this is a great thread because we all want to know what is up with the man with the master plan. maybe something will budge.
He hasn't shown any life sign since december 15th. Winter break, perhaps? Working on his thesis? Or simply watching from another identity? Or too busy coding to bother with the debate. Perhaps he just decided to sell some of his bitcoin now that each is worth so much more than when he started, and felt he deserved a holiday to someplace warm. You people worry too much. |
|
|
|
Democracy is great in theory, but I care only about the practice. A democracy requires much work on the part of the electorate to maintain itself. Inevitablly the electorate becomes distracted by their own lives, and leaves such things to people who are more interested in the political process than themselves, which leads to the consolidation of power by fiat, corruption or simple neglect. It happens every time. A republic isn't better in this regard, but they are more sustainable because the process of representative governance slows down the processes that lead to rot. Thomas Jefferson, himself, expressed doubt that a generation could impose a social contract on those that followed, but also doubted that there was a better solution. The root problem with democracy is the human component.
The theory is wrong if the practice is wrong. The map is not the territory. The map must be fixed. Therefore the theory must be rejected as it is not in agreement with reality. I don't think that we are in disagreement. Just different ways of saying it. I would also conclude that a republic also have the same failing of a democracy.
True, but in a representative republic, the edicts take longer to march through the process towards enforcement. In a true democracy, if one could even exist on a level larger than the small town, the decisions of the electorate are effective immediately. |
|
|
|
|
The confusion of residents in Boston is even less material to what we do than the confusion of residents of an entire nation, or several.
|
|
|
|
This is all true, but real democracy doesn't scale well, and is far from conflict free.
It depends which point of view you take. If you take the point of view of a rich landowner, then democracy sure doesn't scale well. If you are a regular person, it scales a bit better. No. I wasn't being coy or relative. Democracy doesn't scale beyond 1000 voting members. I've seen in on many occasions. Attend a full church business meeting sometime, there is a reason that they don't do such things except under dire need. The US isn't a democracy now, and never has been, because the framers knew that democracy was flawed, and didn't trust that it was sustainable in any context.
Quite true. They knew that they needed to establish a government that would protect the interests of rich landowners from regular people. They were very explicit about how they regarded non-property holders - as dangerous and stupid masses from which the rich needed to be protected. Madison and Hamilton both were shockingly open about it. That was only two out of hundreds, and Madison was conflicted in this regard. Try actually reading the Federalist Papers and the full text of the US Constitution, it was certainly not intended to protect landowners. Hamilton was functionally a loyalist and an elitist, but his particular viewpoint was not widely held by '76ers or framers. Many of the founding fathers greatly admired the British government. At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton called the British government "the best in the world,"
Understandable considering their background. The US would still be a British territory if King George could have managed to compromise.
The same ideas are now working for the interests of large corporations, which essentially own governments. Incidentally, none of what I am writing here is particularly controversial, but I encourage anyone who is interested to investigate these matters on their own (i.e. don't take my word for anything).
I don't contest this assesment of the current situation, but it was not because of the framers or the government that they designed that this is so, but despite it. If we can blame the constitution for any of this, it would be because the public has put too much faith in a document that following generations of Americans have too long ignored. Our history has proven them correct.
Yes. If there is great inequality, then a democracy will tend to eliminate the inequality. To maintain inequality, democracies must be avoided at all costs. This is not just US history. This is the history of western civilization. I say democracy is a tyranny of a majority, and any inequality in life will be maintained or increased by one, not limited by one. I have the history of civilizations to support my position, you have the limited retoric of the past 200 years or less. Keep in mind that prior to 1913, we didn't have central banking, franctional reserve banking, Senators were not elected, and there was no federal income tax. We still don't directly elect the US president. The US is a federated republic quite intentionally, and most of Europe are parlimentary republics for similar reasons.
And you are saying these are good things? I think you must be on the wrong forum. I'm saying these are better than democracy. I'm certainly not on the wrong forum. Perhaps you don't fully understand what democracy leads too? Anyone who advocates for increased democracy at the state or national level is advocating for majority rule, and the rights of a minority have no meaning in that context. Such a person is either a fool or a Sith Lord.
