You can read the full original report here. https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt596/CRPT-115hrpt596.pdfUnless I have been fooled, this THE 2018 JOINT ECONOMIC REPORT, Chapter 9 is fully dedicated to Blockchain technology, page 201. It talks about using blockchain to make the technological infrastructure more resilient, about the use for medical records, the huge public demand for knowledge, taxes and all the hot topics. Overall Recommendations from the Report: - Policymakers and the public should become more familiar with digital currencies and other uses of blockchain technology, which have a wide range of applications in the future.
- Regulators should continue to coordinate among each other to guarantee coherent policy frameworks, definitions, and jurisdiction.
- Policymakers, regulators, and entrepreneurs should continue to work together to ensure developers can deploy these new blockchain technologies quickly and in a manner that protects Americans from fraud, theft, and abuse, while ensuring compliance with relevant regulations.
- Government agencies at all levels should consider and examine new uses for this technology that could make the government more efficient in performing its functions.
They will not outright ban it as it will have the opposite effect of what they want to achieve. They will pretend to support it while slowly but surely introducing legislation that will bring in under their control. They will for one not allow true cryptos - cryptos that are decentralized and private - to survive long-term. They will do all of this while pretending to be pro-crypto and tell us how legislation, which is equal to centralization, is required to keep us safe. If we're not careful, we will end up in a system where they have full control over every single transaction we do. Like the so called 'war on terror', they will through false flags and what not cause all of the problems - real and perceived - and then represent themselves as our saviors. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Given their history, it will be outright dangerous to trust them. In fact, cryptos have seen first light because they cannot be trusted. We don't need them to set ourselves free. The sooner we realize this, the better. |
|
|
|
hey!
I'm new here.
I need a wallet. which one you recomend and WHY?
Different tokens, different wallets. You might want to start with a hardware wallet such as a Trezor or Ledger. It is convenient and safe to use. |
|
|
|
We know innocent people are convicted. That alone should be enough to not have the death penalty! Also i do not think the ones comitting murder consider that they can be sentenced to death, just look at the fantastic land of the free.. What matters for crime is the society. And when put in jail how the conditions are. Being in a Norwegian jail is a paradise compared to the US, yet the amount of criminals is lower and the reformation is more succesfull. If interested see Michael Moore visiting Norwegian jail. https://youtu.be/jDjISR5OHa4And what about all the innocent people who are getting murdered? Should that alone not be enough to have the death penalty? |
|
|
|
|
Another approach: We get to record our choice on a blockchain in terms of whether we support capital punishment or not - A or B:
A. I support capital punishment - If I or one of my dependents get murdered, the one(s) found guilty in a court of law must receive capital punishment.
B. I don't support capital punishment - If I or one of my dependents get murdered, the one(s) found guilty in a court of law must not receive capital punishment.
This way all parties involved will get what they want on a case-to-case basis. The authorities will know how to handle each individual case. It could form part of Last Will and Testaments.
|
|
|
|
Data can easily be manipulated in the form of stats to support both ends. Like emotions, it cannot be used in support of factual arguments. Any honest statistician will tell you that this is the case. Sure, data can be manipulated, misreported and misrepresented, but you can't write off all data as non-factual, otherwise we would never have advanced past the bronze age. If you have data that disprove any of my claims, I'd be keen to see them. I was specifically in reference to the manipulation of data via stats. Sorry for any confusion, but I was not trying to say that data cannot be used to support factual arguments. It is a misnomer to suggest that the aim of the death penalty is to reduce crime in general. The aim is to serve as a deterrent when it comes to murder, and perhaps most importantly, to make sure that a murderer doesn't have a chance to re-offend. In addition, there are various other factors beside capital punishment that play a roll when it comes to these matters - and it differ from state to state, country to country, etc. Furthermore, if it is true that the "death penalty is more expensive than life in prison," then they're clearly going about it in the wrong way. And when you look at the data, you will see that not all murderers receive the death penalty in states that support it - only a small percentage. They've become too soft with them. The question we should rather ask ourselves is: "How many convicted murderers reoffend?" E.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html In my personal experience in terms of where I am in the world, enough to have the death penalty re-instated. It is also shocking to see how many who received a life sentence are already back on the streets. E.g. https://nypost.com/2013/04/28/record-number-of-killers-and-rapists-being-released-from-upstate-prisons-many-returning-to-nyc/ Scroll down on that page to see who we are dealing with... evil scum that I will not think twice to take out myself. |
|
|
|
Let's ignore the emotional arguments for a few minutes (feelings of justice, revenge, etc.) and look solely at the factual arguments. There is no evidence the death penalty reduces crime According to FBI statistics, the homicide rate has consistently been higher in US states with the death penalty vs those without. Whilst we have to be careful not to suggest that correlation equals causation, the National Research Council report on the matter states "research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates." The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison"A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000)." "In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty." Source: https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/The death penalty kills innocent peopleOver 60 innocent people have either been wrongfully executed or released from death row in the US alone. And that's without even touching on the controversy of executing people with mental illness who may not even understand their crime, let alone the punishment. In summary, you have a system that doesn't work, costs more, and kills innocents. There is no question that it should be abolished. Data can easily be manipulated in the form of stats to support both ends. Like emotions, it cannot be used in support of factual arguments. Any honest statistician will tell you that this is the case. |
|
|
|
Is a life in prison that much better than dying?
