Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 12, 2015, 08:29:50 AM

The scale canard is the same used by those opposing a gold standard. Low TPS isn't an obstacle to scaling any more than a limited supply of gold. The price of each simply increases and scaling is provided by quality (magnitude), not quantity, of transactions. Substitution also plays a key role, as the more numerous but less important transactions migrate to secondary networks like silver/copper or Litecoin/Primecoin.

To me, and I come from a completely different paradigm, which is the obvious arising of a universal poker coin which cannot be said to be unrelated. The ideal poker markets that are eventually created by having a near instant and near costless means of exchange creates a cradle for a solution basically that is "quixcoin" (I "think" Szabo mentioned it recently and is Sergio L's coin). I am far from technical, but to me this is the birth of the actual implementation of "mental poker". But I instantly get confronted with the question or assertion about why one would not just use bitcoin. This is of course in relation to many skilled type games, and the markets that support them. Thats a mutibillion dollar industry that could snap over the bitcoin nearly over night which is contingent on bitcoin having some form or amount of limitations (transition from fiat to bitcoin, but ultimately to separate value from the game with separate "coins" protocols, or networks, however we view it all) . This is an incredibly interesting conversation. I am almost sad I will not be able to share the contents and meaning with many people I know irl. Someone accuses someone of being a thief, but I think rather we must all think like thieves in order to create the ultra secure platform.

I think I do see an inevitable "test" or experiment, and so then there is a democratic choice, you can vote for change or not for change, you can try to be malicious or try to be cooperative.

Here is the outline:
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/outline/

Here are notes on "dialogue" which may be useful:
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/notes-on-on-dialogue-and-in-relation-to-the-block-size-discussion-dialoue/

Quote from: bohm

Thus everybody is quite free. Its not like a mob where the collective mind takes over-not at all. It is something between the individual and the collective. It can move between them. Its a harmony of the individual and the collective,in which the whole constantly moves toward coherence. So there is both a collective mind and an individual mind, and like a stream, the flow moves between them. The opinions, therefore, dont matter so much. Eventually we may be somewhere between all these opinions, and we start to move beyond them in another direction-a tangential direction-into something new and creative.

Now, that would be the ideal situation. Ive painted the ideal picture.

And so that is the ideal and we perhaps have the possibility for the truth of this, although somewhat shocking about how far back certain "protocol" technology may have gone:

Quote from: bohm

The tacit process is common. It is shared. The sharing is not merely the explicit communication and the body language and all that, which are part of it, but there is also a deeper tacit process which is common. I think the whole human race knew this for a million years; and then in five thousand years of civilisation we have lost it, because our societies got too big to carry it out.

With respect to TWON it might simply have been the outgrowing (or sinking ;p) of continents and especially in relation to the sea or "other lands" and the feasibility/economics of conquering/discovering them that caused us to "lose" this 'technology' bohm speaks of.

Very related vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRn23dQ_uJA

And then an auspicious comparison by bohm:

If the possibility of the choice of two coins arises, there might be some helpful strategy here: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2008/03/logical-emergence-of-money-from-barter.html#links