 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
|
But when a rich white libertarian nerd has a hella dumb idea, he doesn't force it upon you with guns and imprisonment. Yes, but that is only because he doesn't have any power to do so  . Besides, libertarianism itself is dumb/harmful enough even without a state violently enforcing its ideas... What good is freedom from government coercion when you are suffocated at birth by your own umbilical cord because you can't get to the hospital because there are no roads to your house and also because there is no hospital as your mother can't pay the fees finally an admission. now we know what we're dealing with guys. What is this, ghostbusters? |
|
|
|
Then why is this your signature block?: PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF CAPITALISM
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb Joined to troll, stayed to argue I am a marxist irl |
|
|
|
perhaps I focused a little heavily on the semantics of a particular word which it looks like most of you have some inflexible opinions on  . We can agree to disagree on that. I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage. "Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society. Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas |
|
|
|
*Checks to see how much transaction fees have gone up due to Bitcoin thefts, frauds, or scams* Hmm, they're still zero. Are YOU an idiot? My mistake. You think that it's a good thing that thefts, frauds and scams can be carried out without consequences or recompense? I'm quite happy to pay a little on extra fees to my credit card to cover chargebacks and fraud. Because I know if something bad were to happen (eg my card was stolen), I'd not end up homeless |
|
|
|
Alright, my friend. You ask, "why can't I do that with normal banking?" The answer is, because it's inefficient, and it costs money to pay hundreds of thousands of employees, to give them pensions and benefits, and to build and maintain physical infrastructure. Banks also have to absorb the costs of fraud, theft, and disputed transactions. Also, banks have to show a profit to their shareholders.
Bitcoin avoids all of these costs. Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit. That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.
Nope, no costly physical infrastructure necessary with bitcoin. And no thefts, frauds or scams either. Are you an idiot? |
|
|
|
Alright bud, listen. I picked that definition from dictionary.com (you call it "a place?") to provide the definition of that term. This definition is wholly relevant to its usage in monetary economics, as a "fiat currency" is a currency "by decree" of a ruler or government.
We could go to another "place" and get another definition, this time of "fiat money," specifically. The first line from Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."
Given these two definitions provided, we can observe your statement, "bitcoin is a fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat" and it becomes apparent that you don't quite know of what you speak. Bitcoin is in no way a fiat currency. It is not created by any government. Its value does not come from a mandate for usage.
And on "intrinsic value"... nothing has intrinsic value, for that would mean the thing has value without a human to value it. Things have value to the extent they are useful to humans and scarce. Bitcoin is both absurdly useful and limited in quantity, thus it commands a market price. You don't have to agree with the price, but at least try to make sure your statements regarding fiat money and value are valid.
I'd disagree with that. What is a government? A group of people who hold the power. In what way is the way in which a government controls currency not functionally identical to the way in which the majority of miners control bitcoin? All you are doing is swapping the suits in a grandiose capital city building for cheetos-stained tshirts in basements spread around the world. You could argue that anyone can buy a supercomputer and sway the decisionmaking process... but in the same way anyone can get a job in government? As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out? If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin. I think if bitcoin were to become ubiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions. |
|
|
|
Don't even bother trying to have an intelligent conversation on these forums. It's like the mental institution in 12-Monkeys.
Are you the guy who wrote the article? No wonder you won't/can't defend it. "Bitcoin is so fantastic, its so efficient there are no fees! Wonderful! Of course to make it actually usable and as good as normal money we'll need exchange services, payment processors to absorb the volatility, a service to protect consumers by allowing chargebacks, etc...." lol. You end up just invoking some magical future in which all these bitcoin services are super-efficient. Why can't I do that with normal banking? Why can't I invoke a magic future in which banks increase the efficiency of their wire services to the point that fees are negligible when transferring currency between countries? It's not like normal banking is static and unchanging. A few years ago someone in france would have to pay exchange fees when sending his francs to a german. Now, he can send that cash straight over at very little cost. |
|
|
|
|
Just because you are too simple to follow an argument, it does not mean that argument is intended to obfuscate.
