That is of course an interesting problem to solve. It would require keeping a national database with biometric data (actually the EU kind of has one - most of the passports nowadays are biometric).
Don't you find this idea a bit repulsing? Can't you see it basically consist in treating humans as cattle? |
|
|
|
That's a pretty awesome idea actually!
Thanks. However, it's technically difficult and I'm not even sure it is possible. I think it is, but until someone actually implements it, nobody really knows. |
|
|
|
Fair enough, I don't think I do, as it seems you were anything but lazy in earning those 10 years off. What do you generally do with your time now? Is there anything you do that would otherwise be considered productive? You don't have to be, of course, I'm just curious what your plan was for 10 years (if there was one), and whether you were sticking to it.
I'm sorry I can't answer your questions. It's just too personal. What I can tell you is that I think I'd probably not be aware of bitcoin right now, had I been keeping on doing that job. Sometimes I happy I did quit, just because of that. You earned that time off yourself, but would you have been getting this income while you were working, you'd still be getting it now and would been able to achieve the same thing you're doing now anyway with a slightly higher quality of life. If the economy was that awesome anyway, then the same should happen provided you're needed for something.
I'm not sure you get my point. Right now I don't do much but at least I don't cost society anything. Were your proposal to be implemented, I wonder how many people would immediately quit their job and start leaving on other people's work and money. |
|
|
|
What would you do if this happened tomorrow? Would you continue working or quit your job? Why?
That's a funny question, since I did actually quit my job four years ago. Once I gathered enough money so I would not need to work in the next ten years, I just stopped working. So I can actually answer your question without any "if". In a sense, I'm a living proof that this basic income is not a good idea. You should not underestimate people's laziness. |
|
|
|
How is what I described charity?
Ok, ok... Group behavior then? You mean that I would accept to work for others mainly because that's what people around me do? |
|
|
|
Please explain what you mean by "peer pressure".
There's probably a better word for it, but by peer pressure I mean: the presence or influence any human(s), causing someone to act without a necessary reward save recognition or acceptance by the peer(s). Oh... you meant "charity". It's ok. I'm fine with working for other people and buying them stuff, as long as I don't have to. |
|
|
|
your proposal involves forking the blockchain for your cause. There may be other causes more valuable to society over time (which will constantly change). One thing we all agree has value is a device that can store our productive output in a unit to be transferred to others for their productive output.
No fork. A brand new chain used as a secondary, alternate cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
Uhhhh, the sha-256 computation secures the blockchain, kind of important
My proposal consists in doing both: securing the block chain while folding molecules. |
|
|
|
The only reason for this is money though. If any of the other programs offered money as a reward for computing at the rate bitcoin does, they'd be taking a large chunk out. Makes you think of how greedy people are  haha And it's also a pity. Might be an opportunity for me to advert for my proposal about folding molecules instead of computing sha-256: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108888.0 |
|
|
|
...
No. It is really much more complicated than that.
Money is really not just some tool invented to motivate people. This basic income concept is not just some moral issue.
...
Sorry but imho money is exactly that or, at the very least, has been turned into just that. Well, to motivate someone you can give him a reward. It doesn't have to be money. It's basically anything that has value. The thing is, in a highly interpenetrated economy, money is the most efficient way to transfer value, so it did indeed become the simplest way to reward a human being. But as you say it only has been turned as such. To me, more important is that it's a way to measure value in a decentralized way. If I exchange a commodity against money and I notice that suddenly I need more money to get a certain amount of this commodity, then, because I know the global amount of money in existence is globally stable, it has to mean that somehow the availability of the commodity has decreased. The price of the commodity is therefore a measure of its availability. This price signal is an economic information that I can use to induce some changes in my economic behavior. |
|
|
|
If we can avoid destroying ourselves to get robots reproducing, and benevolent, smarter AI than what we are, tech should have advanced to the point where: Energy = whatever you want. The Sun is spewing out a massive amount of radiation energy in all directions all the time...what a waste! Eventually we should be able to effectively black out the sun on all vectors apart from inhabited planets via perfect absorption. It's not infinite, but it's a lot more than what the Earth could ever hope to contain, and could easily support a certain figure of humans until it dies. The stars and laws of physics will be doing all of the work, so humans don't have to - in that sense, it's so cheap as to basically be free, but never technically. The cost may be as little as asking an AI to do something, and keeping the knowledge around of how it all works.
