Was the vote snapshot already taken?
I cannot reveal the details right now, but the DAC that I am most excited about becoming as big as BTSX is now the VOTE dac.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, we have figured out how to monetize VOTE and accrue all of that value to VOTEs in a game changing way.
And that is my tease of the day.... just so excited I couldn't keep it in.
Back to BTSX.
The VOTE allocation of Follow My Vote’s VOTE DAC will include 10 billion VOTES. Half (50%) of the VOTES (5 billion to be exact) will be allocated over time to delegates that will be responsible for maintaining the blockchain throughout the life of the company, starting with 50% allocated within the first year of operations and 50% of the remaining VOTES thereafter, year over year. The other 5 billion VOTES will be allocated up front to, among other things, cover the cost of the development of the DAC itself and marketing necessary to acquire its initial user base. The breakdown of the initial VOTE allocation will be as follows:
4.2.2) BitShares PTS: 1.5 billion VOTES
BitShares PTS, is a simple minable crypto-currency (similar to Bitcoin) that was created to allow people to advertise their interest in receiving free token samples in future DACs. Per the BitShares social consensus, 30% of VOTES that are initially allocated will be distributed to those who have supported the BitShares industry by owning its BitShares PTS tokens.
Anybody who owns BitShares PTS on that snapshot date is given a proportional stake in the new DAC. Thus, those interested in supporting Follow My Vote should invest in BitShares PTS prior to the VOTE DAC snapshot date.
4.2.3) BitShares AGS: 1.5 billion VOTES
BitShares AGS is similar to BitShares PTS in that both were ways of volunteering to receive free promotional samples from the developers of new DACs. The difference is that BitShares AGS can no longer be bought or sold, as the owners are those whom contributed into an industry development fund while the industry was still in its infancy. Per the social consensus, 30% of VOTES that are initially allocated will be distributed to BitShares AGS owners in proportion to their ownership of AGS.
4.2.4) Follow My Vote: 1.5 billion VOTES
Follow My Vote will be spending a considerable amount of resources to develop the VOTE DAC and acquire new account holders upon its release. Thus, 30% of VOTES that are initially allocated will be distributed to Follow My Vote to cover these costs.
4.2.5) NuSpark: 50 million VOTES
NuSpark is a startup incubator in Blacksburg, VA, that has supported Follow My Vote in since their early stages of development by providing them with dedicated office space to conduct business operations. NuSpark will continue to support Follow My Vote by further educating the Blacksburg community and surrounding areas about cryptography and blockchain technology in an effort to encourage the use of the VOTE DAC. For their continued support, NuSpark will receive 1% of the initial allocation of VOTES.
4.2.6) Virginia Tech: 50 million VOTES
Virginia Tech is also located in Blacksburg, VA. Similar to NuSpark, Virginia Tech will be supporting Follow My Vote by further educating the Blacksburg community and surrounding areas (in addition to the Virginia Tech faculty and student body) about cryptography and blockchain technology in an effort to encourage the use of the VOTE DAC. For their support, Virginia Tech will receive 1% of the initial allocation of VOTES.
4.2.7) New River Valley: 400 million VOTES
Follow My Vote will be promoting the emergence of the cryptography and blockchain technology to the U.S. citizens living in New River Valley. Residents of Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Roanoke, VA, will have an opportunity to claim VOTES during a series of promotions to encourage the use of the VOTE DAC. A total of 8% of VOTES that are initially allocated will be distributed in this way.
The official snapshot date of the VOTE DAC is August 21, 2014. Therefore, by holding BitShares PTS on the VOTE DAC snapshot date, you have an opportunity to get in on the ground floor and own an initial stake in the VOTE DAC.
The VOTE DAC is a game-changing technology that has the potential to become the voting platform of the future!
What was the AGS/PTS distribution for vote?30% / 30% dilute-able to min of 15%/15%
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What was the AGS/PTS distribution for vote?30% / 30% dilute-able to min of 15%/15%
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lets just say that all ideas to be included in this DAC have been discussed in part on the forums already, but the particular combination and in particular STRATEGY for deployment and capturing of network effect is what has me excited...
Lets just say that all ideas to be included in this DAC have been discussed in part on the forums already, but the particular combination and in particular STRATEGY for deployment and capturing of network effect is what has me excited...
Shot in the dark..Pay rewards to to the voters, like yield on BitUSD
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lets just say that all ideas to be included in this DAC have been discussed in part on the forums already, but the particular combination and in particular STRATEGY for deployment and capturing of network effect is what has me excited...
Shot in the dark..Pay rewards to to the voters, like yield on BitUSD
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope that's not what they're talking about... paying people to vote can get very messy, very fast.
Sybils aside, if you pay a fixed amount per vote, you get people voting without doing research - i.e., voting becomes noisy, random, and susceptible to manipulation. If you pay people for having voted for the winner, you get people voting for "who they think will win," not "who they think should win."
I cannot reveal the details right now, but the DAC that I am most excited about becoming as big as BTSX is now the VOTE dac.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, we have figured out how to monetize VOTE and accrue all of that value to VOTEs in a game changing way.
And that is my tease of the day.... just so excited I couldn't keep it in.
Back to BTSX.
+5% Wow! That sounds amazing! Good luck. I wasn't sure about that one tbh.
Lets just say that all ideas to be included in this DAC have been discussed in part on the forums already, but the particular combination and in particular STRATEGY for deployment and capturing of network effect is what has me excited...This will kill the tiny rest of sleep I get during night .. THANK you
A system that actually allows people to openly and officially sell their votes?
Lets just say that all ideas to be included in this DAC have been discussed in part on the forums already, but the particular combination and in particular STRATEGY for deployment and capturing of network effect is what has me excited...This will kill the tiny rest of sleep I get during night .. THANK you
;D
That is so unfair... can we have the smallest of all small clues please.
