|
Title: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: finway on October 11, 2011, 06:52:51 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44008.0
HASH160 BTCs D3BB642EB4EBA79C2BCF81D5AB0C9925911886EF 105000 CD8D1EEFAF01BAF1893ACCB03368CEF36642F7BB 104895 051EC2CC669ADBDB8174BC3044A4394150F8693D 100000 A0B0D60E5991578ED37CBDA2B17D8B2CE23AB295 79956 582431B9E63D2394C8B224D1BC45D07AE95D2379 63057 F68212BE6DB427D4B30F01113920DB0E9E457C8D 55000 D91BFF6222EFCD1B2AB2F5970639B5778F1F06EA 52864 39A9928C8681E15938CD6E2C6870D886730480ED 50000 164D410F617D06F6A9AACE027A3FB24E86F09CA8 50000 24EAE2D3EDF028C8A046F981CD5642C52C2BCC45 50000 27CBE7D51FE777993DE157F7841C766D490DFAA0 50000 58B141E777E25777A7FD9EAB3A9AA780FC4EAA04 50000 863EC44FBF7C9ED0819B52F275006B22BA781794 50000 A88BA0C4249AF73D6CF4C360984DF25BA4629780 50000 B0E76CE823C990CC256D5DDD15681C238A704716 50000 E75EBE1B5736C7BFEA1FB29C3DC436A3984D0A8C 50000 EBDDA2246680D8CC7DE0F6EBB2EF0F62BE9F5F10 50000 FD88729662D16C352BB5B4C1BB821479DFCCE263 50000 FEF5CCA40EAF93988C09EE70728E139F65F009FF 50000 408C77F891413747C6A12A2D959D6EA8FE6F03A3 48958 A235C56E106BAEEEFC2B02BB82643179F89664F1 38057 4FF9D8D6614B1DA5B3E46EF51C61A544626BF6E5 38000 B1BC6ABD4EE3171E66679F26C096FE3F4132EECD 34995 12D5A845F2B212CE0C3BD65A4035881D9219090E 31000 14C1ED72D09150B8E5F49D94D53070D2C1F1DB36 28150 EE55886ABE395B774F0BBB045D6C8F5DFA7BE0B3 25627 FB8BD809C899D98EC6FBF45F4B29B560A1F98AFD 24739 1242A9C6AC1267FBD1B72A2BB7BC019CBAC15968 23249 935864B97A644139058AFD53C456ABC6D0DFAEB7 21900 1C29D8FB7D4F5478C0CE4C70808227D71A1B8056 20000 107B94D07D0A46BBBE6749BF3C120C6B15B8E21B 19989 8FB10B81F752632A06E9BD76A5F1115EC0CB7585 19855 F8753559CD673046044BAF06725C7A94BCB8A592 19400 3E3A114DB48C7577746F3852A95E8D1EF9BBE4DD 18200 5EE9D53CEBF714A5C27516E9C02F565E0C2871F9 17965 14DB73290F7DE68D7A5FFBE8A560EE3BD555CB68 17000 48217859B195317DD968C69E7AD947FA20422506 16322 595820BCF733AAAC9BF4BC8206114E80E896D974 15188 4E81B01AB46C8BD8A5B48C5B7788B834D6DB8AC4 15000 5D0C70C1761C498A3195293164B5E15ECD7B6336 15000 9E595D9851FB2D915C05F85E52BFE926C8733F3F 13500 B7EC82F0B153831841F8157A07429FC0C9FC8641 13400 F604BAD7493F75C25002E65B208145125A0A7441 13100 CB24C764C73CEFDAE506160AF6E15CD2BEF42CA9 13050 0B5AF3DD8EF575853EF70F6CBF128D5BB54EB73C 12950 6DDEA8071439951115469D0D2E2B80ECBCDD48DB 12800 568E7B80955DFEACDE9EB8FA37A0FBC36C4A2525 12745 40876BD15DBC89DDB7460EC0658278A6FFF41891 12247 6043FB30952B2876ED1627263F46447ED1704915 11868 B56C40A3DBC4F8A8EEF67EEB27E23CEC5CA40DA8 11300 D88B6C5703A7BDAA222EAE8DC2BF509D776C2D72 11000 99F5A0E164433F005DC85FD331AA7C46D2D4F419 10771 A29DB8C9CA761E2FF30C3B0BF49F7BC83CC4E5A4 10689 2B6A52CD26A105A80B2F890DD26B1551D782F80B 10500 1FEF43AEC46FE7DE0DB22C5A6CAE94D17E012980 10411 0703B54F51575AD4903A8DBFC87DA7943F524472 10397 0730733B14F38B9FFD71C7AF91D5BD42F6F91EEE 10000 54F23074FB3FBD9476877667547815836113566D 10000 09F349307B923B61145029EFDC5C9BA5B7EBDE52 10000 11DE35C5727122F4F58517A8D963B208442DC3A3 10000 14ADEC07961B45AF6B9B9A353D279D737047F4C1 10000 21C42956D1797A70C6DAF10AE0B562BA1729DB78 10000 26D45A268D236F025AAB79F69AA30FFFCB2C623C 10000 2867D85FBF0E4A634575C7B45A75D4DC22EB99A0 10000 3BD636EAE6E5E1975501C0C371C16525D33BBA8D 10000 3E1262E9B030AFE5C2276A8319384AD87418D5B0 10000 6F711C825976D3E171F52D1255BF4729A5A786C2 10000 6F7D9FED0E6281DFAE9F2C6F22F7D4D15673FBC9 10000 7CEEE99631098C391869241768B354601BE45201 10000 86EE0C126632B436EBFAA6C2E11BF5B3334D8152 10000 8D7894BBDE47AA1DDB2EDCBC498FCAB7EC0067C9 10000 993929463DF23528617EA0D8AA6664D97A21764E 10000 AF28DBE17A9F15264738D5147E215ABD32A76489 10000 C44728C579F3CF29DB4D373C57C77AD8E9B29EA4 10000 CC09ACA7E05EB5A3519B535ECE40CAFC7157386E 10000 D76E40C22E6629836C33954AB022DE8AFB15070B 10000 EBD77D983FC7DB5816540D05844C269D6EC4858E 10000 ED33889B6753BE90376AEF06905F6E27A26C04A5 10000 F175606E5002520A4B8F34C9EEBE2DEC38E71CFD 10000 AAB83C6358A1305108FD2C09F439E6E338435F34 9953 E5B8F736464DA3AFB1A23491C2CF5F6C9A99FD1B 9851 743C0AC5EE1C1EFD6E08E61604B58DC10158ADA8 9780 A6D510056D2632097DDC94E4F7D4E74BEE1E2E03 9479 E1AAE5D73E645C8B05CA81F0F562E7A77092617A 9444 B346A3BCE0E6F5E8D01B6A739C0501492DD5F5EB 9260 F16765A34789F63D91F1116012111F6C79E04C4D 9210 EF23C98BBF8819CCE7B28484D860E9CAEFACB578 9081 722B7959135B3504687AB4A3999D351CFF87A956 9000 051BD789EAB2BFC3AB5B8035E9AA724B7E122116 9000 381642C97CBDCF66AA4B2D13F7E31468EF9C7437 8999 1367730EB6E2686DF235B09A9D0FED72B5A4B061 8000 592FC3990026334C8C6FB2B9DA457179CDB5C688 8000 31F19A7D0379F56CB3BE0761C21F1F0C9553A47F 7941 2290C5FC4FCC25E0CB97CD7F41474904FB70CB35 7901 591ECDB88E60D6EF49C95CE5D271F5607E0D9CC1 7799 FF805EE5019CCE9A60D1AFE03209DDE5D5F334E0 7712 BD0CB82B91C60A6255776823CC32F0DEAC90DAE6 7610 F0797C6B9A93BB0B1D38447B7FBD1543D86A912B 7500 06232586EAE88D66C230CC6FF812C4BAFDDABBAB 7496 6494158F10AB50864ADEC20AD1448B27D54DB246 7400 51A4E740AF16874A23D57E9C96FBB3CE630B1F4E 7372 F9A63A717AD65FDF08578B92F6EAAF4E5CFC3A16 7346 0AC460B151413E3F26A2DA568F66E92AA17E7A50 7151 8E8C77799661B09000DF1985DACFE336D6389D80 7000 9CF513086124BA54448A0ABCC1770E80EEFDC6EC 6999 D7550A33078ED58F97D9A339712B710C308C9801 6927 8642D83FC4C274543C066B0BDB69FE65D5598FCD 6925 FBDC5502A5C5CA337C54CEF4987C9BD01AC4E81D 6848 673218140922079F78E28A5E0DF18AD4ECA6B53E 6705 B879B7746CBF8B0F2D0CF6EB6BCAB1905BD08912 6660 A909507E7A5FCA13E8BBB78BF356B03EE9D23B62 6592 8612A1A7535C6DFFC6F1928C7735D250E6CC625A 6550 68A6B725B529A2633557AB14C036B4761A826CF5 6512 E1EE58A6ED77021253B9B0E71064F0BB998D2841 6400 C184F2423F2193F2A192B7B193EFB1A6A00704F1 6162 5E2754A2F60F814074030A1FFA168F09D16042B1 6109 3A62296FB532ACB70D8D6CF562576268FCE4BEEA 6000 342F44DE3B57CA38913B196772326D1439B7F11D 6000 631F02B1DC5FA7137F43ACCB7895D056F4CCC94F 6000 AD6490CDCFDEC864BEE6465A3E4422B71416D82F 6000 AAC896D1683117A2A0C3DD79BED80AA16F84E196 5865 670D1B9630DAA9B606C6CF9E402426C5D23F88F7 5700 415DD7FDA2F444E4AB312E47FD171D771B98954A 5486 09670BDBFC21225D6B9DD474E1677113127AB454 5437 98DD8B633F5AE3F73118F43DEDD4D985433CFAFE 5350 5DFEC7B1335E58B13324C5141DF503B500D88E5D 5190 0846D738D970A35A15A7344B64258AC55744E3CD 5186 8132AD46E94CBA92491CC2109233BDE2049FE64D 5096 12D54083741437D1E592621F3A0518B178A0F882 5001 5D888ED867DD749031BEEEBBC2F8BCC59E74790E 5000 675B7CC96C258100583BE74103AE0675603495EF 5000 6ADF4799839907600A0650EEA2804441AFBB3AEB 5000 7DA8D44AA83AC67B2FB60ACB89116FE4016697D1 5000 8400B083E837544EF32F6B4CD0A541F309533825 5000 B5571A9D0C163E05193BD1ED5928276FEEFE54C7 5000 C798A646A8583DC0CA192460844FE37154E359FC 5000 D44CA420C407A7425723CFAB3AB5E63FB69FC5C4 5000 7031879AEC3E75576593D6B0368F01B197982E56 5000 980D66330F218B22982C204B39FEB0C226A66052 4999 61B66D0FD4AEDFCACF2B0F90D952BCE4A6986C05 4994 B0F6568C2617616A40A58B5862A9B3DD5C5553E5 4994 AA71C13FF626005B525CC985E614EE6795152EE7 4988 18F05A2DDB31CEFF88EA0EE9C9E1EB3091D9EF68 4980 0C9541572217AC49B6038B23159D54BA7AB68B44 4974 7E7B9962D28E65971C6D71A8CF4556A9EE9C5CAE 4971 F55D3F7E003069C186E64657DABB5A0BC9A6BEAB 4971 DCA2BE24D863C0FE1DE17335AC12B6B362E11E09 4943 D17EB3C69E47A3B1E9ADB1127BD0B6BE48C5FFAA 4934 21FF6B05FA00E2177D90CDDF3EC4968B1D8BCBE5 4927 D14FFEAE2BA48444BBB919975532E95FB6886122 4926 2C557408C0465EA98856D910F8E2239F2020D86B 4915 0901E4448D75802607E36CD25281A4B1CD5ABD07 4912 EADB9BF2BDEAA2F23DBFC0845A638C1DB2084971 4896 BEA14550EC3E81C7D55DD4153DF026709B510F20 4888 3E89574DE55073A4217E9F41F4FB446F76836994 4867 1A31A764DB0E1F666E5A520EBE5B6C1DEBF9E920 4862 E4E6556E8BCE3E08BC5BFD8879EE3010FB1AAD52 4856 6B10B63865D26CA0116D922D0C350E15A9E42E90 4838 7602F2ED16693AE7AAD9AF1481441D48BA99B1CA 4829 2B1B66541456C5E39A0ACF50E925136D102D177C 4819 05144FF415F00D2BB240D84780262149EE4BF596 4818 14063B2656D0AA2D172C0EF052191BDF95AB610B 4815 7038E48EEED7DDEE642B870AEDDDB594FE162486 4792 586FE1594F549EC311EAAC4A72009FC41151203F 4785 2D4B92F74D715353E5551960B9C0A68DC2B2A148 4777 8CEF9F4D0DB7B821A19715E5E2486C701B650A18 4769 9B0C88984E4B9122E0EAA35C9404D5F077791495 4769 08B281DF567CE3291CE0E9A29F7466421A573FEC 4752 540B499DC36741692B8CD4A186627BB9D3645A91 4725 1C0274734ACC766FF8C4991724EE79A7330791DA 4723 AF7409821DFAAF4335ACA162158133F293117206 4719 D49D7DD205FE6D9A36E02CD40AB761884341C05B 4718 F9A9814F12F78289EDD53562559AE58104828963 4692 871C14F931A227BAE8F6EFCCF38C696DB86BBBD3 4678 D61C3E7010DCB99BD5784986FD7CDB3DD67402E4 4624 676F387ECD9B28E3F2D0B1BD914843640BA92297 4619 7526C847D67558CEAF812787B5CCF20933528E29 4592 1EABF280450346E1D1D14A4C1F8D98BE2F5A31D1 4589 754667D407532E9BAF770693C74D58EC89906AC5 4571 54655AE5C48C9DB6A3F34DAFE11BFE795C1E3655 4553 906AA553733B147C3353654FA5069B8663BF8291 4537 ED369CEE1DE0D1F04417E405215D98A40B7635E7 4506 7B1CD75D3AA60CAD84F10CE431E35739982FF5A8 4500 96BADB5EAB9A21FBCF541A3BDA6468A084F1672F 4500 ADC602BAB8D446BB71475D8FDF18CDE5D0828BFA 4472 57351D6DCD295BDE5CA868A8AE7C50861F79134A 4455 B18780EEEA11E4FF506D232C6E8440221B8630A9 4378 F4F10DD4A5ECEF80C6BA48F3E1C87480AD4C65C2 4358 4FF6E173D27DE706193BDB01A07486FBF17BF2D6 4333 3DF4724B043EA82DD77058F137FF3AC9850F1BCB 4322 28E980FBB83761250EFB8298C3D9C6E0509DBB7E 4291 CF3D92ED885D0C6EB8E41C2451A0E2C047304603 4287 D22CC8F966DE11A78BE38DA63D25F2FA5E6087E3 4263 B458F28C67D52878D12BCED8A4808AA7F9958097 4250 1903BE305E69426AB26DC49560A26A669ADFC5E9 4158 CFCBC8C2247963383BDA6341742540BDD82C788C 4050 D011DAA6F3ECB18742802009D7D0730E417ED082 4027 69520E6641809E72B0F0E118D8969496D78F101A 4000 10240B12FA37F1319CBEBD7AD4BA63A31354BC3A 4000 3F756D26FA3E94D3A1DDAA9A5A2B28562BEBBE16 4000 53E24676B17804707D0EED7CBD2C0815552EA415 4000 666A5BCAC99EB29E521ABCF864BD08617C8CC2C2 4000 69D471691BD4FC679EA987803F690DB3041AFCA1 4000 B54DDD0D335E33C821F27E2FBC1B6F03D2EBE804 4000 DAA9BB4C40A22CABD24F63609E8394F9FF1D38A9 4000 2FC44D5490E28CE4B57D93E39ABCC3068F56ABE0 3963 510B0F55F005000373480208A0B92105967985ED 3937 B7D7F0BA2614F3C8199CA814BA560A9A87648E92 3923 F17C63E7A4583949D3F46FB81A858FB11FD34768 3850 391BA36ACFD168C2A41D7E650F4AEDFF4DE36D1E 3750 F7978F741834C94BF2961198A9D0159BF1BF7966 3705 15223C389668BA4A48DD508072D589C3A652B014 3692 166730B8256F289E9B21036E5785257B3BC6A287 3665 ACF080A9F4C125811E65917FD3B0945DD3281D86 3634 8F00BF7D17231DB872A800C97E199CE3BACEC072 3600 4C8A38EBA246F752145D8F2CC7B02B86ADF5DAB9 3578 E9D697BFA8D02A89018FAA3D0C6C7C2296E6E4AB 3526 154067F0E9F5A9B45A262F53B8D502EE3D2A63C1 3500 63E32C18E97628C4C6246E8213A588E386C3A88B 3452 685DF0B49D0B7CFCFEDCB724996F5664906F5BEC 3400 9FF82A3BA9B775083F0055E8EA170E54C212E4B2 3374 A57667B9215A4A00CBB7E2D823FA6275C909E313 3368 B567C5E05E9583B3FEA74C53EFFBBB2684269B53 3367 A3AEF8B533B30B7C22D7EF527C65F5FE41E3EFD7 3350 624B99C88F51BD848650AEA291B66AB8E70A3495 3341 46F4ED772F6A249082A568C2DBB72160BFCCB29F 3333 0DACD46F53A3BD57AB6A0D46149CFBF1A81F62FB 3311 AB62732534E091505A84F5CC21FAE197225A97EF 3300 6984E4F08907AEA23CB8D89A39F7C067FF8949CB 3291 12187C86449F470B77B42B9AB842407FDF7DB120 3270 45CE77B598F5087E77F4576DC583AE7C7D68A3F0 3268 3D9E561F21D312F9B8B46E74169263E2452D5591 3249 AD0CD5CEF7D55CF09455BE4C97581B28483B8361 3249 1409CCCF4F226442C77EE24BAE9A3DBFEA9E0112 3247 F657E7B225F7E8695D88739DEF3D44D534BA4CF3 3233 3F9B09E1023A5174F4FA5B5AA26E6BBDCCDE36FC 3215 B1C8DA0EFE385A46588ADF0FCEA068D3B2FAC51A 3200 528A7D4027992E51CF59E1E74202B77046DCC4E2 3196 B1D9165ACDECD66AFD144FF63DA6B8D2526F4C38 3174 5C24CFBA8070F68A673AD032C8E72A3E59F78FF6 3161 1373DBEAE666106D7B51D635B1EC062D7C2CA28C 3150 64CABF7E01B2B886C13710F92BB8FB51B977580D 3117 7D57204983A637CF9B1835003B0D3C0E54389F7E 3086 FFE8663E4C4C3A9B64F7668E978C7BC10BCCEFA6 3054 6C2148E67EB5D0637F8096D12E33D30947DCDFA5 3000 0CC96ADD580DCED1E98412FC8A6825C17DE2D50B 3000 0E6FEB025235888AE311B9685EA3547322ED72EF 3000 1592EFC045F7950C9170814F1D2A7DF432D5B9B8 3000 1EFB2FFC16B67E06446B6D3EB1742258C80304EC 3000 2BD91F9478294925746D5E2B8060B724C8809B48 3000 2F9D21861BDE808956320B695C5BB60D674156B0 3000 406B25B2B8D18E416AE25AFF7531B7C76A8DBD44 3000 413879C3B884B52AFEEA0C8DA772C01E40F61779 3000 53935A245E28A9AE4A7E1CB669FF5D3BE7E910AF 3000 5AE9B1E57CDED098924906BD02CC9226BD86061B 3000 6748E6F10EDCB08FA36B1F47F91BFA67E5C7A442 3000 704D0B6B5F5D80A0AC232D4471C74FFD1812447D 3000 749867070BE58549EEB1920D24CA0FDA19CD9DDB 3000 8982634B347A2637603612569B90DCEA0BF31955 3000 93027123218856247BAD42A6A745A3F60C367B8D 3000 A11714F1B8C5A891AA102CBD6897AEBC341E4328 3000 AB516D04B259431D0CFC27309B697DA3F48667CC 3000 AEE5BD6D89D5A13501F957C7AC71625833F6CFBA 3000 B7FD6AE23D546E8980AB221136721B96AFCD850B 3000 BE4118218384B9A2F2870BE4575CE517812FF59A 3000 C176123BA3CDFFDC02AF659248DDE2591B70C068 3000 C565B31B3E93D1C77164068129EC5EB20169D081 3000 CCD5CC1455B9D644B704FA1A30FD76B5424CC2B7 3000 DABB129C83B68EE14AC6B7A18F667DA04DFD102D 3000 DC1B48ED29C8390B4D5AD613E7F09E4D79BB4B02 3000 E23791315E20041DEF625D52BDD2E146773999C1 3000 E4F1B2956CA19D7904DC386E2A1723E9C6522134 3000 F2790476E011D242E1F623660866730159D3044A 3000 F713313BDCB9428B371915AA8ECE1019C53A58AA 3000 0D0DA1DBDF3C867D65D7CB4F0334663A016E8D1B 2999 83536D00351F99BA8B5582E94494CC7E9C5D3126 2987 D4E0324955121B5634F7F38DEF1091B4DA1804A9 2966 B6C6D8F88F47472559A95AA543B9D9B6BAB05D42 2949 B01DC7DD541740D14F20D2C6305A53C25C90AB29 2934 1ABC10DFFD47B0985F0313BBF85244037D116EF9 2822 842167FB76343778CB23865B33CC45C9B2594CA7 2810 B79A931B5DE3DB16E6DA9337CBA08CB7A6D0CD89 2793 28507995CB6AD6058DF2824911237005BF8C470F 2783 7D94F55532D5231B83D0061C27285A6996C214A6 2750 90FDE776E0A6B048792C19FFD8629A85BEEAF63E 2736 1BED0D59398F2A7B9F5F0EF49633832EF244C748 2724 B97FE7E35BC92B65FC45F63410A0F6975EDF15D2 2720 525C015A6FDD8B0184C824C95E10870E67D5B759 2712 A2C435F3F9758587E7FEB99440B70818CC9327D9 2700 008C3F374ACDFBC75BC46C59C137CE7874CF65F4 2679 9C40A672D7E936FAC61C2C7656DAF182A11A0F85 2662 5A24AC550BD4C4D4C362F6A8B00FD69CD76972A4 2616 491FCE09EEB18055194D232C04B6C59549126290 2606 56E31455945E086A04FCDCC71547E72D5386E1FE 2592 E9CC2C1AA1C19853286AF7906DC49BC440679829 2550 BE803E9ED3C9251A7C6B773A5676E2F14352B52C 2550 0E1F5157E32808B25F256665AB6DCDBE5738A33D 2510 4D63A4B3B4AE384C44FF5D112A9B87C4C49FF36F 2504 4E2267C41FBE6C951F6604DEB58334A4BE25FC16 2500 7EF16EBFAADCA122A681658573F59F46EF712083 2500 AB32FBC2F4B555B8C17285764FDC6B3BC6C18D37 2500 B2255BCE0E0B166F39FA3DC6E72FAB571C5FDD8F 2500 CEE84FBCDA77A579B13282EA440696C64A808EB2 2500 290C52AC261962B721DAA4DF2DEB7FAA97374DEA 2497 2FF7938F0FE3E0036537AA653222EB8670B48986 2489 7399E640904E8D48BC3DE5E0C8C84ED7CA1B7697 2489 29DF7CC506897788A8C9D346F987DEC3BEB9D3B3 2476 F54CD5C3CC9713A9440A1C12EF61AE4A4425271B 2473 8A829E9F6B12403BC068B3CABAE2DEFDF2B3B308 2468 4D58F8F974235275E0BAC3026430EF0B0673AAD5 2450 67FADDBAF276AB594565E72C91985038104F7EFD 2450 0787D383BAD1D10C3D56B63ADA34D5F22EAD761B 2439 1789CB214A6E8C46E2368F0443A0F2B1C694D418 2425 78E784C1A51A780BDF676D5E86B720DE153012F0 2423 340ED8AD934F9724C5CB5786349AC20C7B7B9E96 2421 D91012B89983C5911B913BA19EBF226B0C47B415 2405 0EAE80E20BE5FC382150BD6FC754AB4283E694B1 2400 AC57D6C7F817D1FA7C8619D190B72579BFAE5C2A 2400 CE906A1DBEDEEADD7080DCF13047C941640A7695 2399 715A2319BC0DF66D2DC4BB07D9D0B026BD6E2E58 2398 2C7794912CF7B312AC52D332AD336078B07EEA20 2385 1E7C3C3BBE3968A196499C246EB559B1DBC67143 2380 C0CA8BA3A94F52B9D7FB310450DB11A31578319F 2379 F5398BBAAAC362AAC99503240FF33F7AF6534084 2346 51009A8B0016F65AD0E437C646288CEC2769E534 2340 9824E3A97087110F63B3CCED4CBC63BA4577E000 2337 EEA4B589A9B457013CCA4AEBBDB462FCED75B871 2307 9725BB39ECB7D235F31F84F5D372304C11FC7A15 2303 A95B8C55F272667E70E8BA2FFC81AD869812EF7A 2300 F601BD931DC160C09C4477211A40A2B3C9B99B5B 2300 F29DFEBB39AA8DBB22337B0BCC012172611BF6DF 2296 FCAA9CC85B384626FD071F202F91F69C311CFA84 2287 3A4F90F6456BD5BD6CAB27AE81730D690FE0C3B9 2270 A6D88921643426BC3D99EBB072B0C04F900B1CCF 2270 B37A92E519CFCF3E041F8EFD44528D55644604F7 2251 6814D53DABD86D2E2E4BCF8BF2F19AC2CDF4B176 2231 B7922068A055C6860F2C07CD91C10FB706106FEC 2200 F4B004C3CA2E7F96F9FC5BCA767708967AF67A44 2200 E49240ADB41F762CEA1EA7675214A04EC18DF2DC 2188 5D0600F90BC6C1005D20E8396E20FF117C56D00A 2156 B098B64BD8C2CA448C05D1ADDC0E46999B561A09 2155 7E0930C4F5D2BFDED31254CCBB9E618A20B374FC 2135 24D33A45C127692E4599CD055CBB48BDE8A825A1 2123 469189403F8A1AF1ED4AA82E22438A5A056B63A5 2106 055BFB11489B4AFD5B1314A5A68EE09130A7447F 2100 186425A5459199E1B96CEF9D083BA5C9AEE5D60C 2100 193A59B729EF2456A1C0E18B8B4377061CDD8974 2100 3B365D8D8C3E3B00F30AF15F01EFEE92B5F7C2D4 2100 4F51789216024D9F50D8563D3EE571EFFBEC04FD 2100 F8494243AF4D667EB6725886DA7B26A72BE7EC9E 2100 FAC2B6A30FABF823B0B02A6E4694B0EB913118D8 2100 3837DDB060B795A495341FAA14E207A45C8991C3 2091 B6D12785A9C3AB2EEDC0D2731C1A9DC8A5E8B6D9 2090 80E9CA1253561A3EC62BD520F2DBF6D0DA876F9B 2066 A02DBF59F347B1B8ACD3761DB65217938C561D6F 2051 7DC6528BFCC7572DD70BDA614F70A8226B807876 2050 F99F0B40016AAC04082C1AA7724E9FAF65E582E9 2045 7C45F10D5724A1EF4DEB92ECB2B63542359FF014 2044 C479E01CC716EE3ACDCE0FF3B35224DD94BA4B6C 2015 7181F0C735839DD7CC8830BFF369CAC449E5B234 2012 4C6F41EC2CD740A01AE8F753AD9A3131C92FFF97 2010 B8407C6B2E61A6C5518049B1331A500E12540570 2008 F668778BA162AFAFE08914649757D9CA33646FDE 2004 1C9093567146C8464B00DE023C11B82347EE5F3A 2003 7E7D9789E8ED437B5A736FE94ECC507CCB7CF5EC 2001 B02BD570F586CEAB697CBA90D5BDDD6E52453DB3 2000 2B8B75F376A555737545B5E75BF9C8529DCFD792 2000 2D254A931769481BF601E0B3F74E557CF592BB5D 2000 5E7A8111E8C3C056B6CF77A161ECAC101515ECBB 2000 8280AE3C5ED7088A9E510CBB0CD6810C3F32413F 2000 8E23E97C671DD62CD471EFF20701F508C7FDB31E 2000 9D22ACA387AA4B41CD0A030D10E4AD14376A02E1 2000 AA8BBC017F15B949A0CBAE5A8D90C96D990093DC 2000 B6519FE365B74589467AD0D7912C9B508A76C186 2000 BABC679C82AE0F0B30E2183457724FA38BFBC3B2 2000 C1DBBD137336D2E10292A501EF3B2A89067299BA 2000 C8C1D76AF78098C997DF7F44C72CC5F6362390DD 2000 EB09FCA006B8A420312F25C610655B99E9241912 2000 FF7B629344730B65966FE3B5A610B3977F93A66D 2000 866F87D78929831CEA0E288AB967C560BB981AAC 1999 10ABD230767EA584703290F067D9CF648E2FA1B2 1998 E3E9406339AE96D8088111C1FDCEFEA0A242EB45 1997 22A7AC082329152270CFADEFCDB480E17CE98DE6 1994 2A52F8B2005F8EE1BA4208E3A98B8465B3C9FDF2 1985 9383B7961E65F786E63AFCF0F7C12400EDEB8B03 1981 2D7B90FE778ADC82CFE2315945FEA2B17294819A 1958 23102D5EE69B0B53C4B60D8479E9240EB4B8CFC7 1958 18A5579C00F0873DA898C0DE5BC93EC95BEF2B24 1950 4F444BA5EB15621D4E6C6E01AFB49F68134D6FF6 1950 6CBB0B090944BAA9A243969D3F25F0E63077D8A0 1931 34D027576B76561B71776BA490D1DBC27EA9790B 1929 546E1D5D3CC17F349D1242D62AE87C91718D5A98 1921 E878BF3A8F003AD3103CB201BBD610AABEB43DF7 1917 838E8D88BD338DA42F528B2BB10ADDA67E23A1A4 1911 035C6AEB672DCB9AF78554E329777D13FD43AF93 1900 35818B8A4F249E110CE37B222DF569DC1EF7F19F 1900 8147321D67799EF0B600763D574FC18521ACC359 1900 B26A4E11F4C3C2B7EB40A6E586030DA73E3FC5F8 1900 7750D1CC48C5AFA570025672607A6CA5F4068E47 1891 86C18E17777A60A440DA8578390554BE1882D794 1877 2E947B343BD6850BB666B54429D84CF60A5E3571 1852 546409B06544246C26DDA11BFFF92FAB401266EF 