a global currency that is instant and doesn't require physical money. — David Solman

But Bitcoin isn't instant; it's ridiculously slow and I understand Litecoin and Ehterium are faster, but it's still slow compared to instant payments (coming to you in 2018 if you live in Europe).

Of course, a reasonable person would know that reasoning is not "arguing against." You're playing a game, that's not reason. — T Clark

You're reversing it though. An argument is giving reasons for a specific idea or theory and you were talking about arguing against belief. It's generally accepted those reasons should be reasonable, which is why we don't accept "because I felt like it" when you kick the cat.

But - I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do. — T Clark

Uhuh. That's so vague that it doesn't mean anything.

As to transubstantiation, it has no basis in the Bible as in the relevant passages they are symbols of his sacrifice. Transubstantiation is therefore an elaborate ritual totally made up by the Church where people eat disgusting bread and drink bad wine and have to wait in line annoyingly long and get confused about which hand goes on top of the other. According to the Catholic church, transubstantiation happens in a manner surpassing understanding. Which is double-speak for "it beggars belief so you'll have to take it from us in faith".

So, the only thing for atheists to do at this point is to shrug and get on with the important things in life, which is eat a fresh, crispy baguette with a selection of cheeses and drink velvet wine at home in the company of friends or family.

But if we remove "faith" from this discussion, there is nothing left to discuss. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. A good point to stop talking then and move on.

Primecoins are an answer to one of the criticisms of bitcoin, which is that mining is a huge waste of electricity and computing power. But if you can have the miners do useful computations as their "proof of work," as it's called, then the economics make more sense. — fishfry

That IS cool because it's one of my biggest gripes.

In arguing against that belief, not a single believer I've read has put himself imaginatively in the place of the believers and come ready to listen. — T Clark

There is no arguing against faith as it isn't reasonable to begin with based as it is on unfalsifiable assumptions. It's why I never substantively participate in philosophy of religion to begin with (which I think is akin to beating a dead horse). There's selection bias going on on both sides as to defining transubstantiation. To those participating I'd suggest that they, before moving on to particulars, try to agree on a single definition if this thread is to have any chance of moving forward.

What recourse do we have but to appeal to God? — Metaphysician Undercover

God is, assuming he exists, a useless ambiguous cunt who "moves in mysterious ways" but not so mysterious as to allow the powers that be to use his "word" to enforce definitive rules on others. 21 pages of semantics. Wonderful. The only thing religion is good for is illuminating what the religious feel comfortable accepting without thinking.

Facts are whatever transubstantiating Christians name them to be.

I believe you. That makes sense. On the other hand I'm not sure I believe real world implementations of quantum computers will be around any time soon. I'm a skeptic on that front. — fishfry

Alright, I'm calling that one. ;) 2026 or possibly sooner. Remember, it's only an engineering problem now so it's pretty close.

Get an ebook such as a kindle or kobo, find some simple books in your chosen language, load the <other language>->English dictionary onto the device if it doesn't already have one, then start trying to read books in that language on the device. When you encounter a word you don't know, hold your finger down on the word for a second or so and a translaton will pop up.

A bit of effort is needed to locate learner-level texts in your chosen language, but they're easy to find in most common languages. — andrewk

I second this except don't use an ebook but write it in the margins of a real book yourself. It will stick much better. The rest is immersion.

So if the public can't get in and the price keeps going up, who's making the price go up? I saw a Youtube video that said that the top 96% of the entire wealth of the bitcoin blockchain is held by 3% of the wallet addresses. That's striking if true. It means that this truly is a massive pump-and-dump, an artificial inflation of the price by insiders. Basically two guys in a room selling each other the same pencil back and forth to push up the price of pencils. Old stock market trick. — fishfry

Probably. Also, I don't see how people could cash out easily with market caps at levels we're currently seeing. I can sell a couple of million in Dutch bonds without affecting price but I doubt there's a lot of liquidity in bitcoin-currency pairs. Would be interesting to test what the maximum size of a bitcoin-currency trade could be without affecting the exchange rate of a bitcoin.

A crypto called IOTA claims to be quantum safe. Meaning that even if there are practical quantum computers, IOTA's cryptographic protocol is still secure. — fishfry

It isn't. I can't find the article at the moment but I read in a university paper it won't be. They made a change or will make a change as a result but not sure about the details anymore. Some Russian scientists managed to make something that cannot be decrypted provided less than a third of users are fraudulent (double spending), it falls apart above that.

