From another thread: The basis of private property is the idea of exclusion, limitation and scarcity. Markets promote the ideas of private property, capital and profit and employ currency to do so. Bitcoin is a type of currency. Using energy to enforce these ideas is less efficient than providing for the needs of all people.
Nobody enforces Bitcoin. If you want whole world without private property ruled by scientist and supercomputer, you will have to enforce that. Scarcity is not an idea, it's reality. Anyone who thinks he can convince 6 billion people to live in some circular communistic towns and that scarcity will magically go away and everyone will be happy about his share is a lunatic. Every experiment in the history with "just and equal" redistribution of goods ended up with larger poverty and more waste than ever.
You don't need to enforce it, you need to promote it. There isn't a policeman right behind you every second of your life. You are just scared of having to deal with one, which keeps you in line. That won't be necessary in an RBE. So your system is promoted because we have to beat the cop behind our back to allow your will to rule the planet, and Bitcoin is enforced cause we freely endorse it? No one has to beat anyone. We create the infrastructure necessary to provide access abundance to all people. There is no stealing because there wouldn't be a need to. There wouldn't be violence because there would be no need for it. We don't need a convoluted system of arbitrary resource restriction because all resources are available to those who need them. We spend enormous amounts of time and energy today to keep people from accessing what they need, and even more time and energy in punishing people who are forced to engage the system using undesirable methods and tactics. Unless those people happen to be in the upper percentage of wealth owners, in which case they can cause as much abuse as they wish without reprimand. |
|
|
|
The basis of private property is the idea of exclusion, limitation and scarcity. Markets promote the ideas of private property, capital and profit and employ currency to do so. Bitcoin is a type of currency. Using energy to enforce these ideas is less efficient than providing for the needs of all people.
Nobody enforces Bitcoin. If you want whole world without private property ruled by scientist and supercomputer, you will have to enforce that. Scarcity is not an idea, it's reality. Anyone who thinks he can convince 6 billion people to live in some circular communistic towns and that scarcity will magically go away and everyone will be happy about his share is a lunatic. Every experiment in the history with "just and equal" redistribution of goods ended up with larger poverty and more waste than ever.
You don't need to enforce it, you need to promote it. There isn't a policeman right behind you every second of your life. You are just scared of having to deal with one, which keeps you in line. That won't be necessary in an RBE. So your system is promoted because we have to beat the cop behind our back to allow your will to rule the planet, and Bitcoin is enforced cause we freely endorse it? I will not engage in this discussion on this thread. |
|
|
|
Nobody enforces Bitcoin. If you want whole world without private property ruled by scientist and supercomputer, you will have to enforce that. Scarcity is not an idea, it's reality. Anyone who thinks he can convince 6 billion people to live in some circular communistic towns and that scarcity will magically go away and everyone will be happy about his share is a lunatic. Every experiment in the history with "just and equal" redistribution of goods ended up with larger poverty and more waste than ever.
You don't need to enforce it, you need to promote it. There isn't a policeman right behind you every second of your life. You are just scared of having to deal with one, which keeps you in line. That won't be necessary in an RBE. |
|
|
|
|
The basis of private property is the idea of exclusion, limitation and scarcity. Markets promote the ideas of private property, capital and profit and employ currency to do so. Bitcoin is a type of currency. Using energy to enforce these ideas is less efficient than providing for the needs of all people.
|
|
|
|
RPC-4way does not appear to return or display JSON status requests from btcmine.com's API. Does the program expect a certain JSON structure that is incompatible with btcmine's or could something else be wrong? |
|
|
|
|
Limitation and scarcity are the basis of markets.
|
|
|
|
|
Expending energy to build and maintain a system designed to limit people's access to resources is ultimately a waste of energy. But BTC is better than what we have now.
|
|
|
|
I am trying to get the Venus Project to accept bitcoin donations. How do you get that windows with all the extra transaction details?! How do you enter comments? |
|
|
|
So, bitlotto.com is down?
Up for me. |
|
|
|
I understand and many do. I point out the Philosophy of Science and Scientific Knowledge. They co-mingle in a lot of areas. In some areas the data is handled properly. Take for example a court case with DNA evidence. The scientist on the stand states the Odds and the reasons the odds are what they are. He does not state that the defendant is guilty based on those odds. To do so would require an assumption that isn't his job. He just states the results and probabilities.
