Show Posts
106
General Discussion / Re: Why I am no longer supporting Invictus-Innovations
« on: December 31, 2013, 05:19:05 am »
[Quite belated as this may be, nevertheless . . .]
First, a personal note, and then I'll try to back away and take a more neutrally observant tone.
Most of my ProtoShares have now been invested in a Keyhotee Founder ID, and will probably next go towards AngelShares, but dude, for whatever it's worth, yes I see your pain (I hope I even feel it--Lord knows I've had some serious misfortune in my days), but I can't nary do a thing for it. Well, maybe I can throw some shreds of specks of PTS your way. I'd recommend anyone else to do the same (or even send you a lot of PTS, if they can) just to buy back your support
Second, there's an underlying silly, prima facae idea here, that if choices made by one (or many) lead anyone else to misfortune, it could only mean the misfortune was intended by the one (and that the one should be regarded guilty unless proven innocent). This position is unreasonable, because it simply discards the self-evident truth that people in general have good will, so that it is usually more reasonable to assume or hope that others meant well, even if they could not always do as well as others hope.
But on balance, it seems to be Invictus is doing a lot of good and creating a lot of value, and if in the mix they make errors (it is safest to assume), doesn't that mean that they are . . . human?
(And, quite topically, not robots?)
Now, that said . . .
I'm astonished. Herein was an argument which both accused of ill-willed manipulation, and in the same breaths, with quite the very same ill-will it accused others of, proposed somehow forcibly excluding others (cloud miners) from a market?
(By "the very same ill-will," I refer to the manifest ill-will toward cloud miners.)
And trying to exclude a whole class of investors wouldn't be ill-willed manipulation?*
And this quite hypocritical proposal, at the same time an aspersion of hypocrisy is thrown out?
What?!
Swallowed up as it is in pain, this argument doesn't even see that it proposes exactly the same kind of inequality which it (erroneously) accuses others of deliberately creating.
On the principle of equality, Mr. Lincoln and his supporters were very insightful. I recommend a watch of the film "LINCOLN." Therein is a performance of a venerable Statesman, who argued that the phrase " . . . all men are created equal . . . " should not be taken to mean that all men are equally great. He properly insulted the racist ill logic of a Statesman (whom he opposed), by saying his opponent is proof that all men are not created equal (or in other words, his opponent is a small-minded fool). He argued rather that the phrase speaks of equality before the law, or in other words, it means that the principle of law (and the human rights it defends) should have equal application to all men.
(This argument was evidently one of the influences that led to the abolition of slavery.)
What does this have to do with anything here? Well, an argument which was had here sought to enforce unequal opportunity on others, to recompense for a supposed wrong.
That kind of argument will always beget misery.
The fact is that life is unfair. Men are not created equal (in greatness, and in resources, etc.), but men do have a right to be given equal opportunity. These two facts must logically lead to the conclusion that, assuming a level playing field, those who invest their resources more wisely will come out ahead. It also means that brutal chance may dish a good deal to one and a bad deal to another. In other words, everyone has equal opportunity for either fortune or misfortune--you can never predict what kind of misfortune will befall anyone. It can happen to anyone and everyone.
Where circumstance has dealt misfortune, pointing fingers (seeking to blame anyone--and thereby forming a supposed pretext to create inequality against them--which is vengeful, by the way) isn't going to go anywhere other than somewhere miserable. Granted, misery is a strangely comforting place, because at least a miserable person can safely predict to themselves that they will not so enthusiastically prepare for future opportunities, where they could be exposed to risk and be possibly hurt again.
Serious shit happened to Batman, but he got back up!
*And how the hockeysticks would any design even block cloud miners? So not worth it. A system should allow equal access to all participants, regardless of how much or how little power those participants wield. Otherwise, it simply isn't equal. Those who put in greater resources will probably get greater returns, but ideally, those with less resources can get a similar return (proportionally) for their smaller investment. And look around! Just today, someone unleashed a GPU POW miner, which apparently only increases returns four-fold (ish), where previous algorithms were simply decimated by GPUs. If going to all the trouble of designing and open-sourcing an algorithm which, at least, people are having a much harder time "cracking" for an unequal advantage--if that isn't proof of good will, I don't know what is.
