cost? An RFID has almost no cost and can be printed on a laser printer TTBOMK. The device could be made on a simple 3D printer. I'm talking about a solution for the <$10 a day people which is most of the world's population. |
|
|
|
[...]
They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed. You sound like those creationists that try to disprove evolution by quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics about Entropy. What they overlook is that these laws only occur in a closed Universe of experimental conditions. You think that a Free Market exists everywhere and exerts itself like natural law. That is not science. Your hypothesis is easily falsified under conditions of monopoly. You are simply Begging the Question. You think that a free market can not exist. Fair enough. I happen to think that it can exist. The monopolies, in my world view, are always conducted by violence, directly or by proxy. You could read Henry Ford about monopolies, and what would happen if you tried to get a monopoly in the free market, by underselling your competition until they are gone, then raise prices. It is not possible. All monopolies are kept by violence, that is, by government. Good companies can have a high market share, but only in a limited part of the market, and if they have, it is by merit. What we want are not different. I just realized long ago that you cannot get from point A to point B using an abstract reification such as money. It is a low tech invention. Sure Bitcoin creates an abstraction that mechanizes the functions of money that was once done by people, but it is still merely a practical technology. It doesn't do anything except transmit a very limited form of information. Electronic money has gone from the telegraph age to the telephone age. When smart contracts are possible and autonomous agents are able to transact indepently and intelligently, then we may see something that bridges what you believe and I believe. What you call the Free Market, I call Love, and money doesn't bring that. I agree, it is about information. In theory, you could have a great ledger where every service or good is noted when it is added, and everything you consume is subtracted, for every person. But, in practise this would not work, because someone, who is not you, helpfully will set a value for each thing different from your values. We also need the market to signal to you as a consumer, and you as a producer, what to produce and what to consume, how much you want to produce, consume, save as money or invest. Money is perfect for that. It does not add real value, in fact it consumes a small amount of value, but essentially, it is there as a catalyzer, and you can take it out of the wealth equation when it has done its job. Yeah see, finance isn't science. Aggregating resources are part of the scientific method, but how you aggregate them is not. Using terms like producer and consumer, marketing and investing, these are all technician terms that only useful within arbitrary sociological conditions. Science is useful in every sociological condition. Therefore your business terminology is meaningless to me. We cannot have a discussion because we cannot find common ground since I don't accept your paradigm where Bitcoin is concerned. From Bitcoin will emerge a whole new system of resource allocation. You may call it "free market" if you want, but the goal of acquiring unnecessary monies will one day be as quaint as sun worship. I think I was rather clear. Money is only the catalyst, or moisture to the machinery. It has no real value. That means also that the goal of acquiring money does not exhaust resources in any way. It is a question of having the opportunity to consume later, leaving everyone else to consume or invest now. This has always been the case with money. Bitcoin is just a better form of money. It is not science in the sense that it can be measured exactly and retested. That is for the econometrists, which are wrong. Some of them, you could call econosadists (war is prosperity). Economy is science in the sense that there are some axioms, then conclusions that logically build on those axioms. Economics is a science that have axioms predicated on established social norms. I personally favor behavior sciences because they study animal behavior and extrapolate primate behavior to sociological scales. In the interest of furthering science, I prefer the disciplines with the greater latitudes. Economics is still going through the "new schools of thought" stage that was popular with psychology even through the 1990s. Now neuroscience is taking behavior sciences to higher levels. Behavior science has become empirical. But really, it's much simpler than that. Treat others like they are your family and don't profiteer. Animals don't use money. Humans don't need money either. It's a choice. We need science and technology to promote progress. We can do it together by aggregating resources smartly. Unfortunately, most of us aren't smart enough to agree upon the best use of resources. We need tools that will assure us that our needs are met and that we have fulfilling lives. That takes a great deal of patience and care. Most humans are incapable of that. Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day. |
|
|
|
This would be a device that has an RFID representing a Bitcoin private address. The public address can be printed on the outside. The RFID tag circuit is broken until you put in a physical key to complete the circuit. You would do this at a trusted vendor's point of sales. Insert the device into a reader and turn the key. The vendor device would sweep the amount with an RFID reader, return your change to your public address, snap the device back into its locked position, and give you a receipt.
