You keep trying to bend my point into what you want to say. It's an interesting, though ineffective, strategy for arguing.
* I say that once people make what they have chosen to work upon available it is freely copyable. * You keep saying that people should not be able to chose what to work on, that it should be chosen for them.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding the difference? Or perhaps you do understand the difference, but it is the only way to try to make your weak line of argument work. Have you got anything else?
What they consider to be their "work" is a poor choice given that it can be freely copied and they depend on scarity. It's a pretty dumb decision. Everybody is "entitled" to any information that they can acquire, why should it be otherwise?
No, like all flawed systems of control it means that you suffer the consequences if you get caught.
Yes, it is self entitled, and also true. Every single one of us is entitled to any piece of information that we can acquire. It is a dellusion to pretend otherwise.
Everything that you wrote flows from this basic fallacy. Ownership works as a model for allocarion of scarse resources. It is fundamentally broken as a model for infornation.
Indeed, "to dip" means placing a wad of tobacco (or snus) in one's lip. Surely bitcoin will not be dipping 8k of snus. What a laughable error in the summary!
Your position is argued well in this post - I understand your logic. But here is zero evidence for your position. Sure, this does not make it wrong, but it is not particularly convincing.
ASIC resistence is not a binary property. Increasing the size of the scratchpad being hashed is a moving target against the falling cost of embedding memory in an ASIC that can be fabbed at a reasonable cost. But this does not mean that it does not work - it just means that the difficulty level needs to adjusted upwards over time - not too different from Satoshi's innovation in the bitcoin design.
But... there is a real cost to design + fab of an ASIC with a given amount of memory. If that cost exceeds the return in mining for the coin being targeted then ASIC resistence behaves like a binary property, i.e. the coin is resistent to (economic) exploitation of an ASIC.
The theoretical end-run that you refer to is an entity jumping the fab industry (measured in a cost of 10s of billions) in order to own the mining for a particular coin. Sure, in that long-term it does increase centralization, but the step is so large that it is highly improbable to occur at all.
Designing a working ASIC is very high barrier to entry, which means that whoever crosses that line first can then use vertical integration to own the market. Look at exactly what has happened with the ASIC miners - their low availability and high use in pools connected to the manufacturer.
It is only now - 5 years after the first ASIC hit the market that a competitor *may* enter the market in the next year (the current Samsung story).
Yes, of course a property that enourages distribution of computing resources is bad for a distributed system. You are really knocking it out of the park today!
Wow, what an insightful and detailed response. Look at how much you’ve added to the discussion!
Capitalism seeks to maximise profit - how is this not greed as the GP stated? In the absence of regulation profit maximisation has no ethical or moral constraints. Seems like the GP nailed it.
Fisticuffd you say? Probably means you are pushing in a little too deep for your partner’s pleasure. If in doubt remove your cufflinks you raggamuffin.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep trying to bend my point into what you want to say. It's an interesting, though ineffective, strategy for arguing.
* I say that once people make what they have chosen to work upon available it is freely copyable.
* You keep saying that people should not be able to chose what to work on, that it should be chosen for them.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding the difference? Or perhaps you do understand the difference, but it is the only way to try to make your weak line of argument work. Have you got anything else?
You can have anything that I choose to produce, which is why it is freely released. Why do you think this would let you choose what I work on?
What they consider to be their "work" is a poor choice given that it can be freely copied and they depend on scarity. It's a pretty dumb decision. Everybody is "entitled" to any information that they can acquire, why should it be otherwise?
Should we pretend that information can be owned to satisfy their poor choice of business model?
You'll just have to wait.
It doesn't come easy.
It's a game of give and take.
No - I create value around the software that I produce.
No, like all flawed systems of control it means that you suffer the consequences if you get caught.
Yes, it is self entitled, and also true. Every single one of us is entitled to any piece of information that we can acquire. It is a dellusion to pretend otherwise.
But an idea does not belong to a person.
Everything that you wrote flows from this basic fallacy. Ownership works as a model for allocarion of scarse resources. It is fundamentally broken as a model for infornation.
Which of the points do you specifically feel is reasonable behaviour being shut down?
What complete bullshit. Just because laws governing the copyright of software have been bought and paid for does not mean that we must obey them.
Pragmatically: take whatever software you want because there is no ideal drm scheme that can stop you.
Ethically: go for it, software is simply an expression of knowledge and copying it does no harm.
There is no scarity in digital goods other than that we bind ourselves into, so why not go for it.
(I say this as a programmer)
Poland?
Because it works so well as a currency? Hahahaha
Oh yeah, it doesn’t do that any more. Are they scared about it storing value? Strange that, I can even buy tulips on my creditcard...
This is fantastic to see. 5M+ user accounts and so few have what it takes to write this. Well done!
good bot
Indeed, "to dip" means placing a wad of tobacco (or snus) in one's lip. Surely bitcoin will not be dipping 8k of snus. What a laughable error in the summary!
If you build it... they will come.
Surely it always converts to USB3.0 - so it's like the Sony random number generator:
int getUSBNumber(float bitcoins) // This version was chosen by a fair die (apologies to XKCD)
{
return 3;
}
Your position is argued well in this post - I understand your logic. But here is zero evidence for your position. Sure, this does not make it wrong, but it is not particularly convincing.
ASIC resistence is not a binary property. Increasing the size of the scratchpad being hashed is a moving target against the falling cost of embedding memory in an ASIC that can be fabbed at a reasonable cost. But this does not mean that it does not work - it just means that the difficulty level needs to adjusted upwards over time - not too different from Satoshi's innovation in the bitcoin design.
But... there is a real cost to design + fab of an ASIC with a given amount of memory. If that cost exceeds the return in mining for the coin being targeted then ASIC resistence behaves like a binary property, i.e. the coin is resistent to (economic) exploitation of an ASIC.
The theoretical end-run that you refer to is an entity jumping the fab industry (measured in a cost of 10s of billions) in order to own the mining for a particular coin. Sure, in that long-term it does increase centralization, but the step is so large that it is highly improbable to occur at all.
Cost of entry.
Designing a working ASIC is very high barrier to entry, which means that whoever crosses that line first can then use vertical integration to own the market. Look at exactly what has happened with the ASIC miners - their low availability and high use in pools connected to the manufacturer.
It is only now - 5 years after the first ASIC hit the market that a competitor *may* enter the market in the next year (the current Samsung story).
Oh look! Another quality contribution!
Yes, of course a property that enourages distribution of computing resources is bad for a distributed system. You are really knocking it out of the park today!
Just you wait until you see the Linux Desktop running on a Quantum Computer - it is almost usable!
Wow, what an insightful and detailed response. Look at how much you’ve added to the discussion!
Capitalism seeks to maximise profit - how is this not greed as the GP stated?
In the absence of regulation profit maximisation has no ethical or moral constraints. Seems like the GP nailed it.
You should learn more.
https://www.quora.com/What-doe...
Fisticuffd you say? Probably means you are pushing in a little too deep for your partner’s pleasure. If in doubt remove your cufflinks you raggamuffin.
So what is the law backed by?