First, a personal note, and then I'll try to back away and take a more neutrally observant tone.
Most of my ProtoShares have now been invested in a Keyhotee Founder ID, and will probably next go towards AngelShares, but dude, for whatever it's worth, yes I see your pain (I hope I even feel it--Lord knows I've had some serious misfortune in my days), but I can't nary do a thing for it. Well, maybe I can throw some shreds of specks of PTS your way. I'd recommend anyone else to do the same (or even send you a lot of PTS, if they can) just to buy back your support
Second, there's an underlying silly, prima facae idea here, that if choices made by one (or many) lead anyone else to misfortune, it could only mean the misfortune was intended by the one (and that the one should be regarded guilty unless proven innocent). This position is unreasonable, because it simply discards the self-evident truth that people in general have good will, so that it is usually more reasonable to assume or hope that others meant well, even if they could not always do as well as others hope.
But on balance, it seems to be Invictus is doing a lot of good and creating a lot of value, and if in the mix they make errors (it is safest to assume), doesn't that mean that they are . . . human?
(And, quite topically, not robots?)
Now, that said . . .
I'm astonished. Herein was an argument which both accused of ill-willed manipulation, and in the same breaths, with quite the very same ill-will it accused others of, proposed somehow forcibly excluding others (cloud miners) from a market?
(By "the very same ill-will," I refer to the manifest ill-will toward cloud miners.)
And trying to exclude a whole class of investors wouldn't be ill-willed manipulation?*
And this quite hypocritical proposal, at the same time an aspersion of hypocrisy is thrown out?
What?!
Swallowed up as it is in pain, this argument doesn't even see that it proposes exactly the same kind of inequality which it (erroneously) accuses others of deliberately creating.
On the principle of equality, Mr. Lincoln and his supporters were very insightful. I recommend a watch of the film "LINCOLN." Therein is a performance of a venerable Statesman, who argued that the phrase " . . . all men are created equal . . . " should not be taken to mean that all men are equally great. He properly insulted the racist ill logic of a Statesman (whom he opposed), by saying his opponent is proof that all men are not created equal (or in other words, his opponent is a small-minded fool). He argued rather that the phrase speaks of equality before the law, or in other words, it means that the principle of law (and the human rights it defends) should have equal application to all men.
(This argument was evidently one of the influences that led to the abolition of slavery.)
What does this have to do with anything here? Well, an argument which was had here sought to enforce unequal opportunity on others, to recompense for a supposed wrong.
That kind of argument will always beget misery.
The fact is that life is unfair. Men are not created equal (in greatness, and in resources, etc.), but men do have a right to be given equal opportunity. These two facts must logically lead to the conclusion that, assuming a level playing field, those who invest their resources more wisely will come out ahead. It also means that brutal chance may dish a good deal to one and a bad deal to another. In other words, everyone has equal opportunity for either fortune or misfortune--you can never predict what kind of misfortune will befall anyone. It can happen to anyone and everyone.
Where circumstance has dealt misfortune, pointing fingers (seeking to blame anyone--and thereby forming a supposed pretext to create inequality against them--which is vengeful, by the way) isn't going to go anywhere other than somewhere miserable. Granted, misery is a strangely comforting place, because at least a miserable person can safely predict to themselves that they will not so enthusiastically prepare for future opportunities, where they could be exposed to risk and be possibly hurt again.
Serious shit happened to Batman, but he got back up!
*And how the hockeysticks would any design even block cloud miners? So not worth it. A system should allow equal access to all participants, regardless of how much or how little power those participants wield. Otherwise, it simply isn't equal. Those who put in greater resources will probably get greater returns, but ideally, those with less resources can get a similar return (proportionally) for their smaller investment. And look around! Just today, someone unleashed a GPU POW miner, which apparently only increases returns four-fold (ish), where previous algorithms were simply decimated by GPUs. If going to all the trouble of designing and open-sourcing an algorithm which, at least, people are having a much harder time "cracking" for an unequal advantage--if that isn't proof of good will, I don't know what is.
set, and I also don't have any MMC withdrawal address set. Without my PIN, I can't set either of those.
