Oh... I always thought it was "policy" that keeps the "severely entrenched concentrations of wealth" that we have now. Capture of political discourse certainly plays a role in maintaining existing wealth. But wealth will always concentrate, and always seek to entrench itself. To someone who is interested in fighting that tendency (and I think you will find that that is most OWS protestors), an unregulated currency is a problem. The Dollar is a regulated currency... that doesn't seem to be working out all that well. |
|
|
|
Maybe if you are religious, you could say that certain rights are endorsed by the laws of nature and the laws of God? Otherwise, rights are things we create.
Hawker, you didn't answer my questions. Please do so in order to prevent hypocrisy.I have never espoused the view that rights are not things we create. Nice straw man though - "anyone who doesn't agree with my view must believe that God Did It". Why bother? I believe rights are things we create. You say the same. Even if we are wrong, does it really change the rights we actually have? Yes, we disagree on what the concept of "rights" means. You say that our rights are whatever scraps our respective governments deem fitting to gift to us. I say that our rights are a universal statement about how humans should interact with each other, and they come from the nature of social interaction. Nobody ever had a right to own human slaves, they just could. Just as a murderer doesn't have a right to murder, he just can. |
|
|
|
Maybe if you are religious, you could say that certain rights are endorsed by the laws of nature and the laws of God? Otherwise, rights are things we create.
Hawker, you didn't answer my questions. Please do so in order to prevent hypocrisy.I have never espoused the view that rights are not things we create. Nice straw man though - "anyone who doesn't agree with my view must believe that God Did It". |
|
|
|
Rights are legal creations and if the law changes, your rights change. Over the last few centuries, you've lost your right to own slaves and you've lost your right to torture animals but you've gained a right to abortion and if American you've gained a right to have a Miranda caution read you after being arrested and a right to have a free lawyer if arrested.
Who knows what rights people will and won't have in 300 years...all these things are very fluid.
So let me get this straight... people in some backwards-ass country in Africa have different rights than people in the United States merely because their country doesn't grant them those rights? So, if there was a country that did not "grant" its people the right to live, I could go there and kill anyone I wanted? If there was a country that did not "grant" its people the right to own property, I could go take their things? I wouldn't be violating anyone's rights, so it's not immoral behavior, correct? And maybe one day in the future, we will once again have the right to own slaves? |
|
|
|
Once again we will never see the SC Source released by CH, how ever I think in a few more days as more it is decompiled we will learn more on the inner working of Solidcoin. Decompilling source is messy to say the least but you can get an idea of the inner workings. Someone else said it first but I'll say it again. I would love to see the look on Coinhunter's face when BCX releases his source first LOL  Is there a thread for this, is it being discussed on IRC, or is it super secret? I'm interested in seeing the results. |
|
|
|
This should be easy for kids these days: (Regular money - bitcoin)
It should be easy. It is not. More important: It should be safe. It is not. Even more important: The employer should know how to send me Bitcoin. He does not. Absolutely essential: It should not be gone in case my hardware fails, my room mate catches a virus on a porn site, my cat chews the USB disc. A "real" bank usually does not lose money due to a IT issue. You can back up your wallet to any number of storage media, both online (Wuala, Dropbox, web mail, etc) or offline (USB drive, CD, paper, etc). In the case of the offline options, you can even put them in a safe or bank safety deposit box for extra security. You can encrypt the wallet before you do all this, for even more security. |
|
|
|
Why is the Occupy movement not immediately embracing bitcoin?
Probably because they have no idea it exist.
Don't be so sure. I'm across the pond so I can't be on Wall St. but the leftist ideology I share with a lot of the protestors is exactly why I believe so strongly in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the only solution to allow the people to truly monitor and regulate the wealth of the bankers. When all transactions can be observed and the total supply of money is limited the redistribution socialists like myself have been clamoring for can finally begin. The Government will not be able to sabotage the process anymore by printing unlimited money to give to the banks to cover their losses and falsely protect their wealth. How do you plan on redistributing the wealth of the rich to yourself? For that matter, if you think it is possible, what makes you think that they can't do the same to you? |
|
|
|
wait 3 hours for the blockchain to update your client You don't need to wait for the blockchain to download to receive money. As soon as you start Bitcoin you can create addresses, and you will even see incoming transactions appear right away. They just won't confirm until the appropriate block is downloaded. make sure your firewall has the port open Also not necessary, 8 connections is sufficient for average use. Ok now you gotta sign up for Dowalla, get an account and link it to your bank account it will deposit 2 charges in your bank account in a few days and then you have to verify those deposits with dowalla. Now you have to go on an exchange, like Mt. Gox or Tradehill and link your dowallah account and your bitcoin address from step one, and start bidding and paying for bitcoins. If you get any then you have to transfer the bitcoins from mt. gox to your personal bitcoin client.
