|
Walter Rothbard
|
 |
February 21, 2013, 08:07:44 PM |
|
He sees the current incarnation of BTC as centralized on the hands of a few people As was pointed out nine pages ago, he can start a new cryptocoin with only a modest investment of effort, and make sure it gets more publicity earlier on, this time. |
|
|
|
RodeoX
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
|
|
February 21, 2013, 08:13:32 PM |
|
It's true I have to trust the system and the hardware. But I find my computer far more trustworthy than even my closest friends.
|
|
|
|
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
February 21, 2013, 08:31:04 PM |
|
If it hasn't been mentioned before, OP, ripple is trying to spread 50 billion ripples evenly among as many people as they possibly can. I think that's about as close as you'll ever get to what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
Beepbop
|
|
February 21, 2013, 10:19:22 PM |
|
It's true I have to trust the system and the hardware. But I find my computer far more trustworthy than even my closest friends.
Consider the context, and how it would change if a cryptocurrency were to gain substantial traction. Hardware, or even the network itself, might no longer be something you can assume to be trustworthy, or even to be there. Criminals, corrupt officials, or government groups, might have incentive to attack the system if it gains traction. Some components are only made in one or two factories in the world. There might only be one actual network provider in one area (even if by resale you pay your infrastructure bills through another company). Transparency is good - such as release of source code and perhaps circuit diagrams - but as complexity increases it becomes hard for the individual to inspect it and put 100% trust in them. By the way, it's sad that you'll trust the weakest link of thousands of people across the world who built your computer hardware and software, having millions of logic gates and lines of codes where intentional or unintentional security risks might be lurking, yet centralized in a few companies, over your friends. Of course, all of these problems would have to be solved just as much by an equalcoin/lifecoin/birthcoin system, so it's not an argument for them being better than Bitcoin v 1.0, but it is an argument for that you can't eliminate all trust in somebody, so you have to veigh paranoia with utility. You have to land somewhere between supersafe but useless, and total unsafety. To modify the Einstein quote, eliminate as much need for trust as much as possible for it to work, but no more. |
|
|
|
|
endlesscustoms
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2013, 10:49:22 PM |
|
i could use some extra
|
|
|
|
|
Meladath
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 22
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2013, 11:06:35 PM |
|
They are shared equally, equally based on percentage of effort putting into mining it. If every single person got exactly the same what would be the point in buying anything other than a single GPU to mine with, meaning also no coins would be found?
Sadly it would not work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domrada
|
|
February 21, 2013, 11:35:54 PM |
|
Since I have 0 btc, please share with me equally exactly half of whatever coins you have. Be the change you desire!
1FauWGhoQ5Vo72kKu8m4psZmrf6c8joKx6
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
February 21, 2013, 11:51:17 PM |
|
Since I have 0 btc, please share with me equally exactly half of whatever coins you have. Be the change you desire!
1FauWGhoQ5Vo72kKu8m4psZmrf6c8joKx6
Thanks!
He doesn't have any, which is why he's advocating for change! |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
mandyb
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2013, 11:54:45 PM |
|
All I can say at this point is: THANK YOU RIPPLE IN ADVANCE FOR SHARING 50k XRP WITH ME.
|
|
|
|
|
|
taltamir
|
|
February 22, 2013, 12:52:09 AM |
|
He doesn't have any, which is why he's advocating for change!
Then he can send me his dollars. Anyone who is advocating equality, please put your money where your mouth is and redistribute your own funds. |
|
|
|
|
|
Beepbop
|
|
February 22, 2013, 01:07:24 AM |
|
Again, he's not arguing for re-distribution of wealth or the re-destribution of coins. He thinks the system should have started out with a base already in place. In a way it did, except that base was 0.
The Ripple giveaways are interesting to watch in this regard. If the giveaways after Bitcointalk progress to places like the streets of Mumbai, rock festivals, knitting forums, newspapers, etc. that might help get that intermediate "currency" into the hands of diverse enough people that it might help it gain momentum. I hope they emphasize its use to convert between currencies and send money to people, rather than as a "get rich" scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
February 22, 2013, 01:10:18 AM |
|
Again, he's not arguing for re-distribution of wealth or the re-destribution of coins. He thinks the system should have started out with a base already in place. In a way it did, except that base was 0.
