I have a number of problems with this entire statement. The list of logical fallacies and bald assertions alone would take twenty pages to illustrate.

But I'll start with the basic. Society has as much relevance to reality as a juridical person. There is no such thing. It's a statistical construct, nothing more and nothing less. It has been built into the secular god of the 20th and 21st century, but blind faith has never sat well with me. As an axiom, it's far too flawed to withstand scrutiny.

But lets assume, for the sake of alleviating your cognitive dissonance, that you are correct. By this logic, all employees or Walgreens or Osco (to name a couple well knowns) should be locked in a cage. They willfully, knowingly, and often deceptively market dangerous drugs to an unususpecting populace. The ONLY difference between the licensed pharmacist and the "street pharmacist" that is worthy of discussion is the license.

The violence, which I'm sure will pop into your head as a "refutation" is a direct result of official prohibition (which in itself has no justification under the laws of the United States of America as embodied by it's constitution) and official monopoly (the very license that makes the distinction).

One can no more have a debt to society than they can to santa clause.

Hey, Mike!

Long time no see. I can't improve on that so I won't try. Well put.

compartmentalization to avoid cognitive dissonance, an inevitable side effect of believing in fairy tales past early adolescence. It's not just Islam.

I assume, given the source, that we're leaving government agents out of the equation

Well done. I didn't have figures to back it, but I knew that was wrong.

I am American, though I do not consider myself a citizen. Subject is a more accurate word, and I'm not good with that either.

However, while I can't disagree with your assessment, I tend to look to where they might go if pushed. Bitcoin and associated blockchain based coins are not likely to go away. The very existence of a disruptive technology, especially one as potentially devastating to them as this, requires a response. Since it is in the best interests of the powers to APPEAR benevolent, and since the cracks in the foundation of the Federal Reserve Act and it's egregious succesors are becoming obvious even to the sheeple, it behooves them to try to co-opt it. Destroying it is impossible, and I think they learned that lesson with the Internet.

Think, then, what advantage such a thing would give them. The disadvantages are somewhat obvious and are discussed on this forum on an hourly basis, but few have bothered to look what the powers might GAIN from this technology.

First, let's dispense with the idea that they care a great deal about money. They don't. The currency they deal in is power. Money is merely an aspect or symbol of that power. Losing control of it it is catastrophic to the way they currently do business, but if you look at the history of rulership, they're incredibly adaptable. In America, they have turned a nation of renegades and individualists into a sociofascist empire that maintains and appearance of liberty. So, looking to that, how might blockchains be incorporated?

One that I find obvious is that they can hide their legerdemain in plain sight. Instead of fractional reserves, they have an adjustable rate of proof of stake, based on some metric they control. It appears that all money creation is above board and clean... but they control the metric.

I could go on for a while on the ways they might subvert the technology while APPEARING to "fix" the economic system. If they can come off as heroes, then they elevate themselves and again appear to be the benevolent overlords.

EDIT. Just saw your flavor text. Lose and loose I hate that shit. Bravo!

Eugenics was more of a pseudoscience, but I suppose that's a red herring in itself. I concede some of your point.

However, I was thinking of a much longer time line. The Christian persecution of science (while encouraging it in some cases) set humanity back by a great deal (eg. The Dark Ages). To what degree, it's impossible to say. My particular areas of interest, wherein "god" gets called into the argument quite often, are nanotech and genetics. Whenever a scientist proposes a test case, he is likely to be accused of "playing god". My (slightly) tongue in cheek response is usually "who says they're playing? " but more correctly, it's a non issue. Yet it gets thrown in. I've seen it again and again just in my 46 years. Extrapolate that over a few centuries: How much have they managed to suppress? In the modern world the suppression is bad enough, with, as you noted, multiple factions. From 600 AD until not very long ago, the power of information was in the hands of religions who had a vested interest in suppressing science as it tends to contradict their means of power.

As I said, religious organizations are not entirely to blame, they are one factor of many. But the weight of their wrongdoing remains heavy. Just ask Copernicus.

You can use just one. You just have to put it in as the custom change address. The reason is that by default, the change is sent to new addresses each time. This is how POS coins work, it's not unique to HyperStake.

The minting process is pretty complicated. I know how to manipulate it, but the technical details are beyond me. Perhaps Presstab, or Sunny King (Peercoin dev), would be able to comment in more depth on this.

Well said. There is a great deal of useful principles embodied in old religous tomes. But without a very well tuned and tightly focused bullshit filter, those principles get warped and distorted into something evil. And the thing I find amusing is that those useful things are pretty nearly universal betwixt the various religions and secular philosophies. As I said earlier, the core of all religions and successful secular philosophies is the same. It's the things added to those that tear down societies and erect barriers to human progress.

Were it not for religious influence, it is likely that we would have delved much deeper into genetics, have offworld colonies, and any number of things that a FREE society tends to generate. Instead, we've got arguments against scientific reality on religious grounds clogging up the legislature in the more secular nations, and people that haven't yet found the 20th century in many parts of the world. Religion is not solely to blame for this, but they bear a heavy burden.

