|
Actually, Quark just edged out Namecoin. What's going on with Quark?
|
|
|
|
I thought it might be interesting to collectively track and discuss this information over time: http://coinmarketcap.com/Right now the top ten coins are: Bitcoin Litecoin Peercoin Namecoin Quark ProtoShares WorldCoin Megacoin Primecoin Feathercoin Very notable also is currency #11: Nxt, which has risen 87.41% in the last 24 hours, according to the site. This is especially notable given that nearly every other currency has fallen in lock step the last 24 hours. I'm particularly interested in watching the top ten over time. At the moment, I can't say that I fully understand why all of these are on the list. I understand positions 1 through 4. What has Quark got that is making it number 5? Feathercoin had a huge surge of interest earlier this year, so I can see why it is still hanging around. And Primecoin is very unique and I can see why it is there. ProtoShares is an interesting idea, although I'm not sure it deserves to be #6. What about WorldCoin and Megacoin - why are they up there? Edited to add: This links shows XRP as well: http://coinmarketcap.com/ripple.html |
|
|
|
Doc, have you considered adding pps?
No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment. Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS? From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool. I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option. |
|
|
|
I have highly optimized the program and now most transactions take less than 5 seconds, most of the time less. We did a speed test, see the video below. We were able to buy 3 sodas in under 1 minute, the only thing slowing it down is the soda machine itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=socQRtYzoxMFrom now on this is where we link when someone passes the canard that Bitcoin will never work because noone will wait ten minutes or an hour for confirmation at point of sale! |
|
|
|
What is the advantage of having a few governments beside having no government at all (the only true Anarchy)? And wouldn't this advantage (provided there is one) work even further toward just one government?
It's not about having a few governments. It's saying people like you can have rulers if that's what you want. The rest of us say that we want competing service providers to provide those services that the government currently claims a monopoly over, because we don't want rulers. I am in for the only true Anarchy. Actually, any stateless society pretending to be an anarchy but forbidding implicitly or explicitly the true Anarchy would be nothing more than a fake, a state in disguise... Ah - true Scotsman anarchy! |
|
|
|
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny. Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways. The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).
It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here... My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property. So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means. For example I am opposed to animal cruelty. Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted? What gives you the right to dictate that? Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you? Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it. Either people have more rights to their property than you do, or everybody has a claim to their property and a say in how it is to be used. If everybody has a claim to property, then nobody has more claim than the owner, and thus no justification for overriding the owner's beliefs about how the property should be used. If anybody has a right to control property, it's the person who has gone through the process of acquiring ownership. Otherwise, nobody has that right. Neither possibility justifies the state. |
|
|
|
Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government...
Once upon a time, wars were fought because of the idea, that there simply can not be more than one religion in one area  Very good insight. (I would even go so far as to say that government is a religion. It expects a lot of blind faith. I simply don't share the beliefs others have in the efficacy of government (as we know it) and want them to stop imposing their religion (state) on me, even though they think it's just "culture" or whatever.) |
|
|
|
Under these circumstances, telling me that I should "keep your hands off of that which isn't yours" is imposing your morality on me. The alternative is you imposing your morality. Since you're okay with that, you should have no objection to other people "imposing their morality" by telling you to butt out. In your view, they are just as justified as you and you have no way to justify imposing yourself. In their view, you are clearly in the wrong, and you still have no way to justify imposing yourself. |
|
|
|
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny. Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways. The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).
It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here... My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property. So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means. Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people? No - it's just me insisting other people should not impose their morality on me or on anyone else. That's all. For example I am opposed to animal cruelty. Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted? What gives you the right to dictate that? By all means prosecute them. I support their right to defend themselves from you. |
|
|
|
|
Doc, thanks for all the fantastic service taking care of this crap. Bitminter is the best, thanks to your constant attention!
|
|
|
|
If this is not what you actually mean here, aren't elections what would go for "picking a competing ISP"? No, in elections (as we know them), you are picking the government that other people will be subject to. What we want is for each person to be allowed to pick their own government. Example: when George W. Bush won in 2000, it was immoral to force everybody to be subject to his government; people should've been allowed to be under a competing system run by Gore instead, if that's what they really wanted. (Personally I'd pick neither.) As I said above, the system you promote is already here. Though it may look very different from what you likely dream about, but the staples are present there. And even if you prefer to remain neutral you can secede and fly to Antarctica which has no government and is considered politically neutral... I and all my fellow subjects should be able to secede without having to leave. |
|
|
|
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny. Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways. The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).
It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here... My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property. So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means. |
|
|
|
Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts. In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...
Okay, what metric shall we use for effectiveness? I would say we should use freedom/liberty as our metric. That again gives us anarchy, succeeding at 100%. Actually, there are many objective metrics to measure the efficiency of the state existing nowadays for this very purpose. Economic growth as one of the most evident and encompassing example of such a metric. Also, how are you going to define freedom/liberty in more or less objective terms and would it be a moral issue then? The problem is this: if you decide to use economic growth as a metric, then you are setting up economic growth as being valued more highly than other factors. Say some people would want equality over economic growth. Either way, this is a moral decision. The basic principle is this: the ends (your metrics) don't justify the means. So some system might result in more economic growth, but that doesn't mean it's right to force it on people - maybe they value something else more highly than that economic growth. Or some system might result in better equality, but it would be wrong to force it on you or others who believe economic growth should be paramount (just an example). Or maybe reducing traffic deaths is the number one goal, or childhood obesity. When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny. Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways. The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property). |
|
|
|
But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually?
