i think it'd be much better if the block solver got all the TX fees instead of however the reward system works now (and, no, this isn't favoring someone that's 60ghash, because like the share difficulty, in the long run it would all even out).
Sounds like something someone with a 60ghash miner would say  |
|
|
|
|
So, don't live in southwest USA, Australia, north Africa, or other places that are full of snakes?
|
|
|
|
so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)
Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts? Oh, no, he'd definitely try to put you in a cage for that, but I think that has more to do with his bizarre sexual fetishes than anything else. Hey, no such thing as bizzare sexual fetishes. Just rare, unique, and creative ones  |
|
|
|
Well, you did ask a stupid question. He had a major traffic accident and your first and foremost concern was about payment.
Setting things right. That's more like it! Depending on the amount of damage/suffering to others, and the various applicable laws (compulsory terms and conditions), "settings things right" could legitimately include putting him behind bars for a while to straighten out his brain. Why? All he did was destroy "property" concepts. Why not just ignore him and let him continue doing whatever he wants to do? After all, anything he destroys is just property that shouldn't be owned, anyone he kills is just biological property that doesn't belong to anyone, and really, ultimately, driving drunk wasn't his fault to begin with, since it wasn't determined by his choice, anyway. |
|
|
|
so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)
Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts? |
|
|
|
No, burglary only exists in societies where ownership exists. If things are not owned, they cannot be subjected to your idea of theft.
You must think that an ideal society is one where ownership doesn't exist, everyone shares everything equally, and everyone lives in harmony, working however much they can on want, with the product of their labor going to those who need it. There is just one problem with your idea, which is a problem that is constant with all things that involve people: assholes. If your utopia comes true, it will only take one single asshole to come up with an ownership idea, and before you know it, he will take ownership of your stuff, and then take ownership of your life. And you'll be powerless to stop him, because in your society, you're supposed to share, so he should be able to take whatever he wants. End result is USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and a slew of cults that ended in murder-suicides. In AnCap society, there are assholes, too. But they get stopped or shot if they try to take ownership of someone's life. |
|
|
|
Why are you discriminating? What if the government is a group of democratically elected representatives? So a majority is not allowed to determine the NAP? Then who the heck is allowed?! Only devout An-Cap supporters and their crony buddies?
And again you show that you completely fail to grasp what NAP is, and are trying to attack it by making it something it's not. Actually, this statement betrays your rather stern adherence to the idea of a state. Who determines the NAP? Nobody. There is no government that can determine it, no democratically chosen representatives, and no chosen leader. It really is nothing more than "don't aggress against me, but if you do, know that I will retaliate." That is absolutely fucking it. No strange oppressive rules, no questionable bs. Each individual determines if they have been aggresses against, and decides how they wish to retaliate, and others decide whether they agree with them all on their own. And they don't even need to retaliate with violence. It could be as much as, "Hey, that thing you did ruined my yard. Please don't do it again." You yourself practice the idea of NAP all the time with your neighbors and people you live around, when you decide not to randomly punch them in the face, with the understanding that they will beat you up if you do. Seriously, why is this concept so hard to grasp? (My guess is because you believe that no one is responsible for their own actions, no matter what they may be, and thus a government is not responsible for what it does, either, and is just the natural "outcome" of how things will always end up) |
|
|
|
You are given data to memorize, the state hands you a test, you regurgitate the data, and then forget it all a week later. You're expected to go to college if you want to make anything above minimum wage, then 4+ years and a mountain of debt later most people are entering into shitty jobs they shouldn't have needed a degree for in the first place.
Sounds like something a person without a college degree would say |
|
|
|
Just had a thought: wouldn't embedding a bit of code that comes from well known viruses be an even bigger annoyance in the blockchain than links to CP? Not because they can execute in memory, but because AntiVirus scanners will stumble on them and mark your whole blockchain file as infected  |
|
|
|
OK, a very crude, simplistic example to hammer the point home (you probably still won't get it...): "No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person." - Initiate implies a world with free will and determinism. I'm not arguing for or against others' philosophical views on this, but why is the NAP trying to force the issue?
