Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: liberty  (Read 465 times)

Offline BitcoinJesus2.O

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
liberty
« on: June 19, 2015, 07:57:19 AM »


« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 09:16:59 PM by BitcoinJesus2.O »
"Why the hell are you still posting shit here?!"
                               - Fuck TheMan

Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss
 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
12 pages!
People love a scandal

I think you're playing with strawmen a bit much.

You tell me which argument is the strawman:

1. Now that we've finally caught the diabolical Molecatcher, what should the community do to punish him (mwoo hoo woo oo ah ah ah ah!)?

2. What should the account name registration fees be?

BitShares is built on the entire premise of providing freedom and property for all. For us to simply take away after the fact is a rejection of his freedom and rights to use the system as it is, and was designed. This would in turn cause a ripple effect (pardon the pun) where people would question of transactions/actions taken in bitshares could be reversed on them later.
+5% +5% +5% ( +5%'s mine)

Squatters don't deserve any respect..
I tend to agree.

I tend to agree too!

and those who steal from others deserve even less respect ! (get it yet?)
Good gravy.
"I don't like what this mole has done, therefore he deserves no respect for his property." Either everyone has rights or nobody does.

I didn't see anybody complaining that the name registration fee was too low before this guy saw an opportunity to profit.
Isn't attracting businesses to our platform to earn profit exactly what we're trying to do?
It's the communities fault if he paid too little, not his.
Reversing his paid-for tx's would be theft.
Let this 'mistake' be a lesson for us to consider the parameters of our system more thoroughly.

I heartily agree with concerned members expressing their desired solution to all problems they encounter.
Then the best points from each can be bundled together into a nice little package known as consensus!
In that spirit, I would like all solutions to bts problems to hinge on cold, hard economics. With game theory and sociology considered too.
Idealism and wishes don't sustain an economy.

BJ2.0  +5%
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Riverhead


BTS needs to turn on the consensus of the shareholders. I am not convinced the active, vocal, members of this forum represent anywhere near a majority stake.
BTC/MUSE Bridge! Buy REAL MUSE!  https://metaexchange.info/markets/MUSE/BTC



Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss

BTS needs to turn on the consensus of the shareholders. I am not convinced the active, vocal, members of this forum represent anywhere near a majority stake.

 +5%
I agree

I see it as unlikely that large holders even read the forum. With hedged bets everywhere I doubt they spend much time here.
But before blockchain voting what other ways are there of reaching consensus?
It's difficult, particularly with language barriers and a preference for privacy

Access to detailed and balanced arguments/information is critical and this problem may get even worse as the community increases in size.
Is this forum the best way to disseminate this information?
What other plans are there?

The hangouts are fantastic but a whale is unlikely to introduce themselves as such, so there is no way to know how much bts stake is being represented
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
And, for the third time: As long as narwal actually creates a market for them and works to develop the infrastructure that can support it, good for him/her.

This isn't about "we don't like what he did let's take away his property" (at least to me). In fact, I supported narwhal in his efforts to monetize the names. I have no problems with squatters, as they perform a market function and are entrepreneurs that took a risk. I do have a problem with systems that enable perpetual squatting. That is a bad game theory/economic model. It's like margin trading with no interest or calls. If names are a resources, I don't want the blockchain to give the resource away forever. See puppies post on this topic:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17016.msg218242.html#msg218242


Now, for the benefit of the community, a lesson in how to have a fruitful discussion
Quote
You tell me which argument is the straw man:

1. Now that we've finally caught the diabolical Molecatcher, what should the community do to punish him (mwoo hoo woo oo ah ah ah ah!)?

2. What should the account name registration fees be?

Neither are arguments, neither are strawmen. For an understanding of what an argument is, see;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
which - although funny, drives home the point of how an argument (point of discussion) differs from an argument (discourse between opposing positions). A straw man argument is an intentionally weak point of discussion set up by one party to make the other look weak. For example:
"The community lacked foresight in their fee structure, narwhal took advantage of the fee rules, the community feels like they got ripped off, therefore the community wants to whine and take away people's property" is a strawman argument that you can take down with, "As bitshares we all agree we must protect property, so everyone that wants to take away property rights is against bitshares" And thus avoid the arguments of, "all rules are defined by the blockchain, the genesis block of the new blockchain has not been written yet, therefore there are no rules yet for the new blockchain" or the argument "while there is market value to name speculation, there is no market value to indefinite name speculation or removal of names from the namespace, therefore indefinite name speculation should be considered for possible removal"

Quote
Further discussing what to do with Mr. Molecatcher is indeed a "strawman argument" in comparison to the pertinent discussion on consensus building to secure the integrity of BitShares and your childerens' future.  I have been hammering you on this for over a year now, and it is exhausting.  But that is what this community loves to do...

Again, that is not a strawman argument (nor an argument at all) - you are confusing the two definitions of argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Straw_man
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 03:45:10 PM by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline BunkerChain Labs

I was quoted by BitcoinJesus.. <happy dance>  8)

And so it was written.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Riverhead



I do have a problem with systems that enable perpetual squatting. That is a bad game theory/economic model.

