|
.@BitChick: Is your reptilian friend still holding your hand re. Bitcoin, or is that pretty much over?
|
|
|
|
...
I have a feeling his next visa application will be approved. Putting the federal government on blast. Awesome.
Good for Roger.
You mean the felon who gave up his US citizenship less than a year ago? Either one of those commendable qualities is grounds for denying him entry to US  Yes, "felon". He is a heinous criminal. Deserves the death penalty for his crimes! He was convicted of selling fireworks. Dood, shut the fuck up.YOU are a felon...just not convicted. Every American is...whether they realize it or not. Ignorance of this fact is a reflection of your intelligence, or lack thereof. Honestly, you really should get a girlfriend or something. You're so angry...and fucking annoying. Brah, not angry, just explaining to you why the goof won't be let into the country after his wacky antics. And won't lie--chuckling at you a little. |
|
|
|
...
I have a feeling his next visa application will be approved. Putting the federal government on blast. Awesome.
Good for Roger.
You mean the felon who gave up his US citizenship less than a year ago? Either one of those commendable qualities is grounds for denying him entry to US |
|
|
|
This will probably be the year BTC becomes the thing of nerds.. Alas I fully expect sub $100
sub 100% is very tough to achieve, to much resistance when you go below 200 already +1 There are too many buyers above 200 for it to go below 100. There were too many buyers @600, 500, 400, 300. And yet, gentlemen, here we are. |
|
|
|
... the long term trend still seems to be up, but short term trends are volatile.
Bitcoin's initial price was 0 (zero). Until it hits 0 again, the long-term trend will remain "up." |
|
|
|
To the folks talking about high number of shorts open: A high number of BTC swaps is a necessary condition to a big short squeeze, not a sufficient one. It needs reasons for panic buys to actually squeeze the shorts. Will there be one?
Here is the thing. Simply the existence of a vulnerable short position is reason alone. And it is all time high 25,600 open, not just high You're not fooling anyone  We'll see shortly. With your >5000 posts in 9 months bashing bitcoin you can be fairly sure you have zero impact on the readership of this forum Lambchop, or is it FatherBob, or FreeBambi, or Warren Buffert! I keep losing track! I dunno. Started posting here when the price was above $500. Below $300 nao. Coincidence, you say? Hahahaha!  |
|
|
|
I try not to invest too much in abandoned beta projects. What's it up to now? 0.10.0rc1 after 6 years?  Whats difference if it would be 10.0 or 0.10? The difference is 9.9. Protip: Don't use beta software for critical applications. Thank you captain obvious, it was irony.. Doesn't matter what is version number, it could be 451234rc1 too.. Teh "rc" in the version number stands for "Release Candidate." That, my friend, spells Beta with a capital F (which, in turn, stands for "failed to get out of beta after 6 years"). I know, so what? Google Gmail had beta status for nearly 6 years too, until 2009. Not quite 6 tho. Bitcoin's a clear winner!  |
|
|
|
To the folks talking about high number of shorts open: A high number of BTC swaps is a necessary condition to a big short squeeze, not a sufficient one. It needs reasons for panic buys to actually squeeze the shorts. Will there be one?
Here is the thing. Simply the existence of a vulnerable short position is reason alone. And it is all time high 25,600 open, not just high You're not fooling anyone  |
|
|
|
...
Now, try to find other university studies after 2000 which bother trying to show that the earth is not flat :-)
... No. You tried to suggest that state=violence, by definition, by citing a wikip page on Max Weber. I pointed out that the existence of such a page does not validate Max Weber's views any more than the Flat Earth page validates the notion that the Earth is flat. That's all. Simply pointing out the flaws in your thinking--not trying to prove that Flat Earth is a hotly debated topic |
|
|
|
Lol, that's Max Weber's definition of "Monopoly on violence." Again, your logic fails on you. Your claim was that the statement "the state is the violence monopolist" is NOT "any sane definition". I gave you one: Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory.
Now, this is the definition of a state as the violence monopolist by Weber in 1919. I can presume that if that definition is taken over on wiki about 100 years later, it must have some elements of sanity to it. By which your statement that no such sane definition exists, is contradicted. QED. Not at all, my young friend. Wikipedia also has a page on Flat Earth, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth . This by no means implies that the Earth is flat, or that it is sane to continue believing that it is. It merely means that once upon a time, there were people who thought that the Earth was flat. And that to this day, there are batshit crazies who contend that it is. So now you know |
|
|
|
I try not to invest too much in abandoned beta projects. What's it up to now? 0.10.0rc1 after 6 years? Whats difference if it would be 10.0 or 0.10? The difference is 9.9. Protip: Don't use beta software for critical applications. Thank you captain obvious, it was irony.. Doesn't matter what is version number, it could be 451234rc1 too.. Teh "rc" in the version number stands for "Release Candidate." That, my friend, spells Beta with a capital F (which, in turn, stands for "failed to get out of beta after 6 years"). |
|
|
|
...
