Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[hodl]

i think in general all of the BitcoinCash implementations should stay clear of incorporating any of nChain's and esp Blockstream's patented work into their code. if possible, also avoid accepting any funds that could create a conflict of interest. open source software should remain free and in the public domain for anyone/everyone to use and/or fork. any devs wanting to make money on all this should just buy the coin for the future appreciation, like everyone else.

edit: buy the coin for the future appreciation and then work/code like hell to make it as valuable as possible.

 

[hodl]

i hate to be the one who cheers/trolls this BTC plunge onwards and downwards, esp since i have way more to lose than most. but it really needs to happen. the Bcore trolls need to be taken out and shot and BTC needs to die. i still believe this is necessary for BCH to thrive and rise like a phoenix otherwise be deemed as inflationary/dilutional.

 

[hodl]

This BTC selloff is seriously going to screw with the profitability/implementation dreams of LN/SC pumpers.

Meanwhile BCH just works.

 

[lunar]

For example, let's say I'm catching fish by hand, and I see my neighbor make a net. On my property, I have some sticks and string that I own, and I decide to fashion them into a net also. If my neighbor says "you can't do that, I have a patent on nets", that means he is interfering with my right to unfettered control over my legitimate property.

Just for devils advocate. What happens if in your story. The inventor of the net had spent the last 10 years researching it, and flying above both properties an amazon drone spots the invention then markets it around the world, making billions?

This coin has two sides. We're not just fighting for the right of the neighbor to make use of commons knowledge and fashion a their own net. We should also be concerned with protecting (encouraging) the inventor of the net to fulfil thier dream of the perfect net. To take from one disadvantages the other.

 

[hodl]

I've been toying with the idea of setting up a thread over on bitcoin.com entitled "BTC collapsing, BCH UP" but unsure if I want to go to the trouble of maintaining it potentially for several years, yet again. Wouldn't that be a kick?

In the meantime, yes, BCH needs to get going soon.

 

[Mengerian]

We should also be concerned with protecting (encouraging) the inventor of the net to fulfil thier dream of the perfect net.

Should we?

I'm just talking about property rights. I'm saying you can't simultaneously have "Intellectual Property" while respecting legitimate property rights.

The argument you present is saying, in effect "It's justified to infringe property rights in order to encourage inventors". Now we are into the realm of intervening in the free market to encourage economic outcomes we think are better, and that's a whole different set of arguments.

To bring it back to your example, what's wrong with someone marketing it to the world? If they make billions in the free market, that means they have provided billions in value to the world by spreading knowledge of the invention.

Also, I'd say it should be considered "in bad taste" to blatantly rip off people's ideas. It's probably better for entrepreneurs and marketers to keep inventors happy by providing them some reasonable consideration. And for things like copyright, it should be considered standard practice to cite things properly, and give credit where it is due. But this is totally different than a "Property Right" to ideas.

 

[freetrader]

I noticed that @Tom Zander 's FloweeTheHub relicensed a lot of the code under GPL.

So we are seeing the more free software developed from the old MIT codebase.

This is good for Bitcoin.

 

[AdrianX]

The basics of liberty and freedom, are the rights to self determination and the autonomous governance of ones own body, mind and it's creations, within the confines of non aggression.

I'm not in disagreement. I just used a metaphor with a gross extreme like how we relate to some people throwing faeces out a window in the middle ages relative to today, ones experiences paint one's boundaries.

It just so happens to be related to the notion that limiting one's ability to serve one's self-making one's actions the property of another is like slavery.

"you can't do that, I have a patent on nets", that means he is interfering with my right to unfettered control over my legitimate property. The only way that his "IP" could be enforced is by initiating an aggressive trespass into my property.

In support of your net negative definition of theft, property (land) could be explained as theft, not so much personal property rights. The early Anarchists who were in favour of free markets and people cooperating in companies had ideas that differed from Communists who regarded Property (land) in the same way as libertarians. They just vary slightly by arguing who gets the right to own it and who pays the cost of the loss by incorrectly defining it as propert.

Adam Smith explains this economic problem in his Wealth of Nations - productive labour entrepreneurs eventually have all its profit extracted as rent by the property owner. He was not able to conceive that people could subsequently claim all land or eventually immigrate to virtual space where ideas (IP) are free.

 

[AdrianX]

Just for devils advocate. What happens if in your story. The inventor of the net had spent the last 10 years researching it, and flying above both properties an amazon drone spots the invention then markets it around the world, making billions?

Hoving an idea and finding a way to get people to pay you for it is where the creative business opportunities are. Satoshi may have developed the best example in the history of humanity where you give away the IP and the software and profit from the innovation without the need for IP.

The blockchain allows people with asymmetric knowledge in a free market of ideas to profit. It gives access to all I see a new model mentioned by @awemany you can make it that you pay for IP only when it's exchanged on the blockchain and not when its free.
The New parody is software developers are not in the business of innovative software development. They are in the data mining business or the service business, giving away innovative software free so they can gain asymmetric knowledge in a market of free ideas.

Medical drugs protected by patents are designed to extract rents from governments, remove the IP, and they need to find new creative ways to profit. I'm willing to bet the market to provide new medical servises won't disappear, and the market will continue to grow with demand.

 

[hodl]

don't feel bad:

 

[Bagatell]

Is that what Gavin meant?

 

[hodl]

no one knows. i'm sure he meant it that way too.

 

[Mengerian]

BCH/BTC holding around 0.13

Anything above 0.12 I'd still consider to fit with a rising BCH/BTC trend over multi-month time scale.

Quite interesting to watch, seems like BCH is weathering the drops pretty well so far.

Definitely reminiscent of late 2013 / early 2014. Seems like we have lots of euphoria to unwind, so things could be brutal for a while.