Who says that justice or revenge is such a bad thing? There are some people that claim certain virtues are primitive and that we as humans must learn to overcome our emotions. Who can prove that they don't matter? It is my opinion that a lot of what people decide is moral, is rooted in our emotions. People like to think we are logical beings, but emotions are the true building blocks of our perception of morality.
The death penalty gives justice for family members. Knowing that the murderer is still alive out there is unsettling even if that person is behind bars. For the people that are sent to prison for less severe crimes, they can develop some of the bad habits of worse criminals. I heard somewhere that prison is basically crime school. If you spend time in prison you learn how to become a better criminal. You hang around bad people enough and you'll turn bad too. It is a psychological thing, you become who you hang around. Also it is one less person for your taxes to cover. I know that sounds callous, but it is true.
When I think about people individually I can sometimes empathize with people facing the death penalty and how much that would suck. Systematically it makes sense to establish it though when you think about the whole scheme of things.
My opinion on the death penalty isn't too strong, but I've weaned on the side of for it rather than against it.
I couldn't agree more. If I was a murderer, I would rather choose death than life in prison, especially if it comes with hard labor. Not that I am not used to hard labor, but to have to perform it day in and day out under such conditions will certainly not be a walk in the park. Besides that, I am claustrophobic to some extent. In addition, I would refuse to be a burden on society. They either remove me from the equation or I most likely would have done it myself - after pleading guilty and giving the exact version of events, so that the families and people affected can have at least some comfort. |
|
|
|
Capital punishment can be a good thing, but not when applied by corrupt entities based on unjust standards and lies. History has shown beyond a reasonable, that when applied correctly, it can serve as a pretty good deterrent. In addition, not all killings are murders.
There is by deliberate design very little sympathy left for the victims of murderers today. The status quo is to feed and cuddle the murderer and start a fan club - it is all about his/her/its feelings and welfare. It is the sign of a sick and decaying society that won't survive if people don't come to their senses. Yet, many deem it as advancement to a higher level... until they and their loved ones are tortured and murdered in cold blood themselves. If someone cares that much for them - and I am in reference to murderers, not people falsely accused of being murderers - then they should spend some quality time with them to get a grip on reality.
Are all killings wrong though? Even when wars are started many people argue that it's still wrong. I'm not sure I agree with this opinion but it is something to consider. That also begs the question when is it acceptable to kill another. You could argue self defense but only a minute amount of cases actually require lethal force to make sure you are the one to survive.
The thing is people are getting sentenced to death when they haven't committed the crime and it comes out years after they are executed. This should be avoided at all costs but the only way of going about this is by actually abolishing it. If we look at some of the prisons around the world especially in Panama etc then the welfare of highly dangerous criminals isn't really something which is looked at closely and they live in horrendous conditions. Being falsely accused of a crime is bad enough to be sentenced to death is something else. As I've stated, "not all killings are murders" - murder constitutes an unjustified killing. Wars are tricky, but if one participates in a war for all the wrong reasons - and kills others in an offensive manner based on deceit and lies - then it boils down to murder. However, if one refuses to fight in a war, but is dragged into war by being attacked while being in a peaceful state - then defending oneself and one's loved ones by killing others in respond cannot be seen as murder. In addition, yes, mistakes are made in terms of giving innocent people a death sentence, but should we ban all cars because of accidents on the road? I think not. And a life sentence places a burden on society. Just imagine, I murder someone, which constitutes a death sentence on that person without due process, and then society has to provide accommodation, feed me, etc. It is certainly not fair. If one takes another person's life in an unjust manner, then that act should automatically cancels one's right to life. Now of course, in instances where one is not dealing with a hard-core murderer, the person confesses and show true remorse - hard labor and a long prison sentence could help toward rehabilitation. If the accused is too weak and/or not willing to work, then he/she must face capital punishment. It sounds harsh, but you want something that serves as a strong deterrent. On the other hand, if I am accused of murder and receives capital punishment - and it came out later that I was innocent, then those who falsely accused me must face capital punishment themselves. Justice must be served either way. The problem today is that murderers have more rights than their victims. It is absolutely insane. |
|
|
|
To merit or not to merit? That is the question.  |
|
|
|
Yes, savings kept in a savings account have seen a predictable loss for a long time - so why is it not deemed high risk? Because most people cannot see the indirect theft of inflation where the official inflation rate is nothing short of the rate at which they admit they are stealing from us (by creating more and more dollars, they steal an increasing part of every dollar's worth, especially when not backed by healthy economic growth). The real rate of inflation is of course much higher. Governments and banksters lie about it. Point in case... shadow stats. Google it. This makes a loss predictable in terms of savings in a savings account, but the exact loss cannot be determined that easily. But most have been conditioned to accept that predictable loss as something that carries low risk.