.... just so excited I couldn't keep it in.
A system that actually allows people to openly and officially sell their votes?
This does not and will never sell one's vote . The Vote DAC is a business model where in setting up a voting system for organizers, class and political parties, events for reality show for choosing the winners and other stuff that need people's majority decision.
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.
If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.
For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged. Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.
For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged. Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.
but how ethical is this?
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged. Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.
but how ethical is this?
For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged. Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.
but how ethical is this?
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.
If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.
A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote.
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.
The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key. No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.
I don't think the corruption of money in politics can be solved through technical means or policy changes. I think the solution is through education. Educating people to be less susceptible to manipulation by propaganda. Educating people to do their own research and think critically.
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.
If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.
A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote.
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.
The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key. No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.
Then it seems to me a DAC couldn't replace current voting systems as despite their counting flaws, current systems at least provide anonymity.
Without involuntary anonymity your vote would be dictated by violence not money.
Gangsters will simply demand proof of vote.
The problem with voting that is divorced from property rights is that people will vote themselves other peoples money via theft.
..
Votes are bought all the time... only they are bought with campaign promises to steal other peoples money to pay welfare and special interests. At least buying votes up front is being done with the vote buyers money rather than the money of the people who voted against the welfare.
So you see.. vote buying has been made into an irrational politically correct opinion rather than a rational realization that for the average person selling their vote to the highest bidder is much better for them.
For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged. Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.
If we wanted to have a rational political system it should require 95% voter approval and that approval would have to be BOUGHT. 5% error to prevent deadlock for those unwilling to sell at any price...
You may be able to buy up 90% of the vote cheaply... but to get the approval of those who would be harmed the most by a bill 5% minority... would be a lot more expensive. You would have a government with 95% consensus based upon property rights.
..
Everyone has their price.
This seems to be admitting the corporations run everything and throwing in the towel. A bit dystopian.
At some point having a vote won't be required. Just have a meeting of the CEOs to decide public policy. Though that's not far from what we have now I'd like to believe we can do better.
BitSharesX is recreating the economic world to be more fair and less centralized. This would do just the opposite to politics.
The problem with voting that is divorced from property rights is that people will vote themselves other peoples money via theft.
You know I should probably avoid further derailing this topic into a political/philosophical discussion, but I just can't help myself sometimes and right now it seems like a perfect opportunity. I'm particularly curious because I remember you saying in an interview somewhere how you worked hard to try to remove any internal contradictions from your beliefs which eventually lead you to your specific values and philosophy that you hold today (a wonderful strategy that everyone should adopt by the way). So, I have the following five questions for you if you are up for it.
- Do you believe that objective morality exists?
- If the answer to the first question is yes, then who/what determines these objective morals and how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity?
- If the answer to the first question is yes, then do you believe that "respecting property rights" and "not harming others" belong in the aforementioned set of objective morals?
- How do you define property and property rights? What is and is not considered property? What rights do they give to the owners? How are the owners even determined? What does it mean to not harm others? Is this physical harm, emotional harm, or both? Who even gets to determine whether harm occurred or whether it was "sufficient" harm? (I realize these are actually way more than one question)
- If the answer to the first question is yes, then are your answers to the previous question, which describe what "property rights" and "harm" should be, also defined objectively along with the set of objective morals? If not, through which mechanisms do you believe human societies should come to a consensus on the answer to those questions?
In my opinion... votes shouldn't be anonymous for a very simple reason:
1) let tyranny be transparent.
2) hold voters socially accountable for who they vote for.
Transparency is the best for everyone... give someone a mask and they will commit many crimes. Remove a mask and they must take responsibility for their actions.
What if some poor people actually cared about who they would vote for but just couldn't resist the money that could buy extra bottle of milk for their children?
And they thought one vote less for the right people wouldn't hurt the big picture,so they vote for the evil ones who pays much better.
What if more and more people feel the same way?
1) All reality is subjective...thus morality is subjective.
I attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me. All physical reality and other people are thus a manifestation of that one consciousness just like the people and things in your dreams are merely manifestations of your subcounsous.
Lacking any evidence to suggest that there exists some objective reality outside this one consciousness one may choose how they wish to view the world.
If viewing the world as objective and physical and consciousness as being derived from the physical makes your life more enjoyable then view it that way and it will behave that way. If, on the other hand, viewing the world as I view it makes life more enjoyable then view it that way.
There is no need to accept it on faith... it is easy enough to experiment with fully embracing both views. For most of us, viewing the world as physical and us as something "separate" is our default view... so it is very hard to adapt your perspective to a world where you create it through your own subjective reality much like slowly gaining control of your dream rather than being controlled by your dream.
So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way. The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".
How does this fit into morality... I choose how I interpret and perceive the actions of others and what I focus on. I choose to view aggression and problems in the world as an outward reflection of the internal/sub-counsious need to control the world around me. I choose to focus on releasing my own need to control others in any way shape or form as the ultimate way for finding my own freedom and changing the world.
I attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me. All physical reality and other people are thus a manifestation of that one consciousness just like the people and things in your dreams are merely manifestations of your subcounsous.
Lacking any evidence to suggest that there exists some objective reality outside this one consciousness one may choose how they wish to view the world.
If viewing the world as objective and physical and consciousness as being derived from the physical makes your life more enjoyable then view it that way and it will behave that way. If, on the other hand, viewing the world as I view it makes life more enjoyable then view it that way.
There is no need to accept it on faith... it is easy enough to experiment with fully embracing both views. For most of us, viewing the world as physical and us as something "separate" is our default view... so it is very hard to adapt your perspective to a world where you create it through your own subjective reality much like slowly gaining control of your dream rather than being controlled by your dream.
So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way. The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".
