Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - luckybit

Pages: 1 ... 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 [181] 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 ... 195
2701
General Discussion / Re: [POLL] How much would you sell your BTS for?
« on: February 20, 2014, 03:00:30 am »
I would not sell a BTS for under $1000. I won't even entertain negotiations if it's less than that.

If it's more than that then we can talk.

2702
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares and anonymity
« on: February 18, 2014, 06:32:02 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 18, 2014, 06:24:23 am
How is forcing someone to go to war and kill someone not genocide in itself?  If there really is something terrible going on then you will have plenty of voluntary support.

So you don't believe in just wars? Terrible stuff goes on all the time and governments oppress people everywhere. The only thing I've ever seen stop it were other governments who forced their people to go to war. Citizens within the country aren't going to be able to stop it without support from governments outside the country.

As a result that is why we have a CIA/KGB/SVR/FBI and all those three letter agencies. They overthrow governments or they defend their status quo.

The point I'm making is the weapons to oppress and genocide the world already exist. There is nothing we can do now except stop making more and protect the world from what exists. I don't think we can avoid war and I think the threat of war sometimes can protect rights and lives. I think in some cases a war is the only answer to save innocent lives and I don't think humans in mass will step up to save lives of people they don't know without being drafted or compensated in some way. I don't think the money to compensate them could exist without taxes.

So for that reason we are stuck. If the USA decided to get rid of taxes then the other governments of the world would gain a dominant advantage and people in the USA would be oppressed by the tentacles of other governments who don't believe in any human rights. So our rights wouldn't be defended if there is no military to defend them.

The ideas you speak of are theoretical and I'm not convinced that ordinary people can stand up to trained mercenary armies.


2703
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares and anonymity
« on: February 18, 2014, 06:21:34 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 17, 2014, 10:54:40 pm
Quote
Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

Forcing one person to pay for a war they want nothing to do with is hardly ethical.   Without taxes there could be no war.  Thus taxes are the root cause of war and the reason why we do not have world peace.

A ruler-less society cannot be conquered by an invading army without genocide because the people would not be conditioned to accept a new authority.

Some wars were necessary. How else would something like genocide be stopped if people aren't forced to go to war to stop it?

 
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 17, 2014, 11:52:05 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on February 17, 2014, 10:54:40 pm
Quote
Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

Forcing one person to pay for a war they want nothing to do with is hardly ethical.   Without taxes there could be no war.  Thus taxes are the root cause of war and the reason why we do not have world peace.

A ruler-less society cannot be conquered by an invading army without genocide because the people would not be conditioned to accept a new authority.

There are arguably plenty of charismatic leaders who would jump at the chance to commit genocide, and who are quite capable of recruiting followers with or without the support of an established government.  That said, with access to better communication regarding such situations, there are also arguably plenty of people willing to stand up to such people with or without the support of an established government.

I don't believe that is possible. Only governments have the weapons necessary to take down genocidal tyrants. How are we supposed to protect human rights without war? The people who abuse human rights don't just stop on their own and the threat of war is the only thing that protects human rights anywhere.

You could say we have no human rights, but if we were to ever have it then it would require some kind of military to enforce it.

2704
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares and anonymity
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:42:56 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 17, 2014, 08:07:24 pm
tax:  money taken at gun point (or through fraud) with passive acceptance of the majority
robbery:  money taken at gun point (or through fraud) with passive un-acceptance of the majority

The amount of money collected by force (via taxation) to punish thieves is greater than what is stolen by the thieves.

I am very well aware of other perspective, but I firmly believe that you cannot hold two contradictory views and be right about both of them.  Simple logic.  It is clamming for anyones mind to NOT have to resolve ambiguities and to engage in cognitive dissidence and double think.  Such mental shortcuts are preferable to admitting to themselves  that at the end of the day they are willing to kill someone (their own family even) who merely disagrees with them.  They justify these shortcuts to resolving such double think by declaring the situation ambiguous rather than opening their eyes to see the truth. 

