I am glad that they are only seizing the bank accounts. At least the real estate and the bullion assets are safe (aren't they?).
I wouldn't hope for this. Remember bullion gold and gold coins confiscated after/during the Great Depression in the USA? And you won't be able to hide it because they know you have it... |
|
|
|
Do you know about quantum physic experiments ?
Most people ignore it. Some reject it. Only few can actually understand it because it imply accepting the idea that time and space is an illusion.
Oh, these buzzwords, how I like them... Could you explain us in layman's terms the results these quantum physic experiments led to? If time and space is an illusion, what is not illusion then? Well, I can probably guess the answer you are going to submit... |
|
|
|
It'll probably end up like in the last days of the USSR; Everyone standing around drinking vodka doing nothing at the factory. Where I used to work years ago, we cleaned all the industrial centrifuges manually, now they are automated like the rest of the system; All we did was just program the settings into the machines and it would carry out the operations... Now it is fully automated everything in the plant. The Owner still keeps workers around because he probably knows that for the economy they are necessary, no one ever gets layed off at that plant... but everyone just stands around for hours doing nothing just watching the machines do their thing, people are just there for back-up now.
I don't even remotely remember such things. You'd better stop spreading nonsense. No one will keep workers around just because "they are necessary for the the economy", not even in Russia... |
|
|
|
how consciousness which does not belong to the material world can actually change it (through our deliberate actions)...
You are making the material world by observing it. So when I fall asleep its got destroyed, right? Only for me or for everyone else? Are they too a product of my imagination consciousness? And you with your post as you don't exist beyond my mind... |
|
|
|
Yes, I consider this as a central problem for Bitcoin and gold standard. If "Bitcoin itself simply becomes more valuable", everything else becomes not that simple for producers in the first place, and you won't get away with it by just saying "and everyone moves on with their day". It has already been proven so many times that if you claim otherwise, it can be considered that you don't actually understand the issue at hand...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-03/the-gold-standard-wasn-t-so-bad.htmlThe gold standard wasn't bad for growth, either. The most reliable information comes from an annual index of industrial production from 1790 to 1915. We can compare that index against the monthly industrial production data collected by the Federal Reserve since 1919 to get a sense of how rapidly the economy grew under different monetary arrangements. It turns out that industrial production grew much more rapidly under the gold standard than in the years since. This doesn't change even if you exclude the world wars and the Great Depression. It has a very simple explanation. The rapid economic growth and ever increasing industrial production of the 19th century was due to tremendous scientific and technological advances (electricity, chemistry, internal combustion engine, etc) back then which partly compensated for the deficiencies of gold standard but still couldn't prevent the train of economic crises in the second half of that century as well as the war in Europe and the Great Depression in the 20th century... |
|
|
|
The gold standard acts as a limit on economic growth. "As an economy's productive capacity grows, then so should its money supply. Because a gold standard requires that money be backed in the metal, then the scarcity of the metal constrains the ability of the economy to produce more capital and grow."[64] This statement is itself not true. Bitcoin itself simply becomes more valuable, and everyone moves on with their day. Yes, I consider this as a central problem for Bitcoin and gold standard. If "Bitcoin itself simply becomes more valuable", everything else becomes not that simple for producers in the first place, and you won't get away with it by just saying "and everyone moves on with their day". It has already been proven so many times that if you claim otherwise, it can be considered that you don't actually understand the issue at hand... |
|
|
|
Could you please expand more on this? Not saying that you're wrong, just don't get your point and how it is related to the issue at hand, i.e. how unequal distribution of gold deposits could support the gold standard itself and mend its inherent deficiencies?
Sorry, I should have mentioned that these are deficiencies listed on the Wikipedia page for gold standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standardSee, "disadvantages" I don't doubt about the disadvantage you advanced here (lol), but I didn't mean this as being a primary disadvantage that I was referring to when I compared Bitcoin "standard" with gold standard and through which, in my opinion, Bitcoin should fail in the end... |
|
|
|
Consciousness does not belong to the material world. You cannot apply your logic to it.
