|
Crap I voted 1 but truly I meant 2 (you take away 2, so you own 2 now, right?)
|
|
|
|
My name is Sean Martin, from Raleigh, NC. I've given up everything I had to spread this message with you by example. My life has fallen together perfect after a childhood of doubt. When I learned to believe in myself, I found that I can do anything. I fell in love with a girl and lost my fear doing so. When you don't question what you feel, and accept it for what it is, you can truly feel limitless amounts of love.
There's much more to life than the society that is. I'm calling amongst humanity to contribute to help organize a million person music festival. When everything you had becomes worthless, we will always have music to bring us together. This music festival will inevitably happen, we're just waiting, when will we choose to find world peace?
A music festival?? Love power and all this crap? Seriously? Are you a time traveler from the 60s or something? |
|
|
|
3. Remove defense (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)
You might want to reconsider this. It's not because you don't need to be fighting that you should not be prepared for a fight. Si vis pacem... |
|
|
|
|
I know a future market where people put money where their mouth is would be a better indicator, but for those who would like to speculate without actually risking to lose anything: here you go, you can bet about the exchange rate for next year here!
|
|
|
|
It's not like they are forced to work, either. Last time I checked, workmen in factories are not tied to their workplace with iron chains on feet or something. Oh, and they also happen to receive something that they are supposed to have agreed to receive in exchange of their work. It's called "SALARY".
How did this develop into a discussion of economic fairness? Maybe because of the extensive (edit: my bad, just one actually. But still) use of the adjective "unfair" in the freicoin webpage? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is agnostic about who receives the subsidy.
No, it's not agnostic: it gives it to miners. When creating money, you have to give it to someone. You just think that giving it to people with mining equipment so that can later made huge profits by selling after the price have risen is more fair. That's YOUR OPINION. I used to have the same opinion, but it's still an opinion. Ohh yes, it is so fucking unfair that workers, who work not only for themselves but also you faggots sitting on their backs, and through working actualy not only make your coin alive and kicking but the whole deal possible, might make huge profit. I pray for a day when workers will stop, look at you bastards above and say " NO, FUCK YOU!" and than rip your heads off. It's not like they are forced to work, either. Last time I checked, workmen in factories are not tied to their workplace with iron chains on feet or something. Oh, and they also happen to receive something that they are supposed to have agreed to receive in exchange of their work. It's called "SALARY". |
|
|
|
It's not just the word "proletariat", although it is indeed a very good hint: generally whoever pronounce this word is either a communist, or a capitalist mocking communists.
Well, Silvio Gesell was neither of those. He just defined that word as: "Proletariat: workmen deprived of their own means of production." What does he mean by "deprived"? And "their own means of production"? Were these means of production their property in the first place? Have they been stolen? If so, those workmen should ask for justice. Theft is a crime even in anarcap-land. First: "unfair economic advantage of simply being wealthy". Why is this "unfair"? Being wealthy is not a privilege: it's the result of an open competition. In the past (and still nowadays in some countries), some people could not practice some professions or own certain things, whatever they do. You had to be born in a certain way. That was what one might call privileges. But it is not the case anymore in most countries.
He means unfair in the same sense cartels and government subsidies are unfair. In the "economic rent" sense. We believe gold-like monetary systems give an economic rent to both money lenders and "real capital" owners. Let me ask you. Is it unfair that an unemployed workmen receiving his weekly unemployment subsidie from government? Isn't that also a rent? Why would such a rent be acceptable when the person who benefits it has done nothing to benefit it except gathering in flocks and use political threats and physical bullying in order to get it from force? Yeah, having and using sound money is a good economic move and it does indeed provide an economic advantage other people using shitty money. Yes, being smart pays. I don't understand why you think this is unfair. Storing value is a perfectly normal and economically sane use case for money. Storing money is really a mean of buying and exchanging stuff, it's just being done with a much longer time scale.
If having both functions on the same tool causes great waste of resources (unemployment, cycles, destruction of capital...), we need to separate each function on a different tool. You didn't quite get my point. To me saving and exchanging are really the same process. They just happen on different time scale. So there really is only one function, it just that it is very elastic as far as time is concerned. There are way too many economic assumption I don't agree with in this reasoning. I just can't debate it. I disagree with pretty much every single sentence.
Let me try to summarize it on separate statements. All assuming a free market but for an enforced gold monetary monopoly. 1) nominal interest = real interest + inflation premium = basic interest + risk premium + inflation premium 2) Capital yields naturally tend downward through competition, just like other profits. While they're positive, there's unsatisfied demand for producing goods (real capital) and more could be invested with no loss. 3) Capital yields and the Basic interest/liquidity premium/time preference tend to be equal 4) The basic interest is always positive (obviously we disagree on why) and therefore capital yields can never be zero. I don't understand why you keep talking about interest rates and capital yield when bitcoin is not about that at all. Bitcoin is jjust a currency. It does not say anything about credit and investments. |
|
|
|
|
What about "infinite wallet"? By this I mean an analogy with "infinite lists" in programming languages.
Infinite lists can also be called "iterators" or "lazy lists", so the same idea could bring "lazy wallet" or "iterating wallet".
|
|
|
|
I prefer "pre-determined". It's an identical concept to deterministic, but I expect it would confuse fewer people. Obvious follow up question for the uninitiated would be "What aspect is pre-determined?". I can't see as many people being confused or put off by the expression. "pre-determined" sounds terrible. People would immediately think that there is someone, somewhere, who can recreate a copy of any such wallet. I don't think deterministic is too technical.
