Right, because ten dollars per citizen is TOTALLY going to solve Greece's problems. /eyeroll

FTFY, bitcoin will be much, much bigger than China. If they choose to be left out, it will be their problem.

Yes, rather easily. This is programmable money we're talking about. Anything you can dream up can be coded.

We don't need another millionaire, and besides there is no room for you at the top of the pyramid.

“The plain fact is that the planet does not need more successful people. But it does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of every kind. It needs people who live well in their places. It needs people of moral courage willing to join the fight to make the world habitable and humane. And these qualities have little to do with success as we have defined it.”
― David Orr

How can the internet be used to create a better protocol than HTTP? It can't.

Bill Gates hasn't been an innovator since the eighties, who gives a shit what he thinks? The man is an anti-competitive business shark parasite with a great PR team, nothing more.

Oh good, another "china ban bitcoin!?!" thread. How original.

In two years, it will be much easier and less time consuming to answer the question, "where won't bitcoin be?"

No, you couldn't. Miners are extremely conservative about updating. If you implemented bad code, 99.9% of the network's miners would route around that damage by ignoring the update and keeping one of the non-compromised older versions. Just like gamers do with graphics drivers. And any developer who tried this would swiftly become blackballed from the bitcoin community forever. Bitcoin is truly democracy in action.

Think of the bitcoin network like an organism and you will begin to see things more accurately.

This.

This would be virtually impossible to accomplish today, it may have been feasible in 2011-2012 though.

Start World War 3. Nothing short of total nuclear annihilation will stop Bitcoin.

Correct. Now we're getting somewhere.

The sooner the people of the world disarm their governments, especially of nuclear weapons*, the better odds our species has of surviving the 21st century. But to do that, the people would need reason on their side, they would need to be able to point to a society of non-aggression and contrast it against a violent government. That's impossible in any nation as attached to violence and weapons as the United States is today.

*These weapons will either be dismantled or they will be used. The world can't wait forever.

What about ISIL? They consider themselves a nation too. Do they get nukes, or because you deem them unworthy should they be disarmed? The point I'm trying to make here, is that for sanity's sake, a line must be drawn somewhere. You may draw that line differently from someone else, but your argument must be logically consistent, else you render yourself a hypocrite and a fool.

Still waiting.

OP your suggestion is both shortsighted and unethical.

Yeah, still me genius. Correlation is not causation. By the way, I'd sure love to see one of you address this point:

In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes.

Fuckin cognitive dissonance man, everywhere you go. So irritating.

“If everybody were armed, we would all be safer” This tired old argument? That's all you've got? Really?



This argument promotes the micro-equivalent of mutually assured destruction (two armed and rational actors not engaging in conflict because it would destroy both) to justify higher levels of gun ownership, but it fails to work out when applied to reality.

Statistics show that guns do not make people safer, thus this pro-gun argument is demonstrably untrue on its face. Higher levels of gun ownership do not produce a safer society and often lead to a higher numbers of deaths due to gun violence.

According to the Violence Policy Center’s analysis, states with higher per capita gun ownerships have far higher levels of gun homicide—there are 3 to 5 gun deaths per 100,000 in the bottom five gun ownership states, while there are 17 to 20 gun deaths per 100,000 in the top five gun ownership states. These statistics provide a great deal of evidence that gun ownership levels in a state correlate with gun deaths, and prove that the gun lobby’s argument of universal gun ownership is simply a fantasy.

To further drive the statistics that guns don’t make us safer home, we can simply look at the research surrounding household safety and gun ownership. In houses with firearms present, the average homicide rate is 3 times higher than in houses without guns and the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher. Gun accidents due to improper storage or use of firearms claim the lives of hundreds of children a year. In households with firearms, domestic violence is both more prevalent than in houses without weapons, and has a much higher likelihood of resulting in violent deaths. In all possible rubrics—self-defense, accidents and suicide—gun ownership is detrimental to the safety of those who live in a gun-owner’s household; this is not to say that there are not cases of people defending their homes with their guns, but it is undeniable that gun ownership opens people up to numerous other risks.

In addition to the statistical evidence supporting the fact that more guns don’t make us safer, we can simply look at the mechanics of a shooting. Shootings are chaotic and, if everybody has a gun, there is a very real potential for a crossfire—nobody would know who the original shooter was, thus everybody would shoot at everybody else. In this crossfire, bullets would likely hit civilians (imagine a room filled with a crowd and three people shooting at each other) and the casualty count would increase. Once the police arrive, it would be difficult to determine who the original shooter was, and it is also likely that the police may end up shooting the people who didn’t start the gunfight.

In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes.

No, I don't agree. I'm coming for your guns, because you have just demonstrated publicly that you're not intelligent enough to own them. In fact, I'm coming for all the guns, and I've got the weight of all future civilization behind me. The older you get, the less relevant your tired worldview will become. Your grandchildren will not be armed, and there's nothing you can do to change that. Yes, you may be dead and gone by that time, but no one will notice.

Despite popular redneck belief, having a gun on you does not render your soft, fleshy body immune to tiny bits of metal accelerated to deadly velocity.

The only way to be safe(r) from gun violence is to wear one of these everywhere you go:



Some relevant facts:





 In other news, angels aren't real. Surprise!

There is no open carry in new york city, nor will there ever be. Easy fix, trade in a public place in Manhattan. No one is gonna do a stabbing in public and get away with it there.

You don't need to transact at a bank, any busy Starbucks is fine as there will be loads of people around. There are 9 million people in NYC, and hundreds of in person bitcoin transactions per day.

This isn't a "wave of bitcoin robberies", just a good headline for clickbait. Don't feed the "news"-trolls.

QFT. For once, people will be laughing as they walk away from the banks. Bitcoin will undo every bailout, and leave the old centralized system to die. Personally I'm looking forward to it.

Bitcoiners be all, "I reject your debt based capitalism, and substitute my own."