|
I've seen similar proposals, but none with the lottery ticket idea. Two main concerns:
1) Currently the "wasted" electricity helps secure the network by making it equally expensive to brute force attack. You touched on this with your second bullet point, it's a biggie.
2) New users would need to buy coins from existing users. Since one on average would profit everyone would play this lottery in pools, it basically accomplishes the same thing as pure deflation but with more risk and complexity. We might as well just stop subsidizing coin generation.
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow is saying that the worst-case scenario from global warming is a return to a pre CO2 sequestering atmosphere. That's a hell of a lot older - way way way older, than plants. Even if all CO2 was in the atmosphere then, it is not an example of an environment we can survive.
Why not? It's not an example of an environment we can survive because nothing remotely close to humans were alive last time it was like that. I'm not proving that life would be impossible - I'm rejecting your hypothesis as to why life (beyond microscopic) MUST be possible. |
|
|
|
So not only are you saying that all carbon was once in the air. You're also saying that returning our atmosphere to how it was a billion years before multicellular life WOULDN'T be a catastrophe, because at least microorganisms would probably survive.
He is saying that the link between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperatures is tenuous at best. We are in an interglacial - a short break in a massive ice age. The ice age will resume no matter what we do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterglacialThat's a completely separate thing. It's actually a much more common idea, so I'm not disputing that here, people with some grasp of science still disagree on that one. MoonShadow is saying that the worst-case scenario from global warming is a return to a pre CO2 sequestering atmosphere. That's a hell of a lot older - way way way older, than plants. Even if all CO2 was in the atmosphere then, it is not an example of an environment we can survive. |
|
|
|
I'm going to replace my original offer with something even more appealing, since I find complete bullshit so intolerable. 10 BTC says no 51% attack on Litecoin by 2012-01-01, 00:00:00 UTC. CoinHunter - if you think a longer period would be fair for 50/50 odds, or we should stick with January 1st but have a more fair ratio than 50/50, I'm all ears. You can make money off us decentralized currency suckers and exchange it right back to SC before your victory! Edit - I have joined the main bet here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53796.msg642542#msg642542 |
|
|
|
I think we should make an effort to be nice to people who get burned like this. It's easy to say it was obvious to you, but these things happen to the best of us sometimes. I know I was a damn fool to trust MyBitcoin.
If you were speaking to me, i was being sarcastic  He should not be angry for the demotion and ban, given the forum from where he got banned Actually, the fact that he got banned is a good thing, it means he is a clever guy I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, but thank you for elaborating. Sometimes internet jokes whizz over my head.  |
|
|
|
|
So not only are you saying that all carbon was once in the air. You're also saying that returning our atmosphere to how it was a billion years before multicellular life WOULDN'T be a catastrophe, because at least microorganisms would probably survive.
|
|
|
|
Let's assume for a moment that all this carbon was in the atmosphere. Not in any of these other places, like in water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#OccurrenceRight now there is about 44 times as much carbon in water than in the air. The organism which first sequestered carbon, and still does most of it to this day, is microscopic. Not plants. This hypothetical high atmospheric carbon period would predate multicellular life by a billion years. The period you describe is an alien world. Life as we know it simply did not exist. No plants, no animals, no fungi. You're making too many wild assumptions for me to even get into all of them. Who exactly DID you ask about this? |
|
|
|
|
I think we should make an effort to be nice to people who get burned like this. It's easy to say it was obvious to you, but these things happen to the best of us sometimes. I know I was a damn fool to trust MyBitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Are we assuming that at some point most of this carbon was in the atmosphere as CO2 at once?
Generally, yes. That's a major flaw in your argument. The oil built up over millions of years. It's possible that oil deposits come and go, and if left untouched would vary within a stable range over time. Also, it's a closed carbon cycle, but not a closed CO2 cycle.
That is, in fact, exactly what I wrote. Carbon is not normally a gas. It only causes global warming in CO2 form, which requires a chemical change, no violation of conservation of elements. Another species has actually done something just like this before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_catastrophe |
|
|
|
I find this kind of debate amusing. The question about whether or not global warming is caused by human industrial activities or not is an irrelevent one with regards to the outcomes. Either an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming or it will not, that is the only detail that matters. So I ask the partisans on this thread the following questions...
