That is a truly awful sentence.
Saying how awful it is doesn't exactly help me. The letter may not be that great, but it remains that I am the only one who is writing it. |
|
|
|
bytemaster, nothing I described attempts to make people equally wealthy. There would still be rich and poor, just not starving. Bitcoin has infinite inflation over a few years. A constant inflation rate has infinite inflation spread out over infinity. Bitcoin therefore has an infinitely higher inflation rate than an constant rate of inflation. Why do people accept an infinitely higher inflation spread out over a few years instead of an infinitely lower inflation rate spread out over eternity? If you are not a botnet operator, then you would be guaranteed to generate a larger portion of the total number of bitcoins given a constant inflation rate as opposed to the infinitely higher inflation rate that we are currently experiencing.
The fact that there will be only 21 million bitcoins forever and the fact of inflation is factored into the price. Bitcoins is very predictable and people can plan their economic calculation around that. |
|
|
|
I wonder why transactions weren't designed like this in BitCoin from the start.
ByteCoin
Satoshi is not all knowing and there were probably not anybody who working on cryptocurrency at the time. So there are less ideas for Satoshi to feed on. |
|
|
|
|
If you ever do expand to protecting alternative monetary system, the Bitcoin community have hopes that it will generally remains free of intervention.
Reword complete. RFC.
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that there will be only 21 million bitcoins forever and the fact of inflation is factored into the price. Bitcoins is very predictable and people can plan their economic calculation around that.
|
|
|
|
I think "unmolested" or any variant of "molested" is not so useful for wording
Well, its definition is: not interfered with, disturbed, or harmed. |
|
|
|
Sorry I'm coming in a little late with this, but do we want to expose Bitcoin to the liability of being a "currency"? In another thread, I've posited that we should be careful not to claim that Bitcoin is useful for any particular purpose, especially as a currency or money. That could leave us open for charges of fraud.
Sorry, but bitcoins are a currency by definition and design. You can avoid the term as much as you like, but a currency is what they were intended to be, and there will always be people to will refer to them as such, no matter what we few here choose to do. I prefer that the government believe in their own legal fiction and regard us as "toy money". |
|
|
|
|
>We also see you as an important partner to ensure that the Bitcoin community goes unmolested or at least won't go down without a fight.
If you ever do expand to protecting alternative monetary system, the Bitcoin community have hopes that it will generally be unmolested or at least won't go down without a fight.
Reword complete. Good or not? Should I just delete this altogether?
|
|
|
|
|
So is this article going to get published? Can you reveal to us who's publishing it?
|
|
|
|
There can be no collective that act or thinks, only individuals.
There is no individual that act or think, only a collection of brain atoms excited by complex past and present conditions, which generate some "ideas", "dreams", "images", "fears" or "desires". I see nothing else, no "individual" exist, it's just a convention of denomination of a phenomenom, as collectivity is. Those brain atoms generate a sense of self, an individuality. Our neurons cannot be linked together with other brains to create a collective brain and collective scenarios. Even when there are cases of brain merging, the two individuals retain their own memory and sense of self. |
|
|
|
From a human point of views, individuals are the atomic decision makers.
