Topic: Annual 10% bitcoin dividends if mining were Proof-of-Stake - page 2. (Read 16632 times)

ha ha ha
 

good one

It's not all that objective. It's more like Objectiveology now.

Ayn Rand would spin in her grave to hear her ideas spun into a religion. Objectivism is a materialist conception.

That much I agree with her about ha ha

As long as we're way off topic...

I don't agree at all with this statement. 
Objectivism is a philosophy more honest than most.

Although the higher, spiritual non-linear realities are
beyond its scope, it's epistemology is clear and
straightforward.

This spiel is ridiculous, I never endorsed government in any way, in fact I'm an anarchist that is pointing out how western civilization is being moved toward the outcome in the novel you reference. We've never been closer to that than we are currently
 

I pointed out that governmental entities are not the only ones that engage in destructive "collective" economic behavior and that government is really the interface between corporate power and the population. The real power is behind the government.

Does your distaste for collectivism extend to collective investment by banking cartels and the like? This sector reaps far more government fat that what you seem to be concerned about going to help people that need help because of the neglected state of our society due outright rapine conducted by the corporate sector which has literally destroyed the middle class and working class in this country . Getting rid of government inference in your life is fine and dandy but realistically for that to happen you are going to have to get rid the undue influence over the infrastructure of society itself that is held by a handful of powerful financial and commercial cartels.

That's who is controlling society, government is just one of the tools they use to do it. They also control the content of your education, what you watch on TV, your food and medicine, and even engineered the moral precepts that guide our lives. Political choice in this society is limited to a false dichotomy staged between two pre-determined outcomes represented by two corrupt political parties that are both beholden to the interest I mentioned earlier.

You should check this documentary out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

It shows how nearly all aspects of our society are controlled by a pervasive media influence that infiltrates all aspects of life in our society. The ideas of men like Skinner, Lippman, Bernays, Cameron, and Freud are being used not to create a society better suited for humanity but to re-engineer humanity into a form better suited to being a cog in a mechanized, monetized society.  

If you are truly interested in resolving the tension between social needs and the needs of the individual and maximizing individual autonomy and conceiving a free society there are far better alternatives than fringe conceptions such as objectivism, which is no more than sophistry that leaves humanity chained to a engine of mechanized production that they have no control whatsoever over.  

Sounds a bit like DPOS, except that has no re-delegation
http://bitshares.org/security/delegated-proof-of-stake.php

Another goodie from the original proof-of-stake thread, in which Mike Hearn talks about forking the blockchain and running experiments. That is my plan for 2015.

There is something exciting about it, given the presumably historic nature of cryptocurrencies, and the multifaceted complexity of the discussions that encompass everything from politics to economics to psychology, marketing, probability, cryptography, software, hardware, and many other things.

Here is the earliest reference that I could find to proof-of-stake, using the search tool of this forum. Care to comment here?

My own first thought is that because non-standard transactions do not become part of the permanent record, I would seek a different means of recording the vote . . .

I think it is simply engaging our wits to persuade each other and to learn. When I read what you write, I think about it, and maybe a few hours later, I think some more.

And when I read Peter_R's comments, I did not exactly laugh out loud, rather I grunted. I studied the book he mentioned before the date of the title. It was then, and remains to this day, a devastating critique of totalitarianism and linguistic legerdemain. Each of those phrases I had forgotten four decades ago - and he brought them back to life.

Sometimes being a bitcoiner makes me feel like an intellectual/scholar lol.

The quality of writing on this thread amazes me.

It probably won't be anytime soon. 

You might wanna read the last 20 pages and countless other discussion
threads about Proof of Stake.

10% POS is good idea. When will it be added?

AI without bitcoin might be like an automobile without fuel. AI should eventually become the worlds largest employer.


Regarding Patrick Byrne's quote above, I can't think of a more appropriate place for job automation to focus (financial/insurance industry).

If logic and theory is his weakness, does that mean that your ignorance is strength?



If we need regulation, force and control to stop destructive behaviour, does that mean that war is peace?



If we need government to control our lives to protect our freedom, does that mean that freedom is slavery?


The three phrases in bold come from George Orwell's novel 1984.  In fact, they are the chapter titles of the fictitious book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism used by the Inner Party in Orwell's plot line.  Apparently, this book describes how the Inner Circle promotes "doublethink" to keep the outer party and the proles under control.  Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

I thought it was revealing that the protagonist in 1984, Winston Smith, worked at the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, and each day he would re-write history to to reflect the "new reality" as dictated by the Inner Party.  What was key to the Inner Party's power was that history was easy to re-write (and it was Winston's job to assist each day in this process).  

In addition to proof-of-work making it difficult to create new coins, I realized today that it also makes it extremely difficult to re-write history.  On the other hand, since no work is required in proof-of-stake (just enough voting power), history can be re-written cheaply and insidiously.  

No such thing as inherent rights or free markets. The inclusion of idealistic abstractions into your theorizing is it's weak point IMHO.

The idea that an economy cannot be measured or controlled is nothing more than a pretext for non-regulation of destructive economic behavior. These types of destructive behaviors can emerge in any ideological format, if there is no social pressure to inhibit them.

Governments are not the main entity that individuals need to protect themselves from. There are economic entities that are far more powerful and suppressive than any government. Government is merely the interface between these entities and the populace.  

I understand that perspective, because I shared it at one time. But consider:

Objectively speaking, the current system is a slightly modified version of feudalism, with owners of capital forming the aristocracy rather than it being formed around the archiac notion of noble lineage. There's certainly no "free market" but rather a series of nested cartels and other associations (corporatism, as you noted).

Almost all of the progress we've seen since then is due to technological advancement rather than social advancement. Most of the social advancement that has occurred happened in response to empowerment made possible due to technological improvements that allowed the individual to actualize. (btc is this sort of improvement). At the same time other tech has emerged that serves to suppress the individual.

Unless we create a humane system where human beings are not treated as draft animals the systemic unfairness you spoke of will exist. Whether that is a system of fair market distribution, such as mutualism, or perhaps a different sort of system not yet envisioned remains to be seen.

In the meantime lets produce the best technology for individual actualization (crypto) we can. I think it is humanity's best bet.

or perhaps not so secretly

the 'schedule' is based on number blocks, not a timestamp though , right?

I ask because it relates to another conversion thread about time being
the critical factor used to create distributed consensus.