Satoshi is a Legend
.... we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of
freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled
networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be
holding their own. Satoshi Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:30:36 -0800 http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html |
|
|
|
Nope. Bitcoin is still as sound as it ever was. Hodling.
Also: go get slaughtered piggy.
I have no positions in bitcoin. Yes, that is your problem and the reason why you open so many troll threads. You missed this train which we didn't. You are slaughtered already. |
|
|
|
Strong support at $60.-, and at $5'000.- in Dec. 2016 (with resistance at 150'000.-).  |
|
|
|
Then shouldn't the effective prohibition of bitcoin in China exert some kind of upward price pressure as well?
In the long run, yes. State terror is the reason why bitcoin was constructed; ongoing state terror against bitcoin is a main price driver for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
LOL. Gold 2.0. What a joke !
We all know, late adopters don't love the digital versions of gold, letters, music etc. They are always late and therefore punished. |
|
|
|
You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe. In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.
I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely. Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power. That's exactly what I said. Where do you think this guarantee comes from? In regards to paper dollars: the state In regards to gold: its beautiful, humans have always lusted after it In regards to bitcoin: there is no backing. Your intentions are clear; you're not clever. The state is backed by people, the state backs the dollar, ergo the dollar is guaranteed by the user. Gold is backed by people, ergo gold is guaranteed by the user. Bitcoin is backed by people, ergo bitcoin is guaranteed by the user. Refuse to acknowledge the truth if you please, just don't do it publicly; it's degrading, and nobody will take you seriously if you continue this behavior. Yes. The troll missed the train to Gold 2.0 and that makes him angry. Gold is backed by demand, Gold 2.0 as well, otherwise the price would be zero. |
|
|
|
Its absolutely is the state enforces contracts. The reason people don't go to court is that the parties to a contract know that the court will enforce it. Take away that certainty and companies will break contracts at will and boast about it to shareholders. "Yes we shafted the guy but it added to your dividend. More bonus please!"
For example, in my headhunting days, I have seen companies fire salesmen who are on the point of closing a huge deal in order to save commission. I recruited the replacement sales executive. It was only by being sued by the sacked salesman that the company was forced to pay the guy. You are deluding yourself if you think that reputation matters enough to stop people taking high paying jobs.
Laws and courts exists because they fulfill a market need. They would exist just as much in an anarchist society because humans will still be the same. The only question is whether they will be under democratic control.
No state - no contract. No state - no economy. No state = anarchy = self-sufficient communities. No need for doing business with aliens there. That was the reality for 99 percent of the history of the humanity. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336594.msg3988134#msg3988134So your vision is that people exist as "self sufficient communities" without an economy. Fine. These are the 2 options that were possible in our history. The self-sufficient human in the community or the ruled citizen as an enslaved cartoon of a human within hypercollectives which grow rampant until they collapse. Your choice. |
|
|
|
Its absolutely is the state enforces contracts. The reason people don't go to court is that the parties to a contract know that the court will enforce it. Take away that certainty and companies will break contracts at will and boast about it to shareholders. "Yes we shafted the guy but it added to your dividend. More bonus please!"
For example, in my headhunting days, I have seen companies fire salesmen who are on the point of closing a huge deal in order to save commission. I recruited the replacement sales executive. It was only by being sued by the sacked salesman that the company was forced to pay the guy. You are deluding yourself if you think that reputation matters enough to stop people taking high paying jobs.
Laws and courts exists because they fulfill a market need. They would exist just as much in an anarchist society because humans will still be the same. The only question is whether they will be under democratic control.
No state - no contract. No state - no economy. No state = anarchy = self-sufficient communities. No need for doing business with aliens there. That was the reality for 99 percent of the history of the humanity. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336594.msg3988134#msg3988134 |
|
|
|
It is not my view that is being imposed on anyone. You are confused about anarchy. Anarchy does not mean that anarchists remove the rules that your government imposes on everyone, and replace them with rules that anarchists impose on everyone. Anarchy means that each individual decides what he wants to do, and each individual is free to try to impose their own rule on someone else. There are no anarchy rules to impose. That is why it is called anarchy. It is up to each individual to have good morals and logical ethical position.
This form of anarchy I call the only true Anarchy, and this is not what most "anarchists" here would consider as anarchy. So you would go for a sort of heretic among them... That is anarcho-capitalism as I understand it. You can do whatever you wish, so long as you are aware of consequences of your action, and everyone else is free to react to your actions as they wish, without relying on law or police to tell them how they must react. How is my anarchy form different? The one and only form of anarchy in the history of mankind is the self-sufficient community. There is no such thing as individualism in the human nature. A human is neither an individualist nor a (hyper-) collectivist (citizen). Anarchy in the world of the reality means individualistic (stateless, unruled) communities. Matrilineal anarchy was slowly replaced by patriarchy (= organized violence, state and church) about 10'000 years ago. |
|
|
|
Yes, they are finished. Indebted already as grotesk as the globalized developed just-in-time-world, on which their economy is depending.
