Bitcoin is a calming influence in the world, not disruptive.  Central banking is disruptive.

Could a government benefit from bitcoin?  Easily.  A government could buy a bunch of bitcoins and then announce that it will buy bitcoins until it has enough to back its currency with bitcoins.  The price would shoot up and the government wouldn't need to buy anymore, and in fact would be able to issue more money without devaluing its currency.

Read Spengler's book.  He is one of the greatest civilizational theorists ever.  His masterwork is basically unreadable, but the book that I linked to is very readable.  He has an intense pro-socialism bias, but it is easy to separate his views from his insights.

The Nazis (the specific party) were fascists, but fascism and national socialism (the generic ideology) are not the same.  Fascism is an aesthetic ideology, based around finding beauty in large scale disruptions, such as industrial production and industrial war.  A modern day example is Obama's first election campaign.  Hope and change, masses of young people?  Very fascist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto


Well yes, because most people, whether nationalist or not, are ardent statists.

Imagine if the current crop of young people wasn't hyper-conformist.  Millennials actually see political correctness as a good thing.  No, the way to reach them is through fashion.  Bitcoin can be seen as hip and new, that's the way to get young people on board.  It worked for Obama (the most anti-youth president in history?).

So... national socialism.  You are confusing leftism (the lust for power) with socialism (the desire to be a cog in a machine).  You are also confusing nationalism (allegiance to a nation) with statism (allegiance to a state).

Oswald Spengler (the real one, not any of the people who use his name) will set you straight, with his very readable book:

https://archive.org/stream/PrussianismAndSocialism/PrussianismAndSocialism_djvu.txt

My thoughts exactly.  People who are able to safely express all of their ideas in the open don't have any ideas of their own.

That was their mistake.  Middle-class whites should have forced the rich give up their access to cheap labor.  Actually this is what middle-class people should do everywhere.  The problem with rich people is that they love having poor people around to mow their lawns, raise their kids, and construct their houses.  Then the poor people make life hell for the middle class.

I'm talking about the 1950s or 1960s.  Instead of establishing apartheid they could have partitioned the country.

When leftists have power they do their best to silence the views of normal people.  When someone else has even a tiny shred of power (Senator McCarthy hearings) they attempt to diffuse the situation and say that people shouldn't be persecuted for their views/speech/actions.

Why is this?  It is because leftism is lust for power, nothing more, nothing less.  A few quotes come to mind:

The Whites should have been smart and partitioned the country, with population transfers, rather than going for apartheid.  They could have taken the western half and let the blacks have the eastern half.  Western South Africa would be a first-world nation while Eastern South Africa would be a basket case, despite having better land.

Instead they are in a huge mess now, with a flag that depicts rape.  The colors black, green, and yellow represent the blacks, and the colors blue, red, and white represent the whites.  Notice how they are colors representing blacks are thrusting into the colors representing whites.

No-borders advocates are often hardcore libertarians or ancaps who are always talking about how great private property is and how all property ultimately derives from the "homestead principle".  Don't they see the contradiction?  Murray Rothbard did.  Yes, that Murray Rothbard, the hero of ancaps and libertarians everywhere.

Think about it for a moment.  You see that public library?  Right now the government has control of it but, according to ancap theory, the people own it, because governments can't legitimately own anything.  My ancestors built that library and my family has been using it for generations.  When immigrants move in and take over the library they are trampling on my property rights.  They dilute my ownership of the library, and they restrict my ability to enjoy it, effectively reducing my right to free association.  The same goes for the roads, the schools, etc...

Many immigrants are fine people but so what?  Grapefruit is a fine breakfast food - for those who like it - but I don't like grapefruit and don't eat it.  Why should I be forced to associate with people, simply because they are fine people?  And that's the good immigrants.  Many are not find people and many of the good ones have children who are not good.

Nintendo's justification makes sense.  They don't want to rock the boat.  What the Western elite don't realize, is that most Westerners and just about all non-Westerners view homosexual relationships as something that shouldn't be part of the public sphere.  Allowing them in the game would mean that Nintendo is taking a controversial position.

Many people invest using traditional or roth IRA funds.  If this fund gets listed on an exchange then it will be easy for people to use their IRAs to invest in Bitcoin.

1. Bit has not won.  The fact that you are trying to silence the opposition makes it clear that you are scared that a superior alternative will emerge.  Which is rather silly... since I really doubt that you have anything personally invested in the name.

2.  You've never heard of centuries or centipedes?  I suppose such ignorance is to be expected from someone who wants 256-bit encryption to mean something different than it does now.

You've never heard of the word century?  What about centipedes?  Have you ever read a book or attended a school?  You are confusing a centoshi (obviously not a metric term) with a centisatoshi (a metric term).  Typical Europeans with their metric mania...

Also I didn't invent the term.  Why would you have thought that?

There have been two polls about the new unit's name in recent days, one by me and one by someone else.  "Bit"  leads the pack in both polls but there is no clear consensus.

This poll is between the 2nd and 3rd most popular choices in my previous poll.

In about a week I will make another poll, pitting the winner of this poll vs "bit".

I actually think that it isn't him.  Nick Szabo came up with the idea for Bitcoin, but he isn't known to be an excellent coder.  Many smart people read his blog http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/ .  I believe that one of them saw his idea and implemented it.  So that's my theory: Satoshi is some guy who read Szabo's blog.

I never said that he had to be American.  I just said that he probably is.  Most native English speakers are American.  I am having trouble finding numbers, but it is pretty clear that most native English speaking programmers are American.  Unless we have reason to believe that he isn't American, the parsimonious conclusion is that he probably is.

As for his demographics, let's be realistic.  This isn't TV.  Imagine that there was a black female programmer with the skills necessary to write the bitcoin client.  Do you really think that we wouldn't know about such a 1 in a trillion person?  She would be already be one of the most famous people in the world.  All of the elite universities would have fought over her.  Then every company in the world (and not just software companies) would fight fiercely to have her on their staff.  Imagine the Obama story x100.

Did you even look at the results?  "Bits" is not the first OR second choice of 61.5% of voters.  The majority are opposed to "bits" because "bits" is retarded.

That is completely false.  I know, because you are miscounting my vote.  Your faction is falsely claiming a consensus where there is none.  The majority are opposed to "bit" as the name.  We just can't agree on what we prefer.

No.  That was a poll about the *size* of the new unit, not the name.  "bit" as the name is only supported by about 40% of the forum.  It has a plurality, not a majority.  Though "bit" will probably win because it is a retarded idea supported by stupid people.  Stupid people usually end up getting their way.