+1

This has been proposed and discussed in depth already. Multisig solves the problem of one hacked device, and multiple hacked devices are much less likely. External security firms add centralization to the system and don't guarantee they won't be A) attacked physically or B) run away with the coins or C) screw up and lose even MORE coins. Even guns have a safety.

Why wait 6 confirmations for POS transactions? You should just accept unconfirmed POS refunds. 6 confirmations is for a king's ransom.

I couldn't find any mention of transaction fees in the paper. He only mentions the subsidy. Subsidy will decrease to almost nothing, but block rewards will not.

If he's right, we will see Litecoin collapse far sooner, giving the community enough time to develop a replacement like EnCoin. Don't worry.

It's nice to see him back.

1NhuyTYN8W4AAeNwes4zvNCGpiCnWPhRM1

I would totally play this game, especially if one gets a few mBTC for it.

Bonus points if this data can be automatically forwarded to one of the existing projects too.

Forbidding the enslavement of people. I can "enslave" and kill a plant if I so choose, or any group declared not persons, like fetuses. All of the rights described by the federal constitution fly out the window when the federal government refuses to decide to whom they apply. Why not let states decide which rights to protect entirely on their own, if they can pick who gets rights anyways?

Not about grown human slaves, I agree. But pro-lifers would say that abortionists think that way, and bioconservatives would think that way towards non-human intelligences.

If you're willing to swallow the pill of centralized control, then are protocol-breaking changes really a problem? You shouldn't have to worry about being on the wrong side of a fork if your client gets its confirmation from a trusted source instead of its own calculations.

Any plans for multisignature transactions, or will that be handled externally? Gavin had to shut down his escrow service when it conflicted with the plan for Bitcoin.

This is probably where I'm confused, so bear with me. If states should be allowed to define personhood like you say, then wouldn't some states just define group Y as not people? This group would be treated like property.

Hawker, over the last few months you've shown a pattern of behavior that boils down to arguing semantics and is=ought. Yes, I know that judges rule on personhood... Based on laws passed by the other two branches of government. As I explained above, a lack of direct control over the constitution does not prevent the president from exerting tremendous influence by playing politics.

Rather than assigning lengthy reading material to display your own superior knowledge and passive-aggressively insult me, you could actually try for a moment to honestly express your own views (if you have them).

Thank you for answering my question. Follow-up question: If states are deciding personhood, then shouldn't they be allowed to legalize slavery, or abolish corporate personhood, or extend personhood to apes?

I agree with you about which issues are biggest, and they'll probably influence my vote more than abortion as well. I just doubt that many of us here actually disagree about the wars.

---

I'm also strongly against a biological definition of personhood; I believe in defining personhood by mental ability. This precedent will have significant consequences for future generations and I won't ignore it just because, like always, there are pressing immediate issues.

I too don't want to quote the flame war above, but I will make this assertion:
1. All people own themselves.
2. Women are people.
3. First trimester fetuses are not people because they lack any mental ability.
4. People have a right to do as they wish with their property IFF it does not interfere with the rights of others.
Therefore,
5. Women have a right to abort.

If fetuses ARE people, the whole thing falls apart and the fetus has a right to live. Either way, it's a matter of rights and personhood, just like slavery and corporations.

I just imagined LoupGaroux's eloquent essays slowly degenerating into psy's crude attempts to smash his fists on the keyboard. 

Oh what EVER. Jeez. Electoral college, plurality vote, supreme court... It's not perfect, but your vote DOES count!

First of all, I'm in agreement that he's the least bad of the above choices. I might even vote for him anyways, because yeah there are other issues. Personal accusations of dishonesty hurt my feelings, so I would rather discuss Paul and his positions... Maybe I'm just ignorant about something, please give me the benefit of the doubt. This is one of those few internet arguments you could actually "win".

Paul certainly COULD sign laws that would harm abortion rights, he does have influence over the issue. Even in the case of constitutional amendments, the president can and will trade favors to influence the outcome. We're talking about making someone one of the most powerful men on Earth.

Slavery (and corporate personhood) are valid comparisons with regards to legal personhood being determined at the federal level. It's easy for us rich folks to just waltz across state borders, but for pregnant women facing social stigma and possible poverty, even local prohibition is a huge disincentive to abort. Slaves could run away too, but I'd rather we focus on this topic rather than play the analogy game all week.

So my question to you guys, if I may repeat - what level of government should be responsible for
A. deciding legal personhood, and
B. protecting human rights?

At what level do you think legal personhood and human rights protection SHOULD be decided? Shall we leave slavery up to the states too?

Of the above terrible choices I picked Ron Paul. But I can certainly understand why libertarians wouldn't support a man who would would threaten women's self-ownership.

That's weird, I got my 20 immediately upon joining.

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee#Criticisms

First off, thanks for the interesting story - I got halfway through the first chapter before I realized it was fiction.

Back on topic - a basic income only reduces human labor by about five percent, which IMHO doesn't outweigh the benefit of a more just society, especially as robot labor grows and this penalty decreases. Maybe even when we have everything we need, greed continues to motivate the selfish.