Assault weapon bans

[Mike Christ]

and @Kokjo, Bitcoin is a currency, not an ideology.

OMFG and i thought i was the troll! have you even looked around this forum? people thinks and behaves like is a ideology. in this case you cannot just say that you can't compare apples and oranges, because bitcoin is both.

Bitcoin is not an ideology; it just happens to be attractive in certain freedom-based political philosophies as a currency both taking the properties of gold and practicality of fiat.  Instead of having to store gold in some location and having those people write you a note redeemable for a certain amount of that gold (this didn't work out very well, considering then to now), we now have something similar without the need for central authorities.

It's as simple as that; Bitcoin is a protocol, Bitcoin is a currency, but it is only people who can use Bitcoin with intent.  We can also argue that the Internet is an ideology for freedom of speech and the availability of information, or not, but you would lose; only people can decide what to use the Internet for, as it is not itself a person, only a technology, a tool.

[kokjo]

"Democracy: The original 51% attack".

why are you even on this forum then? don't you like bitcoin?

If you like democracy and think 51%+ should control all decisions about currency, why are you on this forum and why do you like Bitcoin, if it specifically considers 51% democracy as a threat?

and yet bitcoin accepts such a situation as legitimate => bitcoin is democracy.

[Rassah]

"Democracy: The original 51% attack".

why are you even on this forum then? don't you like bitcoin?

If you like democracy and think 51%+ should control all decisions about currency, why are you on this forum and why do you like Bitcoin, if it specifically considers 51% democracy as a threat?

and yet bitcoin accepts such a situation as legitimate => bitcoin is democracy.

How do you figure? A majority (51%+) getting together to decide something is considered an "attack," a group getting together to change Bitcoin ends up creating a fork that all individuals simply ignore, no one can force any changes or rules on anyone (unless it's a 51% attack), and everyone only follows their own best interests, with only changes being accepted are ones people consider to benefit themselves, such as security and bug patches. To me it looks like complete anarchy and a specific rejection of democracy.

[kokjo]

How do you figure? A majority (51%+) getting together to decide something is considered an "attack," a group getting together to change Bitcoin ends up creating a fork that all individuals simply ignore, no one can force any changes or rules on anyone (unless it's a 51% attack), and everyone only follows their own best interests, with only changes being accepted are ones people consider to benefit themselves, such as security and bug patches. To me it looks like complete anarchy and a specific rejection of democracy.

and if the majority(strictly more then 50%) of the miners decides to block a transaction the transaction will be block, as miners can decide that blocks including it is artificially invalid. Also if 51% majority decides to rewrite blockchain history it will happen too, the only thing that they cant touch is the 21M limit, and block creation rate. everything else they decides, even in every fork at once, as they can just switch chains as they like.

The majority ultimately decides, its a democracy.

[Rassah]

How do you figure? A majority (51%+) getting together to decide something is considered an "attack," a group getting together to change Bitcoin ends up creating a fork that all individuals simply ignore, no one can force any changes or rules on anyone (unless it's a 51% attack), and everyone only follows their own best interests, with only changes being accepted are ones people consider to benefit themselves, such as security and bug patches. To me it looks like complete anarchy and a specific rejection of democracy.

and if the majority(strictly more then 50%) of the miners decides to block a transaction the transaction will be block, as miners can decide that blocks including it is artificially invalid. Also if 51% majority decides to rewrite blockchain history it will happen too, the only thing that they cant touch is the 21M limit, and block creation rate. everything else they decides, even in every fork at once, as they can just switch chains as they like.

The majority ultimately decides, its a democracy.

Yes, but the democracy you describe is considered a very very bad thing, since it will break Bitcoin. Bitcoin can only continue to work as long as that democracy is resisted. Even to the point that mining pools try to avoid it (like how BTC Guild raised their fees from 3% to 7% when they got close to having 50% of mining power. As more and more people adopt it, Bitcoin will teach people that democracy rule is a bad thing and to be avoided.

[kokjo]

How do you figure? A majority (51%+) getting together to decide something is considered an "attack," a group getting together to change Bitcoin ends up creating a fork that all individuals simply ignore, no one can force any changes or rules on anyone (unless it's a 51% attack), and everyone only follows their own best interests, with only changes being accepted are ones people consider to benefit themselves, such as security and bug patches. To me it looks like complete anarchy and a specific rejection of democracy.

and if the majority(strictly more then 50%) of the miners decides to block a transaction the transaction will be block, as miners can decide that blocks including it is artificially invalid. Also if 51% majority decides to rewrite blockchain history it will happen too, the only thing that they cant touch is the 21M limit, and block creation rate. everything else they decides, even in every fork at once, as they can just switch chains as they like.

The majority ultimately decides, its a democracy.

Yes, but the democracy you describe is considered a very very bad thing, since it will break Bitcoin. Bitcoin can only continue to work as long as that democracy is resisted. Even to the point that mining pools try to avoid it (like how BTC Guild raised their fees from 3% to 7% when they got close to having 50% of mining power. As more and more people adopt it, Bitcoin will teach people that democracy rule is a bad thing and to be avoided.

so... what you are really saying is that the evil mining pool operators is oppressing the people and trying to demolish their right to democracy, by 'tax' manipulation?

[Rassah]

so... what you are really saying is that the evil mining pool operators is oppressing the people and trying to demolish their right to democracy, by 'tax' manipulation?

No, what I'm saying is that this

and yet bitcoin accepts such a situation as legitimate => bitcoin is democracy.

is wrong. Bitcoin doesn't accept such a situation. In fact, democracy breaks Bitcoin.