I actually agree. Deterministic should be fine imho. But if we really want something less technical, I like the crystal metaphor. What about "reproducible"? |
|
|
|
Stopped reading here:
« In fact, the unfair economic advantages of simply being wealthy are diminished with Freicoin. In the current system of money, including the U.S. Dollar, Euro, and other national currencies, money is and always has been used to store value–money seen from the point of view of the holders, the wealthy. Freicoin emphasizes instead the view to that of the producer, the proletariat, the 99%: money as a means of buying the goods and services necessary to sustain life, and the capital required to create improved living conditions. »
I haven't wrote that part, but I don't see where you think is being "communist" defending the producers? Maybe you're just alergic to the word proletariat? How's suppressing unfair privileges goes against the free market? It's not just the word "proletariat", although it is indeed a very good hint: generally whoever pronounce this word is either a communist, or a capitalist mocking communists. First: "unfair economic advantage of simply being wealthy". Why is this "unfair"? Being wealthy is not a privilege: it's the result of an open competition. In the past (and still nowadays in some countries), some people could not practice some professions or own certain things, whatever they do. You had to be born in a certain way. That was what one might call privileges. But it is not the case anymore in most countries. Second: your idea of money is just wrong. People do not just work to survive. Most of them, and especially people who work A LOT (like chinese people working to build the stuff we use all around the world), work in order to save money SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORK ANYMORE IN THE FUTURE. Sorry for using high caps but I really wanted to stress this. Storing value is a perfectly normal and economically sane use case for money. Storing money is really a mean of buying and exchanging stuff, it's just being done with a much longer time scale. Third: nowadays most people don't work anyway. At least because of the high unemployment rate. So talking about the 99% of "producing" people is just weird. There are way too many economic assumption I don't agree with in this reasoning. I just can't debate it. I disagree with pretty much every single sentence. |
|
|
|
|
Finding a name for E1 is quite challenging if "deterministic wallet" is too nerdy.
What about a rather poetic image? I have two in mind:
1. "Crystal wallet". Because it can grow from a small seed (just like crystals)
2. "Phoenix wallet". Because if you lose it, it's not a big deal since you can recreate it from its ashes (well, kind of)
PS. I have a big preference for "Crystal wallet", which sounds very cool and is a good metaphor imho.
|
|
|
|
Economics exists to solve a resource allocation problem. Because someone has an extraordinary amount of currency, does that necessarily mean they should have an insurmountable advantage over people who have better ideas of how to use some resources?
Well, yes it does. Economics solves the resource allocation problem by giving a price to resources. So people who have more money have bigger a weight in the resource allocation process, because they are capable of paying a higher price. Rich people weight more in the market, and that makes sense. Rich people are supposed to be people who have shown in the past that they are more capable of producing wealth or of evaluating the real value of things. They are more efficient economic agents than poor people. So it's totally logic that they have more influence in the price mechanism. |
|
|
|
|
I just read this sentence again:
« In fact, the unfair economic advantages of simply being wealthy are diminished with Freicoin »
That's so awesome. Isn't that a great pleonasm? I mean, doesn't "being wealthy" consist, by definition, of having an economic advantage? And what exactly is unfair with this?
|
|
|
|
I see that as a big big problem. Many people like bitcoin because it is not designed to be handed to those that some politicians deem too big to fail aka important. Freicoin does just the same thing by handing free money to those organisations or individuals that some politicians inside freicoin deem more important than their respective competition. Happily distorting the market if it was worth anything.
That this can also happen with a huge amount of corruption and scamming only adds to why I absolutely can not support it at all. Not with 80%, not with 8%, not with 8 Freicoin reserved for a political purpose.
Sure, but in a way we should be happy about this thing. Because Freicoin is the answer to most of the ranting we've been hearing ever since the beginning of bitcoin. Instead of trying to convince them on how wrong they are, we can just tell them: "well you can just use freicoin, then". As a bitcoin user I still have to use fiat currencies everyday, anyway. Between USD/EUR/Whatever and Freicoin, I'd rather use freicoin. |
|
|
|
|
Stopped reading here:
« In fact, the unfair economic advantages of simply being wealthy are diminished with Freicoin. In the current system of money, including the U.S. Dollar, Euro, and other national currencies, money is and always has been used to store value–money seen from the point of view of the holders, the wealthy. Freicoin emphasizes instead the view to that of the producer, the proletariat, the 99%: money as a means of buying the goods and services necessary to sustain life, and the capital required to create improved living conditions. »
It's clearly a currency designed for communists or communist-friendly people. Not sure they even try to hide it. They should call it "redcoin".
Well, communists have the right to exist so I guess it would be a good thing if they had their own money. But as far as I'm concerned, I don't want any part of this.
|
|
|
|
Hum... 12 light years might be too much long a delay for a bitcoin node.  |
|
|
|
And also, if what you are specifically interested is C++/OpenGL, and if you're looking for a project where to practice, and if you like video games (especially Minecraft), I would suggest you consider helping for the open-source, LGPL Minecraft clone called minetest. http://minetest.net |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
