I disagree. It is about features.

In a market where you choose a product impulsively, like a cheap candy bar features might not play a role - you pick a product which has a nicer wrapping.

In a market when you choose the exchange (and risk more than a price of a candy bar) impulses do not play a significant role. You apply reason when choosing your exchange (you compare features and product robustness: the fees, execution speed, order types, jurisdiction risks, etc.).

It is about features in this market, not advertising.



1. Not even single dollar should be spent on an advertising of a startup, especially when 99% of its customer base is sitting on this forum! A startup should defend itself by the quality and innovation of its service in relation to competitors and develop organically (not through advertising). The only marketing Kraken should be doing right now is ''how to achieve our business goals while spending no single dollar on advertising'', e.g. creating the exchange's official thread outside the ''service announcement'' would help raise the brand and service awareness among the forum users, and no single dollar would be spent on this.

2. Investing in advertising MIGHT make only some (questionable) sense if Kraken wanted to look for non-Bitcoiners as their consumer base.



This statement MIGHT be true for fmcg, not for an exchange.

That's because Bitcoin protocol (or Bitcoin protocol clones) based assets are being issued at the moment. For the same reason I am interested in only Bitcoin protocol based assets at the moment.

If there were an asset based in 70% on what Bitcoin protocol accomplishes now and in 30% on new ideas I might partially switch my interest.

I think I am not describing coloured coins, but maybe and hopefully I will be proved wrong.

1. Bitcoin is a disruptive innovation as far as currency and payment systems go.

2. There is no sustaining innovation in the crypto realm that would address the needs of some current and potential new users of crypto assets. Altcoins like Litecoin, PPcoin, Whatevercoin offer no real advantages over Bitcoin (differences like faster confirmation time, CPU vs ASIC mining are negligible / non-important) and altcoins (98% - 99% clons of Bitcoin) will eventually die. It is a matter of time.

3. I think there is a hidden / (yet) undiscovered demand for a new type of crypto asset. I have been having an idea in my head for a new type of crypto asset (and its protocol) since:
                                                                      anarchist version   /  statist version
- Ross Ulbricht was:                                           kidnapped               /  arrested
- Ross Ulbricht's crypto assets were:                     stolen                    /  confiscated
by a gang of thieves and liars doing business as the state                     /  by a FBI agents.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What if someone brainy devised a new crypto asset's protocol that would envisage in cases when coins get stolen / confiscated:

a) a mechanism for tainting the stolen / confiscated coins (if you do not like the gang doing business as the state you wouldn't buy coins / transact with coins which had been previously stolen by them, but if you like FBI, NSA, CIA, police etc. you would be perfectly fine with purchasing the coins / transacting with the coins which had been confiscated by them), or even

b) a mechanism for making the stolen / confiscated coins unspendable (hey - you are the legit owner of your assets! you should be able to do with them whatever pleases you; same case is with the cash you keep in your suitcase - if you own USD 1 million in fiat it is your right as the legit owner to burn it in your oven thus making it unspendable), or even

c) a mechanism for making the stolen / confiscated coins retrievable by the victim of the kidnapping / subject of the legal arrest (if you get out of jail, after having been cleared of the charges or after having served the sentence, wouldn't you like to get your assets back and start a new life?).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. I have no clue how this new crypto asset would work technically. E.g. the client might be programmed to google your name once a week in conjunction with words like police, fbi, silk road or arrest and if the search turns out positive it would automatically taint your coins and - if you so wished - would make them even unspendable.

6. The above is just a basic idea for guys who want to innovate in the crypto realm.

7. Creating another Bitcoin clons is pointless.

Crypto assets are disruptive in relation to fiat assets. If BTC dies it will be because of its insufficient sustaining innovation in relation to other (yet to be devised) crypto assets in future.



Soon.

It's a split of a thread.



Try this: math is subjective, because only the individual can decide what is and is not mathematical.

Do you see a problem? Neither morality nor math depends on a decision of anybody.



try this: Because math is grounded entirely within human feeling, it can never, ever be objective.

Would you agree that one cannot use reason and logic to arrive at objective statements about math? Why wouldn't one be able to use reason and logic to arrive at objective statements about morality?



I disagree. Morality tells you universal principles of how the individual, every individual, should behave. Morality is not about how each individual subjectively feels he should behave.



Ethics is subjective. It tells you what the so called god or the so called government or the so called lawmaker wants you to behave.



This is the essence of ethics, not morality.

Grue, philosophy can be a complex stuff. Proving a math theorem may take tens of pages. Even greater effort needs to be put in the realm of philosophy.