1850 4B8E1F2F31D5BDAC59B90FDDDF178AA33DB398E2 1850 5BE9E25C9A7663BB3D4EDB53FF03179DEC40FA9B 1847 A69E6096AA8542526F71AE25771EC0ABC56ED8FC 1829 B55A75BDE5BD2F16560917C8F66195467E782C5D 1822 1260F944658C0350A6BA510DEB9D120DD114ECC3 1812 0A234CA1D9F748B23110642C156DAF99942825AF 1810 C2BD140C3E3F89E779F964E7046C80D314366641 1806 841928ECEAF45ECBECCA6702C405BC74A0D3815A 1804 85CD8EBBACCD2B03D4D9E57F1070260D4AA59B99 1801 1D14A870950495F5F3C9E22181869E19C8B03ABC 1800 20C60619CF5EA7929F11A813D00800ECDE2DC079 1800 5DAAADD5D554A8AADF2C3713756DDAB41086BC0A 1800 C18EDFA80A444EF5C170B286D8C3404280CA2B93 1800 96C2746815059326E9F6DFF79165FF86A81202EB 1799 A57353562F8F62E0F64DD80FF4B4D15B0D4154F6 1796 9F7F2C80429663ECD05516E3C21217D1F232365B 1788 8D52ADED4387B3249026428D23E189A10B12CB48 1766 A7F1F57CE7221C8135B208CF1BA83270648EABDA 1765 88148B3D818015F0C6FCD0A30C76B72CE49594CF 1756 F4BED0BEC3C7E5E2E2F5962B879F018A86195F87 1752 002CE2FD8CEFF28BF943A0462C4274A9224B7EFC 1750 065ABDA89F12DF01C49924EC7870FC4AC2CD9DA1 1750 09670D9B61B9948F1752BB992E44202F5E9EE631 1750 0B897B96D0E896DA8349A2687515169AB7961F61 1750 1988F6D8ED46FD375F5A315D7DDEDF5F0F4E44B1 1750 224A6A0A7099C3DEEBBF7EFB06D4EC29F1019DF2 1750 4291D528B6A08417DB812297A629BD03CD360E3C 1750 585253CE9B3183DB1B105C9D44780B8CCBAB2956 1750 5CADB51E4737D9926C0250767F5EB46B79C2BDBC 1750 72A6022A24FD6108233B0B9DEBD8F559753A94B9 1750 75E97EEAB2FF5A05FB383C0521F004B2107513B2 1750 7B21D22E2C275873792B0839AC04FC3DE4295AA1 1750 878834C991D0F9C8001384AFC1CB8382D2DA3CD7 1750 8E19BB6AB3EFF153EDD0A30E730F0256DE992DEF 1750 C398E46FCE0761C90F807DE7E10A0C11AE2BFF66 1750 D2EBC7763F3D740BD8168B43CD94368F289BEF21 1750 DB50007C37609329E78F1AEB02C20BC85E495F36 1750 FC4A9D25F491E0D79E6E5E3E8BB46F64CE5688E6 1750 BFB61E4F09C14738D1A98A3F4788E70F8DA02A9E 1732 8D5E6B30594E918A080B2C8318BE0DF6A13C2C8F 1730 6FC3FBFD604EF3971A1273534C5F7E1DA1F0C1CE 1724 8FB591D034D68FA1F7AB295347A08E52DE398590 1719 4CFCE0F1DE1AED738FE079FC388412C1EB418ACF 1700 3CC83F73F0824F6B220EE53267446C9D286B5A56 1700 5ABC238DE2873DB8D95C5098BF55E1CBAAE4239E 1700 435608E0929F1700ED2661AC5097EF6D2932ED04 1699 BA1F137E9D4519EC24313BB9F75634FE4491A65F 1699 730DCF9A2CA0D492B159DA4E129DD58290E941E7 1698 A96EF4C09A1B24B7887BC6626534ECC5A4B6FC23 1687 4EC8BC9DD84DD4904339B64DEC442B9D535A5608 1676 65A306CBBAF2754848E2D6042BC674F7182AADD9 1673 B4D0F67DEB1633655252D9736D9832A0DDC0CE5B 1662 0062844D4D8D07BD1FB0E996A18686B5BABBEC32 1600 715081AB8D717498E4B54450E8E893E8DFB1E7A0 1600 979DE3B771533F1EE6FB6CEA29BCEA67502C7E22 1600 D84365950E5F40F5C0C9FA1BC7B9DDFD89F4E5A0 1600 E3D265A30C6629DE89811BDE73BCFC0E0D284D53 1600 BE8F0FE188BEA9D9F5AD65604F157E5D1769A843 1592 AD2F86A941E7D8900BA7DAE61AFEFAA9C8D97476 1551 CBB89DBB1BB77E999CC7C30EC84CA061FB42BD54 1550 37575B56887E0194D52FA41BB1B65DEC441D7F50 1550 7159952153C23891A3E84EAE5059AFE5D99889CF 1550 A2396A5E79ADEA80CEE5E6A849B6C971F6F02449 1536 051F83719CDE5375DAE4A89470D52A5F5B8FB239 1531 47ECD602CB6E5CD0916554409D4A228C360D263D 1525 BAF092EC42C987A4C3A57F18B439F214099AAF9C 1523 98161003F98FA0F83BC1F409FC08CACAF6E1BD28 1510 760B761F57848230B2F168D756068CABFB335FE1 1506 AC80E101CEC1FD3B2868B551251C321CA8D75EEC 1502 014422B8CDF1927EDE3530952AD740086FE5DF06 1500 17977F3ECC6B27DB6B59EA698120F05662165E96 1500 1EB7EAA32ED62DEB460DB5BFC507A5DF52708F34 1500 48DE0BF80E0B87569500258826211B01557E7A90 1500 681756A29031F6AC98DCB1D2891ADFE563C4847B 1500 91F4F53F4937E4CE95882830B19672AE5259B2E2 1500 F2715F5BB9844FF8086315C37ECAE593C989309F 1500 FADA9AAB22368980135C56C58C9E60D4C84B5507 1500 52D20D14617EBF9D7BEA1661A8FC445A67ABB805 1492 5635A3D100F1C317C05B47496E1E938D1389EC77 1492 B5BE0CEF248BABED0B0AAB29171247B616B28704 1486 3C15B905A04D039F9D97368FA69D9E94A2FE2244 1480 16AC34BFD7B597465B4044133F9EC9E0A8822BCD 1459 F7ADF7FD71255C1736372E7E43921DD62DE2D63A 1450 84B6335CABE8928C780C3BB4FBF1A9DE4C7E756C 1435 92A449941A38CF5C6F1AE63E4E8CEAB4029CF050 1422 640254C42FC26209163EFD8A77870E4E5E6CF54A 1420 F2197FD43A358065AB1B75F4463BFB10D9F200EB 1418 5CB790004AC4A4BC2017F33461E1689CB271E800 1415 67193B641C39F4F25A7A2C1F10E5F5526EA076EE 1410 65E5C68E410F3A7F9680B47B3B05A0ED21610989 1400 9FAC74A584EC443A52D178CED0FD67810372989E 1400 59F4699B5767EB6113EE1033FD1FC94B02225BCB 1390 53730DD0134F2FEF59A2BF03ADAA405747533060 1383 64BA7E967B2F7C1C2E8EA31920CC756D32C79468 1382 BBED8046A664670AC28D0956BF980588EB4746BE 1370 6C86D139ACC0C0C9CE8111EE4DB2FD8E292ED54F 1368 89E7C594A04226A4B20FB1282D6FDAC07C164F3A 1367 F49EEAEA60A5C08C16C1967D7867606E181A592A 1350 1DFA3CE445E8FA39A79E73693E6F503F97746E08 1337 273175394CD65D2133B7BF8628FCA200A53C98A5 1337 4E0D8BBD4EC4A55F2955C6FB8E4BC6657706F26D 1337 5A1288468630ADACE7C530C9DA66D0C4E6E653D5 1337 712E56FC7F3D09742F4F7DFC8FCADE35C9175D09 1337 738D3BAA66E7D089D70AC010607DDDF34B308EB7 1337 73FDC150372D3BDBC7BC4C0661CB73238662F87F 1337 FDAC27294130ED0DD636543BDF235272C6C1C3A6 1321 9CD96D8323E3CC962F6A93CD6B393BFF8296E7AB 1300 BEB0C3B550C004C3E786938C0F5D27F8CF206EAB 1300 E1E54305E8E12966F17A63D0876BDC99B5818ED6 1300 761A2698F767B271C78E26F05A23C207455AC687 1294 EB8AA3C8CC2107954127FCDAE48D1FF73C36156D 1294 8DF0227BAAE2A10686E98486F576DAAE56D6A96B 1286 0C06D78F4354184F9AABE0F7B4204D7E60F45BEA 1285 36E632C92A73659BBAD61020ADB7E009AD374579 1278 8FBAA48EEE08B6F7E728EE23750C5F62C101B789 1268 F70DC606758EBB283F0669CEEBEB11BFAC988CE4 1260 2981BC3ECC4147CAB37569B68AF7133DBA5F2A46 1252 EF361558D71A4A6FA83108CA18FF93DD1A8C50D0 1251 CC9F8AF8442EC4EA2467D0A6DDAD9ABAD18E5EED 1251 48D184A36E329022987104D2BB210A24F1BE2EE0 1249 74751C98DCC876BE008E57F3352FE0D5842C56E0 1244 4F963EEFF2B4C76C3ED57C2A4DF8D68CC248F2DE 1241 069C7781E2CF52BB031E0AF8DC870FE48551F061 1240 2EFC4DDAE10AA708058E106E67A7EFC5CE407602 1232 912E79B64187EEC7E4E3E41A540CC89D6D8C120B 1232 6AF99FF386D2152758E7ADB8514904E8E36E1309 1222 FC8D9E22D8E94E45548DCB3772081A35A11FD42E 1220 EBE04F2FB8B335C90246EBAE9617E9F3F779E903 1220 66DF758E13D6FC880A56E6D2F4B1EC652CA8DF41 1215 CCB6F2ED771F38241DFBE4838699E845B0C2D309 1213 9D55F1EBABE48CF93B41C773E6CC76630DFB6CB6 1209 DB3FE76638EAA3A615E845E1361EC2C75C1BF05C 1204 7312E75EDC107157EAA26B8289E576F23302D190 1201 E0BE570F0909A4EEDC8E82652C7F391038F00CCC 1201 0F957489A77EAA6CBC5668140BA1EBD435283D9B 1200 372B8423B128678EE816CEF103DDC8E2B9729708 1200 FB665FE5F5447B7DC86B35A1660441E22023CD06 1200 2B6408BEB7F76F220818EFDCC6C01A71B60D25A2 1190 44FE9B839C183E586CF1A7E54483BA4E7F5CAC83 1178 095767D705050548B15414F51C7DC14D16D716CC 1150 36A3438C3E9E9044EEA989356F3922DE72979F40 1150 97812772F946E4F4AEA78BA6D0A53DD515BDAF71 1150 3410E752CB1F248E5191D4761B2C765BD59FCD8D 1149 B7083F6E9992F7DAC89BF9134366445BC3555FAB 1140 799E4C47210F37443130008C320CE6FA78CB4FE4 1139 F56A6F72FED9E53CC5175915B7FD6C90C3C24283 1139 B432C94DEC1FBAB93A587D9D7578563D6083A48D 1117 7B34C2E10764FE18D56B4BA49586CFA69CBC6D3A 1111 E723FB607A62B06F2F9525AAFDD44797E5AD6F1C 1111 4804511165D2BE24DDA94DA5AC814A7F0650EF6A 1109 5108F80046E8C1D5B7D3499E72422EAF60B2A193 1107 21F52F001579B33CD7EE10730BE5CA8835155627 1102 1171F92B8F50ACBDD264198D552AFB5C29A7CCE4 1101 7BA7E45564E2F30803DD2F5690E89516B3A2DF8A 1101 B5A70104036B9550B3FBF3107E8911FE233874EC 1101 FE2B0CE651C3580F6AEEEC3E44C3E8369188BFC4 1100 2EB1D7768B2097B78C54DF4750926FC97B6E78E6 1100 D5A44787C7E7CA15DD24973850270CB4D2417EDA 1100 F19F811FFACAF49F5A16AD58FEDCD073496106BB 1100 CDE0B4C41EB21C2CDE725A57794D216FEAC0D401 1093 5E6E90FD32B9C196C309A2BD544DCB0FB0093F41 1090 1879A6C2971DD109D7CE22263BA74C2E97717A03 1083 189814B94CCF7AF77D6007480DD2DD4C75B425E9 1077 B265058C13F3AC80E9E34BA421511BFDA84D6570 1076 0211418D83425CF036B18773DFDFDA5BCABAF54D 1076 4759A2E20069331E861B223C3BD8BEA5487C5032 1065 89FBE87BCB5E1F5A6A42888AC3E7FEBB3C7F0854 1058 AF977131C2BF94CA71639C4D68D5B579AEE1B8CE 1056 1C5AE23912A06F60CBFA81893A5E1AD3D1765540 1050 9C6F556308305E9AEA54EEA963DF68F7F94D7E55 1050 A22C2D17185E89551EE5E2A45A1040057BA9E99D 1050 BB3AF0C1A46198BF4087EF5620FF847807D97263 1050 F5AEB7A13F48F5FE1EEE72BE94D85D78CC280A13 1050 E1929A0211ABE62BD645DA43E805D082E522983E 1043 69CDE869F0C16D936BF5845A07308530555175E6 1034 0AE19372DAF272D1D8B783775C2E8FB1C3017617 1032 6464AE71AEC05F4836C578F20282074DD1DE94AD 1020 FCF3E6A8B8755634B168B0EBC5D498D53A48EB9E 1020 6F9468D892151671460C1D0E9EBDBD0ADFE52052 1016 C8E9A48E61D6AF0826A863C152D2ED28A9337199 1015 B476C0A7BC60C4FE1DACC2663732AACDBBBEFEE5 1006 D95641F83745A9678D99ED32AE04828A62DB05A4 1005 15191D2E48D72CE0154AD88043729A83CDD765FA 1005 EAD7D1F264F515F617F90A26059143B06FEB5F09 1005 49525AEC1A67C857951A005713438E67FAB657BC 1002 2683B6476107FF7B0BE67B3B4E9490C205FE1D0A 1001 2A1A8C3A5C181B4947B74094C725B906AD4F0A85 1001 3814A4D2E0C97CEDA180A3009B4697D72FE0EE2C 1001 4F8F641B16810E4DE9897DF1F4F17DDE4D75FA5E 1001 A2E30EEB420BE9A5E7120777A5AF59920D85FF26 1000 E3800CDF2E4582A24CBB64095945C7B2211C520F 1000 51627B25EB39EAD0FA7506A70407AA3E6EBDB23A 1000 04D17C17960A15C1C2DD8D5DFFDF4F0C1AE8A52D 1000 10C360330D325CAF733FABEA194D11B322017F9F 1000 117750ED280C21F5F0B738F36D6365CAB0F491AD 1000 13B16865A5FB7A123654522B3D68087076A52D00 1000 13C8BD7D3A788BDBC0C4B392778A2EBF9ECD04D6 1000 153C668C2DC4F6D4ADE6B8CF42F706D8935DEAAF 1000 158EECD003E124C05357FD93C186B41161AFC896 1000 1947B24C93CA14C99E0344B2773B7B3CDA8B3B26 1000 1B5F77A477891232FA40BB85877A7548AF049539 1000 1E8CB8F8C56885640C88EA8641F9D70F55212352 1000 207DF4E64E7868FCC3294DF1DA7C511500AFF363 1000 2190F24F31E5D4EC3497D7F6CBCB4221C958DC72 1000 238445E111B0C5A3AB3455AF76F4A7782E22CFF7 1000 267D5B95E2CFEF3EB225A80B62DC8636262202BC 1000 2A831B68B9EAD1D7F31397D3F49FF9DAA44CF803 1000 2B7B9540A8AFFFB55C3223E725C0E2A39295CFE9 1000 2CB5E4C53D2AED954E141A610C4DFE0A2FA14485 1000 2CC5CE86C5B27C003B63BC4B392E9BD0134F79D9 1000 33E31B6875C20D8683E49A69ED3F195090696385 1000 3775C57C059F63D78A7F51F1C252100304481322 1000 3FE80F194D53CCBD6A025E2E7155EA0F3C8A2D88 1000 438432BFF71762885F4D5D61CC3BB94B0F025857 1000 49568E6290C58358B6AA68020443658E13B0298A 1000 4F9733B95EAAA380D7703AC412CABBDF30127306 1000 5914FC12EAC3694B692B20A757ED1632DC8916DC 1000 591D7AB4D1429A721BFFEFCA20D541916A049A40 1000 5BA03D8EFE524F23304D6554C0119FA1EEB99971 1000 677BE6F0787D389BD4B4BCC15BAA3A261E030A15 1000 6BF45D0E6CF229F9CB07759CAC084AA8E9319BCE 1000 73AA31F0F501990E70FB4D1E53C77FAAA7359441 1000 74A7F0EFD573C91D68FBD1CBBF2A39255D31D583 1000 7788E9870F07C3002FF5F53A453464E5ABC7AA23 1000 7AD5AD594E55AE8E0D522BD3848D37211255834C 1000 7CE858EC38F30DD71695A1D33B3E8E3C6D6534C8 1000 7D4283060392FA62047326B4EB6E6843416B7370 1000 7F5E20B210BD2C37AABB892919D74E19A01C3D73 1000 80DEE01A8FFD566FC77305A87941339139FC7A7D 1000 81D6A0623314F4430BA90824A308251E1643F689 1000 88C06AE6D7542AEE06159BC542F27E05479E9088 1000 8930DB3D1E62C17F47E4C8F49812F1F36520FB81 1000 89F71E498D2C23C4F5902067E1AAEB0755634A30 1000 8E38BF0110CBEF128924CF5B4020C22990B1C50C 1000 91D3EB3F01B81269750D364AC2509D6F60FEA23D 1000 954718A34F7EE86E789B71A4D7BB76517FC731C6 1000 9984FC3A6EA57D3E01327A5F1CCAF0F69D2A984D 1000 9EC4514D26030272FB8A51907DD3514408B8B12C 1000 A5BC7CEF7C2BC67463370AD588EABA4B4BD5045A 1000 A7E7E1B5C6055422FA45F8713E7EEAECFE861143 1000 AC367036DA1B01B9A4F386FDA68E5764302345A8 1000 B1E91E90C61268565898A75C83808DAD398548D3 1000 B8969A12B559A63458A4B0B80F9B24ECB1B0C028 1000 BB1725BDA871865FFD5C433E69D56411757E9B7D 1000 C6FAA384D298ED991FF287199137102A17301D21 1000 C78008616A09EC9766F5320B2A732A232E76F281 1000 CAED1C5E0E1CC78CCF6FFC609F8662D458D0E745 1000 CC25F4B05D47B29682E9C4ECA99D4AAFF43A5BF5 1000 CD46D42278D1D27ED3182685B940525FF75A3A37 1000 D0EBF32FB9B4A2EE123E15ACD1D763A63E2A3557 1000 DE9B87194264AC1633E62B9F57277C0CFEEFE580 1000 E0B41B055E61B0CB32B53979A68ACC618291196C 1000 E40292CD2D1D98B67A0A6C03B4AADEA220C20BA1 1000 F6230EBA7D11DC045BDA995C2B5A644965D4E51C 1000 F8A49F28B38544259931E1FC8FB549EE5E89101F 1000 Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: nmat on October 11, 2011, 06:54:26 AM How do you know that each address only belongs to one person? One of those address could be from MtGox for example.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: repentance on October 11, 2011, 07:01:50 AM So are you suggesting that people should only be able to acquire/hold some arbitrary amount of Bitcoins?
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: finway on October 11, 2011, 07:07:30 AM On the other hand,
there're 600,000 "Address" holding the other 50% Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: bitleaker on October 11, 2011, 07:07:49 AM One of those wallets is mine. What should I do? Do I have too many bitcoins for you?
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 11, 2011, 07:24:01 AM 1000 BTC are only 4000$... ::) If you wish today i buy them so i am too one of the 0.1% :o
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: repentance on October 11, 2011, 07:29:04 AM 1000 BTC are only 4000$... ::) If you wish today i buy them so i am too one of the 0.1% :o Most of the accounts listed hold amounts which wouldn't affect the price of Bitcoin significantly if the wallet owner sold the entire wallet contents all at once, so I'm not really sure why the OP is so concerned about small holdings - there's no indication that those wallet owners are suddenly going to start joining together and operating like some kind of cartel. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 10:17:02 AM How do you know that each address only belongs to one person? On the other side of the (bit)coin, how do you know 95% of those addresses don't all belong to one person? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: TTBit on October 11, 2011, 10:18:07 AM considering < 0.1% do all the work to make this possible, I'm fine with this.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Littleshop on October 11, 2011, 12:28:16 PM That statistic is false.
Two reasons. The way you are counting people is assuming each address is a person when in reality almost everyone has tons of addresses. When you combine them together, each person will have more coins AND there will be less people total so the .1% will turn into a greater number such as 3%. The second is obvious, with 'joint' accounts such as exchanges, that concentrate bitcoins that are really owned by many different people. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: iamzill on October 11, 2011, 02:32:10 PM A more realistic user count can be gleaned by adding all the active (varying on base period of time) users from the the largest mining pools. Not everyone mines. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: iamzill on October 11, 2011, 02:44:27 PM A more realistic user count can be gleaned by adding all the active (varying on base period of time) users from the the largest mining pools. Not everyone mines. No one suggested that. But the strictly 'buyers' are not much of the issue and unfortunatly are not a large percentage of the user base. That is the real issue, getting more people to be buyers. I quoted you word by word. You're also forgetting people who buy mining contracts, people who invest in mining companies, people who turned off their rigs due to the price drop, people who spend time everyday promoting bitcoins on blogs and youtube, people who spend countless hours coding and debuging bitcoin clients. IMHO less than 50% of the active community are miners. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 02:51:27 PM My thoughts on these income disparity arguments:
http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/150/f/2011/158/e/0/u_jelly_bro_by_fantasma2525-d3ic4ft.jpg It doesn't matter. Money has no value until it is spent. When it's spent, somebody is provided with value. There is nothing coercive about a high range of income or Bitcoins. It's just envy in the end. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 04:43:09 PM There is nothing coercive about a high range of income Remember, nothing can ever be bad unless someone holds a gun to your head and makes you do it. Giving you a choice of a dozen minimum wage jobs that won't sustain you? IT'S STILL A CHOICE! Not coercion! Totally moral! Of course, if that job doesn't have health insurance and you die because of that like 45,000 other Americans each year, your employer still didn't do anything wrong because, check it out: humans lived without medicine for thousands of years! This is what libertarians actually believe. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: the founder on October 11, 2011, 04:53:14 PM You guys realize that at least 2-3 of those are stolen from Mybitcoin, MtGox's hack, the polish exchange hack, bitcoin7 hack, the guy that had 25,000 coins taken right from his desktop... literally you are staring at a criminal's bank account and can't do anything about it.
Bitcoin is a tea party dream.... and look how it worked out in those instances. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 05:19:00 PM There is nothing coercive about a high range of income Remember, nothing can ever be bad unless someone holds a gun to your head and makes you do it. Giving you a choice of a dozen minimum wage jobs that won't sustain you? IT'S STILL A CHOICE! Not coercion! Totally moral! The only reason you wouldn't be able to sustain yourself on a low wage is inflated costs on housing, food and other essentials due to regulation. That's what we are experiencing today: costs that are too high caused by government. Your dilemma is a liberal pipe dream. It's the same thing with health insurance. The government has given countless subsidies, benefits and monopolies to the pharmaceutical and insurance corporations. The playing field has been intentionally rigged against the consumer through the monopolistic power of the state. It would be affordable to everyone otherwise. The pre-1920s agree with me wholeheartedly and so do competitive healthcare markets in China. I can get a broken leg fixed for $20 in free Asian markets without socialism. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 05:22:40 PM Right. When a company that profited $15 billion last year (Wal-Mart) still has a substantial portion of its workers so poor that they need to take welfare, that's because of government regulations.
