How does the notion of absolute limits of collectivism by Dunbar reconcile with collectives larger than this in evidence?
Bitcoin would be an example of this.
Yes, that's the idea, that Bitcoin (cryptography) could replace trust and state power. People can be naturally allied by common acceptance of an idea, or a philosophy or a practice.
One could feel a deep sense of community by participation in a group activity where the individuals are not even known to each other.
Yes, in theory. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is.  Do you feel a deep sense of community in this forum? I don't. I do. Perhaps these principles do not apply universally, and they are instead your belief system? |
|
|
|
Probably neither. Steam is very cheap in convenient. I guess I might get one in a year or two if the exclusives are really good.
I wonder when/if emulators will become available for the PS3 and Xbox 360. That'd be very convenient. I wish that Microsoft and Sony would release their own emulators and sell their old games for like $5 each.
Remember Bleem? Bleem did a better job than Sony did in running their games. Sony could have bought Bleem for less than it cost to sue them into oblivion. Point being, don't hold your breath. They don't care about their gamers, or maybe they just care about their lawyers more. |
|
|
|
|
How does the notion of absolute limits of collectivism by Dunbar reconcile with collectives larger than this in evidence?
Bitcoin would be an example of this.
People can be naturally allied by common acceptance of an idea, or a philosophy or a practice.
One could feel a deep sense of community by participation in a group activity where the individuals are not even known to each other.
|
|
|
|
Well quoting Laurie puts you in my blood community as much as anything can.
But I still don't understand why you think I need organised violence.
Is not mutual benefit is a strong incentive with the sane and civilized?
Because, when love (and trust, which only exists within blood communities) is gone (with the destruction of the blood communities by organised violence) it has to be replaced by something, which is justice (judiciary) which is force (state protection for the 'protection money payers') Communism is the only natural life style for the homines sapientes. But it doesn't work beyond Dunbar's Number. Nothings works beyond Dunbar's Number. This is all a little bit baffling for me, but I hope to understand. Is a blood community any person with whom one establishes trust? Does this idea allow for love and trust with people that I've not yet met? There are many that I both love and trust that I met through out my life and I suspect this is not going to stop happening until the end of my life. Why is it a goal to replace trust and love with violence? |
|
|
|
Bloomberg is also flashing Bitcoin signs on its show bumpers (the time between shows) Its like getting free advertising.
Looks like they are increasingly supportive.
Is it price quotes? if Bloomberg starts running BTC/USD exchange rates as part of their on screen ticker that is noteworthy. That would be more than noteworthy. That would be giving it equal time to the top national currencies. Bitcoin is a few orders of magnitude removed from that status yet. |
|
|
|
They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them. Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states. Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket. Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling. I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things. Help me understand this please. Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient? "Pure" capitalism is tragic because it is impossible- a broken ideal. I can't say whether or not it is possible, but assuming that it is not possible seems to beg the question and thereby preclude any discussion on the merits of what it offers or destroys. The economic benefit for an employee is shallow compared with what they could have done for themselves and their oft-neglected community and the world with the same amount of labor of love, rather than toil for pay.
Yes, perhaps so, but even in the impure capitalist system, they could choose this option to labor for oneself rather than cooperatively, and many do so today. The violence comes in when the wage slave sees the capitalist profiting from her toil, and tries to take some of that profit. The capitalist sometimes has a machine gun waiting in case of this.
For capitalism to work, a premium of some kind must be placed on a product to profit the capitalist involved in funding the production- this premium is lost to the worker.
This seems that the violence is initiated by the worker who does not respect the risk that the funding capitalist took in creating the environment and organizing that work. If the capitalist is overcompensated for that risk, it invites competition. From what they are saying, it would seem to offer some benefit over the do-as-thou-wilt alternatives in that there is some measurable elements of the benefits provided to those engaging in it, as well as a mutual agreement that could preclude any violent engagement. Of the systems proposed here it seems to at least have potential viability and a measurably beneficial method to reduce coercion and unnecessary statist intervention.
The best laid mutual agreements often go awry -especially when one party is more dependent on the other. You can count on "do as thou wilt" to get things done. All statist intervention is unnecessary. Arguably whichever side is getting the best part of the deal is the more dependent and has the most to lose from any renegotiation. How does one choose which of the many options for contributing labor to their society without evaluating the benefit to the society that labor offers, by looking at the differing compensation voluntarily exchanged for the labor options? What is the more efficient method for making this determination?
Once the state's protection of private property is abolished, the 'All Is For All' free for all chaos wound up tightly like a spring by capitalism will work itself out- with perfect efficiency. Some might suggest that even without state protection of private property, individuals may choose to protect their private property and person. One might further suggest that free for all chaos is sometimes less than perfectly efficient. |
|
|
|
They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them. Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states. Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket. Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling. I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things. Help me understand this please. Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient? From what they are saying, it would seem to offer some benefit over the do-as-thou-wilt alternatives in that there is some measurable elements of the benefits provided to those engaging in it, as well as a mutual agreement that could preclude any violent engagement. Of the systems proposed here it seems to at least have potential viability and a measurably beneficial method to reduce coercion and unnecessary statist intervention. How does one choose which of the many options for contributing labor to their society without evaluating the benefit to the society that labor offers, by looking at the differing compensation voluntarily exchanged for the labor options? What is the more efficient method for making this determination? |
|
|
|
|
Bloomberg is also flashing Bitcoin signs on its show bumpers (the time between shows) Its like getting free advertising.
Looks like they are increasingly supportive.
|
|
|
|
|
Feature request:
Add a volume line at the bottom.