I think people need to back off on this subject (moderator behaviour, alleged discrimination against conservative posters) because a) people's opinions have become entrenched on the matter, b) a sufficient number of moderators have taken it to heart, c) even if it didn't result in utopia for certain posters and d) it's basically a big distraction from everything that is going well for this forum.

Because it's hard to explain. Just read the original white paper: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Also, I'm not investing a dime until these things are secure against quantum computer brute force attacks.

They are, they're just relatively weak evidence, especially if the anecdote purports something miraculous, supernatural, or otherwise implausible. — Sapientia

Fine fine, inadmissible evidence then.

Devil's advocate mode.

I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, — Agustino

Hearsay.

the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ,

Hearsay that there were prophecies about him to begin with.

and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection

Anecdotes aren't evidence.

the unique significance of the event.

Attributed to it avant la lettre.

http://m.futuresmag.com/2017/11/15/dangers-clearing-bitcoin-and-cryptocurrency-derivatives-same-clearing-organization-other

The only case where it makes sense really is for illegal activities. Drugs, arms trading, etc. — Agustino

That's not the case. It's a great way to standardise structured products for instance and sell them to interested parties. Value of the crypto currency could then be related to the underlyings - or you could just use the block chain technology and not the crypto currency itself and still handle "cash" normally.

I think I've seen several guys in their late teens or early 20s dating 14-16 year old girls over my life. So... I don't think that should count as rape if the girl consents and is okay with it. The law should be modified to take into account the fact that people above 14 can generally pretty much make decisions for themselves. In some countries, the laws already allow for this. I think in the UK one can give their consent with regards to sex if they are 16, or something similar. Can't remember for sure. — Agustino

Maturing is a process and works differently for everyone, I was sexually immature well into 21-22. I was mature in finances and could function without support from my parents when I was 17 (eating healthy, cooking myself, cleaning, work, study, locking doors etc.). I had the feeling most peers, especially girls, were sexually light years ahead of me.

At the same time, research in the Netherlands showed that 75% of women who consented to sex between the ages of 16 and 18 still regret it afterwards (when asked in their mid twenties). Those ages are socially acceptable and it's even more or less expected to happen then (a bit of peer pressure). Even though kids can make rational decisions (my 2.5 year old daughter manages at times!),that doesn't make children wise or capable enough to consider all the consequences.

Children, including teenagers, are more susceptible to developing addictions as well, which is another reason not to meddle with ages of consent especially where it concerns drugs (alcohol and cigarettes included).

You can go paper.

bitcoin and eutherium are the ones I've tracked a bit. I have an interest in eutherium because it has a programming language suitable for contracts and I'm considering learning it (solidity).

I mostly worry about the environmental sustainability of it. The energy consumption to make it work is ridiculous and I think this needs to be tackled.

The second problem is speed. We're moving to financial markets and consumer services that offer instant payments. Any distributed ledger is going to be slow in comparison.

The third is the theoretical vulnerability when one party can resolve 50% or more of the blockchain, which makes it possible to insert incorrect data.

There's a few others but I don't consider those unresovable.

I think there is a possibility that if Mueller goes after Kushner, Trump might fire Mueller. — ssu

Likely yes and we've already seen the legal groundwork for that possibility today : a president cannot obstruct justice according to his lawyer.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with Hanover saying that you've got a questionable work ethic. Even if it's entirely false, he's entitled to express his opinion, and that's not against the guidelines. If I had seen that comment flagged, I would have marked it off unchanged. — Sapientia

Well, let's not get into another discussion about decorum... so it's within the rules, I can see that. Nevertheless, I can still understand it's not fun to read for him and it's likely to trigger a reaction from him that won't be conducive to the quality of this site either. I think Agustino has written plenty that isn't fun to read for others either, an example of which I pointed to above.

Where it concerns Hanover and Agustino I'm not even sure who started it and I don't think it matters - bit of a chicken and egg kind of thing by now.

Let's all take a chill pill and try a reset. We're all strangers, nobody knows anybody here and this is a philosophy forum... go. :D

I'll admit that it took me some getting used to you and how you argue but agree I find it easy to discuss with you in the meantime as I think we're used to each others M.O.

Ok so to the rest of your post, I think it's quite clear you would appoint other people to the position of moderator. Here at my current work I see a lot of people appointed to positions I don't think they should be in. I still need to work with them and although I have at occassion complained when the proper procedures weren't followed, by and large it is a waste of my energy. I do my thing, they do their thing and we only meet when we have to. It works. I think, considering the level of influence we can exert here, I would suggest the same - you can use these forums without interacting too much with any of them and still have enough other posters going around to enjoy the site.