Your last sentence articulates well the contempt for democracy inculcated by western "liberal" education. This thinking leads to centralization of power and capital, which are exactly what frameworks like bitcoin are designed to dismantle. Democracy is great in theory, but I care only about the practice. A democracy requires much work on the part of the electorate to maintain itself. Inevitablly the electorate becomes distracted by their own lives, and leaves such things to people who are more interested in the political process than themselves, which leads to the consolidation of power by fiat, corruption or simple neglect. It happens every time. A republic isn't better in this regard, but they are more sustainable because the process of representative governance slows down the processes that lead to rot. Thomas Jefferson, himself, expressed doubt that a generation could impose a social contract on those that followed, but also doubted that there was a better solution. The root problem with democracy is the human component. |
|
|
|
I would recommend that rather than using the "combination of three technologies" speech, try starting from the point of view of two people in a bitcoin transaction. that goes as follows:
The root problem with trying to explain Bitcoin to an uninitiated audience is that way too many people don't understand how our current monetary system actually works, and that misinformation that most people assume is correct interferes with proper understanding of how any other monetary system could function. Every listener is going to, naturally, compare Bitcoin to what they know (or think that they know) and that would be fiat currencies. But since most listeners don't really understand how fiat currencies work, or economics in general, Bruce doesn't really have the time to effectively make that comparison. I could see flaws in the three tech explaination as well, but I understand why he does it. For example, Bruce never actually brought up the proof-of-work system; the hosts did. Most listeners of any other show would have a hard time understanding what a proof-of-work system is or why it was important; but these hosts understood that as a part of the security of the distribution of Bitcoin and of the blockchain. I've tried to explain the blockchain as a massive, collective and persistant double entry ledger of the entire transaction history of Bitcoin; but that only works for those who understand what a double entry ledger is and what it is intended to do. |
|
|
|
Now, all that said... launching satellites is expensive! I suppose the costs of launching a satellite largely outcomes the revenues one would expect to have from it. That's why I asked on that topic if it would be possible to hijack those US military satellites for such purpose.  I can say this much. If it is a satillite that you are aware of, it's not really a military satillite. It's probably a honeypot, and any attempt to do anything with it will draw the very kind of attention that you do not want. If you are a particularly talented ham radio operator, with much experience with satillite tracking (or a foreign government geek who's job this would be) you can find real military satillites. You might even be able to track them adaquately, but most military satillites spend most of their time 'dark', just listening. I would not consider it realistic to hijack either a honeypot or a real military satillite for any purpose. |
|
|
|
Of course having a democratic government take over the internet from the corporations would probably make things worse.
I'm in favor of democracy. A truly democratic government by definition would tend to decentralize control and would look very little like what we currently regard as governments. Don't mistake what we have in western countries with democracy. That is all just garbage they teach kids in school - what we have are republics and parliaments. As FatherMcGruder mentioned, a democratically controlled infrastructure may look like a co-op. There are small manufacturing shops in the US that take this form. The workers and engineers own the factory and manage it democratically, not like most companies. Caveden, it is certainly possible for networks to be organized at the local level and extended, using a co-op or even volunteer model. Some networks like this already exist. Bitcoin can be a complementary tool to raise capital and establish more and more reliable networks. I'm not smart enough to foresee how this would happen, but history shows that these sorts of societal structures are at least possible. Pre-Columbian Native American cultures in North America give a good example. This is all true, but real democracy doesn't scale well, and is far from conflict free. Most people think of federated representative parlimentary governance whenever someone says "democracy", so there will continue to be much confusion without a common definition. The US isn't a democracy now, and never has been, because the framers knew that democracy was flawed, and didn't trust that it was sustainable in any context. Our history has proven them correct. Keep in mind that prior to 1913, we didn't have central banking, franctional reserve banking, Senators were not elected, and there was no federal income tax. We still don't directly elect the US president. The US is a federated republic quite intentionally, and most of Europe are parlimentary republics for similar reasons. Anyone who advocates for increased democracy at the state or national level is advocating for majority rule, and the rights of a minority have no meaning in that context. Such a person is either a fool or a Sith Lord. |
