rich1.0npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3chttps://nostr.ae/npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-05-13 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 05/12/2017 08:54 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote: > Good morning, > >> I do not see why any person would want to pay, and then trust, >> another to mine accordingly. Each person can mine and attain >> their level of influence. This not only avoids the side payment, >> but earns the person money. > > The problem, is that, the rate of conversion of Bitcoin-> hashrate > is different for different people. > > For some, it's very cheap to convert Bitcoin -> hashrate. For > others, it's very expensive. The reason, is the large difference > in electricity rates depending on country. > > It's all very well for those who can get electricity cheaply. But, > for some, it is not. > > Thus, paying someone with better Bitcoin->hashrate conversion via > fees such as these is more economically logical, than to suffer a > lower Bitcoin->hashrate conversion. Despite the tedious explanation of absolute advantage, this is simply an argument for all people to pay one person to mine, as there is presumably always one person who will be able to mine more efficiently than all others. The argument fails to recognize that mining for one's self may (or may not) result in a net loss, but donating to a miner in the hope of some action is comparatively a total loss. One is an expense in exchange for the intended social outcome, and the other is payment for representative government. And in this form of representative government that you propose, if we assume that miners are somehow bound to honor the payments (votes), how are the votes distributed? Is this supposed to be democratic in the sense of one person one vote? Your argument below is clearly based on that idea. However the result would be very different. The wealthier would of course exert the greater influence. So the idea fails by its own standard. >> If a person does not want to bother then he/she clearly does not >> have a strong opinion. As developers we should be focused on >> reducing the complexities of mining and of validation, not >> finding ways for people to avoid participating in these >> necessarily distributed roles. > > It is also, very obviously, clear that you are operating under > very strange assumptions, that all people are already equal > somehow, or that someone who is paid x10 more is strictly superior, > even though skill-wise and ability-wise, they are the same, and the > one paid less is simply suffering due to the country where he or > she is born in, through no fault of their own. You are making a political argument wrapped in appeal to emotion. Both are pointless in this context. e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZFptnAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOs34IAIciCyrn7FMq7leiQ6jAvr3g sW9YRQ403IJd9BiBj3lI6xpsxtJ4zezkU2AFZUTf9X6AoIX/UJtPb8clb4RIpicf ACK+iec4YM+15kgPcLyLij3aALvNNCNQ+XuXeHT1bHqfukP+bc/DBAnm48qGvW9o ugRIFFWqtt8FB9MAh/VM6SsfaQc3D8hk6Dh3SyEVzohkrgWpRVQKNGD/FYY8odCA 8KPo/R3jrgO6JNR0EGxR3SatuKLYUgMcl3n63fanAOh8ESHGHHiP0SEpYoG3wOCt eAyEcPI4SezJHBjJWcsPe0hhLg0HkvFaLwQe8tGHXrCzsZ18QTNBA0h9npWqqi4= =LKcb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----