Link to Original Source
It's a deflationary system. People will lose wallets (die without clear instructions and such for others to use them, and the like).
And it's hijackable by a single person. When a single person has control of the blockchain long enough, which happens as people drop out of the mining business, a single entity could transfer all coins to themselves, then process the transactions, until they "own" them all. It will happen, and when it does, people will lose faith in all block chain systems, even those without the same limitations.
It's useless at that point anyway,. as if everyone drops out of the network there is no more network to process transactions and the value drops to zero.
Bitcoin as a financial system is made impractical in the long term by the fact that it is limited in the total number that can be issued. After the last one is issued, the intent is for the value of them to simply go up.
A Bitcoin is the solution to a hashing problem for which the ease in calculating a solution goes up with the size of the search space. In a very large search space it's easy to generate a solution, but as the search space becomes smaller you have to spend more time hunting around for a correct solution.
As more solutions are found, the people behind bitcoin validate that 'coin and then shorten the length in bits needed for a valid solution. They have a fixed number in mind that they want to base the currency on, and as the number of solutions found approach that number, they have been shortening the length so that they will eventually have exactly the number they want, and finding new solutions will take an astronomically long time.
There's nothing preventing them from increasing the valid length of solutions and letting people find more. They have explained countless times that this is how they can have actual inflation in their currency.
Countless times of explaining this to the public, and yet people continue to repeat bullshit they've heard "somewhere on the internet" that matches their woldview.
It's no wonder they're having trouble - they're concentrating on their project, but losing the war against propaganda.
That's a totally inaccurate means of explaining this.
The difficulty of finding a solution scales as the network grows, it has nothing to do with the amount of currency in it. Mining continues once the full amount has been released, because mining is about transactions, not block rewards. Once the total amount of the currency exists, then mining is rewarded by transaction fees as there is no more block reward.
The nameless "They" cannot increase the money supply. The entire network would have to vote to fork the code onto a new system to change the monetary limit. There is no "they" that have any control over the network, the only people who control the network are 51%+ of the miners.
Clarke did very little writing on robot brains.
Um, I'll have to assume that you weren't around for April, 1968, when the leading AI in popular culture for a long, long, time was introduced in a Kubrick and Clarke screenplay and what probably should have been attributed as a Clarke and Kubrick novel. And a key element of that screenplay was a priority conflict in the AI.
Well, you've just given up the argument, and have basically agreed that strong AI is impossible
Not at all. Strong AI is not necessary to the argument. It is perfectly possible for an unconscious machine not considered "strong AI" to act upon Asimov's Laws. They're just rules for a program to act upon.
In addition, it is not necessary for Artificial General Intelligence to be conscious.
Mind is a phenomenon of healthy living brain and is seen no where else.
We have a lot to learn of consciousness yet. But what we have learned so far seems to indicate that consciousness is a story that the brain tells itself, and is not particularly related to how the brain actually works. Descartes self-referential attempt aside, it would be difficult for any of us to actually prove that we are conscious.
You're approaching it from an anthropomorphic perspective. It's not necessary for a robot to "understand" abstractions any more than they are required to understand mathematics in order to add two numbers. They just apply rules as programmed.
Today, computers can classify people in moving video and apply rules to their actions such as not to approach them. Tomorrow, those rules will be more complex. That is all.
Agreed that a Robot is no more a colleague than a screwdriver.
I think you're wrong about Asimov, though. It's obvious that to write about theoretical concerns of future technology, the author must proceed without knowing how to actually implement the technology, but may be able to say that it's theoretically possible. There is no shortage of good, predictive science fiction written when we had no idea how to achieve the technology portrayed. For example, Clarke's orbital satellites were steam-powered. Steam is indeed an efficient way to harness solar power if you have a good way to radiate the waste heat, but we ended up using photovoltaic. But Clarke was on solid ground regarding the theoretical possibility of such things.
VMWare is a GPL violator and got off of its most recent case on a technicality. Any Linux developer can restart the case.
The Linux foundation is sort of like loggers who claim to speak for the trees. Their main task is to facilitate the exploitation of Open Source rather than contribution to it.
Bitcoins aren't really worth anything. There are just some people who have convinced themselves that they are worth something. You can'r really rely on such people continuing their belief.
VMS is like a nightmare about RXS-11M.