johnvonneumann

You can't simply front-run someone else by having deep pockets.

Well you can, as was discovered in the Haim Bodek HFT shit storm.

IMO it's not the 8 hours that's required, it's deep sleep, that's what really rests you. I got 7.5hrs the other night, with 1hr of Deep Sleep and I actually felt like I was on the verge of death, whereas other nights on 6hrs with 3hrs deep, and I feel great. I think sleep is a quality over quantity type deal. Obviously this all personal observation, I just pay attention and write shit down, I don't have a PhD lol.

Because we do not want the union "benefits" that aren't really benefits.

"The union protects and improves Members' wages and conditions. Our successful bargaining campaigns continue to deliver fair wages and better conditions like superannuation, site allowances, redundancy pay and income protection. In the year 2000 this branch of the CFMEU won the 36 hour week, giving workers 26 paid days off a year."

Also get 5% YOY pay rises, which allows wages to stay in line with inflation instead of stagnating. You're being naive with your comments IMO, ignoring the reality of the matter and trying to pitch us into a "everyone's different and should be able to negotiate" which has been shown to be damaging. How much data do you need to see about stagnating wage growth and consistently growing executive wages to see that this "we don't need unions" argument is ignorant of the truth?

We do not want another group controlling our workplace or forcing us into horrible, one size fits all, collective bargaining agreements. We want to be allowed to negotiate for ourselves.

http://www.epi.org/blog/strengthening-collective-bargaining-...

http://www.epi.org/publication/how-todays-unions-help-workin...

You can believe what you want, you do realise that most of them don't FORCE you to join, but you will likely just be treated like a leech, which is appropriate.

Please provide some data for your claims because I'm straight up gonna say you're wrong on the majority of your points.

We believe that it is very much in the self interest of workers to prevent unions from destroying our industry with overbearing rules and regulations that prevent us from doing our job.

This one (and a few of your other comments strike a nerve) because I think that you have the entire purpose of unions confused, unions are there to provide workers, me and you, your parents, normal non-1%ers, an opportunity to get a fairer distribution of the pie, not ALL of the pie, just what is fair. If you actually provided some concrete examples of industries where you don't think the unions should be, I could have easily pulled data up on their profits, compared it to their workers wages, and it would be a lot easier to make the point that most companies can afford to pay workers better wages, which is a win-win for everyone, the idea that if I work at McDonalds, and am an enterprising individual, and ask for a pay rise vs my other workers, is laughable, why would they bother? They've crushed dissenters, and now because of the shit conditions you work in, they'll just fire you and grab someone who doesn't ask for better conditions. It's an incentive disparity, companies have no interest in paying workers more.

For example:

https://twitter.com/VirginTrains/status/881138129176014848

Here's a good one, ITT they acknowledged that they understaff consistently and expect workers to be able to work their rest days so they can keep staffing requirements low. Then naturally, it's the workers fault when they actually take their rest days.

Man, the more I read this comment, the more I think you're just trolling.

And in response to his fallacious proclamations that Blockstream controls core.

git shortlog -sn 4982 Wladimir J. van der Laan = Non-Blockstream 1446 Pieter Wuille = Blockstream 1101 Gavin Andresen = Non-Blockstream 639 Philip Kaufmann - Unsure 633 MarcoFalke - Non-Blockstream 559 Matt Corallo - Non-Blockstream 551 Cory Fields - Unsure 533 Jeff Garzik - Non-Blockstream 520 Jonas Schnelli - Non-Blockstream 330 Luke Dashjr - Blockstream 261 Gregory Maxwell - Blockstream 245 s_nakamoto - lol 208 Alex Morcos - Non-Blockstream 208 John Newbery - Non-Blockstream 197 Suhas Daftuar 131 practicalswift 113 Russell Yanofsky 113 fanquake 102 Peter Todd 95 Pavel Janík 86 Jorge Timón 74 Michael Ford 74 jtimon 70 Cozz Lovan 50 Patrick Strateman 40 Andrew Chow 36 João Barbosa 35 R E Broadley 34 Giel van Schijndel 32 BtcDrak 32 Eric Lombrozo 31 Daniel Kraft 30 Jeremy Rubin 29 Karl-Johan Alm 29 Nils Schneider 28 Gregory Sanders 27 Chris Moore 26 Satoshi Nakamoto 26 sirius-m 23 Johnson Lau 23 MeshCollider 23 instagibbs 21 Micha 20 dexX7 19 Warren Togami 19 gavinandresen 19 tcatm

Sorry if I didn't do them all, you're getting the idea, as you go further down the list the impact of the organisation backing them inevitably goes down.

Whilst I would usually agree with you, your comments about being a conspiracy theorist are IMO entirely wrong, look at the history of the account, the lifespan of it, and the threads it posts on. I agree that ad hominem is incorrect and pretty much always a bad way to argue, but you need to have some idea of context and the active measures that have recently been taken in this scaling "debate", there is straight up disinformation being circulated.

