futuravenir

Increasing the block size is a fundamental change requiring a hard fork and a chain split. It is not possible to continue on the same chain with a 2mb block. However, they could continue on the same chain with segwit which gives the rough equivalent of a 1.7mb block. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough for the other side (+lots of other reasons, valid or not, I couldn't say).

I want to say that I've been on the anti-censorship boat and the 'AXA money is sketchy' and the unlimited train for as long as I've heard of it.

Just recently, someone in the ecosystem that I've known since the beginning of my time with Bitcoin came out in support of Blockstream and Segwit with a backing of other Canadian support.

https://medium.com/@francispouliot/canadian-bitcoin-economic...

I don't know what to make of it all. I spoke with him a bit and he seems to believe that those pushing against segwit are paid by ASICboosters in China because they stand to make $100,000,000/yearly from their (now not so secret) advantage.

In any case, I just wanted to add that I'm more confused than ever and things are very unclear.

The caption is downright hilarious because of just how dry it is.

"The winning Devbot 1 managed to avoid running over a dog"

I followed your lead and also counted them...But just in my head.

Actually, it was an elaborate and well thought out democratic process. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't arbitrary either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_constitutional_refor...

Firstly, Bernie is a Social Democrat. Secondly, Capitalism has gotten so much Crony in it that the inequality is hurting the capitalism. Bernie could have swung the scales towards infrastructure, unionism, and lowering inequality, which would put dollars in the pockets of the poor, which would in turn be spent directly into the economy.

Are you familiar with Agile Learning Centers? I'd love to hear your thoughts on these. http://agilelearningcenters.org

These need to be mandatory installations in all communities. Non-commercial, accessible spaces for people to congregate. It's a human-requirement.

Well, in the context of traditional orgs, the board can fire the CEO. In this book, he speaks about making certain that the CEO & board members are all on board with the 'teal organisation' mentality.

In other words, I don't believe it addresses the legal structure as much as the organisational one. Unfortunately, I have to bring it back to the library today...but I'll be buying my own copy that I can cover in highlighter. It's really interesting for anyone interested in organisational structure and offers a lot of insights into potential workarounds to problems you might run into.

I'm about a third of the way through the book. It's tough to say whether it covers 'the cooperative model' because so far, it approaches aspects of business quite individually.

Here's the table of contents: https://i.imgur.com/OS9XGhN.jpg

I'm in the middle of reading "Reinventing Organisations" and it's absolutely wonderful. It examines a handful of organisations that are doing it differently (including Holocracy) and takes notes about how their techniques compare and what they might have in common.

It's basically the blueprints towards building the next most efficient organisation. I highly recommend it. http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/

Simultaneously a buzzkill and realistic.

Great marketing. I'd never heard of Infinit before. Now I have.

Can anyone describe to me how it differs from MaidSafe? http://maidsafe.net/

>I find it a bit troubling that you list beautiful women as a plus of a city, as if women were a natural resource like trees or clean water.

As a Montrealer, I would say that we have beautiful people living here in general. OP is likely heterocentric in their commentary.

>Did you ever spend a lot of time in Hochelaga?

Not much of a tech scene...but incredibly progressive/beautiful attitudes. Also, very French. If you don't have the language, you're missing 80% of it.

I think a good bit of the incredibleness of Montreal is kept at arm's length through the language barrier.

I grew up mostly with English friends and never spoke French. These days, I spend a lot more time with French friends and I feel much more at home.

"Currently, a plan is in the works that could turn Hans Island into a shared territory that would be jointly managed by the Canadian and Danish municipalities bordering it."

Let's get a public hearing on how we should jointly manage it. And get a board of directors, paying them each no less than 150k/year to negotiate. And...

>He praises the fact that medallions and price controls cause artificial shortages and blames Uber for devaluing the medallions through their competition.

I didn't read the text as 'praise' for taxi companies or government regulation, just a statement of facts about them. Reread that part of the text from a neutral place.

"Next, it’s time to understand the legal difference between what Uber is doing and what taxi companies are doing. The taxi industry is highly regulated and each cab must have a medallion, which is basically a licence to operate a car as a taxi. With prices over $300,000, these medallions can be valued as highly as a home. Since Uber has shown up, those prices have plummeted.

Why go through the hassle of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a taxi driver when you can just download an app and become an Uber driver for free? Taxi companies, which are regulated by the government, cannot compete."

It's stating that the playing field is unfair and that becoming a taxi driver isn't a career path anymore.

>Apparently we are at whim of a "single private company" controlling our transportation, but somehow being at the whim of state governments is not an issue at all.

This article focuses around Uber's role in our lives, not the government. There's enough hatred to go around though and we're allowed to dislike two types of monopolies.

>And of course, the ultimate irony: complaining about monopolization and cartelization while praising unions. I'm not opposed to unions, but they are demand-side bargaining cartels and to be in denial over this makes you look disingenuous.