How does this fit into morality... I choose how I interpret and perceive the actions of others and what I focus on. I choose to view aggression and problems in the world as an outward reflection of the internal/sub-counsious need to control the world around me. I choose to focus on releasing my own need to control others in any way shape or form as the ultimate way for finding my own freedom and changing the world.
I attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me. All physical reality and other people are thus a manifestation of that one consciousness just like the people and things in your dreams are merely manifestations of your subcounsous.
There is no need to accept it on faith... it is easy enough to experiment with fully embracing both views. For most of us, viewing the world as physical and us as something "separate" is our default view... so it is very hard to adapt your perspective to a world where you create it through your own subjective reality much like slowly gaining control of your dream rather than being controlled by your dream.
So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way. The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".
I have thought this before as well but the problem I have with that is that I believe the idealogy that "persceptive conciousness is reality" wouldn't allow us to assimilate new information, other than to rearrange inputs from our sensory organs to produce new outputs. Building on that I feel that if this were the case babies would know how to speak and walk without training because they wouldn't need to seek information on how to do it. There are some coded genetic instructions that are embedded with clearly defined rules like a horse that comes out knowing how to walk and run, as they are a result of perhaps a higher level of intelligence in the form of nature. The assimiliation of new information causing us to percieve an outside reality causes us to have many religions and theories that things we cannot comprehend must be god or higher being.
With quantum science, thoughts and experiments outside our realm of explanation that were traditionally applied to the work of god are beginning to take shape and discoveries of new worlds beneath or above our threshold of input detection from our senses are beginning to surface which help explain or debunk theories we have had since day 1.
Another thing we relate to reality is that we are the only living species to perceive reality thus, the truth is what I think it is. However we may be in contact with higher level of intelligence on another dimension and not even know it. IE: Aliens could be contacting us and we dont even know they are, their communication plane is on another dimension one that we cannot process or detect. All of this made me believe the objective world and state of perceiving the world is based on what myself and others describe.
I believe the perception of conciousness being reality is really akin to us in dream state where rarely do you see us process new information but reassemble inputs from the vast array of data collected to rearrange to new outputs. Thus you wouldn't learn that 2+2=4 and what it means in the grand scheme but you could learn that the inputs of 2 and 2 make 4, whatever that means in your context of reality.
That said they do say our dreams are a gateway onto another universe and thus maybe the truth of reality actually resides somewhere in between.
So maybe a vote to describe the protocol of vote should take place to create an objective as possible protocol to work off of.
I attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.If you control the reality why aren't you living in a world which is closer to heaven than the one you are right know? Why have you chosen to create pain, poverty, wars, ebola, etc?
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me. All physical reality and other people are thus a manifestation of that one consciousness just like the people and things in your dreams are merely manifestations of your subcounsous.
Lacking any evidence to suggest that there exists some objective reality outside this one consciousness one may choose how they wish to view the world.
If viewing the world as objective and physical and consciousness as being derived from the physical makes your life more enjoyable then view it that way and it will behave that way. If, on the other hand, viewing the world as I view it makes life more enjoyable then view it that way.
There is no need to accept it on faith... it is easy enough to experiment with fully embracing both views. For most of us, viewing the world as physical and us as something "separate" is our default view... so it is very hard to adapt your perspective to a world where you create it through your own subjective reality much like slowly gaining control of your dream rather than being controlled by your dream.
So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way. The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".
How does this fit into morality... I choose how I interpret and perceive the actions of others and what I focus on. I choose to view aggression and problems in the world as an outward reflection of the internal/sub-counsious need to control the world around me. I choose to focus on releasing my own need to control others in any way shape or form as the ultimate way for finding my own freedom and changing the world.
I attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me. All physical reality and other people are thus a manifestation of that one consciousness just like the people and things in your dreams are merely manifestations of your subcounsous.
Lacking any evidence to suggest that there exists some objective reality outside this one consciousness one may choose how they wish to view the world.
If viewing the world as objective and physical and consciousness as being derived from the physical makes your life more enjoyable then view it that way and it will behave that way. If, on the other hand, viewing the world as I view it makes life more enjoyable then view it that way.
There is no need to accept it on faith... it is easy enough to experiment with fully embracing both views. For most of us, viewing the world as physical and us as something "separate" is our default view... so it is very hard to adapt your perspective to a world where you create it through your own subjective reality much like slowly gaining control of your dream rather than being controlled by your dream.
So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way. The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".
How does this fit into morality... I choose how I interpret and perceive the actions of others and what I focus on. I choose to view aggression and problems in the world as an outward reflection of the internal/sub-counsious need to control the world around me. I choose to focus on releasing my own need to control others in any way shape or form as the ultimate way for finding my own freedom and changing the world.
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.
If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.
A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote.
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.
The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key. No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.
Then it seems to me a DAC couldn't replace current voting systems as despite their counting flaws, current systems at least provide anonymity.
Without involuntary anonymity your vote would be dictated by violence not money.
Gangsters will simply demand proof of vote.
Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies. This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money. A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.
Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.
Lets look at how a voting system would be designed for maximum tyranny and see if we can improve upon it:
1) Open the voting to everyone and don't check IDs.
2) Use a digital black box that counts the vote and reports the results.
3) Have no way to prove the button you pushed resulted in the vote you entered.
4) Have the media post manipulated public opinion polls
5) Make voter turn out low by having long lines and occur on a single day during the work week.
Under this system the public believes their vote counts, believes they can change things, and believes everyone else is STUPID based upon what they see in the media, polls, and elections. The government has consent and can do what it pleases.
The only way to get as anonymous and "non-provable" as possible is:
1) eliminate absentee ballots... someone using force could compel you to vote absentee so they could see it.
2) use paper ballots with physical holes
3) count all ballots on video and with representatives from all candidates in physical presence.
4) keep all ballots and count all ballots....
5) require all candidates to maintain a voter registration list
6) require all voters to get their blank ballot stamped by all candidates prior to voting (candidates verify uniqueness)
7) only count ballots stamped by all candidates.