- It threatens people who consider other philosophies because it basically says "you better watch out about that non-free-will stuff because we might see you as initiating force (even if you don't see it that way), which might make you a target for retaliation." As such, it fails its own purpose. The NAP is coercive.
Only think I can possibly say about this is *facepalm* By the way, an accident is not agression, just in case you didn't know that. In case you missed that last point and still haven't gone home: - It's silent about retaliation, retribution... vicious justice that is ten times more severe than the crime... So the secret An-Cap committee said that starting force is evil and must be stopped, but any kind of reactionary aggression is OK, irrespective of its violence? Interesting...
"Any kind?" Are you sure? Who determines NAP, or when someone aggressed against someone? Hint, it's not some government. So who will decide how much retaliatory force is appropriate? Hint, it's also not some government. Being a distributed, community-based "agreement," I'm fairly certain people will frown on excessive retaliation just as they will on aggression. - Which brings us to rights. An-Caps try to impose a concept of "universal rights" by saying that "No person has the right..." But maybe some people do have the right, in some societies? What gives An-Caps the right to impose their philosophical perversions on everyone? Obviously they don't have that right, which leads to the rigorous and inescapable conclusion that rights are subjective and determined by society.
I'm with Hawkeye on this. When would someone have the right to initiate force or aggression? In what societies? Some examples please. |
|
|
|
> Зачем вам биткоины?
Для удовлетворения любопытства. Ни как валюта, ни как средство накопления они непригодны.
Накамоты совершили прорыв в технологии виртуальных денег, за это им честь и хвала. Можно с уверенностью утверждать, что за интернациональной цифровой валютой будущее, но это будет не биткойн.
Когда-то придумали TCP/IP, WWW, и SMTP. Хорошие были придумки, и за это им честь и хвала. Но в этих технологиях было много недостатков и много проблем. По этому мы давным давно бросили TCP/IP, WWW, и SMTP, и теперь используем совсем другие протоколы. |
|
|
|
What makes me think a bit about this is that he practically lists all the specific points that SA uses against Bitcoin. I don't mean thoughtful, if misguided, economic ones, I mean stupid troll ones. Makes me wonder where he hangs out. |
|
|
|
You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that?
Agreement? I didn't agree. And what about all the people who are born into your pet system? They will want to rebel. Rebel against what? [And then he evangelizes the N.A.P. proto-government...] I was supposed to be "kind of dumb", remember? If you can't figure it out... Well, maybe I'm dumb, because I honestly cannot not figure out more versions of "I will not attack you, but will defend myself if you attack me" other than that one, which says "I will not attack you, but will defend myself if you attack me." I mean, I guess someone could say, "I will attack you, and you should have no right to defend yourself," or "I will not defend myself even if you attack me," but those are not NAP. So, again, can you please pretend that I am the dumb one, and give me some examples of "I will not attack you, but will defend myself," otherwise known as the NAP, that compete with each other? |
|
|
|
You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that?
Agreement? I didn't agree. And what about all the people who are born into your pet system? They will want to rebel. Rebel against what? The idea that if someone attacks them, they can defend themselves? Or the idea that others should be able to defend themselves from their attacks? Frankly, rebel how? By going on a killing spree, because they don't agree that others should have a right to defend themselves? That would result in them being promptly shot though, so, uh, let them rebel? Only thing that NAP "forces" is that you treat others like you would like others to treat you. And it doesn't even force that. You are still free to be a murderous asshole, it's just that everyone else will agree that it's ok to shoot you for it. |
|
|
|
Then go to a university that doesn't have security guards.
Fuck off to your seastead! I live on land I bought and paid for. Why the hell should I? |
|
|
|
Because Denmark have strict regulations of guns, we do not have the need of armed guards at our universities.
