Incorrect. I was 10 at the time, and wanted to stay in Italy.

That bolded part is a total, complete, and absolute LIE. Yet you keep repeating it over and over again. Roman did discuss the options with the community, and did look for either investors, or for someone to buy up the debt. Numerous options were discussed, and all of them failed. Repaying the debt from Bitfloor's profits was the only option available to Roman. Just because you weren't around for that, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Please do not repeat that lie again.



#1 I don't know about. I don't remember hearing anything about a police report, so it may not have been filed.
#2 was disclosed in depth. Roman explained the whole situation, what happened, how things were stolen, and how he screwed up.
#3 was disclosed fully, including new security methods and precautions, possible solutions to recover money, and the details of the final solution settled on. I don't remember Roman partying in London at the time.

I can think of only three ways of survival:

1) Trade your labor to someone who is an expert on how to use it most efficiently, in exchange for things needed for survival (work for a boss).
2) Apply your own labor to acquire things you need to survive yourself (grow/hunt your own food, or run your own business).
3) Steal or live off of other's labor without contributing anything in return.


#2 typically requires a lot more work than #3, either because you are not an expert in all the things you require to survive (may be a good farmer, but suck at building houses), and/or because more people working on the same problem is typically more efficient that a single person working on it by themselves.

#1 is essentially capitalism, where you trade your skill for someone else's capital. #2 is capitalism only if what you produce you end up trading for something else. If all you do in #2 is build your own shelter and grow your own food, that's not capitalism.

#3 isn't capitalism at all. It's either theft or parasitism.

So, am I missing any other means of survival? And if not, which of those do you propose we use?

Meh, I have been hoping to join them and work for them, either in a financial capacity (analyzing loans and building investment support) or even as just support help, since I think last November, but I hear from them once every month or two, quite sporadically. I think they just have communications issues or something.

They can work it out. Quite easily, in fact, since we have all the tools and bases for it already. You're just not willing to listen to any of it, because you can't imagine the world as anything other than the way it is now. I don't know if it's just your lack of imagination, extreme brainwashing, or just fear of such a world, the later being understandable, since you'd be dead in it within a year.

So, just to confirm, do we all agree that we essentially live in a communist world where the government owns everything, even if you buy that thing from someone else claiming to own it, and that you statists believe it's perfectly OK for government to own everything and everyone, including the money you earn, just so you can feel safe?

Cause that's the sense I get from talking to you guys, and frankly, it's quite upsetting. Especially the part about you wanting to use violence to make sure that none of us who wants freedom tries to attain it.

 

I think we have discussed this before. If you own an island, you can sell it, or you can charge rent (tax). With our current situation, you owning that island, or some property, for some reason doesn't change the fact that a state claims ownership to it, too.  Kinda like in Soviet Union the state owned everything, here in democratic societies the state seems to be claiming that it owns everything as well. Basically, even if I buy property from someone else who used to own that property, I give them money or something else in exchange for it, and they agree to give me all rights to this land, for some reason the state butts in and says "I own this too!" So what the hell is the point of buying land if the state owns it? And where does the state get the power to just decide to own land that it technically doesn't?

$100? No. Never again 

It would be so trivially easy to solve that issue by just having the government declare your property foreign land, establish your property border as a foreign country border, and block services from entering your property, and you from exciting without a travel visa. Why doesn't the government just do that then?

I would guess that since there is no more business to earn profits with to repay that debt with, that debt is not going to be repaid.

I'm wondering, how much of this problem is due to misogynistic men oppressing women, and how much is it just culture that women themselves adopt from a young age? Why are young girls skittish, afraid of ikky crawly things, play with dolls, gossip, shriek, etc, and then grow up mostly uninterested in "manly" things like maths, sciences, engineering, banking, and other hard science type things? I mean, I know there are tons of women in the science, architecture, accounting, engineering, and business fields, but it seems there are very very few of them compared to the men. And I'm not even talking about out in the workplace where they may be oppressed and pushed out. Just go to any science or business conference where anyone is free to attend, and it's mostly men. Go to a software development or finance conference, and it's almost entirely men. Heck, go to any university class with any of those subjects, and although you'll see some female students, most of the class will also be men. It's like they have no interest to even try for any of those fields. Why?

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


What? Why? Things like don't kill, don't steal, and don't commit fraud are pretty universal. As for the more detailed stuff, yeah, it would have been a problem if we were starting out from scratch, but there is already a vast amount of legal precedent to base things on. Heck, we even have a body of international law to use, which is currently being developed more and more thanks to globalization and International trade. Plus just because societies are broken into cells, doesn't mean the services they use are. There could be a large security company that many cells subscribe to that can easily overpower the few marauding outlaw cells.


When was the last time Australia decided to invade someone?

That's because you are only looking at it from the point if view of the person being denied access. Look at it from the point of view of the person who actually owns something. He is free to decide who is allowed on their property and what rules they should follow. As someone who has a house or an apartment, would you be OK with random strangers coming into your room, and setting up a heroin den or something there? If not, then you have freedom to decide what to do with your place of residence. If some other entity decides that heroin addicts should use your place to hang out and do drugs despite your objections to such, then you're not free.

This is a summary of the entirety of what you contribute to this forum, and the bolded part is the entirety of your argument. Thank you very much for letting all of us idiots know how things work right now. Since we're all stuck in our parent's basements 24/7, playing in fantasy hoo-haa land, we are not aware of what the real life outside is actually like.


Here's a hint: The reason we think you are a fucking idiot is because while we are discussing how to CHANGE things in the world, you're throwing insults while explaining how the world works NOW. NO SHIT SHIRLEY! That's why we want to CHANGE it! If you think things suck more than your mother, then maybe try to contribute some ideas about how to change it. If, on the other hand, you like taking it up the ass the way all of us have been since birth, then go grow some tastebuds on your asshole and GTFO. Your non-contribution is not needed.

If Bitmessage's encryption is broke, how will an extra PGP encryption help? Don't they both use the same encryption algorithm?

Use it to back up the blockchain then

No. That's why it's a transaction that will spend at some time in the future. You just create it, telling it that it can only be included in a block at some time in the future, and sign it once, and the network holds it until it's ready to be included and confirmed. You're not required for anything else.

You are thinking police boxes / time machines. Phone booths, for making calls, have always been red. Police boxes, for sticking criminals/timelords into while waiting for the police/daleks to arrive have always been blue. Except or the weird places where they have sometimes been red, but no one talks about that place.

You aren't leaving them on an active network. All you do is create the transaction, sign it, and broadcast it. You can create and sign it on an offline storage computer.