So it takes 3 months to get your license. 3 months and you can have a military grade automatic weapon. I'd say that's pretty easy.
The license is prohibitively expensive to the point of infringing on my rights. The weapon itself will be extremely expensive thanks to the laws surrounding it. You say pretty easy, I say the cost is ridiculous. That is, if you are interested in the legal route. Common criminals have a much easier time. A common criminal is not getting an automatic weapon. Unless of course he walks down to the store to get it. Perhaps common was the wrong word. I don't mean the average criminal, but I do mean that the criminal requires no special abilities to acquire one. He simply purchases an illegally modified firearm from any other thug he happens to be in contact with. That is not how it works. You're talking about incredibly serious criminals, not the majority of criminals. Those criminals will just as easily buy an rpg or a grenade; I guess we should legalize those because why bother if they'll just get it anyways. Why make it easier for them? |
|
|
|
small government, genius
This is what you quoted: "Somalia has a tiny government and is a great place to raise a family right?? As J603 pointed out this is a common trend. Sorry but "small government" is a broken term that imo usually just means "I want to do whatever I want and f*** everyone else"." Historically what did not go down in this post? Let's go piece by piece. "Somalia has a tiny government..." Happened/is happening. "Great place to raise a family right"? Sarcasm. "As J603 pointed out"... I did indeed point this out. ".. is a common trend." I'd say that historically this is true. "Sorry but 'small government' is a broken term.. imo.. everyone else..." His opinion. Everything in that quote went down historically in the way he described. Are you saying that "small government" didn't go down "that way" historically? Which is what I asked you to clarify in the first place? Because it seems as though whether or not a government is small has nothing to do with the economy of a nation. Authoritarian governments can foster just as good an economy as states with no central government. general history. assume generalities when specifics aren't given, it's logical Look at my very first post in this thread. I named the top 25 countries in terms of growth and their type of government. That is as specific as it gets. I don't see why I should have to repeat myself. If you can't be bothered to read the entire thread then you shouldn't respond asking for specifics. That is illogical. In case you can't be bothered to read through a whopping two pages: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=271238.msg2945312#msg2945312 |
|
|
|
So it takes 3 months to get your license. 3 months and you can have a military grade automatic weapon. I'd say that's pretty easy.
The license is prohibitively expensive to the point of infringing on my rights. The weapon itself will be extremely expensive thanks to the laws surrounding it. You say pretty easy, I say the cost is ridiculous. That is, if you are interested in the legal route. Common criminals have a much easier time. A common criminal is not getting an automatic weapon. Unless of course he walks down to the store to get it. |
|
|
|
small government, genius
This is what you quoted: "Somalia has a tiny government and is a great place to raise a family right?? As J603 pointed out this is a common trend. Sorry but "small government" is a broken term that imo usually just means "I want to do whatever I want and f*** everyone else"." Historically what did not go down in this post? Let's go piece by piece. "Somalia has a tiny government..." Happened/is happening. "Great place to raise a family right"? Sarcasm. "As J603 pointed out"... I did indeed point this out. ".. is a common trend." I'd say that historically this is true. "Sorry but 'small government' is a broken term.. imo.. everyone else..." His opinion. Everything in that quote went down historically in the way he described. Are you saying that "small government" didn't go down "that way" historically? Which is what I asked you to clarify in the first place? Because it seems as though whether or not a government is small has nothing to do with the economy of a nation. Authoritarian governments can foster just as good an economy as states with no central government. |
|
|
|
+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.
With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission. Actually, I can have knowledge of your balance and every transaction ever made with that address if you give me the public key. That would be me giving you permission by revealing my public key. Even then, I can have countless other addresses unlinked to the one I've revealed. In order for bitcoins to be on the address you must make some sort of transaction... In which case someone knows your balance and transaction history. Maybe not me, but anyone you deal with will know. |
|
|
|
+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.
With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission. Actually, I can have knowledge of your balance and every transaction ever made with that address if you give me the public key. |
|
|
|
Somalia has a tiny government and is a great place to raise a family right?? As J603 pointed out this is a common trend. Sorry but "small government" is a broken term that imo usually just means "I want to do whatever I want and f*** everyone else".
Not how it went down historically. Not how what went down historically? |
|
|
|
What? Who gets the excuse that "the gun did it"? Whether you murder someone with a fish or a gun you get the same murder charge.
Yes, it's technically possible to kill someone with anything. However good luck killing someone with a squirt gun. It is much easier to kill someone with an AK than with a water pistol.
Murderers don't need easy access to assault weapons.
Mind you, I'm not against guns in general, just ones like AK47s or other automatics which clearly have no merit as a weapon for "self defense". A small pistol or knife is fine. An assault rifle is not.