|
|
|
You've basicly just described the Ripple web of trust. Deposits really just raise the bar of trust threshold. I totally agree that that describes Ripple's web of trust. Deposits, however, I don't really get. Not sure how that adds anything. If I have $1000 of yours. And you have $1000 of mine. Does that make me trust you? ( If complete strangers exchange $100 bills, are they now trusting of one another?? ) If you deplete the $1000 I have that belongs to you (by me guaranteeing your expenses)... then you refuse to return the $1000 of mine that you have... We're right back to where we started. I'm trusting you for $1000. And you're trusting me for $1000. The result would be EXACTLY the same thing as if we both agreed to simply.... "trust each other for up to $1000"... (except we wouldn't need to tie up $2000 of capital to do it). There's no need to have deposits with each other. Mutual deposits of the same amount simply "cancel themselves out" anyway. Or am I totally lost?? I would say that you pretty much got it. Hubs could have a "settlement hour" once a day wherein they transfer bitcoins in order to balance out ripple debts that have accumulated across the day... Yes, but.... The hubs' "settlement hour" could happen 10,000 times a day.... 5 milliseconds after the actual transaction. Then the VERIFICATION that the "settlement" has cleared, would happen 5 minutes after the transaction, by simply looking at the normal bitcoin block chain. (or 60 minutes after)... but... No need to wait for a once-a-day event. I was thinking about some time in the future that transactions were no longer cheap for transfering an amount such as a cup of coffee. However, endian7000's scheme of "signing the transaction"... by the "owner" of that Bitcoin... (AH-x) and Broadcasting, in effect, a "promise", to all other AH's on the network, like:
"I promise to transfer these exact bitcoins (block number) from myself (AH-x's bitcoin address) to this other AH (AH-y's bitcoin address) at this very moment, and not attempt to double-spend them."
Then, every AH on the network could -- within only a couple of minutes -- be able to independently VERIFY that, "AH-x kept its promise." .....or.... "AH-x did NOT keep its promise."
The entire AH network would know, within only a few minutes, that "AH-x is NOT keeping its promise." ... for whatever reason. ....and they could immediately stop accepting "transaction promises" (as instant transactions) from that AH-x --- processing them only as the slow traditional bitcoin method until AH-x is back online and the transactional failure is sufficiently explained... and/or, it's later promises are now being kept (again, the entire AH network would already KNOW -- by independently verifying them -- whether AH-x's promises are being kept... at any given point in time).
That's pretty much just an electronic check system. I'd work well, but once transactions are no longer cheap for fast confirmations, then the AH network is going to have to wait longer to see that promise kept. |
|
|
|
If you've agreed that anything has intrinsic value then you've agreed on a fallacy.
Just understand the terms you're using, they have a meaning.
If value is on the beholder only - and it is - it can't be an inseparable attribute of valued things.
Now this is a semantic argument. You are simply debating the common definition of the term "intrinsic" versus it's economic definition. I for one, do not misunderstand that even an intrinsic value is a result of how various humans desire the object. There not two different definitions (economic vs common). I've posted before the dictionary entry. An intrinsic attribute of something is inseparable from the thing itself. Value just can't be intrinsic. Ever. Okay, I can debate by these rules. Yes, There is an established economic meaning of "intrinsic"; infinity! Nah, nah, nah! |
|
|
|
That's somehow what Gary North says in his text:
Appeal to Authority. |
|
|
|
Nice ! Didn't listen to the show, just hope he didn't mention "world renowned cryptographers" No, he didn't. He tried to dumb it down further than he did in his last interview, and then the hosts ended up geeking it back up. It was obvious that they had done their research. |
|
|
|
Only reason for a bank would be as a safe place to store my money. And MyBitCoin.com does that for free with an easy-on-the-eye user interface that is compatible with mobile phones.
Another reason for a bank is rapid resolution of transactions. |
|
|
|
Both silver & gold have significant industrial uses, as well as potential uses that are cost prohibitive due to the high monetary value. Off the top of my head, in the absence of a functioning market for silver or gold (unlikely, even in a war zone, Nazi sub captains carried a bar of gold for this reason) then gold makes a better bullet than lead and silver has antibiotic properties that are significant enough to be critical in dire situations without proper modern medical facilities.
Conclusion remains the same, money does not need to have alternative uses to be useful or valuable. If it properly fulfills the requirements of sound money it will be valuable. doesn not need to have an alternative use to be useful or valuable. |
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more about this account hub idea on my commute, and relised that this is basicly an example of the bitcoin 'supernode' concept discussed by myself and others in much older threads. You could remove the need for a web of trust altogether by depending entirely on the merits of the bitcoin network itself, completely removing the web-of-trust fraud vectors altogether.
