Quote from: TPTB_need_war on October 17, 2015, 12:32:17 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 17, 2015, 12:11:56 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on October 17, 2015, 12:08:46 PM

Quote from: rangedriver on October 17, 2015, 11:14:10 AM

What about if I cured your illness? Would you be willing to release your whitepaper for free?

Comrade, may I ask why you propose for me to not receive donations and thus not pay you for helping to cure me?

Do you think it helps incentivize crypto development if the crypto market is unable to pay for fair value?

Who is to say that "fair value" isn't a trade of a cure for a whitepaper?

Nothing wrong with that if both parties are happy with the deal.

First of all, it isn't fungible so it doesn't as an example of market-based compensation to incentivize other developers who are not ill. Kickstarter has a large economy-of-scale, because it is fungible (for both donators and creators). Remember one of your greatest arguments for the benefit of Monero's anonymity has been fungibility (against blacklisting, whitelisting, redlisting, etc) is a requirement for money.

Secondly, he could rather assign the value of his donation and we could agree on the value and I could continue to receive donations from others since not only did state I had numerous goals not just funding the potential diagnosis of my illness but also there is no non-Communist reason to limit the market expression of fair value. In short, he attempted to monopolize the market function and apply Communism. He tried to determine that everyone else should get it for free and unable to donate. His proposal bound everyone else, not just himself and myself.

I am for free markets. How about your smooth? You for Communism or free markets?

If you two agree, that's a free market. If one of you does not, then the deal doesn't happen (still a free market). There was nothing wrong with him offering it.