It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you...

Just consider for a moment that Bitcoin proponents turn out right after all, and in the next few years your millions will be made worth next to nothing? Do you really think that big bosses don't know about your most cherished dream and the same dream of the crowd out there?

I think you can't even picture it to yourself what real poverty looks like...

I think some daredevils could even try to get double payment for both of these campaigns through signing off from this campaign after receiving payment from Stunna and then signing in for that campaign to get there in time. Personally, I wouldn't do this because even if it turned out not to be a scam after all, this could have "adverse effects" in the long run in case I decide to continue...

Ironically, why would they want to drop their stash in the first place? If Bitcoin is the money of the future, it just doesn't make much sense to convert the coins (back) to dollars. So no believing there?

Value as such is meaningless, for there is no such thing as objective value in itself and by itself. It exists only in our heads, and our conceptions about it differ at any given time (that's what makes exchange of goods possible). Whether you like or not, people will compare the price of a bitcoin with that of an ounce of gold because it is the subjective value that matters...

Где деньги, Зин?

It seems that now you are trying to confuse and obfuscate matters. At first you said the person down the chain would be in deep trouble because they would knock the crap out of him until he provided the names of whom he had bought from and sold to, and then you are saying that they only need to catch one IP address of one person on the chain. If the poor wretch just doesn't know the names how can he be of any help to the investigators?

And this still doesn't prove that they wouldn't have to catch everyone (which is what you assumed)...

I don't believe they are good in any imaginable way. But as long as they fighting with each other, we are not doomed. I think you're crying wolf right now. Are you trying to make yourself into a a self-proclaimed messiah? What you say here looks much like propaganda as well...

The hollow-point bullets you refer to here have been in use for many decades by both police and civilians for self-defense as well for hunting big game. They are among the most common types of bullets beyond military primarily due to the reduced risk of hitting bystanders with passed through or ricocheted bullets and the increased incapacitation capability. The Hague Convention you mention here has also universally prohibited, for example, bombs discharged from anything that flies through the air (then balloons). Such bullets haven't really been used widely in warfare by all belligerents due to more prosaic reasons such as lowered penetrating capability, poor ballistics in the long range, problems with cartridge feeding in automatic rifles, etc...

At times your perverted logic makes me laugh really. You blame the US government of all sorts of sins (and what not), and at the same time make references to mafia in Kremlin... Who is the real mafia out there? Also, I think that with all those prices of oil and other natural resources we see nowadays, it will take ages to see Russia go bankrupt

Though I never said that a resource-based economy would be good for being excessively vulnerable to external factors...

Firstly, as far as I know, Litvinenko was mixed up in the illegal rare earth metal trade and poisoned himself through his own carelessness and rough handling of the radioactive polonium isotope. Secondly, even if what I heard is false and he was actually murdered in 2006 by Russian authorities, you still can't deny the fact that the Russians declined the US government's request for Edward Snowden's extradition now...

Actions speak louder than words ("show me the code", lol)

If we exclude voluntary unemployment (which by definition doesn't make much sense to fight with unless we're in a communist state or on something else beyond economics), what exactly are you blaming Keynesianism in? What's inherently wrong in trying to lower involuntary unemployment and keep inflation within the limits? As far as I remember, the Phillips curve is nowadays considered as being too simplistic and the relationship is not actually observed in the long term...

Now you confirm in your own words that anarchy as you see it doesn't in fact differ very much from what state actually is all about. If we clear away the verbal husks of what you say here, we necessarily come to a system where majority would suppress minority in any possible way... How's that different from what state does?

Oh, I like this doublespeak you, guys, stick to here! I used the reference to concentration camps as a metaphor only. In real life it would mean something along the lines of "finding it impossible to interact with those around them" and "finally having to move somewhere". And you didn't exclude psychological abuse from your list of rules... How come?

Why should I bind myself in any way by listing any laws? When you interact with people you rely primarily on your instincts, not on however short a list of laws. Our social nature has already given us everything to talk or do things with other people. In fact, these laws you refer to are nothing more than just a formal expression of that social nature of humans...

This is the crucial point of your argument. If there is some level of truly anonymous transactions where you don't know the guy at the other end and he doesn't know you either, the reasons backing you up become impractical to carry out day in and day out. I don't say it is impossible, my point is that the effort just won't be worth it and would create such a mess that losses from this mess would ever exceed potential gains...

No, I didn't because I kept that in mind. To work it that way, first of all, you would have to physically catch and corner everyone who is down the chain. How do you really imagine that? Secondly, as it routinely happens in a cash world, you often don't know who you transact with, so you just wouldn't be able to give out any names. When the transactions numbers reach some point, it simply becomes impractical on a daily basis for an average Joe who is suspected in tax evasion...

Piece o'cake! The currencies may be on a par, so the oscillation can go on indefinitely long. The net effect would ultimately depend on what all participants think over all planning horizons. This has an interesting similarity to a self-fulfilling prophecy with the roots obviously lying in the subjective theory of value...

I don't know really. But I consider the probability of Bitcoin exchange rate going down higher than that for dollar at least in the midterm (my planning horizon). So I do think that Bitcoin presently makes a bad money beside dollar, which, correspondingly, will be a good money then. It may just be my fear or whatever, but what causes me think so doesn't actually matter here...