The Ripple giveaways are interesting to watch in this regard. If the giveaways after Bitcointalk progress to places like the streets of Mumbai, rock festivals, knitting forums, newspapers, etc. that might help get that intermediate "currency" into the hands of diverse enough people that it might help it gain momentum. I hope they emphasize its use to convert between currencies and send money to people, rather than as a "get rich" scheme.
Yeah that's the disconnect. Doesn't help that ripples are disguised with a three-letter abbreviation similar to the other currencies, either. |
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
February 22, 2013, 01:43:08 AM |
|
He doesn't have any, which is why he's advocating for change!
Then he can send me his dollars. Anyone who is advocating equality, please put your money where your mouth is and redistribute your own funds. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that he doesn't have many of those either. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
thoughtfan
|
|
February 22, 2013, 07:21:20 AM |
|
Again, he's not arguing for re-distribution of wealth or the re-destribution of coins. He thinks the system should have started out with a base already in place. In a way it did, except that base was 0.
Yes, it's arguing for what Bitcoin should have been that makes his whole premise ridiculous. Bitcoin is what it is. You want something that works differently then be part of creating/promoting that. Bitcoin obviously isn't for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
Beepbop
|
|
February 22, 2013, 07:52:38 AM |
|
Oh sure, it could be used to process payments for various business, so it could be for me in that way, but not something that I'd sit around accumulating.
|
|
|
|
|
aesop
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
|
February 22, 2013, 09:00:46 AM |
|
If there's no worm / incentive for the early bird, then things never happen.
I think it's as fair as it could be that people get compensated for inventing things that deliver UNIMAGINABLE VALUE.
Also, there's no such thing as "fairness."
|
|
|
|
|
peterparker2k
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
February 22, 2013, 03:16:34 PM |
|
If there's no worm / incentive for the early bird, then things never happen.
I think it's as fair as it could be that people get compensated for inventing things that deliver UNIMAGINABLE VALUE.
Also, there's no such thing as "fairness."
Full Ack! If BTCs are going to lift off (public acknowledgement) then everybody will get its share(by banks or whatever) if OP believed in it, he would buy them, if not , he should just go away. |
|
|
|
|
|
Luno
|
|
February 22, 2013, 03:20:29 PM |
|
He could start an "Occupy Bitcoin" movement.
|
|
|
|
|
RodeoX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
|
|
February 22, 2013, 05:50:20 PM |
|
It's true I have to trust the system and the hardware. But I find my computer far more trustworthy than even my closest friends.
Consider the context, and how it would change if a cryptocurrency were to gain substantial traction. Hardware, or even the network itself, might no longer be something you can assume to be trustworthy, or even to be there. Criminals, corrupt officials, or government groups, might have incentive to attack the system if it gains traction. Some components are only made in one or two factories in the world. There might only be one actual network provider in one area (even if by resale you pay your infrastructure bills through another company). Transparency is good - such as release of source code and perhaps circuit diagrams - but as complexity increases it becomes hard for the individual to inspect it and put 100% trust in them. By the way, it's sad that you'll trust the weakest link of thousands of people across the world who built your computer hardware and software, having millions of logic gates and lines of codes where intentional or unintentional security risks might be lurking, yet centralized in a few companies, over your friends. Of course, all of these problems would have to be solved just as much by an equalcoin/lifecoin/birthcoin system, so it's not an argument for them being better than Bitcoin v 1.0, but it is an argument for that you can't eliminate all trust in somebody, so you have to veigh paranoia with utility. You have to land somewhere between supersafe but useless, and total unsafety. To modify the Einstein quote, eliminate as much need for trust as much as possible for it to work, but no more. All good points man.  |
|
|
|
|
taltamir
|
|
February 22, 2013, 06:12:39 PM |
|
If there's no worm / incentive for the early bird, then things never happen.
I think it's as fair as it could be that people get compensated for inventing things that deliver UNIMAGINABLE VALUE.
Also, there's no such thing as "fairness."
There certainly is fairness. Its just that fairness doesn't mean everyone enjoys the fruits of other's labors. Bitcoin is fair. This is why people use it and this is why people want to make it unfair via redistribution |
|
|
|
|
|
