Why is the president more trustworthy than a congressman? He's just "some politician" like any other, it's not like there aren't congressional committees that get briefed on military issues and international intelligence.



You can google most of this stuff. It's pretty hot news, there's a lot of controversy surrounding it, and a lot of people scrutinizing the latest relevant bills. It's all out in the open. There is no "in on it."

For an example, the president decided just recently to kill Anwar al-Awlaki. He ordered it done. Drones struck. He was killed. I can't imagine there wasn't "collateral damage." Two weeks later, his 16-year-old son, born in Denver, living overseas, was also killed, same scenario.

There was apparently only one step required: "do it." And no check or balance of any sort seems to be in place.

Was the man a terrorist? Was his 16-year-old son? How could we (the people) determine that? Will we ever know, considering how fast this is all moving and such "old news" is being left behind?



....

Have you heard the news reports of U.S. forces hitting the wrong targets? I know the mainstream media doesn't focus on such reports for any length of time, but there have been a number of them over the last decade. It can go even further back if you count Clinton bombing aspirin factories to distract from his scandals.

One of the more egregious "mistakes", if one can prioritize them, are those that hit weddings. I believe it's happened at least twice. The goal wasn't to hit a suspected terrorist, as the bombing was a mistake. But even if it was, clearly not everyone at a typical wedding party is involved in the same business as a few of the attendees.

So, we have a roomful of innocents. It's a wedding. A time of joy. Perhaps there's singing and dancing, or the groom and bride are about to kiss. Point is, in an instant, bombs hit, there's rubble everywhere, people are injured and dead.

The survivors stagger out, and begin the mourning. Days later, they discover the bomb was dropped by the U.S. military.

What do you think is going to go through their minds?

Particularly the young ones (especially the ones who lost loved ones, which is probably many) who have been told by radicals "Those devils just want to kill us all! Just wait, they'll hurt someone you love, and then you'll see we're right!"

Personally, I can't think of a more effective recruiting campaign for new terrorists.

Well, I'm not sure if you'll view this as a good or bad thing, but I know plenty of people who agree with you.

Sure, most of them would never actually verbalize the idea of sacrificing the few to save many, even to themselves, but their reactions and preferences make it crystal clear.

Yep, it only makes sense for people who embrace Bitcoin to do this. I usually let people know I also take bitcoins, gold, and/or silver in place of cash. I'm convinced that these will be the monetary base of the world in the near future.

@robkohr - You might have already thought of this, but merchants not wanting to deal with the bitcoin exchange rate can also be pointed toward BitPay, so the whole thing is seamless for them. I can't think of a good reason for any retailer or merchant to NOT take bitcoins with that option available.

Just as an aside, you probably are a criminal. The average US citizen commits three felonies a day, without meaning to. Since none of us has time to go through the thousands of pages and rules and laws that pertain to us, that fact is often not discovered until after you've ticked off some bureaucrat, cop or nosy neighbor and they decide to ruin your life with a single anonymous phone call,  trumped up charge or little rule they pull out just for spite.

There's a reason the US has the largest "criminal" population in the world. No, that's not per capita, it's the largest in terms of raw numbers.

Wow.

*Turns to the rest of the world.*

NOW do you see why things are the way they are here? My suggestion to the rest of you: stay far, far away from this country until it stops reacting in fear and comes to its senses.

Hmm.

Yes, I agree that that is often the case.

I just think the evidence shows that naturally, given the opportunity, many people would learn such things and even seek out appropriate instructors, all on their own, in their particular area of interest. Provided they were free to keep the fruits of their learning and do with it as they see fit. And of course, if they just seek to reinforce their own beliefs, rather than honestly and sincerely choosing to seek truth itself, they'll hit a wall of their own making at some point too--we already have that today, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

(As an aside, sometimes it's social customs which squash this too. I imagine most parents find the idea of their child becoming "obsessed" with some obscure field that the parents find useless to be a horrifying idea. They would be quick to break their child of such a habit. Yet some have speculated Leonardo DaVinci was somewhat autistic, had OCD and was quick to ignore social customs whenever his curiosity found it convenient. It seems clear it would have been these very traits which enabled him to explore the things he did and be the genius that he was--his knowledge of anatomy being a prime example. I suspect that if the speculation is correct, then had he been born in the modern era, he wouldn't have been anything other than a frustrated oddity, not due so much to intellectual laziness, but rather because the extreme expression and pursuit of his interests wouldn't have been considered acceptable.)

