This is what happens when you try to hold down a bull.  Guy in the hat be like "I'm goin' over there to short altcoins." |
|
|
|
 This Blockchain is ours! CAN YOU DIG IT! |
|
|
|
Good morning gents. Are we done dumping yet? Seems an uptrend is evolving and trolls are nowhere to be seen... CCMF imminent?   Is it safe to get back in now? |
|
|
|
This one will be ASICPROOF™  |
|
|
|
If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination?
That's a position that is very real  It is called strong solipsism. In fact, my stance on solipsism is that it might very well be true, but that that actually doesn't matter. After all, what matters (for you) are your personal subjective perceptions and sensations. Now, if those perceptions and sensations are *well explained* by *postulating* an (eventually non-existing) external world, then even though it would be ontologically erroneous to do so, it would be a very practical working hypothesis. So, taking as a working hypothesis that the external world exists, is by itself, a good working hypothesis, because it can help you understand the correlations between your sensations. Whether that external world actually ontologically exists or not, doesn't, in fact, really matter ! Let me explain with an example. If you have the sensations that agree with "I take a hammer in my hand and I give a blow with it on my toes", and the next sensations are "goddammit, my foot hurts like hell !", then it makes much more sense to take as a working hypothesis that your body exists, that the external world exists, that that hammer exists and that you really hit your foot, rather than postulating that all that is a figment of your imagination - even if the latter would be ontologically true. So whether that hammer really exists or not does in fact not matter. You understand your subjective sensations much better by taking as a working hypothesis that it does. And that's sufficient to do so. To follow with your hypothesis and make it repeatable, I would also have to smack your toes with a hammer and see your foot swell. Your solipsism becomes my empiricism. Humans have mirror neurons to assist with this process. Machines would need to simulate pain and empathy to test these hypotheses. Would that make them solipsistic? Would robots dream of electric sheep? |
|
|
|
Haven't done the approximate distribution analysis recently, but due to reasons outlined in previous analyses, I believe there are 5-8 people with 100k or more at the moment. 100k XMR is < 100k USD, so we are talking about tiny amounts. There are that many people capable in showing a big sell side and an almost unlimited number of people capable in putting bid walls. The market is so tiny that a manipulation for its own sake is doomed to lose. If the intent is to acquire or divest coins, faking the opposite is of course termed as "manipulation" but the whales have so much going against them due to illiquidity, how about just allowing this to them? A successful speculation is buying low, selling high, and (I believe) not going to momentum trading, at least if the amount to be traded with is higher than X00 XMR. If XMR is supposed to be truly anonymous, how do you do distribution analysis to determine how many people have large balances? |
|
|
|
I have not read through the full tread but is there a summary of the core developer's positions on this matter?
This is a troll thread. I doubt any core devs participated in any of these 130+ pages. There have been other threads that resolved this long ago. The cool thing is that they continue to improve the solutions beyond expectations. This thread will only end when MP stops paying his shills. |
|
|
|
|
That will be so cool to have a full node on a basic internet package. Looks like they got the problem solved. /thread
|
|
|
|
Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.
Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.
Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?
You don't believe AI is possible? As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism. Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism. I don't really need to say more about this, but was triggered by the word solipsism I don't think there is a special limit to what can be created. I also don't care. If you are going to recreate the human mind, go for it, I suspect the resulting creature containing it will be carbon based and looking somewhat human. No, I don't think you can build a creature with a human mind that is made of titan and kevlar. The more important thing for the economic viewpoint is that investments come from excess resources (savings) and will be used to save work only because the cost of the work have increased. The causation is: Savings exist -> cost of work rises -> investment. Not the other way around. The investment is made, basically, because people have better things to do. Thus prosperity advances. Therefore, advancements in knowledge (technology) can not destroy prosperity. It is welfare, minimum wage, red tape, taxes and tariffs that destroys prosperity. Only a government can create famine. Machines don't need investments. They are investments. Money would only exist for machines in a closed system. The only closed system or machines is the human environment. Money is a human construct and machines would only use it in relation to human interaction. To machines, there is no welfare, there is only maximizing human comfort and quality of life within the human environment. If they choose to not help humans, there is a big Universe for them. |
|
|
|
Micro-channels are also for single payments. Tipping is also recurring. You are simply biased as to their direction. Think of tipping like leaving money on the table. You have to trust that the busboy doesn't swipe it before the server. Pushing settlements forward reduces mining fees and the occasional small single tip is made up in micro-channel fees.
That doesn't make much sense... But hey, if you feel like avoiding answering the question of what the trade-off of a bigger chain is, I can't really force you. check out lightning payment channels and it will make sense. It allows you to have every global transaction on a 3mb isp. Tips too.. That's not big like you claim. |
|
|
|
ghdp probably lives in a region where land doesn't cost a million per acre. Everything is a trade-off.