Depends on how you've got your wallet set up. Here's how to make sure:

One, if you haven't already, activate coin control.  Click on Tools, then Options, then display and click the display coin control checkbox.
Two, go to the send tab. Click on "custom change address checkbox. Paste in a receiving address from your wallet.

Now all generated transactions will go to that address rather than pulling a new one from the keypool.

This is reasonable. It actually addresses the problem the original purported to, rather than dropping a nuclear bomb on commerce and discussion. Had this been the first revision, this thread would have been about two posts long.

The next step, In my arrogant opinion, would be to define an advertising policy that actually reflects the size and scope of the community, rather than just the "auction" shit which make advertising a gamble at best and encourages scamming by large schemes. I think you'll find a great many people who do small amounts of business here would be willing to pay for advertising if it were reasonable to do so.

Let's not shoot the corpse just yet. Block chain is functioning, there are still exchanges. It's only a year old.

(grin) I come from TEK. 10-12 days ain't shit!

I disagree.
Right now the actual calculation of how many dollars exist is... Well, convoluted would be a compliment. With blockchain technology, the creation and distribution of the currency is reduced to a common protocol that all the banks can use for the price of a few servers. By comparison to just the regulatory compliance softwares in banks, that's a pittance. Whether they'll have the brains and balls to actually do it is another story, but the public ledger/blockchain idea for transmission of data and tracking the money supply would simplify really a lot of modern finance.

I quoted this because I don't have the desire to go point by point as the guy you're answering did, and I agree with you for the most part.

I want to address a couple of things in this, to both posts and the subject in general.

One, I agree. Try to build "paradise" on earth, or abandon the concept. I have no belief in an afterlife, or any gods. I was once a Christian, and I greatly regret that, as to be Christian (or Muslim, or most any religion) is to be a hypocrite, whether you realize it at that time or later. I don't like hypocrisy, and thus hated myself to a great degree before I woke up and realized that most of the religion was hokum. The few parts that are valid have to do with how you relate to your neighbors, regardless of their beliefs, and are the underpinnings of all civil society. Those things are common to all extant religions and most historical ones, including laVeyan Satanism. It's the stuff added on top that differentiates them, and that stuff is either absurd, which doesn't affect me, or a breeding ground for dangerous lunatics.

I can, based upon my knowledge of the bible, justify ANY action I choose with scripture. It is my experience that Muslims can do the same, if they have sufficient knowledge of the Q'uran. This is often referred to as "cherry picking" by those who deride it, and those same individuals will claim that you must look at the book as a whole. Thus the hypocrisy, because in the case of the bible for certain, and the Q'uran as far as I have determined, looking at it as a whole is an exercise in contradiction. For instance, the bible clearly states in absolute terms that there is and is not an after life. The concept of humans going to heaven is a late addition, the existence of heaven is not. But in the early writings, heaven was the abode of Yahweh and his more powerful servants. (not just angels, the scriptures and jewish tradition list a whole plethora of beings under Yahweh).

This is just one example. And in itself, for the non believer, it is trivial. If you don't believe in an afterlife, the threat of hell (the christian's favorite weapon) or the promise of heaven (Christianity's greatest carrot) are frankly meaningless. Thus when the Christian tells me I'm going to hell, I will laugh in his face because he has not convinced me that such a place exists. Falling back on his contradictory and often violent fairy tale is not helpful. On science, it occasionally gets it right and often is so far off base as to be ludicrous.

For me, what it comes down to is this: We're on our own. If there is a god, I'm simply not arrogant enough to believe that such a being would greatly care about a little rock orbiting around a minor star on the southeastern fringe of a minor galaxy far from the center of the universe. And I'm pretty arrogant! Further, in the event that I'm not arrogant enough, then said god would make it OBVIOUS that it wishes to be worshipped. If it can create the universe, it can create unambiguous proof of it's existence and rules, rather than setting up a universe that to all RATIONAL appearance looks to have evolved from a massive explosion into a new reality some few billion years ago.

Religion tends to divide brother against brother. Theistic religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam and their ilk, are more egregious than secular relgions such as communism, fascism, social democracy and their ilk in the long run because the claim is not subject to disproof. Now, it can be argued that the secular religions have made a bigger body count, and I can't deny that. I can't prove it either, but prior to the 20th century, Christianity held the record. Now, it seems radical Islam wants to catch up, and all the arguments of Muslims who believe otherwise do not hold against the reality that the people waging a shadow war against civilization claim to be either Muslim or Christian. In both cases, they're completely wrong, but justified in their hearts because they can use their scriptures to justify their actions and feel they are doing right.

As an atheist and anarchist, I cannot stoop to such moral lows. I have no "god" to justify my actions, I only have the understanding of the consequences and the desire to build better humans via education and peaceable revolution. My actions or inactions will be judged by thinking people solely on their merits, not whether they conform to some mythical being's words.

