Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2024, 07:26:12 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »
2261  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 16, 2011, 10:48:39 AM
Just wait till global warming triggers the next ice age and you will have enough solid surface for every individual to live the rest of their lifes without bumping on anyone else

Doesn't work! There's a bunch of folks who always seams to be out of parking space and therefore just keep pushing to create a bigger Empire...
2262  Other / Off-topic / Re: [DRAFT] - Improved anonimity on: April 15, 2011, 11:34:13 PM
Well, now that you talk about it, the random distribution can add some coins of the own to prevent exclusion tracking.
Still, as I said, in the given 3 users' example it would still be roughly possible to track back the coins, but within 100+ not any longer. As A would be getting coins from B to ZD. So A could be C, AC, DC and all other people in between of which he didn't collect coins from.
2263  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 07:49:25 PM
Fascism is when the "Government" take the "State" as the main entity in the society, being so the "State" can then interfere on all issues of individuals, be their private or not. This extents obviously to markets.
Within Fascism is legit to regulate or forbid even masturbation if the "State" decides so (say the State needs more natality), as the individual has no rights or his rights get void when colliding with the "State" for any reason. The "State" is the primarily thing to defend, no matter what that may cost to individuals or how many have to be wiped out.

This is what means Mussolini's words, and the best yet to define fascism: «All in the State, all with the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State».
2264  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 03:30:02 PM
If people wouldn't be becoming more fascist, they would be rioting by now... yet they don't. They started to accept to trade their will for "security" and all that governments have to do is to put up a terrorist attack now an then.
Also many people is more and more convinced to be eternal, put death to a bigger tragedy than what it already is.
"You can't smoke near me because that kills me"... does it? So does many things else, yet if you keep running away of everything that may kill you at long term you don't live at all and in the end will die anyway.

It's a utter truth to our kind; «who controls the fear of death, controls humanity».
2265  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 03:21:12 PM
I'll not go dream on a place where everyone is "peaceful" because there's no such place and never will.

I don't expect everyone to be peaceful just most people. If most people aren't peaceful then we're all fucked no matter what ideology we cling to.

And aren't we? By day, specially since 9/11, you see Fascism moving from the Government sphere to the mentality sphere. People is getting fascist by the day, afraid of everything and up to give away their freedom out of fear of poltergeist attacks. Ghosts implanted on the mind of people preventing them from living!
We'd never been further of your dream society.
2266  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 03:09:37 PM
Reason why anarchy doesn't go; we need some sort of "objective morality", Religion used to do that job in the past, but was doing quite a lousy job, so now we've Governments for such job.

Your way of thinking scares me.

I'm pragmatic and realist. Just that.
I'll not go dream on a place where everyone is "peaceful" because there's no such place and never will. People is greedy and will follow that greed no matter what. Twisted logics, manipulation, violence, everything is out there and will remain.
And looking at the World today and looking at the World back on the 90's, when you could experience a much better society and freedom than today, I may say it is getting worse. Now every shit is a business, then you got every shit full of insane rules because "it's a business"... fucking World! Governments have some guilt, but so do we. Confucius said «A gentleman blames himself while a common man blames others»; that's what we mostly are... "Common man".
2267  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 03:03:01 PM
Violence/Aggression... everybody speaks of it as if it was something defined "per se".
Pearl Harbor, a few days before US froze Japan's funds, so was it a Japanese aggression or self-defending?
Like anything else it just depends on which side of the barricade you're. In the "right side" you're a "Freedom Fighter self-defending", in the "wrong side", you're an "Aggressive Terrorist".
Reason why anarchy doesn't go; we need some sort of "objective morality", Religion used to do that job in the past, but was doing quite a lousy job, so now we've Governments for such job.
2268  Other / Off-topic / [DRAFT] - Improved anonimity on: April 15, 2011, 12:27:50 PM
Bitcoin has a nag, it allows to trace transactions... well, this can be solved by using a concentrator-disperser with a secondary database.

Say A, B and C want to remove traces of their coins, they could upload funds for a central wallet, those funds moved upwards to a central "mixer" and returned at random to each of the 3. Basically what this system would be doing would be to shuffle the coins, so A collects a random amount of coins from B and the rest from C, B from C and A and C from A and B.
Obviously with such a small universe of 3 elements it would still be roughly traceable, but with a significant universe this would allow the total wipe of BTC trace. One receiving the payment from A still could trace back those coins, but as the distribution is done by a separate and opaque database whatever he get from the previous ownership of those coins means nothing for what A has been doing or not.
In the end this is a system to trade btc for... btc.
2269  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 11:24:40 AM
Considering the website we're on, what am I supposed to make of someone that claims fiat currency is the only possible way for currency to exist?

No, it's not... but the one on your wallet is fiat currency, not bullion or virtual.
Still wouldn't grant you ownership...
2270  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 11:11:57 AM
#1 Your "private property" is just "private property" as long as you've the means to keep it that way.
#2 You "money" just have "value" because the State grants it.
...
bottom line, you complaint on the charges the State applies to actually grant you the money you've on the first place. It's a funny circle, uh?

To the #1 you can say "I hire security", well, but having property may not mean you're monetarily rich enough to pay some folks to hang around, and as without state #2 takes over, even if you do, it's worthless now.
Also the State allows you to have far away property, you can live in Florida and have a house on Seattle or Boston. Without anyone to keep it for you that would not be your property anymore. Say you rented your Boston house, after the first rent you didn't get any more. You go there to evict the tenant, however the tenant is part of that community whereas you're not, so his reasons will sound by affinity more reasonable than yours... so you rather come with an army, as the locals will help your faulty tenant and you probably won't come back alive at all of such journey.

