sausman's comments

A lot to like about DERO:

* Smart Contracts * Homomorphic Encryption (not just obfuscation) for Privacy, Fungibility * Σ-Mining (anyone mining on the DERO network can earn rewards based on the amount of work contributed, instead of a ‘winner-takes-all’ reward model) * Account model * Written from scratch in Go

It's been a pleasure to work with, and the community is great.

I’m not sure all types of money have this characteristic, but debt-based money in a fractional reserve banking system certainly seems to. The banks are perpetually insolvent because the time structure of their assets (loans) doesn’t match the time structure of their liabilities (“deposits”). At any time a bank run can bring them and the entire economy down. Sure, the government guarantees their deposits, but AFAIK they don’t provide anywhere near enough insurance. Not to mention the moral hazard it creates for banks to act recklessly.

It’s been a while since I read up on the topic, but the origins of fractional-reserve banking sound a lot like fraud that got blamed on the hard money that exposed it. (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933550287)

People (demos) and power (kratos) tend to not go well together, which is why the US was founded as a democratic Republic with strictly limited power. Many of the founders viewed the state as a necessary evil.

Ben Franklin referred to the US as “A Republic, if you can keep it." I think it’s fair to say we haven’t. Power is no longer viewed as an evil to be restrained, but the solution to our problems.

We need to realize the state is force, and force is rarely the solution to our problems. In most cases it creates more problems than it solves.

> You might lose your job though.

That's what I was trying to get at. I didn't mean to make it sound like you'd go to jail.

Interesting, I thought you had to be a special type of corporation for that. My language is a bit strong then.

Yeah, the only thing I've used it for thus far is hashing passwords e.g. https://github.com/riverrun/argon2_elixir

Who is supposed to benefit from this? I'm confused.

Facebook gives away Free Basics "internet". Although I'm not sure I'd call that internet...

This is my biggest qualm with building a company aimed to sell (either to public markets or another company). You are binding yourself to pursue as much profit as possible through whatever legal means possible. Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.

Was probably going to happen eventually since Lyft and Uber offer a better product, but it's interesting that the big ride sharing companies aren't profitable yet either.

> The world is a better place with lots of smaller companies.

I would tend to agree. What's troubling to me is central banks pouring money into the big tech companies. How are small companies supposed to compete with a printing press?

Even if a world with lots of smaller companies serves consumers better, consumers' votes don't matter when central banks can steal their votes via a printing press and give money to the big tech companies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/swiss-snb-stocks-idUSL8N1B738...

http://www.businessinsider.com/1-trillion-in-central-bank-as...

I was wondering the same thing.. Maybe the developer was able to remotely flip a switch after the app went through approval to change its behavior and app review didn't catch it? What's really surprising is how long it's been out (almost 2 months)

Another thing to consider is the size of Denmark compared to the US. It's a much smaller political unit which tends to translate into more responsive politicians. Danes have about half the number of representatives we have in the US but less than 5% of our population.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_...

I wish I could vote every day and have it count. Thankfully this is the case for many goods and services that are provided on the market. If I don't like the product I am getting or where my money is going I simply take my business elsewhere. Providers of goods and services that face market competition are encouraged on a continuous basis to be responsive to consumers or they risk going out of business.

By comparison, voting in elections feels ineffective. Monopolies, even those run by politicians elected every X years, are notoriously bad at serving the needs of consumers. Even if we could vote every day from our phones on who is in charge of a given monopoly, I still don't think it would change much.

Are my descriptions inaccurate?

Democratic government: Shitty and selfish people electing shitty and selfish people to initiate violence against shitty and selfish people and their property.

Libertarianism: Shitty and selfish people not condoning the use of violence against shitty and selfish people and their property.

If your assumption were true, I wouldn't have bought a computer because I could have delayed my purchase and bought a cheaper+better one later. Even if I forecast computers falling from the sky in a year I would still buy one now if I didn't have one already. Wouldn't you?

If he's offering $200/mo and she accepts, it's the best she can get. If she were being offered more by someone else I imagine she "knows" enough to determine the bigger of two numbers and accept the better offer. Her options range from $0/mo to $200/mo. You think her best option, the one she chose, should be taken away by force because after reading a blog post you know how to make better life decisions for her? I find that morally objectionable.

If by regulations you mean enforcing property rights and laws against murder, I agree.

In a free market the initiation of force is not tolerated. The Bhopal disaster you cited is a perfect example of an initiation of force.

The government legitimizes the initiation of force on those who have done nothing to violate the rights of others -- similar to the disaster you cited. It seems you have a problem with companies initiating force, but not the government. Why is that?

What specific power(s) do you object to companies having? The power to voluntarily exchange with others?

Companies don't make money killing people, they make money improving the lives of customers and employees by offering them something they value more than their money/labor. If someone is working under poor working conditions, it's because their next best alternative is even worse.