I would classify nihilists (the real ones, not the cartoon ones that show up in movies as pictured above) as True Neutral.

Yeah well you're just a dick. 



Srsly though, I agree. Namecalling is something one ought to have left behind in elementary school (or grammar school for the non-US folks here).

Laws are nothing but the opinions of violent people backed up by violent threats. Most of them ought to be broken as often as possible. Especially since most of them are about preserving the power of those violent people, and with it, their ability to literally get away with mass murder, theft, and fraud.

You're right you don't have to do illegal things if you are anti-establishment. But if you don't, you're not very consistent.

It is an unreasonable concern. But seeing how people had already pointed that out in rare form, I decided to offer something that someone who worries about such a thing (however unjustifiably) can do to remedy it. Call it a placebo, if you want. But it isn't really, because encouraging more people to accept bitcoin is good advice even if nobody ever worried about hoarding.

Because they've drank the Keynesian kool-aid. But I'm willing to define hoarding, for the sake of discussion, as saving money to the point of a loss currency's usefulness as a medium of exchange. I'm aware of the extreme unlikelihood of that happening, but I do like to address people's concerns on level ground.

Why not?

Even if it weren't, it would be possible for systems to be set up which would distribute shares of the smallest divisible value. It would be a problem, but not a hard one to solve - especially considering how widely it would already have to be used and accepted before we ever got to that point.

Intellectual kidney failure ahoy.

The regular, formerly gold economy was not consciously formed to resist the government's power over money. Bitcoin is being consciously developed to undo that power. That's quite an advantage.

Definitely this. A is more effective in the long term, but B is much easier to accomplish in the short. Either one will suffice.

There is only one way to do it. Get more people to accept it, so that would-be hoarders have plenty of opportunities to spend. And here is how you do that:

First, recognize that most businesses in the mainstream (your local supermarket, for example) are totally reliant on state capitalism. You will have to look outside the mainstream economy to find merchants who will accept bitcoin. Look further to find more who are open to persuasion. What we need to do now is to get enough people using bitcoin so that when - not if, but when - the dollar becomes useless as a medium of exchange, bitcoin already exists as an alternative. We won't find those people running brick and mortar businesses that have the approval of the FTC, FDA, and (certainly) the IRS. We will find them online, primarily; but also in the black and grey markets that the government so kindly provides for us by making "legitimate" business so hard to do.

People for whom reputation replaces licensing, and relationships substitute for advertising. Your landscaper who already takes payments under the table. The local farmer's market, where people barter all the time. Flea markets which trade off the books in bullion. Small-time, unlicensed contractors. Underaged laborers, illegal immigrants, used book sellers, greasy spoon restaurants, pawn shops... you can find them wherever you go if you look for them. Get to know them; build mutual trust. And then make an offer. Pay a little extra. Help them get started. Get them hooked - and then tell them to go and do likewise.

With a strong sense of irony, I hope, since they are designed to be the economic opposite of "credits".

What ribuck said following your post. Also: WAY too many syllables. We're discussion shorthand here. One E minus three B T C is NOT shorthand.

Point of information: if you support the project, then why don't you advocate buying bitcoin?

That is because some countries are powerful enough to assert their own political monetary monopolies, while others lack such power, and their political classes are content to be parties to the benefits of the US monopoly. There is no political advantage to a nation adopting bitcoin. That is its best quality. I can see it being possible for a conservative monarch of some kind to use it in a misguided attempt to be a "laissez-faire ruler", but only theoretically.

What could be more likely is that a smaller polity might adopt it in the process of secession from a larger state (say, the Canton of Zug from Switzerland, for example) but even that likelihood seems marginal to me. And the US, as history shows, is rarely very friendly to secessionists. We can be nearly certain that if a US State were to secede with pro-liberty motives and use bitcoin, that would only solidify the Federal government's position against it.

Depends on what and how much that country exports.

No, because the US government has the legal power under established precedent to ban the use of any foreign currency they choose.

Also, I don't see why any foreign country would legitimize bitcoin. With the debatable exception of Ron Paul, people become politicians so they can enjoy political monopolies. Bitcoin is destructive to that end.

Good points all around, although I'm not entirely convinced that people will give up a 5000-year-old social technology so easily. I'm not attached to it, but I'm still going to keep some on hand just in case. But the good thing about a free market is it doesn't matter which one of us is right, because nobody's going to force anyone else to accept one way or the other.

Possible.

I'm chaotic good.