If only they had made $20 billion, everyone would be wonderfully compensated because they're just nice guys like that. Like everything bad that has ever happened, this is naturally the fault of the government. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: the founder on October 11, 2011, 05:23:27 PM You guys realize that at least 2-3 of those are stolen from Mybitcoin, MtGox's hack, the polish exchange hack, bitcoin7 hack, the guy that had 25,000 coins taken right from his desktop... literally you are staring at a criminal's bank account and can't do anything about it. Bitcoin is a tea party dream.... and look how it worked out in those instances. I love how no one replied to that one. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 05:24:02 PM The only raise you wouldn't be able to sustain yourself on a low wage is inflated costs on housing, food and other essentials due to regulation. That's what we are experiencing today: costs that are too high caused by government. Your dilemma is a liberal pipe dream. Housing, debatable. Food and other essentials? Not a chance. Food and water is heavily subsidized by the government. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 05:25:09 PM Right. When a company that profited $15 billion last year (Wal-Mart) still has a substantial portion of its workers so poor that they need to take welfare, that's because of government regulations. I never raised such a point. Wal-mart is actually a pretty moral company. They receive little government-welfare and turn most markets they enter into efficient and productive ones. If only they had made $20 billion, everyone would be wonderfully compensated because they're just nice guys like that. Like everything bad that has ever happened, this is naturally the fault of the government. The workers are making a fair wage. It's just the goods in their area (housing, food and utilities) are inflated to senseless highs through building codes, agriculture patents and subsidies, etc. Their wage is just diluted by other factors. That's all. A below-minimum wage Korean worker can get more for his pay than here. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 05:26:34 PM The only raise you wouldn't be able to sustain yourself on a low wage is inflated costs on housing, food and other essentials due to regulation. That's what we are experiencing today: costs that are too high caused by government. Your dilemma is a liberal pipe dream. Housing, debatable. Food and other essentials? Not a chance. Food and water is heavily subsidized by the government. In addition, it's the subsidies that raise the price. It only gives the corporations incentive to be less efficient since they get paid anyways. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 05:32:42 PM The building codes are very discriminatory against the underclasses. Houses are forced to be built extremely oversized. In addition, it's the subsidies that raise the price. It only gives the corporations incentive to be less efficient since they get paid anyways. Do you drink, cook, and bathe exclusively with bottled water? Because that's what the free market will charge you for it. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 05:35:05 PM The building codes are very discriminatory against the underclasses. Houses are forced to be built extremely oversized. In addition, it's the subsidies that raise the price. It only gives the corporations incentive to be less efficient since they get paid anyways. Do you drink, cook, and bathe exclusively with bottled water? Because that's what the free market will charge you for it. Anyways, the free market will charge the price people are willing to pay. If a company's product is too high in price, it will fail or have to compete to one who charges a lower price. There are no monopolies in a free market except natural ones that are only sustaining because consumers continue to like it. It will soon collapse if its not meeting people's desires. You only get monopolies when a monopoly on force called a government enables them. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 05:41:09 PM You only get monopolies when a monopoly on force called a government enables them. Or when there's a limited resource where people can't join the production club without significant capital investment. You can't exactly start pulling oil out of the ground nowadays with just a shovel, bucket, and can-do attitude. There's some waiting for you deep beneath the ocean floor, and no government will stop you! Come and get it! Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 05:42:41 PM I never raised such a point. Wal-mart is actually a pretty moral company. They receive little government-welfare and turn most markets they enter into efficient and productive ones. It's telling that your test for morality is based completely on money with zero regard for the real world effects of those profits. Also, the notion that if you don't take too many subsidies, but you pay so little that your workers need government assistance to survive, that's the workers' fault, not their employer. Lazy moochers. Quote The building codes are very discriminatory against the underclasses. Houses are forced to be built extremely oversized. Yes, I already know you think it's perfectly acceptable to house people in tin-roofed shacks built by untrained drunk people with no safety standards. This is part of why I call libertarian ideology sociopathic. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 05:44:01 PM You only get monopolies when a monopoly on force called a government enables them. Or when there's a limited resource where people can't join the production club without significant capital investment. You can't exactly start pulling oil out of the ground nowadays with just a shovel, bucket, and can-do attitude. There's some waiting for you deep beneath the ocean floor, and no government will stop you! Come and get it! Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 05:47:33 PM I never raised such a point. Wal-mart is actually a pretty moral company. They receive little government-welfare and turn most markets they enter into efficient and productive ones. It's telling that your test for morality is based completely on money with zero regard for the real world effects of those profits. Also, the notion that if you don't take too many subsidies, but you pay so little that your workers need government assistance to survive, that's the workers' fault, not their employer. Lazy moochers. Quote The building codes are very discriminatory against the underclasses. Houses are forced to be built extremely oversized. Yes, I already know you think it's perfectly acceptable to house people in tin-roofed shacks built by untrained drunk people with no safety standards. This is part of why I call libertarian ideology sociopathic. My morality is irrelevant. The argument here is over results and the creation of wealth for everybody. I would prefer no subsidies at all. They only exist to enable certain corporations over others through political power. I never blamed the worker. I don't blame the employer either. I blame the corrupt system of power that fucked over the small companies that can't compete with highly-subsidized companies and that ruined a competitive and fair wage system for employees through said subsidies. My great-grandmother lived in a very small self-made home with no government intervention. They were quite happy. I don't think anybody wants to pay for nor live in a poorly-made house. It's in nobody's best-interest to create nor purchase bad housing. Affordable and equitable housing is another story. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 05:51:26 PM Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge. And when the private army of Monopoly Inc. murders you for trying to horn in on their profits, there's nobody to punish them for it. Presumably the people will get very angry and boycott Monopoly Inc. just as soon as they read about the murder in the newspaper, which is also published by Monopoly Inc. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 05:51:52 PM Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge. And the investors will go with you (no oil tankers, rigs, submarines, laborers) rather than CompanyX (has oil tankers, rigs, submarines, pays their workers the smallest amount they can survive on) because you have experience and skills in Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 05:52:04 PM Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge. And when the private army of Monopoly Inc. murders you for trying to horn in on their profits, there's nobody to punish them for it. Presumably the people will get very angry and boycott Monopoly Inc. just as soon as they read about the murder in the newspaper, which is also published by Monopoly Inc. A private army that has a monopoly? Sounds like a government. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 05:54:13 PM Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge. And the investors will go with you (no oil tankers, rigs, submarines, laborers) rather than CompanyX (has oil tankers, rigs, submarines, pays their workers the smallest amount they can survive on) because you have experience and skills in More efficiency equals greater profits, greater profits equals more wealth to be invested into society, more investment creates more innovation, more innovation is more consumer desires met and more desires met means greater happiness for all. See how capitalism works now? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 05:57:08 PM Quote from: Atlas See how capitalism works now? I see how it works in a vacuum. Now let's check out the real wor-OH SHIT!!!! Damn. Better blame the government. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 11, 2011, 06:03:26 PM Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:04:47 PM Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible. Yep and having a profitable service is the most charitable thing you can for society. If you're making massive legitimate profit, you have to be bringing an equivalent value to society. It's a beautiful thing.Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 06:04:58 PM You have to have an eye for new innovations and strategies that will enable a greater profit margin than Company X which is not unfeasible. There's room for more efficiency everyday and a free-market system only encourages more efficiency. More efficiency equals greater profits, greater profits equals more wealth to be invested into society, more investment creates more innovation, more innovation is more consumer desires met and more desires met means greater happiness for all. See how capitalism works now? No, it's completely unfeasible. Innovations in fields like this are essentially a blackbox to anyone not in the industry already. You never got a chance to figure out these new innovations and strategies. The leaders of CompanyX figured them out long before you did, and you have no way of knowing about them, as they keep their process secret. Why? Logically, they wanted more profit. Their direct experience in overseeing the entire oil extraction process is far more insightful than a future armchair CEO who doesn't even own a rig. Maybe you're wondering why couldn't you learn all about the whole process in your spare time while if you were working at CompanyX? You had no spare time. CompanyX paid you exactly how much you could survive on. They're that efficient (gotta maximize that profit). See how capitalism really works when there are no rules? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:08:32 PM You have to have an eye for new innovations and strategies that will enable a greater profit margin than Company X which is not unfeasible. There's room for more efficiency everyday and a free-market system only encourages more efficiency. More efficiency equals greater profits, greater profits equals more wealth to be invested into society, more investment creates more innovation, more innovation is more consumer desires met and more desires met means greater happiness for all. See how capitalism works now? No, it's completely unfeasible. Innovations in fields like this are essentially a blackbox to anyone not in the industry already. You never got a chance to figure out these new innovations and strategies. The leaders of CompanyX figured them out long before you did, and you have no way of knowing about them, as they keep their process secret. Why? Logically, they wanted more profit. Their direct experience in overseeing the entire oil extraction process is far more insightful than a future armchair CEO who doesn't even own a rig. Maybe you're wondering why couldn't you learn all about the whole process in your spare time while if you were working at CompanyX? You had no spare time. CompanyX paid you exactly how much you could survive on. They're that efficient (gotta maximize that profit). See how capitalism really works when there are no rules? Anyways, all I have to do is open up a company that respects its workers and gives them better pay and I'll have all their employees coming to me. CompanyX destroyed. It's really simple. You're forgetting the workers have choices and needs. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 06:11:31 PM Hah, your whole theory is unrealistic. Trade secrets don't mean that nobody else can study in the field and discover new things. If they have reached 100% efficiency in their company, well, they must have a way of creating endless oil. It sounds like society is a lot better off with this company having a monopoly. No problem in your scenario. Otherwise, there is always a way to improve something. If there is a desire, it will be solved. Anyways, all I have to do is open up a company that respects its workers and gives them better pay and I'll have all their employees coming to me. CompanyX destroyed. It's really simple. You're forgetting the workers have choices and needs. Good luck getting those workers off CompanyX's rig. They haven't paid their rent to CompanyX off yet. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:13:21 PM Hah, your whole theory is unrealistic. Trade secrets don't mean that nobody else can study in the field and discover new things. If they have reached 100% efficiency in their company, well, they must have a way of creating endless oil. It sounds like society is a lot better off with this company having a monopoly. No problem in your scenario. Otherwise, there is always a way to improve something. If there is a desire, it will be solved. Anyways, all I have to do is open up a company that respects its workers and gives them better pay and I'll have all their employees coming to me. CompanyX destroyed. It's really simple. You're forgetting the workers have choices and needs. Good luck getting those workers off CompanyX's rig. They haven't paid their rent to CompanyX off yet. I'm sorry a market built on actual desires doesn't fit your perception of the corporatist state we live in today which ISN'T A FREE MARKET. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 11, 2011, 06:16:49 PM Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible. Yep and having a profitable service is the most charitable thing you can for society. If you're making massive legitimate profit, you have to be bringing an equivalent value to society. It's a beautiful thing.Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 06:16:56 PM There is no reason why your idiotic, non-existent company would exist in the first place. Nobody would work for it nor sign their lives away in the first place. And yet... they have. His scenario is remarkably similar to what happened in a number of industries in turn-of-the-20th century America. The stuff he's saying actually happened right here in the real world, while all of your ideas are utopian fantasies based on the inherent goodness of capitalism, a goodness that's so strong you can apparently corrupt it completely with a single regulation. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:18:12 PM There is no reason why your idiotic, non-existent company would exist in the first place. Nobody would work for it nor sign their lives away in the first place. And yet... they have. His scenario is remarkably similar to what happened in a number of industries in turn-of-the-20th century America. The stuff he's saying actually happened right here in the real world, while all of your ideas are utopian fantasies based on the inherent goodness of capitalism, a goodness that's so strong you can apparently corrupt it completely with a single regulation. http://mises.org/daily/4604 Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:22:40 PM Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible. Yep and having a profitable service is the most charitable thing you can for society. If you're making massive legitimate profit, you have to be bringing an equivalent value to society. It's a beautiful thing.Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 06:24:23 PM Myth-based history. http://mises.org/daily/4604 It's not "myth-based history" when you can go back and read about the lives of these people in countless books written at the time. Which you sorely need to do. Quote Effective force in our current world is limited to the state How far gone do you have to be to think this? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 11, 2011, 06:28:44 PM Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible. Yep and having a profitable service is the most charitable thing you can for society. If you're making massive legitimate profit, you have to be bringing an equivalent value to society. It's a beautiful thing.Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 06:29:46 PM If you're not bringing value, you're stealing. Theft can only be enabled by force. Effective force in our current world is limited to the state. Consider states mega-corporations with a monopoly on land and force. Their "laws" are company policy. What makes the world different from a free-market economy? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:29:59 PM Myth-based history. http://mises.org/daily/4604 It's not "myth-based history" when you can go back and read about the lives of these people in countless books written at the time. Which you sorely need to do. Quote Effective force in our current world is limited to the state How far gone do you have to be to think this? Think about it. If there is somebody who has more force than the government, do you think the government is all the sovereign? There are few large inter-entity thefts that are not enabled by government loopholes and subsidies. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:32:04 PM Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible. Yep and having a profitable service is the most charitable thing you can for society. If you're making massive legitimate profit, you have to be bringing an equivalent value to society. It's a beautiful thing.Intentions are irrelevant. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 11, 2011, 06:33:05 PM More like capitalits exploited the new technology and the workers.