I replaced the stickers on mine. Honestly, on a couple, if you don't know about the honeycombing, it's not immediately obvious that they were already redeemed.

Well, considering the kinds of videos like this out there (people showing off a new product as they open the package, etc.), I guess this makes sense.

After I distribute my Casascius bitcoins, I'll see if there are any left for me to make a video peeling one off.

Hmm. I disagree and agree.

I think it's mostly twelve years of government education that stomps out most people's natural curiosity and desire to learn. Despite that, plenty of people put in a lot of time and effort about a lot of useful things just out of interest. I'm certainly spending plenty of time learning about Bitcoin, gathering useful info I can share with others. I know people who learn about and tinker with cars, constantly improving their knowledge and skills, including the parts they don't like as much, just for the sheer joy of it, and to be able to say, "Yeah, I made this." Even those who waste their brilliant potential can unlearn their state-ingrained habits. Check out Montessori schools for an interesting look at this.

Now, as far as the idea of someone wanting to suck off my long hours of learning and hard hours of labor for free? Yeah, that's totally unacceptable, and most people will balk when that gets brought up. In fact, if it's insisted upon, you'll eventually find many people refusing to study, learn and develop themselves, even for their own enjoyment, simply because they know others will come by and take the fruits of their labor from them.

Incentives will always be needed to get people to perform at their best consistently, in a way that benefits others. Personally, I see positive, voluntary incentives (prime example: free trade) as the ideal kind.

I think it would be, if it were true that strangers wouldn't perform the service. But I really don't see that being the only way to acquire one in a RBE. Why would it be? Plenty of people would just want a massage, minus the time and effort required to get into a relationship. People already pay for sex with strangers today, despite the social discouragement. I don't see why such things would stop happening just because physical goods were abundant.



True respect and love can't be a service. It's simply not something you can buy.

Massages, storytelling, a juggling performance, etc. All those can be bought, and such things are already being bought today. People naturally swap services, it's a very primal behavior. The only way I can see it not happening at some point in the future would be through force or through totalitarian levels of thought control.



From the idea that somehow people won't be wanting to swap services. As I said above, it's a primal instinct; the only way to consistently prevent it is through force or totalitarian levels of thought control.



Well, I agree with all that. There will always be disparities of outcome, and those at the bottom will always be our baseline for "poor." Eliminating the idea of people not having access to their basic needs is a fair enough goal, although I'm of the belief most people who focus on that have no idea how to actually achieve it. But eliminating the concept of "poverty" is a waste of time because it's a totally subjective measurment.

So... anyone tried it out yet? Anyone have any feedback?

Ok. First, thanks for the direct response. It's appreciated; I'm not just trying to slam RBE, rather I'm trying to scrutinize the one aspect that seems most out-of-place to me.



Oh, I understand that. But I think the various forms of possible, less-than-ideal RBEs are a distraction. I want to avoid the more trivial issues surrounding that, plus I want your arguments to be coming from the strongest possible base. Since I think replicators, to some degree, are theoretically possible (maybe a few thousand years down the road) and I agree that we can keep getting closer to this ideal, I have no problem starting my discussions about RBEs with the presumption that the ideal has been achieved. It makes things easier for you, and I have no issues with it.



Timebanks... is this similar to things such as the LETS system? Or possibly bitcoin-denominated Ripple?

Personally, that's kind of what I envisioned. Once material goods are truly abundant, the most valuable things will become human services/performances and new ideas. The only way to keep track of those things is a simple accounting setup of some sort... possibly Bitcoin-like. So this makes sense.

I don't think there will be enough people gifting massages (at least, excluding creepy, over-eager masseurs no one wants to go to) to meet the demand of people wanting them though; I could see timebanks hanging around just to deal with this sort of excess demand. We'll probably have to agree to disagree over whether machine massages would be more desirable than human contact.



Actually, if there were timebanks, and I could trade the credits for massages for myself, personal entertainment from singers, etc., I'd find them valuable and could be incentivized by them.

