That's called "rent seeking", and is not capitalism.
Well, capitalism is not necessarily rent seeking. But rent seeking requires capital. Um, no. Rent Seeking does not require capital. Taxation is rent seeking. Corporations lobbying for subsidies is rent seeking. Enimnet Domain is rent seeking. Rent seeking is not when a landlord charges rent, that's a contract. But it can't. The educators must make a living. Said another way, they must make a profit, otherwise they will have to find some other way to eat. It's unavoidable.
Not true. Parents can home school their kids. Yes, but if parents wish to have their kids educated by others, then those others still need to get paid. Even homeschooling parents need to earn a living, so if homeschooling interferes with that ability, the kids' education will suffer or their quality of life will suffer, and probably both.
|
|
|
If those large miners didn't exist, the difficulty would most certainly be lower, and therefore the blockchain more suseptable to takeover by overwelming computational force. Can someone explain how difficulty relates to cryptographic strength of the chain? The difficulty is a relative metric that tells us how powerful the network hashing power is over a two week period. The harder the hashing is, the more difficult it becomes for an attacker to overwelm the blockchain by brute force computation. Difficulty just makes the hashes less likely to be found, right? Does that make the block chain stronger?
Yes.
|
|
|
Furthermore, employers, landlords, and usurers (they're pretty much all usurers, but whatever) cannot do what they do without a state of some kind and states are authoritarian entities. Therefore, anarchy opposes capitalism.
In practice, perhaps. Not in ideology. The problem that persists with your conversations is that the word "capitalism" is different for different people. What you rail against is actually corporatism. Capitalism is not an ideology, but a definable set of natural economic laws. Capitalism exists in every human society, whether the people involved wish to acknowledge it or not. In places where capitalism is respected, societies prosper in general. There are some downsides to capitalism, but overall it is always best to go along with nature rather than fight it. Really Father, you should actually read some of the recommended reading on the subject that has been presented already. I particularly recommend Economics in One Lesson. I oppose the individual capitalist as much as the biggest group of them. Then you oppose yourself. Do you own any tools, or any property whatever? If you are really a priest, do you own a bible? Any property that is required to earn a living is, by it's very definition, capital. Ownership is defined by primary possession, not some government edict on a piece of paper that says someone (or some corporation) owns something. If corporatism is inherently authoritarian, I will oppose it too. You assume that capitalism is something of nature. Can you prove that?
I could, yes. However, if you are not willing to have an open mind and, at a minimum, read a book; then I'm not willing to waste my time repeating the work of others. Can you prove that humans must behave naturally?
Must? Of course not. Why would that be a requirement? Opposing natural laws (of economics or anything else) are achievable so long as those who wish to do so are willing to dedicate resources to that end. It's comparable to sailing up river. Sure, it can be done; but it's naturally easier to sail down river. Case in point, political structures are, by definition, not capitalist structures. The political rulers in the UK are not capitalists. The same is true for every other nation on Earth. There is no such thing as a capitalist nation, and there cannot be. I suppose it's not safe to assume that all people in government are capitalists, but I wasn't doing so. I wasn't claiming that either. I said that the political structures are not capitalist. Those who participate in the political structures are capitalists in the same manner that you are, but exist within a system that is most demostratablely anti-capitalist. You really don't know of what you speak. The capitalists living off of the cumulative interest they collect from borrowers are also rulers.
That's called "rent seeking", and is not capitalism. If a society's government can fund the education of its members in a non-profit manner,
But it can't. The educators must make a living. Said another way, they must make a profit, otherwise they will have to find some other way to eat. It's unavoidable. it will weaken the capitalist usurer kings.
There is no such thing, and there never has been. Why would it make sense? Education has always been a for-profit, vocational venture. Has it? If so, why does it have to be? See above. Ownership is authoritarian when you come to own or maintain ownership of something through authoritarian means. Simply owning the product of your labor, and not using it to extort from others the product of their labor is not authoritarian. Rent Seeking is extortion though and therefore authoritarian. Some anarchists might argue that private ownership is always authoritarian, but I disagree.
There, I fixed that for you.
|
|
|
There's another component to this that has me concerned. It's true that a balance will be reached at which the value of BTC allows for a marginal profit for efficient miners and that transactions will continue to be confirmed. However, will the resultant hash rate be sufficient to prevent attack by supercomputers and botnets?