I agree that humans biggest desire is to lower their fear, this is why they seek power over others.  It is fear that causes people to resort to theft and governments and tyranny.    The opposite of fear is love and love is not afraid of what others might do in the absence of force because love would never kill someone over a disagreement.

So while we cannot control others, we can control ourselves.  We should advocate love and not fear.

I understand the problems with taxation as a means of solving every problem. People seem to think if we just tax and spend that the government can solve any problem. Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

But taxes were actually cut during the last war (at least for the people who aren't middle class), while the middle class tax rate stays the same. The middle class salary stays the same, the cost of living rises (which makes no sense with our technology).

Something is broken. I accept taxes are necessary for war and government is good at war, making UAV's and mega weapons. What about everything else? At some point the tax and spend model breaks down because math says it must break when there are more people without jobs than with jobs.

So the private sector must have a greater role or society is going to collapse in my opinion. It might take 5 years, might take 10 or 15, but taxes cannot go up forever, less jobs will be created as businesses and technology becomes more efficient and then who are they supposed to tax?

I read an article that Cryprus is going to give something like guaranteed minimum income, but how do they plan to pay for it?
To do stuff like guaranteed minimum income you must somehow expect infinite economic growth, infinite job growth, and to somehow perpetuate the current system forever. I don't think we can do that for another generation before it will collapse politically.

But they are free to try it and I hope it works for the countries that give it a try. I'm just skeptical about how they could do it with inflationary fiat currencies, loads of credit and loads of debt on top of the taxes and job losses.

2705
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares and anonymity
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:23:31 pm »
Quote from: delulo on February 17, 2014, 06:33:26 pm
Quote
Now I have no interest in starting a debate about who is being ideological or closed minded, so please don't take anything I have said personally.  I am arguing with the ideas, not with you as a person.
Dont worry I dont take anything in a bad way :)

Quote
This single statement implies some assumptions I reject.  By saying it cannot be solved by a market you imply it must be solved by force.  As such you have given up looking for market solutions and accepted the shortcut of force.... that the end (solving the free rider problem) justifies the means (government force). 
I would like to be proved wrong because the state solution is faulty! The prevailing soultion is to have an agreement of as many people as possible (on questions like taxes (yes, no, how) etc.). And you are rigth there is force (mostly the thread of force) applied to those that dont agree. Most states exclude some unalienable rights from these agreements. But, and I think you agree, the process can be faulty (what is unalienable? Also the definitions of these unalienable rights can be bent) and with the non-unalienable rights rarely all will agree.

But the "state system" does deliver some things: It protects most rights which most people agree the be most valueable and those are (basically: see faults above + possibly corrupt law enforcement) granted to all individuals (if the state system if working right!) in the same way independent of the economic possibilities to afford these rights. There are a few more things but that is the core I would say.

A differnent solution would have to improve upon this system.

All I wanted to say is that any solution should be approached from the same neutral standpoint and dis- and advantages of any system should be taken seriously. This is the responsinility of any actor that can have an effect on peoples lives in an indirect way.

edit: I will read the article you suggested as soon as I find the time to.

The state doesn't protect rights, we do. You cannot put the responsibility on the state to do anything that you wouldn't be willing to do. The state is as flawed, as biased, as broken as everything else in society.

The state is good at coercion, killing massive amounts of people, propaganda, taxing people, and we all give to the state. To keep up the illusion that the state protects us, the state gives welfare benefits and other social programs so that people feel as if they need the state to live. This encourages inherent dependency on the state and people are raised to believe that the state is like a parent to them and their children. This is no different than the ruse that the church pulled in the past at the peak of it's power. Organized religion convinced people into thinking that the God was the father of man and Jesus the son of God, the father of the church was the father of society, that the man is the father of the household. This led to the divine right of kings and was used to encourage people into accepting the rule of man in place of the rule of God.

