Indeed, there seems to be a fundamental dilemma there. Satoshi solved the problem of secure trustless e-payments, but there is still no solution for the problem of recovering stolen coins without spoiling that primary goal.
Jorge, here is a study of an important case involving the theft of bank notes and the Royal Bank of Scotland. This case illustrates pretty clearly why fungibility of a currency takes precedence over being able to recover stolen currency. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260952There is no dilemma here - it is design. |
|
|
|
What freedoms are you talking about, in particular? For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad. Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine?
Of course you could, if you could if your could provide sufficient proof to support your claim. My perception is that you are too focused on semantics. ... Not at all. Many people sincerely feel that private property is theft, i.e. it doesn't and shouldn't belong to you. How would you handle those? Some people feel that if they're starving while you have plenty, they are entitled to take it from you. How would you handle those? Do you see where this is going? You mention proof. "Proof" is an empty concept unless everyone agrees on the premises and rules of derivation (they don't--hence wars, revolutions, and forum posts). I can't rewrite it here better than Dr. Berlin did there. It's clear from your postings that you are highly intelligent, and that you have put considerable thought into what you say. You have an admirable mind. But it seems that you always get laser-focused on semantics, and seem to miss the actual concept others are trying to express. Please read the paper I linked, and see if you don't find a better definition of what 'free markets' might mean. Neither of the concepts of 'free markets' nor 'liberty' will, in itself, answer all of the complex issues of human social, political, and economic interaction, such as you pose above. Again, you are wanting to conflate a rather simple concept with 'all of human thought and action' - and that's just not what is actually meant. |
|
|
|
What freedoms are you talking about, in particular? For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad. Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine?
Of course you could, if you could if your could provide sufficient proof to support your claim. My perception is that you are too focused on semantics. Have you read Isaiah Berlin's paper on positive and negative liberty? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty ) I think that paper illustrates the point I am trying to make, insofar as 'free markets' are part of what can be called 'liberty'. |
|
|
|
Free market is a tautology. It is not Fairy Godmother. Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.
TL;DR: Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.
I can't speak to what everyone means when they say "free market", but I think this term is mostly used in this forum to mean "free" in the libertarian sense. That is, my freedom ends where it starts to impinge on your freedom, and vice versa. This means that a "free market" is explicitly NOT one in which you are free to restrict my economic freedom, nor I yours. From context, I gather that your definition of "free market" is simply 'the exercise of free will', and thus much broader than the meaning intended by the people you are responding to. |
|
|
|
He is an old man but it is not right to say that he does not properly understand bitcoin. This guy gave a 1 hour plus lecture on bitcoin. Try doing that if one does not know about the subject.present your case? It would be more helpful than giving comments which are often IMHO distractions from the main subject.
Sorry if the sarcasm was not clear; you must not have seen what people wrote here about me.  I would like to offer you my public apology, Jorge, for my characterization of you as 'an old dog who won't learn a new trick'. It really wasn't fair or particularly accurate, and, in retrospect, I would like to think my rhetorical skills are good enough that I could have made my argument without the need for that characterization. You have my deepest apologies, and, in the future I will strive to keep my arguments at a less personal level. |
|
|
|
lol, I had no idea there even was such a fee anywhere. When I changed citizenship I had to pay an application fee to the local regime. They granted it and they sent a notice to my former countries ambassador that I was no longer their citizen in the eyes of my country and asked them to remove my former citizenship - which they did. I find it kind of odd that they would even bother asking for a fee if you are granted a single citizenship in another country. If the country you are in considers you a sole citizen of that country and you don't plan on going anywhere near your former country then why accept a fee, just tell them you're no longer their citizen and forget about it. IANAL, but I think what you did is referred to legally as relinguishing your citizenship, as opposed to the more formal procedure of renouncing it. The US does not charge people who relinquish either, but renouncement is a formal procedure with a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy involved, so there is a fee associated with it. It's not clear to me why some people choose to renounce - it is pretty much irrevocable, as well as more work, and much more expensive - but there must be some legal reason why some people go that route. |
|
|
|
Thank you both!
Maybe add the page to the p2pool official page?