As you can see the process is much more difficult and expensive... and difficult to verify. How hard is it to forge your opponents stamps?
At the end of the day if you can coerce a statistically meaningful number of people and get away with it, the corruption is in the government and no voting system will matter.
Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies. This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money. A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.
Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.
It's ironic that a lot of people who hold the belief that everything is in their head and nothing is real write a lot of books about it. Who do they think is going to read them? :)
Yes I definitely like Matrix, but Tom is NASA physicist and is using famous physics experiments like double slit to explain his views.It's ironic that a lot of people who hold the belief that everything is in their head and nothing is real write a lot of books about it. Who do they think is going to read them? :)
Fans of the Matrix? ;)
I attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.If you control the reality why aren't you living in a world which is closer to heaven than the one you are right know? Why have you chosen to create pain, poverty, wars, ebola, etc?
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me. All physical reality and other people are thus a manifestation of that one consciousness just like the people and things in your dreams are merely manifestations of your subcounsous.
Lacking any evidence to suggest that there exists some objective reality outside this one consciousness one may choose how they wish to view the world.
If viewing the world as objective and physical and consciousness as being derived from the physical makes your life more enjoyable then view it that way and it will behave that way. If, on the other hand, viewing the world as I view it makes life more enjoyable then view it that way.
There is no need to accept it on faith... it is easy enough to experiment with fully embracing both views. For most of us, viewing the world as physical and us as something "separate" is our default view... so it is very hard to adapt your perspective to a world where you create it through your own subjective reality much like slowly gaining control of your dream rather than being controlled by your dream.
So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way. The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".
How does this fit into morality... I choose how I interpret and perceive the actions of others and what I focus on. I choose to view aggression and problems in the world as an outward reflection of the internal/sub-counsious need to control the world around me. I choose to focus on releasing my own need to control others in any way shape or form as the ultimate way for finding my own freedom and changing the world.
its simple create a new pub key and use that key to vote you can check that pubkey on the chain but noone else can cause you didnt tell anyone your key.If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.
If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.
A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote.
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.
The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key. No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.
Then it seems to me a DAC couldn't replace current voting systems as despite their counting flaws, current systems at least provide anonymity.
Without involuntary anonymity your vote would be dictated by violence not money.
Gangsters will simply demand proof of vote.
Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies. This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money. A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.
Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.
Lets look at how a voting system would be designed for maximum tyranny and see if we can improve upon it:
1) Open the voting to everyone and don't check IDs.
2) Use a digital black box that counts the vote and reports the results.
3) Have no way to prove the button you pushed resulted in the vote you entered.
4) Have the media post manipulated public opinion polls
5) Make voter turn out low by having long lines and occur on a single day during the work week.
Under this system the public believes their vote counts, believes they can change things, and believes everyone else is STUPID based upon what they see in the media, polls, and elections. The government has consent and can do what it pleases.
The only way to get as anonymous and "non-provable" as possible is:
1) eliminate absentee ballots... someone using force could compel you to vote absentee so they could see it.
2) use paper ballots with physical holes
3) count all ballots on video and with representatives from all candidates in physical presence.
4) keep all ballots and count all ballots....
5) require all candidates to maintain a voter registration list
6) require all voters to get their blank ballot stamped by all candidates prior to voting (candidates verify uniqueness)
7) only count ballots stamped by all candidates.
As you can see the process is much more difficult and expensive... and difficult to verify. How hard is it to forge your opponents stamps?
At the end of the day if you can coerce a statistically meaningful number of people and get away with it, the corruption is in the government and no voting system will matter.
I looked into it a bit more but I think I disagree on this stuff at the moment. (Though I agree there is huge manipulation of information by the media.)
Currently my conclusion is I still believe there should be no way to prove who I voted for, to protect my freedom. Where I think the improvement needs to come is in the counting system. Some decentralised maths based system that provably processes the vote correctly but with it being mixed in some way that makes it hard to link back to my identity.QuoteViolence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies. This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money. A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.
Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.
Advocacy for the secret ballot system doesn't stem from propaganda, on the contrary governments today, especially tyrants and dictators would love a proof of vote system. The secret ballot system we have today is the result of hard won victories by free people in response to the tyranny a 'proof of vote' system almost always creates. I see the wiki points out that only Napolean really pushed for a 'proof of vote' system since the secret ballot system was introduced in France, I wonder why?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
Also in many countries while there's bribery, historically and in practice I think you'll find the no. 1 voting coercion tool is violence and intimidation. Proof of vote allows opposition to be systematically removed by more and more violent means until the desired result is achieved. Local government don't need to use violence directly, groups of thugs or supporters not directly associated with them or that national government are often the ones that do the dirty work.
Only in advanced Western countries could a proof of vote seem temporarily plausible as there are centralised well funded police and legal options, but even there it would cause individual freedom to devolve imo. Starting with the most vulnerable first who have limited recourse.
Why do you choose to have nightmares? Consciousness is deeper than our thinking mind can directly control.Are you saying that the world would have gone a different direction or that the world you are living would have gone a different direction?
It takes time to recondition our thoughts on all levels.
But I can say that I have seen smaller changes happen and we are on the verge of making huge breakthroughs on free energy and free markets. Why? Because I changed my view on the world from one where I was going to survive mad max as a farmer to one where wealth was abundant about 3 months prior to starting bitshares.
Had i held to prior beliefs the world would have gone a different direction.
Why do you choose to have nightmares? Consciousness is deeper than our thinking mind can directly control.
It takes time to recondition our thoughts on all levels.
But I can say that I have seen smaller changes happen and we are on the verge of making huge breakthroughs on free energy and free markets. Why? Because I changed my view on the world from one where I was going to survive mad max as a farmer to one where wealth was abundant about 3 months prior to starting bitshares.
