Being forced or sold into sex is not a decision the child him/herself makes, and is not right regardless of vhe age. This is a straw an that goes completely against everything libertarianis, and the whole idea of rights, stand for.
I don't think society should ever intervene if the decision was not coerced. And should always try to intervene if anything is coerced.
If little Tommy learns how to give blowjobs, and uses that to make some extra income for himself, I personally don't see that as being worse that little Tommy going around cutting peoples lawns with a lawnmower to make extra cash. Both jobs are dangerous, one just has a stupid sexual taboo associated with it.
Where do you think little Tommy should get his rights from, and why is him wanting to make money by giving blowjobs not a right he is allowed to have, if he does it willingly, consentually, and safely?
The question was about little Tommy's parents selling his services. Little Tommy's parents do not own him, he is not property. They have an obligation to prevent harm from coming to him until he is able to make rational decisions for himself. They are not justified in doing whatever they want with him. If Tommy doesn't like his parents, he can run away to someone that will take better care of him, or confront another individual with his problems and ask that they help him. In today's world, the only entity that is legally allowed to protect children in this way is the state. If you can keep your child abuse hidden from the state, or abuse your child in a way permitted by the state, there is no recourse available to the child or others. How is this a better system? |
|
|
|
With more advanced scripting accepted by the network, escrow can occur directly in the block chain, though some new partial transaction shipping protocols may be necessary.
Sounds interesting, can you give more details about how this would work? tl;dr Bitcoin could support a transaction that can be spent to either of 2 addresses, and must be signed by 2 of 3 parties in order to be spent. Either buyer + seller, buyer + mediator, seller + mediator can agree that the transaction should go back to the buyer, or to the seller. |
|
|
|
Lot of people choose things because of nice colors and people smiling in the advertisements, even bank products... The point is, the client itself has some innovation, for users and programmers...
Such as...? The mining console? That's more of a necessity (since the mining algorithm is closed). The wallet switching? Wow, someone can swap database files around, exciting! |
|
|
|
Do you really think he would bother to create an account to promote bitcoin anywhere ? In which universe are you living ?
I'm not a mind reader. I didn't see any other motive for you claiming to be RealSolid, other than that you were in fact RealSolid. |
|
|
|
My response is illustrating that rights are arbitrary creations. Are rights arbitrary, or are they granted by the Magna Carta? Do you even care about consistency? So you are OK with sex between a 12 year old and and a 50 year old.
How low do you accept the age of consent going?
How are the decisions of some arbitrary 12 and 50 year old any of my concern? The only people that should have a say in what the 12 year old does are his parents, until the point that he is able to make rational decisions of his own accord. If both he and they determine that he is ready for a sexual relationship with a 50 year old, how is it any of your business? |
|
|
|
Your analogy doesn't work because Microsoft's products are closed source. We have to rely on them to fix bugs. BTC is open source. We don't need a proof of concept attack, you can simply provide a fix to the code.
I agree good software will evolve, but I really don't think most of what BCX is doing contributes to that. BCX's methods are childish. The proof of concept was GG. Everything after has just been big kid on the block crap. DDOS attacks? These are not helpful to evolution of software. Taking bribes to not attack chains? Really? Terrorism is a scary word, but it effectively describes the methods. He attacks anyone who tries to improve on the current BTC code.
SolidCoin is closed source too... I think casually tossing around the world terrorism is more an act of terrorism than exploiting code. Seriously? Terrorism? What the fuck. |
|
|
|
"Rights come from our human ability to reason, to understand logic, and to be able to for see series of logical events."
Really? So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage. How do you decide between them?
*facepalm* Your response has nothing to do with his statement. If you want to refute the idea that rights come from our ability to reason, explain where they come from, don't ask a ridiculous question. The answer of course is "it's none of your (or anyone else's) fucking business when someone decides they are ready to have sex". |
|
|
|
How can people test out theories on working blockchains if bitcoin is the only one running? Its a wonderful sign of bitcoin's strength that people wish to imitate it or try to surpass it with different implementations. Its a form of R&D if you think about it. I mean people crash perfectly good cars into walls with crash test dummies inside them all the time.
Without research and innovation you get stagnation and death.
Are you or are you not RealSolid/CoinHunter, as you previously stated here? |
|
|
|
Why does the BTC community support what essentially equates to cyber terrorism? Just because he hasn't attacked BTC, he's a good terrorist? Patriot? What happens when the BTC community wrongs him somehow and he points his "mass resources" and "Industry connections" at the BTC network? If he's really a "good" guy, he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. Right now he's just a kid with a magnifying glass deciding which ants get to live.
Exploits often are overlooked and not fixed unless they are first exploited. He has been very open about his attacks, so I don't see a problem. If he openly attacked Bitcoin, I would feel the same way. If it cannot withstand an attack by one individual who does so openly, it is not worth protecting. |
|
|
|
Magna Carta is the extent of my historical knowledge. The English state was established in 1066 and there were essentially no rights before Magna Carta. The 1100s were a time of particular cruelty as the Normans set about subjugation of the Saxons. You're talking about is. Rights are about ought. That is, the right to free speech means that I ought not be restricted from freely speaking, not that I can't be restricted from doing so. Do you disagree with this statement? Do you agree with that?
rights come from law Not really, not in the sense that I think you mean. Rights are human creations Yes. This is also the reason that I believe they do not apply to other animals. They are not written in the stars Yes. If there is a God, there is no evidence he created immutable rights Yes. |
|
|
|
The rest are easy questions - where do you live? Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta. I'm sure your country has something similar. I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on. In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.
