The price is the only truth: What two people have, at a particular point in time, agreed to trade for (unless you're talking outright fraud which Gox may have been up to). All else is smoke with varying degrees of relevancy. I am unaware of anyone that has been using Gox's ATH to put forth "to the moon" arguments but we already know you're a liar so I won't ask for examples.

Quite possibly. Unless we get to the halving first.

Here, let me help. Unfortunately, ChartBuddy wasn't recording Stamp at that point. But since Stamp was typically lower than Gox at the time for the aforementioned reasons, that should help your argument. Now, give me 70% YTD. Or even 2/3.

You learn the meaning of YTD. What was the price at 00:01 UTC on Jan 1st, 2014?

And price is not a fiction though it has less meaning than many would believe.

Tanked from where? The bubble-driven, Karpeles-scam-driven ATH which you always seem to be using or the beginning of the year price which is what you claim to be using?

Or how about from a year ago from *right now*? (See chart above)

Just to remind everyone, where we were at a year ago from right now

That's stocks, not money, dumbass. What you could buy with 10600 at the beginning of the year, now costs 11000. All else being equal (not that it is, of course), that would imply a 3.6% fall in the value of a dollar (somewhat in-line with inflation figures).

Let's not even mention the non-zero scale which tends to amplify small changes greatly. And non-log? Of course.

Is the wall thread done?

Stockholm syndrome.

In any large enough group of people where power imbalances are natural, you will have some of the strong who bind together and decide to parasatize the productive. These people are often called bandits, outlaws, whatever. In time, this becomes formalized and you have knights, lords, kings and such. This allows the neo-bandits to draw from the ranks of the productive and go pillage neighboring knights, lords, kings and such. The concentration of power causes this to be a stable situation. Because people tend to rationalize their situation (proven fact), they come to accept this state of affairs as a "good thing" and you end up with such nonsense as the divine right of kings.

In the case of the US, a tool for power, the gun, was introduced to the hands of the peasantry, allowing for a rebalance of power which duly followed. In no small part was the rifle, primarily a hunting weapon, responsible for the overthrow of the British government which was still largely arming its soldiers with muskets. Unfortunately, the formalism of government was too strong (likely partly because many of the founding fathers were rich landowners) and although things did move largely towards self-ownership and individual power, they left a core which over the intervening years has been able to consolidate and grow its power, leading to something which, well, we all know the things we dislike about the government so I won't go into that here. And no, you don't get to pick and choose, you get the package. All of it.

So here we are, governments are wild, out of control and banditing more than they ever have, even when they were a bunch of outlaws sitting around a fire in the hills sharpening their daggers. Meanwhile, despite efforts to suppress, the people they prey on add more and more tools to take care of themselves. It's time for another redress of power.

It's the young adults that tend to be more left leaning in the first place. I know I was light socialist until my early 30s.

This *is* the world we live in. And if you live in a country where your government has a disagreement with another government, things get unpleasant. Though the US is managing to export most of its conflicts at the moment so it's largely hidden.

With items obtained from a government, as provided by an even bigger government. Gotcha.

Quite to the contrary, I would say that if you are willing to appropriate the funds of others against their wills to achieve your goals, that is hardly a "kind heart".

There are many places where one is required to make payments to the fire department if you expect them to turn up in the event of a fire. If you wander around some older buildings in England, you can see the plates which indicated you had paid. A while back around here, there was someone who had not paid (not because he was too poor but just because) and his house caught fire. The fire department did show up... To ensure the fire didn't spread to his neighbors house (who had paid). His burned to the ground.

You do want the genuinely needful to be taken care of but you have to balance that off against the freeloaders. Private parties are usually a lot more careful about that than government.

Because you're claiming that it failed?


No, my claim is simply that regulations have not solved the problems you seem to be claiming they do. Many regulations  *are* bad but for other reasons.


Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (pronounced [ˈmoːɦənd̪aːs ˈkərəmtʃənd̪ ˈɡaːnd̪ʱi] ( listen); 2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) was the preeminent leader of Indian independence movement in British-ruled India.

That's far from going it alone in my book.

I have read several proposals for private police/security forces. I don't go quite that far myself but the ideas do have merit. I think there's lower hanging fruit to pick and other fires to put out first in any case.

Really? he murdered 250 people. It's a wonder there are any English left.

Prize for the best "Do something bitcoin" image?

400!



Takes me all the way back to earlier this morning...

ATH was in 2013. Which you know, troll.