The guy before picked up on one section of an irrelevant definition from a place called dictionary.com to argue that bitcoin is not fiat currency. I then posted an equally relevant section of an encylopaedia article to satirise his point.
Hint: Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, nor is it fixed to any objective standard => it is fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat, sorry
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I thought we were playing the quote-websites-with-the-word-fiat-in-them-to-show-bitcoin-is-not-fiat game
|
|
|
|
From Dictionary.com (bold added):
fi·at [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at] Show IPA
noun
1.
an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.
a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.
an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.
From Wikipedia.org (bold added): FIAT, an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino[2] (English: Italian Automobile Factory of Turin), is an Italian automobile manufacturer, engine manufacturer, financial and industrial group based in Turin in the region of Piedmont. Fiat was founded in 1899 by a group of investors including Giovanni Agnelli. During its more than century long history, Fiat has also manufactured railway engines and carriages, military vehicles and aircraft. As of 2009, Fiat (not including Chrysler) was the world's ninth largest carmaker and the largest in Italy. [3] |
|
|
|
if they don't care or like money printing then you have nothing to worry about and shouldn't be wasting your valuable time here, right? You object to "mindless USD printing". Isn't that what bitcoin printing/mining is by design? It's unalterable, there is no human input at all, it is literally mindless. In contrast a great deal of thought goes into how much USD to print each month... You may disagree with the reasoning they use, but it's stupid to call it "mindless". I'm not as naysaying as some, who think bitcoin is totally worthless. I think bitcoin does have a medium-term future, as a niche currency for internet pedophiles, libertarians and drug dealers... also vested interest? You're the one that has spent actual cash on monopoly money. Clearly you have a vested interest in convincing others your monopoly money is worth something. I am, on the other hand, free of such conflicts. b/c they will never be able to create a superior product and the mere fact that they would want to control and profit off an alt chain goes against the very concept of a decentralized, P2P, fixed amount of currency. you clearly have a vested interest in not understanding what you don't want to understand. OK, even if you are right (you're not)... Whats to stop them making a decentralized, P2P, fixed amount of currency bankcoin? They could alter the protocol so (say) instead of all 50btc or whatever going to miners for each block mined, a percentage of it would go straight to their accounts. Functionally identical to bitcoin for end users, with the exception that conventional banks are holding most of the reserves instead of nerds |
|
|
|
then you really don't understand Bitcoin. the whole pt behind its success is the uncontrolled unregulated initiatives behind its creation. the mindless USD printing to save its constituent banks is what the masses hate. No, idealist libertarian nutters hate USD printing and regulations and that sortof thing. The "masses" either don't care or like money printing, because hey, free money |
|
|
|
|
OK, let's suppose that interest in your internet funbux doesn't die off and becomes quite popular. Maybe it even starts to be a competitive alternative to conventional banking.
What's to stop the conventional banks replicating it? They could have their own blockchain set up in minutes, and they have the clout and customer base to make it instantly more popular, stable and useful than the original. With a single software update they could put their version in every ATM and payment machine in the world. This beats a bunch of nerds selling slimjims out of their garages.
Sorry, do you think the banks are just going to roll over and let a new system (in which you guys are the new major wealthholders) supercede them?
The whole bitcoin thing is blinded by greed. You desperately want to be rich and powerful, and so ignore reality to construct a vision in which that happens. Your bitcoins are not going to be thousands and thousands of dollars, sorry
|
|
|
|
The adult way to protest would be not to purchase any. The douchenozzle way would be to post lengthy detractions and assault the maker verbally.
