Multi-brand corporations, f*ck the customer to get rich together and above all: rule the world and make all human 'useless eaters' our slaves!
God I'm tired of people bitching about companies that offer services and products voluntarily. I assure you that I only do business with "multi-brand corporations" with whom I see mutual benefit. How exactly are they "f*cking" you, when you don't have to buy their stuff? Cool down man. It was a ',' (comma), and not a ':' (colon) written after 'multibrand corporations'. Those corporations are only part of the listing, not the subject, and were mentioned because they obfuscate the fact that the 'choice' they offer are not really a choice because they have the same mother/owner. That 'f*ck the customer' was aimed at different corporations that collude against their mutually shared customers, and the 'above all: etc...' was aimed at the banks. Happy now?  Corporations can't "f*ck" anybody unless they perpetrate fraud. If two companies are "colluding" and you don't like it, then don't buy from them. It's a very elegant system. The only problem with banks is that they're subsidized in myriad ways by the Federal Government - but your antagonism seems misplaced towards the "business seeking profit" side instead of the "government interfering with the market" side. It's the government that deserves vilification, because it uses force and coercion. Businesses, no matter how big, cannot coerce anybody except to the extent the government is enabling it. |
|
|
|
We need more competition! Because having only one wallet service round town is not a good idea!
I'm sorry but wallet services like these are just dumb. Yes, they may be convenient but you're literally asking for your coins to get stolen, hacked, etc Don't blame the concept of hosted, secured wallet services. Indeed Bitcoin will never go mainstream if they don't exist. Blame individual providers of BAD wallet services - not the idea itself. |
|
|
|
They misrepresent all of our ideas, and try to paint us all as crazy right wing libertarians.
What's a "right wing libertarian?" |
|
|
|
Multi-brand corporations, f*ck the customer to get rich together and above all: rule the world and make all human 'useless eaters' our slaves!
God I'm tired of people bitching about companies that offer services and products voluntarily. I assure you that I only do business with "multi-brand corporations" with whom I see mutual benefit. How exactly are they "f*cking" you, when you don't have to buy their stuff? |
|
|
|
|
My frog legs and eyes of newt are clearly showing upward price movement over the next month. The dark ravens on the fence post this morning may be a counter-indicator, but I think it's safe to say the three-cloud-pattern which obscured the moon six nights ago protects against this type of reversal.
|
|
|
|
|
Very nicely done site, looks great!
I'm sure the biggest challenge you'll face is earning the trust of customers as you're a new company. If you're trustworthy, I wish you the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and remember there are ALREADY clients such as the Android app (which are full-featured Bitcoin clients/wallets) that are only around 20-30mb. So, already there are ways around storing the full chain on your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nicely done, love the music!
|
|
|
|
I still haven't figured out an easy way as a merchant to accept bitcoins by sending btcs to an account by account names and numbers instead of passing untrusted addresses from person to person.
Check out bit-pay.com. Super easy and you can receive the money as USD or BTC automatically. Brilliant. |
|
|
|
Google could earn fees if they setup their own mining nodes. I doubt enough GPUs exist to make it practical, but they certainly could divert some of their collective CPU power to make the support of bitcoin more 'tangible' for them.
I'm still on the fence if they would actually go for the idea, as some have already mentioned, they have many different projects going on.
The purpose of them adopting Bitcoins is not to make money on the Bitcoin system per se. Rather, the purpose is to rob their now-direct competitor Facebook of a huge investment Facebook has made. By undermining Facebook and the FB credits, they promote usage of Google+. Bitcoin is useful to them as subterfuge against Facebook, because if Facebook credits don't "catch on" then Facebook is seriously disadvantaged. |
|
|
|
1st theory is economical "zone" theory described by Hayek. Like 200 years ago many banks issued banknotes, it will be the same in our era. Google will issue currency, FB will issue currency. FB credits will be real and converible into BTC and USD.
2nd theory that should not be forget is related with "money supply" and it says that better money will push away worse money.
BTC=>{Gcoin, FBcredit, gold/commodity}=>Fiat money where => means is better or same depends on competition
Your two theories are a bit off. Banknotes were indeed issued by individual banks, but they were all backed by gold/metals at fixed exchange rates. In other words, they were all the same currency. Second, good money pushing away bad money (Gresham's Law) only pertains to currencies that are artificially fixed in an exchange rate (such as the government fixing the rate between silver and gold). If the rate is free-market (floating) then it will adjust appropriately, and one money will not "drive out" the other in Gresham's manner. |
|
|
|
|
Bit-pay.com is awesome in their concept... they have the potential to make Bitcoin mainstream for vendors. I highly recommend everyone check them out.
|
|
|
|
Yes, what better way to destroy a potentially hugely profitable endeavor for them by instead opting for a few quick bucks.  The devs have discussed why the wallet is not encrypted. They have some reasons for doing it, which are debated back and forth. I believe they've now changed their mind and the next version of the client will include this safety feature. Remember that the code is open-source, so them being devs provides little to no advantage for creating a trojan. You or I could just as easily review the code and find exploits. |
|
|
|
You guys are missing my point a bit  My question is, does it make logical sense for Google to adopt/advocate/support Bitcoin purely as a way to get a +1 on Facebook. If Bitcoins become the standard money of the internet, and are usable everywhere except Facebook/Zynga, then Facebook's own currency will look pretty pathetic comparatively. It may mean they'd need to abandon the currency which they will be spending billions of dollars on developing. So does it make strategic sense for Google to act toward that end? |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow - you should switch the order of society's laws in your signature. The 2nd is more important than the 1st.
|
|
|
|
Whoa (mis)information overload! Calm down buddy.