The ultimate centralization of authority resulted. The state was meant to be an evolution away from feudalism and the divine right of kings. It was founded upon certain principles designed to protect the liberty of the individual but it does not mean that the state is necessarily the most efficient protector of individual liberty.

I'll go on record and say I'm not very ideological. But I do agree that if you can solve societies problems in a way which does not require a concentration of power into the few, but which benefits everyone, then why use the state if you can do it in a better way?

I don't think every function of the state will be replaced. I do think a lot of the social programs can be done better than how the state is doing it, more efficiently, and that the solutions people developed over 100 years ago need competition from the private sector. I will admit that the private sector as it is today cannot solve problems such as poverty and that is why we have the state playing the role of Robin Hood. But the problem of poverty is sometimes exacerbated by the state which enforces artificial scarcity to maintain the status quo.

You can be a capitalist but if everyone does not have access to capitalism then you create poverty based on the fact that only people in certain clubs can access capitalism. How many people out there who are young, educated and American but they don't own any assets? They don't have stock, they don't have bonds, they don't have trust funds, they could get a loan for college but not a loan to start a business or to buy capital assets.

Why is it we are willing to give young people a loan to go to college but we wont give young people a loan to invest in dividend paying capital assets? Why are there artificial barriers to keep unsophisticated investors from being able to invest but they will let anyone buy a house or a car? Why is it so hard to get investment to start a business but so easy to go into debt getting degrees?

And that is just in the United States. In some other countries people young and old don't even have bank accounts. Who decides where investment goes? If we have crowd funding then we do, but if it's centralized then who decides? The central bank? So if there is a war then hundreds of billions or trillions get invested in that but not very much investment for solar or decentralized renewable energy generation?

The state is not going to change anything. Only the private sector can make changes in accordance to the will of the market participants. And I'm not saying that because I think the state can't be used, but because people have been trying to use the state for generations without much success but those people wont even consider trying a different approach. Use whatever approach works with the least amount of violence.

Bitshares does not require violence. The state does require violence. Violence is not in any of our self interest but many people choose to use it as the first resort which is bizarre to me. If you empower the state with the death penalty, or the ability to tax one group of people, who is to say that those powers wont be turned on your group of people in the next election?


2706
General Discussion / Re: Let's discuss reputation schemes.
« on: February 13, 2014, 02:17:11 pm »
Quote from: fuznuts on February 12, 2014, 10:46:17 pm
Quote from: luckybit on February 12, 2014, 05:17:07 pm
Quote from: toast on February 07, 2014, 04:52:44 pm
IMO a robust reputation/trust system will enable a new frontier of possible DACs. There are many proposed approaches to this problem. Let's discuss and collect ideas.

Idea #1
Each person has their own asset in a prediction market over contract fulfillment. When I make an agreement with someone that requires trust, I make them stake their rep on it by exposing it to a prediction market. It pretty much eliminates all counterparty risk if I can write my contract in a way that allows proof-of-breach and then hedge my contract by shorting that person's reputation.

Idea #2
PageRank-esque web-of-trust, with "initial rep" (in pagerank it's the raw text relevance) set by proof-of-burn. Weighting scheme ideally would make any strategy other than burning a few satoshi and then acquiring trust useless, and "reputation pumping" would be difficult for the same reason link-trading is difficult.

Option 3, apply game theory. Make them put some Bitshares as collateral so that if there is a dispute they lose whatever is held in collateral. This way we can quantify trust in accordance to how much they hold in collateral.

This is basically like a security deposit. If things go just fine then they'll keep whatever is in collateral but if they try to scam or if they don't keep their end of the deal then we redeem for the Bitshares in collateral.

No need for over complicated prediction markets. If you want me to trust you then you should take either an equal amount of risk or greater risk. If I lose you lose with me and that is mutually assured destruction.