Guess where you belong? Not really sure. By that metric almost 7 billion people on this planet are currently protesting, by virtue of neither purchasing nor planning to purchase his coins. Is that accurate? I don't think not buying something is an "adult" way to protest, it's an "ineffectual" way to protest. I couldn't join this "adult" group, because I am seriously considering planning on buying a couple as a shiny memento. Unless you think I shouldn't?  If the choices are limited to "douchenozzle" and "don't purchase"... Doesn't that make all his customers douchenozzles? Very confusing. Anyway, I think I shall buy some eventually - I can't resist a good shiny novelty trinket. But let's just say I have no unrealistic expectations of them actually functioning as advertised, the omens are not good . Anyone holding a significant quantity of bitcoins in these before they are thoroughly proved could get burnt. e: Oh, saw your signature. Are you the idiot who did the faux-latin translations? Congrats, precisely 2 of the words you used make any sense |
|
|
|
tl;dr. I don't speak any Latin. I simply saw it elsewhere. If that means I am a dumbass, then yes, I am some kind of dumbass. If it doesn't, then I'm not. Either way, there's no need to be a jerk. If by the time we get around to batch #2 and the correct phrase hasn't been decided by consensus, I'll post and ask and you're welcome to contribute to the discussion.
If you are too incompetent/idle to get any of the 'outside' of the coin right, how can people be sure the printing on the 'inside' - the private keys - has been handled correctly? There is no way of telling without destroying the coin so trust is a key issue. Frankly I'm not exactly brimming with confidence you've got each and every ~30-char private key right for thousands of coins when you can't even spell your own name on the damn things. |
|
|
|
Rumor has it that the Latin "vires in numeris" is wrong too. Did you print that shite too? what are you, some kind of dumbass? Who prints thousands of internet funbux tokens emblazoned with a motto taken straight from google translate without checking it first? "in" in latin isn't used like that at all. You mean "per" (through). In any case it should be numeros; both propositions should take the accusative ("numeris" is dative. wtf would the dative be doing there). e: further thought, numeris is also ablative, so at least the sentence is gramatically correct. Using the ablative+in gives it a literal,fixed, positional meaning... Like if you wanted to say "in my car's glove box" you'd use it. So you have "power [literally, physically]inside of numbers" which is rather nonsensical. What does the inside of a number look like exactly? I'm guessing you only got vires right from sheer luck (vires is actually plural, but used as plurale tantum singular noun sooo "power" is a good translation). This is basic knowledge, people Alternatively: nummi per inscientiam |
|
|
|
The fine print says 'casacius' instead of 'casascius' lmao dude can't even spell his name right. One of the two words used on the coin and he gets it wrong. Aside from perhaps the original client, has anyone ever managed to carry out a bitcoin-related project without a staggering display of incompetence along the way? I'm thinking of buying some of these, they are oddly symbolic of the whole endeavour... |
|
|
|
I'd change the topic to "If you're not in, get in."
It's fairly evident to me that the bubble has deflated. I'm expecting that next week we'll finally see a change in the trends and there will actually be at least one rally of decent volume. With the current size of the Bitcoin economy, which is 7 times larger than at the beginning of 2011, I consider any price lower than $5 a low one because the Bitcoin economy at this stage should be able to fundamentally have a price of $5 at least.
That being said, I do plan on buying more coins if I can get money in before the price is still visiting the below $5 range. Will I buy at higher than $5, that'll depend on the trends and what kind of rally's we'll see in the weeks to come. This will be a very interesting month I believe.
Please, keep making predictions Indeed. Everything about Bitcoin fundamentals is going fairly well right now. No bad news, some good news. Trends are doing okay such as google trends and forum memberships. I seriously doubt a new low of below $5.
We might see a new low below the last one but I think $4.xx is almost impossible, there is simply no fundamental reason for it to go that low. The demand at $5.xx will be absolutely massive, those are truly cheap coins.
In fact I'm very surprised if the price breaks below the resistance levels at $6.xx, but I guess we'll see.
Well holding makes sense right now. Or buying, if you still have something to buy with. It's very, very unlikely that price will bottom at below $5. In fact I'd be willing to bet on this if someone wants to  Now I'm interested in seeing if the price will even break $6 which I think is unlikely but possible. Regardless, now we're at a range where buying is a good move and holding is a really good move. Only a total doomsday-bear would sell at around $6.50 or less, there are no real indicators to show a major price drop from that point unless you're only seeing the very pessimistic scenarios. Anything is possible, but it's really pessimistic thinking. Just lingering at 5 or 6 for a month before it jumps to some random price.
