Quote from: gamey on May 16, 2015, 08:39:23 pm

Drugs are a huge example of how IP has helped us. If not IP then it would need to be funded by the state as a public good .. or some other mythical construct.

You might be right, I'm not saying you are not.
But it always makes me wonder what makes people so sure when they produce such definite statements.
We've never tried the alternative. We just take it for granted.

Maybe there would be still be drugs produced without IP in place and without state funding.
Maybe people are willing to make inventions regardless of the financial incentive. Maybe voluntary donations would suffice.
Inventors might like the IP incentive being in place as it is now but would still make their inventions without it because most/some of them just enjoy being useful for others.
All I'm saying is that I don't know.

This reminds me of central banks saying the economy would collapse without them controlling the interest rates and money supply.
But how do we know it's true? We've never tried the alternative.

Thanks to new things like MaidSafe coming soon into existence we might get some interesting answers whether the things we take for granted should really be taken for granted.
https://forum.safenetwork.io/t/is-maidsafe-then-end-for-copyright-laws/572/8

Quote from: gamey on May 16, 2015, 09:38:10 pm

Quote from: newmine on May 16, 2015, 08:56:39 pm

Quote from: Akado on May 16, 2015, 04:21:25 pm

Quote from: Ggozzo on May 16, 2015, 03:35:48 pm

I am out too. Not for the same reason as lazr or Tony, but because I was put in a position I couldn't get out of and lost near half my BTS. Had I been able to get out when I originally wanted to, I would have only lost 8-10%. But because of the rule were you can't use the posted collateral to exit the position and instead have to possess or purchase excess BTS than what you used to short/CREATE a bitAsset, I lost near 50%.

I learned my lesson the hard way. Back to bitcoin.

The rule can be bad, not saying it isn't since that's not my point. My point is that you didn't inform yourself before taking that position. You didn't know the rule. So, instead of blaming the rule itself, maybe inform yourself better next time.

aaaaannnnnd you wonder why the project can't gain any users and is only losing them.

I had no idea that you could not use the collateral to close out a position until he(Ggozzo/skyscraperfarms) pointed it out a month or so ago. Can you direct to me to the place in the client where it's states this? Or how about direct me to a post by the dev's (un-edited) that states "you should allow enough BTS to remain in your wallet that can cover your entire short position beyond the 2x collateral"? In essence a bitAsset then needs 4x the collateral, it just 1x needs to stay in your wallet. Sheesh.

It's too bad you guys continue to alienate users. He was "all in" on your shit, tries to close out a position, is stuck and gets a big FU in the form of multiple people saying he "should of informed himself more" or he didn't  "do his due diligence". Wtf, that guy probably lost beans compared to what some of you worthless good for nothing delegates are "earning" and you have the gall to tell him he should've known better. I guess it must be nice not earning your BTS and being able to laugh off your losses.

Your misconstruing is humorous. What is even more amusing is how you try so hard to suggest the delegates are being overpaid in some manner. The nonsense will never stop.

What am I interpreting wrong? Here is his post last month, where the same shit happened: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15561.0.html

Did you see PC's comment?

As for the delegate pay comment, I was referring to some of the 100%'ers who aren't doing anything and just sitting on the BTS bankroll, namely every marketing delegate, dacx, the bitscape ones and probably a few devs (that many Devs working fultime should've been able to put out a solid client by now, which tells me a lot of those guys aren't doing shit but maybe an hour a week if that).

Would you like me to leave, since I don't conform to your paradigm of positive outlook through delusional confidence?

Quote from: pc on May 16, 2015, 07:26:18 am

The original intent of IP is to allow creators/inventors

The problem with looking at social structures through their stated rather than actual intentions, workings and results is that it gives you a confused and superstitious model of the world. The fairy tale about protecting authors is a ex post facto justification for an existing violent power of the ruler.

