I believe that we have a right to choose as a society. If you seek a change that takes that choice away, you need to convince the majority of people its a good idea. Otherwise a minority could argue they want slavery back and you'd be saying we should listen to them. Except IP law removes my choice of how to use my property because you say that you have a greater claim to your idea than I do to my property. "IP law allows for the production of movies that I like" = "slavery allows for the production of cotton that I like" You're making multitudes of logical fallacies, the main ones being... Just because movies you like are made with IP law doesn't mean the only way movies you like can be made is with IP law. Just because something is currently accepted by society, doesn't mean it is right, good, or moral. See: slavery. The Greeks couldn't even imagine a society without slavery, it doesn't change the fact slavery is immoral. |
|
|
|
Not directly, but you could create a "1 BTC per 10 blocks" unencrypted pool, which has an upper limit of 1 BTC balance, and the client will attempt to "refill" it 10 blocks after its balance decreases.
To send, you would have to provide your $key if sending from an encrypted pool. To refill, you would also have to provide your $key if refilling from an encrypted pool.
IF someone used it on a client that ignored the rules then they simply would send all they wanted from your main account (assuming the have the password). You can't enforce rules on a client that is compromised and for good security you should assume the client is compromised. Then only way to have any meaningful security is if you could push rules to the network and the network (i.e. miners) would reject transactions that violate the rules. In that case compromising the client wouldn't do you any good. If I have an outstanding rule that no more than 1 BTC from address x can be spent per block then the network would reject any transactions in excess of it. Encryption is good for keeping secrets. It isn't good for making rules. Trying to use encryption for the wrong task only create the illusion of security. You can't implement security into the client. You should assume the hacker has their own client and your wallet.dat. For higher security you should also assume the attacker has any password you have typed. This is why a checking account vs saving account model would provide some limited security. If you haven't typed your saving's account password since the computer was compromised then damage is limited to your checking account. I think you misunderstand my proposal. The pools are secure, they each can have a different password/passphrase/hardware token. The rule based refilling of pools is merely for ripper's convenience. If the attacker acquires the wallet.dat, all they would be able to do without the correct $keys is to steal any bitcoins in the unencrypted pool(s). |
|
|
|
The fact that it needed more than that to break even gives you a clue how important box office sales are. Without that $27 million, the makers would have taken a loss. To beat a dead horse... "The fact that it needed more than that to break even gives you a clue how important slavery is. Without those cotton sales, the plantation owners would have taken a loss." Anyway, with respect, you have no right to impose your tastes on the rest of the world. People freely choose what movies to watch and and any replacement to the current system has to still allow that freedom. Otherwise, its not an improvement.
Yet, because of your taste for "hollywood movies" (the current system), you believe it is right to impose IP law on others. Hypocritical much? |
|
|
|
This is true. However, I don't see how this could be used to implement smarter policies like "Don't spend more than 1 BTC per 10 blocks from this pool". I might be shortsighted though.
Not directly, but you could create a "1 BTC per 10 blocks" unencrypted pool, which has an upper limit of 1 BTC balance, and the client will attempt to "refill" it 10 blocks after its balance decreases. To send, you would have to provide your $key if sending from an encrypted pool. To refill, you would also have to provide your $key if refilling from an encrypted pool. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think such changes to the protocol are necessary. Here's how a client could implement something like what you suggest, but with real encryption rather than just client side password protection.
For the purposes of this post, "key" = the private EC key that Bitcoin uses to sign transactions, "$key" = password, passphrase, or other encryption key used to decrypt a Bitcoin "key"
A wallet is broken up into multiple pools of keys. Each pool can have a different $key with which all of its keys are encrypted. Your daily use pool may not be encrypted at all for quick transactions. Your intermediate pool(s) may require increasingly complex passwords. Your super secure saving pool may require a hardware token on which a $key is stored.
I like the idea that even while using a password or passphrase, in the background a public/private $keypair is used to do actual encryption of the key. Rather like GPG encrypts your private keys with a passphrase, this would allow more flexibility in the use of pools. For instance, when you generate a new receiving address, you could assign it to a secure pool without having to enter the passphrase or insert the hardware token.
|
|
|
|
Actually by the time of the Civil War, the abolition of slavery in the West Indies by the British had proved that paying wages worked just fine Just as the use of alternative methods of film financing proves that IP laws are not necessary in order to finance films. so your analogy is historically inaccurate. Only if you believe that the abolition of slavery in the West Indies convinced everyone that slavery was no longer necessary. However, even if it was actually accurate, you would still be labouring under the delusion that because one group of people got one issue wrong once, then everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Incorrect. The form the analogy takes is this: X is a social institution that is argued, by those to which it is beneficial, to be necessary for the greater good of all X is known to not actually be necessary, and in fact detrimental to a much larger group So, wrong on the facts and wrong on the logic. I find it hilarious that you lecture me about logic. Lets see what kind of films get made by your ideas and if they compare to Hollywood. Its one of those "proof of the pudding is in the eating" situations. Have you heard of independent films? How about the Sundance Film Festival? You make this too easy, really. |
|
|
|
|
The very simple solution to this is for people to move away from pools that do not officially support merged mining. This will put pressure on the pools that do not (and perhaps are "cheating") to officially support it.
Problem solved.
Also, could this discrepancy not be explained by merged solo miners?
|
|
|
|
Nice ideas. And they don't need an either/or approach. If they take off, IP laws are not needed for movies. If they don't, then some other transmission mechanism is needed for cash to movie makers before we remove IP protection.