I see this as important for many reasons. A person trying to prove a theory is bias in proving the theory. So if you let him make the conclusions and/or steer the questions into a particular direction, the end result can be flawed and will be flawed at a higher rate.
Remember the eminent scientist from the London Museum, he had to resign because it was found that he discovered what "he" wanted to discover in Carbon Dating. After close examination, he didn't even know how to run the Carbon Dating Machine.
Good Studies are Double Blind to eliminate personal wants and desires.
That's why I said "technical processes and information" need to be our guide, not individual opinions which are obviously flawed. |
|
|
|
Hey everyone! I made this. If anyone has questions/comments/bug reports, please hit me up.
Do you accept bitcoin donations? |
|
|
|
Basically a pure Scientist would make no claims or conclusions, just report results. Ask a scientist what the weather will be tomorrow, he will tell you; it is 70 degrees right now, but I can't tell you what it will be 1 min. from now. That is left up to philosophers.
I disagree with your assessment of a "pure scientist" and what he will do. The vast body of accumulated knowledge that scientists rely upon to formulate hypotheses is something that allows us to make reasonable predictions about physical phenomenon. Science isn't just about taking measurements, it is used to describe the way the universe work in a continuously evolving, changing and growing manner with increasingly higher levels of resolution and detail. Science differs from philosophy in that historical and reproducible data and results can be used to predict the outcome of specific situations. Philosophy has no such data or results. Just an increasingly elaborate and voluminous library of opinions. This is why we need to choose to let technical processes and information be our guide to resolving technical problems. Philosophy gets in the way and is generally a hindrance to people starving to death while the economists debate about how much profit there would be in feeding them. |
|
|
|
|
You sound eerily like the Atlas Shrugged audio book.
Looking forward to more episodes.
|
|
|
|
I really like Khan Academy, really fun to learn new stuff there! As noted though, entropy isn't hidden from us. We have identified and can plan and account for it to a certain degree. Efficiency is a technically and scientifically determined value, economic theory is unnecessary and is in fact a destructive concept. |
|
|
|
A few years ago, there was a website called www.owise.com that allowed you to make predictions about the outcome of certain events or situations that might occur in the future. It kept track of your predictions in certain fields (football games, stock market prices etc.) and the more correct you were, the more weight was given to your future predictions in that area. They combined all the various predictions with their associated weights to produce an outcome probability versus time chart for each event being tracked. They also tried to incentivize continued activity and engagement with cash prizes for the most accurate. Obviously they are no longer around, and I do not know what their fate was specifically, but the idea was really neat at the time, and the predictions were fairly accurate. I was wondering if anyone is planning on making or aware of a similar type of website associated with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around.
That's not my point. Philosophy and knowledge is related. It is a mistake to compartmentalize or reject knowledge. If you don't understand economics, you may try to do what's economically is impossible or have hidden cost. Reality has no hidden costs. Economics is a restraint on our development, not an enabler. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a contingency in case Blockexplorer is down?
Do you have any code or pseudo-code for your Transaction ID -> Lotto string -> Winner determination algorithm that you are relying upon so that others can independently verify the winner? I understand the process as described, but if you're doing the process manually, it could be subject to human error. And having an archive of the code can help disprove accusations of tampering or revision of the process on your website at a later date.
Referring to the discussion about the simplicity of the bouncing balls, all we really see is that part of the system, but behind the scenes there is a great deal of technical and randomization processes taking place to ensure that the outcome is as fair and random as possible. The measures they take are really interesting if you ever investigate the idea in any depth.
|
|
|
|
|
I voted Keep it, but I wouldn't mind any of the top 3 options. The fourth option I think is not at all in the best interests of anyone trying to encourage the use of bitcoins, in my opinion. If we start trying to be gatekeepers to a system often boasted as being "open and anonymous" then we really kill some of the better aspects of the idea, not to mention that begins opening yourselves up to legal attack in the future, not to mention the potential to open yourselves up to conspiracy theorists and the like. The avoidance of both, I think, were probably major reasons for the system's creation in the first place.
But I understand that it is a privately run market, so it shouldn't be limited to my, or any other outside person's opinion.
|
|
|
|
We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies. Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality. I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
