Quote from: RealBitcoin on April 21, 2017, 10:18:18 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on April 20, 2017, 05:35:40 AM

How else do you understand freedom, trustlessness, and permissionlessness ? If there are rules, you are not free. Of course, violence is permitted, because *everything* is permitted (permissionlessness). It is the first of freedoms.

Freedom to do aggression is not freedom, because you are taking away the freedom of the victim.

But all our acts have victims of which we profit. That's the essence of life. Life is a struggle for survival, and as such, you have to perish or kill. The freedom resides in the fact that you can and will be just as well a victim, as a predator, and may the fittest win. Of course, nothing stops entities from making mutually beneficial agreements, so that they become stronger over others, and can more easily render others into preys.

Quote

Quote from: dinofelis on April 20, 2017, 05:35:40 AM

If you want a trustless, permissionless system, I don't see how you can impose "moral rules". I'm not saying that you should adhere to trustlessness, and permissionlessness, but these are the founding principles of crypto.

Otherwise, you don't need crypto. You introduce a moral principle that transactions should not be double-spend, and the same centralized authority that sets these rules, and that will judge these rules, is the entity that will verify whether these rules are "moral" to their standards. In other words, the normal world out there.

You can have both decentralization and moral rules. This is not opposite ideology.

Of course it is, because who is going to decide and who is going to enforce the moral rules ? After all, there's only one fundamental moral rule: good is what is good for me, and bad is what is bad for me. All other morals are nothing else but ways to give more weight to the good and bad of some over that of others. Because most of the time, what is good for me, is bad for the others. That's the nature of life.

Quote

So nothing prohibits a person from starting up his own crypto project. But if he starts DDOS-ing his competitor, you bet there will be consequences to that.

Of course, but that is because ultimately, there's nothing that can be "partially decentralized", if there is a central authority (say, law enforcement, and the bunch of assholes that dictates the laws over others) in the end.

Quote

There are already laws against DDOS, and besides, slowing down somebody's server is causing financial harm to the victim.

Indeed, that is because the laws are centralized things, imposing their ad hoc morality.

Quote

It's as if you would have no problem if somebody would grafitti your house, because that is freedom of art no? Well not if it's causing financial harm to you.

Of course it is. But by painting grafitti on my house, he opens himself to the possibility of being shot or tortured by me, or by one of my buddies. So maybe he should think twice, or be sure that he has enough fire power to counter mine, in which case, I can do nothing else but be like the antilope, killed by the lion.