And it took two weeks for them to just man up and admit this?!

Yeah, that's BS. Appreciate you guys forcing them to reveal this. Too bad it had to get to that point.

Sounds about right to me. If one wants to argue that TradeHill isn't acting in their own best interest, then oh well... they have to be the ultimate decider of that. If the argument is simply that that isn't how business is done, then maybe that needs to change.

How you might do this:

1) Send your bitcoin "prizes" to a separate address each. If need be, check the blockchain to make sure each address only has that amount (if you're worried about an address holding change.)

2) When rewarding someone with a prize, give them the private key for the address you sent that prize too.

Note that you may have to explain how to access the funds, since importing a private key into a wallet isn't exactly a streamlined feature of the client.

It might just be easier to ask them to enter a bitcoin address, and then automatically send them their prize, or send it manually later.

That's not the type of backing people refer to when they talk about currencies being backed.

If use is the same thing as backing, then everything on the planet has backing (even FRNs can be burned) and there's suddenly no reason to discuss it because it's a universal trait.

Bitcoins are not backed in the way that most folks describe currency backing. It's not backed by gold. It's not backed by a basket of commodities. It's unbacked.

Good stuff.

He had multiple obvious goals in asking that question.

1) Pandering to the libertarians who back him, and "being tough" on Bernanke. This is not a bad thing.

2) Making clear and explicit Bernanke's view on the issue, and on "which side" he stands. Bernanke answered in such a way that not only is he clearly a supporter of the fiat-money status quo, but he's probably aware that he's wrong in being such (or at least, he understands his position requires a certain level of deception and subterfuge to support it.) Paul exposed Bernanke for the type of man that he is.

3) Pressuring Bernanke. Essentially, "We know the truth, and aren't afraid to ask you threatening questions about it."

4) Once again raising the issue in the public arena, hopefully causing many to pause and give some thought to it.

All good enough reasons in my book.

Choke on that, Bernanke! 

Prices just keep going up, up, up across the board. But no worries, everyone... after all, inflation is supposed to be good for us! 

So then, we send Frodo (Paul) up to Mount Doom...

Who can we have act as Gollum to jump in (out of his own self-interest) and bring it all down when Paul turns?

Only if those people elect a government over themselves only. The instant they try to expand that government to some other non-consenting person, then that contradicts the "freely" part of the first option of the poll.

True, and frankly, I find myself suspicious of how Ron Paul might... compromise a little, were he President. But as long as the system exists, he's probably still the best man for the job. Until it's gone, he's the only "ringbearer" I can give any trust to.

First off, good thread.

I agree with hating the American public school system, although for me any variant of the Prussian school model is unacceptable. I'll have to look into this New Schools Venture, but personally I'm a big advocate of homeschooling (although I understand most families lack a parent with the free time for it.)

Wikileaks is a good idea, but I'm not sure how much I trust them. A few BTC is probably not a bad idea.

The Grameen bank sounds good, and I've heard people applauding the various micro-loan sites out there... but I'm uncomfortable helping people out through loans. I think it's better than just giving them money, but I also agree with the principle that "the borrower is servant to the lender." So that's out for me.

Nowadays I refuse to give to cancer charities; I'm really inclined to not give to any "let's cure X" medical charities anymore. As much government involvement that exists in healthcare, and with the suppressive activities of the pharmaceutical industry, I'm pretty much convinced the billions spent on cancer research and the like has been a waste, that the cures are either known or require outside-the-box approaches, and that these charities ultimately have very little incentive to solve the problems.

So what TO give to? Hmmm...

I usually give to the food pantry at the churches I've attended, and have seen folks benefit from those.

I'm somewhat into liberty-oriented "charities" right now. Things like the Civil Disobedience Evolution Fund, Orlando Cop Block, etc.

Thinking about it though, lately I've just done a lot of end-runs around actual organized charities. I'm trying to be more interactive with my local community, and have found myself trying to address local needs for people I know personally. Sometimes just a timely gift can go far for someone. I've known of folks who, say, had a kid who wanted to go to a sports camp, but they couldn't afford it, and have anonymously donated money for it. At one of our local city food festivals, which helps to raise money for local churches and charities, I target the ones I like (like a soup kitchen) and often leave a donation as well. I've also given time to a few local activities, both church-related and other.