Or take Hanover who dares to say that my work ethic is questionable with regards to my private life, when I work literarily 7 days a week, working probably even up to 100 hours a week. Such rudeness is absolutely unacceptable - how can someone have a relationship with such a character? And then he dares talk to me about social ineptitude. Really, if none of you sees that there's a problem there, you really are blind. — Agustino

I can only advise you to flag these posts. I read that post of Hanover and didn't think much about it back then but now seeing you repeat it from your point of view I can see how that's a pretty shitty thing to have to read. That said, your comments about TimeLine's manipulation is quite similar - also pretty shitty to read for her.

Well it's obvious that he cannot take that decision himself (but he has made it clear which way he wants to go). No doubt that there are reasonable mods in the team, I don't have issues with all mods. But some of them, perhaps a majority now, are definitely questionable in my eyes. For example, I think people like SLX, Hanover and TimeLine are clearly biased, don't keep a cool head and really do not make great mods. I'd go as far as saying that SLX and TimeLine especially are a danger to the diversity of this community. Hanover tends to get stuck on certain people (like myself in this case), but he hasn't shown dangerous ideological and unquestioned presumptions like the other two I've mentioned. — Agustino

Ah man, you don't want to know the discussions I've had with Hanover that got me fuming (and hopefully him too but he's so aloof, probably not). The last discussion with TimeLine ended up with us both considering it a waste of time. I still get to have a laugh with either of them. With Hanover I just don't discuss the ME any more as we'll never see eye to eye there. That's fine. There's more to a person than his political convictions, their stated positions on wanting to ban you or whatever you might not like about them.

SLX funnily enough strikes me as one of the most emotionally balanced persons. That suggests to me it is as much about where we ourselves are coming from that influences how we perceive others. So whatever annoyance I might have about person X, about 50% is me to begin with.

No, he was made a mod right after he said he'd like to see me banned in one discussion, and that he would have done it were he a mod. Not right after, but soon after, in about a month. I was surprised to see him made a mod. He wasn't one of the original mods, he was however an editor. — Agustino

Fair enough. Still, don't you think it's unlikely his willingness to ban you was a factor considering you're still here? ;)

Hanover? I don't think so. He wasn't a mod at the old place. And he wasn't a mod here before I was a member. — Agustino

Really? Well, I must have it backward in my memory then. I thought he was a moderator before I remember you becoming active here. Did you lurk more before?

decorum — TimeLine

:-O Copycat.

Because of your friendly alliance with her and shared mutual interests, that's why. She agrees with the whole host of POMO ruling beliefs, she hates Agustino and other conservative posters and will continue the status quo. — Agustino

I suspect mods don't get worked up much about any conservative poster to the point that they'd feel hatred towards them. In my view, the mods are on average more progressive than our more vocal conservative members but then you, Thorongil and Hanover are the outliers here that don't really represent the average member. I suppose SSU is another conservative but not that vocal about it, other than that other conservative posters do not come to mind. One conservative in the mod team therefore seems a sensible reflection of the membership population.

Mods are active on the boards and then it is likely that they will participate in discussions more often than most members; so they have a relatively high visibility compared to others. Running into them at different ends on any discussion becomes statistically more probable as a result as well.

In other words, I think this is a lot about perception and not about actual facts.

So, do you really feel hated or despised or was that an exaggeration? If the former, I think there's something the mod team could engage as I think it's neither intended nor wanted (I'm assuming nobody is in here going out of their way trying to make other people feel bad).

And you should stop being so belligerent because we both know that the only reason you're a mod is because you publicly expressed a desire to see me banned (in other words, you were doing what you do best, being a servant to those in power and kissing butt while trying to step over everyone who is underneath you) — Agustino

He was a mod before you were a member.

So by her own admission, TimeLine is incapable to control her anger, is impulsive, and takes decisions she later regrets. That's what you jamalrob, @Baden, etc. like to see in a fellow mod yes? It should come as no surprise remembering how impulsive @Baden showed himself to be when banning Emptyheady or warning @Buxtebuddha, @Thorongil and myself about sexism, based on nothing, no evidence whatsoever.

But I forgot to add the most important piece of the puzzle. TimeLine is easily the most manipulative poster to have graced this forum. She will change her colors as she has to in order to obtain what she wants. She wants to stop this discussion and keep her mod position. So she will apologise and do whatever it takes to achieve that aim. But don't be deceived - be very VERY careful. — Agustino

This is mostly conjecture. Suffice is to say you can flag her posts and decisions. Generally though (as a former mod myself) most serious decisions are run by a few other moderators before they are made definitive. There's an informal checks and balance there that by and large works.