Quote It can be used to create other ones Or maybe not. And if such capitalists make a nice cartel then you are forced to buy such products. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:34:04 PM If you're not bringing value, you're stealing. Theft can only be enabled by force. Effective force in our current world is limited to the state. Consider states mega-corporations with a monopoly on land and force. Their "laws" are company policy. What makes the world different from a free-market economy? That there is no competition or a companies ability to fail. If you get paid regardless of what you turn out, you're not a business. You're a government. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:36:24 PM More like capitalits exploited the new technology and the workers. Well, the workers could of chosen to keep their ideas trade secret and facilitated the construction of a new company. If they didn't have the skills and/or chose not to use them, then it's a fair exchange if the company uses them. Quote It can be used to create other ones Or maybe not. And if such capitalists make a nice cartel then you are forced to buy such products. A nice cartel is a government. Anyways, if any company can create a cartel, I doubt any of them will sustain. Problems only occur when you get monopolies and in a fair environment they do not form. If they do, it's just another government. Not a business. You want your "corporate cartel"? It's right in front of you. It's your government. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 06:36:58 PM That there is no competition or a companies ability to fail. If you get paid regardless of what you turn out, you're not a business. You're a government. States do compete, and states do fail. It's called war, and it's the competition between force to get more land. Try again, though. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:38:24 PM That there is no competition or a companies ability to fail. If you get paid regardless of what you turn out, you're not a business. You're a government. States do compete, and states do fail. It's called war, and it's the competition between force to get more land. Try again, though. States don't compete nor truly fail in our current environment. They are constantly bailed out and subsidized by the centralized banking entities. There is no true sovereignty at the moment and that's the problem. The people who control the money, control us. They are making their control more globalized as we speak through creations like the UN and the EU. It certainly limits growth and turns them against us. More and more our wealth is diluted and funneled to them. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 11, 2011, 06:39:27 PM I see not-governments cartel everywhere, especially when the governments doesn't regulate them.
And slavery is not a fair exchange. Guess what? Governments stopped slavery. Why a capitalist should free a slave if he can exploit it? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: bitleaker on October 11, 2011, 06:39:53 PM Okay, you didn't read the article. Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. As someone who has spent many years studying the industrial revolution, I have only one thing to say to you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 06:40:50 PM Quote The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. By firing or killing them when they advocated for anything more than bare survival. And buying up all of the towns around the mines so the workers were forced to spend every cent they made at overpriced company stores. Or, hell, just paying them in scrip that could only be redeemed at said store so that even if they did have a way to travel, they couldn't spend their money. It was all for them, the workers. God bless our captains of industry. You see, all of those books you read by people who actually lived through this? All lies. Von Mises told me so. Really, Atlas, all of your arguments boil down to your belief that unbridled capitalism would be a good thing, and that all evidence to the contrary is either a myth or somehow the government's fault. Anything bad that happens in the current system doesn't apply because everything has some degree of connection to the government and is therefore tainted. When the evidence suggests that fewer regulations equal more exploitation, you explain it away or call it a myth or blame it on whatever regulations are still left standing. It's that simple. You can dress it up with all of the fancy words you learned this week, but it's a remarkably simplistic ideology based mostly on faith. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:41:38 PM I see not-governments cartel everywhere, especially when the governments doesn't regulate them. Heh, government hasn't stopped slavery.And slavery is not a fair exchange. Guess what? Governments stopped slavery. Why a capitalist should free a slave if he can exploit it? A slave can produce more with an illusion of freedom. Chattel slaves are horribly inefficient. I get a whole lot more by taking a cut off his labor through a tax. In fact, I can enable this form of slavery in large populations through positive-reinforcement through entitlements. Happy, happy, happy slaves and more money for me. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:42:33 PM Okay, you didn't read the article. Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. As someone who has spent many years studying the industrial revolution, I have only one thing to say to you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Government-enabled Industrialists =/= Capitalists Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:43:46 PM Quote The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. By firing or killing them when they advocated for anything more than bare survival. And buying up all of the towns around the mines so the workers were forced to spend every cent they made at overpriced company stores. Or, hell, just paying them in scrip that could only be redeemed at said store so that even if they did have a way to travel, they couldn't spend their money. It was all for them, the workers. God bless our captains of industry. They used monopolies on force. That's not capitalism. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: bitleaker on October 11, 2011, 06:45:09 PM Okay, you didn't read the article. Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. As someone who has spent many years studying the industrial revolution, I have only one thing to say to you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Government-enabled Industrialists =/= Capitalists What the hell are you talking about? What kind of answer is that? If you want to shatter your naive rose-tinted illusions as to what the industrial revolution was like for the average worker, read up about the Luddite Rebellion. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 06:45:25 PM States don't compete nor truly fail in our current environment. They are constantly bailed out and subsidized by the centralized banking entities. There is no true sovereignty at the moment and that's the problem. The people control the money control us. You sure about that? Because not too long ago, I heard some workers revolted, got rid of their CEO, and found a new one. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go listen to Bohemian Rhapsody while making some Free Tibet signs. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:49:15 PM States don't compete nor truly fail in our current environment. They are constantly bailed out and subsidized by the centralized banking entities. There is no true sovereignty at the moment and that's the problem. The people control the money control us. You sure about that? Because not too long ago, I heard some workers revolted, got rid of their CEO, and found a new one. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go listen to Bohemian Rhapsody while making some Free Tibet signs. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 06:50:27 PM Quote from: Atlas They used monopolies on force. That's not capitalism. You really take No True Scotsman to brave new heights, don't you? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:51:35 PM Quote from: Atlas They used monopolies on force. That's not capitalism. You really take No True Scotsman to brave new heights, don't you? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 11, 2011, 06:52:06 PM Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge. And when the private army of Monopoly Inc. murders you for trying to horn in on their profits, there's nobody to punish them for it. Presumably the people will get very angry and boycott Monopoly Inc. just as soon as they read about the murder in the newspaper, which is also published by Monopoly Inc. There is no example in history of a monopoly forming and harming its customers - except in cases where that monopoly was granted to the firm by government protectionism. The idea that a company could get so large and powerful that it no longer responds to the preferences of consumers is a fallacy. It has never happened, and can never happen, unless a government precludes competitors from the industry. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 06:53:12 PM There's bigger men and powers than some rinky-dink CEO. CEO Mubarak is a bigger man than you! But his company going under new management and forced merger of Tibet by China are only part of the free market of the world. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:53:18 PM Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge. And when the private army of Monopoly Inc. murders you for trying to horn in on their profits, there's nobody to punish them for it. Presumably the people will get very angry and boycott Monopoly Inc. just as soon as they read about the murder in the newspaper, which is also published by Monopoly Inc. There is no example in history of a monopoly forming and harming its customers - except in cases where that monopoly was granted to the firm by government protectionism. The idea that a company could get so large and powerful that it no longer responds to the preferences of consumers is a fallacy. It has never happened, and can never happen, unless a government precludes competitors from the industry. ...and if a company reaches such power, it's no longer a company. It is a state. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:54:01 PM There's bigger men and powers than some rinky-dink CEO. CEO Mubarak is a bigger man than you! But his company going under new management and forced merger of Tibet by China are only part of the free market of the world. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 11, 2011, 06:54:12 PM I see not-governments cartel everywhere, especially when the governments doesn't regulate them. Heh, government hasn't stopped slavery.And slavery is not a fair exchange. Guess what? Governments stopped slavery. Why a capitalist should free a slave if he can exploit it? A slave can produce more with an illusion of freedom. Chattel slaves are horribly inefficient. I get a whole lot more by taking a cut off his labor through a tax. In fact, I can enable this form of slavery in large populations through positive-reinforcement through entitlements. Happy, happy, happy slaves and more money for me. Workers that fight for their rights and form unions and what else aren't very efficient. That's why a lot of industries moved to china or other poor countries (now they are moving AWAY from china, since it's no more so poor), to exploit their cheaper workforce with less rights. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 06:57:16 PM I see not-governments cartel everywhere, especially when the governments doesn't regulate them. Heh, government hasn't stopped slavery.And slavery is not a fair exchange. Guess what? Governments stopped slavery. Why a capitalist should free a slave if he can exploit it? A slave can produce more with an illusion of freedom. Chattel slaves are horribly inefficient. I get a whole lot more by taking a cut off his labor through a tax. In fact, I can enable this form of slavery in large populations through positive-reinforcement through entitlements. Happy, happy, happy slaves and more money for me. Workers that fight for their rights and form unions and what else aren't very efficient. That's why a lot of industries moved to china or other poor countries (now they are moving AWAY from china, since it's no more so poor), to exploit their cheaper workforce with less rights. Anyways, China has a cheaper-cost-of-living and thus has lower wages. Workers will choose and willingly work for less. China is just more competitive. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 06:57:33 PM Quote When significant force enters the equation, it's no longer a free-market. And when the threat of government force is removed, corporate force won't replace it with the same shit they've been pulling under the government's eye for the last century and everyone will live happily ever after in a power vacuum.Quote There is no example in history of a monopoly forming and harming its customers - except in cases where that monopoly was granted to the firm by government protectionism. Here it is again. Since every corporation ever has existed under a government, they're all "government-enabled" and therefore a corruption of the one true free market, bless its holy name. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 11, 2011, 06:58:05 PM Workers that fight for their rights and form unions and what else aren't very efficient. That's why a lot of industries moved to china or other poor countries (now they are moving AWAY from china, since it's no more so poor), to exploit their cheaper workforce with less rights. All people in a marketplace seek the lowest price for a given good. You don't pay more for bread than you need to. A company will not pay more for labor than it needs to. So long as a corporation is not enslaving workers at its factory (preventing them from leaving if they so choose) then there is no moral problem - and indeed one should realize that the corporation is providing the best option for employment. If a better option existed, the workers would pursue it. You use the term "exploit" - but companies aren't exploiting workers any more than you exploit the baker whose bread you buy. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 07:00:41 PM So long as a corporation is not enslaving workers at its factory (preventing them from leaving if they so choose) then there is no moral problem - and indeed one should realize that the corporation is providing the best option for employment. If a better option existed, the workers would pursue it. Is this a moral problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_slavery Because history has shown that the less regulation we have, the more of that we get. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 11, 2011, 07:02:31 PM So long as a corporation is not enslaving workers at its factory (preventing them from leaving if they so choose) then there is no moral problem - and indeed one should realize that the corporation is providing the best option for employment. If a better option existed, the workers would pursue it. Is this a moral problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_slavery Because history has shown that the less regulation we have, the more of that we get. If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem. However, the practice of bonding a child to the debts/obligations of a parent is morally wrong, and such a contract is not valid. In the US, we call this phenomenon Social Security. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 11, 2011, 07:06:38 PM If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem. Except that this only happens in situations where prevalent working conditions in a society are so bad that they are effectively forced into slavery. Either that or starve to death. Well, it's technically a choice, right? Libertarian ideas of "freedom" are scary as fuck. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 07:09:47 PM If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem. However, the practice of bonding a child to the debts/obligations of a parent is morally wrong, and such a contract is not valid. In the US, we call this phenomenon Social Security. So who feeds the child born to two parents in debt? Hey, debt can be transferred, right? Cool. Old guy, you're about to die, so take my debt for me? Kthx. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 07:11:57 PM I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it. ::)
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 11, 2011, 07:24:01 PM If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem. Except that this only happens in situations where prevalent working conditions in a society are so bad that they are effectively forced into slavery. Either that or starve to death. Well, it's technically a choice, right? Libertarian ideas of "freedom" are scary as fuck. And what is your solution? To not allow desperate people to make the choice in the first place? What exactly is the alternative you are advocating? When a sweat shop is closed... who is helped? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 07:28:16 PM If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem. Except that this only happens in situations where prevalent working conditions in a society are so bad that they are effectively forced into slavery. Either that or starve to death. Well, it's technically a choice, right? Libertarian ideas of "freedom" are scary as fuck. And what is your solution? To not allow desperate people to make the choice in the first place? What exactly is the alternative you are advocating? When a sweat shop is closed... who is helped? Free food, free healthcare, free housing by redistributing the money from those capitalists. We just need to share more. If the producers of society weren't so greedy with the value they earned, everybody would be better. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 11, 2011, 07:28:54 PM I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it. ::) But, this go against the profit. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: nighteyes on October 11, 2011, 07:29:35 PM You guys realize that at least 2-3 of those are stolen from Mybitcoin, MtGox's hack, the polish exchange hack, bitcoin7 hack, the guy that had 25,000 coins taken right from his desktop... literally you are staring at a criminal's bank account and can't do anything about it. Bitcoin is a tea party dream.... and look how it worked out in those instances. I love how no one replied to that one. I still suspect one of the major holders is MtGox....anyways it doesnt matter who is holding them as much as the fact that they are hoarding it. So not only does the bitcoin economy have to produce $$$ for new coins, there is a 50% tax to give to these lazy hoarders....well the true tax is probably 90% because the other 99% is just holding onto them as well....it all adds up to a STRONG SELL on the value of the bitcoin vs USD IMO. Its just something no one saw coming. What forces anyone to work in the bitcoin economy? Nothing....the volume will slow and eventually these types lose interest in the get rich quick scheme....they will sell part of their holdings...watch. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 07:30:32 PM I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it. ::) But, this go against the profit. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Mal on October 11, 2011, 07:32:18 PM However, the practice of bonding a child to the debts/obligations of a parent is morally wrong, and such a contract is not valid. In the US, we call this phenomenon Social Security. Well said, but it isn't limited to Social Security, and worse yet it's part of an institutional, violent, force-based taxation system.*Repost for fixed quote* Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Mal on October 11, 2011, 07:34:28 PM I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it. ::) But, this go against the profit. That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 07:36:24 PM I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it. ::) But, this go against the profit. That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that. "Oh, Immanuel, people don't care. Only the government does! That's why we should give all our labor and money to them! We aren't smart enough nor caring enough to manage our own resources!" ...but isn't the government made of people? "Special people! Special people that eat rainbows, poop butterflies and care soooooo much!" https://i.imgur.com/cKwoy.jpg Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 07:44:33 PM That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that. Aside from those who derive pleasure from their work, what desires can be fulfilled without the accumulation of resources? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 07:46:25 PM That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that. Aside from those who derive pleasure from their work, what desires can be fulfilled without the accumulation of resources? Don't we all look forward to just lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day? We get less time to do that when our means of sustaining ourselves become horribly inefficient. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 07:51:33 PM "Oh, Immanuel, people don't care. Only the government does! That's why we should give all our labor and money to them! We aren't smart enough nor caring enough to manage our own resources!" The people who do care would have spent their resources on caring for others, losing their edge in profitability and sustainability. The people who don't care saved all their money and have more financial leverage as a result. No matter what, the world is going to be screwed up unless more than 50% of the people are inherently good and under a democratically ruled, socialistic regime, or a truly benevolent individual with superpowers creates a magnificent dictatorship. Since neither of those are going to happen, I'd favor the least painful alternative. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 07:53:59 PM "Oh, Immanuel, people don't care. Only the government does! That's why we should give all our labor and money to them! We aren't smart enough nor caring enough to manage our own resources!" The people who do care would have spent their resources on caring for others, losing their edge in profitability and sustainability. The people who don't care saved all their money and have more financial leverage as a result. No matter what, the world is going to be screwed up unless more than 50% of the people are inherently good and under a democratically ruled, socialistic regime, or a truly benevolent individual with superpowers creates a magnificent dictatorship. Since neither of those are going to happen, I'd favor the least painful alternative. Here's your problem: You think caring for people involves one person sacrificing and the other gaining. In an ideal world, it's symbiotic. You can care for people and be profitable. Nobody has to sacrifice. Also, your last statement makes me want to vomit. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 07:55:12 PM Personal relationships. Socializing and sharing your life with your fellow man. Existing, thinking and sharing your thoughts with others can be an equitable exchange. There's more to life than eating, shitting and sleeping. Other people kind of give meaning to life in the end. Don't we all look forward to just lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day? We get less time to do that when our means of sustaining ourselves become horribly inefficient. Lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day requires the accumulation of resources. Your friends, how do they get to your residence? Why do they have extra time at the end of the day? When did you make these friends? Every second you aren't working is paid for by the time you worked. Those with more resources have more free time. As for my last statement, it should make anyone want to vomit, but it's the sad truth. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 07:58:43 PM Personal relationships. Socializing and sharing your life with your fellow man. Existing, thinking and sharing your thoughts with others can be an equitable exchange. There's more to life than eating, shitting and sleeping. Other people kind of give meaning to life in the end. Don't we all look forward to just lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day? We get less time to do that when our means of sustaining ourselves become horribly inefficient. Lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day requires the accumulation of resources. Your friends, how do they get to your residence? Why do they have extra time at the end of the day? When did you make these friends? Every second you aren't working is paid for by the time you worked. Those with more resources have more free time. For most of our life as a species, we didn't work all day. We lounged and slept. We hunted a few times a week but most of the time it was resting. Also, you don't actually lose anything every time you don't work. You can still produce enough value in short bursts to sustain yourself easily for the rest of your life. Considering flipping burgers isn't a scarce nor very valuable skill, yes, you will be working full-time for quite awhile before you can make your skills more valuable per hour. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 08:00:10 PM Here's your problem: You think caring for people involves one person sacrificing and the other gaining. In an ideal world, it's symbiotic. You can care for people and be profitable. Nobody has to sacrifice. I'm going to pay for hospitals with good intentions and gumption! Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 08:00:55 PM Here's your problem: You think caring for people involves one person sacrificing and the other gaining. In an ideal world, it's symbiotic. You can care for people and be profitable. Nobody has to sacrifice. I'm going to pay for hospitals with good intentions and gumption! Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 11, 2011, 08:01:38 PM Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. If anything, it was a pinnacle part of history and a necessary one. It occurs in every evolving country inevitably. The oppressor is previous technology and restraints. Oh, if only those evil industrial corporations would stop exploiting those poor workers in third world countries like India and Thailand, and let them go back to the good old days of living on the streets and surviving by pickpocketing, begging, or underage prostitution, right. ;) Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: fivebells on October 11, 2011, 08:02:11 PM 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! And one of that 0.1% is probably BitcoinExpress! What a beautiful future we're stumbling towards!Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 08:03:56 PM Also, you don't actually lose anything every time you don't work. You can still produce enough value in short bursts to sustain yourself easily for the rest of your life. Considering flipping burgers isn't a scarce nor very valuable skill, yes, you will be working full-time for quite awhile before you can make your skills more valuable per hour. Someone who works 8 hours a day flipping burgers has an advantage over the person who works 16 hours a day flipping burgers because Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 08:05:29 PM Also, you don't actually lose anything every time you don't work. You can still produce enough value in short bursts to sustain yourself easily for the rest of your life. Considering flipping burgers isn't a scarce nor very valuable skill, yes, you will be working full-time for quite awhile before you can make your skills more valuable per hour. Someone who works 8 hours a day flipping burgers has an advantage over the person who works 16 hours a day flipping burgers because Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 11, 2011, 08:13:35 PM That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that. Aside from those who derive pleasure from their work, what desires can be fulfilled without the accumulation of resources? Also painting/drawing, writing music or books, writing software/apps, blogging, cooking, racing cars, taking photos, traveling and writing guides, and having sex. All activities that people derive pleasure from that others happily pay them to help them continue to derive pleasure from it. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 08:36:19 PM Also painting/drawing, writing music or books, writing software/apps, blogging, cooking, racing cars, taking photos, traveling and writing guides, and having sex. All activities that people derive pleasure from that others happily pay them to help them continue to derive pleasure from it. Cool, I want to race cars (not really, but anyway)! Where's my race car? Where's my piano to learn? My camera? My travel costs? You aren't really going to give me any of those for free, are you... Furs are so cruel to their feathered friends! Most people who do these things, aside from possibly writing software, don't get a cent for it. Even the 1% of them who do get paid for it have invested heavily beforehand in it with...the accumulation of resources, whether theirs or their parents'. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ParrotyBit on October 11, 2011, 08:50:11 PM He'll be happier because he'll actually have other reasons to live besides shaping ground beef? Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. Eventually, robots are produced to flip burgers automatically. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. They grow envious of 8's happiness and decide to buy a weapon with the money they've saved. No one stops them. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. 16 saves up enough money to be able to procure some means of production, and forms a burger company. BurgerB takes enough customers away from BurgerA so that the grasshopper gets laid off. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Yeah, I know, in some versions of the story the ant lets the grasshopper in and he learns his lesson and everyone is happy. Not this one. There's always going to be some jerk red ant acting purely to gain control of the market and/or situation, and the regulations on the market should be at most to keep these red ants' actions within reason, and at least a safety net for the grasshopper to not starve through a winter. I won't debate at all whether current governments meet these requirements, as I don't believe they do. However, a truly free market won't meet either. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Mal on October 11, 2011, 09:07:16 PM He'll be happier because he'll actually have other reasons to live besides shaping ground beef? Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. Eventually, robots are produced to flip burgers automatically. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. They grow envious of 8's happiness and decide to buy a weapon with the money they've saved. No one stops them. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. 16 saves up enough money to be able to procure some means of production, and forms a burger company. BurgerB takes enough customers away from BurgerA so that the grasshopper gets laid off. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Yeah, I know, in some versions of the story the ant lets the grasshopper in and he learns his lesson and everyone is happy. Not this one. There's always going to be some jerk red ant acting purely to gain control of the market and/or situation, and the regulations on the market should be at most to keep these red ants' actions within reason, and at least a safety net for the grasshopper to not starve through a winter. I won't debate at all whether current governments meet these requirements, as I don't believe they do. However, a truly free market won't meet either. Who was arguing for anarchism? Hell even anarchism has a theory for how society would deal with violent aggression. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: hmongotaku on October 11, 2011, 09:09:50 PM we should get a 51% vote to redistribute the riches! down with the bitcoin horders!
