Topic: Bit coin is on a down hill slope - page 2. (Read 5518 times)

Lambchop is only here for one reason....

When on the internet it is best to keep your emotions out.  Just leave topics you get emotional about, some people come to the web only to draw out rage from others.

You are right in the sense that you will be subject to violence if you don't obey but you can organize your life to be less subject to this violence.

As others already said, NotLambChop is one of major forum's trolls. Most people have him on ignore. By the same reason they are not happy when somebody is quoting him.

"Over-investment" and "under-consumption" wording assume that there is some "proper" level of consumption and investment. But there isn't. If milk becomes money, their utility will grow. If, say british scientists would discover that milk, added to petrol, would double mileage per gallon, milk consumption will grow, along with investment into milk production. But we won't call it over-production and over-consumption. If milk, apart from drinking, can be used for something else, it's utility will grow and it is normal, rather than "over".

^
No.  You have failed to answer my previous question, and I unjustly attributed it to evasiveness.  In my haste, I overlooked the possibility of you being differently enabled & suffering from poor reading comprehension.  Along with your delusions of persecution.
Apologies.
I've highlighted the important bits this time, in hopes that it may somehow help:

You're trying to answer two questions, so that we could continue our conversation.
Good luck!

You mean that if you're convicted for tax evasion, you can still stay at home and enjoy life, and nobody's going to use violence on you, like trying to put handcuffs, or put you in jail or something ?  And if you try to defend yourself against people with uniforms coming to use violence on you with a weapon, you're not going to get any guns against you ?  Nothing physical will happen to you if you refuse to pay your taxes ?  You will simply be denied access to state services you're not paying and that's it ?  Nothing physical will happen to you and you will happily go your way ?

Yes, apart from a method of initial distribution which acts like a faucet, mining is a way to keep the system as neutral as an algorithm can be.

I don't really understand how a mining-less system can function either. I mean, sure, right now most of the income from Bitcoin mining is from newly minted coins, but as the number of coins minted decreases the usability as a currency should be increasing which will lead to a gradual shift towards income from transaction fees. In fact, Satoshi probably predicted the move towards mining hardware at ever increasing speeds so that by the time people stop making money from the minting their machines are able to process enough transactions to actually allow the transaction fees to go even lower and work even faster at equivalent ROI to the minting of today.

In a mining-less system the income is exclusively from minted coins without any strategy for the shift towards transaction fee income. There is even this interesting concept called "Proof of Burn" which although presents an interesting low energy cost approach to distributing new coins has not even considered the role hardware has to take in maintaining the network. In either Stake or Burn the focus gets shifted away from the hardware that holds everything together. Even in the better stake proposals that allows people to be rewarded from mining alone, the fact that people are rewarded just by holding coins would seriously disrupt the expansion of the network which would be required for it to become the world reserve currency for all transactions everywhere.

In the worst case scenario, based on fluctuating price, energy, and hardware the rewards for holds could become higher than mines which could in turn result in a rapid shut down of mining hardware to the point that the network ceases to function fully or at all. Sure, the existing mines won't shut down right away, but as people stop investing in new mines and stop buying more energy efficient hardware as energy prices go up the old hardware could be gradually decommissioned without replacement. That would be a consequence of the BETTER proposal where you are allowed to earn from mining independently of holding. In the other scenario where you have to hold and mine it would guarantee that only the wealthiest control Bitcoin, but more importantly would cut the network expansion rate in half which would seriously compromise required network growth.

The emphasis needs to remain with proof of work because that is the only model that will allow the network to expand as it must while providing the required buffer to keep everything working in the event of price declines as will occasionally happen.

So no one has put a gun to your head, you're simply afraid that someone will.  Now we're finally getting somewhere, let's take this a step at a time.
Do you personally know someone who was shot for failing to pay taxes?
My previous question still stands: What God-forsaken foregny you hail from?

Great analogy!
Something tells me that we talked about it some years ago... Maybe just a coincidence


The Infinity will make sure that we will all play on each side eventually.

But there is a way out.

With the fuel as pure and clean as Bitcoin the Star of Humanity has a good chance to go Supernova.
That's when people move to live among the stars with all the good stuff that we will have produced up to that point and there is no amount of government that can hold us back. That's where we are headed, resistance is futile.

