|
Maybe they're upset about Bitcoin trying to steal their ฿ symbol?
|
|
|
|
|
There is a poll in another thread that shows that this forum has a MUCH higher rate of INTJ/INTPs than the general population. That group is generally more intelligent than the rest, and I agree with other comments here: Bitcoin simply attracts certain types of people. Specifically introverted logical types.
|
|
|
|
Well, personally, I think shooting criminals and taking away their guns is the only way to keep guns out of criminals' hands, since, you know, they're criminals who won't care about licensing or laws... But if you think laws and licensing works...
Please be sincere and answer the questions. Shall I accept this as what you think should be done? Also, please note that I asked three questions. Yes, I kinda did. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? The only way to do that is to shoot them, or take them while threatening them with your own gun. Criminals don't follow laws. Otherwise they wouldn't be criminals. And thus, they will still be able to get guns and other weapons illegally. The person who is using their own gun to take away the criminals' guns can be either police, or private security, or just a private citizen. Really no different than the way it is now. Or do you just not care?Not care about what? That criminals have guns? That depends. If I have more guns and security than they do, then no, I don't care. If they have guns, are near my area, and I don't have a gun because I'm not allowed to use one, and the prolice rarely respond on time, then I would care. Luckily, for me personally, I live near, but not IN, a high crime area, and the police station is a few blocks over. But just because I am lucky doesn't mean I would deny others who might need guns for protection from getting them. Criminals have them, despite the laws banning them. Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well?Yes. Gun deaths will rise and rise until most criminals and idiots are shot and killed off. Then, when everyone knows that being a criminal or a negligent idiot might get you shot, gun deaths will decrease. I want the same for a lot of things. For example, we have more and more people depending on pensions and social security, because they don't care to save up for retirement while they are working. And the situation is getting worse and worse, as more and more people see that they don't have to save for retirement, while the amount we have to pay out continues to grow. If we were to cut, or drastically reduce retirement payments, sure, there will be a lot of people who will be very poor and destitute for a while, but as more and more people realize that they need to save, lest they end up like those broke old people, the number of people who are poor and dependent on government pensions will go down. It's called personal responsibility. We teach people that it's not needed when we have government step in and take care of things for us (be they financial or personal security). As a result, more and more people become dependent, and by extension ignorant/stupid. You can't fix that problem other than by removing the nanny state and forcing people to start learning how to take care of themselves. |
|
|
|
Just some minor misconceptions here: Price per bitcoin will depend on the size of the market, ie the number of people involved. I've read estimates saying there's less than a million people who have ever used bitcoin, and probably 10% of those who are "active" in the community.
There were almost 100,000 users on MtGox alone two years ago, and that number has exploded over the last year, growing at 50k a month. And that's just MtGox. I would estimate that there are over 10 million people who have ever used bitcoin, and about 1 million+ who are regular users. Something I've been thinking about. bitcoin will go to the moon once Intel or ARM or AMD get involved and add hashing algorithms directly into their CPUs and GPUs. Basically, every new computer, tablet and phone sold will be capable of hashing and expand the network at an enormous pace.
This integration would not be for the sole purpose of generating new coins, but rather faster confirmation and easy online payments!
Having everyone mine will not make confirmations any faster. Confirmations are locked at 1 every ten minutes, no matter how many people mine, or how much mining power is thrown at bitcoin. As for easy online payments, to hash a bitcoin transaction (i.e. sign it) takes an infentessimally small amount of processing power. There's no need for special hardware algorithms in processors for that. To make online payments easier, we just need to continue expanding services like blockchain.info and Electrum. Now, if they were to add mining hardware to their chips, that would be another thing, but that's also unlikely, since such hardware needs to run 24/7, uses a lot of power, generates a lot of heat, and may not even be profitable in any way for the end user. |
|
|
|
Spoken like a true gun lovin', libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, aspiring AnCapper.
As for the answer to your question, I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say that there are no liberals here who adore central power or enslaving people.
Oh, you have some way of controlling guns that doesn't involve central power?I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well. I'll take that as a no then. I asked you three questions. Please forgive there not being a question mark on the third. Well, personally, I think shooting criminals and taking away their guns is the only way to keep guns out of criminals' hands, since, you know, they're criminals who won't care about licensing or laws... But if you think laws and licensing works... By the way, you should check out how awesomely well the US's war on drugs has gone. I mean, those things are totally banned, and now there are no drugs in US at all! |
|
|
|
Spoken like a true gun lovin', libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, aspiring AnCapper.
