hashing = "mining" Huh

"sharing" = mining Huh

"loving" = mining Huh

wasting = mining Huh

living = mining Huh

as long as it's not: work makes you free Cry

, I think I can adapt. Undecided

Quote from: zetaray on November 17, 2014, 07:07:33 PM

A currency is a medium of exchange, not an income redistribution tool. Cryptos need electricity to send and receive. Many parts of the 3rd world do not have electricity easily available. So, cryptos will not solve poverty or inequality.

A currency shouldn't at least not be a mean of extraction. I don't think that electricity per se is the problem, who doesn't want an iphoneclone... a mini solar panel and you are good to go... machine build...

Quote from: Holliday on November 17, 2014, 06:04:14 PM

People willingly give up their power. It doesn't matter how many advancements are made, this will continue to happen. They seem to want to avoid the responsibility that comes with having any power at all. Most will happily trade their power for a false sense of security.

The best we can do is find ways to render the consolidation of power irrelevant to the responsible individual.

As long as it has value, a currency will be gathered into the hands of a few. A currency without value is pointless.

Do you think it can be trained? Or structurally engineered? How they will try to consolidated, aggressive to the point that BTC and clones had to come. Their is only value in trust in the men next to you, carrying the arms needed to defeat your opponents, in case such ones, doesn't want to discuss and solve in a consensual way your problems (and his as of you standing in arms before him, otherwise he would laugh...). It's called plantation transition, once the salve rise, necessarily certain formers masters will have to readjust to the new paradigm. The real question is what can they keep. Some argue that their life is already too much due to the damage inflicted. I couldn't agree more.

Quote from: RodeoX on November 17, 2014, 06:01:48 PM

I liked your post. But I don't think cryptocoins are going to address human greed. The only way to discourage hoarding of anything is to devalue it. Doing that destroys it's utility and will keep anyone from using it.

The big difference with something like bitcoin is not that it will keep the greedy away, but they must compete equally with you. Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money. The poor are expected to work and create the real value that the rich are cashing in on.

woooh, I like this spirit of realism. I could just add that serving as cannon folders and prostitutes is the cherry-icing on the cake (depending on the taste). Greed ain't a sin, wanting more cake because you are hungry while the others are on diet ( Kiss

) could be even describe as helping.

Quote from: jaysabi on November 17, 2014, 05:51:40 PM

It sounds like you're asking for things that aren't possible: for a currency that has widely acknowledged value but also one in which the accumulation of it isn't possible by the wealthy. If your premise is that currencies typically allow for oppression of the poor, and you want bitcoin to become a currency, it too will allow for oppression of the poor. Bitcoin doesn't solve the fundamental problem of the human race: scarcity of resources. Scarcity of resources is what drives greed, not currency. Currencies are just a representation of it and a way to facilitate trade, and it doesn't matter if it's denominated in USD, Euros, Pounds, or Bitcoins. Bitcoin will not end scarcity, so there will always be rich and poor, even with bitcoin. But solving that problem wasn't the intent of bitcoin either. I don't know where the concept came from, but the problem bitcoin was supposed to solve was not inequitable distributions of wealth; it was the necessity of a central authority (which may abuse its power) in the currency creation process. Any ideals you're assigning to bitcoin outside of that single one aren't innate to bitcoin, and they aren't necessarily warranted.

scarcity of resources = stress; life = how do you cope with this stress, becoming a sub-animal or a human. don't wait, time is ticking for both as certain. Greed is allowed to grow like poverty. It's a political choices, that has many advantages for sub-animals in terms of reproduction and others earthly advantages. Very common among the human specie. Does it have DNA markers, I don't believe so, it's more from the spirit than the flesh, sadly?

Quote from: yldouright on November 17, 2014, 03:48:45 PM

The cryptocoin world has a serious philosophical question it needs to address and that is the subject above. We have seen throughout history that inequitable distributions of wealth or power always results in oppression of some form or another. This is a natural consequence of the territorial nature in the human species so if we plan to fix anything with cryptocoin, we should not leave out the opportunity to discourage the aspect of human nature which is at the root of all the harm in the first place. If we don't, we just exchange one evil for another. How so? Let's assume bitcoin begins to be accepted as a store of value but its distribution and access is poor. Without it being in the hands of the vast majority, that value will either become irrelevant over time or another source of domination. It will fail to achieve its main purpose of a fluid currency with either scenario. Sadly, this argument applies to just about all the cryptocurrencies so what is a better solution? I don't have an answer but because I've pondered this issue longer than most, I know the direction we need to take and that is why I am introducing this thread with the hope that the more thoughtful and altruistic among you will participate. We need a coin that has disincentives for dominant mass accumulation and we need a coin that is accessible to all. These both can be achieved in many ways and this thread is designed to put these suggestions forward for discussion.

Always? never have been the men whose pockets have been the fullest the kindest? there must be something going on here... Maybe only thieves and liars can prosper in the world of sauron? Happily pockets of the dead are always emptied, sooner or later. But it doesn't help in your fast electronic societies.

I think that we don't need one coin, but as many until maximal "efficiency" is reached in the size of each group. Certain groups converging towards certain conflicting interest will have to resort to violence to attempt to go trough the "iron wall" or die trying.

Thank you for your post it's quite rare to read such beautiful phrase as evil swapping, I thank you very much to have dared to express your opinions, that reflect a sure and certain comprehension of "money" as it's called in the real estate game called monopoly.

A currency is meaningful once it's used further - help - foster the type of future you want your children to live in. Otherwise it's just a scam attempt by your opponents to conquer your land, or worst.