It depends on how you perceive unionization. I perceive it to be as a means for workers to make certain they have fair working conditions and fair pay for their work as a base. Everything else is all part of a layer of bureaucracy that comes later and/or is corrupted by corrupt actors.

That was a fun eight seconds.

If there is more debt than credit in the world, that means that we are either a) borrowing more to pay back our debts or b) pushing others out of business to take their funds so that we may pay back our own debts. This creates a dog-eat-dog mentality. This is only one way of recognizing value. It is not the only way of recognizing value. Once you acknowledge that, you can think outside of the box of how we can generate a system that reflects values in line with our humanity instead of one that forces us to compete.

At the core of it, we follow the money system as it is because we choose to. We can choose to follow another type of money system...It just takes effort and imagination. http://www.theonion.com/article/us-economy-grinds-to-halt-as...

We really ought to end the centralization of banking and begin more transparent operations through a global blockchain. On par with that, we need to print our own debt-free money and move beyond the stranglehold of this centralized wealth conspiracy.

I can't speak for the US, but Canada has the opportunity to do it and the Bank of Canada is being to taken to court over exactly this. https://medium.com/toronto-life/usury-in-canada-287001af6abe

https://gimletmedia.com/episode/44-shine-on-you-crazy-goldma... At around 20:30, she starts talking about the process. Take the piece of acid, dissolve it in water overnight. Drink 1/10th of the bottle of water. Or, y'know, an exacto knife and a ruler.

I think you might be in dire need of some LSD if you can't imagine cutting up paper into small pieces.

Am I missing something? This reads like gobbledygook. I have a sneaking suspicion that this very post is made to seem legitimate/credible while I don't necessarily believe it is? My mind is exploding a little bit. I am confused. Am I? Hmm.

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act."

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.ht...

Note "economic security". If you block the flow of the economy, you can be considered a terrorist under this definition in the Canadian criminal code. This is not hyperbolic nonsense. This is the law.

Well, by taking into account all of the potential value judgments, then utilizing the ones most relevant to your decision, acknowledging the short-comings of your decision and making good on them.

Acknowledge - 100 values that Tree A brings. 85 values that Tree B brings. Judge - 12 values from Tree A are relevant to our decision. 8 values from Tree B are relevant to our decision. Cons - 3 values are really important that we should rectify for Tree A. 5 values for Tree B. Make Good - 1 value of Tree A cannot be replicated. All values of Tree B can be replicated. Conclusion - Cut down Tree B. Benefit from it. Make good on 5 values that are important.

I literally made up this decision-making on the spot, but if I put more than 30 seconds into it, I think I can refine it and make it applicable to a lot of spots. Yes, they would require qualitative thinking and are more complicated than a simple monetary equation, but it considers all of the externalities of our decisions beyond financial gain/loss and that was my initial point.

The point is that this is the value obtained through extraction. There are other values that are non-financial that are not being calculated into the equation.

Trees are ecosystems. Human beings are ecosystems. They interact in incredibly complex ways with their external ecosystems.

To answer more simply, you can't break down the Co2 into dollar-value because it isn't the only value that a tree has. It has an incredible amount of all kinds of values. It helps create shade for other types of plants to grow, so we need to factor that in. It creates a habitat for certain insects that help with pollination. Those insects help keep away another type of insect that are bad for reasons X, Y, Z. The relationship is so vast and complicated, that to simply say, a tree is worth $40,000 is judging it by the wrong qualities.

It's like judging Einstein's Theory of Relativity based on the amount of words, but not on the ideas that are created when someone reads it and is inspired to create something new. Or judging a healthy diet simply by the amount of calories. It just doesn't work like that in the real world. The financial extraction of value is based on limited qualifiers that do not take into account the complexity of true-to-life value.

How about spending financial wealth on an educational program that redefines wealth? I've started studying what Arthur Brock is doing and am trying to implement it into my alternative economics startup as much as possible. You cannot break down the Co2 that is processed by a tree into dollars...It's like breaking down the value of a human being through how much plasma can be extracted and selling it at market rate.

http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning-ne...

Today I did for the first time in awhile. These conversations reinvigorated me to do so. Regularly though...I haven't been.

I meditated today. Gosh was that nice. Thank you for your kind wishes and your shared experiences.

I had never mediated before...A few instances of 20 minutes that were guided, but never 'for real'. I went in not really knowing what I would be asked to do or how it worked. For me, that worked wonderfully.

I generally tend to fail magnificently at first and then flourish very quickly after making all the rookie mistakes all at once.

If you have questions, don't be afraid to use the question sessions to speak to your teacher. If it seems like the instructions are too simple, you might be overthinking it. It's all about letting go after all.

Personally, I found it easy. I live mostly in my head anyhow, so not talking wasn't a big deal to me. And before I went into it, I told myself that solitary confinement would be much worse and that this is a vacation where I get fed and just have to be quiet and try something new. Also, it was recommended by someone I respect very highly, so I was convinced it was worthwhile before ever going.