I am playing devils advocate here. Of course your right that a firearm is more dangerous than a toy. But I can decide for myself what is a good self defense weapon. Most of the worlds soldiers choose an AK for defense. I am licensed to carry knives also, but I rarely do. Even with seven years of studying martial arts and specializing in blades I do not feel confident that I would survive a knife fight. In America an automatic weapon is almost impossible to get unless you can pass very stringent background checks including unannounced home inspections. I carry a pistol but it took four months, hundreds of dollars in classes and licenses, two background checks (full checks with prints and all), and a waiting period and another check for buying the gun. It is simply untrue that these weapons are easy to get. I'm not sure where you live but in NH I can go to the firing range and buy a semi-automatic AK-47 at age 18 if I get a background check which takes like a week (you can even rent out full auto firearms provided you take a safety class). I could purchase the tools necessary to modify this semi-auto AK and turn it automatic. The modification process is illegal but the acquisition of the parts and rifle itself (before being modified) is legal. If you want to go the completely legal route, I believe the laws for automatic weapons are the same no matter where you go in the US. In 90 days max you could have a fully automatic weapon legally if you get your license from BATFE. So it takes 3 months to get your license. 3 months and you can have a military grade automatic weapon. I'd say that's pretty easy. |
|
|
|
Didn't for me, but maybe OP edited? How do you check edits? |
|
|
|
I'm going to say the same thing that I said to him to you.
Gambling and drugs are a "real" part of any economy.
So you think Bitcoin is a success and has a real future if it's only used for gambling and drugs? That's not what I said. I said that it's better that bitcoins are used for something than nothing. But if bitcoin wasn't used for these things then it would be a sign of a failing currency. Gambling and drugs are a huge part of an economy (drugs mostly). For them to not be represented in an economy shows that that economy is not fully developed. All economies have their vices, and vices are big money makers. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the question. I'm not 100% convinced of my logic, it is just a draft, but with your question, I can go a little bit deep into this topic
Price appreciated from 10 to 11, simply because there are not enough coin and there are more participants. Suppose that first year there are 10,000 people, each of them buy 0.36 coins per day at $10, total 3600 coins were bought every day
If second year there are 11000 people buying coins with same amount of dollar from each person ($3.6 per day), then there will not be enough coins, since 3600 coins per day is fixed in the protocol. They will get less coin for the same amount of dollar, so the exchange rate will rise.
The problem with this is that only bitcoin's rate of supply is fixed. Technically, there can be "infinite" bitcoins if we use more decimal places. All 7 billion of the people on this Earth can share one btc if we really want to. Of course, this would mean that the price of 1 BTC will increase. However, only early adopters will benefit and that's assuming that they hoard and never sell all their bitcoins and then purchase more later. Not all the people will buy the coins at the highest price they've ever been, they will select a proper timing based on their judgement. Maybe price first rised to 13 then dropped back to 9 and end up at 11 at year end. Anyway, supply is fixed, if the coin have some history of good performance, and there are more people joining the bitcoin economy, the supply will be insufficient, the average price over a year will rise Again, there can't be an "insufficient" supply. |
|
|
|
Looking at the transactions of that address, OP certainly has the means to pay it back. Not paying it back would be pointless, since .30 is worth much less than what he could get through being trusted.
And if he doesn't pay back then you will just sue him right? That's what you have been telling everyone to do with Joey over $30-40. It would be hypocritical of you not to sue him if he doesn't repay. Yes, I will. But it has been only a few hours since I accepted the loan request. I'll give him until the time he specified. At this point I'm more worried that he left the forum, since he never responded to me giving the loan... However that's my fault, not his. |
|
|
|
The point is thus: if you don't like it, you can always leave, and create another forum where there is less censorship. If enough people like that new forum, they'll flock to it. Otherwise, they'll stay here. I don't think this is nearly as big a deal as people are making it out to be. This site is supposed to be about freedom, and so far the only freedom here is for scammers.
Does theymos even own this site? Someone gave him admin rights and a next there was Coup?
Honestly trying to scam, and banning people for no reason, that's a shitty admin.
