sgeisler

> there’s nothing inherent to robots that insulates them from [taxation]

If automation really takes off and entire factories can be run by a handful of people it might make sense to move them to whatever low-tax country with a port. Pay the 5 employees running it extra to fly in there for a few months a year each (like oil workers) and if it's in a lawless region add some automatic turrets that shoot at anything unauthorized entering the perimeter. Makes sense as long as extra pay+extra shipping+ammo costs is less than the hypothetical robot taxes.

It might be intentional. I noticed the accent too and it really left the impression that china is a technological leader now and might not need to adapt to the west as much anymore.

If this turns out to be true I wonder if it'd be practical (given the financial resources) to have pressure sealed rooms that you spend a lot of time in at home (e.g. your office). These could be precisely controlled (O2, CO2 levels, pressure, …) and possibly both increase current and future performance. The main problem seems the time needed to exit because an abrupt loss of pressure would be hazardous. But if you have a well-structured day it might work. This could be very interesting for high earning knowledge workers imo.

I read that all mainframe components, even CPUs, were redundant and hot-swappable and that instructions are executed on two separate CPUs to detect faults and correct them on the fly. That would make a lot of sense if your application requires high availability and assurance but isn't designed for it. I haven't heard of any standard server hardware that can give you HA or such assurance with a single machine, probably because you would not build any application dependent on that these days. It's probably cheaper to do in software.

There will never be post-scarcity, because we'll never have enough. Using cutting-edge technology always requires people to work hard to build said technology. If it didn't require work and just wishful thinking we'd already have it. The builders and engineers will always want _something_ in exchange or they won't make said tech accessible to you. The curiosity of nerds only gets you so far (see open source UX).

Maybe you won't have to work/pay for food if accounting for it becomes more work than producing it (if sufficiently automated and not resource-constrained). But if you want to live in a hip neighborhood (by definition there is limited availability), have your own flying car, go on vacation on the moon once a year where real people service you etc. you'll have to work for that. Because the ingenuity and work necessary to make this all happen will still be enormous.

Maybe you think you'd be happy with your today's lifestyle, which might be attainable for ~free. But I think the reality for most is that they'd grow jealous of their friends posting selfies from the moon and resent "the evil rich" again.

The small amount of work necessary to _survive_ today would sound marvelous to someone from even 100 years ago (clothes, food, shelter outside major cities). Mowing one lawn for 1-2h every day would probably be enough for that. But surviving isn't the point of being human, it's about stretching the limits of what is possible and that will always take as much work as we are willing to put into it.

Exactly this. Just tax the value added in your country if you are so inclined (or even better the resources used to do so like land, infrastructure use, …). If you find out that's not so much you have deeper problems.

Why would e.g. an integrated software/hardware business pay significant taxes in the US if their value chain isn't strictly bound to it?

Sure, if developers live and work there you can tax their income to a certain degree before they leave and work remotely. Hardware is built abroad anyway (and probably taxed there), you can only levy import taxes at your own detriment. But if the business is successful most of the added value comes from the integration of these aspects and that can happen wherever because it's an idea not bound to a place to be executed. If something doesn't require physical presence taxing it becomes very hard and morally dubious (on what grounds would you tax it all if e.g. only 10% of your profits need physical infrastructure that is funded through these taxes?).

Globalization means that a society's most successful people aren't stuck with it any longer. They can go where they aren't seen as subjects to milk to keep the less productive happy. I don't owe my country of origin anything, they need to be competitive to keep me as I can take my business everywhere. In that sense directly investing in your population's higher education might be misguided to some degree because it creates more people capable enough to leave with the acquired knowledge, increasing the tax burden, making the country less competitive.

Tax competition is what keeps governments in check. Taxes are just fees for services in the territory of the state (e.g. security, market access, infrastructure, …). If these services don't warrant paying the fee anymore people and companies should of course leave for better-run places! Nothing else will make governments become more competitive than voting with one's feet. We should really become less sentimental about countries, they are just crude constructs to provide services that need coordination which markets can't as easily provide. Choosing the best service provider is something good as it increases overall efficiency as only sufficiently efficient systems survive in the long run.

Wanting a global minimum tax is like one mafia asking the others to increase their protection charges so their clients don't leave. Such collusion is frowned upon for good reasons in free markets as it leads to worse outcomes due to reduced competition.

I'm hopeful that this idea will not work due to the profitability of breaking the deal and the big number of countries that exist. The US also shouldn't overestimate its importance which seems high but ever-declining.

That only really works for stable countries anyway. While shit is hitting the fan there will be enough incentive not to care about some silly rule as long as breaking it is not easily detectable. In the worst case trading moves from centralized exchanges to decentralized OTC trades. I don't think any government can really stop Bitcoin at this point.

It's certainly a nice tool if your country is falling apart. Nearly every other asset class is less accessible, transportable or secure against seizure than Bitcoin.

When countries descend into chaos or go full on authoritarian the best option is often to leave, but there might already be capital controls. So what can you take with you? Stocks: good luck if held by a broker in the country. Physical gold or cash: good luck at the border/customs. Foreign accounts: hard to come by for most people even in the first world due to regulations. Any serious amount of money is very hard to move between jurisdictions, especially in times of crisis, through traditional means.

If you believe your host country doesn't own you and you should be able to relocate to wherever you are treated best, Bitcoin can be a good tool if you were unprepared so far (e.g. because you didn't think a crisis could hit _your_ country). This might not be a use case for you today, especially if you are happy with your country and it is stable. But don't discount that the situation of others might differ.

Thx for the pointer, nice to know the name of the theory. Although it only covers a part of my argument. My concern was also in regards to how much military tech could be built on short notice inside the US if it came to a prolonged war and most of the existing toys were destroyed after some months. That was what I meant with a war being nonviable (would end in a nuclear MAD scenario imo without the capacity to rebuild conventional weapons).

Am I the only one who is worried every time such a news drops? Achieving high-tech autarky is a first step towards a war with china becoming viable. Not that the alternative would be much better: a war being nonviable and the west bending to their wishes. But still, I think it shows there are real concerns on the highest levels and it is considered an actual possibility. Scary.

The correct way to do this would be using OP_RETURN imo. This special opcode is meant for committing to data like this. So for example one could commit to 4 bytes representing the IP address. To ensure that only authorized parties can update the IP the client should only accept transactions that were sent from a certain address, meaning they are automatically signed with the authorized-party's key.

Definitely an interesting use case for BTC to route around such censorship.

Well, the problem with that strategy is that there are many such explorers and returning wrong data isn't in their best interest. Remember that the recipient address doesn't need to be owned by the attacker, it could be one of a big exchange which is of interest. Also the whole process of getting stuff blocked fine granular enough to be viable may slow down blocking enough to be very profitable.

It seems to be a static site, which seems reasonable since it aggregates a lot of data and might encounter high load when something goes wrong, so generating it live without caching is not viable. So maybe the server that normally updates it is down too (not that this would be a good excuse)?