I'm often asked if I would kill for my beliefs, and derided when I answer in the negative. Yet I am true to my belief! It is simply WRONG to kill over a difference of opinion. I am not a pacifist nor would I roll over and die were I and mine invaded. I would fight, and I would kill. But it's not to defend my BELIEF, it's to defend my PERSON and that of my neighbors. Frankly, this is one of the things that disgusts me about religion, and thankfully the vast majority of the religious are decent people despite their beliefs, but if you have to KILL because a man holds a different opinion than you, that is in and of itself an admission that your belief is false! If it will not withstand scrutiny, then it is not worthy of existence.

You want peace? Learn self reliance. You want an end to poverty and inequity? Learn to cooperate. You want an end to tyranny? Don't promote one form of it over another. A peaceable man is a warrior, but not a soldier. He follows his heart, but leads with his brain. If a thing seems false to him, he investigates. If he proves to be wrong, he changes direction based upon FACTS and RESULTS, not BELIEF.

I long ago washed my hands of religious bullshit, and it was the single best decision I ever made. To the OP, Muslims, Christians, whatever, I invite you to look in the mirror and take a LONG talk with yourself. (you might call it praying, for all I care. It's the same thing.) Ask yourself WHY you believe what you do. If, as was the case for me and is the case for the vast majority of the religious, the answer is "this is the religion of my Fathers", then you have to ask yourself if that's good enough. If it is, your world is small, but that's ok. It's your life. But if it's not, there's a whole universe out there just crying out for us to learn it's secrets. Which you can never do if you already "have all the answers".

Actually, yes, there is. As more staking occurs, and change addresses are used, more keypairs are generated. I don't know what the keypool default is for HYP, but once those keys are used up, new keys are generated. If they aren't backed up, and something goes south, they're lost. It's a good idea for the sake of paranoia to do a weekly backup.

David, that was a great read. In principle, I actually fully agree with you there.

As a man dedicated to bringing down the current system of governments (I am an anarchist), I think that the best way to do it is twofold: Use their services to bankrupt them, and incrementally render their currency worthless and irrelevant WHILE replacing it with something.

Governments are organisms, and organisms adapt or perish. The goal then, is to make them adapt to liberty over time. On front number one, we should use each and every "service" they monopolize to the maximum of our ability WITHOUT being dependent on it.

Front number two, well, the first part of it requires no action from the activist. They couldn't shoot themselves in the foot any better than they do. All full fiat currencies fail. It's as inevitable as the sun rise.

I think Cryptos are a big part of the second part. I work for a company that will integrate fiat and crypto to a greater level than it has ever seen. That interconvertability will not harm crypto, and probably not harm fiat in the short run. It will strengthen both.

But cryptos are not very open to manipulation and obfuscation of the money supply. They increase at a predictable rate, and attempts to alter it require a large consensus. This makes them a superior form of fiat. (I've long said that cryptcurrency IS a fiat currency, but it is not a CENTRALIZED fiat currency. It's still backed solely by intangibles, as opposed to commodity monies. I think this will merge to some extent in the future, as I think that I'm not the only one interested in creating crypto purchased "backups" of precious metals and other durable goods.

We're at the early stage of a highly revolutionary change in monetary operability, but in many ways it's more of an evolutionary change.

As much as I would personally like to see all governments fall today, the truth is that this would be catastrophic for the vast majority of people. at the moment. Crypts can help that, as they are a difficult to trace means of storing value. There is of course a great deal more that has to be done to get people at large to learn what self reliant MEANS, let alone how to do it.

More later. As always, you make me think. I like that in a person.

I've thought for some time that a basket of currencies backing a single denomination might be an interesting experiment. Just not sure how to implement it.

Akula, I think there is something wrong with your wallet. I PM'd you.

Press, I staked five times on smaller blocks than he has since he first started posting about his troubles. It's not as dire as the predictions above, ever, for me. In fact the longest block I had was rather large.

Very well said!

Cryptos seem a good hedge to me, even if I weren't a geek. They solve a number of problems that other currencies, including gold, have.

You're only looking at a piece of the picture. If it goes down that hard, then people will cease to ACCEPT dollars. Then your 600 dollar cheeseburger, using your figures, would be worth .006 bitcoin, or, at current cryptsy exchange rates, 45.89 TEK.

Of course these figures are ad-hoc, but the point holds. When currencies collapse, it's not just that their value drops, it's that people cease to view them as valuable. If that happens, there is likely to be a mass exodus to gold, silver, and probably bitcoin and possibly alts. For quick transactions, most alts present a better platform than BTC, because it takes for bloody ever. TEK don't have that problem. It confirms quickly. It also has the advantage of POS for those who hold it.

I could list more technical reasons why it's superiour in some ways to BTC, but that's really beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say that, from my arrogant point of view, blockchain based coins will likely be more accepted than anything but precious metals in the event of a monetary collapse.