Thank you for that. I never thought of it that way, but it makes perfect sense, and fits nicely with the point that wealthy people, who aren't thieves, are only wealthy because they gave something that the people of the world wanted or needed.

A belief is not a truth, though, since truth is objective. Unless you're just using words to mean whatever you want them to mean (like Big Brother in 1984)

Tractors replaced a group of farmers with one tractor driver. Computers will replace a group of tractor drivers with one computer operator. It's not THAT different. Really, the biggest difference is that we can now have "tractors" that have way more dexterity and skill to be able to perform more complex tasks, and we call them "robots." This new mainstream thing has been happening for decades now.


This is your claim. I don't have to have faith in, or believe, in anything, since it's on you to prove that new jobs will not come out, despite them doing so for centuries to date.

I read some distubring stuff yesterday about the reason Mandela being in prison for so long not because of his political views, but because he and his group were bombing civilians  Complicated history here...

Isn't "subjective truth" called "an opinion?"

Another donation sent


https://blockchain.info/tx/3fc27d0a64f863f6030b815a10586bf3892db48a29c9ea5824cbca23294d8df5

We may just run out of money yet! (Haha, who am I kidding)

Hahahahahahahaahahahahahaha, no 
You are not getting off that easy. Here's more for you:

1) If you are not free to compete, then what are you free to do? Take by force?

2) It is, but it has held up for centuries in areas where free market flourished. Even in very socialist totalitarian areas, the invisible hand of the market sometimes pops up to provide things people want or need.

3) If everyone is equal, in everything they do and own, then there is no reason for anyone to excel, or even to apply themselves. That's how socialist economies with fixed prices and income fall appart. Why work harder than your colleague, if you get the same in the end?

4) Money is nothing more than a commodity that is easier to store and trade, no different from sugar, oil, or anything else. There is nothing special or magic about it. As long as we have commodities, and as long as people want to trade skills and products of their skill, there will be money. If, however, everyone's products and skills are equal, see #3.

5) Government IS chaos, abuse, and exploitation. Imagine if we had a system where people could be accused of something, brought to stand trial, and 95% of them, under a threat of a much larger sentence, were convinced to confess to a crime they didn't do and spend few years in jail? Horrible, right? That's what we have with government. If the chaos, abuse, and exploitation in libertopia is THAT bad, it at least won't worse than under government. Also, note, war, chaos, and exploitation is not as profitable as trade and cooperation.

6) The price doesn't reflect the price, the price reflects the reality of the scarcity of something. What is more efficient, seeing how much of something there is, and setting the price accordingly (which is what the 'price mechanism' does), or setting the price, and simply ignoring whether the price actually reflects how scarse something is (which is what Zeitgeist claims the free market does, but actually what they propose to do themselves). Scarce things in this world don't give a crap about their own price. They won't get more abundant if you make their price cheaper.


7) Although intellectual property is unique work and contribution that could not have existed without the person creating it, regardless of what it was based on, I'm against calling it "property" too, so pass.

8 ) Dirt, mud, and rocks are common herritage. What someone does with those things to turn then into things like houses, cars, and computers, is their own unique contribution. If you want to defend this point, you would likely have to claim that dirt and rock is just as valuable as a computer someone built. Also, no matter how much you make the entire plannet a "common good," it still won't make enough scarse minerals and materials for everyone. You can't make gold or diamonds pop into existance by "sharing"

9) The golden rule is, indeed, philosophizing. Some people philosophize that we should treat our neighbors as ourselves, and that we should not initiate violence unless we do it in self defence. Others disagree, and think the opposite, which I guess means they prefer to initiate violence whenever they see fit, and get offended when their victims get defensive (typically how governments work). Sure, it's just a philosophy, but most people think it's a good one for whatever reason.

10) That's just making up terms for how someone who doesn't work, doesn't save, and/or doesn't protect themself ends up geting raped by reality of life, and then trying to shift the blame. And STILL doesn't change the reality that resources are not unlimited, those who try to get them the hardest typically succeed, and simply deciding to "share" will only make everyone equally poor.

EDIT: Plus, as Mike Christ pointed out, this conflates the political philosophy of libertarianism, with the "political" philosophy of anarchy, anarchocapitalism, and various property positions. Kinda like painting all socialists and socio-anarchists as North Korean style communists.

