 http://mim.allpoolz.com- Always 0% fees! - Port 8080 mining (firewall friendly) - DDoS Protection - Database off-loading (faster more reliable) - Email support - US Server how can you even keep up the pool without any fees? is it magic?  |
|
|
|
climate change deniers are even more delusional than creationists
+1 - I could weep cold and bitter tears when I read some of the comments/posts on threads such as this. Reminds me of Bill Hicks - had a great "fuck em" attitude, especially with regard the risks of smoking. He died aged 32. The difference with climate change is that the non smokers are gonna get shafted just the same - the punctual will pay the price for the tardy  doh...i really liked bill hicks and what i have heard of him (especially the rollercoaster line), but you are probably right on this |
|
|
|
Oh, someone has a different opinion than you do? Must be a troll. Turn on Ignore-Mode! *LALALALALALALALA* in all seriousness, i don't see the point in providing banking for people who can't even afford food. please explain to me.
Andreas Antonopolous talks about the opportunity for "banking" services opening up doors for the 3rd World in many of his talks. He seems like a very smart guy to me, But im not gonna google to find some alleged arguments that he made for the sake of this discussion...you have to realize this is a bit ridiculous. either post the argument here, or let it be.
I remember a few arguments he made alongside "people save fees if they send money back home to their families" and something like people could use cellphones and sms for obtaining bitcoins and so on, but this all just affects people who already are doing well enough to afford a cellphone and its fees, and of course all food and shelter, or they probably wouldn't get a cellphone. So it's not really about the majority of people who are starving. that was my point - maybe in some circumstances it would help some people, but i don't really see any great solutions of big problems there...but of course i might have missed something. im far from beeing an expert on this topic aswell.
The reason people refer to you as a troll is that you find exceptions with everything, and keep the argument going. There is no response that will ever make you say "Oh. Yeah. Good point." and get up from your computer and walk away. Certain people just morph the argument into 900 other topics, as you negate each of their misconceptions. Thats when people like BitChick "bow out". It becomes a fruitless endeavour. You should recognize this about yourself maybe, and adjust how you debate/disagree with things. To answer your question, Andreas has pointed out that even the poorest people in Africa with no running water, have satellite dishes on their mud huts. Apparently they save forever to buy one, which powers their cell phone and updates it. And no. Cell service is not $99 a month like it is here in the USA. :-/ Their cell phone enables them to transact money and carry out communication with the rest of their world. Its that important. These same cell phones which are currently using a text service to send and receive funds, can be used with Bitcoin. There are 2 companies in africa right now working to build Bitcoin texting services. Your question was, why is this relevant to poor people, to have banking opportunities? As per Andreas, it opens up a whole new world of investing, saving, appreciation in value, transferring of funds, and participation on the world stage that they never had before. Sure, some will do nothing with that. Others who are poor but still brilliant, will see the immense opportunities in having access to these things, and will literally build businesses and transform their lives. And yes, the remittances market is a hundreds-million dollar market that Bitcoin will assuredly take over. Western union charges the poorest people in the poorest countries the highest fees to send money home to family. $40 on a $100 transfer sometimes. Having that $40 available to the family instead, times millions of families, can singlehandedly pump hundreds of millions of dollars back to the poorest people on the planet. The list goes on and on. I would advise you to stop being lazy about your education on Bitcoin, and spend the next week listening to *every* speech from Andreas Antonopoulos on youtube. Specifically the Joe Rogan one, which is 3 hours long. If you don't have the energy or interest, then be aware that you are missing about 95% of the pertinent information on the topic you're debating. -B- funny how you first claim "this is why people call you a troll" and in the next paragraphs you are basically just repeating what i said. i have already seen the joe rogan podcast with antonpoulos...not that i would take serious any suggestions from people who are just repeating what i said after calling me a troll, but still, just for your information, i have already seen it. considering you are just repeating what i was saying, i guess you are not even as educated on the topic of crytocurrencies as i am (although im surely not very educated). if you have a hard time understanding what i am writing, just leave it at that, don't try to "educate" me by parroting my own words. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin to me is all the above:
It's a good way to earn money, either by selling goods or services or trading or mining.
It's a good proof of concept for the next monetary system, as it's still in its infancy, and can adjust to add things it's missing or add things that it needs work on.
It's the next monetary system, as it's decentralized, has the fastest transaction speed out of Paypal, Visa, Moneygram, Western Union, Visa, Bank wire, etc...
It is a kind of philosophy as it's ideas are fairly libertarian and promotes a type of "freedom", especially from institutions such as government and banks.