Anyone else with any thoughts as to what organized charities are worthwhile?

Destroying the ring cannot be done until we actually get to where we need to be to do so.

Until then, I vote for Frodo (Paul) to carry it there.

Hmmm.

Fully trackable double-keyed bitcoins, where the "authorities" hold your second key? Without their approval, you can't buy anything with them?

Congratulations! You just turned bitcoins into the Mark of the Beast (TM)!

I suppose your next suggestion will be to encode our private keys, in encrypted form of course, onto an RFID chip we can all have conveniently embedded into the skin of our right hands or foreheads.

Do you have any idea the kind of trouble you would stir up were you to seriously propose this idea to the public at large?

If it's not too much trouble, could you briefly describe the bug, or point to a thread discussing it?

I don't even use an app. I just open my browser and make use of Instawallet. Works great so far!

I've downloaded and looked at BitPay, which seems to have potential, but seriously? You can't copy the account's address to the clipboard, or apparently even type/paste an address to send to without first finding a barcode to scan? That oversight is just ridiculous... 90+% of my transactions (for now) are going to be through websites or to other people who aren't generating QR codes. Text addresses, please.

Haven't tried Bitcoin for Android yet. (Haven't needed to trust it, or spend time on the download, since my current method is still working fine.) I'll give it a shot eventually.

Do you not have an estimate? Don't even want to hazard a guess?

Why is preserving ones own possessions bad?

Is there no moral or other difference between preserving ones own possessions without initiating force/fraud, and preserving ones own possessions by initiating force/fraud, that is relevant to this thread? (I'm actually curious, because if no such difference is relevant, then I'll just bow out.)

Finally. Thank you. Now we have a nail to hammer at:

In any reasonably-sized society (100,000+ people), what percent of employees do you think will fall into the above scenario, versus the percent who get fired, have their hours cut, etc.? (It would help too if you explain how you came to estimate that percent.)

Modern society already has rampant drug use. The most abused is one of the worst: alcohol.
 


I think you might be surprised at how many drivers in many areas, where car insurance is required, don't have it.



How healthy do you eat? Do you consider the regulated labels on foods today to be accurate? At least here in the U.S., the regulations actually grant corporations the permission to have labels that outright lie (one example: honey.)



Like Enron, or those Japanese power plants? What does it matter if the business that's destroying the environment is regulated or not, if it's still doing it? (Frankly, I think the behind-the-scenes story of the recent Japan situation is a case study for this.)



Wow. Again, you must not live in the U.S. Or you must just have never actually seen the legal system at work.


Hmmm. This society you don't wish to see come about? It seems to me that we're already living in it....

One of my first introductions to economics was a book called "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer. Don't know that I'd call the guy the best economist ever, but the book was eye-opening, and helped spark an interest in the subject.

So when Atlas started this thread, I was pretty sure I knew where he was coming from. But I'm amazed at how quickly people started taking the title literally and began arguing the laws of thermodynamics. (Although I admit, Atlas stretching things to the point of discussing workarounds to the speed of light isn't helping much.)

I don't think it's difficult to see how humanity's wealth, reasonably defined*, can, given time, be increased with no limit that is relevant to us. The fact that only X pounds of a material exist on the planet doesn't condemn us to only be able to produce Y units of good from that material. Yes, things may happen that way, but a cap of Y units isn't a necessity. A simple shift in production methods may reduce waste and increase the number of units by 50%. A newly-engineered unit design may allow the units to be produced with a lighter structure (less material), doubling the number available. A future additive may even increase the unit's power for negligible cost and effort, so that one new unit can function as well as 4 old ones, for yet another effective increase in production, and a total effective production of 12Y units rather than Y. It is the intelligence and creativity of mankind that is the true limiting factor to humanity's wealth, far more than the material we see around us.

Those who disagree with this, and really think we can't continually increase wealth, somewhat confuse me. I have to wonder why those folks haven't simply jumped into politics to just grab as much power and wealth as they can for themselves and their descendants, and to loot and pillage as much as is socially acceptable. Because if the pie really is limited, then, pfft! Why not? If someone must be "the sucker", why let it be you?


*A reasonable definition would not be one that states wealth is simply a measure of the mass of physical material one owns. I would hope a little thought could show how one could have less of some substance, yet still be objectively wealthier than someone with more of it.