|
Yes. This is EXACTLY how we should be responding to dubious verifiable claims. Smart.
|
|
|
|
We could have mined secretly with GPU for much time and got many litecoins doing it. So please put it in perspective about why we are releasing this info to the public.
Because attacking public opinion about your competitors is worth more to you than pure anonymous profit? It's not hard to imagine the perspective of an anonymous con man running a Ponzi scheme. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks! Interesting.
Good call pitching Bitcoin in the comments too.
|
|
|
|
"Basic Income" is a reasonable idea. Sometimes called citizen's income or citizen's dividend. It goes very nicely with land value tax.
However; implementing it is a function of the state not of the currency.
Basic income as a dividend requires that the state generates a surplus. Some do, such as Norway. Just imagine how much tax revenue is required to finance this: If 300 Million Americans get $500 each (not really a sufficient income), $1.8 Trillion would be required per year. Financing this with a tax on land would devaluate the land to the point that most morgage loans get canceled because the backing is no longer there. The result would be a default of the house owners and a subprime crisis of unprecedented proportions. Oh, wait - we can tax the farmers. They own a lot more land. Or we could not do it that way, because you're not the only one who sees those problems coming. The Henry George Foundation of America is possibly the biggest supporter of land taxes, and even they advocate a very slow and gradual transition to avoid disruptions, like massive defaulting. In the long run though, the economy would be more stable if normal people didn't take out massive loans for expensive volitile assets. Land bubbles always eventually burst, and neo-serfdom isn't much fun either. Also, farmers would pay a lower amount per acre due to their location. Most of the revenue would come from city land. |
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I like Occupy and basic incomes, but the problems inherent to this concept are more practical than ideological. For any basic income, SOMEONE has to maintain a list of recipients. You need to verify that each person only has one account. You need to update the records swiftly when an identity gets stolen. Then, we have to trust that your organization won't be corrupted by power. Every single person you employ to handle all this is paid for by a regressive "inflation/demurrage tax".
We (the left in general) need to be supporting Bitcoin because it already works well and is still undergoing major upgrades. It is resistant to corruption unlike the Fed and any centralized currency. If your problem is hoarding and a deflationary money supply, EnCoin can use your help. If you want a basic income, it has to come from your government - consumers will not opt in to paying for it.
|
|
|
|
Neither do "the people" require democracy to be free.
Please give an example of such a people. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
|
|
Q: Why would anyone want to use this over Bitcoin? A: To signal group affiliation with Occupy. Q: (Months later) Why did the Occcu fail? A: "Because the free market conspired against it!" <-- mark my words About the only thingOcccu has in common with Bitcoin is that they both can be traded person-to-person online. Really? I couldn't find a download link for the P2P client anywhere. I even registered and "received" 20 Occcu that I can only see on the Occcu website and have no way to withdraw it. |
|
|
|
|
FWIW if Bitcoins dropped to pennies I would buy a shitload of them, but I don't have any standing buy orders. You have no way of measuring how many people would actually buy in at $1-3.
|
|
|
|
|
One could create an alt coin that recognizes the Bitcoin rules and history until a specified time, then the changes activate and the coins part ways. If miners are selfish and split kinda evenly on the issue, they might even be merge mined. You would find yourself owning coins in both chains with the same private key. Hate the new fork? Sell them and reclaim however much value your Bitcoins had prior to the split.
Hopefully such a great schism would attract enough attention from users to prevent anyone from accidentally discarding a key that has coins in the new fork.
Bitcoin is ALREADY fork friendly.
|
|
|
|
|
I might use the CoiledCoin incident.
Kant: Luke's heart is in the right place, so it's justified, right?
Utility: Was the average person helped by the attack? Whose utility should Luke maximize?
Social contract: How much consent is required to use hashing power from pool members? What if it's for something that should/will benefit them?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh we can just ignore that glaring flaw because the NPO will handle it "eventually". Forget trying to find a firm date for that, since CoinHunter has no intention of actually giving up control until after he cashes out.
So either you trust an anonymous (but safe?) guy now, or trust a known and thus vulnerable entity "later". And without a transfer DATE, there is no "later", it's just BS to sidestep the issue and buy time.
|
|
|
|
Excellent idea! I like the market-based approach. I would support this. We would just want to denominate the insurance in LTC or fiat, since a major failure would hurt the BTC price. Another similar idea I was thinking was this: we start multiple independent prediction markets for future BTC price. For each BIP, we create another set of markets conditional upon BIP adoption. If these markets indicate a higher long-term benefit from adopting the BIP, miners take this into advisement and "vote" accordingly. It's kinda similar to "futarchy", but really each miner would retain autonomy... They would just have useful information for how to maximize earnings, and we would have to assume most miners are rational. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutarchyWe could decentralize the process too, should be easier once multi sig gets adopted. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47122.0 |
|
|
|
|
I think the first suggested plan (weekly assessment of approval) is preferable. It sets a simple precedent for future upgrades, and IMHO approval voting works very well. It has a means of rejection, which the March 1st plan lacks. It also relieves the developers from having to balance urgency with testing time, by giving that job to the community instead.
Edit: the posts below highlight why a rejection criterion isn't needed. Worst case scenario, a BIP could be tabled indefinitely instead.
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to make thread locking available for mods only? I feel like 99% of locked threads are inappropriate. If someone is trolling, shutting down the thread is a great way to feed them. Alternatively: A locked thread with no replies is useless to a discussion forum and should be deleted. Shouldn't be made in the first place actually, warn then ban IMO.
Righto, mr Bear. +1 |
|
|
|
Its all irrelevent anyways as we know the earth will one day be destroyed by the sun...
We need not simply wait here to die for the next billion years. |
|
|
|
I can't think of a legal way to prove someone remembers something.
Maybe you can't because you are in debating mode. I can only hope that my judge has better mind-reading powers than you.  |
|
|
|
If I've forgotten where I left the garage door opener, how long should I wait in jail?
You shouldn't. Now if you are in court and the judge is of the opinion you are lying about "forgetting," you can expect to remain in jail until your memory improves. How can the judge arrive at this opinion? Does he administer a polygraph, or does he just assume that if I remembered it before, I remember it now? Generally, judges are very slow to lock people up before a conviction takes place. The example that comes to mind is Judith Miller who took 5 months in jail before she talked. But if the judge is convinced you are its "won't" not "can't" he does have the power to lock you up. That didn't answer my question. How did the judge become convinced that I remember something? I should hope that before punishing anyone for any reason they have proof, and I can't think of a legal way to prove someone remembers something. |
|
|
|
If I've forgotten where I left the garage door opener, how long should I wait in jail?
You shouldn't. Now if you are in court and the judge is of the opinion you are lying about "forgetting," you can expect to remain in jail until your memory improves. How can the judge arrive at this opinion? Does he administer a polygraph, or does he just assume that if I remembered it before, I remember it now? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