I find it a bit difficult to argue with someone who uses terms like “theft”, “stealing” and “lie”, when talking about the traditional system of bank deposits. I am not saying that you are currently not losing money when you simply put your money into a bank account but that this loss is predictable. So there is less risk involved. You would lose even more money if you keep your money hidden under your pillow. Inflation of around 2% is necessary for a healthy economy so you can’t blame the banks for it. If there is someone to blame it is the central banks, who keep the interest rates low, this is however a completely different story. Moreover, if you e.g. look at historical data in the Eurozone (sorry, but that’s where I live) you will see that there were also times when traditional deposits where quite profitable. Just to give you an example: in 2000 the EURIBOR was around 5% and inflation around 2%. Currently the EURIBOR is around 0% and inflation around 1,5%. With all respect, you clearly don't get it. Let's leave it at that as contrary to your assumption, I haven't posted anything here to have an argument with anyone, especially not someone who are fiat-based and don't see the fiat Ponzi scheme and system of thievery for what it is. And I am not here to entertain your half-assed assumptions. Take your fiat and keep it in a traditional savings account. Enjoy the 'low risk' while kissing government and bankster ass!  |
|
|
|
I've been studying this subject recently and have had some heated discussions in the past about it with friends and the like. Recently though I've been looking at some polls which have been conducted and it seems that the vast majority of people actually agree with the death penalty. I think it would be interesting to have a discussion with the Bitcoin community on this as I tend to find that they are much more logical and open minded to things than the normal targeted audience that these polls are presented too. Quotes may be shorter than they are in sources to cut down on filler content and pick out the most important aspects. According to the guardian[1] "China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and the US carried out the most executions in 2012. At least 1,722 people were sentenced to death in 58 countries in 2012." I think if we look at all the countries there the most surprising one would likely be the US. Iran which isn't on the greatest terms with American currently shares a common characteristic with America in terms of people getting sentenced to death. In fact according to this source between 2007-2012 America sentenced 504 people to death whilst Iran sentenced much less (156). I'm not at all defending the approach that these countries take and aren't saying that 156 lives taken isn't worse/better than 504 as this is another debate and hard dilemma. I personally feel that the death penalty should be abolished worldwide and I'll go on to list my counter arguments to common statements about why the death penalty should remain. Although I think it would be interesting if we could have an actual discussion about this and possibly my view point will change. I feel that these are the major points people seem to come up with is either for revenge, justice, if the crime is severe enough or as a deterrent for future criminals. First of all I don't understand why revenge is considered a good thing. In most major movies revenge is normally seen being done by the 'good' guys and is justified just because someone is the bad guy in the movie. Revenge doesn't gain you anything and the only thing you are actually doing is lowering yourself down to their level. In my opinion revenge should only be felt by those who are personally affected by the situation and shouldn't impact the public at all and therefore I feel this is a poor argument when it comes to an argument for pro death penalty. A common argument that I see is that if the crime is severe enough such as murder then it's perfectly acceptable for ordering the death of someone. I fail to see the logic here and I would invite anyone that has this mindset to explain your reasoning. I think we can all agree that to take someones life is wrong and there's got to be something chemically wrong or what ever for you to carry out the act but this also applies to sentencing someone to death. You are literally supporting a system which will put yet another person to death. Let's not forget that basic human rights and that everyone has the right to live. You may not feel like this is the case in more severe crimes but let's not forget that the amount of news articles which have been released after someone has been sentenced to death where new evidence has been discovered or brought up which proves that the prisoner was in fact innocent. Is this justice? Is the jury, court and executor now murderers too? Finally, the argument that it will act as a deterrent for future cases. Well I think it's a common opinion that people feel that the death sentence is the 'easy' way out and making someone live with what they have done is more appropriate. Although this brings up the point of the physiological affects on the person who committed the crime and how that may affect them. So it might not actually act as a deterrent if someone knows they are going to die shortly after anyway. It could also be argued that it doesn't severe as a deterrent anyway due to the amount of crimes which have been committed since the death penalty has been abolished elsewhere in the world. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world Capital punishment can be a good thing, but not when applied by corrupt entities based on unjust standards and lies. History has shown beyond a reasonable, that when applied correctly, it can serve as a pretty good deterrent. In addition, not all killings are murders. There is by deliberate design very little sympathy left for the victims of murderers today. The status quo is to feed and cuddle the murderer and start a fan club - it is all about his/her/its feelings and welfare. It is the sign of a sick and decaying society that won't survive if people don't come to their senses. Yet, many deem it as advancement to a higher level... until they and their loved ones are tortured and murdered in cold blood themselves. If someone cares that much for them - and I am in reference to murderers, not people falsely accused of being murderers - then they should spend some quality time with them to get a grip on reality. |
|
|
|
Looks like it's back to normal now, except it's promoting BCH  In any case, I'd love to hear a public explanation from @twittersupport about why #bitcoin competitor #LightningNetwork investor @jack disabled this account, gave it to someone else, only to return it in the face of public backlash with 750,000 fewer followers. #censorship There is actually a quick recap of that story: Bitcoin @BitcoinQuick recap of what happened to the @Bitcoin account:
1. ~36hrs ago I discovered the account had been suspended.