Also, it's still human work so there are bound to be inconsistencies. Nobody's perfect. So far, I don't think egregious mistakes have been made that warrant this thread.

This is not an indication she will change now that she already has the power. She couldn't control herself before, what makes you think she can control herself now? This is all a farce set up to deceive you. We have many decent women on these boards who are not given modship. Tiff or Lone Wolf come to mind. So if the moderators really want a female, they could certainly pick a reasonable choice.

Although I love Tiff to death, she's too nice to be a mod. Lone Wolf could be an option but I can't really say as I don't recall any of her posts.

So.
We went from justifying TL as a mod to simply stating she flirted her way into the role.
I mean.
Beyond the fact that this just expresses so well how little you know about flirting. — Akanthinos

Flirting with Hanover is pretty ineffectual because a) he's a two-timing lizard and b) not an administrator.

digging some dirt — Agustino

What's dirt? At this point there is suspicion of actual crimes. That doesn't seem like dirt but a serious issue. Personally I think justice is fun and if these are crimes then I'm going to enjoy Trump's downfall. If these are crimes and it doesn't bring him down, I'll be disappointed both in the legal and political system of the USA. If there is no crime, I still think he's unfit but there shouldn't be any consequences.

We are allowed to have favourites here without that being stupid and that goes both ways. You are a bit of a Trumpet, I'm obviously not. That's fine, we can still talk about what he does even if we have certain preconceptions about the person - especially if we're open about them.

It seems quite obvious Mueller is going to get more out of Flynn than if he had sued him for more serious offences. Nevertheless, I think there's a real possibility that nothing will come of this with respect to Trump even if he directed Flynn and others to contact the Russians.

The question is for what reason and can that reason be proved. If the reason is relatively benign such as contacting the ambassador to ask him not to react too strongly to sanctions then there's nothing there warranting impeachment in the eyes of the GOP. I mean, that Trump is a liar has already been established several times over but this doesn't matter to his base nor the GOP. So if the reason what he lied about is something resembling treason, there might still be a problem of proof, making it plausibly deniable. The GOP only stands to lose if something sticks to "one of theirs" so they're not going to impeach without something resembling proof and only if it's egregious.

Perhaps more important then is whether power in the house and senate will swing back to Democrats, who might believe lying is sufficient regardless of what was lied about.

I'm Benkei, using an internet handle I've lifted from Japanese history. In real life I'm a lawyer specialised in international contract law and financial law. I might be an inventor too, if I get my patent approved. Father of a daughter who I love more than anything in the world and something else coming in March or April and husband to a wife who I love more than anything but for my daughter. Two cats that I love more than my grand piano except when they are doing things to my grand piano, in which case they are the scum of the earth.

Also, if I ever read a #metoo from my daughter because of you, I'm coming for you with blowtorch and plyers.

Why is most human behavior/interaction choreographed ? Why have we relinquished our authenticity and our sincerity ? And, by doing so, is what we have achieved worth it ? — Aurora

Sometimes a question is another way of saying "hello". Especially between strangers.

I'm a bit late to this party.

We have a system of laws that regulate the market in a certain way. So I'll just put a few (value-laden?) questions out there along which lines people can think and why to me, the current setup is not fair and probably not sustainable in the long run.

Who here thinks that tax policy and laws, liability laws, bankruptcy laws, financial laws and anti-trust laws have not been heavily influenced this century by corporations with the purpose of minimizing the effects of those regulations to their bottom line?

In the case of taxes, given the costs of running a government, where do the funds come from if not a fair part from capital gains taxes?

In the case of liability laws, if damages exceed the capital of a corporation, who pays for them?

In the case of bankruptcy laws, if debt exceeds the capital of a corporation, who bears the consequence?

in the case of financial laws, who bears the costs when banks invest with other people's money while their algorithm cannot take every conceivable risk into account and those risks realise themselves?

In the case of anti-trust laws, who bears the costs if capital is further concentrated (with the subsequent possibility to exercise more power)?

Who here thinks such influence has decreased rather than increased over time, or, has it remained relatively the same?

Who here thinks it is as easy for mortal natural persons with rather disparate dreams, motives, intelligence and interest to organise themselves in the same manner as immortal corporations can, who, at a bare minimum share the motive to make profits?

The questions I think we should be asking ourselves are, for starters (and therefore non-exhaustive):

What is a fair level of taxation for labour vs. capital? Are current levels fair or an expression of power (through cash)?

