Since about 7 million of 21 million have been mined, there are about 14 million left unmined.

This argument reminds me of the Lockean Proviso.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

IMHO you own yourself and the things you create. No one labored to create land, so land belongs to everyone equally. "Property is theft!"
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

... But like bitcoin2cash said, this has been argued to death, in this case for over 100 years. At this point actions speak louder than words. The battle for tax-free land is over, but cryptocurrency presents the opportunity to eliminate taxes (and thus restore full ownership) of almost all other goods. Hooray!

I think you're probably right. I think it's time we reevaluate where public education ends - it used to be a high school degree WAS enough, but that bar has risen and will now continue to rise as even some skilled jobs are being replaced by computers. Also we might want to replace minimum wage and some employee protection laws with [takes cover] guaranteed minimum income, too. I realize this will anger many people here (and it kinda angers me too) but I don't know how the free market could solve it. (Free market people - please give me something better, it would actually cheer me up)

I'm interested in how China will handle this. For them the problem will be much more pronounced, and if handled poorly could cause another revolution.

In countries with a shorter work week this doesn't happen frequently. I suspect the dentist would  hire more dental hygienists and assistants to keep up, who would in turn vacate jobs the rivet guy would take. Right now a lot of people are working jobs "below" their training because jobs are so scarce.

It's a big broken window, of course. There are more efficient (if less politically palatable) ways to keep the riveter alive without messing everything ELSE up so much.

You play the lottery?

Opportunity != guarantee

I think a big problem is the prevalence of voting systems which are not clone-independent. It's what causes two-party systems (Divurger's law) and keeps the corporations in power. Similarly, in this day and age we don't need to elect representatives any more - everyone has a price. We could reduce corruption with delegated voting and liquid democracy instead.

So what should we spend on? The things we actually want, not the things our elected representatives' owners want. The world is trapped in the grip of plutocracy.

My concerns are more pragmatic than free market enthusiasm. If it's opt-in, why would someone choose this currency over other cryptocurrencies? Keep in mind that individuals don't choose options that are best for everyone involved, but focus on short-term selfish benefit. So even if GMI is desirable, the system still might not work as intended.

If you're doing face-to-face distribution, who collects and distributes the cash? You?

I don't think most people would prefer government currencies because governments provide GMI. Using an inflationary currency is more harmful to the user, and inflation taxes hurt poor people more. No one will "take one for the team".

In theory, once a population relies on a fixed-quantity cryptocurrency, that currency will appreciate in value relative to the economic growth rate. So there would still be some investment, but it would be more conservative than with inflationary currency.

In opinion, this might be stagnation, or less bubbly-bursty, or more "fair" to poor people. Apply your economic school as desired.

Most of us only see the ads we want to see (adblock) so I doubt it would hurt at all.

After the last few months I've given up on my prediction ability. I'm just going to buy a teensy bit when my deposit clears. (Won't significantly influence price)

Edit: perhaps I'm not the only one doing this with some of his mid-month paycheck... I guess we'll see.

I read it and understand your point, but I can't say I agree or disagree with your course of action. The problem might just be that we don't raise enough money to save these species, not that we need to start kicking down doors because it's cheaper. I didn't reply because you gave me a lot to think about.

Correct. I don't care WHO is handling smallpox unsafely. However, I don't consider ignorance of the social norm to be any more excuse than ignorance of the law. If someone is going to mess around with Smallpox, they have a responsibility to inform themselves of how to properly contain it. Hopefully we would start with an angry email, but if I'm sure they've had their chance, I side with the angry mob.

I can't see how we would get past the angry mob stage, so every family owning Smallpox is a little too bizarre for me to imagine.

If I can feebly relate this to the topic: driving around unaware of the damage your pollution causes does not excuse it. Neither does denying that damage. I hold the ignorant morally accountable lest I encourage ignorance. I'm arguing for consequentialism: if ignorant accidental potential harm has the same consequences as wilful potential harm, they are morally equivalent.

But please correct me if this sounds wrong, I don't have much confidence in this reasoning.

Smallpox isn't the same threat model as global warming. We can afford to do an imperfect job on global warming for a few years (either with or without regulation), but one slip-up with smallpox screws everyone. Doing research without proper containment procedures is aggression - like pointing a loaded gun at our heads while you clean the trigger.

I don't have any philosophers to back me up, but I'd probably pay towards a bounty to incinerate Frederic's hypothetical specimen, property rights be damned. Maybe I'll eat those words soon enough. 

I'm still ignorant about those huge buy orders you previously posted about. Since you're willing to go off topic to pontificate, why not cleanse me of that sin, your holiness?

What I love is how she keeps rhetorically asking "who cares?" after several of us explained why we care.

BEWARE THIS SCAM. SHE WILL DELIVER GREAT PROFITS, GET YOU TO INVEST MORE, AND THEN SHE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR PREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR.

What problem does this solve? If divisibility is a problem BUT we're willing to modify the protocol, then why not make them more divisible?

If I'm understanding his position correctly, the society which values these species should offer to buy the land, buy enough specimens to relocate them, pay the landowner to change his destructive ways, or some other voluntary alternative.

This is kinda like the "wanting MORE pollution" thing; stopping at nothing to save all species may have worse consequences than letting some die.

Anyone who runs your executable should care who you are. I don't have questions about the system itself because the only question that matters - "how does it work?" - is deliberately kept secret. Every question about trust, which is critical for anonymous business, has been either dismissed or met with insults.