Had i held to prior beliefs the world would have gone a different direction.
This is water. http://youtu.be/DKYJVV7HuZw abridged version.Just wow!
I've got a copy of my big toe by Thomas Cambell, read about a third of it, haven't finished it yet. I have very similar views to him though.
My take on all this nonsense is that there's a limitless super-consciousness that is completely pointless, as well as every other potential characteristic, and utterly beyond description or even understanding, the name Brahman from Hinduism fits quite nicely. It choses to experience itself as subjective units of itself, i.e. as life. It creates the ultimate game, the game of life, to play for all eternity as a way to be. It can probably be something else entirely while also being life at the same time due to existing extra-dimensionally and is capable therefore of knowing everything that will ever happen, because from the vantage point of an extra dimension, this super-consousness can survey the whole game. But if it wants to play the game, it has to encarnate into the 'mode of ignorance', or 'game mode', where it becomes limited or at least appears to itself to be limited.
While being one of these apparently limited consciousness units, such as a human, we often talk about the subconscious and the unconscious. I like to say that actually they too are also consciousness, only our 'surface' consciousness isn't conscious off them, even though they are part of the same spectrum or continuum of consciousness. Likewise is the so called 'Universe' or 'dead stuff'. It's consciousness too, but appears as unconscious consciousness, or we can call it deep-consiousness or super-consiousness.
This leads me to agree with bytemaster saying that he is the only one who exists, because if he is referring what I'm galling the 'super-consciousness', which is who or what we really all there, then I am that too.
People interested in this should check out Avatarism. It's a sort of mock-religion invented last year at burning man, using the idea that the Universe is a massive multiplayer game and we are all avatars of a higher self(s), and that we can create our own character sheet like in game, with special abilities, strengths weaknesses etc, and that we can consciously chose to modify our character and 'level up' and collect 'power ups' and uphold each others highest vision of ourselves. It's a powerful tool for transformational change and I think it's awesome.
I've no idea how this connects to the bitshares issues as I didn't read that part but I wanted to join in with the interesting stuff :p
its simple create a new pub key and use that key to vote you can check that pubkey on the chain but noone else can cause you didnt tell anyone your key.If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.
If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.
A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote.
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.
The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key. No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.
Then it seems to me a DAC couldn't replace current voting systems as despite their counting flaws, current systems at least provide anonymity.
Without involuntary anonymity your vote would be dictated by violence not money.
Gangsters will simply demand proof of vote.
Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies. This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money. A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.
Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.
Lets look at how a voting system would be designed for maximum tyranny and see if we can improve upon it:
1) Open the voting to everyone and don't check IDs.
2) Use a digital black box that counts the vote and reports the results.
3) Have no way to prove the button you pushed resulted in the vote you entered.
4) Have the media post manipulated public opinion polls
5) Make voter turn out low by having long lines and occur on a single day during the work week.
Under this system the public believes their vote counts, believes they can change things, and believes everyone else is STUPID based upon what they see in the media, polls, and elections. The government has consent and can do what it pleases.
The only way to get as anonymous and "non-provable" as possible is:
1) eliminate absentee ballots... someone using force could compel you to vote absentee so they could see it.
2) use paper ballots with physical holes
3) count all ballots on video and with representatives from all candidates in physical presence.
4) keep all ballots and count all ballots....
5) require all candidates to maintain a voter registration list
6) require all voters to get their blank ballot stamped by all candidates prior to voting (candidates verify uniqueness)
7) only count ballots stamped by all candidates.
As you can see the process is much more difficult and expensive... and difficult to verify. How hard is it to forge your opponents stamps?
At the end of the day if you can coerce a statistically meaningful number of people and get away with it, the corruption is in the government and no voting system will matter.
I looked into it a bit more but I think I disagree on this stuff at the moment. (Though I agree there is huge manipulation of information by the media.)
Currently my conclusion is I still believe there should be no way to prove who I voted for, to protect my freedom. Where I think the improvement needs to come is in the counting system. Some decentralised maths based system that provably processes the vote correctly but with it being mixed in some way that makes it hard to link back to my identity.QuoteViolence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies. This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money. A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.
Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.
Advocacy for the secret ballot system doesn't stem from propaganda, on the contrary governments today, especially tyrants and dictators would love a proof of vote system. The secret ballot system we have today is the result of hard won victories by free people in response to the tyranny a 'proof of vote' system almost always creates. I see the wiki points out that only Napolean really pushed for a 'proof of vote' system since the secret ballot system was introduced in France, I wonder why?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
Also in many countries while there's bribery, historically and in practice I think you'll find the no. 1 voting coercion tool is violence and intimidation. Proof of vote allows opposition to be systematically removed by more and more violent means until the desired result is achieved. Local government don't need to use violence directly, groups of thugs or supporters not directly associated with them or that national government are often the ones that do the dirty work.
Only in advanced Western countries could a proof of vote seem temporarily plausible as there are centralised well funded police and legal options, but even there it would cause individual freedom to devolve imo. Starting with the most vulnerable first who have limited recourse.
Might be irrelevant...but if I remember correctly a month ago, someone was selling his vote for the referendum in Scotland on ebay and the news was covered by Bloomberg...
Don't underestimate VOTE, the network effect and the publicity it may attract from mainstream news...This can be huge. I haven't imagined how this will work, I am just quite confident that this will attract a lot of attention...
Might be irrelevant...but if I remember correctly a month ago, someone was selling his vote for the referendum in Scotland on ebay and the news was covered by Bloomberg...
Don't underestimate VOTE, the network effect and the publicity it may attract from mainstream news...This can be huge. I haven't imagined how this will work, I am just quite confident that this will attract a lot of attention...