Whenever you do not comply in giving about half or 2/3 of what you produce to the state, that's what happens in the end: they put a gun against your head, or force you violently to comply in any case.  They call it tax evasion.  You get "protection" and "public services" you didn't necessarily ask for in return.  What other kind of organization comes and takes a good chunk of the value you produce in an offer you can't refuse, and offers you "protection" and goods and services you didn't ask for in return ?

^
>My employer and I AGREED mutually on a deal.  He didn't put a gun against my head forcing me to produce value for him.

Who put a gun to your head last?   What God-forsaken foregny you hail from, brah?

Don't take Trollchop seriously. She's just a pathetic little troll with an axe to grind.

She's also not very bright so there's no sense trying to reason with her.

You're best to just put her on ignore, as most here have.

No, of course not.  My employer and I AGREED mutually on a deal.  He didn't put a gun against my head forcing me to produce value for him.  I had a choice.  When you have a choice (not "an offer you cannot refuse"), there's by definition no extortion.  At most, a scam.


As it is unavoidable, better be on the extortion side, no ? 


Communism is the top of extortion. 

Welcome to the forums, nice to see somebody smart for a change, this section has been overrun by trolls lately so you are most probably wasting your energy in vain Good posts though.

Lol, in that case, your employer is extorting you, taking the value you create, and living in great wealth.


You are not?  Not against organized extortion?


That's mighty defeatist of you.  Work for a brighter tomorrow--Communism!

I don't see what's so deluded, extreme, or otherwise psychiatrically disformed by stating the obvious.

Since the dawn of states, an aristocracy has extorted value-producing people.  Since wealth was produced (that is, since man left the status of hunter-gatherer and started agriculture), "leaders" took part of that wealth for themselves, using their status of violent monopolist (when they were not the monopolist, there was war). That's how kings became rich.  That's how the classical upper classes (aristocracy) became rich: by extortion of those that produced, whether they were farmers or other value-producers.  With that, they did according to their whims: going to war, building palaces or pyramids, living in great wealth.  They had to manage this extortion of course, and that was traditionally done with violence, and with religion.  And of course, in order to get the gullible mass to cheer for them and support them, they had to do now and then something that, in the eyes and simple minds of the people, seemed to be good and necessary.
The formula has evolved over time, but is still the same.

I'm not against the state, as it would be as silly as being against gravity.  The appearance of organized extortion is unavoidable when there is wealth creation.  A state is unavoidable: if you destroy one, another will come in its place.  So better learn to live with it, and use it to your advantage.  Like with gravity.  A state is a dynamical essence in a society.  Maffia is unavoidable.  But that doesn't mean one has to cheer for it.

Now I understand.  It is impossible to debate a mind like yours--you'll simply restate your delusions. Here's a quote describing your mentality far better than I ever could:

Sorry to disagree, but the confusion between the nation and the state is the great lie of the modern states.

The state is an organisation which has the monopoly of violence over a nation (= people, territory, infrastructure, capital).  The workings of this organisation are similar to that of the maffia: they extort the nation, and they provide some services such as "protection".

The distinction between state and nation was much clearer in times when there was still a monarchy.  Louis XIV said it clearly "The state, that's me !".

However, after cutting off heads of state by the disgruntled nation, the state went on in a different way, by trying to make the nation think it is responsible for all the extortion of the state: they invented elections.  There's a price to pay: elections are on one hand what limits the maffia's time at the hands of the state.  Elections can alternate between different maffia families at the head of the state, which was not the worry of an hereditary monarchy.  In order to gain elections, now lies and mass manipulation is necessary which was much less the case before.  But the great thing about elections is that the nation is now "guilty" and "responsible" for all of the extortion by the state, which will avoid heads cut off of the maffia leading the state.

But that doesn't mean that the state is the nation.  The state is the organisation that extorts the nation, it being the violence monopolist. 
That has historically always been so, and it is not because there are elections in modern states, instead of hereditary monarchy, that that basic principle has been overthrown.

This is the basic misunderstanding of most on this forum--believing that the state is a separate entity, rather than themselves.
The state is not a separate entity, it is the sum total of people of the state.  No more a separate entity than the pool that you aim your hashpower at.