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 11, 2011, 09:15:26 PM He'll be happier because he'll actually have other reasons to live besides shaping ground beef? Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. Eventually, robots are produced to flip burgers automatically. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Mr 8 hours had the burger flipping knowledge AND the free time to invent the burger flipping robot. He sells his idea, becomes rich, and replaces Mr 16 hours's job. Too bad for Mr 16. Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. They grow envious of 8's happiness and decide to buy a weapon with the money they've saved. No one stops them. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Not sure how killing the poor, peniless, and lazy Mr 8 hours is going to make Mr 16 hours happier... Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. 16 saves up enough money to be able to procure some means of production, and forms a burger company. BurgerB takes enough customers away from BurgerA so that the grasshopper gets laid off. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Mr 8 hours has a lot of experience flipping burgers. If Mr 16 is building a competing burger business, he'll need a lot more Mr 8 hourses to hire for his place, too, including the already experienced one. Once BurgerA folds, the number of Mr 8 hourses just goes back to what it used to be, and if he was any good, Mr 8 just has a new employer. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 11, 2011, 09:23:12 PM This is when it becomes severely retarded.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 11, 2011, 09:36:18 PM We should start an Occupy Bitcoin protest! Everyone should buy as much bitcoin as they can and squat on it, demanding the 1% distribute their coins to everyone else in a fair manner. I bought my bunch of bitcoins, everyone upset with the 1% hoarders, your turn to buy now.
I.e. buy buy buy! (Please?) Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: finway on October 12, 2011, 12:47:21 AM good news or bad news?
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: fennec on October 12, 2011, 09:30:36 AM I love that 7 of the wallets are 1337.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phatsphere on October 12, 2011, 09:54:35 AM for me, the main point why this is not a problem is, that those top .1% aren't able to rig the bitcoin-game (like in the real world economics)
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BadBear on October 12, 2011, 01:10:36 PM Wow, didn't realize how many libertarians were here. That's...unsettling.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 12, 2011, 02:14:38 PM Wow, didn't realize how many libertarians were here. That's...unsettling. On a forum about a decentralized, unregulated, anarchy-enabling currency? Why are you surprised? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 12, 2011, 02:24:49 PM Wow, didn't realize how many libertarians were here. That's...unsettling. On a forum about a decentralized, unregulated, anarchy-enabling currency? Why are you surprised? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 12, 2011, 02:31:41 PM for me, the main point why this is not a problem is, that those top .1% aren't able to rig the bitcoin-game (like in the real world economics) Exactly. There is no centralized power structure to manipulate. There is one exception, and that is the development team, but that is only barely centralized (open source contribution), and perfectly transparent (open source code), so I'm not too worried. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: neptop on October 12, 2011, 02:34:44 PM We, are the ...%! xD
Actually that what comes with trust. Trust in Bitcoins, don't sell or even buy them and you will also have a lot of them. I don't think it is a good thing for a currency. On the other hand it is similar to other currencies, so it looks logical. We need more merchants. This could change it, but not if the merchants take Bitcoins and instantly sell them. The people who have so many Bitcoins are the ones who run Bitcoin based businesses or simply buy them. Also I wonder how many of them might be from lost wallets. A nice fraction of it could also be from early adopters and lost/without an owner. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 12, 2011, 02:42:49 PM We need more merchants. This could change it, but not if the merchants take Bitcoins and instantly sell them. Even instantly selling is ok. Bitcoin will be in someone's hands for at least a few seconds, and all those seconds added up still means a lot of bitcoin owned by a lot of people at the same time, and when they sell, it still means someone else is buying, like the next customer. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: bitleaker on October 12, 2011, 03:24:03 PM These people must just like it as a software project that sends money back-and-forth which is a terribly dull perspective. Rather than true libertarians like yourself, who are constantly focussing on the USD$ value of BTC? :D Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 12, 2011, 03:26:15 PM These people must just like it as a software project that sends money back-and-forth which is a terribly dull perspective. Rather than true libertarians like yourself, who are constantly focussing on the USD$ value of BTC? :D It's more than that. I want to see Bitcoin displace the entire globalist banking regime. That's where the real value is. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 12, 2011, 04:34:53 PM Wow, didn't realize how many libertarians were here. That's...unsettling. Yeah look out for them!!! They might leave you alone!!! Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 12, 2011, 06:26:50 PM I'm the 99.9% bitcoin! I say, let's occupy that forum to show these 0.1% guys some things!
Or maybe not. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 13, 2011, 05:41:15 AM Possibly relevant to most of the free market/government intervention discussion:
CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About... (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1) I'm sure the Libertarians will come to the conclusion that all of the problems listed (if they actually agree income disparity is a problem) are the result of government intervention. In the case of bitcoin, I'm not sure if the apparent disparity will really be a problem in the long run. The network (and markets based on it) are not able to distinguish between a hoarded Bitcoin and a lost bitcoin. The value of bitcoin will always be based on coins actually in circulation. The biggest risk is that some of the large holders suddenly decide to sell everything, crashing the price (by putting more coins in circulation). The profit-maximising hoarder would be wise to sell their coins as slowly as they can; unless they expect the value to eventually drop to zero (I think it will approach that within about 25 years, but not the near term). Selling coins puts them back in ciculation: likely spreading them out among more holders. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: ptshamrock on October 13, 2011, 10:10:05 AM This is when it becomes severely retarded. Thank you for defending the Truth Sir ! We might disagree on some details..but I always like too see ppl defending Reality ! cya @ Galt`s Gulch Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 13, 2011, 11:45:41 AM Possibly relevant to most of the free market/government intervention discussion: CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About... (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1) I'm sure the Libertarians will come to the conclusion that all of the problems listed (if they actually agree income disparity is a problem) are the result of government intervention. In the case of bitcoin, I'm not sure if the apparent disparity will really be a problem in the long run. The network (and markets based on it) are not able to distinguish between a hoarded Bitcoin and a lost bitcoin. The value of bitcoin will always be based on coins actually in circulation. The biggest risk is that some of the large holders suddenly decide to sell everything, crashing the price (by putting more coins in circulation). The profit-maximising hoarder would be wise to sell their coins as slowly as they can; unless they expect the value to eventually drop to zero (I think it will approach that within about 25 years, but not the near term). Selling coins puts them back in ciculation: likely spreading them out among more holders. Why do you consider mere income disparity to be a problem? Isn't the real problem HOW they earned their money (rent seeking behavior), not how much of it they earned? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Elwar on October 13, 2011, 01:00:06 PM This chart shows that I need to buy some more Bitcoin so that I am up there with the elite.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 13, 2011, 05:39:08 PM Why do you consider mere income disparity to be a problem? Isn't the real problem HOW they earned their money (rent seeking behavior), not how much of it they earned? Income disparity, by itself is not a problem, it is a symptom of structural problems in society. As mentioned in that illustrated essay, income disparity would not be a problem if the "American Dream" of making it big was a reality. Without upward mobility, you essentially have a caste system. The CEO does not work so much harder than a production worker to justify 300x the wage. The CEO may have some personal liablilty attached, but the whole point of coporations is limited liability for shareholders. I also think Governments are very useful to society. They allow the population to pool their recources for infrastructure (generally a natural monopoly), dispute resolution, and a social safety net. I think giving money to poor people can stimulate the economy more than giving tax cuts to the rich: the rich are very good at aquiring money. The poor will spend it. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 05:49:00 PM I'm sure the Libertarians will come to the conclusion that all of the problems listed (if they actually agree income disparity is a problem) are the result of government intervention. It does not make sense to discuss income disparity without discussing production disparity. Consider the production disparity between Steve Jobs and the average blue-collar worker. Consider the vast difference in contribution to society and markets made by the two of them. If you wish to reduce income disparity, you will necessarily have to reduce production disparity - for the former is generally the consequence of the latter in a market economy. Competition for productive resources will drive the price paid for those resources ever higher (encouraging production and ensuring that such production falls upon the most efficient utilizer of such production). So, unless you can get the productiveness of the blue collar workers raised to the level of Steve Jobs, you will instead have to reduce the productiveness of Steve Jobs down toward the blue collar worker. Income disparity will diminish to the extent society moves toward universal impoverishment. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 05:55:15 PM I'm sure the Libertarians will come to the conclusion that all of the problems listed (if they actually agree income disparity is a problem) are the result of government intervention. It does not make sense to discuss income disparity without discussing production disparity. Consider the production disparity between Steve Jobs and the average blue-collar worker. Consider the vast difference in contribution to society and markets made by the two of them. If you wish to reduce income disparity, you will necessarily have to reduce production disparity - for the former is generally the consequence of the latter in a market economy. Competition for productive resources will drive the price paid for those resources ever higher (encouraging production and ensuring that such production falls upon the most efficient utilizer of such production). So, unless you can get the productiveness of the blue collar workers raised to the level of Steve Jobs, you will instead have to reduce the productiveness of Steve Jobs down toward the blue collar worker. Income disparity will diminish to the extent society moves toward universal impoverishment. Well, productiveness isn't the right word. I would consider it value. A blue collar worker does not produce scarce work. Anybody can till a garden or assemble a toy. The labor for this work is readily available and hence cheap. It has nothing to do with productivity. It doesn't matter if a worker optimizes how many toys he churns out per second. It will never reach the scarce value that comes from a facilitator such as Steve Jobs. The management capabilities, the perception and attention-to-detail that comes from such a man is not easily achieved nor always attainable by every man. The fact is Steve Jobs is more valuable to more people than the average blue-collar worker and the price of his time will reflect such. To say they should have the same income is to say people should be enslaved and forced to value the common man the same as somebody with scarcer skills. It is almost to say that man should not be allowed love discriminately, that he should not be allowed to prefer certain things or to desire at all. It is to tell a man that he should not love. We love men for their virtues and what they offer. To say we should ignore that and desire nothing and treat everything indiscriminately is to eliminate the purpose of life itself: to be happy and embrace what we desire. This why this idea of equality is dysfunctional. It will, as you said, leave everyone in an impoverished state of no choice and no ability to love nor desire. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 13, 2011, 05:59:55 PM If you wish to reduce income disparity, you will necessarily have to reduce production disparity - for the former is generally the consequence of the latter in a market economy. Competition for productive resources will drive the price paid for those resources ever higher (encouraging production and ensuring that such production falls upon the most efficient utilizer of such production). Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements. If income disparity really was tied to productivity, I would not have a problem with it. Workers would naturally gravitate to jobs where they are more productive and thus paid more. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 06:02:35 PM If you wish to reduce income disparity, you will necessarily have to reduce production disparity - for the former is generally the consequence of the latter in a market economy. Competition for productive resources will drive the price paid for those resources ever higher (encouraging production and ensuring that such production falls upon the most efficient utilizer of such production). Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements. If income disparity really was tied to productivity, I would not have a problem with it. Workers would naturally gravitate to jobs where they are more productive and thus paid more. That's the thing: it was never about productivity. It's about the value of the person to others. If it was tied to "productivity", people would have to be forced to value based on the arbitrary metric of how many units of something was accomplished. Do you really want a world where people dig bottomless ditches with no use at all? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 13, 2011, 06:06:06 PM You missed my point about the caste system. Some people are considered more valuable because of their class, not their skills.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 06:08:12 PM You missed my point about the caste system. Some people are considered more valuable because of their class, not their skills. That's a cultural problem not an economic one. It doesn't justify slavery by a central authority telling people who's to be valued for certain tasks and who's not.Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: nighteyes on October 13, 2011, 06:10:09 PM Possibly relevant to most of the free market/government intervention discussion: In the case of bitcoin, I'm not sure if the apparent disparity will really be a problem in the long run. The network (and markets based on it) are not able to distinguish between a hoarded Bitcoin and a lost bitcoin. The value of bitcoin will always be based on coins actually in circulation. The biggest risk is that some of the large holders suddenly decide to sell everything, crashing the price (by putting more coins in circulation). The profit-maximising hoarder would be wise to sell their coins as slowly as they can; unless they expect the value to eventually drop to zero (I think it will approach that within about 25 years, but not the near term). Selling coins puts them back in ciculation: likely spreading them out among more holders. Its already a potential game ending problem....not many are going to work for the 75% hoarder community like Immanuel Go who sit on azz. Contribute $1 million and you get 13 cents reward(and declining). Dont worry, Immanuel Go et al will take credit for rise in bitcoin price too. If you disagree, you are just a "hater" of the "ballerz". Your haterade is just jealously to them. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 06:12:58 PM Possibly relevant to most of the free market/government intervention discussion: In the case of bitcoin, I'm not sure if the apparent disparity will really be a problem in the long run. The network (and markets based on it) are not able to distinguish between a hoarded Bitcoin and a lost bitcoin. The value of bitcoin will always be based on coins actually in circulation. The biggest risk is that some of the large holders suddenly decide to sell everything, crashing the price (by putting more coins in circulation). The profit-maximising hoarder would be wise to sell their coins as slowly as they can; unless they expect the value to eventually drop to zero (I think it will approach that within about 25 years, but not the near term). Selling coins puts them back in ciculation: likely spreading them out among more holders. Its already a potential game ending problem....not many are going to work for the 75% hoarder community like Immanuel Go who sit on azz. Contribute $1 million and you get 13 cents reward(and declining). Dont worry, Immanuel Go et al will take credit for rise in bitcoin price too. If you disagree, you are just a "hater" of the "ballerz". Your haterade is just jealously to them. The only potential vice I see is the envy that may come with the increasing value of their wealth. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 13, 2011, 06:15:34 PM You missed my point about the caste system. Some people are considered more valuable because of their class, not their skills. That's a cultural problem not an economic one. It doesn't justify slavery by a central authority telling people who's to be valued for certain tasks and who's not.Economics is "The study of how people allocate their scarce resources to satisfy their wants." You can not separate the study of economics from the study of culture. The "reasonable assumptions" taught in micro-economics break down when applied on the macro scale. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 06:16:17 PM You missed my point about the caste system. Some people are considered more valuable because of their class, not their skills. That's a cultural problem not an economic one. It doesn't justify slavery by a central authority telling people who's to be valued for certain tasks and who's not.Economics is "The study of how people allocate their scarce resources to satisfy their wants." You can not separate the study of economics from the study of culture. The "reasonable assumptions" taught in micro-economics break down when applied on the macro scale. Religion and superstition is a disease. What else can I say? The fact is once the under-caste learns that their religion is bullshit, they can ditch the label and work where they wish and how they wish. The only thing that is keeping them down is their mentality. Nobody is forcing them to do anything except their imaginary gods. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 06:21:07 PM If you wish to reduce income disparity, you will necessarily have to reduce production disparity - for the former is generally the consequence of the latter in a market economy. Competition for productive resources will drive the price paid for those resources ever higher (encouraging production and ensuring that such production falls upon the most efficient utilizer of such production). Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements. You say the CEO is "deemed" to be in charge as if it's an arbitrary, random assignment? In general, he or she is deemed so because of their proven track record as the best producers. If CEO pay doesn't correspond to performance, then don't invest in that company - for clearly it manages its own funds poorly. In a capitalist marketplace, those companies which pay excessive amounts for sub-par performance will be out-competed long-term. So it's a self-correcting problem. Of course, when the government bails out the failures, all bets are off, and the foolishness of unproductive CEO's becomes the unfortunate expense of society. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 06:23:26 PM If you wish to reduce income disparity, you will necessarily have to reduce production disparity - for the former is generally the consequence of the latter in a market economy. Competition for productive resources will drive the price paid for those resources ever higher (encouraging production and ensuring that such production falls upon the most efficient utilizer of such production). Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements. You say the CEO is "deemed" to be in charge as if it's an arbitrary, random assignment? In general, he or she is deemed so because of their proven track record as the best producers. If CEO pay doesn't correspond to performance, then don't invest in that company - for clearly it manages its own funds poorly. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 06:25:06 PM You missed my point about the caste system. Some people are considered more valuable because of their class, not their skills. Again, companies which hire based on anything but productive performance will be out competed in a free market system. Take two firms, if one of them promotes based on "caste" and the other based on skills, who would you rather bet on? Such bets occur in the equity markets, and companies who make poor decisions will find their share price falling, impoverishing the shareholders until they correct their course. To the extent that I am wrong, the company will fall apart and fail... and so who cares? The only reason to care in today's society is because the government prevents this failure through subsidy, bailouts, and monetary manipulation... it perpetuates incompetence and inefficiency. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 13, 2011, 06:26:24 PM Quote from: phillipsjk Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements. I like when they get a huge bonus for making the company extra money by cutting worker salaries and benefits or shipping jobs across the world. It takes a true visionary to come up with a plan like that. That's scarce value right there. And if you somehow fail at that, hey, golden parachute. Quote from: Atlas Religion and superstition is a disease. The only true god is the free market. Quote from: Atlas To say they should have the same income is to say people should be enslaved and forced to value the common man the same as somebody with scarcer skills. It is almost to say that man should not be allowed love discriminately, that he should not be allowed to prefer certain things or to desire at all. It is to tell a man that he should not love. Equality = slavery & money = love. Gotcha. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 06:28:31 PM Quote from: Atlas Religion and superstition is a disease. The only true god is the free market. ...and the free market is the desires of the people. Yes, what the people want is god. Now you're getting it. The only true god is the free market, indeed. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 13, 2011, 06:34:10 PM Quote from: Atlas Religion and superstition is a disease. The only true god is the free market. ...and the free market is the desires of the people. Yes, what the people want is god. Now you're getting it. The free market relies on the price system. It imperfectly approximates the desires of the population. It ingores externalities that are not easy to price. To blindly honour the free-market is just as dangerous as blindly following any other religion. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 06:37:04 PM Quote from: Atlas Religion and superstition is a disease. The only true god is the free market. ...and the free market is the desires of the people. Yes, what the people want is god. Now you're getting it. The free market relies on the price system. It imperfectly approximates the desires of the population. It ingores externalities that are not easy to price. To blindly honour the free-market is just as dangerous as blindly following any other religion. Oh and you are so wise and virtuous that you know what perfect is. The free market relies on what people desire and what they are willing to pay for it. It's my damn birthright to solicit trades as I please for whatever value that is dictated in said trades. You think you have a better system to determine the prices? You think somebody knows better than we do? What you are saying is that I and other men don't know what's best for ourselves and that you or some other leader does! You say we aren't smart nor good enough to trade among ourselves! Externalties? So, you're saying regular people can't measure these supposed coercions and only "special" authorities can and are capable of stopping them. Again, man is an irrational animal to you and only your whims know best! To hell with you! You make me want to vomit! To blindly follow the whims of a central regime or man is slavery! That is what you advocate! Slavery! I swear on my life that I will not follow your whims, morality nor authority! I live for the right for every man to own himself and what he produces! You will not take what I produce away from me nor anybody else as long as I can help it! I spit on your entire idea of tyranny. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 13, 2011, 06:46:01 PM The free market relies on what people desire and what they are willing to pay for it. It's my damn birthright to solicit trades as I please for whatever value that is dictated in said trades. You think you have a better system to determine the prices? I think the free market is ideal for determing prices. The difficulty is that the free market "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." I generally advocate a mixed economy. I have no problem with natural monopolies being under state control since any corporation in charge of such a monopoly would have government powers anyway. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 06:49:08 PM The free market relies on what people desire and what they are willing to pay for it. It's my damn birthright to solicit trades as I please for whatever value that is dictated in said trades. You think you have a better system to determine the prices? I think the free market ideal for determing prices. The difficulty is that the free market "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." I generally advocate a mixed economy. I have no problem with natural monopolies being under state control since any corporation in charge of such a monopoy would have government powers anyway. Only individuals are capable of valuing and desiring things. Only the people with their earned wages in their hand can determine what something is worth. Yes, I advocate this as an absolute: I know what's best for myself and so do others. You argue against this and propose slavery as the solution. You propose that people cannot correctly value things and that only the state can? A natural monopoly does not possess government powers unless its one on force and people do not willingly grant businesses a monopoly on force; that would be against their best-interest. If people do not grant it, it's assault and aggression. Facebook is a natural monopoly. Do you see it "coercing" people? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Elwar on October 13, 2011, 06:50:44 PM Anyone who has a Bitcoin is part of that .1% of the world's population that holds Bitcoins.
