Bitcoin Forum

If you can't see the underlying implications of this statement as on the front page of the bitcoin foundations [website](https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/why) you might be an engineer. If you really think about it and then do not see anything wrong with it, you might have voted for W.

Politics is 'who gets what where, when and how', there is nothing as misleading as suggesting taking the politics out of something to fix it. It's this festering idea especially in the United States and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom, that regulation leads to bureaucracy and that kills everybody. This bureaucracy is the logical outcome of 'politics'.

The liberating power of money (decentralized, not decentralized, whatever)  ???  how is that going to liberate well at least something close to a significant number of the populace (forget us frapuccino slurping yuppies for a moment.) I presume these claims are made for the benefit of all, not just the initiators of the foundation - which are in turn self-proclaimed strong advocates - and being an advocate that has never anything to do with politics either.

'Freedom' is a word to our western culture as meaningful as 'enjoy' is to Coca-Cola. Empty hollow phraseology that doesn't mean _anything_, so no-one can take offence.

The bitcoin foundation is an interest group in civil society with very strong and clear political ideas (ie. money should not be regulated by a form of consensus/democracy, but must be made by a machine that nobody can fiddle with). That can be your conviction, but it is politics.

Penn and Teller could do a good one about this. "Basically here you have a currency that became popular because it allows you to do all kinds of illegal things and get paid for it while you stay completely or somewhat anonymous, and this is going to save the world... and it is completely politics free... that suonds like a lot of... right, bullshit"

Bitcoin is not going to change the power structures in society much, they just might decide to buy a lot of bitcoins, or do the Chinese thing. It is a neat way to get marijuana though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#Cancellation

Thank you for the thought provoking comment.

"
To give you a for instance, say your country democratic or otherwise decided to borrow a lot of money(perhaps to pay for a war you do not believe in) and they pay it back by printing it out of thin air.  This would make your money less valueable and be in a way a hidden tax.  Theorically bitcoin would give you the ability to vote with your pocket book and dump your country's soon to be worthless currency. Thus freedom from state controlled monetary policy.

Penn and Teller did make an episode on Bitcoin.

Easy Money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep3pO7X7fEQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsXxUKjklt8

Considering how popular bitcoin is with libertarians and AnCaps, he's more likely to endorse it than condemn it; it's voluntary and can't be blown up to fund empires.

That is an episode mostly on multi level marketting. If bitcoin is mentioned it is somewhere later in the episode, can someone link it with a "starting at" option for the start point of the bitcoin discussion? (if any)

EDIT: I watched the entire episode, there is not a single mention of bitcoin, it was entirely about network marketing

Thanks for going through it; Daichi was just making a funny after all :P

You are welcome. It is a useful episode, perfectly accurate.

I didn't have their figures but when friends and family tried to get me into various network marketing schemes before I had heard of them I sat down, did the math, and saw them for the scams they are... meant to exploit the so called "sellers". You can either lose money as a seller of product, lose money by exploiting new "sellers", or make money by exploiting "sellers" (not the customers, the sellers).

A shame so many people are bad at math

No doubt bitcoin came up with an innovative idea to stop being so dependent upon central bank monetary policy like those extensive money supply and printing was a real headache but now bitcoin daily fluctuating price has also became a headache either it must stabilize so we may put our faith in it or it should die without may hard earned money 

Your definition is woefully incomplete. Politics is who gets what, where, when, and how, as adjudicated by a few who claim the right to own the many, and enforced via coercion and violence, or the threat thereof.

My brain hurts trying to read the prose of your writing. As someone mentioned earlier, "Bullshit!" has been off the air for years... you think Penn & Teller are going to come back on the air for a Bitcoin "special" or something?  ??? And they're both libertarians; they might actually believe in the idea of Bitcoin for all we know.

And your above sentence makes no logical sense. If a person reads the Bitcoin foundation's statement and doesn't come to the same conclusion as you... that somehow indicates they voted for "W" (...former president George Bush?). What a childish and naive world view.

reads to me like you understand very little about politics and even less about monetary science ... fwiw

Start here https://mises.org/daily/3204 (https://mises.org/daily/3204) and here http://mises.org/document/3970 (http://mises.org/document/3970) and don't stop digging, maybe then come back and spout off?