That's a hard one to answer, but the first question would be, how much is enough?
|
|
|
Please define "fair" in this context. When neither side gains nor loses more than the other and they only trade what they have fairly gained. Based on who's determination of value? Yours?
|
|
|
Please keep this on testnet.
|
|
|
Perhaps the one vote per CPU principle is wrong.
Care to offer an alternative? I'm just starting to understand how it works. However, I don't think we should assume everything is perfect as is. I, for one, never assumed that until after I understood the system, and realized it's elegance. I seriously doubt that anyone can come up with a better system. Really? It might be the first time in the history of computer software that a 0.x release was perfect. We were not discussing the code, but the protocol.
|
|
|
Outstanding! I stand corrected.
|
|
|
And you make this conclusion, how?
Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian philosophy, Not strictly correct. Anarchism is an anti-state philosophy, not necessarily anti authoritarian. After all, Father, what is the ultimate authority, if not God? and capitalism consists of authoritarian relationships: employer over employee, landlord over tenant, usurer over borrower. These roles may occasionally reverse, but the authoritarian relationships still persist.
"You keep using that word, but I don't think in means what you think it means..." Furthermore, employers, landlords, and usurers (they're pretty much all usurers, but whatever) cannot do what they do without a state of some kind and states are authoritarian entities. Therefore, anarchy opposes capitalism.
In practice, perhaps. Not in ideology. The problem that persists with your conversations is that the word "capitalism" is different for different people. What you rail against is actually corporatism. Capitalism is not an ideology, but a definable set of natural economic laws. Capitalism exists in every human society, whether the people involved wish to acknowledge it or not. In places where capitalism is respected, societies prosper in general. There are some downsides to capitalism, but overall it is always best to go along with nature rather than fight it. Really Father, you should actually read some of the recommended reading on the subject that has been presented already. I particularly recommend Economics in One Lesson. Someone explain to me how kids rioting for cheaper education constitute "anarchists". Does the state regulate and limit the availability of education or something?
If anarchists cannot get rid of the state very easily, it makes sense to try to decrease the power of the other capitalist rulers. Case in point, political structures are, by definition, not capitalist structures. The political rulers in the UK are not capitalists. The same is true for every other nation on Earth. There is no such thing as a capitalist nation, and there cannot be. It also makes sense for anarchists to get angry when education becomes more of a for-profit, vocational venture.
Why would it make sense? Education has always been a for-profit, vocational venture. To anarchists, such policy changes mean an exacerbation of the capitalist status quo. And can we honestly expect a mass of indignant, radical youth, anarchist or not, not to do something rash?
If they were raised to understand the natural laws of God, then yes, we can. We should also not disregard the likely possibility of agents provocateur.
Probably we should not.
|
|
|
I can assure you that there are academicly trained economists that are watching Bitcoin. I can also assure you that none of them that you would want to review Bitcoin is going to be willing to stake their professional reputation yet.
If all you need is the script reviewed, either post it here in the economics section of this forum; jump to one of the many economic forums elsewhere. I think that you'll find that there is no real consensus that can be achieved on any of the questionable parts.
I am an economist and I already have staked my reputation on Bitcoin. Okay, then who are you? Are you a professor? Where are you published? And in what way have you publicly supported Bitcoin?
|
|
|
Perhaps the one vote per CPU principle is wrong.
Care to offer an alternative? I'm just starting to understand how it works. However, I don't think we should assume everything is perfect as is. I, for one, never assumed that until after I understood the system, and realized it's elegance. I seriously doubt that anyone can come up with a better system.
|
|
|
Small question (as you are good in math ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) ) I think others think like you and the most will stop to mine in about 30 weeks. Could it be that the BitCoin system is compromised in some way? It would mean, that the difficulty must change to a better rate, but if it doesn't, no one would mine. If nobody mines, the system doesn't works anymore. Are my thoughts correct? Greetz It's not that no one will mine, it's that only those who are already vested, and those who have particularly favorable electric rates, will continue to mine. If every marginal miner stopped mining as soon as it was economicly unfavorable for them to do so, the difficulty would stagnate at that level until something changed. The value of the bitcoin could go up, which would make mining profitable again at the same difficulty level; or the difficulty level could go down. This is how the balance is created. As it is, there is already evidence that balance has been found, as the difficulty appears to track the 6 weeks rolling average price closely. Said another way, as the price goes up, more miners join the network; and as the price drops, the most marginal miners drop out first.
|
|
|
Wooh! I totally wasn't aware. I'm really uneasy about using cash and/or Bitcoin because people are using it to exchange goods and services that I don't approve of. Isn't there something I could use where everything is monitored and watched by the government so we don't ever do things others don't like? Sure... www.PayPal.com
|
|
|
How about the Babylon 5 model? You will have the Religious Caste, Worker Caste, Warrior Caste, ruled by the Grey Council, 5 representing the Worker Caste, 2 for the Religious, and 2 for the Warrior. Since the worker "little" guy pays the price for the "big guys" decisions.