The true elite. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 06:56:48 PM Quote from: phillipsjk Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements. I like when they get a huge bonus for making the company extra money by cutting worker salaries and benefits or shipping jobs across the world. It takes a true visionary to come up with a plan like that. That's scarce value right there. And if you somehow fail at that, hey, golden parachute. Why should a company pay more than it has to for labor? When you go to the grocery store, and you see $5 bread, do you willingly pay $6 for it? Or speaking more directly of labor - if a gardener charges you $50/hr, would you pay $60/hr to his competitor for the same work? If not, then you're acting in the same rational self-interest which compels a company to reduce labor costs whenever it can. And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage. How do you justify these opinions you hold? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 07:00:41 PM Quote from: phillipsjk Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements. I like when they get a huge bonus for making the company extra money by cutting worker salaries and benefits or shipping jobs across the world. It takes a true visionary to come up with a plan like that. That's scarce value right there. And if you somehow fail at that, hey, golden parachute. Why should a company pay more than it has to for labor? When you go to the grocery store, and you see $5 bread, do you willingly pay $6 for it? Or speaking more directly of labor - if a gardener charges you $50/hr, would you pay $60/hr to his competitor for the same work? If not, then you're acting in the same rational self-interest which compels a company to reduce labor costs whenever it can. And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage. How do you justify these opinions you hold? Man, look, there's like guys who just sit on their ass and make money. Then there's those poor people who sweat to make money. It's not fair. They deserve to sit on their ass just as much. So, like, we should enslave a little bit of the lazy guys labor and give it to the poor people so they can sit on their ass more. It's only fair. If a worker doesn't have the ability to sit on his ass for at least an arbitrary amount of hours a day, he is being coerced. So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 13, 2011, 07:08:34 PM Quote from: evorhees Why should a company pay more than it has to for labor? When you go to the grocery store, and you see $5 bread, do you willingly pay $6 for it? Or speaking more directly of labor - if a gardener charges you $50/hr, would you pay $60/hr to his competitor for the same work? The end game of your race for efficiency leaves us all making a dollar an hour in miserable conditions while the richest few hoard the lion's share of the wealth. You forsake the human factor entirely in favor of productivity, but what good is that if most of the people are suffering? I support higher wages and better working conditions for workers everywhere. If not, then you're acting in the same rational self-interest which compels a company to reduce labor costs whenever it can. And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage. How do you justify these opinions you hold? Quote from: Immanuel Go Man, look, there's like guys who just sit on their ass and make money. Then there's those poor people who sweat to make money. It's not fair. They deserve to sit on their ass just as much. So, like, we should enslave a little bit of the lazy guys labor and give it to the poor people so they can sit on their ass more. It's only fair. If a worker doesn't have the ability to sit on his ass for at least an arbitrary amount of hours a day, he is being coerced. So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot. What the fuck are you talking about? From that little Braveheart speech to this, you're sounding further and further from sanity with each post. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 13, 2011, 07:13:02 PM And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage. The problem is that goods are allowed to freely move across borders (due to free trade), but people aren't. It is not easy for a foreigner to come to America to take advantage of artificially high wages, conversely, it is not easy for an American to go overseas to take advantage of lower unemployment rates at lower pay. If I really believed in the free-market, I would be advocating "free migration" where countries compete for workers over who has the best system. Some people may prefer Communist states, other may prefer Capitalist states. Many would prefer to stay near the place of their birth. The free market should be able to decide which system is best. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 07:13:21 PM Quote from: evorhees Why should a company pay more than it has to for labor? When you go to the grocery store, and you see $5 bread, do you willingly pay $6 for it? Or speaking more directly of labor - if a gardener charges you $50/hr, would you pay $60/hr to his competitor for the same work? The end game of your race for efficiency leaves us all making a dollar an hour in miserable conditions while the richest few hoard the lion's share of the wealth. You forsake the human factor entirely in favor of productivity, but what good is that if most of the people are suffering? I support higher wages and better working conditions for workers everywhere. If not, then you're acting in the same rational self-interest which compels a company to reduce labor costs whenever it can. And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage. How do you justify these opinions you hold? Quote from: Immanuel Go Man, look, there's like guys who just sit on their ass and make money. Then there's those poor people who sweat to make money. It's not fair. They deserve to sit on their ass just as much. So, like, we should enslave a little bit of the lazy guys labor and give it to the poor people so they can sit on their ass more. It's only fair. If a worker doesn't have the ability to sit on his ass for at least an arbitrary amount of hours a day, he is being coerced. So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot. What the fuck are you talking about? From that little Braveheart speech to this, you're sounding further and further from sanity with each post. Life is not a zero-sum game. Nobody can hoard all the wealth in the world. They have no incentive to. It would get pretty boring fast to have piles of gold sitting and doing nothing. Even then, gold would lose all value and people would begin trading in something different and life would move forward. The wealthy would soon go broke. It's in their best-interest to invest and pay people with the value they require to get actual value in return. Nobody gets value from money sitting idly, especially more than they will ever need. It's just today's wealthy elite invest their money towards eugenics, coercive governments and coercive monetary systems. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 07:15:28 PM And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage. The problem is that goods are allowed to freely move accross boarders (due to free trade), but people aren't. It is not easy for a foreigner to come to America to take advantage of artificially high wages, conversely, it is not easy for an American to go overseas to take advantage of lower unemployment rates at lower pay. If I really believed in the free-market, I would be advocating "free migration" where countries compete for workers over who has the best system. Some people may prefer Communist states, other may Capitalist states. Many would prefer to stay near the place of their birth. The free market should be able to decide which system is best. This problem is due to the lack of sovereign states. All countries are united under a central banking regime that makes the rules. Whoever controls the money makes the laws and they only make them towards their interest. They put populaces in debt and collect the interest through taxation thus making them wealthier. If you want to see competition on a political level, we have to end the central banks and allow people to truly choose their state and the money they keep their value in. The first-world is under one government right now and, again, the government consists of the banks and their wealthy shareholders. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 13, 2011, 07:42:17 PM The end game of your race for efficiency leaves us all making a dollar an hour in miserable conditions while the richest few hoard the lion's share of the wealth. You forsake the human factor entirely in favor of productivity, but what good is that if most of the people are suffering? I support higher wages and better working conditions for workers everywhere. Actually, in reality, exactly the opposite has been happening. Instead of the race heading to the bottom, wages in outsource countries like India and China have been skyrocketting. It's actually a bad idea to outsource to India now, with employees expecting 9% annual raises, and China is having major issues with labor shortages, with factories being forced to pay more and more to competitively hire. Really, the only options we have are either A) get rid off the minimum wage and have salaries drop to be competitive with the rest of the world, then have them slowly increase again as the world catches up to Western levels of income, or B) keep doing what we are doing, and suffer severe unemployment problems until the rest of the world catches up and we are competitive again. A keeps everyone employed, but many poor, B keeps most as middle-wage earners, but many competely broke. Theres no option C Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phelix on October 13, 2011, 07:57:45 PM Quote from: Atlas Religion and superstition is a disease. The only true god is the free market. ...and the free market is the desires of the people. Yes, what the people want is god. Now you're getting it. The free market relies on the price system. It imperfectly approximates the desires of the population. It ingores externalities that are not easy to price. To blindly honour the free-market is just as dangerous as blindly following any other religion. Oh and you are so wise and virtuous that you know what perfect is. The free market relies on what people desire and what they are willing to pay for it. It's my damn birthright to solicit trades as I please for whatever value that is dictated in said trades. You think you have a better system to determine the prices? You think somebody knows better than we do? What you are saying is that I and other men don't know what's best for ourselves and that you or some other leader does! You say we aren't smart nor good enough to trade among ourselves! Externalties? So, you're saying regular people can't measure these supposed coercions and only "special" authorities can and are capable of stopping them. Again, man is an irrational animal to you and only your whims know best! To hell with you! You make me want to vomit! To blindly follow the whims of a central regime or man is slavery! That is what you advocate! Slavery! I swear on my life that I will not follow your whims, morality nor authority! I live for the right for every man to own himself and what he produces! You will not take what I produce away from me nor anybody else as long as I can help it! I spit on your entire idea of tyranny. what about the majority as authority? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 07:58:23 PM Quote from: Atlas Religion and superstition is a disease. The only true god is the free market. ...and the free market is the desires of the people. Yes, what the people want is god. Now you're getting it. The free market relies on the price system. It imperfectly approximates the desires of the population. It ingores externalities that are not easy to price. To blindly honour the free-market is just as dangerous as blindly following any other religion. Oh and you are so wise and virtuous that you know what perfect is. The free market relies on what people desire and what they are willing to pay for it. It's my damn birthright to solicit trades as I please for whatever value that is dictated in said trades. You think you have a better system to determine the prices? You think somebody knows better than we do? What you are saying is that I and other men don't know what's best for ourselves and that you or some other leader does! You say we aren't smart nor good enough to trade among ourselves! Externalties? So, you're saying regular people can't measure these supposed coercions and only "special" authorities can and are capable of stopping them. Again, man is an irrational animal to you and only your whims know best! To hell with you! You make me want to vomit! To blindly follow the whims of a central regime or man is slavery! That is what you advocate! Slavery! I swear on my life that I will not follow your whims, morality nor authority! I live for the right for every man to own himself and what he produces! You will not take what I produce away from me nor anybody else as long as I can help it! I spit on your entire idea of tyranny. what about the majority as authority? I prefer no authority at all besides the individual over himself. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 08:07:20 PM Quote So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot. Wow, what the hell is with the totally unnecessary homosexual slur? Grow up, kid. If you want people to treat your opinions seriously you need to try and make an effort to talk like an adult instead of a 5th grader. In the end the free market is just an expression of the will of the people, when the people use the Democratic or Revolutionary process to demand socialist or communist reforms it will just be the market at work. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Gabi on October 13, 2011, 08:09:25 PM Free market is like communism, it exists only in words.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 08:09:48 PM Quote So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot. Wow, what the hell is with the totally unnecessary homosexual slur? Grow up, kid. In the end the free market is just an expression of the will of the people, when the people use the Democratic or Revolutionary process to demand socialist or communist reforms it will just be the market at work. A vast act of aggression to achieve political ends is not the voluntary will of the people if it includes those who did not consent. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 08:18:01 PM Those who do not consent to live in a Democratic country with rule of law are free to leave it.
Quote It's just a word that can take on various meanings. The chief use is as an insult based on negative connotations of homosexual sexual orientation. Used as an insult, as you just used it, that is pretty much the only meaning. I know you're a kid so you think using bigoted speech that hurts people is edgy and cool, but it isn't, it just makes you sound tasteless and hateful. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 08:22:11 PM Those who do not consent to live in a Democratic country with rule of law are free to leave it. That's the thing: none of us live in a democratic country. We have little choice in our political systems since we're subject to the whims of the international central banking system. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 08:26:24 PM Those who do not consent to live in a Democratic country with rule of law are free to leave it. That's the thing: none of us live in a democratic country. We have little choice in our political systems since we're subject to the whims of the international central banking system. There are plenty of places where you can move to live off the land as a farmer and have no contact with the outside world. Humans have lived that way through most of human history. That is your choice to live off your own labor. If you want to live in a society though, there will always be degrees of coercion involved in any interaction you have with fellow people as we balance our competing needs and desires. Central banking represents one layer of that coercion, and I agree it must be eliminated, this is why I am into Bitcoin in the first place. Once the banks are gone the degree of coercion will be far less and Democratic Marxist societies can be created once that greater degree of freedom is assured. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 08:27:22 PM Quote It's just a word that can take on various meanings. The chief use is as an insult based on negative connotations of homosexual sexual orientation. Used as an insult, as you just used it, that is pretty much the only meaning. I know you're a kid so you think using bigoted speech that hurts people is edgy and cool, but it isn't, it just makes you sound tasteless and hateful. If people are hurt by words from random people on the internet, they probably have low self-esteem. They don't need my acceptance to be happy. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 08:29:11 PM Those who do not consent to live in a Democratic country with rule of law are free to leave it. That's the thing: none of us live in a democratic country. We have little choice in our political systems since we're subject to the whims of the international central banking system. There are plenty of places where you can move to live off the land as a farmer and have no contact with the outside world. Humans have lived that way through most of human history. That is your choice to live off your own labor. If you want to live in a society though, there will always be degrees of coercion involved in any interaction you have with fellow people as we balance our competing needs and desires. Central banking represents one layer of that coercion, and I agree it must be eliminated, this is why I am into Bitcoin in the first place. Once the banks are gone the degree of coercion will be far less and Democratic Marxist societies can be created once that greater degree of freedom is assured. We all live off our own labor. When we produce value, we get equitable value back in exchange. There is no sacrifice. There is no need to sacrifice. Nobody is taking from anybody nor necessarily dependent on anybody. The equation is skewed when a tax comes in to take from what we have rightfully earned. However, we are only arguing policy that should be decided on a local level. I just want the banks gone. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 08:29:57 PM Quote It's just a word that can take on various meanings. The chief use is as an insult based on negative connotations of homosexual sexual orientation. Used as an insult, as you just used it, that is pretty much the only meaning. I know you're a kid so you think using bigoted speech that hurts people is edgy and cool, but it isn't, it just makes you sound tasteless and hateful. If people are hurt by words from random people on the internet, they probably have low self-esteem. They don't need my acceptance to be happy. It was neither sarcastic or parody, it was a petulant insult at the end of a post in which a child was losing his temper. Insults are intended to hurt and express derision, there is no other reason to use them. If you don't think they will be effective, don't pollute the friendly dialogue of the thread with your bigoted speech. Quote We all live off our own labor. When we produce value, we get equitable value back in exchange. There is no sacrifice. There is no need to sacrifice. Nobody is taking from anybody nor necessarily dependent on anybody. There are certainly dependents of various forms in our current society. The Democratic process has determined they should be supported. This is why we all pay taxes to support them and to develop our communal resources such as infrastructure and defense. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 08:32:27 PM Quote It's just a word that can take on various meanings. The chief use is as an insult based on negative connotations of homosexual sexual orientation. Used as an insult, as you just used it, that is pretty much the only meaning. I know you're a kid so you think using bigoted speech that hurts people is edgy and cool, but it isn't, it just makes you sound tasteless and hateful. If people are hurt by words from random people on the internet, they probably have low self-esteem. They don't need my acceptance to be happy. It was neither sarcastic or parody, it was a petulant insult at the end of a post in which a child was losing his temper. Insults are intended to hurt and express derision, there is no other reason to use them. If you don't think they will be effective, don't pollute the friendly dialogue of the thread with your bigoted speech. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 13, 2011, 08:37:44 PM So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot. -.- Where's the icon for silently staring in passive-agressive judgement? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 08:40:33 PM Look, I have nothing against homosexuals.
It's a word guys. A mixture of symbols. It's only meaning is the intended one. It's a general open-ended insult. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tysat on October 13, 2011, 08:43:00 PM Look, I have nothing against homosexuals. It's a word guys. A mixture of symbols. It's only meaning is the intended one. It's a general open-ended insult. I'll agree with you that it doesn't matter, and I don't think gay people should take offense. South Park put it best when they did an episode talking about calling all the motorcycle riders that roll around town for no reason fags. But I will say it makes you sound 15 when you use it as a closing statement on the internet. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 08:43:48 PM ^ I think you will find that this episode was not generally well received by large numbers of people in the gay community. The show is great but definitely should not be used as a guide for how to handle these issues, they have a really mixed record on discussing transgender issues as well.
