There is only one major change I would make.

You can't really use Bitcoins to "buy or sell just about anything", at least not in the way most people will think. You can probably find someone to buy you just about anything, and then you pay them in Bitcoins, but you can't buy the thing yourself.

goatpig, I think you should give in on this point. First of all, it seems rather tangential to the discussion, second... you're either wrong or this argument is meaningless.


Common != rigorous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter#Protons.2C_neutrons_and_electrons_definition

It's not really as scary as it sounds.

It was originally thought of as a way to protect citizens against corrupt government officials. The idea is that the more corrupt an official, the more people that will want him dead. An assassination market is simply a site that allows individuals to guess the date on which an individual will die. Each guess costs some amount of anonymous money (Bitcoin, in our case), and people can contribute to the growing pot without actually guessing too. As the pool grows, there is more and more incentive for a lone individual or group to expedite the death of the individual. Since it happens at a time and place of their choosing, they can be almost certain that they will win the pool.

The originator of the idea foresaw it not only being used domestically against dirty state officials, but leaders of aggressive foreign nations. For instance, if the Northeast United States seceded and became an anarchist society, they could rely on individuals to form a militia, or private defense agencies for protection from aggressive nations. However, they could also use the assassination market to protect themselves. What are the chances that a leader of a country will authorize an attack on the anarchist society if he knows it will bring a substantial bounty on his head?

Which law? Of which country?

That makes no sense. Prices are falling dute to deflation, so food and shelter is no problem. The interest rate on the loan is 0 or negative, since the creditor will be repaid in BTC with more purchasing power, and is easier to repay. Also, person y probably has been saving money for a while (since deflation causes hoarding, right?) and has enough to get by.

I was impressed by the TED video too. Have you considered that your position is self contradictory?


Is threatening someone with the use of physical violence as a response to their disregard of your supposed right to intellectual property the "minimum force needed to repel the attack", and "only as a last resort"?


Using actual or threatened force to prevent an individual from making use of their property on the basis that you own an idea isn't morally right. So not rightful claim.


The definition of aggression is "initiation of the use of force". Theft is an act of aggression because it deprives the owner use of the property. Unauthorized copying does not deprive the original owner of the original, nor the ability to create additional copies; without further justification it cannot be considered an act of aggression.


"Disobey civilly or we'll have to kill you!"

WTF. Yes, of course.

One could start a profitable slave trade business. Would that make such a business moral?

There's always the cutout method. Each exchange customer opens a bank account, sends one ATM card to the exchange operator and keeps the other. To send money to the exchange, the customer deposits into the account and notifies the exchanger. To withdraw money, the customer notifies the exchanger and then withdraws from the account.

Doesn't scale super well, but it could be that the "exchanger" is a BIG exchanger and the "customer" is a more regional exchanger, who then deals with individuals.

Hm, that's interesting, I'll have to think about that for a while. My first impression is that it would be the digital equivalent of kidnapping.

My turn.

Imagine you can create exact copies of physical objects as easily as we can copy information. Am I violating your property rights by making an exact copy of your car? How about making a copy of a car on the lot at a dealership? Does it seem like anyone attempting to operate a business with the model of selling something so easily copyable is a fool?

My first question was "Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?" and your first answer was "No". Am I misunderstanding something?


By this same logic... when slavery was legal, a slave that ran away was aggressing against his master, who had a rightful claim the slave ignored. Do you agree with this? If not, what's the difference?


I don't know about you, but if armed men come to my house and threaten me with imprisonment, I consider that an act of aggression. I never agreed to the terms you placed upon the use of your idea.

Can two or more people make exclusive use of a bed? No.

Can two or more people make exclusive use of a copy of the blueprints? Yes.

The more cards you (and others) buy, the faster we find the next 2016 blocks, the higher the difficulty becomes, the more difficult it is to find new blocks, the less money you will make (compared to projections), and the longer it will take to pay off your initial investment.

At what point does visiting a web site become immoral? If I visit it once per minute, second, millisecond? A denial of service is fundamentally no different than normal web traffic, just at a much higher volume.

The way I read your answers, it appears that you feel an individual does not have the right to defend himself from aggression. This is equivalent to stating that individuals do not have a right to live. Is this what you believe?

Based on this interpretation of my answers, here is how I see the situation playing out.

I infringe on your copyright. When you find out, you respond by notifying me of the fine you have levied. Since I don't agree that I have done anything wrong, I ignore the fine. In response, you send men with guns to my house to extract the fine by force if necessary. Seeing this as an invasion and threat to my life, I defend myself from the men, killing some and driving the rest off.

This is where it gets confusing, because you have stated both that I do not have the right to defend myself, but also that they do not have the right to kill me. Only one of us can be the aggressor, who is it?

As far as your question, bitcoin2cash answered it the same way I would have.

@free speech
Is it immoral to follow someone around in public places and yell louder than they can, drowning them out?

I'm really not sure how I feel about denials of service. I opposed the one on Wikileaks, supported the one on Visa/Mastercard, and oppose the one on MtGox. Depending on the target and motivation of the denying party, I can go either way...

I have no problem with social structures that afford protection or facilitate dispute resolution. In fact these things are necessary and are what I think you refer to as "means of governing itself". Most people believe or assume that the state, which requires a monopoly on aggression, is the only way to provide those services. I believe this to be incorrect, and attempt to persuade people that it is possible to provision law and law enforcement in a manner that is not inherently violent.

I wouldn't say definitely, at least not in all cases.

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6081.0

Continuing to run currently owned mining hardware is definitely good, as long as your electricity costs are covered. Purchasing new mining hardware is... not so clear. You might make a profit, you might not even break even. Make sure to take difficulty increases into account when doing any calculations.


5970 is still the top dog. As far as I know, it hashes faster than the 6990 and it more efficient.

If you support the use of force against individuals that make use of your ideas against your will, you ultimately support killing them.

Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?

Do you think you have the right to fine me for infringing on your copyright?

Do you think you have the right to send armed men to my house if I don't pay your fine?

Do you think those men have the right to kill me if I defend myself against them?

Can you answer my question regarding a world where physical goods are as easy to copy as intellectual goods? Does it make sense that the above escalation of force is justified if I copy your lawnmower?