felipeko

Then we setup rules and processes to deter "primitive shitheads"

SpaceX is supposedly selling F9 flights for $50 million already, while the competition is selling comparable flights for $150/$170 million.

As SpaceX is still recouping the technology research investment, 95% may be a stretch, but 80% reduction is not that far of really, it will probably be very close to that if they are able to reuse fairing.

Evolution on earth is heavily influenced on dark/light cycles through its entire history. No evolutionary path that has received this influence can tell us anything about what would happen, on things that are highly correlated to it, for one that has never received this influence.

Accepting that I don't have free-will does not stop me from understanding I am an agent of change. Even if I can't alter the laws of nature to be an free agent, I can use the laws to my best interest.

Yes, you can be blamed as much as an earthquake, would try to stop earthquakes from happening if you could?

Thanks, I see the similarities now.

I think the system will work only as far as you have power players that are able to punish everyone who gets out of line - by racing to the bottom and driving profits out as a punishment [1].

That's exactly what I think complaining countries should do. They're not getting any revenue now, so they are able to power play Ireland into fair taxation, and the system will be as stable as their possibility to do so. If you take into account that any country cheating will take revenue away from others (thus their reason for a high tax), they should always be able to counter, as they are now.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/03/business/saudis-use-pain-...

Can you elaborate on that?

I'm not sure how this is comparable.

Ireland's low tax works for Ireland because it has no competition, so it gets the "market" all to itself. If competition arrived, Ireland would have no option but to raise taxes to make it up for it - as it needs this funds. It would essentially force Ireland's hand on this issue.

On the OPEC side they have external and internal competition. Sometimes they can make it work because demand is higher than what external competition has to offer and what internal competition need, but if external competition has enough supply or internal competition need more than they are getting, it does not work anymore (and the price drops because of extra supply).

That's my point, isn't it?

Ireland can't win a race to the bottom, and it will have to have higher taxes if others will lower theirs.

So all other countries have to do is lower taxes to force Ireland to raise its own, and reach a new higher taxes equilibrium, that is beneficial to all countries.

Isn't that what others are arguing for?

1) Why would Germany and France care? They have not been collecting taxes anyway, race to the bottom until Ireland can't anymore.

2) It works for Ireland because other countries prefer not to engage. If Germany had the same tax rate it wouldn't work for Ireland anymore right? As what is now Ireland only revenue would be split between the two or more countries.

When this happen wouldn't Ireland have to raise taxes if it wanted to keep the same money?

It appears to me that this would achieve an stable and healthier equilibrium after some time.

Why don't Germany and France offer the same as Ireland?

Only the companies that sell the devices hate it. For every other entity it is a win as more money will be available to be spent on something else.

Having more control would be valuable, and thus, more expensive. You will have to pay more in order to have more control, while you could pay less and earn the same.

It appears to me that it will, at least, make more expensive to think short term than long term, and that is the intended incentive of this stock exchange (as you could as well just buy more shares if you want more control).

Does the transaction price go up when fewer people mine?

Its ability to create/enhance economic crises also becomes very diminished.

I don't think it is debatable considering we have had successful governments without it.

Saying every country does it is not a good point, as it could be applied to slavery once upon a time.

But I agree that it's debatable if it is good. Being good and necessary are two different things though.

There are things a government needs, like revenue source and public servants, to exist or do its job.

Government does not need to have its own currency for exist or to do its job.

It's debatable that government having the ability to mess with monetary policy is a good thing. It may be working in US at the moment (and it will be hard to measure if it is helping or not), but there have been a lot of countries economically ruined because of that.

Government does not need this ability, it just wants it.

The title is so misleading. It's just a interview, and there's nothing in the interview that gives room for what the title is saying.

> Barzilay: Do you believe Bitcoin will ever be embraced by the U.S. government?

> Dr. Hosp: I think that the concept of virtual currencies will definitely be embraced, because they have a very transparent transaction ledger. So, we know exactly what’s been happening. With bank transfers, it’s quite hard, but with fiat money it’s impossible, so I think virtual currencies will see a huge uprise by governments. Whether governments will embrace Bitcoin - let’s see, but there is definitely value for people. Bitcoin is very difficult to hack, it’s almost impossible to steal if you use for example multi-signature bolt. And with TenX you can spend Bitcoin pretty much anywhere. So, this is the future to go. I don’t think that Bitcoin is going to be a currency, but it’s going to have status like gold.

