What advantage does putting in the blockchain give, over just having a signed, anonymized database available for download somewhere?
idiotic answer: but.. but... its the blockchain! it must be good, it cannot fail! |
|
|
|
It can technically do any thing, if there is community support for it.
no. it would create a hard fork, and would no more be bitcoin. it does not matter how many uses is or what they call it, its not bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
the blockchain is not a miracle cure.
|
|
|
|
Because its awesomely useful.
no. |
|
|
|
Remember bitcoin can adopt faster block times.
no. |
|
|
|
Instead of storing customer USD balances as some float in his own private database, he decides to make use of the blockchain.
why do people always think its a good idea to put the blockchain into everything? |
|
|
|
so stuff that have alot of uses, is less useful as money. and stuff that does one thing (be money) and one thing only (be money) is more useful as money.
Any better? Sort of makes more sense. but i do not understand why money should have no "value"(you know what i mean!). |
|
|
|
I don't quite follow bitcoin is useful, because its not?
I only halfly get your point and it does not feel right, i would be much more comfortable with something i could use.
You can't eat bitcoins in case of a zombie apocalypse. Frozen carrots would be a better currency.
No, frozen carrots would be better as food, which is why you'd eat them instead of trade them for something else (like more food.) Bitcoin makes the perfect money because it does nothing outside of being money. There's no incentive to use it in any other application. But that expect someone else to value it as much as you did when you traded it otherwise you loose, and in case of a catastrophe of some kind I would have big problems accepting something that is subjectived valued. oh god no! not another debate about subjectivity... |
|
|
|
I don't quite follow bitcoin is useful, because its not?
I only halfly get your point and it does not feel right, i would be much more comfortable with something i could use.
You can't eat bitcoins in case of a zombie apocalypse. Frozen carrots would be a better currency.
No, frozen carrots would be better as food, which is why you'd eat them instead of trade them for something else (like more food.) Bitcoin makes the perfect money because it does nothing outside of being money. There's no incentive to use it in any other application. so stuff that have alot of uses, is less useful. and stuff that does one thing and one thing only is more useful. i feel kind of wrong, but im not able to explain it. |
|
|
|
kokjo: People don't generally buy gold because they want to use them on cables (but probably will buy them as jewelry, which is a lot like using gold as a store of wealth/showing off wealth. Looking pretty is exactly why people think it's valuable.)
But the point I'd like to make is that because Gold is useful in many applications, it should not be used as money. The fact that Bitcoin can literally do nothing but act as money is one of its better qualities; you don't want Bitcoin to have any other uses. This is why we don't store wealth in food; not only does food rot, but it has a very important purpose, which is, being sustenance. Certain items are better at this, precious metals being one, but even they have many applications in the real world.
Bitcoin does not. It does nothing but be money. It cannot be used in any other way. It will never be used in any other way. Nobody can say, "Well we need Bitcoin to build our space ships and it's kinda expensive so we need subsidies" no, it will never happen. Bitcoin has value only because it is given value, the same as gold, minus the uses outside of storing wealth.
I don't quite follow bitcoin is useful, because its not? I only halfly get your point and it does not feel right, i would be much more comfortable with something i could use. You can't eat bitcoins in case of a zombie apocalypse. Frozen carrots would be a better currency. |
|
|
|
Does gold have something backing it? Yes: people who believe it has value.  wrong, gold have uses: cables(stuff that is useful) and jewellery(which is just people thinking its pretty). |
|
|
|
Then again, Kokjo believes the action of existing is enough provocation to kill someone. There are few scenarios where this is applicable:
1. Zombie T-Virus
2. Radioactive
3. Satan
4. Having your soul used in a weird Japanese gore film to power a supermassive zombie radioactive satan-bot.
But in most cases, I think we can all agree that merely existing shouldn't be cause to hurt someone. Unless you're a statist, of course, and making the first move is fair game.
not sure if serous, or making fun of me... |
|
|
|
I say we gather all of the worlds leaders, and lock them all in a room, and gave them each 200 mg of pure mdma. They would all leave as friends.
Fixed. haha! also you wants to lock people up!  Which is why those people in charge will kill me, even if just a chance that it'll mean they're free. The last thing they want is to be prosecuted for their actions (even though karma will handle that alone). it was a reference to a discussion i had with myrkul involving that i had a cage fetish... |
|
|
|
I say we gather all of the worlds leaders, and lock them all in a room, and gave them each 200 mg of pure mdma. They would all leave as friends.
Fixed. haha! also you wants to lock people up! |
|
|
|
He started the fist fight. I ended it.
it is correct that he hit you first, but also that you hurt him first... On the contrary, I did nothing to him. Yes you did. You hurt him by declaring NAP, can't you remember? word can hurt too.  |
|
|
|
He started the fist fight. I ended it.
it is correct that he hit you first, but also that you hurt him first... |
|
|
|
premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do. Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet. your post was written under the assumption that you were pacifist, or im bad at reading, and this is a misunderstanding. I'm willing to wager it's the latter. I've never claimed to be a pacifist. Perhaps you misunderstand the non-aggression principle. I have not misunderstood the NAP. If you believe it makes a person a pacifist, you have. NAP != pacifism, i know that. but pacifism is consistent. However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine. so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so? Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives. So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP? Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it. Congratulation, you have just created a war. I'm guessing you've misunderstood something here, as well. War is a conflict between two countries, usually over resources. You described an interpersonal conflict. I find that your replies evades a meaningful response to my exaggerated post. I find that your exaggerated post evades a meaningful response to my reasonable post. Congratulation, you have just started a fist fight. better? |
|
|
|
|
NEW GAME: guess what dank is on this time and win bitcoins.
(no, i won't pay.)
|
|
|
|
premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do. Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet. your post was written under the assumption that you were pacifist, or im bad at reading, and this is a misunderstanding. I'm willing to wager it's the latter. I've never claimed to be a pacifist. Perhaps you misunderstand the non-aggression principle. I have not misunderstood the NAP. However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine. so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so? Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives. So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP? Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it. Congratulation, you have just created a war. I'm guessing you've misunderstood something here, as well. War is a conflict between two countries, usually over resources. You described an interpersonal conflict. I find that your replies evades a meaningful response to my exaggerated post. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