So that's the crux of it. Are the names his to sell, hold, or use? Or are they communal and he has them so long as certain conditions as met? If the latter they aren't his property.

Not sure if that is a strawman or not but that's the dichotomy it boils down to.
BTC/MUSE Bridge! Buy REAL MUSE!  https://metaexchange.info/markets/MUSE/BTC

Offline puppies



I do have a problem with systems that enable perpetual squatting. That is a bad game theory/economic model.

So that's the crux of it. Are the names his to sell, hold, or use? Or are they communal and he has them so long as certain conditions as met? If the latter they aren't his property.

Not sure if that is a strawman or not but that's the dichotomy it boils down to.

I think the choice between Narwhal owning the names, and the community owning the names is a false dichotomy.

The names are really only considered a scarce resource when viewed within the BitShares ecology.  In reality you are free to run whatever code you choose to run through whatever computer systems you own or rent.  Attempting to stop you from running that code would be a violation of your property rights.  You running that code does not in any way infringe on me using any of my property as I see fit.

Narwhal is also free to run whatever code he chooses through any computers he owns or rents.  Attempting to stop him would be a violation of his property rights.  Narwhal running any code does not in any way infringe on my using any of my property as I see fit.

Ultimately I am saying the choice is in the middle.  We all own our own property, and yet we would like to be able to interact with others.  You want a namebase free from squatters and I want a system that respects the promise of the network at all times.  I think we can find a middle ground that prevents squatters and doesn't even have the implication of stealing peoples property.

I propose that we split account names from domain names.  Account names transfer according to current rules.  Once domain names are ready, we allow transfer from account name to domain name at the new fee rate.  We also need some system to claim unused domain names.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 02:22:12 AM by puppies »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Riverhead

I think the choice between Narwhal owning the names, and the community owning the names is a false dichotomy.

The names are really only considered a scarce resource when viewed within the BitShares ecology.  In reality you are free to run whatever code you choose to run through whatever computer systems you own or rent.  Attempting to stop you from running that code would be a violation of your property rights.  You running that code does not in any way infringe on me using any of my property as I see fit.

I see your false dichotomy and raise you moral semantics :). We allow him to keep the names to respect the promise of the network yet adjust the meaning of a name to exclude use as a domain name. I personally am in support of this proposal because a domain name and an account name, in my mind, are worlds apart in their use cases. He took a chance buying up a bunch of land in an evolving system hoping it'll have value some day. Risky venture is risky.

A real world example: I bought a condo above a restaurant a while back, just before the real estate melt down in the US. Part of the recovery of that was changing the rules that governed what mortgages the federal lending houses would buy. My place fell outside those new rules. So while no one stole my property they stole the value of it (since a cash purchase would be required which really discounts the price by about 40%).

The difference between that and our horny friend is intent. While I got swept up as collateral damage it's possible his actions triggered the push for the separation of name spaces with the intent to suck the value out of his property.

In the larger scheme of things this won't really matter one way or the other. I'm still on the fence about squatters. Which is worse: someone that buys a name and then never, ever, does anything with it. Or someone that buys a name with the intent to sell it so that someone that does want it still has a chance to buy it and us it.  :-\

A moot point in this particular situation I guess because the separation of name spaces just makes sense on its own regardless of NameNarwhal's land grab.
BTC/MUSE Bridge! Buy REAL MUSE!  https://metaexchange.info/markets/MUSE/BTC

Offline puppies

I think the choice between Narwhal owning the names, and the community owning the names is a false dichotomy.

The names are really only considered a scarce resource when viewed within the BitShares ecology.  In reality you are free to run whatever code you choose to run through whatever computer systems you own or rent.  Attempting to stop you from running that code would be a violation of your property rights.  You running that code does not in any way infringe on me using any of my property as I see fit.

I see your false dichotomy and raise you moral semantics :). We allow him to keep the names to respect the promise of the network yet adjust the meaning of a name to exclude use as a domain name. I personally am in support of this proposal because a domain name and an account name, in my mind, are worlds apart in their use cases. He took a chance buying up a bunch of land in an evolving system hoping it'll have value some day. Risky venture is risky.

A real world example: I bought a condo above a restaurant a while back, just before the real estate melt down in the US. Part of the recovery of that was changing the rules that governed what mortgages the federal lending houses would buy. My place fell outside those new rules. So while no one stole my property they stole the value of it (since a cash purchase would be required which really discounts the price by about 40%).

The difference between that and our horny friend is intent. While I got swept up as collateral damage it's possible his actions triggered the push for the separation of name spaces with the intent to suck the value out of his property.

In the larger scheme of things this won't really matter one way or the other. I'm still on the fence about squatters. Which is worse: someone that buys a name and then never, ever, does anything with it. Or someone that buys a name with the intent to sell it so that someone that does want it still has a chance to buy it and us it.  :-\

A moot point in this particular situation I guess because the separation of name spaces just makes sense on its own regardless of NameNarwhal's land grab.
Very nice.  While we might not have gotten there on the same route, I think we agree on the solution.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

 

Google+