This was precisely the reason I ended up feeling so good about Invictus.  They took on more risk than any of us in their no-premine launch of PTS...

Invictus isn't the issuer I was talking about though. Invictus is a group of people we know are a real company with their real identities out in public. They are putting themselves on the line financially and putting their real life reputations at stake so we don't have to worry about them as much.

We have to worry about the shady sort of Bitcoin businesses we usually end up interacting with which turn out to be complete scams.

2707
General Discussion / Re: VC DAC
« on: February 12, 2014, 05:41:06 pm »
Quote from: JakeThePanda on February 06, 2014, 02:49:15 pm
Quote from: CLains on February 06, 2014, 02:36:15 pm
I have no idea, but my suggestion so far is the following: Build a DAC that allows people, say John, to invest in stocks while allowing other people to invest in John.

John will be one of several VCs with a following. Why do people invest in John? Because they trust Johns judgement more than their own, or don't have time/skills to go into details on each investment. Why does John help people invest? To get more capital on each investment.

Got it, thanks.

I'd rather put my trust in a script than in John.

2708
General Discussion / Re: Let's discuss reputation schemes.
« on: February 12, 2014, 05:21:06 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 06:07:33 pm
If each individual has their own 'stock' where the value of the stock is tied to how much someone would pay to have their reputation.   This would probably put pubic figures like Adam B. Levine very highly rated and anonymous every day people with relatively low ratings.

The challenge is that creating a market for every identity can become a lot of overhead to build.   Then again not everyone needs a full up reputation system.   Those whom want the trust of others would have to spend the time and effort to get others to invest in them personally. 

Assuming you had a market that actively traded on your reputation there are two ways this market could be tied to you for contract purposes:

1) It can be entirely independent of you, ie: setting up a market for the trust level in Obama.  I doubt he would own his identity, but others can speculate entirely independent of any action Obama may take.

2) Someone can sell you a collateralized OPTION on their identity where they agree to buy back their reputation stock for a specified price in the future.   

In the case of #2 they have made a bet on their own reputation payable to you.  If they take any action to hurt their reputation then they will lose that bet. 

The challenge is that reputation is often disconnected from trustworthiness, especially when the media and government wage a propaganda war against someone.   A perfectly good, well-intentioned, individual can be accused of being a scammer, and any girl can claim rape and thus destroy your reputation even in the complete absence of evidence.

So you have to ask yourself this... how much would you bet on your own reputation when someone given enough financial incentive (by betting against your reputation) can cause significant short term and even long-term damage through false accusations?   

Then suppose you are doing business with Apple which has a good reputation, you decide to hedge your position 'just in case' by shorting apple.   Apple then screws you on a contract, but everyone sides with Apple because they don't know you.  Are you really able to profit from your hedge enough to cover damages?   

I think that these markets can be a good indicator of the level of risk you take in dealing with someone, but not so good for hedging individual contracts unless they are very public and easily verified by everyone.   

I actually think that someone with a very high reputation would short their own reputation as insurance against attacks on their reputation.   Having a high reputation is very valuable and losing it would be very costly.   However, many people would feel that shorting your own reputation would be manipulating the market for a profit if you intentionally tank your reputation.

I think you should be allowed to short your identity to keep it in line because part of your identity is your reputation not to intentionally tank your ID.


 

Identity is important too. But once again if someone issues a currency and they promise to redeem it because it's backed by their goods and services they should put some Bitshares in collateral so that people can get their money back if they don't redeem or if there is a dispute. Then I would trust them.


2709
General Discussion / Re: Let's discuss reputation schemes.
« on: February 12, 2014, 05:17:07 pm »
Quote from: toast on February 07, 2014, 04:52:44 pm
IMO a robust reputation/trust system will enable a new frontier of possible DACs. There are many proposed approaches to this problem. Let's discuss and collect ideas.