The way such an account hub would work is this...
Member merchants pay a small monthly fee to the hub, the hub 'verifies' or denys transactions based on the willingness of the hub owner to insure the transaction against a successful fraud attempt.
When the member has a customer who desires to pay with bitcoin, the account hub does these things...
1) Checks to see if the customer is a member on the hub, if yes jump to 7
2) Checks the transaction presented for valitity against it's own blockchain, if valid it then....
3) Ships the transaction out to the network, if appropriate.
4) Checks to see if there are any transactions in the queue that could be a double spend attempt, or any other type of transaction based fraud that we can think of in the future.
5) Waits a few seconds to see if any other transactions come in that could also be a double spend attempt, if not...
6) Checks with it's own 'watchdog' process, to reduce the risks of a blockchain split/takeover at the moment of sale.
7) Approve or deny the insurance against the transaction, accepting the transaction anyway could then be up to the merchant. Perhaps the customer is a regular, or buying something of such trivial value that it's not worth a recheck.
You could still impliment a Ripple-like web-of-trust as well, but I don't think that would be very valuable until the cost of a transaction has risen to the point that it is advantagous for hub owners to seek ways of avoiding blockchain transactions for small, individual payments.
EDIT: Thinking further, even the wait of a few seconds would be irrelevant, for if you pushed the transaction to all of your own connected peers, and they all accepted it as valid, you would not ever see any conflicting transactions for your peers wouldn't forward such a transaction after seeing your's first. An account hub would want to have as many bitcoin connections, to as many major generators and other hubs, as would be possible. In order to push their transaction across the bitcoin network as quickly as possible, thereby reducing the risks of a double spend fraud turning out poorly for *them*. An account hub would want to have the ability to know if one of it's own peers had rejected the submitted transaction.
|
|
|
|
I have doubts that is possible on a large scale. The only way that I could think of that might work is if every hub had an account with a security deposit on every other hub. Not only would that lock up a very large, and exponentially growing with the rate of new hub growth, amount of funds; hub owners still end up trusting that a malicious hub won't participate in a fraud to steal the security deposits.
I don't think it would be such a big problem, because : - There probably won't be that much hubs, - A scheme could be designed where deposits don't have to be given to each connected hub, A pays to B, but B hasn't a deposit for A, but C has a deposit for A that it acknowledge it will give to B would A fail to finalize the transfer (didn't think this one through but could be something like that) You've basicly just described the Ripple web of trust. Deposits really just raise the bar of trust threshold. Hubs could have a "settlement hour" once a day wherein they transfer bitcoins in order to balance out ripple debts that have accumulated across the day, with a max debt limit that if reached would trigger a bitcoin transfer immediately. Once upon a time, this is similar to how gold standard banks would handle accepting each other's banknotes; but I can still think of complex frauds that a malicious hub could attempt against the other hubs.
Yea, but account hubs can vanish and pop back up in no time, I think the trust-and-debt path is a dangerous one, and I'd rather avoid it. Honestly, I don't think that a trust-and-debit path alters the root problems, but it's not my place to tell you how to raise your baby. I really was just trying to offer an insight. I do still think that Ripple could save you duplication of work in your web of trust. |
|
|
|
If you've agreed that anything has intrinsic value then you've agreed on a fallacy.
Just understand the terms you're using, they have a meaning.
If value is on the beholder only - and it is - it can't be an inseparable attribute of valued things.
Now this is a semantic argument. You are simply debating the common definition of the term "intrinsic" versus it's economic definition. I for one, do not misunderstand that even an intrinsic value is a result of how various humans desire the object. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not require intrinsic value to function well as a medium of exchange, but gold does not support your statement. Gold has quite a bit of intrinsic value, which is one reason that it has been such a sound money for over 5000 years.
Don't get me wrong I really like gold and silver and am in both, but honestly, if denied access to a functioning marketplace what do I use them for? Both silver & gold have significant industrial uses, as well as potential uses that are cost prohibitive due to the high monetary value. Off the top of my head, in the absence of a functioning market for silver or gold (unlikely, even in a war zone, Nazi sub captains carried a bar of gold for this reason) then gold makes a better bullet than lead and silver has antibiotic properties that are significant enough to be critical in dire situations without proper modern medical facilities. |
|
|
|
Is it easier to just use ripple as the hub network?