That is true, and this should really factor in the decline of gold in the future, but this does not help Bitcoin against it's e-coins rivals.

And isn't Bitcoin hackable in a near-ish future with quantum computing?

You got me! :)

Now find a few hundreds more and we will be closer (not really) to Bitcoin's rarity of kind.

You can't find another precious metal that will have the rarity of gold and it's "non deterioration" property, both that made gold what it is (it's also a really useful commodity).

But i agree that's not enough to defend against competitors like Bitcoin, but the same cannot be said of Bitcoin. Other than sociological factors (that are arguably much stronger on gold), there's nothing that would help it defend against others e-coins.

There's a difference about Gold's rarity and Bitcoin's.

Gold is rare on its kind and rare on its abundance. It may be hard to mine more gold, but it's way harder to find another gold-like commodity.

Bitcoin is only rare in the abundance sense. It is hard to mine more bitcoin, but it's pretty easy to find a (arguably better) substitute for what it does.

I can agree with it being better (having more utility) than gold, though. So I'd agree that the sum of all e-coins will surpass gold, but I see no reason for Bitcoin to do it alone.

As price rises, recycling will be more advantageous and will compete with mined materials reducing their future economic power by the same amount as it would if you recycle now.

The maximum effect of your policy will be to delay the moment when recycling becomes economic advantageous, and waste money/energy until then.

I'm all for people helping, looking for help or education.

I'm against someone deciding that I cannot do something because it can be bad for me.

I don't understand why do you think that.

The biggest problem of big companies is when they hurt consumers with predatory practices.

With Facebook I fail to see how that's the case. Everybody is perfectly capable of not being hurt by their own accord by just no using it.

If the problem is how it influences politics and government, I think that's even a point against letting the government mess with it, as it is a power that can be easily misused by the party in power.

When Facebook was growing there was a fear on Google that Facebook would lead to Google's irrelevance. Google+ was a very clear response to that. Still, Google couldn't buy Facebook and couldn't kill it.

Microsoft couldn't kill/buy Google, Walmart can't kill/buy Amazon. Microsoft and Walmart are still big, but not that powerful anymore.

So while i think they can buy their would be destroyers, that is actually very hard, because they mostly only realize that too late, or are stopped by something else (Microsoft did buy shares of Facebook before Google).

The definition of the word colony

From google:

> a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.

From wikipedia:

> In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign.

If Spain asserts itself as the ruler of Catalonia, without the will of the Catalans, it appears to me that the word is very apt.

So Spain gets to keep Catalonia as a colony because it is the one with power to make the rules?

So, who gets to decide what it all look like? The broswer vendor? W3C?

What if one browser does something others won't, and you can't do it custom, how do you get around it? Wouldn't that put us back to IE6 web?

What if your site really needs something browsers don't have? Will we have sites telling us to install a plugin and put us back to Flash era?

I'm not sure if i follow you.

But i will try to answer the best i can.

When i go to the bank, i may be participating in bank run, and i may the reason the bank collapses, and then the economy. My action of going to the bank does not usually causes that. But if you attempt to ban me from going to the bank because i may cause a bank collapse, it will certainly cause more harm then good.

And that's how we should look at the problem. The reason i have a principle that people should not interfere with my freedom to do as i chose (as long as i don't harm others), is because i believe that it will provide the best outcome possible, not the other way around.

That does not mean that there's no law that prevents two people of making a voluntary transaction that can give a better outcome than everything open. But it's just impossible to really know. The same reason your questions are hard to answer, if i disregard the principle, it will be hard to make such laws. So someone has to decide what becomes law, and what does not, and when that happens, those law will be imperfect, and you will have people who will benefit from some laws, and some who will be harmed. People harmed will not care so much for this imperfect and unfair system, and might as well ignore such (or other laws). People will also have incentives to make such laws, as they can benefit from it.

And you will never get a general agreement that such law will really do more harm than good, because people will have different views of that, rightly so. The law that prevents me from investing, may protect me from a bad decision, but will also prevent me from a good one. But as i am able to decide to get out of my house every day, and risk losing my life on a car accident, i should be able to decide what to do with what is mine. Even if some protection does look nice on paper, i do not believe i need to be protect from myself in a way that will limit my choices. If someone wants their choices be limited, just make it optional, and I will be able to decide if the protection is good or not. I doubt most people will really care about what people in the government think it is the right choice.