Idea #1
Each person has their own asset in a prediction market over contract fulfillment. When I make an agreement with someone that requires trust, I make them stake their rep on it by exposing it to a prediction market. It pretty much eliminates all counterparty risk if I can write my contract in a way that allows proof-of-breach and then hedge my contract by shorting that person's reputation.

Idea #2
PageRank-esque web-of-trust, with "initial rep" (in pagerank it's the raw text relevance) set by proof-of-burn. Weighting scheme ideally would make any strategy other than burning a few satoshi and then acquiring trust useless, and "reputation pumping" would be difficult for the same reason link-trading is difficult.

Option 3, apply game theory. Make them put some Bitshares as collateral so that if there is a dispute they lose whatever is held in collateral. This way we can quantify trust in accordance to how much they hold in collateral.

This is basically like a security deposit. If things go just fine then they'll keep whatever is in collateral but if they try to scam or if they don't keep their end of the deal then we redeem for the Bitshares in collateral.

No need for over complicated prediction markets. If you want me to trust you then you should take either an equal amount of risk or greater risk. If I lose you lose with me and that is mutually assured destruction.

2710
General Discussion / Re: Video - Invictus Questions Vitalik of Ethereum
« on: February 12, 2014, 02:20:19 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 02:39:16 am
http://vimeo.com/user24356268/review/86370915/8dfc523724

This is excellent, we need more of these sorts of videos where entrepreneurs q&a each other.

Good format.

Quote from: stuartcharles on February 12, 2014, 11:23:50 am
Quote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 02:39:16 am
http://vimeo.com/user24356268/review/86370915/8dfc523724

Great, i like it, but what i don't get is why do you all keep letting each other know where your flaws lie? I know the "right" answer is that you don't care who wins so long as its the best outcome, but lets be honest its human nature to want everyone to do well but its also human nature to be competitive and what to win. In Fact its one of the reasons I have put moor investment into you than the competitors, I see you are competitive.

So back to my original question, why not let the competition fail? and why not keep your good ideas under your hat until launch?

The competition is centralized. Like the central bank. The more centralized it is the more we should view it as the competition in my opinion. Ethereum seeks to be decentralized so it's not really competition since that is what we all want.

2711
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Prediction-Markets (Brain Analogy)
« on: February 12, 2014, 01:50:54 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 01:21:12 am
Brilliant analogy and quite possibly an indication that inelegance in the brain may be driven by decentralized market forces as all the cells in the body work together to maximize their lives.   DNA is thus the block-chain of life so to speak.  It defines what transactions and economic conditions a life form must follow.

Is it possible that low level cells are making simple economic choices? 

The biggest challenge with creating a global brain is the human-computer interface.  We become like cells that must take the time and effort to communicate and participate in every market.   Creating a market that has no participants does not work.

I happen to think you're correct but can you explain to me why so many people prefer non-profit motives over for profit or why so many people make the argument that deflation is bad and that hoarding (saving?) is bad?

I fail to see how anything can survive in a sustainable way without being selfish. So if we remove selfishness from an organization (such as with non-profits) or from the design of the currency itself (such as if it loses value over time), how exactly is it supposed to sustain?

I'm just trying to compare and contrast these two different arguments because there are factions who are saying the exact opposite of what you propose is necessary and that Bitcoin by design is too selfish.

http://ouishare.net/2013/05/bitcoin-human-based-digital-currency/
http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/04/22/bitcoin-and-the-dangerous-fantasy-of-apolitical-money/

Maybe I can see their argument in the long term. 100-200 years from now when we are all dead and / or technology is so sophisticated that we are cyborgs who don't need money of this kind anymore due to a technological singularity producing a state of post-scarcity, but for our lifetimes (or at least the next 40-50 years) I don't see how we will get from point A to point B without inherent selfish motives involved.

What are your thoughts on their approach? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about and have encountered this faction.