As far as I'm concerned, I did give facts, the segwit facts are correct. The loss of business is fact. The comment about chain rewards decreasing is fact.

Mate, please, stop with the Blockstream FUD. Blockstream make up only 20% of commits on Bitcoin. Find another strawman.

There is not a 1MB limit, the limit was lifted with the implementation of segwit, as it changed the counting mechanism to weight instead of size, as a result, you can now push upto 3.7MB worth of tx into a block.

Your proposition is wrong and people like you who constantly spout it should be called out and shamed like the fucking charlatans that you are. Blockstream has no financial interest in having Segwit, LN or anything else implemented. They have DEFENSIVE patents against the technology to stop trolls from holding up the development process. Please, locate yourself to Google Patents and search for Blockstream, then consult their Open Patents disclosure for further confirmation that you are wrong and have taken the bait of companies who have an interest in deriding the current decisions of Core.

Core is implementing a variety of changes in the future that will put many businesses against Core out of business.

Cross chain atomic swaps = exchanges More private transactions = anyone doing blockchain analysis (lolgarzik) Lightning Network = miners and anyone who processes transactions.

The most painful part of your opinion is that you can't extrapolate network rules and see that in the next 2 years, rewards are going to half, meaning that if we drop TX fees now, it will make it even harder to pull miners back. By implementing a simple situation for on-chain settlement, miners still make decent returns down the line.

Please, if you have any interest in Bitcoin, and have any decent brain about you, call people like this out for being the corporate sockpuppets they really are.

And what incentive do collective groups have to do that? I struggle to understand why people would act against their own self-interests to undermine their own rights and pay. Did you know that global wage growth is being outstripped by inflation?

What good does crippling unions do? You think it's useful for large portions of the community to be on stifled wages and bad working conditions?

Unions are less powerful in the US because the US has a broken system where those with money have more votes than those with less? There is a financial interest in having the "mere peons" on less cash because it results in a better balance sheet situation for executives and share holders, resulting in better EOY dividends and better bonuses.

I support Unions because of people like you, because for some fucking unknown reason, people like you believe that some are entitled to less because they are employed in xxxx profession or don't have xxxx degree.

The fundamental problem is that unions are REQUIRED, if there was a bigger sense of social responsibilty, people would get paid decent living wages and wouldn't be worked in horrendously dangerous conditions dealing with power brokers whose only interest is their own portfolio value.

Please, get away from the trickle down economics bullshit and come back to the real world. How much evidence of corporate malfeasance do you have to see on a daily basis before realising that protecting the rights of the 99% is not only a good economic decision, but also a humane one.

""[..] I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one."

I'm going to speculate that's only because you have good working conditions."

I have noticed (personal anecdote here so yeah not great) that a large majority of people that I know against unions have never worked in dangerous fields, office workers are ridiculously ignorant as to the workplace dangers of many unionised industries.

CFMEU (Aus) used to hand out bumper stickers that said:

"Is that the truth or did you read it in the Herald Sun?"

Because it doesn't work like that, you can't deny the benefits, the way they work (in Aus, it will be similar elsewhere) is with EBA (Enterprise Bargaining Agreements). Basically, the union will go into talks with companies, agree on conditions and then they will be spread out as an effective handshake rule across the industry. The union act as mitigators between businesses and workers, which pretty much changes the entire industry. So you can't really opt out. Unless of course you go and work for companies who don't sign the EBA's, and having worked in Construction before, the majority of these companies have malicious reasons for not signing, and you wouldn't want to work for them. I've seen a handful of people try to not pay dues, and it's pretty much always because they just don't want to pay money, whilst still pulling the benefits.

However this hardly makes it ok to continue this sort of behaviour, the top boys manage to wrangle huge bonuses, yet when a group of workers asks for 5% per year, they're a bunch of monsters.

The majority of countries are already enacting laws/frameworks/technology that would help eventually outlaw this sort of behaviour, perhaps not explicitly, but many times implicitly. For example in Australia the govt is looking to push facial recognition cameras into public places and "only use them for serious crimes where the sentence is 3 years or more". What they fail to tell you is that in Aus, public disturbance carries something like 5 years, so now there's the very legitimate worry that facial recognition could be used on people fighting for their rights and showing support. Used the Aus example because the two countries are fairly similar law wise, and with their surveillance stances.

This. I have been staunch anti-social media for a while now, but not long ago I heard someone from a community I'm involved in say that the conversation on twitter was actually pretty intelligent so I signed up. You hear about how it's good to use these sites because you occasionally get pearls of wisdom, Nassim Taleb (funny because he actually has a twitter account) referred to it as digging through mountains of shit to find diamonds, sure, you may find a diamond, but you'll also be covered in shit.

EDIT: Deleted my twitter account after a month, wanna nerf LinkedIn as well but that decision has professional impacts.

Yeah after re-reading this thread I think I've properly gone off the deep end with this one, I've probably misread your initial comment, I think, sorry if I did.