Look, I have nothing against homosexuals. It's a word guys. A mixture of symbols. It's only meaning is the intended one. It's a general open-ended insult. No, it has specific meaning when used as an insult. It disparages homosexuals. Stop defending your slur and grow up. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 08:48:32 PM Look, I have nothing against homosexuals. But I will say it makes you sound 15 when you use it as a closing statement on the internet.It's a word guys. A mixture of symbols. It's only meaning is the intended one. It's a general open-ended insult. Good because it was a parody that was supposed to mimic a lower intelligence. I'm glad I met my objective. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tysat on October 13, 2011, 08:53:33 PM ^ I think you will find that this episode was not generally well received by large numbers of people in the gay community. The show is great but definitely should not be used as a guide for how to handle these issues, they have a really mixed record on discussing transgender issues as well. I think you will find that most of their episodes that are about a specific nationality/religion/sexuality/fanboy/etc are not received well by the people in that community. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 08:56:46 PM ^ I think you will find that this episode was not generally well received by large numbers of people in the gay community. The show is great but definitely should not be used as a guide for how to handle these issues, they have a really mixed record on discussing transgender issues as well. I think you will find that most of their episodes that are about a specific nationality/religion/sexuality/fanboy/etc are not received well by the people in that community. Right, which is why you don't use them to inform your opinion on what words are appropriate to use in regards to disadvantaged groups. The Catholic episodes hit home for me as a former Catholic and they are slightly offensive, but Catholics are not a group that routinely are legally and socially discriminated against so you don't really have to be so careful in how you talk about them. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 13, 2011, 09:02:25 PM Look, I have nothing against homosexuals. It's a word guys. A mixture of symbols. It's only meaning is the intended one. It's a general open-ended insult. I wasn't offended. It just made my respect for you drop a lot, and that made me sad :'( Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 09:05:02 PM It was neither sarcastic or parody Of course it was. Anyone who has read his posts can see that. I understand he was setting up a strawman in the post in question but the insult itself was used entirely seriously, this is why he is defending the use of it. Those who don't consider it legitimately insulting don't use it in a strawman of their opponents. I could easily create a strawman of Immanuel that spouts off racial slurs, but it is still an entirely serious use of the slurs by me, not the imaginary opponent. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tysat on October 13, 2011, 09:10:52 PM I think everyone just needs to calm down, if he wants to sound dumb in his posts it's his right to do that.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 09:13:33 PM The end game of your race for efficiency leaves us all making a dollar an hour in miserable conditions while the richest few hoard the lion's share of the wealth. That statement is as wrong as if I said up were down, or that ice were hotter than fire, or that 1+1=3 Efficiency enables the production of material wealth at lower material cost. By so doing, more goods are available at lower marginal expense than otherwise. What used to require a pair of hands to work two days, now requires but one day, and tomorrow will merely require a machine, enabling the hands to seek more productive use elsewhere. Notice that your own hands no longer till fields for 12 hours a day merely to keep you fed. You now likely work only 5 days per week, perhaps 8 hours per day, and even so have an income that enables enjoyments far beyond food. Do you not ponder where such advances come from? The "race for efficiency" is why you and I have computers on which to type messages to each other. It's why we have cars. It's why the poorest people in America have air conditioning and television, when only 100 years ago even the richest were not able to enjoy such luxury. With so much antagonism toward a "race for efficiency" - do you advocate instead a race for inefficiency? Such a prescription leads to impoverishment, is that not clear to you? You say you care about the worker... yet you prescribe him poison. Not only is your philosophy economic folly, it is immoral... for as bad as it would be to use violent force to enrich people, it is certainly worse to advocate using force to impoverish them. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 09:13:46 PM I think everyone just needs to calm down, if he wants to sound dumb in his posts it's his right to do that. He sounds dumb in most of his posts, I would never take that away from him, but it's better if he does it without tossing in the hate speech too. - Quote You now likely work only 5 days per week, perhaps 8 hours per day, and even so have an income that enables enjoyments far beyond food. Do you not ponder where such advances come from? https://i.imgur.com/ppKBa.jpg http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/fig2_prodhhincome.jpg?w=614&h=404&h=404 Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 09:15:24 PM Free market is like communism, it exists only in words. Wrong. The free market is quite real... it's merely the aggregate of all voluntary exchanges which are not interfered with through violence. Unfortunately, it is under constant encroachment. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tysat on October 13, 2011, 09:16:03 PM I think everyone just needs to calm down, if he wants to sound dumb in his posts it's his right to do that. He sounds dumb in most of his posts, I would never take that away from him, but it's better if he does it without tossing in the hate speech too. Hate speech and using a slur once are far different things. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 09:22:05 PM I think everyone just needs to calm down, if he wants to sound dumb in his posts it's his right to do that. He sounds dumb in most of his posts, I would never take that away from him, but it's better if he does it without tossing in the hate speech too. Hate speech and using a slur once are far different things. You are free to define it however you want, but I don't think that frequency is usually part of the definition. Quote Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speechQuote hate speech http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech— n speech disparaging a racial, sexual, or ethnic group or a member of such a group Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 09:26:45 PM Hmmmm so productivity has increased, yet inflation-adjusted income has remained flat. Perhaps that means non-inflation adjusted income has risen, and perhaps that means the inflation tax is where you should channel your antagonism - toward the money printing that is robbing families without them knowing, instead of toward the corporations employing people toward productive ends. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 09:28:14 PM Hmmmm so productivity has increased, yet inflation-adjusted income has remained flat. Perhaps that means non-inflation adjusted income has risen, and perhaps that means the inflation tax is where you should channel your antagonism - toward the money printing that is robbing families without them knowing, instead of toward the corporations employing people toward productive ends. I do put a large part of the blame there. That's why I love Bitcoin, once we stop printing the wealthy will no longer be able to unfairly perpetuate their advantages and more rewards for productivity will go where they belong. As the 53% movement proves, people are working multiple jobs and still not having the full benefits one should expect for that amount of work. They put the blame for that in different places than the 99% folks, but we are all in agreement it is a problem. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: bitleaker on October 13, 2011, 09:31:18 PM We all live off our own labor. Don't you live off of your parent's labor? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 09:33:12 PM Hmmmm so productivity has increased, yet inflation-adjusted income has remained flat. Perhaps that means non-inflation adjusted income has risen, and perhaps that means the inflation tax is where you should channel your antagonism - toward the money printing that is robbing families without them knowing, instead of toward the corporations employing people toward productive ends. I do put a large part of the blame there. That's why I love Bitcoin, once we stop printing the wealthy will no longer be able to unfairly perpetuate their advantages and more rewards for productivity will go where they belong. As the 53% movement proves, people are working multiple jobs and still not having the full benefits one should expect for that amount of work. They put the blame for that in different places than the 99% folks, but we are all in agreement it is a problem. Good! But again, anger at "the wealthy" is not correctly targeted. The wealthy are not inflating anything. It's the central banks (The Fed in the US), the politicians who permit it, and the public who votes for those politicians (poor and rich alike). Those are the valid targets of ire. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 09:37:23 PM Hmmmm so productivity has increased, yet inflation-adjusted income has remained flat. Perhaps that means non-inflation adjusted income has risen, and perhaps that means the inflation tax is where you should channel your antagonism - toward the money printing that is robbing families without them knowing, instead of toward the corporations employing people toward productive ends. I do put a large part of the blame there. That's why I love Bitcoin, once we stop printing the wealthy will no longer be able to unfairly perpetuate their advantages and more rewards for productivity will go where they belong. As the 53% movement proves, people are working multiple jobs and still not having the full benefits one should expect for that amount of work. They put the blame for that in different places than the 99% folks, but we are all in agreement it is a problem. Good! But again, anger at "the wealthy" is not correctly targeted. The wealthy are not inflating anything. It's the central banks (The Fed in the US), the politicians who permit it, and the public who votes for those politicians (poor and rich alike). Those are the valid targets of ire. The rich own the politicians and corporations like Goldman control government financial policy. I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man. We can't just print more Bitcoin to start rewarding the productivity. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: evoorhees on October 13, 2011, 09:50:23 PM I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man. If the marketplace values the work of the "working man" then it will pay him accordingly. Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay. If you think the working man deserves more, you are welcome to hire him - indeed if he is so much more productive than his wage indicates, then you should outbid the other employer. The idea of "redistributing wealth" becomes even more silly when you realize that wealth is produced, not distributed in the first place. What a rich person has, he earned (unless he engaged in fraud or theft), and what someone earns, he deserves to keep. Wealth is not a pie to be sliced up evenly. It is produced, and belongs to the producer exclusively. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 10:00:10 PM I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man. If the marketplace values the work of the "working man" then it will pay him accordingly. Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay. If you think the working man deserves more, you are welcome to hire him - indeed if he is so much more productive than his wage indicates, then you should outbid the other employer. The idea of "redistributing wealth" becomes even more silly when you realize that wealth is produced, not distributed in the first place. What a rich person has, he earned (unless he engaged in fraud or theft), and what someone earns, he deserves to keep. Wealth is not a pie to be sliced up evenly. It is produced, and belongs to the producer exclusively. Hey, look, if the redistribution back to the working class that generates the productivity happens naturally then there will be no reason to take the wealth by force. So you have nothing to worry about. I think you will find though that once we switch to Bitcoin the wealthy will already start with an advantage. Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located. It's happening one way or another. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 13, 2011, 10:04:34 PM Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located. It's happening one way or another. The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money. Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: nighteyes on October 13, 2011, 10:05:28 PM Good! But again, anger at "the wealthy" is not correctly targeted. The wealthy are not inflating anything. It's the central banks (The Fed in the US), the politicians who permit it, and the public who votes for those politicians (poor and rich alike). Those are the valid targets of ire. I think Satoshi deserves a lot of the blame....or the devil(these 2 could be connected if you see black helicopters flying outside).....but as far as targets go though, anyone and everyone is a target. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 10:07:09 PM Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located. It's happening one way or another. The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money. Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off. Again, I know, that's why I want to end the printing and switch to Bitcoin. It's a huge benefit for the poor at the expense of the rich and the corporations. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 13, 2011, 10:09:52 PM Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located. It's happening one way or another. The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money. Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off. Again, I know, that's why I want to end the printing and switch to Bitcoin. It's a huge benefit for the poor at the expense of the rich and the corporations. I'd say it more levels the playing field, but yeah, I misunderstood what you were saying. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 10:14:58 PM In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.
Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 10:19:08 PM In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used. Language does not work that way. Just stop using it. I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs. You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang) Quote The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage. It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well. You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition. Quote Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends. Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended." You messed up, take responsibility and grow up. You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: nighteyes on October 13, 2011, 10:20:12 PM Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay. Thats a loaded sentence. "Steal"...implies illegal...worthless, see 'asymmetrics of will'. "resources"...implies private property....but where? Most resources are not stored on private property. If its at a bank, thats not private property....a corporation is a government creation and not covered by the rules of civilization. "harmed nobody"....worthless....unprovable and unlikely. Are you saying they never harmed anyone or anything? Because if they did, thats OK, as covered by asymmetrics of time. "not okay"....well its OK if war is undertaken....hehehe, are they playing war drums? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: bitleaker on October 13, 2011, 10:24:04 PM In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used. In the future, if I ever use the word nigger, it's in reference to those dirty workers you find littered in the workplace; as the word was originally used.[Edit] I love the text from the link below: Quote Suord ne fir forgat he noght, And ȝong ysaac a fagett broght. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: repentance on October 13, 2011, 10:24:50 PM In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used. That's not how it was originally used. http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/more/285/ Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 10:32:16 PM In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used. Language does not work that way. Just stop using it. I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs. You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang) Quote The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage. It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well. You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition. Quote Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends. Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended." You messed up, take responsibility and grow up. You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot. I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority. "Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 10:37:03 PM In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used. Language does not work that way. Just stop using it. I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs. You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang) Quote The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage. It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well. You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition. Quote Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends. Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended." You messed up, take responsibility and grow up. You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot. I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority. "Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese. No, it has a non-legal definition. I already posted it. Quote Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 13, 2011, 10:47:16 PM No, it has a non-legal definition. I already posted it. Quote Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless. That sounds like disparaging libertarians, furries, nazis, or just about any group or individual is hate speech. Rather broad, no? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 10:52:25 PM No, it has a non-legal definition. I already posted it. Quote Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless. That sounds like disparaging libertarians, furries, nazis, or just about any group or individual is hate speech. Rather broad, no? Sure, there are more specific non-legal definitions out there that would exclude Nazis: speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech It's going to be a stretch to find one that excludes using anti-gay slurs as insults though. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 10:57:32 PM In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used. Language does not work that way. Just stop using it. I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs. You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang) Quote The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage. It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well. You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition. Quote Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends. Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended." You messed up, take responsibility and grow up. You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot. I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority. "Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese. No, it has a non-legal definition. I already posted it. Quote Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless. As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong". Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 10:59:05 PM Quote As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong". Because it is. Do you really want to have a deep philosophical debate over the meaning of right and wrong in context of your use of bigoted hate speech? v Or a deep philosophical debate on the nature of definitions themselves in context of an immature teenager shouting anti-gay insults? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 13, 2011, 10:59:22 PM Sure, there are more specific non-legal definitions out there that would exclude Nazis: speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech It's going to be a stretch to find one that excludes using anti-gay slurs as insults though. My point was that it is completely arbitrary. Go ahead and pick whatever definition most suits your stance, though... Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 10:59:37 PM In addition, if words are truly aggression then I'm quite a victim. I've never experienced more "hurtful" speech than I have on here. Haha.
Lots of things hurt people but a lot of the time people don't really have a reason to be hurt. The fact is you are not entitled to acceptance by everybody. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tysat on October 13, 2011, 11:01:37 PM Almost anything that anyone says is going to offend someone, so we all better just stop talking.
Crap, I probably just offended someone people by saying that. And some more with the first word in my previous sentence. ... Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 11:01:59 PM Quote As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong". Because it is. Do you really want to have a deep philosophical debate over the meaning of right and wrong in context of your use of bigoted hate speech? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 11:04:18 PM Quote As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong". Because it is. Do you really want to have a deep philosophical debate over the meaning of right and wrong in context of your use of bigoted hate speech? ...and that's why I used an anti-gay slur! Look guys, some things are likely to hurt people. You can punch me pretty hard in the stomach and I won't care, that's my perception, but that doesn't make it right to go around punching people in the stomach at random, you know people consider it painful. Quote Almost anything that anyone says is going to offend someone, so we all better just stop talking. If someone specifically asked you to stop doing something they are uniquely sensitive to, you should stop after they tell you this. Anti-gay or racial slurs do not fall into that category, they are generally known to be hurtful and you cannot plead ignorance of that. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 11:06:17 PM Quote As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong". Because it is. Do you really want to have a deep philosophical debate over the meaning of right and wrong in context of your use of bigoted hate speech? ...and that's why I used an anti-gay slur! Look guys, some things are likely to hurt people. You can punch me pretty hard in the stomach and I won't care, that's my perception, but that doesn't make it right to go around punching people in the stomach at random because you know people consider it painful. That's physical aggression. A punch is threatening an organism's ability to sustain itself. A burst of sound waves can only be perceived in various ways of an organism's choosing. It does not directly aggress against nor threaten a being's life support systems. Big difference. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 13, 2011, 11:06:34 PM Look guys, some things are likely to hurt people. You can punch me pretty hard in the stomach and I won't care, that's my perception, but that doesn't make it right to go around punching people in the stomach at random, you know people consider it painful. Sticks and stones... Oh wait, I forgot that words that you read on the internet cause physical damage to your body. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 11:09:06 PM Look guys, some things are likely to hurt people. You can punch me pretty hard in the stomach and I won't care, that's my perception, but that doesn't make it right to go around punching people in the stomach at random, you know people consider it painful. Sticks and stones... Oh wait, I forgot that words that you read on the internet cause physical damage to your body. Quote A punch is threatening an organism's ability to sustain itself. http://www.soulforce.org/article/653#greaterrisk Quote Teenagers who are gay or bisexual are more than three times as likely to attempt suicide as other youth, according to a Massachusetts study reported this month in The Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. Young men are at particular risk, the report found. Yes, words hurt people. But precious Immanuel can't be expected not to use slurs just because relentless anti-gay bullying in society leads to teenage suicide...because some women are easily offended and perception is vast! Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tysat on October 13, 2011, 11:11:55 PM Yes, words hurt people. But they really shouldn't. People need to learn to deal with it, because there's always going to be someone out there saying things that "hurt" you or that you don't like. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 11:13:53 PM Alright, I broke a girl's heart because I did not want to be in an intimate relationship with her. I'm sure she suffered greatly like most people do when they face notable rejection.
Would it be more morally sound for her to be somehow entitled to my affection and acceptance in the name of her pleasure as opposed to pain? That's what we are arguing here: entitling people to our acceptance because that's all these words evoke; rejection of their values and who they are. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 11:17:19 PM Yes, words hurt people. But they really shouldn't. People need to learn to deal with it, because there's always going to be someone out there saying things that "hurt" you or that you don't like. http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ptsd.htm#PTSD, PDSD and bullying Right, go ahead and tell people to just "deal with" their PTSD. This kind of thing begins at a very young age before kids are able to deal with the consequences of social ostracization as easily as you would like. Quote Alright, I broke a girl's heart because I did not want to be in an intimate relationship with her. I'm sure she suffered greatly like most people do when they face notable rejection. Would it be more morally sound for her to be somehow entitled to my affection and acceptance in the name of her pleasure as opposed to pain? That's what we are arguing here: entitling people to our acceptance because that's all these words evoke; rejection of their values and who they are. No, we are talking about your desire to pepper your internet arguments with anti-gay slurs to make some sort of point. You are not making deep philosophical points about language or morality. Again, in this argument the affection you are so desperately hoping to retain is the affection you have for the use of anti-gay slurs. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tysat on October 13, 2011, 11:20:13 PM Yes, words hurt people. But they really shouldn't. People need to learn to deal with it, because there's always going to be someone out there saying things that "hurt" you or that you don't like. http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ptsd.htm#PTSD, PDSD and bullying Right, go ahead and tell people to just "deal with" their PTSD. This kind of thing begins at a very young age before kids are able to deal with the consequences of social ostracization as easily as you would like. I'll admit it's a little different for kids.... but by the time you're in your late teens you should be able to deal with it. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 11:23:27 PM I've been "bullied" all throughout my early school life although I've chosen to not take it as such. I've been called faggot on a daily basis, ostracized in the name of my differences and even had a basketball thrown into my nuts on a weekly basis. However, I chose to realize that there is more to value than how people viewed me albeit suffering horrible depression and suicidal thoughts throughout most of these years.
Honestly, I am not a proponent of the behavior that was used towards me but one can only accept that it is inevitable despite any individual circumstances. All one can do is adapt. People will hardly ever adapt around you. You have to find people that do accept you for who you are. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 11:24:09 PM Yes, words hurt people. But they really shouldn't. People need to learn to deal with it, because there's always going to be someone out there saying things that "hurt" you or that you don't like. http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ptsd.htm#PTSD, PDSD and bullying Right, go ahead and tell people to just "deal with" their PTSD. This kind of thing begins at a very young age before kids are able to deal with the consequences of social ostracization as easily as you would like. I'll admit it's a little different for kids.... but by the time you're in your late teens you should be able to deal with it. You really think teenagers are ever going to be equipped to deal with being socially ostracized? I would think the problem gets worse then as hormones and emotions get out of control. In the end what people need to grow out of is causing this pain, not being hurt by it. Quote However, I chose to realize that there is more to value than how people viewed me albeit suffering horrible depression and suicidal thoughts most of these years. As we can see, even people who are conscious that words should not hurt is being rendered to depression and suicidal thoughts by them. Not everyone survives that. Think how much worse it is for kids who are gay and will face pressure to hide who they truly are for their entire lives because of the fear this bullying generates. Just stop piling on by using slurs against them in what is supposed to be a community about friggin currency. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 11:31:09 PM Well, Rarity, thanks for reminding me how pitifully fragile the human condition is in the face of social rejection. It's completely primal; these feelings. When one was not fully embraced by their community in far earlier times, the prospects of survival were weak.