Hmm, well, not sure I totally get it, but it might tie into some concepts I've been working on (see my post on 'a smoother brick and mortar experience'). Trying hard to make sense of what you wrote, but too many things to interpret. You'll have to explain it better. What is your goal? How does the merchant get this device that matches my key? My best guess: - There is only one store in town
- I drop off my 'device' at this store at some point
- Later I return to the store and want to buy some stuff.
- At the checkout the merchant pulls my device off the shelf and I insert my key
- Their pos system now finds unspent transaction outputs on the blockchain matching my public address and creates a transaction using those transactions as inputs and as outputs specifies their public address for payment and my public address for the change.
- Their pos system then sends this transaction into my device which, after I confirm the amounts on some screen (so that I know they are not taking too much), then digitally signs the transaction (provides the scriptSig) using my private key (but without revealing my private key to the merchant system)
- Merchant pos system then sends this transaction off the bitcoin network.
Have I guessed correctly? If so the main advantages are: I can only spend bitcoins at this one store (because they have my device), so if my private physical key gets stolen, then the robber would either have to also steal my device from the merchant or impersonate me (which could be hard in a small town). The wallet device never leaves the hand of the owner. This isn't a Trezor type device that 'signs' transactions. This is a poor man's secure physical wallet. It is only used to carry the day's cash. It also requires trust that the vendor will not take all of your outputs and keep them. They will only sweep what is needed to settle the transaction and return the change as new outputs back to the public address or to a new address if the user has a deluxe model. Here is an example to illustrate the idea with paper wallets. Only this time cheap RFID tags can be printed with standard printers and conductive inks. First, here is the problem that led me to this. Most poor people cannot afford smart phones or even cell phones for that matter. How do I come up with a very very cheap, but very very secure wallet for them? Paper wallets are really only good for cold storage. RFID tags are very cheap to make. The problem with RFID is that they can be scanned remotely. If one is used for a Bitcoin private address, it could easily be stolen. The one weird trick is to scramble the RFID tag and reassemble it when it is ready to be read. As long as the RFID tag is not a complete circuit, it cannot be read surreptitiously. The wallet can be preloaded with multiple RFID keypairs or if it only used for very small amounts of money, then one should suffice. No legitimate vendor equipped with a POS system will bother stealing such a small amount. |
|
|
|
[...]
They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed. You sound like those creationists that try to disprove evolution by quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics about Entropy. What they overlook is that these laws only occur in a closed Universe of experimental conditions. You think that a Free Market exists everywhere and exerts itself like natural law. That is not science. Your hypothesis is easily falsified under conditions of monopoly. You are simply Begging the Question. You think that a free market can not exist. Fair enough. I happen to think that it can exist. The monopolies, in my world view, are always conducted by violence, directly or by proxy. You could read Henry Ford about monopolies, and what would happen if you tried to get a monopoly in the free market, by underselling your competition until they are gone, then raise prices. It is not possible. All monopolies are kept by violence, that is, by government. Good companies can have a high market share, but only in a limited part of the market, and if they have, it is by merit. What we want are not different. I just realized long ago that you cannot get from point A to point B using an abstract reification such as money. It is a low tech invention. Sure Bitcoin creates an abstraction that mechanizes the functions of money that was once done by people, but it is still merely a practical technology. It doesn't do anything except transmit a very limited form of information. Electronic money has gone from the telegraph age to the telephone age. When smart contracts are possible and autonomous agents are able to transact indepently and intelligently, then we may see something that bridges what you believe and I believe. What you call the Free Market, I call Love, and money doesn't bring that. I agree, it is about information. In theory, you could have a great ledger where every service or good is noted when it is added, and everything you consume is subtracted, for every person. But, in practise this would not work, because someone, who is not you, helpfully will set a value for each thing different from your values. We also need the market to signal to you as a consumer, and you as a producer, what to produce and what to consume, how much you want to produce, consume, save as money or invest. Money is perfect for that. It does not add real value, in fact it consumes a small amount of value, but essentially, it is there as a catalyzer, and you can take it out of the wealth equation when it has done its job. Yeah see, finance isn't science. Aggregating resources are part of the scientific method, but how you aggregate them is not. Using terms like producer and consumer, marketing and investing, these are all technician terms that only useful within arbitrary sociological conditions. Science is useful in every sociological condition. Therefore your business terminology is meaningless to me. We cannot have a discussion because we cannot find common ground since I don't accept your paradigm where Bitcoin is concerned. From Bitcoin will emerge a whole new system of resource allocation. You may call it "free market" if you want, but the goal of acquiring unnecessary monies will one day be as quaint as sun worship. |
|
|
|
[...]
