|
202
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
|
on: October 19, 2011, 01:23:40 PM
|
Because you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that data isn't property, so that any business model based upon the use of force to treat data as property is fundamentally unjust.
In an analogous way, humans are not property, so any business model based upon the use of force to treat humans as property is fundamentally unjust. |
|
|
|
|
205
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
|
on: October 19, 2011, 05:57:16 AM
|
In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.
Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it. Copying a very large number only deprives the legitimate "finder" of his claim to control the use of it. Why does the finder deserve to dictate the ways in which the number he found is used? While useful numbers may be scarce, copies of the number are not. For something to be scarce, it means that no more than one person can use it to their full desire at any time. A lawnmower is scarce because we cannot both mow our lawns with it. However, if I could make a copy of your lawnmower, we could both mow our lawns simultaneously. How are you being harmed that you get to dictate that I cannot use the copy of your lawnmower? This is what renders all small numbers generally uncopyrightable - say numbers less than 2^1000. At least you admit that it's completely fucking arbitrary. Also, please don't forget to respond to my above posts (1 (the first two parts) and 2), unless you enjoy being a hypocrite. |
|
|
|
|
207
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
|
on: October 19, 2011, 04:54:44 AM
|
If the recipient uses the information in the white cube, they will become aware of what it is, at which point, they should question the legality of it by researching its source. We do not live in a world in which individuals are generally not aware of such things, and it will take some significant demonstration on the recipient's part to demonstrate their ignorance of such things.
What the fuck? Not worth answering. Argue against it if you can. It doesn't even make any sense to me. Can you rephrase? |
|
|
|
|
208
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Ideas for a Bitcoin 2.0
|
on: October 19, 2011, 04:52:32 AM
|
It is not standing very well... If it wants to become a major currency, it needs to keep increasing in price by leaps and bounds, like 10x per quarter, or at least 100x per year, otherwise there will not be enough total value in the currency to have much of a global-scale impact any time in the next few years.
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
If the price is falling, that means people who are interested can buy in at lower prices, and people who aren't interested are giving up their coins. If in fact those always-scary early adopters are cashing out now, all the better, as their "hoarded" bitcoins will be distributed to new blood. No, the price does not need to keep increasing by leaps and bounds. That's not for you to decide, but the market. If you think the point of Bitcoin is to constantly rise in price, why the hell should we listen to what you think Bitcoin 2.0 should be? |
|
|
|
|
209
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
|
on: October 19, 2011, 04:35:31 AM
|
Yes. First, you're in violation, as you have indicated. Agreed. Standard contract law, as enforced by various state and non-state systems of law. Second, upon copying the contents of the white cube, you violated my property. That does not follow. We agree that I have violated our agreement, you have not demonstrated that I've violated your property. If the recipient uses the information in the white cube, they will become aware of what it is, at which point, they should question the legality of it by researching its source. We do not live in a world in which individuals are generally not aware of such things, and it will take some significant demonstration on the recipient's part to demonstrate their ignorance of such things.
What the fuck? |
|
|
|
|
210
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
|
on: October 19, 2011, 04:33:19 AM
|
Also, from a moral standpoint, none of you against intellectual property rights have any case. This is easy to demonstrate. If you wish to think philosophically about it, then become familiar with The Library of Babel and its ramifications, which I have mentioned a few posts back.
How about you paraphrase the important parts? |
|
|
|
|
212
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
|
on: October 19, 2011, 04:12:57 AM
|
Is this the post you're referring to? (I have no way of knowing since you won't do the courtesy of being specific) Let's say I sell you a black cube, 3" on a side with 1/4" thick walls. Inside the black cube is a white cube, 2 1/2" on a side, with 1/4" thick walls. Although I have sold you the black cube, I have specifically stated that the sale does not grant you ownership of the white cube or its contents. However, by virtue of taking possession of the black cube, I give you permission to transport the white cube where you wish, but I do not give you permission to inspect the contents of the white cube, as it is my property. Do you have any disagreement with this?
I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell.
If I then make a copy of the black cube and its contents and give the copy to someone else, I have indeed violated the terms of our contract, but they have done nothing of the sort. If they then make further copies and give them to others, they still have done nothing wrong. Pretty soon, everyone in the world has a black cube with a white cube inside and none of them are bound by your agreement. Problem? |
|
|
|
|
216
|
Bitcoin / Press / Re: Bitcoin press hits, notable sources
|
on: October 19, 2011, 03:17:16 AM
|
apparently $2.31 is 'almost parity'... how to these journalists even get jobs? Not to mention that the "cost of production" varies based on the hardware used and cost of electricity, there's not one static cost. |
|
|
|
|
217
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Ideas for a Bitcoin 2.0
|
on: October 19, 2011, 02:48:27 AM
|
It sounds like you want to create a fork of the block chain with different rules. Why do you think it necessary to call your rules Bitcoin while the original rules (what is essentially Bitcoin)
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
Well, it's a somewhat bigger deal than that, because for the new rules to make sense, there would have to be a process to verify the real-world identities of users signing the price-floor contracts, so that the contracts could be potentially enforceable in the courts. Setting up such a process requires a fair bit of new infrastructure, and so it is probably not going to happen unless a large share of the community gets behind it. I'm saying that we should all get behind such a system, because if we don't, then I'd say it is likely that interest in Bitcoin will continue to just gradually peter out, as it seems to have been doing since June... One of the benefits of bitcoin is the pseudo-anonymous nature. If you tie each address to a real world identity, anybody can inspect the block chain and see where my money goes or comes from. No thanks, that's even less privacy than the current banking system! If your idea cannot survive on its own, then it is not meant to be. |
|
|
|
|
218
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [BIZ] [IDEA] [RFC] International cash transfer via a Bitcoin-based network
|
on: October 18, 2011, 09:00:23 PM
|
|
Every now and then I sit down and try figure out a scheme by which bitcoins can easily be purchased (on a large scale) quickly, safely, and easily with digital fiat currencies.
Every time I've done this, I inevitably come to the conclusion that if it were quick, safe, and easy to do, bitcoin probably wouldn't exist.
Best of luck to you if you can figure out how to solve these problems.
|
|
|
|
|
220
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Media : Bitcoin is Done
|
on: October 18, 2011, 08:23:43 PM
|
And last time I checked Bitcoin is more than twice as valuable as the dollar.
Oh, sure, 1BTC is currently worth $2.5. Of course, that's no comfort at all the vast majority of people who initially bought bitcoins after May. In that case they have less value now than they spent. And the U.S. housing and stock markets? Are those "done" too? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