You're mistaken; this site is supposed to be about Bitcoin. Take my advice above, if you're so offended. Just like people say create a new bitcoin foundation some things just can't be done that way. First off this is the official bitcoin discussion forum, and as a bitcoin user I am entitled to my opinion. As I have said before hundreds of times, bitcoin really means you only have one opinion and if you don't like it, then everyone turns on you. It is sad. Also Theymos hasn't posted in this thread is he a scared? Cause we are right. Do VIP's really get special treatment? Yes look at all the trolls who are VIP's. This forum is corrupted! Bitcoin is decentralized. There is no "official" bitcoin forum. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is nothing more than an opinion. Complaining will do absolutely nothing unless Theymos has a change of heart, which I don't think he will. Bitcoin software is decentralized but other parts of it are very much centralized. This is the official bitcoin forum, their is no unofficial tag, Satoshi had the forum move from sourceforge to here. How is this the "official" bitcoin forum? Theymos owns and runs it. He isn't Satoshi. Even if he was, Satoshi put bitcoins out there to be uncontrollable by anyone. Even if he changed his mind, he's just as much an owner as I am. I could mine my own bitcoins, buy things with no 3rd party interference, and even run my own bitcoin forum. Nothing about bitcoin is centralized. |
|
|
|
The only guns that should exist are the ones that cannot be used to assault
What gun would that be? I can assault someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun if I keep hitting them hard enough. Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of assault. Only people commit assaults, and they should be charged for it. No, you cannot kill someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun, no matter how hard you pull that trigger. There is a difference between an AK-47 or other assault rifle and a squirt gun. I think I could kill someone with a squirt gun, although it would be easier with my AK. My point is that the weapon is irrelevant. It takes a person with malicious intent to assault another. They might use a gun or a Bible or a railroad spike or a large dried fish. Whatever they use, they are the assailant and not the weapon. They should face justice without offering them the excuse of "an evil gun made me do it". What? Who gets the excuse that "the gun did it"? Whether you murder someone with a fish or a gun you get the same murder charge. Yes, it's technically possible to kill someone with anything. However good luck killing someone with a squirt gun. It is much easier to kill someone with an AK than with a water pistol. Murderers don't need easy access to assault weapons. Mind you, I'm not against guns in general, just ones like AK47s or other automatics which clearly have no merit as a weapon for "self defense". A small pistol or knife is fine. An assault rifle is not. |
|
|
|
How much is REAL transactions though ie BTC replacing Fiat and buying actual real-world goods and services (ie not gambling, BTC securities, ASICs or SilkRoad)?
Where are the stats on that, or does no-one actually want to see whether there's any real BTC economy out there........!
Gambling and drugs are a "real" part of any economy. Better that bitcoins are used for something, even if it's drugs, rather than only be used as a security or stock. Bitcoin will only be a success when it's used by people for real goods/services. Having Bitcoin just so it can be used for illegal unregulated gambing and drug purchases is not a route to or validation of success of adoption. I'm going to say the same thing that I said to him to you. Gambling and drugs are a "real" part of any economy. |
|
|
|
So most homo sapiens are mongrels then...
Yes, just like how most dogs are not purebred. |
|
|
|
^I'd say everything that comprises bitcoin right now is much more than 1B, ie the Network. Market cap (ie shares*$spot) does not equal valuation.
For one, you cannot sell 11.5M bitcoins for $1B at market. Slippage. Same thing with buying $1B. You can't just raise the price 100% doing that, the price would be much much higher. Might be more cost effective to buy a mining monopoly instead.
In that case, the market cap is far more than the actual value (hence the term "cap). If there was a major sell, the price would drop. So realistically, the BTC economy is worth less than the 1.3 billion that it is valued at. You're forgetting all the services, goods for sale, goods wanted, worth of the participation in the protocol, ongoing investments, etc. everything you can do with bitcoin is tied into its worth, but not its market cap. Market caps can be misleading and do not tell the whole picture For instance, bitcoin allows me to send money, past borders, anywhere in the world, securely, for pennies. Is that reflected in the market cap? Could I not do the same thing when bitcoin was worth $10? What was its market cap then? I value the sort of network that can allow me to do that, but outstanding bitcoins*spot is not the way to value that. Because ANYONE can use bitcoin to do the above, I value bitcoin much more than its market cap for that reason. If I could buy bitcoin outright for a billion I would I'm not forgetting anything. The market cap is simply the number of BTC * the average value. This should represent the maximum worth. If every bitcoin was spent (not realistic as the price would fluctuate) you could still only buy 1.3 billion dollars worth of services and goods. "Everything you can do with bitcoin" is tied into its worth, and is represented by the market cap. A bitcoin is worth 118 at Gox because the majority of people believe that they can buy $118 of goods with one bitcoin. Multiplying this value (averaged) by the number of bitcoins should be a good estimate of the market cap. You can say that low fees and easy transferability are an aspect of value, but that's simply your opinion. You can "value" bitcoin all you want but you still can't buy 1.4 billion worth of goods, It's impossible unless the number of bitcoins increases or their individual value increases. That being said, your opinion is part of the market cap. If you're willing to pay say $130 for the technical aspects of bitcoin then the market cap will factor that in, and it will increase. But just you thinking that bitcoins are more valuable than they actually are does not change anything. |
|
|
|
I would agree with you, if SR's sibling site didn't sell guns. Note that it was taken down but DPR said he wants to bring it back if it's profitable. |
|
|
|
an attack is now imminent within the next few weeks.
Define... fewA few hundred maybe? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