The scale of energy production is probably the same as the scale of energy demand. All civilizations on the Kardashev scale probably have the same energy issues. Otherwise they would not develop such elaborated devices to extract energy. To determine price, what matters is the ratio between offer/demand, not the absolute value of the offer. Edit. I just realize this contradicts what I wrote earlier. Oh well. The point of the OP is not that everything should be free, it's that certain things that are necessary for life but very easy to now produce can be paid for by those who are motivated by peer pressure, if the land/manufacturing is productive enough. If only 10 people in a whole country are motivated by peer pressure and can't produce enough for everyone, then people will still be forced to work anyway and this is largely irrelevant. This is, incidentally, a major reason of why I believe communism failed (along with all the crazy). On the other hand, if 10 people working and 10 in training is all it takes to produce all the food/shelter/clothing/entertainment/all the wants of an entire planet, the OP is just a simpler system of organizing what's going to happen anyway.
Please explain what you mean by "peer pressure". |
|
|
|
changing the protocol to allow nodes to accept blocks containg EG 50 decimals is not something one can do alone on ones own system as the other users will still be using the bitcoin standard protocol,
so it would have to be a world wide change that affects every person.... basically getting everyone to download a new client and stop using the old one.
while your at it.. call it BBBBBBBitcoin as its no longer the 8decimal coin we use now.
thats not breaking a satoshi.. thats called inventing a new currency
That may create a fork indeed. A consensus would be required. But the idea of allowing the code to behave differently depending on the height of the block was mentioned by Satoshi himself on this forum, iirc. |
|
|
|
Basically it boils down to this:
Do you want to have people motivated out of fear for their own survival so that they produce enough (& continue the GDP train)?
Or do you want to have people driven by their desire to build something new, beautiful, amazing?
No. It is really much more complicated than that. Money is really not just some tool invented to motivate people. This basic income concept is not just some moral issue. To answer your question, I do want people to be driven by their desire to build amazing stuff. I just don't think a basic income is a way to realize that. In a nutshell, I think it would just not work and that the corresponding currency would quickly get no value whatsoever. |
|
|
|
i love seeing when people spasm at theories of relativity, time and worm holes trying to argue they know best without putting any practical testing into such theories. but your missing the fundamental point,
when mining the blockchain. if you managed to mess around with a block to make it 50 decimals long for instance. giving it back to the chain it would get rejected,
and as its only a 'copy' of a block other nodes have, it will just get forgotten about as if it never happened.. REJECTED basically
no loss, but your time in trying.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the protocol would necessarily have to proceed blocks differently, depending on the height of the block in the block chain. |
|
|
|
True, but time is also a nearly unlimited resource. I suppose the Universe may eventually suffer heat death. But again, these fundamental limits won't matter for billions of years.
Jeez, this discussion is silly but what the heck. Time is not an unlimited resource. At all. Especially if you travel interstellar space at relativistic speed. Your proper time will tell you that you've spent a year, but the solar system you left may have seen centuries pass away. Cosmologists now think the future of the universe will be a deep freeze. So if you spend too much time gathering stuff in the universe, you'll end up in an almost empty, deadly cold universe. |
|
|
|
The entire Universe is a resource. Sure, resources are finite. But it will be billions of years before we run up against that limit. Until then, it's just a cost/benefit kind of thing.
Speed of light is limited. So even in a infinite universe, you'll have to wait a bit to get the desired amount of the thing you want if you have to fetch it by yourself. So people might have to buy some to their neighbors if they don't want to wait. Also, heavy elements in the universe are pretty scarce. |
|
|
|
Even in such a world, there would still be demand for "real" humans. It's just the nature of the beast.
Well, you can just build a clone with an artificial uterus or something  |
|
|
|
Such an automated world will create demand again for human interaction. Some will prefer human barkeepers and human care at the spa, and will look for a new quality of in the fields of arts, culture, music, and more we can't foresee yet.
If you want to push the science-fiction hypothesis to the extreme, you have to consider a world where robots can be indistinguishable from humans.  And there is nothing, at least theoretically, preventing AI to perform as well as a human in art, culture, music and all. |
|
|
|
Making noise to attract attention is a relatively safe way to deal with divergence of opinion. Either you attract enough attention to change things or you don't and it fades away. It may be annoying when you disagree but's it's much better than the way they deal with divergence of opinion in many parts of the world today. I mean literally today where the Chinese are burning Japanese cars and factories, and the Muslims are killing US embassy workers. I think we should be grateful that here, for the most part, protest takes a noisy but subdued form.
Ok, that's a valid point. |
|
|
|
You're missing out on one very important point: Resources are not infinite.
True. Indeed I forgot about that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