It's also "Nothing" as you can't see, hear, or feel Bitcoin. It has no physical "weight" so to speak. But it's ideals, it's protocols, it's code, it's distributed ledger, it's promise as a cryptocurrency carry so much more mass and heft in the grand scheme of things on a global level.
if property is freedom to you, i can't really help you. to your last paragraph: you could just say "it has no intrinsic value" What do you mean by property? Some would argue that the fiat dollar doesn't have an intrinsic value either. It's not really backed by Gold standard. It's backed by the US Armies guns, tanks, and surface to air missiles or "Rule of Law" All these failing countries economies around the world could use something like Bitcoin though. yes of course fiat money doesn't really have any intrinsic value (besides the paper its beeing printed on, so it still has some intrinsic value as toilet paper or something) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin to me is all the above:
It's a good way to earn money, either by selling goods or services or trading or mining.
It's a good proof of concept for the next monetary system, as it's still in its infancy, and can adjust to add things it's missing or add things that it needs work on.
It's the next monetary system, as it's decentralized, has the fastest transaction speed out of Paypal, Visa, Moneygram, Western Union, Visa, Bank wire, etc...
It is a kind of philosophy as it's ideas are fairly libertarian and promotes a type of "freedom", especially from institutions such as government and banks.
It's also "Nothing" as you can't see, hear, or feel Bitcoin. It has no physical "weight" so to speak. But it's ideals, it's protocols, it's code, it's distributed ledger, it's promise as a cryptocurrency carry so much more mass and heft in the grand scheme of things on a global level.
if property is freedom to you, i can't really help you. to your last paragraph: you could just say "it has no intrinsic value" |
|
|
|
funny how you call scientists "propagandists", that tells me a lot about you funny how you call reporters scientists, then thinking this misrepresentation would be overlooked, use that basis to produce an ad hominem attack. Anyway, you are making me laugh more than the article. Assuming the persons whom I call "propagandists" you call "scientists", then it is scientists posing the question? Should I take my family (and could I eat them)?Now, personally, I think I could do better than that. so for you climate change scientists are no scientists, they are reporters? keep laughing, pal |
|
|
|
The videos doesn't really address the issues, they only convey current statistics in a very user friendly way. And it isn't true that more people are starving today. It's the very opposite.
yes they are very nice for people who are very new into this topic. About the starving people...there are different definitions and calculations, and i know of estimates that claim there are fewer starving people now, and i know of estimates that claim there are more starving people now (both from the FAO, the most reliable source on this topic). We don't really know for sure. but the fact that there are still almost a billion people starving altough the world community commited itself to reduce this to at least 500 million by 2015 is really horrible. no matter how you put it. |
|
|
|
FYI: You're trolling/shilling would be more effective if it was less obvious.
Again, only because someone might have a different opinion than you, doesn't make him a troll. Spamming: "TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!" without offering any argument is actually trolling. |
|
|
|
have seen them years ago. i have actually read many books about the topic of globalisation and developing nations. the fact that child mortality is falling in relative numbers only barely hides the fact that the actual numbers of people starving and beeing poor has actually risen in the last decades. of course there is progress. the world isn't black and white, i can't repeat often enough. I can only say, you shouldn't get your information about complex issues solely from very short youtube videos. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin to me is the safest way to store money via several brainwallets. Governments, creditors, ex-wives, backstabbing family members cannot access the majority of my wealth anymore. For that matter, most won't even know about it.
I can travel from country to country with all my wealth stored in my head.
If I go to prison and lose everything, my wealth will be waiting for me when I get out. No need to trust family, banks, or friends.
I sleep well at night knowing my wealth is safely stored in my mind.
And yes, when I die, it will disappear forever...but you and every other Bitcoin owner will be a tiny bit richer.
Another great example of the logic of bitcoin-users. 1. "If I marry a woman, and she is keeping up the house and raising kids while I earn money, she deserves not a cent of what I earned when I leave her, so I Bitcoins are cool because I can hide my money from her, since actual law states that the money I earn belongs to both. And I don't like laws that cost me money." 2. "Goverments want taxes?? Screw them!! I hide all my money in bitcoin wallets, they don't see a cent from me! Yeah they can provide and upkeep the internet infrastructure (and all the other infractructure) without which Bitcoin wouldn't even work, but they won't see a cent from me for this service! I am entitled to every single cent I inherit!" and so on. very classical. |
|
|
|
Not any more. This forum used be populated by people who believed that regulation is slavery and that a free market will eliminate crap. But events like Bitcoinica and the repeated mtgox problems have made clear that regulation has its place. My take is that the "Its a free market so tough luck if you are a loser" line is fine if you are on the winning side but a lot of people who believed that lost their money and have either moved on or changed their minds.