That's exactly definition of Universal Dividende as monetary creation on the only universal basis of all human acts : individual, present, and future member of the economic collectivity. I won't brother to understand what the hell is Universal Dividend, other than it's some kind of basic income that maximize an individual's version of fairness. There can be no collective that act or thinks, only individuals. |
|
|
|
Again, collectivity isn't going to decide anything. Governments, they might. (but I don't think they'll manage to stop bitcoins that easily ;-)) By joining any money system, you approve a collective rule... You're part of the collective decision. You're in agreement with X individuals. Or you're in agreement with Group X that is composed of individuals who is in agreement with each other. Generally speaking, bitcoin users agreed with each other pretty much 100% since they all run the same software. When the bitcoin community decide on something other than running nodes and the like, it means that approximatively 90 to 95% of the community decided to do something, or at least there's a large number of individuals doing something about it, and there's no opposition. From a human point of views, individuals are the atomic decision makers. Groups cannot act, think, or taste. Individuals can think, act, or taste. A group's action that is seemly in harmony is an aggregation of thousand of individual decisions that happen to agree with each other. Within groups, there are dynamics, incentives, and disincentives, that individuals act upon. If the dynamic is not right, individuals won't act in harmony. Groups are an abstraction, a nice categorizing system that people often abuse to ignore the fundamental reality of human actions and the often messy reality of group dynamics. That is why you cannot say that Google is wholly categorically good or bad, despite people saying such things. This is why you see things like Google having the ball to face the Chinese, or Google compromising with Verizon. Different people in different part of the companies can act differently. Some anarchists are Frenchmen, but it is not possible to say that they identified with and support the states because they're French nationalities. |
|
|
|
I can define : I want as much liberty as possible for individuals, and a state in charge of organising ONLY BUT GOODLY justice, education, and security, and of course "fair money", avoiding too much power concentration (anti-trust), which is an objective of long term we didn't acheive in Europe (too much state power), neither in US (too much money stolen thru centralised banks power).
Anarchists don't like the idea of the state handling justice, education, security, or monetary policies. In fact, they don't want the state to handle anything at all. In addition they're anti-democratic and opposed to the idea of majority rules. As we can see, you were hardly able to get any traction with your ideas because the underlying ideology generate incompatible ideas. Your refusal to understand libertarian ideologies has make your ideas more unpalatable than usual. |
|
|
|
Recounted. It was 540 instead of 630.  Any more donors? |
|
|
|
|
Upgrade complete:
Dear EFF, the Bitcoin community appreciates your ongoing efforts to protect Internet freedom. We also see you as an important partner to ensure that the Bitcoin community goes unmolested or at least won't go down without a fight.
The Bitcoin community is a society of users with over 30 business enterprises based around a new open source P2P cryptocurrency and monetary system called Bitcoins. The software for bitcoin is published under the MIT license. In addition to many other useful properties, Bitcoin has extremely low transaction fees, high divisibility, and is hard to produce and fake. These features make Bitcoin useful as a medium of exchange. As such it is probable that it will become a threat to centralized monetary system, which are often backed by governments. Members of the Bitcoin community have recognized the interest worldwide governments have in keeping their monetary monopoly. Their resulting actions could be a possible threat to the growing Bitcoin economy.
As such, members of the Bitcoin community would like to donate osome of our goods -- cryptocurrency bitcoins -- to you.. Members of the community will donate X bitcoins unconditionally, worth about X USD. We will also donate more if you fulfill various wishes such as putting up a bitcoin donation button, setting up a node and more. Combined, this is X Bitcoins, which are worth X USD in total.
The EFF is free to convert the Bitcoins to other currencies, buy goods and services with the Bitcoins, or simply do nothing with them at all. The members of the Bitcoin community hope that the EFF will put the donation to good use.
|
|
|
|
In my point of view Bitcoin is quite the perfect tool to developp faire money it only miss the definition of individuals as real "value" of economic system, and time-space symetry in money creation.
I don't know what you're talking about. Money is entirely a human invention and is used and valued by humans. |
|
|
|
|
So, does anybody have any constructive criticism for my letter? I found that I always write bad grammar and spell poorly.
|
|
|
|
Historicly the yellow metal was prized for it's beauty in jewelry. In our modern world, there are many uses for it in industry for which it is ideal even though it is too expensive. For example, lead is poisonous to humanity, but it's mass number makes it both a wonderful material for making ship ballasts and radiation shielding. Gold has been used for both these things in the past, but only in very specific situations.
If people ever figure out how to mine gold on asteroids, than its industrial uses will be widespread. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
Maybe we could form a nationwide network within the US with bitcoin users?
|
|
|
|
You are depending on something that no one know exist yet though.
On the contrary, you are depending on non-existence of something never proved to be non-existent. That should be avoided when possible. You were writing about such scenario in technical paper: The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth. But this argumentation is flawed with current transaction fee system. How it is flawed? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