I'd argue that we should introduce a land tax (to the extent countries don't have them) and increase taxes on capital gains and profit to the extent that they are more or less equal to the taxes typical wage labourers pay. I mean really, if corporations want to be "persons" so badly, they should be treated like them.

What is a fair distribution of power (the ability to make decisions), risks and benefits? It is often argued "capital" takes the most risk but is this really so? Capital already has power to make decisions and as such it "risks" what it can influence. Its risks are mitigated further by limited liability and bankruptcy laws. Any debt and damages exceeding capital of a corporation are paid for by the wider community, whereas the wider community has zero power in whatever decisions "capital" took that led to bankruptcy or liability. It's not clear why this is fair. Meanwhile, a labourer risks his livelihood and in a debt-fueled economy tends to risk his house, car and whatnot, that haven't been fully paid off yet. The labourer opting to work for company A instead of B takes a risk that management aren't a bunch of nitwits and that's assuming he has a choice where to work to begin with.

Ideally, I'd see a repeal of limited liability if possible and an introduction of personal liability for shareholders. We can immediately set fire to all IFRS and GAAP rules as the standard of reporting will be set by shareholders who now have a vested interest in being properly informed and in a manner that meets their specific requirements. I suspect insurance companies will be willing to offer a new insurance to cover the risks for these shareholders. Obviously, the costs of doing business will increase but it buys us fairness - and principles cost money. Sorry.

Interesting, I never knew the industrial revolution happened without limited liability. But I can tell you that without limited liability things look quite scary, especially on a large scale where you can't really control what's happening in 100% of the cases. — Agustino

True. It would be unlikely we'd have such large corporations as we do now and progress would likely be slower. I suspect though the benefits could outweigh these.

Well, it makes sense for a corporation to have limited liability. I mean if I start a business, and something goes wrong and my company is taken to court, do you think I should pay with all of my personal assets too? — Agustino

Yes, I actually think that would be better. We had an industrial revolution without limited liability so why not? For a nice historical overview about how the benefits of corporations increased over time, you might be able to find the following article : THE CORPORATION AT ISSUE, PART I: THE CLASH WITH CLASSICAL LIBERAL VALUES AND THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR CAPITALIST PRACTICE. If you can't find it I can email them.

Why is it a problem? If I have, say, x1000 what you have, how does that negatively impact you? What impacts you is how much you have, not how much others have relative to you. — Agustino

You can't approach a social problem by looking at individual cases so this is a bit of a red herring. Inequality in itself isn't the issue, it is how it arises on a widespread scale. We live in societies that predominantly favour capital over labour, allows capital as an expression and means of exercising political power and does not adequately deal with the lack of opportunity for large groups of people as a result of bad luck or socio-economic factors.

Inequality in a society where upward mobility is the rule rather than the exception would be much more likely to be acceptable than the situation we find ourselves in now, where it is reversed.

So that's the opportunity side.

It is also questionable that theory of value we apply now is fair. Take corporations that have limited liability and therefore externalise costs to society at large yet protects capital who also pay lower taxes. So they get the biggest rewards but their losses are limited. The idea that capital risks more is also something I reject. A labourer loses his livelihood, which is worse than losing part of your savings. The exercise of political power by means of capital creates an uneven playing field and this has become increasingly more uneven as power consolidates. It's basically class warfare and the rich are winning.

What's the role of congress and the senate in the US? In the Netherlands the chambers of parliament have two jobs: writing laws and checking the government. If ar epresentative of the government lies to parliament the second job becomes impossible. This is why lying to parliament in the Netherlands is a political death sentence.

Now, I can imagine Trump hasn't lied to congress on a specific question but then it seems to me he should be invited to either congress or senate and be asked direct questions about a couple of facts we know he's been lying about and get this charade over with. Or is partisanship so ingrained that the functioning of the political institutions is relegated to an irrelevancy (which would be a sad state of affairs from my point of view)?

Just for my understanding, what's the consequence in the US if a secretary of state or president lies to the house or senate? In the Netherlands that's a political death sentence and you'd be out before the end of the week but then we have 13 parties in parliament, so it's easier.

I think it's on record various people lied repeatedly about meeting Russians. Regardless of what they spoke about, the lies themselves are a problem if the checks and balances are to work.

Because meaningful relations between the constituency and its representatives are otherwise reduced to voting and 2 minutes addresses before the Parliement. We live in a time of professional politicians. We therefore needs professionnals to engage them meaningfully to express our interests. — Akanthinos

Different discussion but that appears a bit defeatist; we have a sucky system so we need sucky lobbyism to engage politicians and make everything worse for those who cannot organise themselves to lobby or don't have the resources to do so.