I despise the human condition in its current form. So weak. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tysat on October 13, 2011, 11:32:51 PM Rarity
Your crusade against free speech is making me suicidal. I can't stand to live in a world where people aren't allowed to say what they want! Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 11:34:48 PM Rarity So, what are you going to do, tysat? Blame the whole world for your misery or accept and try to find happiness elsewhere? Enslave society to your will or move forward?Your crusade against free speech is making me suicidal. I can't stand to live in a world where people aren't allowed to say what they want! Here's our point, Rarity: An individual must be able to adapt. There is no way the consensus will be to play nice. However, I will choose to. I won't say said slur any longer. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 13, 2011, 11:35:43 PM Well, Rarity, thanks for reminding me how pitifully fragile the human condition is in the face of social rejection. It's completely primal; these feelings. When one was not fully embraced by their community in far earlier times, the prospects of survival were weak. I despise the human condition in its current form. So weak. Everything is primal. We are a fundamentally social species and have been from the start of the first families and tribes. When we reached for higher standards of living we moved to cities and entered greater levels of interaction and interdependence. In the end though, we are animals, and when we are hurt emotionally it is only a chemical process in the brain, but that process is as real as anything else. It's made of energy and matter. It can set off chain reactions that lead to our total destruction in more ways than anyone could count. When we have community support, our condition is strong. When we are alone and afraid, it is weak. Quote Rarity Your crusade against free speech is making me suicidal. I can't stand to live in a world where people aren't allowed to say what they want! The difference is that people actually do commit suicide because of gay bullying. I just posted scientific stats on that, do you have similar statistics for suicide generated by calls for tolerance? No, you have a strawman to excuse hate speech. Quote An individual must be able to adapt. There is no way the consensus will be to play nice. Calls for tolerance and restraint can greatly improve the situation. It's still extremely difficult to grow up gay in the United States, but it has much improved over the decades. It's much improved over a place like Iran. Calls for tolerance and education are how we got there. Slurs can never be wiped out, that is true, but an African American kid has a pretty good expectation that they are going to face far less abuse at school today than they did three decades ago. Telling people to suck it up and deal with the abuse is not the solution, the perpetrators are the people who have to learn to adapt to a life of being tolerant. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 13, 2011, 11:48:24 PM Fair enough. The fact is all people have value and it's not in our best interest to reject others in the first place.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitcoinPorn on October 13, 2011, 11:50:04 PM That's physical aggression. A punch is threatening an organism's ability to sustain itself. A burst of sound waves can only be perceived in various ways of an organism's choosing. It does not directly aggress against nor threaten a being's life support systems. I think you misused the word "choosing" where it should lean more toward some sort of 'learned' process or thought or etc. We do not choose the environments around us that build our realities, we have no choice in how we take in those sound waves. Now what we do with that information, that is up to you. The same however is said for the punch, you can, mind over matter that and feel no pain. That is fact. Then the argument could be made that there has to be a point where you cannot deny the physical aggression hitting yourself, but I also argue that the exact same can be said based on words used and how a person is able to withstand the reality of how those words were used around them when they were a child. It now comes down to the intent of the punch. And along those lines it comes down to intent of the sound waves. Or it now comes down to, you have to learn to take a punch, and you have to learn to take in peoples bullshit and know it means nothing, even though it feels different sometimes. It does suck though that the punch a 30 year old man took to learn may not effect people as badly as these kids using these slang terms with no care or full understanding on the meaning behind them. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 14, 2011, 01:27:06 AM Well, Rarity, thanks for reminding me how pitifully fragile the human condition is in the face of social rejection. It's completely primal; these feelings. When one was not fully embraced by their community in far earlier times, the prospects of survival were weak. I despise the human condition in its current form. So weak. People are social animals. Ostracism can be fatal, even neglecting emotional issues. If you don't see that, it may explain why you have so much faith in the free market. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes: your right to property ends when another is deprived of the necessities of life. While it is good to be suspicious of government (and majority rule), there are limits to private property. If I dislike my neighbour, I am not allowed to buy a ring of land around his house and kill him when he goes for supplies, for example. In most cities, you can't even buy such a ring of land since the city retains a "right of way" (for roads and utilities). Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 14, 2011, 03:50:42 AM Hmmmm so productivity has increased, yet inflation-adjusted income has remained flat. Perhaps that means non-inflation adjusted income has risen, and perhaps that means the inflation tax is where you should channel your antagonism - toward the money printing that is robbing families without them knowing, instead of toward the corporations employing people toward productive ends. Or perhaps the fact that during that same time period executive salaries have increased expontentially might have something to do with it? Nah, easier to blame the government. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 14, 2011, 04:42:15 AM I've been "bullied" all throughout my early school life although I've chosen to not take it as such. I've been called faggot on a daily basis, ostracized in the name of my differences and even had a basketball thrown into my nuts on a weekly basis. However, I chose to realize that there is more to value than how people viewed me albeit suffering horrible depression and suicidal thoughts throughout most of these years. I don't know what I want to ask more, why in the f were people calling you a faggot, or what kind of f'ed up situation were you in that allowed weekly nut shots? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 14, 2011, 04:49:22 AM Atlas' Guide to Slavery
Things that promote slavery: equality a modest tax to fund the things you use every day Things that promote freedom: wage slavery debt slavery openly advocating for the Confederate States of America Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 14, 2011, 04:56:17 AM I've been "bullied" all throughout my early school life although I've chosen to not take it as such. I've been called faggot on a daily basis, ostracized in the name of my differences and even had a basketball thrown into my nuts on a weekly basis. However, I chose to realize that there is more to value than how people viewed me albeit suffering horrible depression and suicidal thoughts throughout most of these years. I don't know what I want to ask more, why in the f were people calling you a faggot, or what kind of f'ed up situation were you in that allowed weekly nut shots? This type of bullying doesn't take much, just being a little different and kids will say whatever they can think of as long as they know it hurts. A lot of American high schools are like Lord of the Flies and any retaliation for bullying is likely to leave the victim just as punished as the perpetrator, and teachers can't see everything. If you haven't had to deal with any of this a lot of people really envy you. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 14, 2011, 04:58:08 AM Atlas' Guide to Slavery Things that promote slavery: equality a modest tax to fund the things you use every day Things that promote freedom: wage slavery debt slavery openly advocating for the Confederate States of America I'm not equal if I am forced to pay more for the same stuff as someone else (higher tax rates). I am also not equal if I am runnin g a business honestly, and am forced to compete with a business that is buddies with politicians and gets subsidies, just because it "helps the common man." You are free to change work, or not work at all. You are to borrow or not to borrow. Don't want debt, save and don't buy junk. And i'm not touching that last one with a ten foot pole. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 14, 2011, 05:00:39 AM I've been "bullied" all throughout my early school life although I've chosen to not take it as such. I've been called faggot on a daily basis, ostracized in the name of my differences and even had a basketball thrown into my nuts on a weekly basis. However, I chose to realize that there is more to value than how people viewed me albeit suffering horrible depression and suicidal thoughts throughout most of these years. I don't know what I want to ask more, why in the f were people calling you a faggot, or what kind of f'ed up situation were you in that allowed weekly nut shots? This type of bullying doesn't take much, just being a little different and kids will say whatever they can think of as long as they know it hurts. A lot of American high schools are like Lord of the Flies and any retaliation for bullying is likely to leave the victim just as punished as the perpetrator, and teachers can't see everything. If you haven't had to deal with any of this a lot of people really envy you. Oh, I was a total need fag, so I got plenty of that. atlass just doesn't strike me as a faggot type, and the basketball to the nuts just seems like something that would have to happen in a rather specific situation(weekly gym class with very dedicated bullies?) Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 14, 2011, 05:05:23 AM I'm not equal if I am forced to pay more for the same stuff as someone else (higher tax rates). I am also not equal if I am runnin g a business honestly, and am forced to compete with a business that is buddies with politicians and gets subsidies, just because it "helps the common man." Which kind of inequality is worse for humanity? You being slightly less able to afford every single luxury you want, or millions of people dying of starvation and preventable illness? See, this is why people call libertarians greedy sociopaths. Quote atlass just doesn't strike me as a faggot type In small-town Texas, a "faggot type" is also known as "a guy who reads books even when nobody forces him to". Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 14, 2011, 05:16:15 AM Which kind of inequality is worse for humanity? You being slightly less able to afford every single luxury you want, or millions of people dying of starvation and preventable illness? They are the same thing, because if I don't buy the luxuries, the poor people in Africa won't have the job of mining for the materials the luxury is made of, the poor people in China won't have the job to put the luxury together, and the poor people in India won't have the job to provide support for the luxury, and then all those poor people without jobs will starve, get sick, and die. Luxuries are still made by people who get paid for them, and usually the more expensive the luxury, the more people ended up getting paid in the process of its creation. Quote atlass just doesn't strike me as a faggot type In small-town Texas, a "faggot type" is also known as "a guy who reads books even when nobody forces him to". Oh yeah... Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 14, 2011, 05:18:16 AM Go work in an African diamond mine. Just because someone needs to buy the luxuries doesn't mean you have to.
The truth is, with starving people in the world or people without sanitation or healthcare or roads or electricity or education we could provide jobs for people without producing luxuries. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 14, 2011, 05:27:16 AM Luxuries are still made by people who get paid for them, and usually the more expensive the luxury, the more people ended up getting paid in the process of its creation. Seriously? Some of the most valuable resources in the world are being mined by literal slaves at gunpoint. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 14, 2011, 05:32:38 AM Luxuries are still made by people who get paid for them, and usually the more expensive the luxury, the more people ended up getting paid in the process of its creation. Seriously? Some of the most valuable resources in the world are being mined by literal slaves at gunpoint. I was mainly referring to mining for yachts in the Barbedos, but even flat screen TVs can be considered luxury items. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: makomk on October 14, 2011, 01:07:50 PM Again, companies which hire based on anything but productive performance will be out competed in a free market system. Take two firms, if one of them promotes based on "caste" and the other based on skills, who would you rather bet on? Such bets occur in the equity markets, and companies who make poor decisions will find their share price falling, impoverishing the shareholders until they correct their course. The one that hires based on "caste", because it's the only rational decision - even though this has nothing to do with actual skills, and even though it'll lead to worse corporate decisions overall.Pretty much all companies right now are run by members of the CEO caste, which means that if you invest in one that isn't you're taking on an extra risk - because there's basically no other companies like it, it's hard to assess the risk that it might fail. Sure, it's possible that the people running it really are as good as they say - but it's also possible they're missing out on something critical that the CEO caste know. What's more, anyone else investing or offering them loans or doing business from them has to take on the same risk, which means that they'll be less willing to do business with the non-CEO-caste firm, which in turn makes it a lot more likely to fail, which then confirms the wisdom of not investing in or doing business with firms not run by members of the CEO caste. That's before you take into account the fact that, since the other firms it does business with and the banks it gets loans from and the companies giving advice on what investments to make are run by members of the CEO caste too, it's in their interests to favour firms run by their friends and disfavour ones that aren't. Basically, even if you have a better way of telling how well-run a firm is than whether its directors are members of the right caste, it's usually in your best interests to ignore that information because everyone else makes decisions based on whether they're "CEO material" and that itself affects your investment. (There's a related problem with women being systematically excluded from the boardroom.) Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 14, 2011, 02:15:15 PM The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: bitleaker on October 14, 2011, 02:33:43 PM The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas. https://i.imgur.com/6uJUR.jpg Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 14, 2011, 02:36:47 PM The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas. https://i.imgur.com/6uJUR.jpg Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 14, 2011, 02:39:34 PM The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas. https://i.imgur.com/6uJUR.jpg Yes? What would those people be doing in the absence of that building, that capital? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: bitleaker on October 14, 2011, 02:49:21 PM The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas. https://i.imgur.com/6uJUR.jpg Firstly, you are assuming that they are well fed - you might want to watch a few documentaries about sweat shops. You have been talking about the Industrial Revolution lately, and if you had truly studied it, you would have realised that unregulated/poorly regulated working environments mean that an elite get to control the masses. In many 3rd world factories, workers are provided with accommodation by the company, and the prices taken out of their wages. Food is also often provided in this way, as are transport from the workers compounds to the factories. All of the costs are at huge mark-up, and it is very hard to save any money at all. The workers soon become trapped. You could call them slaves if you will. It's just like the industrialists of the 18th and 19th century. Some paid their mill workers in tokens which could only be redeemed at the mill shops. Those shops were 3x more expensive than elsewhere. But whatever, free market and all that. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 14, 2011, 02:50:54 PM They can leave at any time. It's only due to delusions and ignorance that these people subject themselves to something that is not in their best interest. Who are we to decide what is?
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Anonymous on October 14, 2011, 02:53:08 PM The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas. https://i.imgur.com/6uJUR.jpg Yes? What would those people be doing in the absence of that building, that capital? They would be digging through dumpsters along with feeding and sheltering their children in a moldy cardboard box. Oh, but there wouldn't be an evil capitalist making profit so that makes everything better. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rarity on October 14, 2011, 03:38:21 PM The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas. https://i.imgur.com/6uJUR.jpg How can it be voluntary consent when they are forced into this position by the Central Banking world hegemony? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 14, 2011, 03:45:49 PM How can it be voluntary consent when they are forced into this position by the Central Banking world hegemony? Because at the end of the day, they choose it over their other options, like subsistence living. That there are fewer other options is not the fault of the factory owner, but as you said, the governments which control the supply of money. Though you do raise a good point, "voluntary consent" is not perhaps the best phrase. At the same time, from that perspective, nobody voluntarily consents to anything. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: rainingbitcoins on October 14, 2011, 04:21:25 PM The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas. These are your rational actors, Atlas. These are humans. They're prone to believe stupid things no matter how much education you give them. When the successful implementation of your ideology involves steps like "entirely change everything we've ever known about human nature", your ideology sucks. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Crypt_Current on October 14, 2011, 04:53:35 PM Seriously? Some of the most valuable resources in the world are being mined by literal slaves at gunpoint. I know, right! http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8137/slave1q.jpg Just wait til THEY occupy Wall Street... til then, it's friggin hilarious Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 14, 2011, 05:02:05 PM Seriously? Some of the most valuable resources in the world are being mined by literal slaves at gunpoint. I know, right! http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8137/slave1q.jpg I notice your miner is asleep on the job (fan isn't spinning). Time to bring out the beating stick? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 14, 2011, 05:09:32 PM I notice your miner is asleep on the job (fan isn't spinning). Time to bring out the beating stick? Cameras are magic in that they freeze time, though what you say is a possibility as well... Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 14, 2011, 05:15:06 PM I notice your miner is asleep on the job (fan isn't spinning). Time to bring out the beating stick? It was indeed spinning at the time of the picture. I guess the shutter on the camera was fast enough to make it appear to be stationary. Wow, not even motion blur! Impressive camera. Also, why am I getting an image of a video card being whipped and asked, "What is your name, boy?", and when it replies, "Radeon HD 9530," the whipper yells, " No, it's VisionTek SuperCoolGraphicsYeahAwesome!" and whipps it some more :P Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 14, 2011, 05:31:48 PM Also, why am I getting an image of a video card being whipped and asked, "What is your name, boy?", and when it replies, "Radeon HD 9530," the whipper yells, " No, it's VisionTek SuperCoolGraphics!" and whipps it some more :P Oh, when they act up I don't whip them. I dismantle one of those lighters with a piezo ignition and proceed to shock random circuits on the board of the video card. Huh... I just turn off the AC and let them sweat for a while in blistering heat until they pass out. That usually shows them, and after I hit reset, no damage is done. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: tvbcof on October 14, 2011, 06:35:50 PM OP: I would suspect that a straight count of your list would not accurately reflect a count of people who control more than 1000 BTC. It seems dumb to me to keep more than a certain amount in any wallet.dat (or any group of addresses within one.) I split up my stash so as to keep a bulk of it in offline deep storage. So some of those addresses are likely controlled by the same person, and a fair fraction of the sub-1000 addresses are likely to be owned by persons who control more than 1000 BTC altogether.
The low price indicates to me that although the world has 6.7x10^9 people, a tiny tiny fraction of them have much interest in Bitcoin, and a small fraction of those have enough disposable income (and questionable enough judgement) to take a semi-significant position. On top of that, a lot of early adopters may choose to sit on their relatively larger stashes no matter what. It would not surprise me if your .1/50% estimate were off on the 'low' side. I would not consider Bitcoin 'centralized' unless and until the holders of the currency base form a cartel (which could easily happen and for all I know, already has.) But I would not consider Bitcoin to be well distributed either. That is probably not tenible without a re-boot or major re-implementation, and even then it would likely be at best transient. I pin my hopes for Bitcoin(-ish solutions) not on an equitable distribution of the currency itself, but rather on an equitable distribution of the value that use of currency system can provide. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Crypt_Current on October 14, 2011, 09:29:35 PM OP: I would suspect that a straight count of your list would not accurately reflect a count of people who control more than 1000 BTC. It seems dumb to me to keep more than a certain amount in any wallet.dat (or any group of addresses within one.) I split up my stash so as to keep a bulk of it in offline deep storage. So some of those addresses are likely controlled by the same person, and a fair fraction of the sub-1000 addresses are likely to be owned by persons who control more than 1000 BTC altogether. The low price indicates to me that although the world has 6.7x10^9 people, a tiny tiny fraction of them have much interest in Bitcoin, and a small fraction of those have enough disposable income (and questionable enough judgement) to take a semi-significant position. On top of that, a lot of early adopters may choose to sit on their relatively larger stashes no matter what. It would not surprise me if your .1/50% estimate were off on the 'low' side. I would not consider Bitcoin 'centralized' unless and until the holders of the currency base form a cartel (which could easily happen and for all I know, already has.) But I would not consider Bitcoin to be well distributed either. That is probably not tenible without a re-boot or major re-implementation, and even then it would likely be at best transient. I pin my hopes for Bitcoin(-ish solutions) not on an equitable distribution of the currency itself, but rather on an equitable distribution of the value that use of currency system can provide. Well said. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 17, 2011, 06:22:55 AM Yesterday I was talking on IRC with somebody who took a few more economics courses than I did. He was very concerned by hoarding, which would possibly make the early adopters stupidly rich. We agreed Shatoshi cashing out would probably signal the end of bitcoin.
Anyway, at the end of our discussion, I came up with a theory that explains the price of bitcoin over that past year or so: Quote from: James Phillips <phillipsjk> Bitcoin does have some real value as a medium of exchange (asside from speculation). The problem is that hoarding has overshadowed that. The bubble may have simply been because it was being used as a medium of exchange by new hoarders coming on board. ... <phillipsjk> As the new people hoard instead of spend, the value slowly declines again. Essentially, your bitcoins are only really valuable if they are being spent. Coins stored in a savings wallets are indistinguishable from lost coins from the network's perspective. This implies that people hoarding coins can "issue" coins back into circulation any time they wish. That is to say, the early adopters can act as a central bank, regulating the rate of deflation. I plan on exploring this further is the Why doesn't somebody set a floor price? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48288.0) thread. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: gmaxwell on October 17, 2011, 07:36:49 AM Yesterday I was talking on IRC with somebody who took a few more economics courses than I did. He was very concerned by hoarding, which would possibly make the early adopters stupidly rich. We agreed Shatoshi cashing out would probably signal the end of bitcoin. The bitcoin days destroyed metric doesn't support the idea that there are enormous amounts of horded coins— a good a mount of coins are moving around. I also don't see why people assume Satoshi has some enormous number of coins— bitcoin was made public as soon as the chain started (and had been discussed in public months before, so people knew what it was when it was announced). He was far from the only user when bitcoin was announced— if he was only mining with a single modest cpu of mid to late 2000s vintage he might only have a few tens of thousands. This guess is actually well supported by the initial data— bitcoin had enough hashing right at its launch to maintain 1/block per ten minutes but actually fell to what should have been difficulty .05 in late august 2009. Because the system can't adjust to difficulty below 1 this loss of hash power just mean less coin was created overall. If you make the somewhat conservative assumption that the remaining miners included at least Satoshi and that he had similar hash power all year, then Satoshi could not have more than 5% of the first years bitcoin and very likely he wasn't the only remaining miner so that 5% would have been shared between everyone else who was still mining during the lull (and there was less coin produced in 2009 than programmed due to the time spent with hash power below diff 1... about 60% of what the system is programmed to produce in a year). The large gap between block 0 and block 1 (when he made the system public) also supports the notion that he didn't have a ton of hash power applied. We often view the early difficulty through the distorted lens of todays faster hardware and software. This is a mistake. modern mining software is an order of magnitude faster than openssl's SHA256 used simplistically, and modern CPUs are also much faster (not to mention GPUs...). Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 17, 2011, 02:08:21 PM He was very concerned by hoarding, which would possibly make the early adopters stupidly rich. We agreed Shatoshi cashing out would probably signal the end of bitcoin. The part he missed is that simply holding Bitcoin does not earn you wealth, unlike cash or stocks. If/when Bitcoin stabilizes, and they become filthy rich, the only way for them to benefit from their wealth will be to sell i, trade it for cash/stocks/bonds, or use it to start a business. Either way their bitcoin will end up getting redistributed into the economic system. Anyway, at the end of our discussion, I came up with a theory that explains the price of bitcoin over that past year or so: Quote from: James Phillips <phillipsjk> Bitcoin does have some real value as a medium of exchange (asside from speculation). The problem is that hoarding has overshadowed that. The bubble may have simply been because it was being used as a medium of exchange by new hoarders coming on board. ... <phillipsjk> As the new people hoard instead of spend, the value slowly declines again. Essentially, your bitcoins are only really valuable if they are being spent. This doesn't seem to follow the hoarding = decreased supply = increased price basic econ theory. Sure, hoarding may support the price artificially, but I don't see how it can make the price go down. Can you elaborate please? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Vandroiy on October 17, 2011, 02:24:29 PM Seriously, guys.
- Initial distribution is irrelevant in the long run. I believe someone's proven that, go look it up or something. - Financial speculation is not something that should be dominated by a horde of impatient people. - The cool thing about Bitcoin? It's not democratic, it doesn't give a shit what the mob thinks. Bitcoin is market-driven with a little bit of programmer's influence. Don't like it? Go back to the incompetent and uncaring governments' currencies if you like that better. You now see the chaos while market forces take control. But you cannot change that. All you can do is a binary "I'm in" or "Bitcoin sucks". I'm in. Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 17, 2011, 02:29:03 PM Seriously, guys. - Initial distribution is irrelevant in the long run. I believe someone's proven that, go look it up or something. - Financial speculation is not something that should be dominated by a horde of impatient people. - The cool thing about Bitcoin? It's not democratic, it doesn't give a shit what the mob thinks. Bitcoin is market-driven with a little bit of programmer's influence. Don't like it? Go back to the incompetent and uncaring governments' currencies if you like that better. You now see the chaos while market forces take control. But you cannot change that. All you can do is a binary "I'm in" or "Bitcoin sucks". I'm in. I'm in. Don't really give a shit about the price. If it goes down, oh well, more people just get to be "early adopters". Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: Rassah on October 17, 2011, 02:42:53 PM I'm in too. The possible return WAY outweights the risk of the money I put in, and I'm willing to wait for years.
Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 17, 2011, 03:04:09 PM This doesn't seem to follow the hoarding = decreased supply = increased price basic econ theory. Sure, hoarding may support the price artificially, but I don't see how it can make the price go down. Can you elaborate please? The price goes up temporarily. When you spend the coins again, they are again is circulation, so the price goes back down. The part of my IRC conversation I did not quote, I mentioned that any hoarder trying to cash in will lower the price. If the coins had been hoarded for months or years, the marklet likely already deemed those coins "lost." Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: BitterTea on October 17, 2011, 03:28:51 PM This doesn't seem to follow the hoarding = decreased supply = increased price basic econ theory. Sure, hoarding may support the price artificially, but I don't see how it can make the price go down. Can you elaborate please? The price goes up temporarily. When you spend the coins again, they are again is circulation, so the price goes back down. The part of my IRC conversation I did not quote, I mentioned that any hoarder trying to cash in will lower the price. If the coins had been hoarded for months or years, the marklet likely already deemed those coins "lost." Ok. So what? Is that somehow worse than prices constantly rising? Title: Re: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED! Post by: phillipsjk on October 17, 2011, 03:36:44 PM This doesn't seem to follow the hoarding = decreased supply = increased price basic econ theory. Sure, hoarding may support the price artificially, but I don't see how it can make the price go down. Can you elaborate please? The price goes up temporarily. When you spend the coins again, they are again is circulation, so the price goes back down. The part of my IRC conversation I did not quote, I mentioned that any hoarder trying to cash in will lower the price. If the coins had been hoarded for months or years, the marklet likely already deemed those coins "lost." Ok. So what? Is that somehow worse than prices constantly rising? It is not "worse" per se, it means the price can be regulated. Decentralized Central Banking Proposal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48288.msg579215#msg579215). |