I always had trouble with the p2pool.info site, in that my node showed up there for a while, then later just went away from no particular reason I could ascertain. I have seen similar complaints from others also. I think this one is more accurate and inclusive: http://p2pools.org/btc |
|
|
|
All in all, I consider the US tax system to be comparatively progressive in structure, e.g. soak the rich, yet perhaps less tax as a percentage of national income vs. say some European countries which soak the middle class through VAT. In the USA, the rich are fighting back politically, as a recent court decision permits corporations to contribute funds to political campaigns as if they were individuals, enabling the so called 1% to punch well above their weight so to speak when it comes to electing low-tax officials.
The US Tax system is very progressive. According to IRS statistics, 95% of all the tax revenue they collect comes from the 5% of taxpayers with the highest income. Because the tax code is so convoluted, however, the actual revenue collected is nowhere near what tax rates would seem to suggest,. From the mid 1940s until 1963 or so, the highest marginal tax rate was around 90% (compared to the current 39%), but throughout that period, and even after taxes were slashed severely, first by legislation introduced by JFK, and later by Reagan, the IRS has never collected more than 21% of GDP in tax revenue. The worst year, I think, was 1950, when the tax rate was ~90%, and we collected 14% of GDP in taxes. The best was 2000, when we collected 21% of GDP in revenue with a marginal tax rate of 39%. |
|
|
|
These guys seem to be working on some zero-knowledge-proof solution, but it's hard to dig out any details from he site. I think the project may still be pretty immature: http://www.bitcongress.org/ |
|
|
|
I did not complain that Jorge was 'not trying hard enough'  Jorge himself stated outright that certain preconceptions that he had - voting from home systems were a priori bad and wrong (although I am still not sure why he would see this only a a vote-from-home system) had caused him to dismiss this technology out-of-hand, without even examining it at all. One of the big problems with voting is anonymity. This is required for several important reasons. This means voting from home is not a realistic option (though you are not specifically pushing for that, it is often a wish of many of those who are pushing for e-voting). I think what would come close to a good system would be where one would enter a booth, cast a vote and that choice would be cryptographically signed, receiving a receipt that would allow one to verify one's vote later. This would require a recording of all votes, potentially on some blockchain type system but not necessarily. There would also need to be a system in place where one could not be "fobbed off" with a duplicate receipt. I think this is solvable cryptographically though. One other issue with e-voting is that it becomes fairly easy to subvert anonymity. If the machine timestamps a vote, it becomes more easy to track who voted how. Unfortunately an issue with the receipt is that that also subverts anonymity. If you can verify your vote, so can someone else. In the end, I think it's a problem without a solution, merely a "best attempt". Unfortunately, current implementations of e-voting are very far from that and tend to suggest a kindergartener's level of understanding of the problem at hand. Yeah, I agree with you completely. It's a tough problem. It's still not clear to me that block chain based systems are so obviously unworkable that they are not worth even considering, but I am surely no expert in this field. |
|
|
|
I think, Mr. JayJuanGee, that you are not a very careful reader. I am not a perfect poster, but I am not guilty of the heinous crimes you accuse me of. You should reread this discussion more attentively.
There you go again... giving assignments...  At this point, I am of the sense that I have adequately read and/or researched in order to substantiate any points that I made in this post and in prior posts. Thank you for replying with meaningful support for your position, instead of just snarky sarcasm  |
|
|
|
I saw your posts in connection with the elections topic, and you asked a good question to Jorge. He answered the question from his perspective, and then you said that you do NOT like his answer b/c you think that he is NOT trying hard enough. then you argue about why he should try harder.
I don't necessarily agree with Jorge on a lot of topics, but I think that he made several valid points concerning voting mechanism obstacles.
In that regard, I think that there are ways to attack his various points without crying about it... for example, you could suggest that there may be some applications and implementations of the voting technology on a smaller or a different scale or means employed through the technology to inspire greater public confidence in the potential of bitcoin network as a voting mechanism. Instead you complain that he is NOT trying hard enough, and complain that you do NOT like his answer(s).
You argued in a similar manner with me to suggest that I am NOT arguing on your terms.. etc..etc. etc.. Or suggest that I should research and do more work in order to make my points.. points that I have already made with examples that I have already deemed sufficient to make my points.