Could be. Btc swaps up to 25400 and climbing.
It doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that pretty much everyone other than yourself knows this thing is going down I know you have no idea which way the market will turn. You had your funds on an exchange, right? Poor sap How many times does it need to be said that I had pocket lint there, to gamble with, for entertainment? As I've mentioned before, I'm more than happy to pay for the immense entertainment value Bitstamp has provided. And continues to provide. A bargain at twice the price.  |
|
|
|
...
Could be. Btc swaps up to 25400 and climbing.
It doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that pretty much everyone other than yourself knows this thing is going down Such a genius. I admire LambChop, his brains is so fast spinning... Thank you for your contribution here to all us ignorants. How did we missed it and only you could find it out? Tell me!  Need a hug, buddy? |
|
|
|
Lol, that's Max Weber's definition of "Monopoly on violence." For the definition of "state," start with disambiguation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StateIt is you who wished to grant the state such monopoly--to enforce your exclusive right to land that was neither yours nor the state's. >you are relatively cheering for taxes.
No. I am pointing out that your arguments are intrinsically flawed.
Not by any logic. I'm afraid we've reached an impasse. You continue insisting that you're a little tea pot, short and stout, even after I've pointed out you have neither a handle nor a spout |
|
|
|
|
>the state's the violence monopolist (by definition).
No. Or, rather, not by any sane definition.
>you are relatively cheering for taxes.
No. I am pointing out that your arguments are intrinsically flawed.
|
|
|
|
Why would you honestly file and then refuse to pay?
Because visibly, I can be (if in the US) punished if I am dishonest on the filing, but I cannot be forced to pay, according to what you say ! So, logically, according to what you say, if I file my declaration honestly, I cannot be punished for a false declaration, but if I don't pay, the state cannot put me to jail (using force to collect taxes?). If you really want to be nerdy about it, filing your taxes constitutes a contract to pay them. If you are financially capable of honoring the contract, but fail to do so, jackbooted thugs will drive you around in a partyvan & put you in jail. Gratis. |
|
|
|
Yup. Might makes right. Which doesn't stop keyboard revolutionaries from grumbling.
Because there is a difference between undergoing might, and cheering for it ! I'm not cheering for it any more than I cheer gravity--it simply is |
|
|
|
Not even wrong. If you work for me, draw pay, and return all of that pay in exchange for rent on the house (that you also rent from me), can you say that you're not getting paid?
The point is that if you want to pay me for something, you want some PRODUCED VALUE in return. If I am paid by the state, I don't have to produce any value (except on paper). The state expects value in return for pay, that should be obvious. If you knowingly fail to provide value, you are a crook. Stop stealing taxpayer's money, dinofelis. It's infrastructure, the land beneath it, the services provided, whole package. Like living in a country.
Land is not infrastructure. It is nature. The building is infrastructure. You are paying the property owner for the right to be on that land. A right that he, in turn, has paid the state for, as you've suggested. So the state owns the land? Good. Finally getting somewhere. You have no right to dictate to the state what it does with its property. Get off my lawn No, you didn't understand my proposal. The state doesn't own the land, in the sense that "ownerless land" is public land on which anybody can do anything, and there is NO right of exclusivity. Which makes it unproper for building investments on it, as one cannot enforce exclusivity on that land, and hence on those buildings. Un-owned land, being public, can be used by me to build a house on, but tomorrow you can come there in the house I build, and I cannot invoke any exclusivity and require the state to force anybody OFF that land or out of that house. However, the state receives the income of the bid for the right of exclusivity during a certain lapse of time (50 years, 20 years... whatever is the bid). In return, the state will enforce the exclusivity during that lapse of time. In other words, the bid goes over the right to require from the state to enforce exclusivity. This should be the sole income of the state, and with that, the state does as it pleases. If the state doesn't own the land, what right does it have to "enforce exclusivity"? Curiouser and curiouser... |
|
|
|
...
Could be. Btc swaps up to 25400 and climbing.
It doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that pretty much everyone other than yourself knows this thing is going down |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
