I apologize in advance for any duplicate messages, but I feel the need to touch up that post a bit, as people already have had the chance to begin reading it.
On 4/16/17, John Luke Gibson <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, in this context artificial is often meant to describe scarcity > which is the result of a decision. I would probably adapt that > definition for my purposes, to say a decision made by an identifiable > mint (a whole decision by a group or a decision partially weighted in > favor of any group) on behalf of people with this credit (in this > case, credit for having that address)... the key aspect being > artificial meaning (for me atleast) the scarcity was decided for > someone else. > > Better defining addresses in this case, bitcoin addresses are more > like identities (I like the term Sybil used as a noun, in this case) > rather than addresses, because we don't go to them so much as we > simply talk (or send messages) to them. > > _ > > Addresses are only intrinsically as scarce as physical locations they > can point to physical location (which I would prefer to use the term > Sybil [or at least "identity"] to describe anything which would > Normally be described as an address which Doesn't point to physical > location). Additionally they can be considered scarce in that it is > unsustainable to deliver messages to individual possessors of > addresses, whom don't help the delivery of messages (atleast, as an > abstract concept). So, ultimately, (at the very least) the degree of > viability of addresses needs to be limited for practical reasons. Some > might associate the suggestion of limiting this viability to > possessors of addresses who facilitate the delivery delivery of > messages to a higher degree than they strain the delivery of messages > {(especially [or particularly, if you will] with the volume of > messages-to-be-delivered-added), with "capitalism". I would like to > emphasize that this is not a concept of either "capitalism" or > "socialism" (or any their like currently being formed outside of the > occident) , (both of which rely on the fairly novel social construct > of a "stock" and/or banking/"monetary fund"-management)} but-rather > simple self-sustainability. Of course, if at a given point the > collective infrastructure {(or atleast relevant parts thereof) , > (with-which many people have agreed is acceptable for delivering > messages according to a system of determining which messages are given > the most priority that they have agreed is acceptable)} is > under-strained (or under-utilized, if you will) according to it's > maximum potential for helping people communicate, it should probably > begin to deliver messages "gratis" or simply out of the goodness of > doing so........ which is something a noob can plainly see the bitcoin > protocol tried to do by rewarding it's bitcoin miners, but failed to > realize: only sentient beings can effectively measure the potential > meaning to be had in helping another sentient being or the so-termed > "goodness" in doing so; that No protocol can account for what it's > like to help someone specific or every being one can; that It should > be up to every individual exactly who they help or what kind of Sybils > they help or to what degree and for what purpose. We are fundamentally > human, and we must remember our value is in our decision. > > On 4/16/17, Adam Van Ymeren <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Why do you want artificial scarcity of addresses? Either via bitcoin >> type >> system or some authority I don't see any benefit to artificial address >> scarcity. >> >> >> Original Message >> From: [email protected] >> Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Reply-to: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] ZeroPhone >> >> Ultimately, isolation of the sim card or otherwise modem, should >> probably be the biggest concern. There are ethical concerns around >> artificial scarcity from telephone numbers and, to be fair, ipv4 >> addresses, (metaphorical mints thereof having absolute decision-making >> authority giving infinite leverage as "benevolent dictators" who can >> simply crash everything if something doesn't go their way) that should >> be considered before dedicating too much priority to this task. >> >> A more perfect solution (longterm) would be a network with >> self-modulating scarcity of addresses, in a fashion reminiscent of >> >> >> bitcoin. However it would be prudent to construct a language the >> anti-thesis of esoteric (top-down, expressing this anti-thesis on all >> levels of design) to describe the underlining software in and make the >> networking protocol more accepting of contrarian behavior. >> >> If this sounds like a lot, consider that for a person with no >> experience computer design, it should be easier to learn as they go >> when designing this, than to pick up all the computer design wisdom >> necessary to retrofit or "reverse-engineer" literally self-described >> as esoteric systems. Is there not a fundament to computers, computer >> design, and network engineering, that is intuitive to beings not >> fortunate enough to be included in the circles of any so-called >> esotericism of any kind? >> >> I apologize if my reliance on certain obscure terms, without >> interchanging any alternative phrasings made this email seem >> convoluted and difficult to understand. >> >> On 4/16/17, GaCuest <[email protected]> wrote: >>> El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton >>> ([email protected]) escribió: >>>> --- >>>> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:05 AM, GaCuest wrote: >>>> > El 14 de abril de 2017 a las 7:37:24, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton >>>> > ([email protected]) escribió: >>>> >> the idea there is to use an LCD that has *dual* control interfaces: >>>> >> SPI *AND* RGB/TTL. >>>> > >>>> > Something like this?: >>>> > http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/shenzen/frida/FRD3504503.pdf >>>> >>>> ... exactly like that :) except i'm not a huge fan of resistive >>>> panels... they are quite a lot cheaper though. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, it was an example, I prefer CTP :) >>> >>> I think the idea that a cell phone can work without EOMA68 >>> (for basic functions) is a very good idea, but is it difficult to do? >>> I want to say because you have to do many things 2 times to >>> be able to work with EOMA68 and without EOMA68. >>> >>> On the other hand, is the STM32F072 capable of handling >>> the audio with good quality? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] >>> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook >>> Send large attachments to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] >> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook >> Send large attachments to [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] >> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook >> Send large attachments to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