As for the answer to your question, I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say that there are no liberals here who adore central power or enslaving people.
Oh, you have some way of controlling guns that doesn't involve central power?I noted earlier, that federal permit issuing is the only way that has any real means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands? Or do you just not care? Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well. I'll take that as a no then. |
|
|
|
Spoken like a true gun lovin', libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, aspiring AnCapper.
As for the answer to your question, I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say that there are no liberals here who adore central power or enslaving people.
Oh, you have some way of controlling guns that doesn't involve central power? |
|
|
|
You can change incentives to make it easier or more worthwhile for them to repair their reputation. For instance by buying reparations. If the reparation fee it too high, those people will organize and break the rules, making things for costly for those charging those fees. So the fees will come down until they are sufficiently punitive, but not so much that they lead to roving gangs of bandits. I.e. let the market decide  Did you just inadvertently invent welfare as a band-aid to the horrible dysfunctionality of your hyper-libertarian fantasy state? Talk about coming full circle. Welfare, as I understand it, is someone receiving money for no work. What I am talking about is someone working, and paying that money to someone else. Rather the opposite of welfare. The excluded can't be expected to abide by the rules of their excluders, their is no legitimacy without reciprocity. In contrast the international laws you speak of DO actually try to include everyone under some umbrella of rights even if it more rhetoric then reality right now, oh and guess what they frown on mercenaries.
At least until the more recent perversion of them, laws were not about giving people rights. It wasn't like, "Well, here's this new thing, let's pass a law allowing people to use it." People had rights by default, and laws were only passed to restrict certain activities. So no one would be excluded. The only things international law cover is how to settle disputes, and which activities are generally frowned upon. When was the last time Australia decided to invade someone?
A better example would be Haiti, that's what happens when you try to exclude 90% of people from society and treat them only as economic instruments, they will tear the system down even if they are going to be no better off afterwards. [/quote] Who excluded Haiti from society, and how? I'm not too familiar with it, aside from that it exists next to a country that is open to business and tourism, and is much more affluent because of it. |
|
|
|
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.
LANGUAGE FAIL!!Not you, the language. Did you mean You advocate deadlier crime? or You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime? There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not? This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification. Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people. |
|
|
|
To automatically assume that one data point proves everything, is not scientific, its just pushing an agenda.
Um, when you say "one data point," which one of these were you talking about? References American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. Sexuality Education, Abstinence, and Distribution of Condoms in Schools. [Report 7, I-99]. Chicago, IL: AMA, 1999. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence. Condom availability for youth. Pediatrics 1995; 95:281-285. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. Policies and Materials on Adolescent Health. Washington, DC: ACOG, http://www.acog.org/departments/dept_notice.cfm?recno=7&bulletin=3316; accessed 7/3/2007. Society for Adolescent Medicine. Abstinence-only education policies and programs: a position paper. Journal of Adolescent Health 2006; 38(1):83-87. National Public Radio et al. Sex Education in America: NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser, 2004. Trenholm C, et al., Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs Final Report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematic Policy Research; submitted to U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 2007. Hauser D. Five Years of Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2004; Kirby D. Do Abstinence Only Programs Delay the Initiation of Sex Among Young People and Reduce Teen Pregnancy? Washington DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2002. Santelli J et al. Explaining recent declines in adolescent pregnancy in the United States: the contribution of abstinence and improved contraceptive use. American Journal of Public Health 2007; 97: 3. Hamilton B et al. Births: Preliminary Data for 2005, [National Vital Statistics Report] Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; December 28, 2006. Guttmacher Institute. U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity. NY: Author, 2006. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Fact Sheet: How Is the 3 in 10 Statistic Calculated? Washington, DC: Author, 2006. United Nations. Demographic Yearbook. New York: Author, 2004. Bearman PS, Brückner H. Promising the future: virginity pledges and the transition to first intercourse. American Journal of Sociology; 2001; 106: 859-912. Bruckner H, Bearman, PS. After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health 36 (2005) 271-278. Finer L. Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954-2003. Public Health Reports, 2007; 23: 73. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform. The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs, prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman. Washington, DC: The House, 2004. Hickman-Brown Public Opinion Research. Public Support for Sexuality Education Reaches Highest Levels. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 1999. Pardue MG, Rector RE, Martin S. Government Spends $12 on Safe Sex and Contraceptives for Every $1 Spent on Abstinence. [Backgrounder #1718] Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 2004. Daillard C. Abstinence promotion and teen family planning: the misguided drive for equal funding. Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 2002;5(1):1-3; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050101.pdf; accessed 7/3/2007. Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. In Hatcher RA, et al, editors. Contraceptive Technology 19th Rev Ed. NY Ardent Media, 2007. CDC. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2006. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 2006; 55 (RR11):1-94; http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5511a1.htm; accessed 4/13/2007. NIH. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention. Rockville, MD: Author, 2001; http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/research/topics/STI/pdf/condomreport.pdf; accessed 7/3/2007. Markowitz LE et al. Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Recommendations & Reports; 2007; 56(RR02):1-24. deVencenzi I et al. A longitudinal study of human immunodefieiciney virus transmission by heterosexual partners. New England Journal of Medicine 1994; 331:341-346. Weinstock H, Berman S, Cates W. Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: incidence and prevalence estimates. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2000; 36: 6–10 |
|
|
|
|
There may be an issue with the poll question with some people differentiating between moral and ethical. E.g. I think "moral" is a word often used subjectively, especially when morality is taken from authority (such as "the bible says homosexuality or sex before marriage is immoral). On the other hand, "ethical" is a more objective word, describing the value of a behavior based on observation and rational deduction (such as, "smoking weed doesn't hurt anyone but the smoker, so it's morally ambiguous, but taking someone's property may be unethical, because widespread lack of respect for property would mean real actual harm to the survival of our species). In short, the former is more external and taken on faith or gut feeling, and the later is more internal, and based on philosophical and/or rational deduction.
|
|
|
|
In Ayn Rand's universe money is considered the function of existence - in reality it's genetics.
The most successful people in the world are not those with the most money, but those who are able to pass on their genetic material.
A personal living in a trailer with 8 children is more successful than than a billionaire.
The whole concept of a rich elite is an American myth - nature will totally ignore this myth.
The elite are those who survive in the most difficult circumstances - not those who manage to survive with a silver spoon in their mouth.
If you're talking about evolution and propagation, I think we have moved on beyond procreation/survival of a single genetic line, and into survival of a social group a long time ago. As such, a rich person living in and being a part of a wealthy society (contributing wealth to the surrounding area) creates a society that is able to pass on its genes much more effectively than a poor society. We hear a lot about Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian, English, and American empires and their respective lineage, but pretty much never about the poorer tribes that never really went anywhere and died out. Also, it takes two people to create one child in a wealthy society to propagate their genes, while it may take two people to create five children before the child survives into adulthood for a parents in a poor society to do the same. So in that way, money and wealth does have a real impact on existence. On a larger scale, we have money, wealth, and the resulting scientific and medical advancement that it funded to thank for the massive global population spike of the last century. |
|
|
|
And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.
LANGUAGE FAIL!!Not you, the language. Did you mean You advocate deadlier crime? or You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime? |
|
|
|
|
Why not just keep upgrading Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
Easily within 10 years.
The real question is, will it hit $10,000?
Or even $100,000?
My guess is yes and yes, but not for another 30-50 years.
This is absurd and delusional. Bitcoin will be the film to a new coin's Blu-Ray in under 10 years. I notice that Blu-Ray, despite using upgraded technology, still uses a laser, to read data off a reflective layer, stored on a round plastic disc. Bitcoin is not the data, or Sony, or a DVD and BlueRay patent. Bitcoin is the plastic reflective disk. In short, whatever comes next is most likely to be an upgraded version of Bitcoin itself, not a competitor with just more features. |
|
|
|
While I dread to barge in on episodes of the blind leading the blind, and the accompanying crass affronts to logic and reason, the topic at hand is timely, and the general Bitcoin audience of a decidedly egalitarian bent, I will share some musings with our beloved subset of the vox populi for your further amusement. It is quite long, but my hope is, not so long as to bore you unnecessarily.