Lacking incentive though ("I've given you three massages this week already Jim, I'm done for now,") it's good to hear no methods would be used to force one to provide a service.



Now, here's where I kinda get to my point. If timebanks are around, and I'm incentivized by them, likely others would be as well. This essentially would turn timebank credits into a form of money, and even if it's small, some sort of market (complete with exchange rates, etc.) would likely develop around it. ("Oh, honey! Five timebank credits! What a great birthday present!")

And, humans being human, a certain level of status or prestige would also likely become associated with accumulated credits. ("Man, that guy has a million credits! He could provide some pretty sweet services for himself and his kids for decades!") And of course, gifting credits or transferring them to ones descendants would be possible unless there was some deliberate attempt to prevent it (which, like today, would be worked around.)

If this market is allowed to function, even if socially frowned upon, then I guess that's the end of my questions. Essentially, money could crop up in a RBE, and those wanting to make use of it wouldn't be stopped from doing so. In which case, provided getting to this ideal is completely voluntary, I don't think I have any issues with RBEs.

Good luck.

Very well stated. I hadn't wanted to spend time describing the actual situation as I suspect these facts will just be ignored.

But then, even trying to keep things simple and ask the important question, its funny how no direct answer, however brief, seems forthcoming.

The lack of direct, honest answers to all this does make one wonder.

At the risk of this heading down a path that was NOT intended... some people just want the human contact. Whether they know it or not, this is one of the main reasons people visit masseuses today.

And that being the case... it seems clear to me that demand for this will always exceed the supply of people willing to just massage everyone for free out of charity. But that won't make the demand go away, despite the (monstrous, totalitarian) re-education that would be so desperately focused on to try to change human nature.

So, again, for someone seeking this service today, they just visit a spa, ask for the service, and pay some form of money for it.

How would one acquire a massage in a RBE?

I feel compelled to ask...

Suppose this place is set up, and children are born there.

Suppose one day the settlers discover their children trading pretty sea shells for snacks, favors, toys, etc. Furthermore, suppose a few of the children, through no force, fraud, deceit or trickery have accumulated most of the shells, and that a few of the children, through no force, fraud, deceit or trickery, have almost none.

What would you do about the situation?

Well, I have time to spare, so I'll try once again.

Let's presume an idealized RBE. Practically unlimited energy. Star Trek replicators. Everyone has their own. Forget how we get here... the discussion isn't that interesting (mostly speculation,) and since it's theoretically plausible, it's not really relevant how we get here.

Assuming that background, three questions to the RBE community as a whole:

(1) How do I acquire all-natural done-by-a-human oil massages? (Yes, I'm serious.)

(2) As a highly sought-after masseur, what would incentivize me to give massages to anyone besides close friends or loved ones? (I'm being precise; not "why would I", but "what would incentivize me.")

(3) What stops someone from quantifying the incentive (even in a crude, vague fashion) and then accumulating more of the incentive and making an industry out of that incentive?

I think there are two big issues causing more problems than the supply curve: the learning curve for bitcoin, and the fact people can't get or dump bitcoins on a whim. Having to go through the exchanges (I know it's not mandatory, just one of the easiest ways) is quite a bottleneck.



I see where you're coming from, but I do see one distinct advantage with the current growth curve: coins pour in at a high rate right from the start, for quite a while. We still haven't hit the first block payout reduction, so we still, 2 years from startup, have access to the 50 coins/block. True, it's harder, but that's more a function of so many miners jumping in.

With a sigmoid curve, sure, early adopters would have fewer coins... but we'd also probably still be having trouble getting bitcoins due to lower payouts, and would be waiting for the uptick for the coins to pour in.

So, I guess I can see it working (and having issues) either way.

*looks up sigmoid curve*

Ah, I've seen this one before. I suppose that might have worked. Although in defense of the designer(s) (note: I'm not an early adopter) I would think smoothly integrating a sigmoid curve instead of the current one would have been more difficult, and possibly not even considered necessary.

(Anyone want to take a crack at it? With difficulty adjustments every 2016 blocks, what should the miner block payouts be to achieve this curve? Presume payout adjustments every year rather than every 4 years. A free bitcoin to the first illustrated viable response!)

In any case, I don't think it matters that much. As bitcoins become more ubiquitous, fewer people will know or care about who jumped in early, and how well they've done.