 

[Zarathustra]

But Austrians tells also that without taxes you could choose to produce less, since overproduction is not needed anymore and one can choose to use his time for personal growth, leisure and so on.

Yes, that's why I like the Austrians more than the Keynesians. But many Austrians believe that we would produce even more if we wouldn't be handicapped by the existence of the state. And I say that we would produce 1'000 times less if we still lived beyond the state.
[doublepost=1517912887][/doublepost]

@Zarathustra: In a strictly biologist view, the peacock produces surplus feathers to attract mates much as humans produce economic surplus to attract mates and/or move up the dominance hierarchy.

But peacocks are not stupid. They don't produce 3% more surplus feathers every year because they don't have to serve a god that demands 3% more every year:

http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/11

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Zarathustra

I'm not sure with this. Free markets and free societies allow you to decide how much lifetime you invest to get how much money, depending on luck and skills. When I got this perspective, my live as a freelancer became way more free and fun.

What you want is a stateless society, but not with markets, but more with communities or tribes. I don't really believe in this Rousseau story of the lucky and nice barbarians. Members of such a society will waste so much time for stupid things, like melting, washing, gardening, cooking, while being less productive in it, because there is less division of labor, so every work that is done is some kind of waste, as it could be done more effective. For one Kilogram of spelt flour you need 28,000 ears. Imagine how much work you have to do just to eat a slice of bread. And I'm sure it will taste less good than the bread you just buy for 3 minutes of your worktime at the bakery.

I don't think that you live a luckier live if you need to invest more time of a more stupid and exhausting work to get less results. I rather think it is frustrating and boring. Also a tribal society tends to consume all what it produces, which is nice for ecology, but will result in recurrently intervals of shortage of everything. And hungry, desparated humans are not nice to each other. There is a tremendous amount of historic proofs what economic crisis do with human souls ...

 

[awemany]

But peacocks are not stupid. They don't produce 3% more surplus feathers every year because they don't have to serve a god that demands 3% more every year:

http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/11

They would, if they could. Peacocks are not known to be able to dig coal out of the ground or even harness nuclear fission.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Hm, the outflow rate of employees from Blockstream at the moment really makes the "mission accomplished, Bitcoin destroyed" "conspiracy theory" look very likely...

They didn't build a single useful application in all these years. All they did was destroy (the old) Bitcoin. I did tend more to the idea, that they were just stupid asshats with a severe case of NIH syndrome, but now it looks more like "good job, up to new adventures".
[doublepost=1517922257][/doublepost]

They would, if they could. Peacocks are not known to be able to dig coal out of the ground or even harness nuclear fission.

But I doubt, that Curie studied nuclear fission just to impress potential mates..

 

[awemany]

But I doubt, that Curie studied nuclear fission just to impress potential mates..

Of course not, but then she was also not a typical economic actor then - or would be now. She didn't get rich mining Uranium, but others did.

My argument is not that everyone is exactly moving according to 1st order biological drives. My argument is that enough are doing that they form the stampede, the masses, the economy and they'll behave very close to this. As @Zangelbert Bingledack writes, we're waiting for the weak hands to clear out to see where the smart money end up in regards to BCH:BTC, for example.

The weak hands are like 80..90% of the current market cap or so. Maybe lower now that it already crashed.

All that wise or smart men (or women) can do is shape the future through inventions of new technology and then hope that what they invent betters the human condition. And I think they have been succesfull at that, though maybe only very partly so

They can of course also try to have a go at direct, massive social engineering, but we have seen where that leads to.

Satoshi's legacy is somewhere in between. Which makes it very intriguing all by itself.

Hm, the outflow rate of employees from Blockstream at the moment really makes the "mission accomplished, Bitcoin destroyed" "conspiracy theory" look very likely...

Wait, there's more folks leaving Blockstream?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@Christoph Bergmann One thing that the anarcho-primitivists do get right is that humans are not fully adapted to the modern ecosystem.

Technology has freed most of us from the need for manual labor that was previously necessary for short term survival, however failure to exercise leads to poor health and an early death. Even though we've changed our living conditions so drastically that failure to work no longer results in immediate starvation, our bodies still require that work to stay healthy. Metabolic syndrome replaces starvation as the cause of death.

You can look at exercise as an deliberate partial recreation of an ecosystem to which our genes are still adapted but which no longer actually exists.

I suspect that a similar pattern holds for religion and tribalism. We've developed more accurate explanations for many phenomena in the world than the explanations previously provided by religion, however when people give up religion their behavior tends toward nihilism - the moral equivalent of the morbid obesity.

I would not be surprised in the future to see an increase in people deliberately practicing religion to maintain mental health, and deliberately forming tribes to maintain social health, in the same reasons they deliberately lift weights to maintain physical health.

 

[awemany]

@Justus Ranvier :

What you foresee happens already, witness people putting magnets under their beds or twirling their water before they drink it. Or some start believing in fake gods that sound convincing. Cough ....

I rather think the problem is that the first order biological impulses are being reinforced due to a realignment of culture with them, without a healthy alternative in sight. Nietzsche's prophesy that Christianity, when its shortcomings are exposed, will leave a horrible vacuum of nihilism in its wake, was right. That vacuum got filled with a maladaptation of primal biological impulses and now we are, I think, as humanity collectively at the point where we have to realize that this is not going to work, either.

But that ongoing realization will need a lot of time still and/or catalysis by shocks. Bitcoin might become just one of these shocks.

Others might say this is just the usual rise and fall of civilizations, and they might be right as well. But technology definitely puts a very weird twist on this.

IMO, politically, the right has the problem of not adapting to changing conditions and the left the problem of adapting the wrong way ...
Most politics interestingly always consistently gets things wrong. Which, if you have your tinfoil hat on, might be just the elites passing the ball between themselves. But who knows.