Quote from: http://fee.org/freeman/detail/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market

It’s important to understand the origins of these concepts. As law professor Eric E. Johnson notes, “The monopolies now understood as copyrights and patents were originally created by royal decree, bestowed as a form of favoritism and control. As the power of the monarchy dwindled, these chartered monopolies were reformed, and essentially by default, they wound up in the hands of authors and inventors.”

Patents were exclusive monopolies to sell various goods and services for a limited time. The word patent, historian Patricia Seed explains, comes from the Latin patente, signifying open letters. Patents were “open letters” granted by the monarch authorizing someone to do something—to be, say, the only person to sell a certain good in a certain area, to homestead land in the New World on behalf of the crown, and so on.

It’s interesting that many defenders of IP—such as patent lawyers and even some libertarians—get indignant if you call patents or copyright a monopoly. “It’s not a monopoly; it’s a property right,” they say. “If it’s a monopoly then your use of your car is a monopoly.” But patents are State grants of monopoly privilege. One of the first patent statutes was England’s Statute of Monopolies of 1624, a good example of truth in labeling.

Granting patents was a way for the State to raise money without having to impose a tax. Dispensing them also helped secure the loyalty of favorites. The patentee in return received protection from competition. This was great for the State and the patentee but not for competition or the consumer.

Quote

What about copyright? The roots literally lie in censorship. It was easy for State and church to control thought by controlling the scribes, but then the printing press came along, and the authorities worried that they couldn’t control official thought as easily. So Queen Mary created the Stationer’s Company in 1557, with the exclusive franchise over book publishing, to control the press and what information the people could access. When the charter of the Stationer’s Company expired, the publishers lobbied for an extension, but in the Statute of Anne (1710) Parliament gave copyright to authors instead. Authors liked this because it freed their works from State control. Nowadays they use copyright much as the State originally did: to censor and ban books. (More below.)

Quote

(he's probably masturbating in a corner right now)

oh boi 
i almost spit water all over my keyboard.

Quote from: Method-X on May 12, 2015, 05:55:34 pm

Marketing delegates have never been paid (funds went toward advertising costs) which is why they all burned out. marketing.methodx is not controlled by me anymore and as far as I know the funds are being used to provide liquidity for metaexchange.

This is unacceptable! Who the hell is accountable for the funds the marketing.methodx is generating?

When did delegates become transferable? It's one thing to transfer in the manor DSN assumed the minebitshares operation, totally above board, advertised and no mystery about who is accountable.

But when your name is used, it can be very deceptive, whether intended to be or not.

DPoS will certainly fail if one's actions are severed from accountability to them. It's tantamount to a proxy but nobody knows who controls it.

Lets polish up our best looking, most charismatic, smooth talking delegate to tell people what they want to hear, get huge support (the bait), get voted into the 101, then switch ownership / control to Mr. Wizard behind the curtain and take a luxurious cruise around the world.

NOT SAYING that is what methodX did, but like I DID SAY, who is now controlling the marketing.methodx funds? This is one problem when duties are split between the technical workers that actually control the delegate node and the figurehead or point man that is intended to be the recipient of the delegate funds.

It begs the question, who are the actual delegates controlling the software? Is it the person or team the shareholders think it is?

Yeah, this may be a moot point when (if?) the new delegate system is rolled out, ASSUMING we all know who we're voting for. BM has said the transition will be essentially a non-event, but it shouldn't be trivialized IMO, due in part to transfer scenarios like this. All delegates must be accountable to shareholders.

Now that I've heard straight from methodX, I am no longer going to support that delegate, whoever it's controlled by.

Ander, I'm sorry for failing to be explicit.  You are correct that BitAssets may address problems of centralization.  If it can do so, that will be a great benefit.  I was referring to volatility, actually.  Volatility is a symptom of immaturity and illiquidity.  Generally, as markets mature, they expand, more people come into the market, and volatility subsides.  That's the aspect of immaturiy and illiquidity that I was referring to, but I agree that decentralization would be a virtue.

How is this for stupid?  I just spent two hours writing a reply, during which I guess my session logged out, and I hit post.  Now all that I wrote is gone.  Do I have any recourse?