Likewise, you're not actually smart enough to understand that, for some people, revenge/spite has a nonzero utility. Some of us are just in it for the lulz. Dude, I agree with almost everything I've seen you write on this forum, but you have a really harsh way of displaying your opinions. Not everyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Tomcollins has proven he is intelligent and capable of putting forth some good arguments. Just sayin I think the only reason that b2c made that dig was because tom implied that those who didn't play the game his way were not smart. (see bold above) Ah, insults all around. Fair enough, then. |
|
|
|
|
Annnnndddd parity with the Euro is achieved. Actually way past it now. The high on Mt. Gox is $1.70. This is madness.....
|
|
|
|
The market is bent on screwing the maximum of market participants. Nothing new here. Max Pain Theory is the name for this phenomena.
Meanwhile subj is imminent.
What is imminent? |
|
|
|
Hello All,
my first post on this board. I been mining since Feb of this year, and I love it. I also am a Max Keiser Fan. He started the Silver Liberation Army.
I am here today to start the BitCoin Liberation Army.
What do you all think?
c-rock
What does this mean? What would the BitCOin LIberation Army do? I might join....if you pay me in BitCoins.  |
|
|
|
I haven't watched the video yet, but is that an upside-down Voluntaryist logo I see? He actually invented that logo. Really?! How do you know? I can dig up the thread. I've talked to this guy for 5+ years. He had a couple of different logos before he settled on that one. I'm amazed it caught on. I believe you. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist community on the internet probably isn't that large. That symbol is one of the first images to appear in Google when you search for "voluntaryism". Good stuff. |
|
|
|
I need writers. I want writers. For 5 BTC per article!
It's not much but it's better than nothing.
Hell it's way more than nothing: it's BitCoins!  I'll consider this. If I can think of any interesting topics I'll post back here. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is awesome and inspiring. I'm trying to figure out things I can sell for BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I really want a miner, but don't think I could afford this. It would take too long to pay off even if the current BTC to USD rates hold. Are you offering any cheaper deals (I don't care if it's Linux or Windows) or ones with more processing power?
|
|
|
|
|
What someone suggested earlier sounded like a good idea. That is, getting multiple people to invest in giving you the loan (shares). I might be willing to put in as many as 100 BTC, but I doubt you're going to find someone willing to sponsor the entire 1000 BTC loan by themselves.
|
|
|
|
The way he talks resembles a priest lecture. Anyway, he's an idiot and has no idea what he's talking about. Just leave him be
 A l s oLOL Each "improved" picture made me crack up even more....hilarious, dude. BitCoins has been getting a bad rap from the Austrians, and I can't figure out why. I think they are afraid of it because they don't understand it. |
|
|
|
I haven't watched the video yet, but is that an upside-down Voluntaryist logo I see?  He actually invented that logo. Really?! How do you know? |
|
|
|
Yeah, I was like "I'll play around with the bitcoin market a little". I sold my bitcoins in Mt. Gox for about a $1 thinking it would drop back down to 80 or 90 cents and then I'd buy back in. Stupid. Oh well, we'll see what happens...  |
|
|
|
Likewise, you're not actually smart enough to understand that, for some people, revenge/spite has a nonzero utility. Some of us are just in it for the lulz. Dude, I agree with almost everything I've seen you write on this forum, but you have a really harsh way of displaying your opinions. Not everyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Tomcollins has proven he is intelligent and capable of putting forth some good arguments. Just sayin |
|
|
|
|
I have read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, and recommend it. The Whuffie system is essentially what you're talking about. It's basically how much other people respect you, so you have to live your life not only trying to piss people off as little as possible, but also actively seeking to cooperate and engage with others. It's a really interesting read because it is a society without government but also in a post-modern post-scarcity situation.
