Objection in the model of the web of trust of Ucoin

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo

A small community may be ok in some community cases, but it is a fatal error when talking about money communities.

Tsss … again and again, you don’t define what “big” or “small” means.

Bitcoin as a hundred thousand human users. This is already a “big” community to me, what is it to you a “big” one?

1.000.000 ? 1.000.000.000 ? Where is is defined?

Yes, I consider bitcoin a small community, that it will become smaller and smaller in time.

[cgeek]

Where is is defined?

[demo]

@cgeek

Where is is defined?

That bitcoin will become smaller a smaller?
This is my personal opinion. Bitcoin is a bubble.

[cgeek]

No. You said it is small. Tell me where is it defined what is small or big community.

[demo]

@cgeek

No. You said it is small. Tell me where is it defined what is small or big community.

Small and big are relative terms. The transaction of conventional money made everyday, compared to the transactions of bitcoin, in order to purchase REAL goods, shows how small bitcoin is.

[cgeek]

@demo

Small an big are relative terms.

@demo

in order to purchase REAL goods

Congratulations, you have proven your own inconsistency.

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo

Small an big are relative terms.

@demo

in order to purchase REAL goods

Congratulations, you have proven your own inconsistency.

Real goods is not a relative term. It refairs to the goods that people need in order to live. Food is real.

[cgeek]

@demo

It refairs to the goods that people need in order to live.

And you think “real” good is the same for every two individuals? I know some food that can make some people live while it would kill others.

So you can get back your “reality”.

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo

It refairs to the goods that people need in order to live.

And you think “real” good is the same for every two individuals? I know some food that can make some people live while it would kill others.

So you can get back your “reality”.

I think our conversation is out of subject.
I think bitcoin is very small, you think it is very big.
This is relative, bitcoin is big comparing to ucoin, but it is small comparing to euro.
And after all. big or small, bubble or future bitcoin it is, this is a personal opinion.
Why we keep discussing it?

[Galuel]

@demo

"Rules(0) can change in time using Unanimity only."This is a decision that cannot change in time.

What do you mean with “this is a decision that cannot change in time” ? (it is false).

Let’s study a concrete case :

1°) Community(0) vote with Vote(0) = Unanimity, Rules(0)
2°) Then it is Community(t) = N(0,t) + N(t,t) where N(0,t) are the members who were present at t=0 in Community(0) and still present at “t” and N(t,t) the complement into Community(t).
3°) [Community(t), vote(t), Rules(t)] where Rules(t) = Rules(0) or Rules(t) ≠ Rules(0) idem for vote(t) compared to vote(0).

In your opinion, what could do Community(t) exactly to “change” anything ? They vote a new process vote(t) ≠ vote(0), whith wich kind of “vote” ? They vote other thing ? And what will be the situation ?

[demo]

@Galuel

@demo

"Rules(0) can change in time using Unanimity only."This is a decision that cannot change in time.

What do you mean with “this is a decision that cannot change in time” ? (it is false).

Let’s study a concrete case :

1°) Community(0) vote with Vote(0) = Unanimity, Rules(0)
2°) Then it is Community(t) = N(0,t) + N(t,t) where N(0,t) are the members who were present at t=0 in Community(0) and still present at “t” and N(t,t) the complement into Community(t).
3°) [Community(t), vote(t), Rules(t)] where Rules(t) = Rules(0) or Rules(t) ≠ Rules(0) idem for vote(t) compared to vote(0).

In your opinion, what could do Community(t) exactly to “change” anything ? They vote a new process vote(t) ≠ vote(0), whith wich kind of “vote” ? They vote other thing ? And what will be the situation ?

If you take a decision that something cannot change, this is not democratic.
It is that simple.

Have also in mind that each decision is supported by the alive. As long as the alive are dead, the decision WILL change, whatever the deads are saying about it.

[cgeek]

@demo

Why we keep discussing it?

Because you said:

@demo

A small community may be ok in some community cases, but it is a fatal error when talking about money communities.

So you pretend we make an error here in our “democratic” process because our community will be too SMALL, and we need BIG communities to create REAL goods (that’s your point).

