It is better that there is no human face to Bitcoin. That is what they are trying to do.

If you can put a face to Bitcoin you can slander that face and create guilt by association for anyone who uses Bitcoins.


"Bitcoin, a cryptocurrency created by a sexual deviant, is getting a lot of attention lately"

"Bitcoin, a hair brained scheme devised by a man with a history of deception, has been growing in popularity among unsuspecting investors."

etc.

So if your idea does not win a majority vote then you must improve your idea?

And if you do not win a majority of votes...does that mean that your idea is not good?

What would happen if someone came into your back yard and killed your dog? Would you have legal ramifications?

What if someone came into your waterway and killed one of your whales?

Depends on how the property owner wants to treat the species on his land/waterway. Anyone introducing something that disrupts the wildlife on the person's land/waterway would be held responsible for the introduction of a harmful species.

Because you do.

Not unless you want to go against the majority. Which would be un-democratic.

Here is the trailer, check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tw15aK9NxQ



Here is the full feature film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tScuHwVtRcY

Then you do not give a rat's ass about what the solutions are.


The problems are corporations being allowed to pollute our environment under the protection of our very own government.

Brief history lesson.

Back in the day when property rights were actually followed and pollution just started to kick in people started going after these polluters that were encroaching on their property rights.

This was also back in the day where you called a private detective to solve your crime issues and not the government (remember the old PI movies?). Just as there were private detectives
that would hunt down murderers or thieves, there were private detectives that would hunt down the source of pollution. They would find the source, the land owner would sue the company
and the company owner would be prosecuted rightfully for property rights violations and the property owner would be compensated.

Around this time, pollution detectives were starting to catch on getting more and more popular.

The companies that were polluting did not like this one bit. How could they produce anything with no pollution? So they went to their friendly government officials to save them from these
law suits.

The government stepped in and decided to create "standards" and "guidelines" for pollution which essentially made it so that you could not sue a company if they were adhering to these guidelines
and the fines paid by the companies would go to the government to do with as they pleased. A nice little quid pro quo between corporations and government.

The private pollution detectives fell by the wayside and an industry was destroyed. The EPA became the protector of polluters and we have what we have now.


So, when you say you do not want to hear about property rights and you want solutions...you are basically saying that you only want to hear the solution that best fits your social agenda.

No.

It is fair to say bitcoins are worth $5.

or

Bitcoins are worth 5 bucks.

But it is not fair to say bitcoins are worth $5 bucks.

 

Voting has ended.

Democracy is a bad idea: 11 votes
Democracy is not a bad idea: 9 votes

If you like democracy then you must accept the outcome.

There should no longer be any support of democracy on this forum because it has been determined a bad idea by the majority.

Q E D

The solution lies in property rights.

But that does not fit into the game plan of "what can we use to get people to accept socialism..."

Nobody subscribes to the New Yorker. They are just given out freely to be placed in dentist and doctor waiting rooms.

Call me when the solution to the environment is NOT socialism.

There is no requirement for 100% consensus. Try again.

I doubt most merchants would want a second machine just for Bitcoin. Why spend $250 for another machine when you could just have Bitcoin capability on your cell phone for free?

It needs to be integrated or it will not be used. I understand the difficulties in doing so. Someone should be able to come up with something.

In the general election Republicans fall behind the Republican and Democrats fall behind the Democrat.

It is the independents that choose the president.

His hardest election will be the Republican primary which he is now polling in 3rd place behind a fake Tea Party that is parroting his talking points but has no record to back it up and against a liberal Republican who changes his stance on everything every day.

Alternative system offered which would be fairer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46130.0

You have obviously not read the full OP, otherwise you are just trolling.

Come back after you have read it.

The system is a method of voting for how money is spent. Not on how things are done.

The only enforcement power within the system is the distribution of funds. That is tied to Bitcoins and cannot be corrupted.