Bill Wiltrack wrote:Okay, lots of softballs but I will address them anyway for I feel you have looked to me for guidance over the years & you still look to me for guidance in philosophical & technical matters.
Bill I wouldn't trust you to find your arse with your own hands.
First, just because there are over 2,000 existing cryptocurrencies now & there will soon be another 2,000 in the near future, YOU DON"T NEED TO USE ALL 2,000!
You don't need to use any of them as money as we have a pretty good system of money as it is.
You seem to ignore the technical and energy costs involved in making a cryptotoken money? Why would we bother and why would vendors bother with the hassle involved in accepting a 'money' that could depreciate the next week.
I have said in the past, there are really only a handful of cryptos that I see as having a future. MOST cryptos existing now are basically a get-rich-quick scheme for a few of the developers. ...
How so? Are you talking about ICO's?
Until regulations develop in the space, and they are developing now, there will be a lot of scams. Buyer beware.
What 'scams'? The main problem is vapourware. Regulations will make no difference or if they will could you tell me what kind of regulations you propose?
If you own cryptocurrencies you have access to a public & a private key in whatever type of wallet you use.
Often a mnemonic phrase, set of numbers, or other identifying process will be an added layer to your wallets' security. ...
So against what you said earlier about their being no physical representation then.
Finally, do you create the English language? Any language? - IF you didn't - you're using someone else's metaphors.
How did they create them then? But I do claim 'gnu' and 'godbotherer' or at least I claim the meaning that I have created for them.
I understand your angst in the situation that you repeat here upon the PhilosophyNow Forums but your associated feelings are antiquated. ...
I have no angst nor feelings about this, I'm just pointing out that you in a previous fad claimed that you should be paid for your content and that bockchain might allow this and that if this was the case then you would have to be paying the creators of the images and words that you plagarise, i.e. that you do not ascribe the rightful ownership but just use others efforts to self-aggrandise presumably for some psychological lack of self-worth.
The world has changed. The world continues to change.
For a vast percentage of the world it hasn't changed at all.
***Fun Fact: I urge you to contact ANY & ALL images creators or processors that you think I have infringed upon. Set them on me. Let's see what happens. ...
What could they do? Most do not have the money to copyright everything they do nor to prosecute plagiarists or creative thieves, with digital plagiarism the cat is truly out of the bag in that respect, or at least until something like Ted Nelson's Xanadu is implemented. Although having said that sure, next time you post an image I'll take a look at the source and see if it has a copyright infringement clause and if so I'll drop them a line but I'm guessing you pick these things up from bucket shops so unlikely that they follow the rules either. I'm not saying you have to pay them as most just want an acknowledgement that they were the creator but given you think anyone's else efforts are yours I can understand why you don't, ever the union man eh!
If you can't do this...perhaps you should drop the argument. It's getting old...
But it was your argument? You thought that you should get paid for your content, I'm just pointing out that you don't extend the same courtesy to others and that essentially you are acting unethically. Philosophy forum an' all that.