You're the only one using exclamation marks and words like "woah." Apparently the 'carpet bombing' technique was more popular on this forum than I originally thought. Nice list, but let's try to focus more on a single success story, not a laundry list of things deemed successes.
You can call it "carpet bombing" if you want. I call it "presenting lots of examples of market success stories." I don't want to even start with the list because: the burden of proof isn't on me to disprove a claim (or else I'd spend the rest of my life writing a rebuttal to this post as you've listed so many countries)
I don't think anything will be "proven" one way or another. I just wanted to showcase a considerable number of reasonable examples of market-based territories compared to territories which pursued policies which can be deemed more statist. My apologies if I have "carpet bombed" you with too many. If we want to say that the 'opposite' of a 'free market' is the obvious failure of the system of true communism then we are in agreement; but that isn't the dichotomy here. It's not a choice between total laissez faire 'free markets' and total state controlled top-down Soviet style communism.
I never said anything about "total laissez faire vs total state control." In all my examples, they were merely "more market based" vs. "less market based." I think they offer compelling evidence that markets tend towards prosperity, while statist regimes tend toward poverty. Do you disagree? I'm talking specifically about Austrian economic policy, views, beliefs or suggestions and how that was used as a framework for building a nation out of the primitive state of man: poverty. Observing a system that has an element of market dynamics isn't a Austrian phenomenon, the market doesn't belong to the Austrian school.
Austrian economic policy consists of the following tenant: "there should not be an economic policy." The Austrian school, more than any other, advocates freedom, which means laissez faire markets. Ironically, you say that "the market doesn't belong to the Austrian school"... and this is very humorous because the Austrian school is the only one which suggests that the market ought not belong to anyone at all. Maybe you should do US history, specifically how Austrian style "Free Market" views were critical in creating prosperity, just flesh out 1776 to 1920 and why you think that "when it was actually a generally capitalist, free-market nation and grew from mere peasantry to the world super power in 150 years". Why 1776? The US economic situation was in horrible disarray during and shortly thereafter the Revolutionary War; in addition there were multiple other economic and social calamities in this time frame. You don't even mention the Civil War.
What does war have to do with free markets? Are you suggesting that the misery, death, and destruction wrought by the Civil War is a result of free people trading goods and services with each other? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the note Jered. It's always encouraging to see your frequent communication here on these forums.
|
|
|
|
|
We're aware of a few things:
1) Facebook dominates the world and has created its own currency, mainly for use in wildly popular FB games from companies like Zynga.
2) Google is launching Google+, which is a direct competitor to Facebook. Google has its work cut out for it.
3) Google is engaged in the Google Wallet project, for fund transfer mechanisms... but Google is NOT creating its own currency.
Given these facts, if I were a decision maker at Google, I would at least consider the strategic decision to implement Bitcoin in Google+ and across the Google Wallet platforms. This would directly undermine FB credits, and if FB credits fails that is a HUGE win for Google. Consider that Google should already be observing how its relatively unrestricted Android community has amazingly caught up to Apple's iOS "walled garden" environment... the lesson applying perfectly to Bitcoin vs. FB credits.
If Google helps legitimize Bitcoin, FB credits will fail, and Google+ will be further strengthened against Facebook.
Is my Machiavellianesque thinking sound?
|
|
|
|
Since there are so many fans of Austrian economics here I'd like to ask for examples of success stories where a country used Austrian economic polices to become prosperous. Please post what you find below, thanks! Here are a few good examples of "free market" vs. "socialist" economic structures and you can understand the results pretty easily. Certainly, they're not "Austrian economics" countries, but the examples exemplify the principles of markets vs. coercion which is at the core of Austrian ideology. - North Korea vs South Korea - East Germany vs West Germany post WWII - East Germany under USSR vs. East Germany after unification - Haiti vs. Dominican Republic - Cuba vs. Costa Rica - Any Chinese City vs. Hong Kong - China vs. Taiwan - China under communism vs. China today - India pre-market reformations vs. India post-market reformations - Any Malaysian City vs. Singapore - Vietnam vs. Singapore - UK vs. Ireland over the past 20 years - Chile pre-Pinochet vs post-Pinochet (not that Pinochet wasn't also a violent douchebag) - Venezuela vs Chile - Zimbabwe vs South Africa - Burma vs. Thailand - Syria vs. United Arab Emirates - Communist Estonia vs. Post-USSR Estonia - Soviet Russia vs. Russia post 1989 And surely I needn't mention US history from 1776 up through about 1920, when it was actually a generally capitalist, free-market nation and grew from mere peasantry to the world super power in 150 years. Every single example above compares a territory that is/was more centrally planned vs a territory that is/was more free. This list doesn't prove anything, but you might want to take note OP. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