And now I point out how “real” goods are a relative thing.

So now you can understand how we make no error at all.

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo

Why we keep discussing it?

Because you said:

@demo

A small community may be ok in some community cases, but it is a fatal error when talking about money communities.

So you pretend we make an error here in our “democratic” process because our community will be too SMALL, and we need BIG communities to create REAL goods (that’s your point).

And now I point out how “real” goods are a relative thing.

So now you can understand how we make no error at all.

No, It is not this my point.
I just make A PREDICTION, that as long as you insist in unanimity, YOU WILL NEVER GROW UP ENOUGH.

And of course enough is MY enough, not yours. If you want to become bitcoin, then maybe this is enough for you.

[cgeek]

And what is enough?

“Hu this is what lead us to create real goods”. Mpfff.

[demo]

@cgeek

And what is enough?

“Hu this is what lead us to create real goods”. Mpfff.

I already answer it

And of course enough is MY enough, not yours. If you want to become bitcoin, then maybe this is enough for you.

[Galuel]

@demo

If you take a decision that something cannot change, this is not democratic.It is that simple.

Have also in mind that each decision is supported by the alive. As long as the alive are dead, the decision WILL change, whatever the deads are saying about it.

I don’t understand what is happening following your democratic process :

1°) Community(0) vote with Vote(0) = Unanimity, Rules(0)
2°) Then it is Community(t) = N(0,t) + N(t,t) where N(0,t) are the members who were present at t=0 in Community(0) and still present at “t” and N(t,t) the complement into Community(t).
3°) [Community(t), vote(t), Rules(t)] where Rules(t) = Rules(0) or Rules(t) ≠ Rules(0) idem for vote(t) compared to vote(0).

So, following your definition of democracy, what is an example of what happens at “t” exactly ? I don’t understand what is your process. It happens anything ? For instance 1 single man decide to change all the rules for anyone in community(t) ? If not, what is one single example of what you mean at “t” ?

[cgeek]

@demo

And of course enough is MY enough, not yours. If you want to become bitcoin, then maybe this is enough for you.

So don’t say we are making an error.

(and all the democracy package that comes with it, I mean)

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo

And of course enough is MY enough, not yours. If you want to become bitcoin, then maybe this is enough for you.

So don’t say we are making an error.

(and all the democracy package that comes with it, I mean)

Error. I didnt say that. You have narrow goals for a money community, thats all. With that goals you are closer to a game than to money.

[cgeek]

@demo

You have narrow goals for a money community, thats all. With that goals you are closer to a game than to money.

Yeah yeah … we know your point, for sure you can define what is a game and what is not, just like you explained us what are real goods “to live”.

I let you guys continue the game.

[demo]

@Galuel

@demo

If you take a decision that something cannot change, this is not democratic.It is that simple.

Have also in mind that each decision is supported by the alive. As long as the alive are dead, the decision WILL change, whatever the deads are saying about it.

I don’t understand what is happening following your democratic process :

1°) Community(0) vote with Vote(0) = Unanimity, Rules(0)
2°) Then it is Community(t) = N(0,t) + N(t,t) where N(0,t) are the members who were present at t=0 in Community(0) and still present at “t” and N(t,t) the complement into Community(t).
3°) [Community(t), vote(t), Rules(t)] where Rules(t) = Rules(0) or Rules(t) ≠ Rules(0) idem for vote(t) compared to vote(0).

So, following your definition of democracy, what is an example of what happens at “t” exactly ? I don’t understand what is your process. It happens anything ? For instance 1 single man decide to change all the rules for anyone in community(t) ? If not, what is one single example of what you mean at “t” ?

We are 5 persons that were present in an cryptoparty assembly, and we decide rule[0] as unanimity.
Then we decide unanimously our WoT rules in order to trust another assembly.
We send a trusted observer to another assembly, and their procedure regarding the rule “1 person - 1 public key” is correct.
So we have to trust these 3 persons from the fellow cryptoparty assembly, and we become 8.
The new votes are added in rule[0], and it gains 7 yes and 1 no.
rule[0] that defines unanimity is not valid anymore because unanimity is not voted unanimously.