It could be exciting. I'd suggest they get they whole thing ready (including identity verification) and then stage some publicity stunt. I'm serious about that part. For example, schedule a mock presidential vote and boast that it will beat the real voter turnout by 10%. Or that it will accomplish the same result for almost zero cost. Or stage a corporate election or a local election: invite all shareholders or all people that live in a school board area to vote in a parallel election online, and then hold up those results against the "real: ones. This DAC can get some major media attention, but the bugs had better be worked out first, because it may only get that one chance to make a first impression!
2) Don't do unto others what you don't want others doing to you:
- rationale: logically consistent with the premise that all are created equal
: to think otherwise I would have no grounds to complain about others actions against me.
QuoteDo you agree that the next level to "your" quote is:
"Do unto others what you want others do unto you" (?)Quote"Don't be a dick" I find covers a lot of ground.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Do you agree that the next level to "your" quote is:
"Do unto others what you want others do unto you" (?)Quote"Don't be a dick" I find covers a lot of ground.
I want just to find out which Religion is closer to BM, which one he believes/respect more...
I quite don't understand why you are getting nervous (?)
PS https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090812170142AAzA3Fv (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090812170142AAzA3Fv)
2) Don't do unto others what you don't want others doing to you:
- rationale: logically consistent with the premise that all are created equal
: to think otherwise I would have no grounds to complain about others actions against me.
Do you agree that the next level to "your" quote is:
"Do unto others what you want others do unto you" (?)
2) Don't do unto others what you don't want others doing to you:
- rationale: logically consistent with the premise that all are created equal
: to think otherwise I would have no grounds to complain about others actions against me.
Do you agree that the next level to "your" quote is:
"Do unto others what you want others do unto you" (?)
That is impossible... I want others to give me all of their money. Thus I cannot do unto them what I want them to do unto me because my wants are endless.
Some of you are saying we basically control our reality with how to we choose to look at things, right?
I don't think I agree.
Children are the ultimate optimists, not having been corrupted by negative influences already at work in the world. Terrible things happen to them all the time.
Also, that terrible things exist to begin with is evidence that we don't control things with our world view. If, in the beginning, people looked at the world as children and nothing but good, then how in human history did negativity get introduced to begin with? When did it start to spiral into the world we see today?
Maybe I'm just not understanding.
2) Don't do unto others what you don't want others doing to you:
- rationale: logically consistent with the premise that all are created equal
: to think otherwise I would have no grounds to complain about others actions against me.
Do you agree that the next level to "your" quote is:
"Do unto others what you want others do unto you" (?)
That is impossible... I want others to give me all of their money. Thus I cannot do unto them what I want them to do unto me because my wants are endless.
Some of you are saying we basically control our reality with how to we choose to look at things, right?
I don't think I agree.
Children are the ultimate optimists, not having been corrupted by negative influences already at work in the world. Terrible things happen to them all the time.
Also, that terrible things exist to begin with is evidence that we don't control things with our world view. If, in the beginning, people looked at the world as children and nothing but good, then how in human history did negativity get introduced to begin with? When did it start to spiral into the world we see today?
Maybe I'm just not understanding.
The children are not separate from you. Only from your point of view have you labeled the things that happened to them terrible and presume they felt the same way. If the children were fully enlightened they would not experience the terrible situation the same way you would. Thus you are projecting your feelings on the situation on the children.
We control how we interpret things... and that makes all the difference.
Some of you are saying we basically control our reality with how to we choose to look at things, right?
I don't think I agree.
Children are the ultimate optimists, not having been corrupted by negative influences already at work in the world. Terrible things happen to them all the time.
Also, that terrible things exist to begin with is evidence that we don't control things with our world view. If, in the beginning, people looked at the world as children and nothing but good, then how in human history did negativity get introduced to begin with? When did it start to spiral into the world we see today?
Maybe I'm just not understanding.
The children are not separate from you. Only from your point of view have you labeled the things that happened to them terrible and presume they felt the same way. If the children were fully enlightened they would not experience the terrible situation the same way you would. Thus you are projecting your feelings on the situation on the children.
We control how we interpret things... and that makes all the difference.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.- Albert Einstein
Some of you are saying we basically control our reality with how to we choose to look at things, right?
I don't think I agree.
Children are the ultimate optimists, not having been corrupted by negative influences already at work in the world. Terrible things happen to them all the time.
Also, that terrible things exist to begin with is evidence that we don't control things with our world view. If, in the beginning, people looked at the world as children and nothing but good, then how in human history did negativity get introduced to begin with? When did it start to spiral into the world we see today?
Maybe I'm just not understanding.
The children are not separate from you. Only from your point of view have you labeled the things that happened to them terrible and presume they felt the same way. If the children were fully enlightened they would not experience the terrible situation the same way you would. Thus you are projecting your feelings on the situation on the children.
We control how we interpret things... and that makes all the difference.
We have influence on our beliefs, which have influence on our perceptions, which have influence on our beliefs, which have influence on our actions, which have influence on our beliefs........
:oMaybe I am a little hung up on the nomenclature of "Voting" because I associate voting with my status as a citizen in a civil representative democracy.
And of course I know that my right to vote is INALIENABLE, which means that I cannot sell my vote or give it away.
Then of course there could not be a FUTURES market for an inalienable vote, because even if you did sign a contract to vote some for unknown ballot in the future, you could potentially breakk the contract and reclaim your vote if you decided that you really wanted it back.
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. BM you are quite a brilliant fellow. You are making me stretch my brain uncomfortably.
BTW--All perception is subjective. That's a given. Observation Bias informs all perception, but that does't cast human beings on a solipsistic island. In fact we humans enjoy a continuous exchange of (subjectively derived) ideas and meaning pretty much everyday throughout the course of our lives. Those ideas are spread through measurable, quantifiable behaviors. So it's possible to observe an idea expressed as a behavior, and from the behavior infer the idea. Game theory models track that sort of thing.
If you control the reality why aren't you living in a world which is closer to heaven than the one you are right know? Why have you chosen to create pain, poverty, wars, ebola, etc?