From what I've seen, the price jumps somewhere and then just lingers and lingers.
Well this is a good question. One thing that's important to note is that a change of one dollar in price is relatively a MUCH bigger deal when we close in on the smaller single digits. There is a huge difference between $5 and $6 and I think this will prove fairly critical in the near future. We will probably see a major correction when the price bottoms out, whatever the bottom might be. To at least $7+, possibly $8+. Then it's a good question what will happen, there is a possibility of a trend changing rally and there's also a possibility of continuing decline. But contrary to the doomsday-trolls I feel that a stable price lower than $5 is pretty much not happening, at all. I don't even think of that situation because it's simply so unlikely, the demand for cheap coins just rises exponentially going down from $7 to $4 so with the current fundamentals I can't see a price below $5. I can only see a spike below $5 but even that is very unlikely. This might of course change and I might think differently in a few weeks but my current estimate for this month in general is positive and quite bullish. It's entirely possible that this is the last crash we're going to see in a while. But time will tell. It's very hard to say if the price has bottomed or not. I still see a possibility of a small decline within the next 2 months, but it will be a much slower one with the price maybe bottoming at $5.xx. This is the worst case scenario. In a good scenario we get good boost this month in form of announcements of new services and good media coverage which will start an uptrend sooner. Regardless, looking at the transaction count chart ( http://pi.uk.com/bitcoin/charts/n-transactions) it will take at the most 3 months for the economic decline to run its course and after that it's entirely up to the Bitcoin community and the media to decide where it will go. From there we have basically two options, a further decline and possible true death of Bitcoin and what I think is far more likely, the flourishing of Bitcoin's potential. Bitcoin is still fundamentally just as magnificent as it ever was. I can't see how the doomsday-bears have ever contributed anything to Bitcoin itself, they have simply been here to make easy money and now that the option of making that money from a soaring bubble price is not available they have turned to whining. Pathetic. The price of Bitcoins fluctuates a lot because there are speculators and traders playing the market. The size of the market is still so small that only a handful of decent bankroll traders can cause big shifts in the price. Price will stabilize if and when the Bitcoin market gets bigger. But when we talk about going down from $20 to $7, well, that's the bursting of the biggest bubble in Bitcoin history. A speculation bubble. Actually it's from the peak of $32 but anyway. At the same time we have seen the size of the economy contract a little, as can be seen clearly from this chart: http://pi.uk.com/bitcoin/charts/n-transactionsNow we are reaching the point of a "bottom price" right now, with the amount of transactions leveling off as well within a few months for sure, possibly earlier. Then the price will start going up, probably in an unstable fashion again because there are big speculators on board. But eventually, I hope, the size of the market will increase and it'll be more difficult for people to just "play the market". One thing is clear, if you think Bitcoin is still doing good for the long term (years), then don't worry about the current price too much. Personally I still think Bitcoin is doing really good and has so much potential which is slowly being realized. It has been a slow process with some growing pains on the way but that's natural. |
|
|
|
First if you don't have Mozilla Firefox, download it now at www.mozilla.orgfollow this link: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quickjs/?src=apito download QuickJS once it has download and installed you will need to restart firefox now when firefox loads back up come back to the bitcointalk.org forum you can disable the Cosby Hack by clicking Control-Q or by clicking the little gear icon in upper right hand corner. If you want to thank me for this information, check out my new fully featured Bitcoin Social Networking Site - CoinConnect http://www.CoinConnect.orgenjoy! DONT CLICK THE LINKS ITS OBVIOUS YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO GET PEOPLE WHO ARE PANICKING TO DOWNLOAD YOUR STUFF.. THEN YOU WILL STEAL THERE WALLETS |
|
|
|
Lots of people read SA it could have been anyone. We have many admirers.
Well, there is the obvious: IT WAS BILL COSBY HIMSELF. The perfect crime. As Stalin said, when something happens you don't have to understand... You just have to look at who is benefiting. He all the gets free publicity, and nobody would suspect a sweet old 74-year actor... |
|
|
|
|