Money is a value information technology, politics seems to always want to add a layer of moralistic, compromising kruft on top, regardless of the tech. involved. Decentralisation allows value information technologies to become truly apolitical, kruft-free and superior in many ways that all users can benefit from.

this is about network marketing

The journal of libertarian studies, the austrian school of economics. I hold a bachelors degree in polsci. moralistic compromising kruft, apolitical, kruft-free. You see, you imply you have done the mandatory digging, but spout of in even more meaningless terms - apolitical, kruft-free, superior, good lord man

childish? that is argumentem ad hominem.
naive? bitcoins will liberate us...

bitcoins break was largely because it very conveniently facilitated drug dealing.

lmfao. Usually people use the "ad hominem" defense when a debater fails to address a point and attacks his opponent's character instead. You started this thread by claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with your view must have voted for a former US president who hasn't run for office in almost ten years. I pointed out that it's an absurd point to make, especially given that Bush ran on a conservative platform, and conservatives generally favor smaller government (ie. less government intervention).

Wow...14 posts and OP has been on here since 2011?

Just drop in to troll now and then for your statist masters?

... so did you have anything worthwhile to add besides ... "Look at me!" ?

It is not argumentum ad hominem because it is not an argument of any kind. The argument was that your statement was a non sequitor. The "childish and naive" part was just a well-deserved insult. Put simply, argumentum ad hominem is "you are an idiot, therefore you are wrong", not "you are wrong, therefore you are an idiot". Idiot.

OKay seriously wtf are you talking about? 

An argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.

The argument (agreeably a mistake on my part) was

People who believe in the claims made on this webpage have a very high change of voting for W bush, because both things are stupid, and unless you belong to a very small minority that is not on this website, it would be to the detriment of your financial wellbeing to do so and therefore against your interest. Which would constitute stupid. Belonging to the same category of people, lets say the stupids, chances are higher that you do/believe things that stupids believe.

I will retract that argument on the spot, but its still an argument.

Idiot though is an antiquated word for the mentally challenged, and it is a derogatory remark.

Your fancy pieces of paper are of no value here.

yes anarchy is hokum to me, but i'm not saying it wouldn't make a dent in the power structure. it does give people more freedom, and it's an alternative currency to bureaucracy-printed money.

bookie988 I am glad you are standing for the freedom and safeguarding of our rights. I am fed up of the politics and central bank who are the big enemies of freedom. They manipulate the markets for their personnel incentives. I guess bitcoin may give us freedom from central bank tapering.

forget my comment about W, it is made because i live in the Netherlands and i have no idea why US agencies have an active office in the Hague, called DEA The Hague - if this is the roman empire, please let us also at least become romans or we should have a Social Police dept in Washington with Dutch agents at least.

there is many benefits, but I find libertarianism naive and appalling, it's just a personal opinion. It's the (tax evasion produced) iPad, starbucks, hip version of a guy in a compound somewhere with a lot of guns, because it is his right. We are all here together, and the right to absolute property is something that seems to be the main motivator in all these discussions.

I know myself what bitcoin allows you to do, now what can one do to make it do something good, that is a question that, apart from some initiatives, does not bother many people here. It's more about ROI, trading bots, legislation and interests... Sounds a lot like the corporations and the politicians as described to begin with.

 

They are not fancy, it's not a PhD.

I didn't claim they have value on this forum, per se. They have value in the argument that i don't know what i am talking about. I come back to this later.

On your statement. After, " no value here..." most of the time you add " because A(, B and C)" (not literally of course). Those are arguments, facts with, if necessary references to often articles from.... people with degrees,  so people can check that and your argument becomes stronger. Otherwise anybody can just say anything that is not verifiable. Otherwise it's truthiness.

Until you give arguments why they would have no value,  with regards to somebody claiming that I don't understand what i am talking about while i hold a degree that covers that subject, you haven't made a point at all. You just said something on the basis of a gut feeling or a conviction. Like "jesus saves" or "the truth shall set you free" or "bitcoins are a good thing" (although we have no experience with what kind of an effect they will have at all).

It's that last point, bitcoins are a good thing, that i have my doubts about. Not on this forum, but if it's a point made by the foundation that says to be apolitical, in so many words, that is a problem. Its not going to mean anything eventually here or anywhere i think - as rich folk can just still buy more coins and it only empowers those who benefit mostly from the least regulation.

We can safely leave the world in their hands, can't we?