:oMaybe I am a little hung up on the nomenclature of "Voting" because I associate voting with my status as a citizen in a civil representative democracy.
And of course I know that my right to vote is INALIENABLE, which means that I cannot sell my vote or give it away.
Then of course there could not be a FUTURES market for an inalienable vote, because even if you did sign a contract to vote some for unknown ballot in the future, you could potentially breakk the contract and reclaim your vote if you decided that you really wanted it back.
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. BM you are quite a brilliant fellow. You are making me stretch my brain uncomfortably.
BTW--All perception is subjective. That's a given. Observation Bias informs all perception, but that does't cast human beings on a solipsistic island. In fact we humans enjoy a continuous exchange of (subjectively derived) ideas and meaning pretty much everyday throughout the course of our lives. Those ideas are spread through measurable, quantifiable behaviors. So it's possible to observe an idea expressed as a behavior, and from the behavior infer the idea. Game theory models track that sort of thing.
VOTING is not a right, you were not born with it... it is not INALIENABLE... in fact, it isn't even legitimate for you to vote to kill someone else (ie: war) because that would violate someone elses INALIENABLE right to not be murdered.
Saying that someone cannot cast their vote based entirely on monetary concerns also a violation of their INALIENABLE right to free will that doesn't harm anyone else... suppose they only vote for someone promising them welfare payouts and a free lunch? How is that different?
I just wanted to thank everyone here for the enlightening conversations on consciousness, especially bytemaster, matt608, and CLains, and BldSwtTrs.If you control the reality why aren't you living in a world which is closer to heaven than the one you are right know? Why have you chosen to create pain, poverty, wars, ebola, etc?
I think we should all be asking ourselves this question.
If you just sat around in a bliss-puddle in heaven eventually you would get bored and start fantasising and loose yourself in the dream of life.
In my opinion... votes shouldn't be anonymous for a very simple reason:
1) let tyranny be transparent.
2) hold voters socially accountable for who they vote for.
Transparency is the best for everyone... give someone a mask and they will commit many crimes. Remove a mask and they must take responsibility for their actions.
In my opinion... votes shouldn't be anonymous for a very simple reason:
1) let tyranny be transparent.
2) hold voters socially accountable for who they vote for.
Transparency is the best for everyone... give someone a mask and they will commit many crimes. Remove a mask and they must take responsibility for their actions.
Just for the records I disagree.
Votes must remain anonymous BUT with a transparent mechanism (like blockchain technology) to be sure everybody’s vote is counted right.
Privacy means that your identity is public but your actions are not.
Anonymity is when your actions are public, but your identity is not.
It seems completely analogous to BitSharesX. The candidates place bids and the voters place asks. If it's one you like you have a low ask. If it's one you don't you have an insanely high ask. The candidate that can buy the majority votes wins while at the same time likely funding their opponent.
If the candidate is rich or poor adjust your prices accordingly to remove that as a factor.
Like BitSharesX the ledger is transparent, verifiable, and anonymous.
Interesting, +5% to everyone in this thread. This voting DAC is very interesting. The process of conducting a vote can be mapped across the same problem space as crypto, DACs, etc. It's trust, it's ledgers, it's double-spending, it's transparency, it's auditable records, it's consensus.
I think the reason the philosophy flows in this discussion on voting, is because we're in a problem space that includes much of what it means to operate as a human being. How do you come to fair and honest decisions in a world where every actor has different realities, opinions, values? And really, this question exists inside, outside, and between humans. It exists between groups of humans, it exists in every exchange a human makes. The solution, IMO, is to find ways to unlock the genius of nature, and harness the wisdom of crowds.
I think a lot can be understood by extrapolating out from our biological imperatives. Our nature is directing what we find interesting, pleasurable, exciting, worthy, etc. Our biological machinery rewards us for doing things that help the species. A major reason why people solve problems. Think about it. Someone who writes a DAC, a farmer, an artist, a policeman, a politician, or even a guy who joins a hate group, someone who drills for oil, works at the NSA, etc., are all interpreting how to help the species and getting paid in pleasure by their biological machinery.
The problems being solved here are the same problems that all biological systems have to solve.
This thread really shows the zeitgeist of the whole crypto community, maybe as a symptom of the global zeitgeist.
I don't see what function transparent vote-buying would serve. Not presuming that this DAC is strictly for national votes, but could be used for all kinds of elections, what is the goal of this setup? It seems awfully strange and it's real underpinning purpose is to determine who with the deepest pockets wants something the most. This does not seem like a system designed to get to the most legitimate results.
As somebody who has seen and experienced Swiss, Kosovar, Albanian, and US democracy, the vote-buying setup seems the least productive or even interesting of all.
It seems that bytemaster isn't taking into consideration second order effects of political systems. Nonetheless, this seems like an interesteing social and technological experiment. Might I have misinterpreted something?
Interesting, +5% to everyone in this thread. This voting DAC is very interesting. The process of conducting a vote can be mapped across the same problem space as crypto, DACs, etc. It's trust, it's ledgers, it's double-spending, it's transparency, it's auditable records, it's consensus.
I think the reason the philosophy flows in this discussion on voting, is because we're in a problem space that includes much of what it means to operate as a human being. How do you come to fair and honest decisions in a world where every actor has different realities, opinions, values? And really, this question exists inside, outside, and between humans. It exists between groups of humans, it exists in every exchange a human makes. The solution, IMO, is to find ways to unlock the genius of nature, and harness the wisdom of crowds.
I think a lot can be understood by extrapolating out from our biological imperatives. Our nature is directing what we find interesting, pleasurable, exciting, worthy, etc. Our biological machinery rewards us for doing things that help the species. A major reason why people solve problems. Think about it. Someone who writes a DAC, a farmer, an artist, a policeman, a politician, or even a guy who joins a hate group, someone who drills for oil, works at the NSA, etc., are all interpreting how to help the species and getting paid in pleasure by their biological machinery.