2. A new account using the same username began posting nonsense.
3. Community&media outrage ensued
4. Now reinstated, with 750,000 fewer followers than it had before https://twitter.com/Bitcoin/status/983443518059433985It is still unclear, why it was suspended and why that new registration was possible at all. We'll see, I hope. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it is part of twitter's war on cryptos - real and perceived. In this instance, the aim was probably to make a prominent pro-Bitcoin Cash twitter account lose a great deal of followers and then pretend to want to make it right again - fully knowing that the damage is already done. Hopefully we will get clarity soon, but I strongly suspect foul play. |
|
|
|
This is not to say that high price volatility carries no risk. It is only to say that high price volatility is not automatically a sign of high risk. E.g. a $100 kept in a savings account at a bank since July 2010 has seen very little volatility in terms of wild changes in the balance. However, given the fact that the cost of living for one went up considerably since that time and interest earned on savings accounts are extremly low (and in some cases even negative), one can safely say that keeping a $100 in a savings account since 2010, carried way more risk than buying a $100's worth of Bitcoin way back.
I see where you are going with your argument but I don’t agree with your definition of risk. While you may loose money on your savings due to inflation, it is a very predictable loss, because interest rates have been stable for a very long time. BTC on the contrary has fluctuated heavily in the past and there is hardly any historic track record that proofs that every dip will go back up. We may see a point where BTC won’t recover for a long time or even not at all. Nobody knows for sure, so there is a lot of risk involved. Yes, savings kept in a savings account have seen a predictable loss for a long time - so why is it not deemed high risk? Because most people cannot see the indirect theft of inflation where the official inflation rate is nothing short of the rate at which they admit they are stealing from us (by creating more and more dollars, they steal an increasing part of every dollar's worth, especially when not backed by healthy economic growth). The real rate of inflation is of course much higher. Governments and banksters lie about it. Point in case... shadow stats. Google it. This makes a loss predictable in terms of savings in a savings account, but the exact loss cannot be determined that easily. But most have been conditioned to accept that predictable loss as something that carries low risk. In terms of BTC, the historical record shows that those who were patient got rewarded. This is exactly why some - rightly or wrongly - claim that cryptos are part of a wealth transfer from the impatient to the patient. And yes, BTC could go to zero and end up to be a high risk vehicle, especially on the back of the segwit and lightning network shenanigans (a story for another day), but the historical record shows that there was way less risk in holding a $100 in Bitcoin than a $100 in a savings account. Thus, as I've stated: "This is not to say that high price volatility carries no risk. It is only to say that high price volatility is not automatically a sign of high risk."In addition, what I've stated is not by any stretch of the imagination an attempt to define risk in its totality. I've only covered a couple of components. E.g. the loss of a $100 could be devastasting to many - high risk, while some use $100 notes as toilet paper - no risk. |
|
|
|
I think that you don't fully understand the concept of risk in business terms. Your post is very emotional and I am sure that those that get emotional about crypto will enjoy it.
You're reading something into it that isn't there. The whole point is not to get emotional, because high price volatility is not automatically a sign of high risk - even in business terms. E.g. if I run a business and wish to accept cryptos as a means of payment, I don't have to expose the cash flow of my business to the high price volatility of cryptos. There are various businesses and services that are willing to take that risk - perceived and real - onto themselves at a small fee. Thus, if I want $10 for a product, but want to give buyers the option to pay in cryptos as well - expanding the potential market of buyers in the process, I can have that without getting exposure to the cryptos itself at a small fee. Yet, when I listen to some, one would swear that you have to open a foreign currency exchange or the sky will fall on the back of the high price volatility.  |
|
|
|
Id merit you if i had available. Your points are very good, and pretty much my thoughts on the matter. I did not get in crypto to get rich in a month, but over many years If it does not recover and go to new ath it is still ok, the risk/reward for holding is for me very good. Thanks. It is the thought that ultimately counts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