2712
Marketplace / Re: [BOUNTY] 500PTS for PTS Adaptation of Open Source ArmoryWallet
« on: February 05, 2014, 08:48:16 am »
Quote from: mx1000 on January 26, 2014, 11:09:26 am
Quote from: Lighthouse on November 17, 2013, 04:25:56 pm
BOUNTY – Adapt Open Source Armory Wallet to support Altcoin Protoshares

Lighthouse – Posted by Lighthouse – Anywhere   

Job Description

Protoshares is a new bitcoin derived cryptocurrency from Invictus Innovations. It is unique among cryptocurrency because there is a private company who has put a social contract in place that when it releases the products on its roadmap (Bitshares, Domainshares, etc.), whomever holds Protoshares (PTS) will be given shares of the newly released product at a 1:1 ratio to their PTS holdings.

This means that instead of being a currency that trades on the merits of the currency or its network, it trades on the future value of the products that Invictus will deliver to whomever holds them. It is unique among coins in that it has a tangible reason to hold it, periodic and significant payouts of new cryptocurrency.

This unique value proposition and the fact that only 2 million will be mined has led to a very high price even only 12 days after the start of mining, and the adapted BitcoinQT client is insufficient for the task of securely storing. I have started a bounty which has a minimum value of 5BTC or 100PTS, and which might wind up being higher than that if I can convince some larger holders of PTS to contribute.

The most secure bitcoin wallet is http://www.bitcoinarmory.com, it is open source and supposedly not that difficult to convert to a bitcoin based altcoin. Protoshares at a technical level is the latest version of Bitcoin with a new proof of work and modified difficulty/block reward settings.
Invictus Innovations – http://www.invictus-innovations.com
You can learn more at https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/ProtoShares

Armory Github: https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory

The Version of Armory you should convert: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299684.0

Compensation Amount/Rate (in Bitcoin): 5
How to Apply
email waitress88@cloak.gli.ph or post in this thread http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=809.0

Job Categories: Bitcoin. Job Types: One-Time. Job Tags: altcoin, Bitcoin, invictus, and protoshare. Salary: ฿1 - ฿10. Job expires in 30 days.

Contributors to the Bounty:

Lighthouse - 100PTS
Bytemaster  - 50PTS
onceuponatime - 13PTS

Whomever fills it will be expected to stick around long enough to bug-fix any obvious things that pop up.
Converting it to java and release will make it platform independent. Or must it be Python ?

Sincerely.

Python is platform independent and better than Java in my opinion. Why would anyone want to switch over to Java after all the bugs?

Otherwise good job. We need packages for Linux (Ubuntu/Suse/Fedora) and for Windows 32/64.

2713
General Discussion / Re: Estimated Price of 1 Bitshare
« on: February 04, 2014, 03:56:51 am »
Quote from: BldSwtTrs on February 03, 2014, 08:44:49 pm
Quote from: JakeThePanda on February 03, 2014, 07:21:56 pm
Quote from: Giga on February 03, 2014, 06:35:02 pm
My hope and expectation is for each Bitshare to be worth about $200 on launch

You're going to be disappointed.  Let's think about this.  If they will be worth that much, than the price of PTS would be through the roof right now.  Look at where PTS is trading.  It will be worth less.
Sometimes weird stuff happens.

For example yesterday you could burn 1 BTC to have 1 000 XCP. Today trades happen at 100 XCP @ 1BTC, just because the burn period is over.

I also think that 200$ is too optimistic, but I don't think that PTS price is a good indicator.  Who knows what might happen once people realize that Bitshares supply is fixed.

XCP is underpriced. It's going for something like $100 USD because 100*10 = 1000 which is the street value for 1 BTC. I think XCP and PTS are both actually worth more like $1000 USD because there are only around 2 million and the upside is tremendous. $1000 USD will be considered dirt cheap a year from now while $100 USD is a steal.