I guess I'll just chuck this up, along with all his "BITCOIN IS DOOMED AND HERE ARE ALL WAYS TO HAXOR IT!" to his extremely bad skills at explaining things in ways anyone but him can understand. Maybe things would be more productive for AnonyMint if, instead of reading posts from people on his ignore list, and talking about how big and awesome and smart he is, he actually went and coded something that SHOWED what the hell he is talking about.

BTW, I was considering starting a threat where we could simulate the Transaction Withholding Attack, having Anony take the role of the evil cartel, and roleplay with some other forumites the decisions that miners and users would take in response to his attempt of an attack, but that would likely be a massive waste of time. Especially since we already know that the only purpose would be to educate AnonyMint about how bitcoin actually works.

Why not just fire the rockets at the bank buildings themselves? That would make our point a lot more obvious and blunt 

Yay! Awesome! Thanks

I do find your method of arguing amusing btw.

Anony: If you are wealthy, you can crash the bitcoin market by selling a chunk of your wealth, and then making money on the resulting  panic.
Ras: Extremely improbable and difficult to pull off on an open parket, since your crashing will be competing with others waiting to buy your cheap coins.
Anony: If you are that rich, you can just own the exchange you are doing this on.
Ras: How would that stop your competitor from trading and competing with you right on your own exchange?
Anony: Sybil attacks! This wealthy person can make so many trades on their exchange, using fake identity trading bots, that they will max out government imposed daily trading limits!
Ras: Why can't competitors also use a sybil attack, and use lots of their own fake account bots to trade at the same time as you? Also, how do you cause a panic-induced market crash, if the first thing you do is literally freeze the market? (or at the least make it obvious that your exchange is severely broken)
Anony: I know how to fix the issue of wealthy people manipulating exchanges like that. Make a CPU-only coin. Because CPU-only coins will not need an exchange
Ras:  *fart*

Yeah, it's things like that that make people not take you seriously.

That would be quite horrible. For some reason 99% thinks that when a rich persoon has, say, $50mil, they are sitting on a huge pile of money bags with tons of paper in it. In truth, all that wealth is stored in various assets, like realestate, factories, machinery, and other business related stuff (even cash used to run the business). If you seize 25% of all the wealth from the 1%, you will likely force them to shut down and sell off 24.9% of all the businesses, and thus jobs, in the whole country.

Ignoring your insults, sure, but that's not what I said. If X is a unit of knowledge, for every increase in knowledge X, the amount of capital needed to create a single item becomes -1*X, but the amount of variety of items that are now possible to create with that knowledge is now 2*X. For example, the amount of capital to produce an iPad is falling, but the amount of capital to produce the hundreds of other competing tablets is rising rapidly. If all we had was one phone, one tablet, one flat screen TV, and one computer, your argument would be valid. But with increased knowledge, we are having an ENORMOUS increase in competition and choice, which means an explosions in the number of factories and specialized manufacturing facilities needed to create the capital enabled by that knowledge.  And just as a job getting automated frees up labor capital to apply to new more technical jobs, freeing up production capital frees up that capital to be used in more complex and innovative tech.


I remember TurboJet. I used to work for a computer company that also ran a printing service, and they had pretty close ties to Mike and TurboJet. But, again, someone invented the Nokia candybar style dumb phone, and now there are no Nokia candy-bar style dumb phones. So what? Knowldge obliterated that one simple device that used few components, and replaced it with thousands of much more complex devices that use hundreds of complex components.


Which I specifically addressed above:


Hopefully it will take you less time than that to figure out bitcoin. In one thread I even noticed you claim that bitcoin price follows mining difficulty...

Are you a blacksmith, a barber, a merchant, or a farmer? No? Then which woodwork your new job came out of?

Now the OP needs to change to:

How many times will the bitcoin reach $1,000...?

The main effect of anarchy is that is converts political problems into financial problems. To keep the problems we have not going, you need political power to fund it through taxation, and enforce it through rule of law. For these same problems to continue under anarchy, you still need to fund them, though your only option is to do something to make people willingly part with their money (offer competitive products and services), and your only option to enforce it is through force, which you would have to pay for and maintain yourself. Forcing people to give you money is difficult, and paying for force is expensive. Often much more expensive than th simply trade with people. Historically, trade has always been more profitable and effective than war.

Thank you, China, for being so considerate of our needs to plan this properly.

Standard reply: please pay no attention to the FUD, this guy doesn't really understand how Bitcoin works.



A CPU-only coin still needs an exchange to be useful, so that alone doesn't fix your problem.

Thank you. I didn't think this would be released for free.