This we don't know yet. To substantiate your position, you should either provide some convincing evidence or, well, some logic proving that. Otherwise your point is unsubstantiated... We could just not know material world well enough There is nothing to prove. Stop observing the material world, it doesn't exist any more. The logic work on our scale because we believe in it blindly. No, this won't do. You may believe in what you say, but this doesn't answer what consciousness is in the first place. Secondly, if we take your point seriously, you will have to explain how consciousness which does not belong to the material world can actually change it (through our deliberate actions)... |
|
|
|
Actually, what you say should be written as following:
Bitcoins -> paper Bitcoins by all banks (causes inflation and bank-runs) -> paper Bitcoins by Central Bank (establishment of gold Bitcoin standard)
And after that we begin running into ever deepening economic crises which finally bring about dismantling of the Bitcoin standard (see the Great Depression), so the last step will be:
paper Bitcoins by Central Bank (causes deflation and incessant economic crises) -> fiat by Central Bank (Bitcoin standard dismantled)
This argument is wrong for these reasons. Let's use the wikipedia article on the gold standard. The unequal distribution of gold deposits makes the gold standard more advantageous for those countries that produce gold.[61] In 2010 the largest producers of gold, in order, were China, Australia, US, South Africa and Russia.[62] The country with the largest reserves is Australia.[63] Could you please expand more on this? Not saying that you're wrong, just don't get your point and how it is related to the issue at hand, i.e. how unequal distribution of gold deposits could support the gold standard itself and mend its inherent deficiencies? |
|
|
|
Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience.
Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself. That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption... Memetics is also related going back to Jung's Collective Unconscious. Can you prove this or just provide some reasons beyond that you just happen to think so? |
|
|
|
Consciousness does not belong to the material world. You cannot apply your logic to it.
This we don't know yet. To substantiate your position, you should either provide some convincing evidence or, well, some logic proving that. Otherwise your point is unsubstantiated... We could just not know material world well enough |
|
|
|
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
Consciousness is not the physical brain. We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness... Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience. Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself (you can generate the same music in many different ways). That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption... |
|
|
|
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
Consciousness is not the physical brain. We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness... |
|
|
|
We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...
And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see. What you say doesn't follow from my point I expounded on in my previous posts. If you think otherwise, please explain what actually makes you think so... |
|
|
|
I tell you that a store of value cannot be losing (one of those three properties you claim it might have) in value in the long term, otherwise it won't be a store of value in the first place.
Then you simply do not know or do not understand the correct definition. But feel free to make up a new one, that is a commonplace way of arguing one's point around here. Before saying anything like that, you should provide a definition which you consider as canonical (or at least as it is defined in one of the well-established theories of value/money)... I'm all ears, go ahead! |
|
|
|
А чего бы им тогда самим биткоины не майнить, в чём прикол? Чувствую, где-то здесь нас обманывают ...
Как и во всех случаях, для старта нужны деньги, Тут и приходят на помощь предзаказы  То есть им пока ещё и показать даже нечего? Я так понял из текста статья, что они уже предлагают (якобы) "лучшие решения для майнеров и для всех заинтересованных в электронной коммерции", из чего можно сделать вывод, что у них уже есть хотя бы опытный образец оборудования... Обманывают, значит, проказники! |
|
|
|
I think that I've given here enough both historical example and logical reason to deem this question closed for now unless you provide substantial evidence that would actually refute my arguments besides just stating that I am wrong because I am wrong and sticking to petty semantics...
What is this, a 6th grade debate class? There is no question, there is a definition that has the logical property " X can be either A, B, or C" and you have attempted to refute this by saying "here is an X with property C, your definition is invalid!" and tried to use a statement of mine out of context a post later as something--I'm not sure what--but it definitely isn't an argument. In fact, you said that " a store has to be at least one of the three, it certainly does not have to increase in value". I tell you that a store of value cannot be losing (one of those three properties you claim it might have) in value in the long term, otherwise it won't be a store of value in the first place. Why it actually should be gaining purchasing power with time (let alone nominal value), I have also provided cogent reasons for, and gave you historical evidence of this. So your "definition" is wrong. If you come to disagree, substantiate your claims with either evidence or through logic... Who is actually trying to make a 6th grade debate here? |
|
|
|
«Наша уникальная технология под названием CoolTegula позволяет нам создавать системы, которые достигают скорости майнинга в петахэши в секунду и даже больше. Мы нашли уникальные решения, чтобы добиться подобной производительности при небольших финансовых и энергетических затратах. Наша технология в 2-4 раза эффективнее любой существующей сегодня на рынке», добавил Ганесан.
А чего бы им тогда самим биткоины не майнить, в чём прикол? Чувствую, где-то здесь нас обманывают (ну примерно как "гуру-трейдинга" продают свои стратегии зарабатывания денег на бирже), что-то с трудом верится в альтруизм этих товарищей из HighBitcoin... |
|
|
|
Ожидается, что голосование в парламенте по этому вопросу пройдет в ближайшее время
В ближайшее время, это через сколько и когда именно? А то, как я понял, там процедура достаточно сложная и длительная, а потому может занять далеко не один месяц (а это долго по местным меркам)... |
|
|
|
Since all that has happened last week from china banning the btc, and greenspan saying that is a bubble, what is the scenario for the future of BTC is it dead or is it alive?
Personally, I expected it fall below $500 after china "banning" bitcoin, but it seems that people do actually believe in its future (I have some reservations on this account) and prefer not to sell all those coins when the price turns down (no panic sell at least)... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