The reason XCP is at $100 USD is because no one knows about it and no one is using it yet. When the next Bitcoin bubble happens and the price goes above $10,000 a Bitcoin the new investors will look for places to park their Bitcoins and XCP, PTS or Bitshares are all excellent places to park it.

There will be no inflation, and in the case of PTS and Bitshares the interest rate alone is a reason for people to buy it. If you look at Asicminer and Btct you'll find that shares easily reached Bitcoin parity and beyond. Asicminer reached almost 5 BTC, and Btct was offering shares in their exchange which I don't remember what the price of it was but it was well over 5 BTC.

I don't predict that XCP, PTS or BTS will be over 1 BTC this year or even next year, but at some point they will all reach parity and once that happens there wont be any going back. The best strategy is to buy and hold until it approaches parity with Bitcoin. 0.8-0.9 BTC per PTS by 2016.

2714
Marketplace / Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« on: January 27, 2014, 09:23:23 am »
Quote from: MaxPWR on January 27, 2014, 07:13:51 am
Are there any parts that would become easier with a voting option to allow for future shareholder votes, etc? 

That's probably outside the scope of the document, but I mean, would it influence any parts of the license?

I'm thinking of a similar issue at memorycoin, as maybe a "pick your own license" application.  A user (i.e., business) could vote for a license ID to say they're adopting it, the holder of the license ID (e.g., individual, other blockchain, etc) could vote back to "approve / brand" the first address as an official licensee.

Unenforceable in virtual currency, except by impact on reputation, but could be used as a legal / contract basis.  And allows a market for a "pick your license" through community approval.  Almost license document version control. 

You could have multiple "approved" versions of the SCSL - 5%, 10%, 25%, and maybe it shows up through differences in support for various DACs during development / etc?

I asked Dan and Stan about voting and it seems they aren't into the idea of voting. This only leaves the process we have here which is discussion, gentleman's consensus, and tacit cooperation in enforcing it whether or not there is a legal document.

There should be a legal document because it gives the community legal enforcement capabilities rather than just social. So anyone who respects the law and legal system will be expected to follow the rules laid out in the license as to what is allowed.

I don't think there is any way around having a license. The license isn't to protect the community from the community but to protect it from big businesses with connections to banks and government among others.

2715
General Discussion / Sensor DAC (Big Data)
« on: January 27, 2014, 09:00:37 am »
I'm proposing a DAC which designs, builds, sells, and makes use of sensors to receive input from participants and customers.

For example you could build a fitness app which makes use of sensors which send a pseudo anonymous data feed to the sensor DAC. This sensory information can then be sold to other DACs which need to buy it or it can be put to use by the DAC itself.

For anyone who understands the importance of "Big Data" then you also will understand the importance of sensors to provide input to the autonomous agents which can offer services which leverage "Big Data". This kind of DAC could take on the likes of Google yet remain completely decentralized and private.

Your fitness numbers could be collected and given to the DAC. Perhaps the DAC could even buy it from you. The DAC would then be able to sell this data on your behalf to other DACs. The purpose of this DAC would be to create sensory gadgets and devices, to collect sensory data, and to either crunch the data in ways useful to the customer or sell the data to other DACs which do this.

Healthcare could be revolutionized. The fitness industry could be revolutionized. The gaming industry could be revolutionized. Scientific research which relies on random samples could be a lot cheaper and much more private to conduct.

This DAC would be special. For this reason I recommend a share distribution that 30% go to PTS holders and 30% go to Angelshare investors. The remaining 40% could be distributed via a combination of mining and giveaways to college students in specific fields relevant to developing sensor technology and / or to people voted upon as deserving by majority (PTS/AGS holders).

Additionally this DAC should never be inflationary and the mining period if there should be mining should last approximately 12 months. This would give the DAC a year to fully market and distribute itself through mining. After the mining period is over there should be 0% inflation so that shares are not diluted.

Pages: 1 ... 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 [181] 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 ... 195

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 23 queries.