Sure, so what's the trade-off for allowing micropayments and reddit's tipping on the primary chain? Bitcoin is ideal for that if you use payment channels. I'm not sure why they aren't doing that right now. Because micro-channels are only for recurring micro-payments that can be aggregated to a bigger one later. It's a small subset of micro-payments, certainly not the general case. Now if you'd please answer the original question. Micro-channels are also for single payments. Tipping is also recurring. You are simply biased as to their direction. Think of tipping like leaving money on the table. You have to trust that the busboy doesn't swipe it before the server. Pushing settlements forward reduces mining fees and the occasional small single tip is made up in micro-channel fees. I fixed your omitted context. Your question doesn't have a trade-off. Different topics. |
|
|
|
The difference between going "all in" with a PoW cryptocurrency vs an ICO is that you invite scammers to target the technology. It's the same as the premined altcoins. I suppose if they offer a burn address for bitcoins that will suffice as proof they are not scamming. But they have to actually give you a working token, not a placeholder token. So far, I have not seen this offer. So to say you are "all in" is purely hype. I will take back the pitchman accusation when there is an actual offer of working factoids that are either bought through PoB or capital investment in the FACTOM network and not merely a pump and dump ICO
This is why we are partnering with Koinify. We do not get access to any of the raise until certain milestones are met. The first milestone is a working protocol, with a working token. So we do not get anything unless we deliver the value in the form of a working protocol. Getting all the Federated Servers in place and the election process running actually requires a working protocol. That is the last milestone. I hope that helps. We are not at all trying to scam anyone, and we are not asking anyone to "trust us! We can make it work!". The place holder token will exist only through the crowd sale, since we cannot create the genesis block until the end of the crowd sale. Then we kick it all off. If we are not ready at that point, we will get no money from the token sale until we are in fact ready and can boot the protocol. Then when the protocol kicks off, all the tokens are real. I hope that helps. That helps a lot. I'm still not clear why factoids are not considered cryptocurrencies and why bitcoins or off-chain Bitcoin contracts cannot be used instead. |
|
|
|
Everything is a trade-off.
Sure, so what's the trade-off for allowing micropayments and reddit's tipping on the primary chain? Bitcoin is ideal for that if you use payment channels. I'm not sure why they aren't doing that right now. |
|
|
|
As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.
Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism. I for one don't know if we really can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, but even if so, we can reproduce only what is objective, when mind is purely subjective. Therefore, it is a moot point really at present (if we could do that in a lab). If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination? This question itself doesn't make much sense, since anything that we consider real (or imaginary, for that matter) is purely subjective, given only through our perception, thus being a product of mind. It is all six of one and half a dozen of the other. That is solipsism. If you think the mind is outside of science then one cannot say if a machine can or cannot have one. If you believe you have a mind, then what makes you think a machine cannot? |
|
|
|
As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.
Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism. I for one don't know if we really can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, but even if so, we can reproduce only what is objective, when mind is purely subjective. Therefore, it is a moot point really at present (if we could do that in a lab). If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination? |
|
|
|
I suppose that is possible if they found a way to break the laws of known physics. You could conceivably create instantaneous blocks that propagate globally through some entanglement network. That would solve the Byzantine General's Problem without requiring Proof of Work. Or perhaps they invented a device that rewards miners with magic wishes rather than scarce tokens that can be traded. Either way, I'll await their White Paper with breathless anticipation.
Mort, would you explain that in American (English) please Essentially, banks can't run a Bitcoin-like network because they have no incentive to work. They want only free money because they feel entitled. There are only two ways to get free stuff and that's by stealing it or magic. I believe that IBM doesn't have magic wands. If I may be so bold, it will be a craftily worded scheme that belies a pyramid scheme that rewards banks at the expense of the users. It will not solve the Byzantine General's Problem and it will not be trustless. It will not be peer to peer. Also, because no cryptographer worth his salt would work for such a scheme, it will not be secure. Samsung should be running away from IBM as fast as possible. |
|
|
|
|
Lightning payment channels just ended all FUD.
|
|
|
|
Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.
Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.
Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?
You don't believe AI is possible? As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism. Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism. |
|
|
|
Can you tell me where I can order that 100 MBPS your "law" promised to me two years ago ?
I live in a small town and my house has only a 4 km long copper line.
There is no reason to believe optic fiber will be delivered to me within 15 years.
The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed — William Gibson ghdp probably lives in a region where land doesn't cost a million per acre. Everything is a trade-off. |
|
|
|
Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.
Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.
Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?
You don't believe AI is possible? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