I did not complain that Jorge was 'not trying hard enough' Jorge himself stated outright that certain preconceptions that he had - voting from home systems were a priori bad and wrong (although I am still not sure why he would see this only a a vote-from-home system) had caused him to dismiss this technology out-of-hand, without even examining it at all. I don't deny that Jorge shared some knowledge about e-voting issues that were interesting and informative, but nothing he said would justify just dismissing this technology out-of-hand. Nevertheless, as I have stated, my only intent here was to bring something to Mr. Stolfi's attention that I genuinely thought he might have interest in. Damn me for expressing my disappointment when he dismissed it summarily without even considering it. I think, Mr. JayJuanGee, that you are not a very careful reader. I am not a perfect poster, but I am not guilty of the heinous crimes you accuse me of. You should reread this discussion more attentively. The worst thing I am guilty of is accusing Jorge of being an old dog who won't even try a new trick - and I stand by that characterization |
|
|
|
...
Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely... He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed. I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process. Even though frequently Jorge says a variety of goofy things, he makes a lot of good points regarding the barriers in terms of transitioning into the use of electronic voting through the block chain - however, that does NOT mean that various smaller scale operations of block chain voting could not be implemented. xyzzy099, on the other hand, seems to have a preference to just stick to his points NO matter what. He does not want facts or logic to get in the way of his viewpoint.  If you'd like to post some support for that contention, I will be glad to address it. My only point in this exchange was that this was a technology worth looking into. I have not seen any evidence that would refute that simple claim. Have you? |
|
|
|
...
Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely... He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed. I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process. 1. Assume a magical black box which, when the "press" button is pressed, prints out the *exact* result of an election. Also assume that it is the definitive Black Box--while the result is [by definition] invariably correct, no one knows how it works. It's a hypothetical, accept everything above as a given. What do you think the odds of such a thing becoming the accepted method of national elections? 2. People do not trust technology--they don't understand it. They do not understand most of modern technology, including simple stuff like ATMs, but they do not need to trust it--they trust the agencies behind it (banks, in case of ATMs). This may be absurd, but that's how it is. There is no similar agency backing the blockchain, and Joe Sixpack has a natural distrust of eggheads. 3. Recounts. There is little to suggest that a recount in conventional elections would produce results more accurate than the initial tallying. But it makes people feel better. Those tangible slips of paper, as ridiculous and flawed as they are, are used even when a purely digital apparatus recording choices directly from a keyboard to electronic storage (like a hugely-redundant RAID or something) would be cheaper, more convenient, and [provably] more reliable. Go figure, but that's how it is. Or, to summarize all the points: Let's not try to improve living conditions through rational insight, because the irrational fears of what is possibly a majority of the population would be offended by the improvements at first. (Not attacking you, NotLambchop. Just the message you relay ) +1 I agree with this post |
|
|
|
...
Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely... He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed. I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process. 1. Assume a magical black box which, when the "press" button is pressed, prints out the *exact* result of an election. Also assume that it is the definitive Black Box--while the result is [by definition] invariably correct, no one knows how it works. It's a hypothetical, accept everything above as a given. What do you think the odds of such a thing becoming the accepted method of national elections? I don't know the answer to that question. It may be unlikely, or maybe not so much. It may very well be that people will never accept such a thing, but clearly, blockchain-based voting is at least worth exploring. The potential upside is truly free and fair elections. The potential down side is that every thing stays the same. I know there are plenty who would fight to maintain the status quo, even if this technology was 100% proven and workable, so it will definitely be an uphill battle. 2. People do not trust technology--they don't understand it. They do not understand most of modern technology, including simple stuff like ATMs, but they do not need to trust it--they trust the agencies behind it (banks, in case of ATMs). This may be absurd, but that's how it is. There is no similar agency backing the blockchain, and Joe Sixpack has a natural distrust of eggheads.
I disagree. First of all, I'd say that ATMs are really kind of a bad example. People mostly just use them to access cash they already own, and there is not a lot of trust required. I know lots of people who still will not deposit money in an ATM, because they specifically DON'T trust them. People trust their experience, and the anecdotal experience of others, when it comes to technology. I don't particularly trust banks, and I have actually had at least one bad experience where an ATM network problem caused debits to be charged against my account, when I tried and failed to withdraw money several times, even though I did not receive any cash - but I still feel pretty confident using ATMs, because, in my experience, and the experience of most everyone I know, an ATM will do what I expect it to do 99.9% of the time. 3. Recounts. There is little to suggest that a recount in conventional elections would produce results more accurate than the initial tallying. But it makes people feel better. Those tangible slips of paper, as ridiculous and flawed as they are, are used even when a purely digital apparatus recording choices directly from a keyboard to electronic storage (like a hugely-redundant RAID or something) would be cheaper, more convenient, and [provably] more reliable. Go figure, but that's how it is.
