nunyabuizness

16 ms·

31.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Also, this CGP Grey video explains how a first-past-the-post voting system all-but-guarantees a two party system to emerge over time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
32.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Interestingly enough, I started this project after reading about Ripple and Whuffie, hence the name. This project however is being built on Stellar https://www.stellar.org , which is actually a fork of Ripple started by the Rippl
33.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
> Take that guarantee away, and someone could design a reputation currency where participants could reject payments from disreputable participants. In which case accumulation of units does not imply the long-term ability to use them; ins
34.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
>But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. - Lysander Spooner
35.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
>The problem is definitely the companies. They're the ones exploiting the system. Who implements the system? The politicians that you and I elect and the corporations buy off, right? So who's fault is it really, the people who
36.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
>It's the equivalent of me donating most of my salary to a "charity" created for the purpose of paying my mortgage. I don't think many people here do that, or would consider it if their accountant suggested it. Why no
37.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Well while I'm not going to be running Battlefront in 3D 4k with the insane textures mod, that's not what I meant by immersion - what I meant is not being able to discern the edges of the screen, which is an unfortunate consequenc
38.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Just bought a Pop-Tech 3D VR headset, only issue with it is that the lenses are just a tad bit too far from the phone, preventing 100% immersion: http://www.amazon.com/Pop-Tech%C2%AE-Virtual-Head-mounted-He...
39.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Time value of money is how money is worth more (not less) today than it is a year from now, which is why you would have to pay interest to give it to me in the future.
40.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
>I want a currency that's built on trust. I want every commitment and promises to be tracked and evaluated. I want fairness, and it starts with understanding reality. I'm working this exact problem right now and would love your
41.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
> Don't campaign against privacy in hope of indirectly fixing your actual concerns So that's my fault for conflating two things without making it explicit - 1) privacy is a non-issue b/c of my aforementioned reasons and 2)
42.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
> there are winners and losers Currently, we are the losers, our governments are the winners. > The winners have a strong economic incentive to keep their communication private, as has been the case throughout human history. That&#x27
43.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
You didn't answer anything I proposed - if I'm being oppressed based on something that can't be made private, what difference does privacy make? > it is about multiple systems in a Swiss cheese model where privacy is one o
44.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Championing privacy over fixing the reasons we need privacy is the ultimate kicking of the can down the road - encryption won't prevent the government from harassing me based on my skin color or my choice of employment, or anything els
45.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Would privacy protect a black in 1930's Poland? Would it matter to them if they did or did not register their identity or religion with their government of full religious freedom? Where's their right to privacy (of their ethnicity
46.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
First, thanks for engaging my hypothetical. Second, while what you said is true, it would also mean that we wouldn't have a perfect law-making govt then, wouldn't it :)? And even if it was optional (b/c it wasn't necessa
47.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Precisely! So the issue to solve is how do we create a world that places everyone in their own private moral world, a result of which is a significantly lower dependence on the losing battle of privacy! There are a couple ways to give us th
48.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Everything he states in that article points to privacy being a defense against unchecked power, for which the simplest long-term solution is check the power , not admit defeat to unchecked power and shore up your defenses.
49.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Direct democracy, free markets for law, representative democracy, voluntarism, etc. There are innumerable solutions to the emergent failure states of our legal system and as I stated elsewhere in this thread, if you declare privacy a greate
50.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Again, corrupt officials, selective enforcement, etc are the problems, not lack privacy. There are a number of ways to make the nature of law better (free markets for law, direct democracy, actual representative democracy, etc), which would
51.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
> Privacy is a protection from the massive amount of failure states otherwise present in systems by refusing them information to operate on. Then that means he has it right and you might have it backwards: the problems are the massive am
52.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
I think he's proposing that it's not privacy that's the problem, but society's laws and morality that require us to use privacy to protect ourselves. If no one had to be punished under unjust laws for living a decent lif
53.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
I wish I could upvote this more. One reply mentions how easy anti-sodomy laws would be to enforce if we had no privacy. Considering how much faith people put in democracy and the democratic process, you'd think that people would conced
54.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
I completely agree with everything you said; however to clarify what I meant originally, I say "ecologically unfriendly" because of all the ways to do distributed consensus, proof-of-work is the least efficient mechanism when comp
55.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Unless the hashrate of the sum of miners declines once they stop creating the cryptocurrency and start only validating transactions, the amount of energy spent on mining will always be high and will always be ecologically-unfriendly.
56.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
>For instance, could you have a defined chain of authoritative servers, where the authority passes in a way where it cannot be abused? Ripple and Stellar use a federated network of validating transactions to reach cascading consensus (va
57.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
This is the core use case of IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ Neocities has just collaborated with Protocol Labs to host their content "permanently" on IPFS.
58.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
> nannys don't let the kids they're taking care of democratically elect their behaviors Considering they can sneak in CISA into a US budget bill after it was shot down by the public, apparently, neither does the government.
59.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Sounds like Hamsterdam from The Wire.
60.
by nunyabuizness 11y ago
Shameless plug: a few months back, I was going thru a coding bootcamp and for a 2-day sprint (forgive me) I wrote a simple, entirely insecure Lamport-Merkle digital signature algorithm implementation [0] in JavaScript based on the "spe

More ›