Most exchanges don't accept Dwolla anymore due to the risk of "chargeback". If you're already talking to a protester about Bitcoins, why not just sell them some? So... mostly FUD. Designed to make it appear that a centralized solution (FlexCoin) is superior. |
|
|
|
That would only apply if there's only 1 supernode. If the protocol allows a maximum of 100 supernodes then 49% of the coins could elect up to 49 supernodes.
Doesn't that still mean that the others can perform a 51% supernode attack and probabilisticly rewrite the block chain at will? |
|
|
|
Possibly relevant to most of the free market/government intervention discussion: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...I'm sure the Libertarians will come to the conclusion that all of the problems listed (if they actually agree income disparity is a problem) are the result of government intervention. In the case of bitcoin, I'm not sure if the apparent disparity will really be a problem in the long run. The network (and markets based on it) are not able to distinguish between a hoarded Bitcoin and a lost bitcoin. The value of bitcoin will always be based on coins actually in circulation. The biggest risk is that some of the large holders suddenly decide to sell everything, crashing the price (by putting more coins in circulation). The profit-maximising hoarder would be wise to sell their coins as slowly as they can; unless they expect the value to eventually drop to zero (I think it will approach that within about 25 years, but not the near term). Selling coins puts them back in ciculation: likely spreading them out among more holders. Why do you consider mere income disparity to be a problem? Isn't the real problem HOW they earned their money (rent seeking behavior), not how much of it they earned? |
|
|
|
So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.
Can you do with my property as you wish? No. I see where you're going with this, but just because it's called intellectual property doesn't make it the same as property. Just as me calling you human property does not make you the same as actual property. |
|
|
|
But it is at least as accurate to say that no one makes art alone, or science, or anything else. Your programs would be useless without the inventors who applied the sciences of earlier peers to build computers. Do they have a claim on your income as well? How far down the rabbit hole does this lead?
Excellent point. For a great example of this concept, watch this video. Hawker, in case you missed it, this is the blog post which he is referencing (I think): http://indsovu.com/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=5I gave you this link earlier when you asked me "where do rights come from if not for law?" Also, I highly recommending perusing the following site at your leisure: http://questioncopyright.orgedit... One further link, expounding on the "all creative work is derivative" video: http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/all_creative_work_is_derivative |
|
|
|
Everything is capable of morphing into an argument for slavery. That doesn't really matter - slavery is not on the agenda here.
I "morphed" nothing. I replaced some nouns in your argument and that's it. You claim that IP law allows for the production of creative content, just as slavery proponents would argue that slavery allows for the production of cotton. Since you're making bold assertions, morph the non aggression principle into an argument for slavery. I'll wait. |
|
|
|
Guys.
the 'OTHER" is obviously the downed pools hashing power. everybody is still mining with them, it is just the front end that wont answer http calls.
I think you're right. If you look here, I think they tag blocks by known IP and they see all the big pools still generating blocks. |
|
|
|
Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_scienceHarm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies? As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed. Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done. "As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of cotton more than it wants slaves to be free, slavery is needed." I am not in any sense saying that IP is equivalent to or as great an evil as slavery. I am merely pointing out that one of the reasons I find your argument disagreeable is that it equally serves as a justification for slavery. Society used to have laws saying that owning human beings was an acceptable and normal practice. According to you, rights derive from laws. Thus, it was every man's right to own a human slave. So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick. |
|
|
|
I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research. But would you mind starting a thread for it? This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish. Yes - as it illustrates why society has a right to intervene to prevent harm. Sometimes a change of scenery is needed to make people see the bigger picture. So you make the claim that "society" gets to use violence to "prevent harm", yet any discussion on the definition of "society" or the determination of "harm" is off topic. gg |
|
|
|
I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research. But would you mind starting a thread for it? This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish. |
|
|
|
If you are in a pool which is down and are concerned about network security the best thing you can do is start mining. Either with another pool or solo. Anything to keep aggregate hashing power up. I don't think this is a 51% attack but everyone can treat it like a "fire drill".  This. If everyone mining in a pool switched to mining solo, the end result for network security (if not personal income) is the same, yes? |
|
|
|
I've met Iranians who married at 9 and they seem fine. But if that's their society. In our society, people are harmed and if you believe we have the right to intervene where harm is being done, we have a right to intervene to prevent child abuse.
How can sex harm a 9 year old in one society and not another? Surely then the harm comes from those who convince the child that they've been harmed?! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