My advise for him is not to read (he might get headaches given the length of the book). I advise him to listen (the audiobook is well recorded and pleasure to listen to).

Don't read! Download the audiobook and listen when you have time. Listening is better if you are not a native speaker of English.

It is better to listen to the whole audiobook.

1. It is not my idea.

2. Yes, it is / seems flimsy given I did not (yet) substantiate it.

3. I have a problem with the current misuse of word ''law''; for a concept to be called law it must meet criteria of universality. Laws of physics and mathematics (abstractions) apply universally. One cannot make such a claim for abstractions called state laws (e.g. different state laws in North America and Europe, different laws for the so called government and different for the so called citizens).

4. Historical raiding (factually: stealing, destruction, and raping women) of Vikings in Britain or present raiding (factually: stealing, destruction, and raping women) of Americans in Iraq may be legal and may be ethical, but is still factually immoral because it involves initiating violence.

Word ''belief'' implies something that cannot be proven as a valid concept. I only defend cases where I can prove something.



My moral guideline? Morality is universal. It is the same for me and you, just like gravity is the same for you and me. And true - I made no attempt make my case with regard to guidelines. simply because we did not agree over definitions.



This statement is an opinion; it is neither objective, nor verifiable nor falsifiable. You would not be able to prove it.



Your previous statement is an opinion. You should not form conclusions based on subjective by nature opinions, rather on objective facts and proofs.



Start with this audiobook: ''Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)'' http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx



Religion is an abstraction (a thought in one's head); I am a rational human being - I do not hate abstractions. Do you hate abstractions (mathematics, logic, unicorns, gods, santa clauses)?

I do not believe in anarchy, just like I do not believe in god or in unicorns. How did you get this from?



I am rather belief-free. prove me otherwise.



Hate religion? Me? Where did you get it from?

From my head, after having studied how it works. You know, a crime cannot be simply codified - the sheeple would object. First you need to brainwash sheeple with ethics. Ethics is good, right? It is the science, right? First you call a crime ''good'', then you call it ''ethical'', then you codify it. This is how your ethics work. If ethics is not enough, you call  / consider the crime moral. The sheeple will buy it.

But still the crime is not moral (only considered moral). However the crime may perfectly be ethical.

If you consider something moral does not make it moral just by you considering it this way.

Some crimes may be ethical (reflecting the will of the so called society) but no crime was ever moral, although many crimes were and still are falsely considered to be moral.

Devising ethics allowed to codify crimes in state regulations and in religious codes and labeling them as moral.

Come on! What kind of argument is this?

There were a few very precious words in human history.

One of such words is anarchy. It used to mean ''no violent ruler''. Evil people through propaganda changed the meaning into ''violent chaos''.

One such word is ''morality''. Over the course of time evil people started using this word to justify their crimes:
- priests started labeling their crimes moral - what's moral in religion?!
- soldiers started to label their crimes moral - what's moral in war?!

Statists elevated the term ''ethics'' by introducing it in government controlled schools and by artificially incorporating ''morality'' in it. Ethics failed miserably.

I have a problem with you saying morality differs across humans. Rather the term is misunderstood. Morality has always been universal (it shouldn't be different depending on location or persons, just like math or physics shouldn't be different). It's ethics that differs; look at the number of the so called ''ethic theories'' - each theory is different. Each justifies the so called state.

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.

So it was considered scientifically correct (after Aristotle) to claim the earth was flat. But some bright individuals used reason and experiments to falsify claims of Earth being flat.

Coming back to your example: some idiots in the past used term ''morality'' to justify rapes. Note, some people now-a-days use term ''law'' to justify rapes (if they have lawful authority they escape prosecution). As far as morality goes rape is not okay and never was okay. Had you been deriving laws and regulations from morality, rapes would have been punishable with no exceptions.

Unfortunately laws and regulations are derived from ethics (ethics of the ruling class, ethics of the voting majority, whatever ethics).




Give me good exceptions.

I disagree. Ethics and morality are two separate abstractions. They neither have intersections nor one is contained in another. Just like alchemy is not contained in chemistry or just like pseudoscience is not a part of science.

There is not such a valid concept as a personal (arbitrary) set of rules with regard to morality. Just like there is no such a valid concept as a set of personal (arbitrary) rules with regard to math or to logic.



Me and religion is like water and fire. No religious influence here.



Come on. You just made it up or read it in wikipedia. If it is - by your very own words - a fact, then you can surely prove it. If so, then prove it.