I'm asking him to back his opinion up because his question was a loaded question:

Question: "Why not just use another crypto-currency?"

Load Question: "Why not just use a crypto-currency that isn't clogged by developers trying to make people use their proprietary service?"

He is applying bias to it from the get go, your comment is a bit strange, asking a question doesn't exempt you from asking honest questions that aren't loaded, you don't enter some realm of sanctity just because you're asking a question. You can ask for further clarity as to what the person is asking before answering it.

How is it right that I get downvoted for asking for someone to back their bullshit opinions up with facts? Enjoy your hyperbole.

Please explain your statement in detail with sources and facts please, I'm sure I know what you're trying to insinuate so I'm going to ask you to back your claims up with some truth.

Please don't start on the "Vision" rhetoric, look at the pipeline of core, there is a clear path to VISA scale tx but it is an engineering challenge, unfortunately the majority of people complaining and talking about scaling blocksize (right now, with a terrible straight-up hard-fork) are (bad) Operations people who are more than happy to shitcan half the benefits of a decentralised, privacy focused system for a frankenstein system that in reality still won't compete with VISA. Protip, if you're competing against a behemoth incumbent, it's not enough to simply match their capabilities, you have to surpass them. Lightning network fees will be cheaper than VISA, a lot cheaper. Scaling a $120b financial network on a whim without a real engineering team is not only a bad idea, it's downright fucking deplorable to put users at risk.

Shoutout to all my Melbourne people who experience Metro trains on a regular basis.

Average transaction cost has been shown to be a bad metric, context:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7b7jj1/john_newber...

You would hope that in 140~ years we have the power problem sorted out, if not, Bitcoin mining is probably the least of our worries.

It will be forked because they have history of forking when people "lose" funds.

So he is falling for a myth, yet what you're referring to is the Efficient Market Hypothesis, does the word "hypothesis" ring any bells for you? Even more so, does the fact that a theory that originated in the 1960's, still bares the name EMH. Almost 60 years on and it still hasn't been proven.

Your thought process seems incredibly flawed, the idea you have about coin flipping being at all similar to stock picking is laughable. And this to me would indicate that whilst you may believe that your analogy is a good indication of survivorship bias, it is clear to me that you are suffering from confirmation bias. You're looking for examples that suit your belief, and ignoring some basic elements. Let's look at this one seriously, coin-flipping is an statistically independent event, whilst if we apply even some fundamentals of finance and EMH (which I don't agree with, btw), we will quickly find ourselves in the realm of correlation. I never stuck around Uni long enough to get deep into this stuff, but you could do with some reading on the CAPM model. To quote from wikipedia on the CAPM model:

"Financial correlations play a key role in modern finance."

You only have to look at the fact that many companies have been put out of business by companies like Amazon, which means that at the very minimum, you have at least ONE external factor that has an influence on the performance and price of other securities.

And this is all without even starting on the even more hilarious notion that information across the market is symmetrical, that's right, I as a lowly consumer exchange peasant, have the exact same information available to me as Jim Simons and the team at RenTec. Who's Medallion Fund, by the way, returned a 35% CAR over a 20 year period. You have to be mental to believe the shit they teach in undergraduate Finance.

My team is considering running this in Production. Do you offer support contracts?

Limiting those who stand a chance of pulling off the type of big wins they advertise heavily on television is rigging the market. It's manipulation, pure and simple. What they're selling is a bullshit dream that if you ever come close to they will bar you. This type of activity is the definition of predatory. It's straight up rigging.

I don't believe he moved the goalposts at all, he made a valid point. The argument that you have made about staying "competitive" IMO is a classic example of bandwagon fallacy. Just because other countries allow companies to treat their workers like shit does not make it ok for our country to start doing it.

I also disagree with the way you phrased your point, on one hand, you mention that the unions would not budge on conditions, but then state that they should have because "no other company that you know of" allows 21 days of holiday over the Christmas. First of all drawing to the fact that the Union represents workers, not companies, it makes sense why the companies have an interest in shortening the holiday break of the workers. It is not in the interest of workers however. To counter your point that their breaks should have been cut in line with that of other countries, then we should keep in mind that some Northern European countries are going further in terms of workers rights, in the opposite direction, so all of us a sudden, your advice that we should follow the lead of some countries leads us to question which way we go.

I would also like to highlight that the CFMEU (Construction) enforces a 17 day shutdown over the Christmas break, so there are other's who do lengthy breaks.

I also struggle to understand your last point about bringing conditions in line within the country they live in, Australia has Union representation across most industries. If you wish to do business in Australia, then you surely understand this, I would hazard a guess that given this, then good conditions and decent pay is the typical situation. Why would anyone want to degrade that?

Winning a race to the bottom is a zero sum game.

Comments like this kill me a little on the inside, I can't stand having real work devalued for the sake of contrived assessment criteria.

RIP sweet prince.

At $3M a year, taxes are probably the least of your earthly worries. And also, you probably make enough to get a good tax accountant.

Nobody cares about what? Litecoin or the bullshit?