"Nice ideas. And they don't need an either/or approach. If they take off, slavery is not needed for cotton. If they don't, then some other picking mechanism is needed for cash to cotton growers before we remove slavery." |
|
|
|
To make a decent movie costs millions of dollars.  I can't help but notice you fail to provide a way for the movie maker to get paid. as just one, currently implemented example. Does this count as a "West Indies" example? Does it show that IP law is not necessary in order for movie creators to get paid for their movies? Direct Bitcoin donations as another. Imagine, in the credits, a QR code pops up and says "If you liked this movie, please send a Bitcoin donation to the encoded address." |
|
|
|
...snip...
I'm sure you've figured out how people like Hawker and FirstAscent operate by now. They don't put forth complete ideas. They demand that you explain an entire system for them and then they will fire off a few objections from the top of their head that are either trivial to fix or live with. When you overcome all of their objections or point out how minor they are they'll just say something like "it's not that simple, educate yourself" or "you need to explain why society should change for you". They clearly aren't here to think but rather they are here to justify and rationalize their preexisting beliefs.
You agreed with me earlier in the thread that the movie industry depends on IP law but you thought that we should accept the loss of movies as a price worth paying for increased liberty. Is that still the case? There's your logical fallacy again. Just because the current movie industry depends on IP, doesn't mean that without IP movies won't be made. Just as the (at the time) current cotton picking industry depended on slavery, but the end of slavery didn't mean the end of cotton. |
|
|
|
Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.
Stop with the straw man. You're the only one (in this discussion) that thinks movies, consumer brands, and product research can only be accomplish through IP law. To preempt you... "Cotton can't be picked without slavery! If you want to get rid of slavery, you have to give me a good reason why we should do without cotton!" |
|
|
|
I recommend taking the advice on this page into account. I like evoorhees' bit, but it may not work very well in the format. Why not just announce that Bitcoin is a money not controlled by large financial and government interests, and anyone who wishes to learn more about it should meet at X place and Y time? |
|
|
|
And there you have it. We don't agree. Luckily we live in a democracy so you are free to lobby to get the law changed. "Luckily we live in a dictatorship so you are free to lobby to get the law changed" or "Luckily we live in a dictatorship so you are free to revolt to get the law changed" The whole concept is that people who have honest disagreements also have a non-violent way to resolve the disagreement.
You think politics is non-violent? You are hilarious! Tell me, what happens when you win your vote and now some previously acceptable behavior of mine is made illegal? |
|
|
|
Fred as I said earlier, I think you'll find that most everything can be made into an argument for slavery or compared to genocide. For example, "First they came for the Jews...then they came for the owners of intellectual property...then they came for me..."
See how easy and how stupid that is?
"First they came for..." is not an argument. "Cotton cannot be picked without slavery, regardless of the morality of slavery" is an argument for slavery. "Movies cannot be made without IP, regardless of the morality of IP" is the same argument. |
|
|
|
What puzzles me is why you'd even think that is a good way to settle a dispute.
You're missing something very big. Most disputes between governments are resolved without violence. That is how disputes between systems of polycentric law would be decided. However, governments can fall back to war because they collect tax revenue. War is expensive, bad for the bottom line, means you have to charge your customers more. If they have a choice, they will leave you for someone who doesn't go to ar, and thus doesn't charge more. The people in charge of these organizations will know this, and will opt to resolve disputes peacefully, and only resort to violence in self defense, unlike nation states. |
|
|
|
Governments have trained forces with tanks, artillery and aircraft. Since guns are pretty well obsolete in modern warfare, armed citizens can't do much.
That's why democratic government is a good idea.
Oh really? See: Iraq/Afghanistan. How is our modern military doing there? Obviously we could just wipe them all out, but any invading government won't want to do that, they'll want to take control of the people, as a form of tax revenue. So yeah, an armed rabble is about all you need. |
|
|
|
Videos are for people who think slowly. If the message is worthwhile, there will be a transcript. Here you go: http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.htmlComparing being deprived of the right to profit from copying movies with the horrors of slavery is a childish appeal to emotion. At least you haven't compared it to being in a concentration camp but I'm sure you can find some minor inconvenience to compare it to.
Sorry, I can't help that your argument for copyright is also a valid argument for slavery. |
|
|
|
Actually the monopoly of violence/law making thing is sort of a side issue. The key decision is one of values. Do you value the availability of movies higher than the ability to profit from copying movies? Once you have decided that, whether you have one single lawmaker or a thousand is just a detail.
"The key decision is one of values. Do you value the availability of cotton higher than the freedom of slaves? Once you have decided that, whether you have one single lawmaker or a thousand is just a detail." I take it you didn't bother to watch the video, then. |
|
|
|
That's just it, 100% of historical sources do not confirm any such theory. There are many historical documents besides the one that I referenced that have referred to such things. Myths or not, not all sources support such a theorm. You don't get to just dismiss those documents as myth, that's not your call. It's also an intellectual cop-out.
PRIMARY sources, throughout history. Wikipedia that shit, holmes. What is a primary source for the theory "self does not survive the death of the body"? |
|
|
|
Legitimacy is a difficult concept. People do organise into societies and do make laws aimed at making life better. If you feel the entire basis on which society makes laws is bad, it makes it hard for you to get things changed as its easier to change things incrementally than to wait for a revolution.
Indeed. This comes about almost entirely because of the number one premise for our society: a monopoly on law making is required. edit... "this" being "it makes it hard for you to get things changed as its easier to change things incrementally than to wait for a revolution". Without a monopoly on law, I could choose another provider of law. see: Anarchy and the efficient law by David Friedman. Interestingly, he appears to be a libertarian and believe in intellectual property law. However, he admits that this is because he is an author and wants to get paid for his work. He also admits that the proper amount of intellectual property law may be zero, he was merely approaching the question as an economist. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