Where did the carbon encased into fossil fuels come from? My understanding is that they originally came from dead plant material, but if so, where did the plants get it? The obvious answer is the air, but I'm open to speculation about alternatives. If the carbon came from the air, and we presently live on this planet, how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?
So far, I've posed this same quandry to a great many people that I have met, and the most credible alternative that I've yet been presented with came from a fundamentalist Christian conservative, who responded that the carbon wasn't in the air before because God created the Earth with the oil in the ground. I've literally seen dyed-in-the-wool tree huggers distort their own faces with the cognative dissonance.
Are we assuming that at some point most of this carbon was in the atmosphere as CO2 at once? When was the last time this was the case? I had always thought most of it was contained within life, rocks, or oil since Earth was very young and didn't support multicellular life. Also, it's a closed carbon cycle, but not a closed CO2 cycle. |
|
|
|
|
Let's put our money where our mouths are. 10 BTC says no 51% attack on Litecoin before the next SC2 patch. Any takers?
|
|
|
|
No I get what you're saying there, but it also applies to Bitcoin. For instance say the dev team does something you don't like, some forking change. Now you say others can resist it, so let's say bitcoin splits in 2, 50% who support the devs, 50% who support the old way. What if mtgox supports the devs? Did you know who owns the bitcoin trademarks, copyright, website, etc? Anyone who disagrees with THOSE people and wants to continue bitcoin "Like it is now" will get shut down.
There would probably be at least one exchange willing to trade between BTC and EvilBTC. Since both block chains share most blocks, most users would find themselves owning coins in both chains, each trading at about 50% of Bitcoin's value prior to the fork. Now the market will decide whether or not the change was correct, or if both are useful but for different things. You can release a mandatory patch and tell the trusted nodes to kill the competing fork. |
|
|
|
CoinHunter, do you currently mine any SC2 yourself?
Depends on the day and what I'm doing. I switch between mining BTC and SC depending upon which is more profitable to get more SC. I don't have much "mining power" though, just a couple of 5830s in my development PC. My always hashing trust node occasionally generates a block (it's only a low hashing node) but I put them back into the CPF fund. There are no requirements for trust node operators winning normal blocks needing to do that, it's just what I do. Doesn't that make SC2 vulnerable to a <1% attack? Even a 51% Litecoin attacker or coblee can't do such radical things as permanently lower the subsidy from 32 to 5. |
|
|
|
|
CoinHunter, do you currently mine any SC2 yourself?
|
|
|
|
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes them nothing. That means we should help all children but not forced to. I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividendYou guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free. We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms. The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it. If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free. Yes property is theft just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't. Land was not privatized until after agriculture, before then it was free. Asking me to unilaterally give away my land (if I had any) is just as nonsensical as asking rich supporters of income taxes to just give away their earnings - you're asking people to cooperate on a prisoner's dilemma instead of fixing the system. And I am fighting for it, in part by helping this movement. When the world uses cryptocurrency, land taxes will be among the few that still work. So you are proposing communism right? Or more exactly anarchism? we all are equally wealthy even if some are imbeciles and other are quite bright . you are proposing the we can't individually own anything just as a community? or what exactly do you propose? I'm proposing geoism, and in relation to this topic, a basic income for children, parents, everyone. It's compatible with anarchism (as geoanarchism) or an otherwise minarchist state, but not with communism (Marx hated the idea). In a statist world, geoists generally advocate more economic freedom and land taxes. In an anarcho-capitalist world, market forces will encourage land rent automatically, since it is more efficient. People wouldn't even call it a tax, they'd just call it rent. |
|
|
|
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes them nothing. That means we should help all children but not forced to. I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividendYou guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free. We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms. The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it. If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free. Yes property is theft just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't. Land was not privatized until after agriculture, before then it was free. Asking me to unilaterally give away my land (if I had any) is just as nonsensical as asking rich supporters of income taxes to just give away their earnings - you're asking people to cooperate on a prisoner's dilemma instead of fixing the system. And I am fighting for it, in part by helping this movement. When the world uses cryptocurrency, land taxes will be among the few that still work. |
|
|
|
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes them nothing. That means we should help all children but not forced to. I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividendYou guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free. |
|
|
|
|
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that would be the easy part - once we agree on a cap, we cap and trade. Basically the same thing as the Kyoto Protocol, but actually enforced.
|
|
|
|
|
If not from a cost perspective, how should we look at it? At some point one needs to rationally determine just how much Bad Stuff is optimal.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