Volume traded matters almost as much as price.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is resilient to software and hardware advancement
Even if that were true, what about resilient to government? Maybe they can't actually shut down the BTC network, but they can criminalize it, and disallow legit businesses from using it. Then it becomes nothing more than another failed idea in the history books. Resilient, yes. Not impervious. Foreseeably governments may restrict activities within the geographies under dominion. Though they benefit from not doing so, this makes it less likely. Possible to restrict; impossible to prohibit. Just like prohibition ended alcohol? It may get prohibited somewhere yet. These are still early days. If it becomes illegal within a geography, that is another good sign that you don't want to be in that geography (probably not the only sign). Bitcoin provides an additional level of economic resilience beyond what the state provides on its own. This lessens the burden of the state and makes that geography more productive. Places that choose control to their own detriment are not so healthy. It is a sign that they already feel out of control. |
|
|
|
um, mining diffiiculty is not exponential, it is linear.
It only looks exponential because we are in a technology transition right now.
It is reasonable to assume that once all the ASIC manufacturers are shipping, they will ship at a constant rate. Thus we won't see difficulty double regularly but rise at a high, but consistent rate.
Totally agree. Everyone should understand that difficulty is directly proportional to total mining power. Every 1TH/s in mining network equals to 139.698,39 difficulty points, to be exact. For example - if network mining power will increase two times - then difficulty will increase two times too. New difficulty is based on average network hashing power during last two weeks. That's all you need to know about it  If difficulty increase would be exponential - that would require all ASIC miner developers to increase their miner production speed every two weeks by the same percent. Basically, as soon as new mining device is developed and starts to mine - difficulty will grow too. If a lot of these devices are produced - then difficulty will grow rapidly until all devices are connected to network. Then difficulty growth speed will return to previous. Current rapid increase is caused by some new mining device developer in arena. He has already added mining devices with total power ~40TH/s to network. (first 30 TH/s were added two weeks ago, and that was cause for big difficulty increase last time. And still continues to add devices to network even now). Anyway, next time difficulty will be around 19M (+21%) on 17th of June. It is exponential, but not on that period. Moore's law is an exponential factor. The current difficulty growth also may be transitory and due to other factors than ASICs. Consider that there are large companies with many tens or even hundreds of thousands of computers that mostly sit idle. If one or two of those devoted even unused CPU power, it could have such an effect. Or animation studio render farms between movies with a room full of video rendering hardware + a bored admin and no worries about electricity. Lots of other possibilities.... This also raises the notion that mining can grow even when it is not profitable under "normal" circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
I found it striking in that it didn't paint Bitcoin as crazy or revolutionary like most of the financial news.
Calm reports of a new and interesting payment system that just might save some cost and provide better security is what the average person needs to see in order to lose the fear of it.
|
|
|
|
You lost me after LOL.
Warum ist Autarkie im Blut Gemeinde relevant Kapitalismus?
'LOL-answers' and 'name-calling-answers' are typical in communications within an anonymous hypercollectiv, as this and other threads show. There is not much natural respect towards members outside of your blood community. That's also the reason why you need organised violence to enforce someone to interact economically (capitalism) with foreigners, strangers and aliens. 'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice. And when justive is gone, there's always force. And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi Mom! So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. In your automatic arms. Your electronic arms. In your arms. So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. Your petrochemical arms. Your military arms. In your electronic arms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VIqA3i2zQwWell quoting Laurie puts you in my blood community as much as anything can. But I still don't understand why you think I need organised violence. Is not mutual benefit is a strong incentive with the sane and civilized? |
|
|
|
I would agree with the giving cg a scammer tag only if johnblaze gets an 'asshat' tag along with it.
~
A few fine points:
jb posted he would take the 1 btc bet. on the next page cg posted "all bets confirmed."
Is that a statement that all best are before the post are accepted? or is cg simply stating that he's confirmed the bets he's willing to accept and implying that betting is closed?
After this jb starts insulting cg and demanding that he confirm the bet... which implies that jb was under the impression that without confirmation the bet wasn't on.
~
Hair pulling slap fighting histrionics aside, I would have wanted to treat jb the same in this situation... I probably wouldn't have done so... but of course I would have been much more specific in my postings and kept the same format throughout. So there would have been no question about the validity or non-validity of the bet in the first place.
Personally, I chose to read 'all bets confirmed' as the op expressing that he was out of funds to cover bets and that no more would be confirmed... and since he started out posting with a quote of each bet he accepted that only those quoted with a confirmation were valid.
It just goes to show that when you're dealing with money, it's usually in your interests to be as verbose as possible so you avoid misunderstandings.
I also admit to a similar confusion, and so didn't make a bet. |
|
|
|
zZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZz ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ zZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZz ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ zZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZz ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ
It is pretty, symmetric even. Like the calm before the storm. |
|
|
|
CreateAbstractWallet(ACGr8Day|haveagr8day);
Confirmed May the road rise up to meet you, but miss you on the way past so you don't bump your nose. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is resilient to software and hardware advancement
Even if that were true, what about resilient to government? Maybe they can't actually shut down the BTC network, but they can criminalize it, and disallow legit businesses from using it. Then it becomes nothing more than another failed idea in the history books. Resilient, yes. Not impervious. Foreseeably governments may restrict activities within the geographies under dominion. Though they benefit from not doing so, this makes it less likely. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is a way to mine the water rather than make gold.
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit(6250uAC) = Wallet[AC0m97S1|adamstgBit]->SendAbstractCoins( ACL1B3RTY|NewLiberty, 250 );
confirmed; adamstgBit(6000uAC) = Wallet[AC0m97S1|adamstgBit]->SendAbstractCoins( AC33M450N|OWSLEYBEATSBIGCARTEL, 250 ); Confirmed May the tributaries of abstraction coalesce into the mightiest rivers, that the harvest from whose basin may feed the migration of a mighty force. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