China debt is not nearly as serious as USA or Europe debt, because debt in USA and Europe is to citizens in forms of pensions, medicine, and social security. Plus those citizens have much personal debt in credit cards and mortgages. China does not have many social programs, and many people save much money and have large savings, so if China collapses, they have enough to live on for a long time. That's funny. Where ever people have 'much money and large savings', there are people that have much debt, because money is debt. China went to 300 percent Debt/GDP within the greatest speed in the history of capitalism/collectivism. To avoid the economic collapse after the Lehman event, the chinese state terrorists did more QE than the Benbernank. They know that the guilloutines are ready for them as soon as the debt machine stops to grow at 20 and more percent annually. |
|
|
|
China is surely not as dependent on the USA as the latter on the former. Even if the USA disappeared entirely one day, China would go on.
Never ever. The Chinese regime (state mafia) would collapse within a week and with them the whole society. They need a maximum of state terror even now, when the economy is booming. They didn't collapse for a few millennia and now they would? China is still very underdeveloped country, so they would just get back where they started three decades ago. Not a long time really, taking into account the length of their history... Yes, they are finished. Indebted already as grotesk as the globalized developed just-in-time-world, on which their economy is depending. |
|
|
|
Electricity is getting more complex to hold up every year. Europe is a supranational network, and the chance for a blackout is growing every year as well. If ever, it surely won't look like a collapse of a unified society. I think you are crying wolf really...
Wait for the next Lehman event. The collapse will undoubtedly be a global one in a globalized society. The USA is not working anymore without China et vice versa. A Bankrun, and the whole society comes to a stand still. China is surely not as dependent on the USA as the latter on the former. Even if the USA disappeared entirely one day, China would go on. Never ever. The Chinese regime (state mafia) would collapse within a week and with them the banking system and the whole society. They need a maximum of state terror even now, when the economy is booming. The just in time economy is globalized. Toyota had to stop the production worldwide after Fukushima, because some parts couldn't be produced anymore in Fukushima. |
|
|
|
What you say looks more like some giant asteroid hitting Earth, not like a technological disaster. And still less a societal collapse. Societies usually either slowly vanish into nonexistence without raising hell or just get conquered by their more agile neighbors (which is right, in my opinion)...
No, it looks like a normal implosion of a complex society. Instead of the pyramids, the nuclear reactors will be digged up some million years in the future. The maya culture disappeared immediately as well. Our society (globalized the first time in history) will disappear within weeks as soon as the network (internet and/or electricity) collapses. I don't think it is as globalized as it might ultimately get. Electricity is not globalized at all, Internet is a distributed network at that, thus they cannot simply collapse in the way you think they would (within weeks). Electricity is getting more complex to hold up (50 Hz) every year. Europe is a supranational network, and the chance for a blackout is growing every year as well. http://www.zeit.de/zeit-wissen/2012/06/Stromnetz-Winter-Blackout-Stromausfallhttp://www.t-online.de/wirtschaft/energie/id_46657528/bei-stromausfall-droht-kollaps-der-gesellschaft-.htmlIf ever, it surely won't look like a collapse of a unified society. I think you are crying wolf really...
Wait for the next Lehman event. The collapse will undoubtedly be a global one in a globalized society. The USA is not working anymore without China et vice versa. A Bankrun, and the whole society comes to a stand still. |
|
|
|
That's what qualitative leaps are created for. You squeeze everything from the current system and then you get to the next level. As simple as that. Actually, we've been there before many times in history...
Yes, but sooner or later we will also be back on a level, on which we have been a million or more years ago. A collapse of a society with aqueducts or pyramids is not the same as a collapse of a society with 500 or 5000 burning nuclear reactors. 500 or 5000 Fukushima events, but without cooling. An equivalent of 100 Million Hiroshima Bombs will be blown out into the atmosphere. What you say looks more like some giant asteroid hitting Earth, not like a technological disaster. And still less a societal collapse. Societies usually either slowly vanish into nonexistence without raising hell or just get conquered by their more agile neighbors (which is right, in my opinion)... No, it looks like a normal implosion of a complex society. Instead of the pyramids, the nuclear reactors will be digged up some million years in the future. The maya culture disappeared immediately as well. Our society (globalized the first time in history) will disappear within weeks as soon as the network (internet and/or electricity) collapses. |
|
|
|
This is an interesting point that tipping point. I think you could be right but for a possible qualitative leap, i.e. is a major and sudden change in social structure or something related to it (and this definitely won't be towards self-sufficient, egalitarian communities). I am not that much into sociology and that kind of things, but at least I can explain how it happens in economics and why we are still advancing in technology...