Seems fair, albeit futuristic.
Since we're being silly, this is how I see myself in my ideal future. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpixdaus.com%2Fpics%2F1215033540YXnL4j2.jpg&t=663&c=WZvZ5uWmUHFuAQ) I want to be badass metal skeleton. Fucking hardcore. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif) I can't see this.
|
|
|
I might have to read up on homesteading. So the tax from the gated community isn't an act of violence, even though being born isn't consent, but tax from the state is?
The defining characteristic is this... If you refuse to pay the gated communities fee, what happens? If, at any point, you risk physical harm done to you by officials of the gated community, or incarceration, then the gated community is a government and the fee a tax. If, instead, everyone you know simply asks you to contribute or leave, then it isn't. Consent implies the practical ability to withdraw consent, in which case the community can withdraw the benefits of consent. The worst form of punishment that a non-state could impose upon you is to walk you to the front gate, and insist that you pay your dues if you desire to re-enter. This is exactly how it works if you don't pay your condo fee in a secured urban condo building. Anyone who enters the building does so with the invitation of a member in good standing, whether the person is a vistor, a family member or the dues paying member himself. Even the employees of the building manager doesn't enter without the implict invitation of the condo association.
|
|
|
Who is the potentate? Who is imposing harm on whom? Property owners? In the pollution example, it is whomever pollutes, and thereby imposes harm on others, with impunity. By any metric, governments are the largest polluters. Yet they are universally exempt from damage claims.
|
|
|
Or all trades must be equal trades? If they qualify as fair trades, yes. Please define "fair" in this context.
|
|
|
I'm mining with my eeePC 701 at 200khash/s, impressed ? :p (with other computers, all CPU mining)
I am. I have one of those and I never even though to attempt it.
|
|
|
Yeah as soon as I wrote that it hit me. I need to pay more attention and not do 10 things at once. Obviously the confirmation is a part of it too though. Smartphone is step 1 but then you still have to wait or take the risk. If we have an app for ios / android we've got a lot of people covered though.
For smallish transactions, confirmation is not going to be a huge deal. The effort required to pull off a successful double-spend means you need to have nodes spread across the network that are able to introduce two competing transactions with fairly equal coverage -- or at least the node that makes the payment to the merchant needs to be close enough to his client that he sees that one. And usually farmers' markets and similar merchant scenarios are dealing locally, so it's not like if you did successfully pull off a double-spend that the guy wouldn't recognize you the second time and refuse to sell to you and/or report you to local authorities. Exactly I wouldn't worry about it at all. If he's buying a truck of produce then I might wait but even then I'd be really surprised if someone went to the trouble for produce when they could rip off something easier to dump and make a couple of bucks that won't rot in 5 days. Anyone who is buying an entire truck load is willing to wait 10 minutes.
|
|
|
If you could visit a farmgate or roadside fruit stall and pay with bitcoins that would be a nice service.
Is anyone planning on contacting local farmers and trying to get a bitcoin food supply chain started ?
Local websites that function as the farmers' market are a great idea. No need to get up early on Saturday to drive to a parking lot full of vendors in hopes of getting fresh tomatos before they are all gone. A vendor could simply put up on Thursday 80% of his expected pick for Friday, to be delivered to an agreed central location at noon on Saturday. If his pick is greater than expected, then people could still offer to buy more once they arrive. Good idea, of course some people are going to want to pick as they stroll or see it first but you could offer a discount online and that would be easier for you since you know how much you're going to sell at a minimum going in. Yes, but this was the kind of thing that I was thinking of... http://www.sustainabletable.org/shop/csa/...except that CSA's are an ongoing agreement. Such a farmer could pre-sell half of his crop via a weekly CSA agreement, an additional 30% on an ad-hoc basis on the website two days before the Farmer's Market, and any other marketable crops at teh farmer's market itself. In this way, the farmer gets the advantages of futures support without the futures, and sells most of his weekly product before he even picks it. The Farmer's Market trip then becomes mostly an active advertisment for the service as well as a chance to unload the remainder of his product.
|
|
|
|