[kokjo]

so... what you are really saying is that the evil mining pool operators is oppressing the people and trying to demolish their right to democracy, by 'tax' manipulation?

No, what I'm saying is that this

and yet bitcoin accepts such a situation as legitimate => bitcoin is democracy.

is wrong. Bitcoin doesn't accept such a situation. In fact, democracy breaks Bitcoin.

no, it does not. Democracy is the core strength of bitcoin.

"We make money democratic." - Amir Taaki <- and that's from one of the main developers

You should educate yourself about bitcoin before speaking bad of it.
http://www.weusecoins.com/

[mdude77]

so... what you are really saying is that the evil mining pool operators is oppressing the people and trying to demolish their right to democracy, by 'tax' manipulation?

No, what I'm saying is that this

and yet bitcoin accepts such a situation as legitimate => bitcoin is democracy.

is wrong. Bitcoin doesn't accept such a situation. In fact, democracy breaks Bitcoin.

no, it does not. Democracy is the core strength of bitcoin.

"We make money democratic." - Amir Taaki <- and that's from one of the main developers

You should educate yourself about bitcoin before speaking bad of it.
http://www.weusecoins.com/

I think this depends on the definition of democratic.  Just because 51% supports it, doesn't mean it's democratic.  The very nature of BTC or it's variants requires that everyone supports it as it is.  Forks will kill it.  I would equate "democracy" to forks, more than I would 51% majority.

M

[kokjo]

Bitcoin is not a democracy. I thought we've covered this already.

No amount of miners, devs, or users can force a bitcoin user to accept a rule change.

If 99.99% of the bitcoin world changes a rule, and I keep using the old rules, there is now a fork. (Pre-fork coins will now exist on both forks!)

Only free market forces will ultimately kill a fork. If no one gives value to the coins on a fork, it will stall. (It can even be started again, if a single copy remains, should someone decide they value it sometime in the future.)

Bitcoin is the free market in full effect.

In a democracy, the majority makes the rules and everyone must abide by them or suffer the consequences (whatever the majority decides those consequences are).

You know what? I could also start my own little state here, right here in my apartment and declare sovereignty.
But you really know what? That does not make Denmark less a democracy.
And you know what else? People would laugh at you and not respect your sovereign state, they would likely put in a cell with soft walls.


You people are just of far off in your own little philosophical libertard world where everything is redefined to suit your state of mind. Wake up people and join me, Marx, and Stalin, and the rest of the world.

[mdude77]

Bitcoin is not a democracy. I thought we've covered this already.

No amount of miners, devs, or users can force a bitcoin user to accept a rule change.

If 99.99% of the bitcoin world changes a rule, and I keep using the old rules, there is now a fork. (Pre-fork coins will now exist on both forks!)

Only free market forces will ultimately kill a fork. If no one gives value to the coins on a fork, it will stall. (It can even be started again, if a single copy remains, should someone decide they value it sometime in the future.)

Bitcoin is the free market in full effect.

In a democracy, the majority makes the rules and everyone must abide by them or suffer the consequences (whatever the majority decides those consequences are).

You know what? I could also start my own little state here, right here in my apartment and declare sovereignty.
But you really know what? That does not make Denmark less a democracy.
And you know what else? People would laugh at you and not respect your sovereign state, they would likely put in a cell with soft walls.


You people are just of far off in your own little philosophical libertard world where everything is redefined to suit your state of mind. Wake up people and join me, Marx, and Stalin, and the rest of the world.

Wow, a little grumpy are you?  A difference of opinion doesn't make you right.

M

[Spendulus]

Bitcoin is not a democracy. I thought we've covered this already.

No amount of miners, devs, or users can force a bitcoin user to accept a rule change.

If 99.99% of the bitcoin world changes a rule, and I keep using the old rules, there is now a fork. (Pre-fork coins will now exist on both forks!)

Only free market forces will ultimately kill a fork. If no one gives value to the coins on a fork, it will stall. (It can even be started again, if a single copy remains, should someone decide they value it sometime in the future.)

Bitcoin is the free market in full effect.

In a democracy, the majority makes the rules and everyone must abide by them or suffer the consequences (whatever the majority decides those consequences are).

You know what? I could also start my own little state here, right here in my apartment and declare sovereignty.
But you really know what? That does not make Denmark less a democracy.
And you know what else? People would laugh at you and not respect your sovereign state, they would likely put in a cell with soft walls.


You people are just of far off in your own little philosophical libertard world where everything is redefined to suit your state of mind. Wake up people and join me, Marx, and Stalin, and the rest of the world.

Wow, a little grumpy are you?  A difference of opinion doesn't make you right.

M

Don't tell me this is SEC_Agent reincarnated...

[kokjo]

A difference of opinion doesn't make you right.

Its not an opinion, its a fact. Bitcoin is built on, and i equivalent to, democracy.

[NewLiberty]

A difference of opinion doesn't make you right.

Its not an opinion, its a fact. Bitcoin is built on, and i equivalent to, democracy.

If by equivalent you mean: "made less trustable when a majority is ruling", then yes it is a fact.

[1Cz]

Science says guns are dangerous obviously, just as many implements are dangerous.    That doesn't give anybody the right to start deciding who gets to own them and who doesn't.  The minute you shoot someone with one is when it becomes an issue, just as you get questioned the minute you decide to impale someone with your kitchen knife but not before just because you own one.

[designerusa]

What do you think should be done about assault weapons? Do you support them or not?

i completely support banning assault weapons because i am against individual arming. these weapons can be very lethal in the hands of some crazy people. I think that law-enforcement officers just have those weapons for society's sake.