They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed. You sound like those creationists that try to disprove evolution by quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics about Entropy. What they overlook is that these laws only occur in a closed Universe of experimental conditions. You think that a Free Market exists everywhere and exerts itself like natural law. That is not science. Your hypothesis is easily falsified under conditions of monopoly. You are simply Begging the Question. You think that a free market can not exist. Fair enough. I happen to think that it can exist. The monopolies, in my world view, are always conducted by violence, directly or by proxy. You could read Henry Ford about monopolies, and what would happen if you tried to get a monopoly in the free market, by underselling your competition until they are gone, then raise prices. It is not possible. All monopolies are kept by violence, that is, by government. Good companies can have a high market share, but only in a limited part of the market, and if they have, it is by merit. What we want are not different. I just realized long ago that you cannot get from point A to point B using an abstract reification such as money. It is a low tech invention. Sure Bitcoin creates an abstraction that mechanizes the functions of money that was once done by people, but it is still merely a practical technology. It doesn't do anything except transmit a very limited form of information. Electronic money has gone from the telegraph age to the telephone age. When smart contracts are possible and autonomous agents are able to transact indepently and intelligently, then we may see something that bridges what you believe and I believe. What you call the Free Market, I call Love, and money doesn't bring that. |
|
|
|
[...]
They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed. You sound like those creationists that try to disprove evolution by quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics about Entropy. What they overlook is that these laws only occur in a closed Universe of experimental conditions. You think that a Free Market exists everywhere and exerts itself like natural law. That is not science. Your hypothesis is easily falsified under conditions of monopoly. You are simply Begging the Question. |
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of low tech solutions for Bitcoin wallets in poor countries. Would it be possible to create an RFID keypair where the private key is disassembled and reassembled by inserting a key into the device and twisting it into position? It would have no electronic components and would be cheap to mass produce. It would of course be shielded for unidirectional operation to avoid remote scanning.
edit: This is only one part of a bigger POS system that could be implemented in poor countries.
Sort of a cool idea. But how does it work exactly? You carry a physical key instead of a wallet app on a smartphone? Or describe more what you have in mind. What "device" do you insert the key into? This would be a device that has an RFID representing a Bitcoin private address. The public address can be printed on the outside. The RFID tag circuit is broken until you put in a physical key to complete the circuit. You would do this at a trusted vendor's point of sales. Insert the device into a reader and turn the key. The vendor device would sweep the amount with an RFID reader, return your change to your public address, snap the device back into its locked position, and give you a receipt. |
|
|
|
|
People said I was nuts last year when I told them DJIA would hit 18K this year. It's really looking that way. I think 20K is the final tipping point.
|
|
|
|
Yes, a gold backed juan would be great. Hell ill even take russian currency if its backed by liters of oil or gas stored underground over BTC anyday.
Too easy to counterfeit or fractional reserve. |
|
|
|
Very cool idea. |
|
|
|
Right now, the majority of the general public (not only in the US, but also in other nations) is having a bad opinion about Bitcoin. It is due to the unrelenting media war being waged against the crypto-currency. But if we could spread the information about various advantages of Bitcoin, then I am sure that the popular opinion will change dramatically.
QFT, but it doesn't really matter. We're looking at 3-5 years for massive global adoption no matter what lies the media spreads. Bitcoin is really shaking things up. The inevitable is coming. Vortexes are the new crystals. |
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of low tech solutions for Bitcoin wallets in poor countries. Would it be possible to create an RFID keypair where the private key is disassembled and reassembled by inserting a key into the device and twisting it into position? It would have no electronic components and would be cheap to mass produce. It would of course be shielded for unidirectional operation to avoid remote scanning.
edit: This is only one part of a bigger POS system that could be implemented in poor countries.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