See above. Maybe it will never work - maybe you are right that no one will ever trust it, maybe the current powers-that-be will never allow a system they cannot control. But it is a no-brainer for those of us who would honestly like to see 100% free and fair election that it is something that should be explored. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't it true that if you have 51% of the hashpower you can mine ALL of the blocks? You would be able to orphan all other mined blocks, because you would always be able to produce the longest chains making your blocks the winner every time, no?
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the thought, but indeed I am profoundly uninterested on any vote-from-home proposal. That is like a water-powered car or a gamma-ray fly killer: a bad idea in itself, independently of the technical details. I will not waste time reading such proposals.
It's not clear to me why you seem to think that this technology could only be used to vote from home. Not in general, but in many cases that is a necessary goal (because, if votes were to be cast only in special voting places, such systems have few advantages over the existing paper-backed e-voting systems, and several disadvantages). People learn to trust technology they don't understand all the time, both from necessity and from convenience. Most people don't understand ANY technology, really. That is what the TSE always says: "if people trust ATM machines and home banking, why shouldn't they trust DRE machines"? The point, of course, is that people do not trust those technologies, they trust the entities that manage them (the banks). Customers believe that their bank is committed to preventing fraud and prosecuting hackers. They believe that the bank itself will take good care of their passwords and will not tamper with their accounts to steal their money (since it has plenty of fully legal ways of doing the latter ) In an election, on the other hand, one cannot blindly trust the entity that runs the system. The stakes are so big that, if insider fraud is possible, it will almost certainly happen. More generally, people trust technology that they do not understand (from cars to smartphones), in the physical sense of not blowing up, because the experience of many people have proved them to be physically safe. Such "empirical"' certification does not exist for e-voting systems. Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely. I think maybe you really should read up on this and try to understand it - you are a CS guy primarily, right? I realize that I resolved to leave you alone on this issue earlier, so now I will be true to my word. I think there is really something here that you might find interesting if you would but deign to look into it seriously, but I will not press the issue further. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the thought, but indeed I am profoundly uninterested on any vote-from-home proposal. That is like a water-powered car or a gamma-ray fly killer: a bad idea in itself, independently of the technical details. I will not waste time reading such proposals.
It's not clear to me why you seem to think that this technology could only be used to vote from home. What many "puppies" fail to realize is that the only purpose of an election is to convince the losers that they do not have enough support. Note the emphasis on "losers". It does not matter if the election convinces the majority, the media, the election committee, the UN observers, a jury, a platoon of academics, or a gang of zit-faced geniuses. If the losers think that they have been robbed, they will not accept the result and may resort to violence or other non-democratic means. Elections were invented precisely as a smart, efficient and painless alternative to those more primitive means of settling political disputes.
Complicated crypto-based systems generally fail on this count. The losers cannot be expected to trust a system that requires a PhD in computer science to analyze. Especially if they ask a honest cryptographer and learn that the fundamental tools of public-key cryptography -- SHA, ECC, RSA, etc -- have never been proved to be secure, theoretically or empirically.
I don't agree with this... People learn to trust technology they don't understand all the time, both from necessity and from convenience. Most people don't understand ANY technology, really. |
|
|
|
Going by its definition, "survival of the fittest," everything extant is the fittest. Except that is not the definition of evolution; merely a soundbite. It is often used to justify capitalist systems or excuse social inequality but it has nothing to do with Darwin's theory and IRCC no-where does he use the phrase in "OotS" never mind offer it as a definition. While I don't necessarily disagree that the above is not the 'definition' of evolution, the notion of 'survival of the fittest' being a component of evolutionary action seems pretty intuitive, no? I don't think Darwin's use (or non-use) of that specific term is really meaningful. |
|
|
|
As a bitcoin fan, you obviously want to stick as many applications as possible into the Satoshi2009 blockchain, in order to get more support for it. But there are other blockchains in existence, and the bitcoin network's hashing power could be harnessed for other protocols and applications if offered suitable rewards.
Jorge, I didn't say anything about any specific blockchain at all. I actually did not envision this working on the existing Bitcoin blockchain, although I am sure that could be done. When I brought this to your attention, I did so simply because I genuinely thought that it might be something you might be interested in, since you have a background of having worked with some e-voting issues. I see now that you are PROFOUNDLY uninterested, so I will let an old dog go back and lay down in the shade I will not disturb you further. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