It's not necessarily about dismantling the state. The state, as it currently exists, provides certain services, principally protection. All we are saying is that for all of those services, people should be able to either continue to use the state or use other services that people provide in the market and not have to pay the state. That then allows people like yourself who want the state to continue to pay for it, and people like me who don't want the state to use other services instead. On the whole, I agree with your idea, something along these lines has likely already been taking place. But there are functions which simply can't be privatized or demonopolized, since duplicating some public institutions would be equal to creating another state inside or alongside the original one (that's what mafias are permanently trying to do). I think that would wreak havoc as it happens when organized crime is able to snatch some power from the state. In short, power demonopolized is no longer power, so what you say in essence amounts to abolishing the state... Part of the whole point here is that power, as we know it, is wrong! You should have the power to defend your rights to life, liberty, and property. You shouldn't have the power to compel people to go along with your ideas. So, for example, you think everybody should abstain from alcohol. Great - persuade people instead of outlawing it, because nobody should have the power to outlaw it. It shouldn't be a matter of voting on who gets that power over everybody, because nobody should have it. It's no good merely taking turns at tyranny. Tyranny has to be eliminated. |
|
|
|
I would like to allow an arbitrary number of governments in my area, but this is illegal. If anyone attempts it, they will face coercion (government force). As someone else mentioned, this should be just as legal as picking a competing ISP.
That's what I mean by compelling people to just have one government. If they try to start another, they will be forcibly put down as a "rebellion." And 99% of the population seems to think that this is good and ethical. But clearly this is the exact opposite of freedom. Now I see your point. Just couldn't imagine that people would ever want more than one government (as you confirm yourself). Though it's still beyond my understanding how there could possibly be more than one government at the same time in the same area. All they have to do is just respect each other's rights to life, liberty, and property. Imagine if the Republican and Democratic parties were each governments. Each citizen picks whichever one they want. If you commit a crime against another citizen of your party, your party handles it in the way they deem appropriate. If they commit a crime against a citizen of the other party, it'd be handled by collaboration between governments: extradition, etc. So, if you are Republican and murder a Democrat and the whole world witnessed it on television, the Republicans probably hand you over to the Democrats to face justice. But if you are Democrat and have an abortion, the Democrats don't hand you over to the Republicans, because while the Republicans have outlawed abortion, the Democrats have not. Now generalize it: instead of two parties/governments, allow any arbitrary number of them. Allow people to create new ones as they see fit. If this is not what you actually mean here, aren't elections what would go for "picking a competing ISP"? No, in elections (as we know them), you are picking the government that other people will be subject to. What we want is for each person to be allowed to pick their own government. Example: when George W. Bush won in 2000, it was immoral to force everybody to be subject to his government; people should've been allowed to be under a competing system run by Gore instead, if that's what they really wanted. (Personally I'd pick neither.) |
|
|
|
But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually?
It's not necessarily about dismantling the state. The state, as it currently exists, provides certain services, principally protection. All we are saying is that for all of those services, people should be able to either continue to use the state or use other services that people provide in the market and not have to pay the state. That then allows people like yourself who want the state to continue to pay for it, and people like me who don't want the state to use other services instead. Yes, exactly. I fully support the people around me continuing to keep their existing government if they choose, so long as that institution stops compelling everybody in this territory to be its citizens/subjects. They can keep their flag, national anthem, Congress, courts, Presidents, etc. They can keep their schools. They can even keep their wars. What they can't do, morally, in my opinion, is force everybody to belong to their "jurisdiction" simply because they live here. Other people within this region should be able to belong to other organizations with different courts, Presidents, etc., or even none at all and arranged differently (perhaps they want a king, as an example). |
|
|
|
Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts. In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...
Okay, what metric shall we use for effectiveness? I would say we should use freedom/liberty as our metric. That again gives us anarchy, succeeding at 100%. The selection of the metric that you're going to use to measure "effectiveness" is going to be, inherently, a moral issue. |
|
|
|
The point is that you and I should not support the use of force to compel people to have just one government in an area.
I didn't get the emboldened part. Please explain Ethics, i.e. moral philosophy, is a rather big subject; there are many concepts within it, but if you don't understand it naturally, you'd probably respond better to an argument of practicality, as ErisDiscordia pointed out. That part about not supporting the use of force I understood pretty well (and likely would agree to it). I didn't get what had been meant by (not) compelling people to have just one government in an area. They usually already have just one government in the area, why then should we compel them to in the first place? What did I get wrong here? I would like to allow an arbitrary number of governments in my area, but this is illegal. If anyone attempts it, they will face coercion (government force). As someone else mentioned, this should be just as legal as picking a competing ISP. That's what I mean by compelling people to just have one government. If they try to start another, they will be forcibly put down as a "rebellion." And 99% of the population seems to think that this is good and ethical. But clearly this is the exact opposite of freedom. |
|
|
|
Though I didn't expect that you would like this alternative, which was pretty clear right from the start The problem with your alternative is that it's immoral to make that the only choice. Another point that I don't quite understand. You seem to erroneously assign me as the true culprit here whereas, actually, it was exactly my alternative of moving to another country in the first place that was torn to pieces and thrown out of the window. May I hope for a bit of objectivity here? Is it immoral too or what? Moving is not immoral, but when people want to secede, telling them they shouldn't be allowed that option because moving is good enough is wrong. |
|
|
|
What aggravates me is when someone comes along and has this awesome idea and thinks it can be done with no problems. When people feel that way about something, I invite and encourage them to do it themselves. Usually they will not try. If they do try, they will probably fail, but they will learn something. If they try and succeed, we all benefit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