AnCap would require a zero-regulations policy, and we therefor would need armed security guards.
Follow now?
Who exactly enforces those gun regulations, if not other people with guns? And why can't a private non-government entity have rules that there are no guns allowed on a specific property, such as on their university, and even use people with guns to enforce those regulations? What's the "magic" that gives government gun-toting regulators the power to regulate guns and keep safe, that a private entity can't have? |
|
|
|
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state. But not it's ability to keep them safe. I don't want security guards on my university. Then go to a university that doesn't have security guards. I didn't want guards on my university either, but the state said that they should be there at all universities, and that they should be armed. You get the difference yet? In AnCap, a university will be free to choose if there are armed guards or not, and you are free to choose whether to go to a university with armed guards or not. With our current governments, your university can't have armed guards even if it wants them, even if Denmanrk's economy starts deteriorating, some crazy people turn to socialist nationalism, and start going around universities, trying to kill off "elitists" in the same way Soviet Union did when they were killing off all their educated people as "enemies of state." At the same time, my university is forced to have armed guards, even if there's nothing to say whether those guards actually know how to use those guns, and may end up accidentally shooting someone they thought was threatening. In short, you are very specifically and rather agressively advocating for the position that people should not have a choice, because some other people should make all the choices for everyone, while at the same time accusing AnCaps of trying to push through a system where some people will make all the choices for everyone, and not allowing people to have a choice. You are basically accusing AnCap of being the very exact opposite of what it is. |
|
|
|
This text message is NOT embedded in the actual block chain. It's just additional information provided by www.blockchain.info and stored in their internal database. Ah, really? My bad. But it's known that blockchain allows to publish arbitrary data anyway. Luke-Jr did it with bible passages. As I understand it, those would not be considered standard transactions, and most miners would refuse them. Luke was able to accomplish it by using his own Eligius pool. So, yeah, it can be done, but you would either have to run your own pool (and I think a bunch of people dropped Eligius when they found out about this and other things it did), or spend a lot of money mining your own blocks solo. |
|
|
|
It would be freedom of religion if you wanted lots of different "Non-Aggression Principles" all competing with each other.
Can you give me an example of some of these other NAPs that would be competing? |
|
|
|
SOOOOO many misconceptions... The An-Cap Story...
An-Cap supporters: "hey everyone! We've got this cool political idea we wanna try out..."
Some other people: "sounds cool! Let's do it."
The rest: "hey, wait a minute. I didn't sign up for your weird-al "property" concept."
AnCap's "weird-al property concept" is just "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it was, or what do you disagree with in that? An-Cap supporters: "too bad! It's in the NAP."
The rest: "but you said the NAP was voluntary and non-coercive!"
An-Cap supporters: "It is. In fact it's SO AWESOME that we (my An-Cap buddies and I) decided to make an exception and enforce it, so that everyone can enjoy it equally!"
You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that? The rest: "You're like the pigs in Animal Farm. Selling us an appealing idea of "peaceful revolution by education, not by force" [getting rid of the Farmer]. But then you take over and manipulate things. Anarchy is supposedly leaderless, yet you are obviously trying to lead and control the NAP [7 commandments], keeping it out of the hands of the common man [the sheep]."
The idea of AnCap is that no one is in control, thus no one can take over. If someone takes over, that's no longer AnCap, that's a government. And anyone trying to take over, and in the process trying to get control aggressively, is breaking the NAP agreement, and those "The rest" are free to use the exact same NAP to defend themselves against these controllers. So obviously you had no idea what AnCap was exactly when you wrote that. And I guess you had no idea what NAP was. Btw, the opposite of NAP is that it's ok for people to steal, assault, and murder people without retaliation. Basically, the opposite of the NAP is that some people should be free to commit crimes and get away with it. Do you support that opposite of NAP? (you might say "no" but you actually do) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
