Lucky you!  Don't spend them

I don't see the difference.

I can vouch for this; don't ever trust anyone pushing a coin that isn't Bitcoin (or possible Litecoin.)  The scheme is to create a coin just to short it and abandon it; this requires people to put their time and effort into adopting the altcoin and putting it on an exchange.  It's nothing more than a movement of wealth to the original adopters (sometimes involving a pre-mine) from whoever decided not to cash out.

I'm starting to believe democratic socialism is a code word for morally ignorant.  Which is funny, since morality is the foundation of the philosophy of ethics and ethics is the foundation of the philosophy of law and law is the foundation of the civil society which every democratic socialist touts.

Oh god, the press board just became frightening.

Are our accounts yet safe?

What I'm most curious about is where they'll reallocate; it seems our future economy will be entirely the cause of scientists and creatives.  It would seem society's greatest maintenance, then, would be in education, and a lot of it.  I have high hopes of a world where everyone is very intelligent, but I can't help but wonder of the people who decide they do not want to worry about such matters.

If we follow the timeline long enough, Bitcoin hits a singularity with the dollar (as does anything valued in the dollar) in which no amount of dollars will buy a Bitcoin.  No fiat currency has ever survived throughout history; the dollar is not the exception.

So it's hard to answer your question; yes and no.  Yes, Bitcoin will inevitably be worth a trillion dollars; no, because a hundred dollars, at that point, possibly might not buy a loaf of bread.  From an investment standpoint, keeping a majority of your wealth in gold or Bitcoin can never be a bad thing; gold is trusted globally as the de facto money, while Bitcoin, so long as it doesn't hit a major snag, will likely exhibit the same properties.

The same goes for you; don't waste my time with these pointless petitions about problems that don't matter.  We generally have a hierarchy of problems in which we'd like to solve, usually ranging from people problems to everything else.  Now, considering the major people problems of today, that being world poverty, hunger, and a plethora of cannibal states that refuse to stop empire building, I ask you why, of all the things we could be devoting our time to, you feel this, this one problem, which has nothing to do with anything that will ever matter to me or you or the people who agree that this is not wrong, supersedes everything else.

Consider this: business A makes living animals in keychains.  Group of people B buy these keychains.  You would assume, if B really thought this mattered, they would not buy the keychains, and yet they do, which means: they don't care.  The business and the people are perfectly content with this product; it is, however, apparently such a big problem, that people who have nothing to do with the purchasers of these items must assert their disliking for these keychains.  There is a simple, effective method for ending this, if we truly agree that this is wrong and should not happen: we would not buy them.  In other words, the business would not exist if there was a real problem.

It is completely in the burden of you, the person who has presented this petition, to explain why you believe this petition matters.  Otherwise, you have no business posting this anywhere; this is hardly anything more than moral laziness: "I don't want to actually be virtuous, so I'll just sign this petition and make myself feel better over not doing anything to help anyone."

If you're really worried about the animals, why don't you go for bigger targets?  Are you aware there are bigger targets?  Are you aware there are greater problems?  Do you care?

I'll ask again, and I expect a fully detailed reasoning as to why you believe this issue matters: what is the problem?  You must certainly accept all other forms of animal abuse if this is the tip-top of your worries.

That's not an argument.  Try again.

I don't need it.  If you'd like to actually explain the problem, that would be far more useful.

This is what has happened to gold and silver over the course of history; if people allow institutions to give them Bitcoin I.O.U.s, they should have every expectation of those I.O.U.s to inevitably no longer represent Bitcoin.

There is a very good reason why we want a chronicle of mankind.  The simplest solution to this problem is, of course, to not accept anything that isn't really Bitcoin.  If we choose to ignore past mistakes, so we will experience them again, and would we deserve the following pain.

I don't see the problem.

If you believe taxation is just, you, and the businesses you purchase from, will show complete honesty when filing your yearly taxes.

If you do not, then you have no need to ask

Facebook is bad business.

If you gotta ask...

They would be asked for proof.

Another one?

Ahh all right, I see what you're trying for; I feel it's entirely necessary for these revolts and riots to occur, however.  As much as I don't want them to happen, people need to experience the full front of their irresponsibility or they'll never learn to the error of their ways.  I feel it will only exacerbate the problem by asking government to employ a solution, as both of them grant them further power, and it is through this redistribution of power from the individual to the state that allowed men to manipulate the economy to this extent.  The pathway back to 1984 will be the one that allows other men full control over our every action; if people want a better world, they must inevitably realize that it is they who must work for this world.  It is always through fear we further enslave ourselves; we must face this fear and take responsibility for our future, for if we are truly incapable of solving this problem on our own, we have no right to ask for anything better than we have now.

We're in the point of no return; there will be a lot of short-term pain, but the sooner we get it over with, the better off we'll be.  The only alternative is a can and a road, which is what we've been doing for a long time; the longer we kick this can, the longer the walk back to a place we can call normal.

Fucking words, how do they work?

It seems we're barreling toward socialism, or socialism.  If those are our two options, I'm rooting for socialism; it seems capitalism doesn't function right when you have a people without labor, since the owners of capital have no way of selling their products to people who aren't working.  Rather, if people mutually agreed to work the land for their own benefit (in this case, agreed that the machines should do it), they can get the basic necessities they need and continue to work (in the fields machines can't automate, of course, unless A.I. becomes a real thing) to improve their condition.

Which is my hang-up; I can't picture a world without money, for this implies a world in which labor is not necessary, ergo a store of one's work is no longer a necessity.  This is not because I believe it is impossible, but because it is so abstract from the world as we know it that I would need a complete understanding of the world as it is just to see one that completely isn't.

But we're left with a problem: what if you don't want to be some kind of scientist or creative?  Perhaps the scientists and the creatives still need human labor to assist them, and can be paid for doing that; since all the necessary work is handled by the perfect slaves and thus, all items necessary to life are essentially very inexpensive and high quality, it seems a person can still make a great living while working few hours; socialism normally has this effect but the machines help tremendously.  After all, the original machines were the natural driving forces behind agriculture some 8k years ago, allowing people to not only feed themselves but to feed others.  Now we're to the point where machines can potentially completely replace the need for a human laborer.  The only difference with all our technological advances, the surplus created by machine tends to get sucked away to whomever owns the means of production, thus making the wealthy class possible at all.

And then there's the RBE conceived by Jacque Fresco which I'm not entirely sure about.

Anyway, I don't see either of the listed options as permanent solutions; one is bound to break when people don't want to be taxed to their eyeballs, the other has proven in the past to be troublesome, and not to mention how much limited freedom curtails in being unable to decide for oneself what the self needs and doesn't.