|
|
|
|
Eff this. Bitcoins needs to drop so I can buy more.  |
|
|
|
tomcollins--you're a jerk. An asshole, actually. If we met in real life I would destroy you. I'm very large and very tall. But it's all muscle. So suck it. And your mom too. Now, can I have 10 bitcoins? P.S. If you think I'm joking there is picture below to prove it. Asshole.  |
|
|
|
It's irrational to think that will have no effect whatsoever. Yes, it will certainly have some effect. Now, if taxes didn't exist, some ability to fund research would be lost too. I'm not convinced that the increased generosity would make up for that. Just for your puzzlement/horror: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm"Mr. Volmer said that it was 'really strange that so few people came out.'". Lol. |
|
|
|
I appreciate people like emansipator who have tons of patience and are apt at clearly explaining things to newbies. However, I learned a lot about bitcoins by browsing previous topics and posts. My lurking to posting ratio is quite high. I did ask the standard "why isn't my pc generating bitcoins" question, but learned most everything else I know by lurking. |
|
|
|
Another interesting thing to think about is I am almost positive you could game the results by playing the same game but worded differently. Are you saying that you would react exactly the same in the two different scenarios? That you feel there would be a difference in the reactions of others makes me believe that you would react differently as well, but you consider yourself to be more rational (for some - your - definition of rational) than others. Gut instinct would of course kick in. I might be more likely to view something as unfair. But when rubber meets the road, I'm not turning down free money to screw someone over. There's a difference between having emotions and being ruled by emotions. I absolutely am better at removing my emotions from the equation than most people (50%+ of people are women). Even a vast majority of people. I can see the logic in accepting the deal (even if you thought you "deserved" more), because free money is free money. But out of curiosity, how far would you personally extend that? If you were offered only $0.01, would you still take the deal? One cent is not really going to benefit you at all. What about $0? You would not gain anything, but would you still let them have all the money? It partially comes down to how the money is generated. If it's cash, it's not created out of thin air (unless Ben Bernake is in charge of the experiment). If it was created out of thin air, it's stealing from everyone who has cash, including myself, so I reject it. If it's actual wealth that's created out of thin air, I accept it, since it's better that someone has it than no one. There are a ton of other variables, if I didn't like the guy for whatever reason, maybe I reject it (I'll spite someone for a penny, who hasn't thrown a penny at someone to screw with them?). If the money would have been donated to charity, maybe I reject a quite high offer, even $500, since I'd pay $500 to have $5000 donated to charity. A penny is pretty close to nothing. I don't value pennies much. I won't pick them up, I'll just throw them at things for target practice while I'm bored. But any offer that would be an amount I'd pick up off the ground would be an instant accept. Exceptions would be if the other person is someone I *really* wouldn't want to have the money. For example, if someone was going to go out and get drunk then drive home because of getting the money. There might be a price I'd pay to prevent that. But it's surprisingly a low one. If it were someone truly despicable, such as a murderer, a child rapist, etc..., I might sacrifice something myself to punish them. But I certainly wouldn't sacrifice just because someone is a good game player. So a dollar, I take in all but the most extreme cases. So you are saying that you would turn down free money to spite someone if the price was low enough or the situation was just right? That doesn't make you any better than the rest of us, you just have a different set of preferences. If I give up $50 to "spite" Splitter (or "teach him a lesson"), then you say I am irrational or an ape ruled by emotions, but you would do it if the situation warranted it (in your opinion) or the price was sufficiently low. It's the same behavior simply shifted by your specific morals, ethics, utility values and preferences. |
|
|
|
The positions of the splitter and boolean are asymmetric. That doesn't imply that their moral claims on the money need be different. It's "free money" for both, zero versus zero claim. Zero equals zero.
On what basis do you assume that you can derive moral claims from expected outcome in an idealized, partial, and demonstrably unrealistic model of the conflict?
You lament that our wetware is obsolete and that we don't do our best to conform to an abstract, reductionist, disembodied model of rationality. Well, we are what we are! And the very concepts of utility and value, that are at the center of mathematical models of rationality, ultimately derive from the obsolete craves and ambitions you despise.
What's the point of sex, 99% of the time? What's the point of art? Of anything, really? You can tell yourself any story about what you want in life, you can build an intricate symbolic structure representing a rationalization about why you even bother waking up in the morning. No matter how high and imposing the towers, that castle will ultimately rest on your mostly obsolete emotions.
Rationality helped a fair bit bring us away from the caves, but what ultimately took us from there, and what made that an improvement, were the same ultimately pointless craves and ambitions that got us in there in the first place.
So I repeat: overriding our emotions is often a requisite of rationality. But ignoring our emotions is not automatically rational. There must be some worthy reward, current or expected, to warrant the sacrifice.
Even if it's just "practicing restraint for when I need it."
In your case (and sorry for gratuitous speculation, but even if I'm wrong this illustrates my reasoning), accepting the $0.01 allows you to conform to a respected model of rationality and thus tell yourself, and signal to others, that you are above most of the hairless monkeys. Bet that feels good, doesn't it? This could be traced back to various sorts of primitive psychosocial mechanisms (self-image, self-esteem, dominance, status, ...).
In my case, $0.01 or $10 are not nearly worth the outrage of being abused. The delta between that suffering and the satisfaction of giving greedy pig Splitter the finger is worth more than that. Other people pay comparable amounts to get a movie or book and experience a weak version of similar emotions by proxy. Who are you to tell me that my action is irrational?
And immoral? My choice passes most sniff tests: Golden Rule, check. "Think global, act local", sure. I wouldn't mind if everyone did as me.
Damn, Estevo. I wish you lived in my town. I would buy you a beer at the pub and we would talk for hours. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