The problems being solved here are the same problems that all biological systems have to solve.
Its *PRIVACY*... that the government says is legitimate. The most challenged politically challenging issue with crypto is the *PRIVACY* it allows... and now with the voting DAC the same people that advocate against financial privacy are now in favor of developing the exact same technology for VOTING privacy.
I attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me.
I love this thread, and this is my first post in it as I have been very busy with other maters and also b/c the conversation has been deep and fast paced I wanted to be sure I understood what's really at play here before jumping in.
I've been somewhat troubled since bytemaster said:QuoteI attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me.
As was pointed out previously, this is the philosophy of solipsism, a term I wasn't familiar with though I'm keenly interested in philosophy. As you yourself pointed out bytemaster, it is pointless to argue for or against this perspective. Given what you are doing here it is very surprising you hold this view, and I'm left to ponder how such an intelligent person as you finds value in such a perspective.
Further, you work in a field where labels are everything. Actually that's what language is all about so avoiding the label of solipsism is just a symptom of rejecting objective reality. You defined your belief quite well and that is what everyone accepts as the basic definition of solipsism.
You appeal to this community through rational, objective reason, yet you deny the participants in it our very own autonomous, individual identities.
I am curious about how much of an interest in philosophy you have, and how long you've been pursuing such knowledge.
It appears to me we both share strong libertarian / anarchist perspectives, for which I have grown to have a strong respect for you. However, it's causing me some cognitive dissonance as I am an objectivist and choose to believe in an absolute, objective truth.
I applaud your willingness to put yourself and your beliefs out here and to be vulnerable. You continue to amaze me, as well as puzzle me with how your mind works.
Thank you for sharing.
Why choose to believe in an objective reality that you cannot prove exists?
So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way. The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".And as I said before that is fair. Similarly, I believe in an objective reality because it just makes more sense to me (it is more palatable to me). Ultimately, these beliefs don't really matter because they are in the realm of metaphysics (cannot prove or disprove them). What matters is that which is in the physical realm (the things we can prove or disprove using rationality and the scientific method). This is why I don't really care what you believe as long as it isn't influencing your behavior to be against my own interests.
Why choose to believe in an objective reality that you cannot prove exists?Your statement is self detonating, if you reject solipsism. Objective reality is what you can prove exists through your senses. Religion, like solipsism, cannot be proven. A negative assertion cannot be proven. Both religion and solipsism have at their core faith that is counter to sense reality.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%Why choose to believe in an objective reality that you cannot prove exists?
I don't really care what people believe in as long as it doesn't affect their behavior in a way that I view as undesirable. I may not agree with all of the beliefs you hold as you have expressed them in these posts, but ultimately I am judging you by your actions and decisions. And what I can say is that I am very impressed and pleased with the decisions you have been making and the way you have been acting in the context of directing this complicated project and ecosystem. And for that reason I am happy to continue supporting this project with you in the leadership position. Now if your beliefs change your behavior considerably, for example if your metaphysical solipsism makes you think you can just will BitShares into a trillion dollar market cap without having to do any real world work as long as you meditate hard enough, then that would be a completely different story. But I see no reason to fear something like that since it would be such a radical departure from how you have been behaving thus far.
But to more directly answer your question, I would respond by asking you why you choose to believe in a subjective reality that you cannot prove exists. I actually know the answer to that question, you already answered it:So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way. The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".And as I said before that is fair. Similarly, I believe in an objective reality because it just makes more sense to me (it is more palatable to me). Ultimately, these beliefs don't really matter because they are in the realm of metaphysics (cannot prove or disprove them). What matters is that which is in the physical realm (the things we can prove or disprove using rationality and the scientific method). This is why I don't really care what you believe as long as it isn't influencing your behavior to be against my own interests.
I love this thread, and this is my first post in it as I have been very busy with other maters and also b/c the conversation has been deep and fast paced I wanted to be sure I understood what's really at play here before jumping in.
I've been somewhat troubled since bytemaster said:QuoteI attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.
I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me.
As was pointed out previously, this is the philosophy of solipsism, a term I wasn't familiar with though I'm keenly interested in philosophy. As you yourself pointed out bytemaster, it is pointless to argue for or against this perspective. Given what you are doing here it is very surprising you hold this view, and I'm left to ponder how such an intelligent person as you finds value in such a perspective.
Further, you work in a field where labels are everything. Actually that's what language is all about so avoiding the label of solipsism is just a symptom of rejecting objective reality. You defined your belief quite well and that is what everyone accepts as the basic definition of solipsism.
You appeal to this community through rational, objective reason, yet you deny the participants in it our very own autonomous, individual identities.
I am curious about how much of an interest in philosophy you have, and how long you've been pursuing such knowledge.
It appears to me we both share strong libertarian / anarchist perspectives, for which I have grown to have a strong respect for you. However, it's causing me some cognitive dissonance as I am an objectivist and choose to believe in an absolute, objective truth.
I applaud your willingness to put yourself and your beliefs out here and to be vulnerable. You continue to amaze me, as well as puzzle me with how your mind works.
Thank you for sharing.
I can deal with everyone as if I am dealing with a part of myself. I seek to find views without internal contradictions. I cannot prove that there exists anything outside of myself Due to what I like to call the matrix effect.
I recognize that there is only one basis upon which to hold a belief and that is if it produces better results in my life.
Thus I have come to a conclusion that is the only conclusion that doesn't have a contradiction That I am aware of at this point in time. Or perhaps has fewer contradictions then other views I might have.
I came to this view as a result of meditation and attempting to separate who I am from the thought and story of my life.
I grew up objective and Christian. Stan of course isn't happy with my departure
Why choose to believe in an objective reality that you cannot prove exists?