We still advance in technology and therefore in additional complexity. But it generates shrinking marginal returns and shrinking growth. The required additional debt reached the tipping point already. The private sector can't take additional debt anymore. That's why the state mafia is trying to compensate it by additional state debt. That's what qualitative leaps are created for. You squeeze everything from the current system and then you get to the next level. As simple as that. Actually, we've been there before many times in history... Yes, but sooner or later we will also be back on a level, on which we have been a million or more years ago. A collapse of a society with aqueducts or pyramids is not the same as a collapse of a society with 500 or 5000 burning nuclear reactors. 500 or 5000 Fukushima events, but without cooling. An equivalent of 100 Million Hiroshima Bombs will be blown out into the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
If we were to get back to those self-sufficient, egalitarian communities, how on earth could we at least keep that level of technological development we reached today primarily due to division of labor (which is impossible without building social hierarchies)?
We couldn't keep it. But we can't anyway. A society is something that always disappears by collapse. It is growing rampant endlessly, until the end. Societies are 'problem solving societies' (Tainter) which are permanently investing in additional complexity to solve the problems. The Game is over as soon as the ever shrinking marginal return of additional complexity reaches the tipping point. This is an interesting point that tipping point. I think you could be right but for a possible qualitative leap, i.e. is a major and sudden change in social structure or something related to it (and this definitely won't be towards self-sufficient, egalitarian communities). I am not that much into sociology and that kind of things, but at least I can explain how it happens in economics and why we are still advancing in technology... We still advance in technology and therefore in additional complexity. But it generates shrinking marginal returns and shrinking growth. The required additional debt reached the tipping point already. The private sector can't take additional debt anymore. That's why the state mafia is trying to compensate it by additional state debt.  |
|
|
|
Before the humans were collectivized, they lived in self-sufficient, egalitarian communities within Dunbar's Numbers. Collectivism (state/nation/church) is the perversion of these natural collectivs/communities. Paleolithic communities were egalitarian; there was no hierarchy (which is translated as „holy reign“), no domination, no rulers, no chiefs and no warfare violence, as archeology revealed and social science explains.http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.htmlIf we were to get back to those self-sufficient, egalitarian communities, how on earth could we at least keep that level of technological development we reached today primarily due to division of labor (which is impossible without building social hierarchies)? We couldn't keep it. But we can't anyway. A society is something that always disappears by collapse. It is growing rampant endlessly, until the end. Societies are 'problem solving societies' (Tainter) which are permanently investing in additional complexity to solve the problems. The Game is over as soon as the ever shrinking marginal return of additional complexity reaches the tipping point.  http://dieoff.org/page134.htm |
|
|
|
Adaptability is not human nature, it is a trait of all living beings. Human nature is hierarchical because humans are social beings, i.e. tending to organize into hierarchical societies. And yes, it is programmed into us before we are born...  House cats are true anarchists!  No, that's not human nature that is hierarchical (patriarchical). This is the nature of the citizen, but a citizen is not a human. A citizen is a collectivist. A human lived in a stateless non-patriarchal community, for several hundred thousand years. The last 10'000 years only were the epoche of the citizen, the hierarchist, the collectivist, the idiot. I always thought that collectivism was another word for social nature of humans, individualism being the opposite. If the ancient man hadn't been a collectivist, he would soon have been eaten by predators. I think it is exactly due to collectivism in the first place that we managed to survive as a specie during those wild times... Before the humans were collectivized, they lived in self-sufficient, egalitarian communities within Dunbar's Numbers. Collectivism (state/nation/church) is the perversion of these natural collectivs/communities. Paleolithic communities were egalitarian; there was no hierarchy (which is translated as „holy reign“), no domination, no rulers, no chiefs and no warfare violence, as archeology revealed and social science explains.http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html |
|
|
|
Anarchy would never ever ever work. Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.
LoL. Human nature. You know what human nature is? It is ADAPTABILITY. We can be anarchic or authoritarian and all sorts of things in between. But don't you ever think this can never change, or is somehow programmed into us before we are born. We respond to environmental conditions and develop accordingly. Adaptability is not human nature, it is a trait of all living beings. Human nature is hierarchical because humans are social beings, i.e. tending to organize into hierarchical societies. And yes, it is programmed into us before we are born... House cats are true anarchists! No, that's not human nature that is hierarchical (patriarchical). This is the nature of the citizen, but a citizen is not a human. A citizen is a collectivist. A human lived in a stateless non-patriarchal community, for several hundred thousand years. The last 10'000 years only were the epoche of the citizen, the hierarchist, the collectivist, the idiot. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
