Jump to content


Gold Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


lucky last won the day on November 19 2016

lucky had the most liked content!

About lucky

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I find the discussion whether a cryptographic signature can be used to proxy definitive proof over someones identity, compared to the old-fashioned way of using your own eyes, ears and common sense, quite interesting. In the battle of computer vs humans, I am declaring humans to have won this round. We know 100% certain that Bob is Bob, not because of his transaction, but because of the things he wrote.
  2. Using Imaginary Statistics to prove a point. I pointed out that it isn't, and provided arguments. Labeling me unreasonable is not a valid counter argument. Besides, wasn't your own motivation for requesting the transaction to convince unreasonable people?
  3. That is simply not true. Bob has not proven his identity with the transaction. The only thing that was proven is that the author has access to the secret key. For all we know, the impostor has brute force cracked his key, or the real Bob Way may be tied up in a basement, or the real Bob has sold his online identity to the Ripple marketing team. Not that it matters to conspiracy theorists, they would simply reject the cryptographic proof, and for a good reason: because they don't understand cryptography, have no way of validating the proof themselves, and need to rely on "experts" saying so, experts that may be in on the ploy, experts that could even present screenshots that are fake. The irony of your proof question is that prior to signing his transaction, he did prove to be Bob Way, even to you, by demonstrating to our own eyes and brains personality, intelligence, insider knowledge, energy and passion in a way that is impossible to fake without being caught by people that actually know the real Bob Way. Bob way did not prove to be Bob Way through his transaction, but by actually being Bob Way. Not because (somebody claiming that) "the computer said yes". Considering computer transactions that we don't understand ourselves as a superior form of proof than our own common sense is a dangerous slippery slope.
  4. Indeed, very insightful. From a vice article: The Irish economy then was characterized by intense, frequent, conversational personal contact: tight, dense, solid local knowledge circulating at high velocity within and across communities. The result? Borrowers and lenders could build solid micro-foundations of trust.
  5. And that's without integration of payments. Can you imagine what happens when payments are integrated! And robots are all doing all the work for us, enabling us to play all day for a living!
  6. Hi, I'm lucky and I accept your terms. The past 7 years I've been building a platform for institutions and people with amazing content, such as yourself, integrating mail, chat and files with a revenue model based on micropayments, a magnificent interface and a fair EULA. I hope you haven't spilled all your beans before I've released it, currently planned in May/June.
  7. lucky

    Hi! I'm Bob

    I too I hate the 2018 rebranding of: Currency Ripple (XRP) -> XRP Ripple Labs (company awarded 80% of the Ripple currency to build ecosystem around it) -> Ripple which was not really a rebranding, but unbranding: taking the excellent brand name away, and leaving the currency with just the technical ISO 4217 code, which is a lousy brand name (has to compete with many other X** tokens and does not have any associative meaning) . Would you join a community effort to claim back the Ripple name for the currency, just by using it as such? I think we can legally do that, because the majority of tokens that were sold to the public were sold under that name. I consider stripping a perfectly good brand name from the tokens after selling them, and assigning that good brand name to your own company, is a form of theft.
  8. lucky

    Hi! I'm Bob

    What a cliffhanger! I'd pay at least three XRP to access the next episode of Hi! I'm Bob!
  9. lucky

    Hi! I'm Bob

    That argument boils down to "democracy is bad, because a majority can pursue bad ideas". I firmly believe in the wisdom of the crowd, provided the crowd has good access to unbiased information, and are able to discuss facts openly and efficiently. Considering your wall example: various polls I've seen show that a majority thinks the wall is a bad idea. So, I'd like to reverse your argument: not being able to vote on what to spend tax money on leads to walls and wars.
  10. lucky

    Hi! I'm Bob

    The problem with paying taxes on transactions of a high velocity (micro) payment system in which it becomes very easy to pay people for things that they are currently doing for free (such as you rewarding me for typing this text), is that the higher the velocity of payments, the faster the money will be completely eaten by taxes. For example, if the tax is only 1%, after transacting a single unit around 500 times (Bob paying Alice, Alice paying Charlie, Charly paying Bob etc), 99% of that unit has been eaten by taxes. So that makes applying tax rates to highly efficient digital micropayment systems a problem even at very low rates. But only if the taxes are extracted OUT of the payment system, and into the mortar and brick payment system that operates at a millionth of the velocity. However, there should not be a problem if the taxes are redistributed at the same velocity as they are charged. If you consider paying tax to the government as money that is evenly redistributed across all (services for) community members, you could build a system in which the tax on each transaction is immediately evenly redistributed to all community members (Alice, Bob and Charlie etc), as a form of basic income. The efficient payment system then also enables "the governement" to charge (micro) payments on the usage of all public services, including using a road, or even walking in a park... But taxes are also raised to pay for things you don't want to charge on a pay-per-use basis, such as art, law enforcement and police. For that you could create some mechanism that allows members to vote on what projects receive crowdfunding (a bigger slice of the tax pie than basic income). One of the reason that I'm so bullish on digital assets is that it can enable a society in which taxes and voting on what to spend the taxes can be organised in a completely automated, transparent and fair way.
  11. lucky

    Hi! I'm Bob

    I'd like to already nominate this one for the paragraph of the year award. Thank you for sharing your views on patents in this space, immensely appreciated. Cheers to Alice!
  12. lucky

    Hi! I'm Bob

    It's funny that some people seem to trust cryptography more than their own brain. I don't. If someone provides cryptographic proof that @BobWay is not Bob Way (who I have personally met), I would still believe my own brain, not the cryptographic proof.
  13. lucky

    Hi! I'm Bob

    And you're not concerned being called an idiot for asking such an idiot question?
  • Create New...