Unfortunately that would most likely be as useless as trying to change the mind of a communist or a deeply religious person.
Yawn. So be it but don't blame me for your intellectual laziness. You aren't even trying to make an argument. You're just presenting your conclusions as fact and hurling thinly veiled insults. If i write a book, I spend time, effort and resources on this process. I need to recoup those expenses + profit. That's not my problem any more than if you were to invest in a business based on a dying market. So you started a buggy whip company and now you need to recoup those expenses plus make some profit. Good luck with that. I guess you want to enforce that with guns too? |
|
|
|
So if I come up with something smart and profitable you should be allowed to copy it without my consent and profit out of it too?
Yes. Why not? If you steal my bicycle, I can't use it anymore. If I steal your idea, you can still use the idea. Only one of us can use the same oven to bake a cake but an infinite number of people can use the same cake recipe. Economics is rational and common scene. If that were the case, the last 200 years would look extremely different. Economics is not common sense precisely because people tend to consider only the things they can see but fail to take into account the things they don't see because their idiotic economic polices prevent those things from coming into existence. If you were a communist you would say exactly the same about the arguments made in the books communists like. And of course you're now thinking "but the difference is that I'm right", just like anybody who's chosen an ideology would.
There's nothing I can say to that. It's like saying that I beat my wife but of course I will deny it because that's what wife-beaters do. It's not a fair argument. Maybe I am delusional, brainwashed or simply mistaken but asserting that it is the case won't convince me of it. You'll have to dig deeper. |
|
|
|
Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.
Lemme rephrase. Do you have anything against the concept of intellectual property? Yes, it's incompatible with Libertarianism. Why? Because it makes you a partial owner of my property against my will. That's theft, if only partial theft. I own paper. I own a printer. I should be able to do whatever I want with them, including printing out copies of the latest bestseller and hocking them on the street. |
|
|
|
A short essay around 10 pages long is the most that anyone has time for. That's perfectly fine. It's not a crime to remain ignorant of economics. However, these people that can't be bothered to educate themselves have no business opining on economic issues. They can't have it both ways. "I'm too busy to read but here's my stupid uneducated opinion." |
|
|
|
Unfortunately this book is about as valuable as a teaching book for economics as Das Kapital. If what it says is in line with what you already wanted to believe, you'll love it. If not it's just political propaganda.
I disagree. Most people understand the broken window fallacy. This book shows them how that same reasoning applies to other things like price controls, protective tariffs, minimum wage laws, rent control, etc. If you understand the broken window fallacy, you'll be forced to agree with the other arguments presented. It's taking something that people implicitly believe and making it explicit. That's the most powerful educational tool there is. Of course, that requires intellectual honesty. If people are just being closed-minded then your analysis holds. |
|
|
|
Do you have something against IP?
Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism. 'It's brief' my ass Maybe this is more your speed.  |
|
|
|
Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires. They are created by thermodynamic potential. You can wish for jobs all day long.
Holy fuck. I've seen scientistic reductionism before but you've made it into an art form. Unfortunately, it's refrigerator art. It's sad that we've got so many crackpots/trolls on these forums but I guess that's what happens when you live on the fringes of society. Welcome to ignoreland, population you. |
|
|
|
I thought I could just pay a transaction fee and speed things up
You can't make confirmations go any faster than the speed at which blocks are being added to the block chain. |
|
|
|
By doing that doesn't it just kill the core concept of a p2p currency? What you've described is akin to a federally insured bank issuing a debit card. Why not just use that, since it already exists and isn't p2p?
Fiat currency can be printed like monopoly money. Bitcoins can't. What are your goals and what do you think is being lost with the scheme I've described? |
|
|
|
For internet-based transactions, bitcoin working in 10-minute time chunks is ok. Even when considering you need about 5-10 more blocks to confirm that it isnt an invalid fork, an hour or two is not a long time to wait when you consider internet based shopping usually doesnt leave the warehouse before then.
For face-to-face, I just cannot see bitcoin working in the real world with its current time settings. I'm not sitting around waiting for an hour, nevermind even 10 minutes to ensure the transaction is legit and being picked up by the system.
Why was the choice made to be 50 btc / 10 min time blocks? Why can't it change to 5btc / 1min time blocks? Even waiting 1 minute at a cash register is a pain in the ass, but it would bring it a bit closer to real-world use. With the prevalance of smartphones, and near-field RF, it seems like BTC is so ready to make an emergence into retail / normal use with the strict exception of it's time delay to verify.
The solution is to have a trusted third party act as a middle man. You keep a balance with the trusted third party and then when you want to buy something, you instruct the third party to transfer the BTC to the seller. The seller doesn't have to wait for confirmations since they are relying on the trust of the third party. |
|
|
|
Even if it can be achieved with commodities (and I don't think it can), there is still scarcity in labor; i.e. it doesn't matter that I am getting this floor for free, i'm certainly not going to cook bread for you with nothing in return. Robot slaves. Sexy Robot Slaves.  Yeah, baby! |
|
|
|
Even if it can be achieved with commodities (and I don't think it can), there is still scarcity in labor; i.e. it doesn't matter that I am getting this floor for free, i'm certainly not going to cook bread for you with nothing in return. Robot slaves. |
|
|
|
I'm a completely newbie. I just downloaded the bitcoin client, and I set it to start generating coins. How can you even see hash rates? All I see is the number of blocks ticking up.
It won't start generating until it has all the blocks downloaded. There are currently 118935 in total. |
|
|
|
|
If you can mail a letter then you can use my service. It's pretty simple and I'll walk you through it by email if you still can't figure it out.
Welcome to the community.
|
|
|
|
|
I've just updated the front page with some W3C badges and a nice little dynamic chart of recent trade prices.
|
|
|
|
Please don't use this for nefarious purposes.  |
|
|
|
Sounds like maybe we can do some business.
I'll be in touch. You can PM me contact info if you want to talk off the forum.
My email address is in my profile. |
|
|
|
But, yes, there should be a cost to having children -- a large cost. And it is morally abhorrent, fraudulent un-physical nonsense to believe that this cost can be placed on the children themselves. Literally every social ill would be substantially reduced and probably eliminated by forcibly preventing penniless, irresponsible jackasses from siring countless resourceless children and then sending them out into the world to terrorize the rest of us. I'm sure people will be lining up for your eugenic sterilization program. Sieg Heil! |
|
|
|
Economics in One Lesson: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdfIt's a great read. It's brief. It doesn't go into a lot of technical detail but it does illustrate a central fallacy that many people, even some economists, make when thinking about economics. If you haven't read this book, I'm going to assume you're ignorant about economics until proven otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