Good sir, I do believe I am in love. Please pray tell, where have you learned to speak so eloquently? |
|
|
|
Let me think this through again... I can have a blast from now 'till i'm 65, at which point i will have enough money saved up to live out the rest of my life in the luxury i've grown so accustomed to likely have to keep working, because whatever leftovers I scrounged up will run out after only ten years, and I'll spend whatever is left of my life stressing out over every little issue that might cost me a bit too much, knowing that any medical emergency will make me go broke, with my sad lonely self dying in an abusive, government provided elderly care home, or... I can scrimp & scrounge until i'm 65, and have a heart attack when some gold-diggin' vixen plants herself on my withered 50, or even 45, and live out the rest of my life in luxury, going to exotic places, enjoying exotic foods and people, and living way into very old age thanks to having little to no stress in my life, and plenty of medical coverage should I need it... Rassah, thanks for the heads-up  I see you still don't get it, so I FIFY. Besides, you wanted to know what rich people were like. Or, more specifically, you were misrepresenting what rich people were like. And it seems it's impossible to win with you: Either you are an asshole because you are rich and greedy, and are keeping all your money so you can retire safely, or you're an asshole because you give up all your wealth, and end up dependent on the state. Oh, also, I forgot, did you say that you will give up at least half of your wealth when you are 65 because you will be wealthy? (You said you will be able to live out your life in the luxury you are accustomed to, which would mean you have over a million dollars at that point) Or will you be a self-hating rich hypocrite? |
|
|
|
So let's see, your poor friends drive nice cars, have fancy clothing, dine out & generally have a blast. Your wise rich friends live as if they were on welfare. Let's see... Hard to decide... Which would i like to be?
Judging by your tone, you would prefer to live like my poor friends, correct? So, where do you think you and my poor friends will be when you hit 65?  Where do you think my parents will be when they are 65, or where I'll be when I'm 50, spending the rest of our lives doing what we want without ever needing to work again?  |
|
|
|
My parentsv aren't poor, either. They earn a combined ~$25,000 a month. It's just that all but $1,000 of it goes to support their various properties and investments (just as all but ~$450 of mine goes to investments) - things that give people a place to live and a place to work. You have one again missed my point entirely, which is that rich people that make a lot of money, such as my parents, aren't just sitting on bags of money, and can't just give up half their wealth without doing some serious harm to other people (one of their tenants is on government assisted housing, so hurting them directly hurts the poor, too). As I said, you're too much of an idiot to recognize these things, even when I spell them out for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247874.msg2802864#msg2802864You're either a troll or you haven't left the basement since early 90s. Your parents, who make 25k, live on 1k a month? 500 bucks ea? Out of that, they pay taxes (assuming they own a house & not living out of cardboard boxen), heat, maintenance, electricity, gasoline & auto insurance (or do they thriftily bus it?), car expenses, cable, phone, medical (or do they sneak in through the emergency room?), toiletries, clothes (or do they rifle through the boxes left for Good Will?), and -gasp- food? Just how wretchedly do you live? *To bystanders: This is all happening in US of A, folks! These people are living on $16 and change A DAY! I used to spend more than that on smokes Yep, pretty wretched. This $1,000 is after the thousands they pay in taxes. They don't smoke, they buy cheap food and cook most of it to save money, they live in their investment property, and are putting more into it to increase its sale value. They only use one car, which is over ten years old, mom dropping dad off at a bus station for him to go the rest of the way. They keep the house warm, opening windows, they very rarely buy new clothes and typically shop at thrift stores. They don't have smartphones and only basic cell service. They get health coverage through work, so I didn't include it in the $1,000, but they borrowed a few grand for my grandmother's hospital expenses, and are paying that, too. And yes, they find freebie furniture and other things on Craigslist and when others put them out to the curb. In short, they live very similarly to how other extremely productive millionaires live in the mansions close to their neighborhood. That's how you tell that someone is a millionaire BTW: plain clothes, worn jeans, and shitty old car. Those driving fancy new cars aren't millionaires typically. By contrast, my poor friends are driving nice cars, have new fancy clothing, dine out at restaurants all the time, have every game system in existence and tons of games and toys, and have almost no money to their name. And THAT is what the difference between rich and poor is in it's entirety. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