Maybe, I know my code well, so I'll start from there  Natural selection will do the rest I think (but I can be completely wrong here since I'm too lazy to go find out) that ripple is based on debt, From what I can tell, it's similar to a LETS mutual trust network. Replacing the central ledger with a trust network instead.
I'd like a system where there's no inter-hub debt involved.
I have doubts that is possible on a large scale. The only way that I could think of that might work is if every hub had an account with a security deposit on every other hub. Not only would that lock up a very large, and exponentially growing with the rate of new hub growth, amount of funds; hub owners still end up trusting that a malicious hub won't participate in a fraud to steal the security deposits. Hubs could have a "settlement hour" once a day wherein they transfer bitcoins in order to balance out ripple debts that have accumulated across the day, with a max debt limit that if reached would trigger a bitcoin transfer immediately. Once upon a time, this is similar to how gold standard banks would handle accepting each other's banknotes; but I can still think of complex frauds that a malicious hub could attempt against the other hubs. |
|
|
|
"Intrinsic value" is a value beyond what the object has as a medium of exchange. For example, a peanut farmer cannot eat all his crop (perhaps he doesn't even like peanuts), so his crop has no intrinisc value for himself. However, he sells his products to people who, presumedly, do have a use for said peanuts. To the farmer, the peanut crop has little or no intrinsic value, but to the general population it does. As a result, the crop has a real market value that is independent of it's trade value (to the farmer) and independent of speculative value. Said another way, even if peanuts were used as a medium of exchange in his twon, the farmer's crop value would not drop to zero with the introduction of a better medium of exchange, such as silver coins. Likewise, a mattress or shelter also has a definable value outside of the context of their trade value.
Thus, a paper currency has little intrinisc value.
Very, very well stated. Thank you. The fact that a peanut is more versatile than a bitcoin and from a semantic POV has more "intrinsic value" does not make it more valuable as a currency.
I never claimed different. The intrinsic value of a money is not additive to it's trade value. The intrinsic value of a money functions as a 'price floor', supporting the market value of the money in times that it's trade value drops below it's intrinsic value, such as during times of war. Bitcoin is an excellent currency, but has no value to anyone that is denied (by war, fiat, or otherwise) access to a functioning marketplace. At least the peanuts are still food.
Bitcoin lacks "alternative value" as something else outside maybe an experiment in cryptography. This is somewhat unimportant since all the qualities it does have makes it a pretty decent form of money.
Again, it's not simply a matter of semantics for me to correct you here, since in context we are using econimic definitions. Bitcoin has all the qualities of a fine currency.
If "alternative value" == "intrinisc value" then I'd have to answer the question "Should money have intrisic value?" with a resounding no. Both bitcoin and gold prove this.
Bitcoin does not require intrinsic value to function well as a medium of exchange, but gold does not support your statement. Gold has quite a bit of intrinsic value, which is one reason that it has been such a sound money for over 5000 years. |
|
|
|
Money/currency has intrinsic value because people need and value the abilities to:
1.Trade in something that is widely accepted for almost any other good/service.
2.Highly divisible.
3.Non perishable
4.Could act as a store of value. (Though this is somewhat optional)
That's not intrinsic value, that's monetary value. Very different thing. It is necessary for people to have a highly liquid means of trade same as it is necessary for them to sleep comfortably or have comfortable shelter. A house or a bed can then be said to have no intrinsic value but "shelter value" and "sleep value". The discussion is semantic. We need money, else trade is going to be laborious and inefficient. It is filling these needs that grants money its usefulness to us, its 'value'. "Intrinsic value" is a value beyond what the object has as a medium of exchange. For example, a peanut farmer cannot eat all his crop (perhaps he doesn't even like peanuts), so his crop has no intrinisc value for himself. However, he sells his products to people who, presumedly, do have a use for said peanuts. To the farmer, the peanut crop has little or no intrinsic value, but to the general population it does. As a result, the crop has a real market value that is independent of it's trade value (to the farmer) and independent of speculative value. Said another way, even if peanuts were used as a medium of exchange in his twon, the farmer's crop value would not drop to zero with the introduction of a better medium of exchange, such as silver coins. Likewise, a mattress or shelter also has a definable value outside of the context of their trade value. Thus, a paper currency has little intrinisc value. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