having a bit of a regulation really doesn't mean its not neoliberalism anymore. neoliberalism wouldn't work without a basic set of regulations. (at least thats what i think) just look at our world - yes we live in a neoliberal world, but we still have regulations. not much, but there are some. there should be more of course (i am thinking about investment banks here) Oh. IF that is your frame of reference, then Bitcoin is not the holy grail. Banks rely on a taxpayer guarantee and since Bitcoin is not a taxpayer project, its the opposite of what you mean by neoliberal. I was more focused on the Austrian Economics part of your topic. Neoliberalism stems out of Austrian Economics. It's, for the sake of discussion, basically the same. Correct me if you think i'm wrong. I don't really understand why you think banks rely on a taxpayer guarantee, and how this is in any way different to Bitcoin. Please explain |
|
|
|
To be specific, I was writing that "almost everyone" in America, or any developed country has access to Bitcoin. I understand that with a global mindset that Bitcoin is NOT accessible to most of the world easily. However, that could and will hopefully change at some point. Bitcoin could be helpful for places where banking is not easily accessible for them. Hopefully, at some point, all that will be needed is cell phones.
Probably time to stop feeding the troll, otherwise you'll be here all day with his "well what about this, and what about that" bullshit. Oh, someone has a different opinion than you do? Must be a troll. Turn on Ignore-Mode! *LALALALALALALALA* in all seriousness, i don't see the point in providing banking for people who can't even afford food. please explain to me. Trolls need food before they can afford BTC.  Oh. That wasn't serious. Andreas Antonopolous talks about the opportunity for "banking" services opening up doors for the 3rd World in many of his talks. He is quite passionate about it and it is one the main reasons he is excited about BTC. Google him. I can't do his explanations justice. I know this guy, I have watched a few youtube videos of him already and read an article or two, and he seems like a very smart guy to me, i wouldn't argue against that. But im not gonna google to find some alleged arguments that he made for the sake of this discussion...you have to realize this is a bit ridiculous. either post the argument here, or let it be. It is hard to solve the banking problems of the 3rd world in a sentence or two. Sorry about that. Hence why I am trying to bow out gracefully, knowing the subject matter is beyond me. I remember a few arguments he made alongside "people save fees if they send money back home to their families" and something like people could use cellphones and sms for obtaining bitcoins and so on, but this all just affects people who already are doing well enough to afford a cellphone and its fees, and of course all food and shelter, or they probably wouldn't get a cellphone. So it's not really about the majority of people who are starving. that was my point - maybe in some circumstances it would help some people, but i don't really see any great solutions of big problems there...but of course i might have missed something. im far from beeing an expert on this topic aswell. |
|
|
|
Historic facts don't need arguments. The history IS the argument against your fairy tales. The epoch of statelessnes (self-sufficiency/anarchy) was the epoch of humans without armies (anarchy).
I have heard many different definitions of Anarchy, but not even wikipedia has heard of your definition. I guess you are just making stuff up as you go. Hey, I love Raiders too! The definition is simple: Etymology
The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, from ἀν an, "not, without" + ἀρχός arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a ruler", "without rulers")Therefore: Where you aren't ruled by rulers, you are self-sufficient. I told you a few posts ago it means "without rulers". good that you finally realize this too. |
|
|
|
Not any more. This forum used be populated by people who believed that regulation is slavery and that a free market will eliminate crap. But events like Bitcoinica and the repeated mtgox problems have made clear that regulation has its place. My take is that the "Its a free market so tough luck if you are a loser" line is fine if you are on the winning side but a lot of people who believed that lost their money and have either moved on or changed their minds.
having a bit of a regulation really doesn't mean its not neoliberalism anymore. neoliberalism wouldn't work without a basic set of regulations. (at least thats what i think) just look at our world - yes we live in a neoliberal world, but we still have regulations. not much, but there are some. there should be more of course (i am thinking about investment banks here) |
|
|
|
To be specific, I was writing that "almost everyone" in America, or any developed country has access to Bitcoin. I understand that with a global mindset that Bitcoin is NOT accessible to most of the world easily. However, that could and will hopefully change at some point. Bitcoin could be helpful for places where banking is not easily accessible for them. Hopefully, at some point, all that will be needed is cell phones.
Probably time to stop feeding the troll, otherwise you'll be here all day with his "well what about this, and what about that" bullshit. Oh, someone has a different opinion than you do? Must be a troll. Turn on Ignore-Mode! *LALALALALALALALA* in all seriousness, i don't see the point in providing banking for people who can't even afford food. please explain to me. Trolls need food before they can afford BTC. Oh. That wasn't serious. Andreas Antonopolous talks about the opportunity for "banking" services opening up doors for the 3rd World in many of his talks. He is quite passionate about it and it is one the main reasons he is excited about BTC. Google him. I can't do his explanations justice. I know this guy, I have watched a few youtube videos of him already and read an article or two, and he seems like a very smart guy to me, i wouldn't argue against that. But im not gonna google to find some alleged arguments that he made for the sake of this discussion...you have to realize this is a bit ridiculous. either post the argument here, or let it be. |
|
|
|
Anarchy is not a concept. Anarchy (self-sufficient communities) has been the natural state of humanity for a million years. Society / collectivism (= collectivized communities, organized in patronized, monogamous tribute families = patriarchy = organized violence) is an unnatural construct, enforced by militant terrorists (state and church).
well ok i can work with your definition of anarchy. but you have to realize, this "collectivism" as you call it is just as "natural" as the anarchy. everything is natural in fact. No. Always being sick is not the natural state. It is a state of emergency and takes a comparatively short time. i have my problems with the state and the church too. but there is one thing i fear more than the state, and thats capitalism. and i trust the state to be the last defense against privately owned armies.