So you're saying humans living in a geographic region without something like the Magna Carta have no rights? Humans living before the Magna Carta had no rights? I'm saying that rights come from law. Rights are human creations. They are not written in the stars. If there is a God, there is no evidence he created immutable rights. But you just said that your rights come from the Magna Carta. Which means that if there was no Magna Carta (as there is not in other parts of the world), you would have no rights. Is that not correct? |
|
|
|
The rest are easy questions - where do you live? Here in the UK those rights are in the Human Rights Act but can be traced back to Magna Carta. I'm sure your country has something similar. I'm not sure where you get the idea that we get more rights as time goes on. In the UK, we are losing freedom every year through anti-terrorism legislation and "health and safety" legislation.
So you're saying humans living in a geographic region without something like the Magna Carta have no rights? Humans living before the Magna Carta had no rights? |
|
|
|
SC2 is pretty fun to play,
sure the difficulty isn't as great as the original as they've simplified the controls
but it's easier to learn and just as hard to master.
My only complaints about SC2 is it has no lan support.
Uhh... not sure what you mean here but if you are referring to say setting up your own little mini-pool on your lan, then yes you can. See solidcointalk.org or the IRC channel for help with that as I personally don't use it. EPIC FAIL. Corrected it for you. SC2 = StarCraft 2 So... yeah, epic fail as in *WHOOSH* |
|
|
|
for me, the main point why this is not a problem is, that those top .1% aren't able to rig the bitcoin-game (like in the real world economics)
Exactly. There is no centralized power structure to manipulate. There is one exception, and that is the development team, but that is only barely centralized (open source contribution), and perfectly transparent (open source code), so I'm not too worried. |
|
|
|
So for sub-chains, you could presumably mine against any number of forks (at least, it doesn't strike me as immediately obvious that you could not), but not for Bitcoin. Someone correct me if I am wrong but namecoin is included in BTC block chain by using the coinbase field which is limited to 100 bytes. Namecoin "header" in coinbase field uses 49 bytes making it impossible to fit 2+ complete namecoin hashes + BTC extra nonce value. Also not sure if namecoin algorithm is flexible enough to accept BTC hashes where namecoin header "out of posistion". I believe (but haven't verified) even if you included 2 namecoin hashes in the coinbase field the network wouldn't see the second one as valid. Ah, I was not aware of that. Sounds like you're right and I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
One very special implication:
* What if I receive a fork at my miner now? Until now I decide which one I mine for. It might turn out I mined for the wrong one when a follow up block gets found for the other one first. With merged mining I can just mine for both and if I find a block, announce it for both chains, just in case. This can go on for 20 forks and so on. Prepare to see very long living forks! If I'm right with my conclusions, we will need some mechanism to counter this chain pollution.
Merged mining only works on block chains that are set up as a slave to another chain's master. Namecoin uses Bitcoin as a master, but Bitcoin has no master. So for sub-chains, you could presumably mine against any number of forks (at least, it doesn't strike me as immediately obvious that you could not), but not for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Prove that I am CoinHunter or withdraw your comment.
The fact BitcoinExpress was banned from the forum says everything really about the quality of the accusations some forum members like to bandy around.
I am CoinHunter in the same way kangaroos jump down the main street of Sydney.
You did say you are RealSolid here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47303.msg562956#msg562956Isn't RealSolid the same as CoinHunter? Where did you go, BitcoinMedia? Did you forget that you claimed to be RealSolid in that thread? I'll quote it for posterity. |
|
|
|
The difficulty now is 8800 more than doubled!
Based on the Coinotron statistics, it looks like block generation is about 22 seconds per block? I guess double that if every other block is diff 1. Is the 90 second (?) target average for only the odd numbered blocks, or all blocks? |
|
|
|
I can gaurantee you that bitcoinexpress is lying about his SC holdings because of the people who have told me what they made mining on the first day. All the biggest miners I know of made more than 60% of it. Leaving the smaller miners to take their share and then possibly whatever this guy thinks he got.
He doesn't have a significant holding of SC, ask him to prove it and he'll be unable to. Simply ask him to move SC around on the network so we can see it's under his control. Won't happen, like I've said.
So now the biggest miners hold 60% of the coins, eh? I guess throw that fairness right out the window. Weren't we promised that unlike bitcoin, solidcoin distribution will be more fair? And what's up with you attacking Lolcust for 7.7 mil premine when YOU premined 13 mil? Sure you claimed it's locked up in the code. Where's the source code? With no source code available, CH could remove the client's restriction on trusted address spending, get everyone to upgrade, and go to town. Unlike with Bitcoin, users would have no recourse as they can't build their own version with that restriction in place. |
|
|
|
"Before you respond, I realize that you cannot imagine any alternatives to killing people in libertarian land for not abiding by your contracts. It's not your fault, it's the way you were brought up."
If you insist, I will do the hard thinking for you. Reputation. Shunning. No murder necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