Bitcoin2cash, it is possible to create abusive monopolies in open markets, that's what cartels do.
2271  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 14, 2011, 04:23:26 PM
Yammm!
But just get videos of crackpots who actually believe in the so called "Tibetan monk stateless society" (and even those have a Dalai Lama). And to the worse, they're not funny but overwhelming boring! I'm not charging you for my time wasted this time, but on the next non-funny video I'll. Tongue

If George's lack of voluntarism and selfishness got to be much noticed, people from that utopia would simply hang him in a tree without charges or trial. This is also another BIG (to not say HUGE) issue of your conception; Justice. Justice in anarchy is street/popular justice, known to be exactly the most intrusive, most obnoxious, most irrational and insane form of Justice known by man.
2272  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 14, 2011, 02:23:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlGZxJTZAK0&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4esoN9FsGFw&NR=1

  Grin
2273  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 14, 2011, 11:34:04 AM
If you dont like what BCEmporium stands for then boycott his business.

Unlike the government we aren't forced to use his services.


 Smiley


Protip-dont be an asshole to your potential customers.

I don't bother much... those who don't agree will not use, those who agree will... that's life.  Tongue
Either way I'm not counting on make a living out of bitcoins or that site. And still, even if I not agree much with btc2cash I don't see why to not use his service... one thing is political opinion, the other to take things personally.  Wink
2274  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 13, 2011, 10:50:40 PM
I'm just pointing the flaws of the anarchic theory, specially under the basis that it resembles more a group of Tibetan monks than anything else.

As for the state of emergency... Earth has finite resources and we're already 6 bln and growing... you do the math!
2275  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 13, 2011, 10:38:01 PM
Gluskab,

You keep taking everything ad hominem  Roll Eyes

Just because I state that one thing happened or may happen, does it mean I agree with it?!

There's no "good or evil nor wrong or right", when you come to realize what this means maybe you can see how wise those words are.
By now you've this world, however you can't tell the future. You give this world for granted, forgetting for an instance that your stomach is full, on the day it isn't you may well flush down the toilet all of your "philosophical disgusting" and go on a rampage. And as you others, and the World can have another step back on its evolution process...

BTW, because you're unable to distinguish between hypothetical scenarios and "my personal opinion" - as you take both as being the same - I rather state that I'm AGAINST rampages... Oh! And I also don't disregard human life.
2276  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 13, 2011, 10:20:58 PM
Sorry Gluskab, but you give for granted things that took millenniums to develop.
If happens that Hitler won WW2, you would be very proud if your kid come home saying he shot a Jew on the school playground. Your moral grounds would be totally different and you wouldn't see nothing wrong about it.

Also you imply continuous moral development, yet Dark Ages proves us otherwise, the Roman Empire was more developed than the times after its fall. Some of the morality you assume today was already set on Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire under Stoicism philosophy... but on 400 a.C. the Pope forbid Philosophy and it went down the toilet, so to say.
Human Rights also date back from the Persian Emperor Cyrus the Great on the 5th Century b.C.... yet look at Iran today, 2500 years after and it is now less philosophically developed than under Cyrus.

I said before that generations 100 years from now will look at us as a bunch of barbaric retards, but forgot to add that I hope they do it out of development, because they made it a better place than we do and not because, for an instance, we get along with black people whereas they found it better to use them for target practicing.


a better place than we do -> Outcome drives morality, not the other way around.
2277  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 13, 2011, 09:31:24 PM
Guess you're wrong... I don't vouch for this Democracy, however I seek into thinking on ways to move it to the next level, not some chaotic pre-caveman ages. The system status quo is outdated, yet, and upon an outdated Playstation you here are presenting me with a rotten ZX Spectrum to replace it!

If you don't see the relativeness of morality, than you'll have several issues with History books, taken without relativeness of the actions to the time they happened than they would sound like a bunch of barbaric retards... as we probably will sound to generations 100 years from now.

BTW: I said Russia in 91, right after the fall of USSR when it was a Mafia-controlled country.
2278  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 13, 2011, 09:19:57 PM
Morality is not relative.

Morality is all relative!
Take for an instance Islam, it's not immoral to kill a non-believer (kafir) for their religion. Pedophilia, being the youngest of crimes, wasn't anything immoral up to not so long ago. Ever read Romeo & Juliet? Juliet was 13... pretty much within moral standards to get married at Shakespeare time.

You may say, and due to our kind of rational society that I couldn't find rational arguments to support rape; and there I agree with you. If a less rational society can, then those in that society will see nothing wrong in rape (say their God said that rape is cool).
2279  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 13, 2011, 09:14:59 PM
Also, it looks like we've pretty well established what I've been saying all along.  BCE isn't interested in a discussion of morality, truth, or reality; he's here to bully and assert, and if a contradiction is pointed out or some moral horror is pointed out, there's simply a shrug of, 'well, I imagine >50% of people voted for that.'

I'm not up to bully anyone... and your concept of voting ad hominem really gives me the creeps! As if people go voting for a particular person's fate...

As for truth and reality; what reality is that "anarchy"? Russia in 91? Somalia?
2280  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 13, 2011, 09:11:35 PM
Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

Morality is the highest of relative values. If by any reason a society believes to rape is ok, then it's not immoral there. Might be hard is to find rational reasons for such for any one pushing for it.

@bitcoin2cash

That "feature" you're stating is part of the Socialism... for the sake of justice and taken taxes are percentages they should be flat rates, so everybody would pay according to his income. Socialists however think otherwise, but not a Democracy's fault.
Pages: « 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!