{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3c","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3c","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-05-13\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\nOn 05/12/2017 08:54 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:\n\u003e Good morning,\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e I do not see why any person would want to pay, and then trust,\n\u003e\u003e another to mine accordingly. Each person can mine and attain\n\u003e\u003e their level of influence. This not only avoids the side payment,\n\u003e\u003e but earns the person money.\n\u003e \n\u003e The problem, is that, the rate of conversion of Bitcoin-\u003e hashrate\n\u003e is different for different people.\n\u003e \n\u003e For some, it's very cheap to convert Bitcoin -\u003e hashrate.  For\n\u003e others, it's very expensive.  The reason, is the large difference\n\u003e in electricity rates depending on country.\n\u003e \n\u003e It's all very well for those who can get electricity cheaply.  But,\n\u003e for some, it is not.\n\u003e \n\u003e Thus, paying someone with better Bitcoin-\u003ehashrate conversion via\n\u003e fees such as these is more economically logical, than to suffer a\n\u003e lower Bitcoin-\u003ehashrate conversion.\n\nDespite the tedious explanation of absolute advantage, this is simply\nan argument for all people to pay one person to mine, as there is\npresumably always one person who will be able to mine more efficiently\nthan all others.\n\nThe argument fails to recognize that mining for one's self may (or may\nnot) result in a net loss, but donating to a miner in the hope of some\naction is comparatively a total loss. One is an expense in exchange\nfor the intended social outcome, and the other is payment for\nrepresentative government.\n\nAnd in this form of representative government that you propose, if we\nassume that miners are somehow bound to honor the payments (votes),\nhow are the votes distributed? Is this supposed to be democratic in\nthe sense of one person one vote? Your argument below is clearly based\non that idea. However the result would be very different. The\nwealthier would of course exert the greater influence. So the idea\nfails by its own standard.\n\n\u003e\u003e If a person does not want to bother then he/she clearly does not\n\u003e\u003e have a strong opinion. As developers we should be focused on\n\u003e\u003e reducing the complexities of mining and of validation, not\n\u003e\u003e finding ways for people to avoid participating in these\n\u003e\u003e necessarily distributed roles.\n\u003e \n\u003e It is also, very obviously, clear that you are operating under\n\u003e very strange assumptions, that all people are already equal\n\u003e somehow, or that someone who is paid x10 more is strictly superior,\n\u003e even though skill-wise and ability-wise, they are the same, and the\n\u003e one paid less is simply suffering due to the country where he or\n\u003e she is born in, through no fault of their own.\n\nYou are making a political argument wrapped in appeal to emotion. Both\nare pointless in this context.\n\ne\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)\n\niQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZFptnAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOs34IAIciCyrn7FMq7leiQ6jAvr3g\nsW9YRQ403IJd9BiBj3lI6xpsxtJ4zezkU2AFZUTf9X6AoIX/UJtPb8clb4RIpicf\nACK+iec4YM+15kgPcLyLij3aALvNNCNQ+XuXeHT1bHqfukP+bc/DBAnm48qGvW9o\nugRIFFWqtt8FB9MAh/VM6SsfaQc3D8hk6Dh3SyEVzohkrgWpRVQKNGD/FYY8odCA\n8KPo/R3jrgO6JNR0EGxR3SatuKLYUgMcl3n63fanAOh8ESHGHHiP0SEpYoG3wOCt\neAyEcPI4SezJHBjJWcsPe0hhLg0HkvFaLwQe8tGHXrCzsZ18QTNBA0h9npWqqi4=\n=LKcb\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}