BS. No state - no capitalism. No state - no armies. Capitalism, socialism, armies are state bastards. o.O naive... History. Of which you do not seem to have much of a clue. blablub. try to form a coherent argument to back up your delusional statements. To 'discuss' with somebody who doesn't have any knowledge of historic facts is pointless. The epoch of statelessnes (self-sufficiency/anarchy) was the epoch of humans without armies. If you don't know anything about the history of anarchy you simply should shutup. Keep your petty insults to yourself, I am really not interested in them. Again, try to form a coherent argument on the topic, or just let it be. It's really your choice. Historic facts don't need arguments. The history IS the argument against your fairy tales. The epoch of statelessnes (self-sufficiency/anarchy) was the epoch of humans without armies (anarchy). I have heard many different definitions of Anarchy, but not even wikipedia has heard of your definition. I guess you are just making stuff up as you go. Hey, I love Raiders too! |
|
|
|
To be specific, I was writing that "almost everyone" in America, or any developed country has access to Bitcoin. I understand that with a global mindset that Bitcoin is NOT accessible to most of the world easily. However, that could and will hopefully change at some point. Bitcoin could be helpful for places where banking is not easily accessible for them. Hopefully, at some point, all that will be needed is cell phones.
Probably time to stop feeding the troll, otherwise you'll be here all day with his "well what about this, and what about that" bullshit. Oh, someone has a different opinion than you do? Must be a troll. Turn on Ignore-Mode! *LALALALALALALALA* in all seriousness, i don't see the point in providing banking for people who can't even afford food. please explain to me. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin wasn't being attacked by the likes of Krugman and Greenspan then it wouldn't be worthwhile.
The way you know you're doing good in the world is when people like that are opposed.
Did you plagiarize that from FOX News? |
|
|
|
Anarchy is not a concept. Anarchy (self-sufficient communities) has been the natural state of humanity for a million years. Society / collectivism (= collectivized communities, organized in patronized, monogamous tribute families = patriarchy = organized violence) is an unnatural construct, enforced by militant terrorists (state and church).
well ok i can work with your definition of anarchy. but you have to realize, this "collectivism" as you call it is just as "natural" as the anarchy. everything is natural in fact. No. Always being sick is not the natural state. It is a state of emergency and takes a comparatively short time. i have my problems with the state and the church too. but there is one thing i fear more than the state, and thats capitalism. and i trust the state to be the last defense against privately owned armies.
BS. No state - no capitalism. No state - no armies. Capitalism, socialism, armies are state bastards. o.O naive... History. Of which you do not seem to have much of a clue. blablub. try to form a coherent argument to back up your delusional statements. To 'discuss' with somebody who doesn't have any knowledge of historic facts is pointless. The epoch of statelessnes (self-sufficiency/anarchy) was the epoch of humans without armies. If you don't know anything about the history of anarchy you simply should shutup. Keep your petty insults to yourself, I am really not interested in them. Again, try to form a coherent argument on the topic, or just let it be. It's really your choice. |
|
|
|
Digital anarchy!!!
you mean digital capitalism. property rights and anarchy are pretty much the opposite. if you don't understand anything, just ask. Decentralisation = anarchy. It's a currency without central control. no governing = anarchy. Digital capitalism also fits anarchistic capitalism also fits. and no need to get arrogant please... anarchy has nothing to do with "no governing" or decentralisation. anarchy essentially means "without rulers". yeah, alot of people are using the term "anarchocapitalism" although many people like me think this is just an oxymoron. but well, opinions differ. i won't tell you whatever i say is the absolute truth and everything else is wrong. i just disagree that this can be somehow accurately labeled as anarchy/anarchism. its exactly the opposite to me - hierarchy. its a hierarchy of wealth - already wealthy people can mine and buy the majority of coins, while the majority gets nothing or just a neglible amount. on most topics, im all for decentralization. not so for currency. i believe strongly that the currency we use must be centrally controlled, to prohobit abuse. with a "decentralized" currency, the richest people simply control it totally. they are the "community" that approves of or rejects changes to the bitcoin client, and so on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
