Saying that Bitcoin is a bad currency because people don't currently use it is like saying in 1995 that the Internet was bad for commerce because no one bought stuff over the Internet.
Which was true at the time. Bitcoin is a poor currency, at the present time. Most of us can see it's potential, though. |
|
|
|
This just circles back to my point about the argument of whether or not Bitcoin was a good currency or not being independent of the claim that it was a currency. The definition of a currency is binary, not scalar; either Bitcoin was designed to be a medium of exchange or it was not. By it's creator's own writings, it's obviously true that it was meant to function as a medium of exchange, therefore it's a currency. There really isn't a counter argument here without changing the English definition of the term "currency".
Changing the definition from the one proposed by MoonShadow? I've done a quick search of different sources, and while Bitcoin is a currency under some definitions, and isn't a currency under other definitions, I haven't come across any definitions, other than yours, which focus on what the designer intended. There is a simple cause for this conflict. All others are wrong. |
|
|
|
Semantic discussion about "deflation" and "intrinsic value" apart, this was an interesting (th)read. I think that bitcoin is meant to be a currency, and as a means of "medium of exchange" it already functions a bit like a currency, but the amount of exchanges ( < 100,000 / day ? ) between about 3 million users shows that these BTC's don't flow like a current (yet). Maybe it will in the future, but now it covers only a marginal area in the world wide economy; i.e. a playground for speculators, early adapters (luck seekers) and miners.
This just circles back to my point about the argument of whether or not Bitcoin was a good currency or not being independent of the claim that it was a currency. The definition of a currency is binary, not scalar; either Bitcoin was designed to be a medium of exchange or it was not. By it's creator's own writings, it's obviously true that it was meant to function as a medium of exchange, therefore it's a currency. There really isn't a counter argument here without changing the English definition of the term "currency". |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will probably speed up Christianity's demise, just like the internet is doing. Bitcoin has the potential to aid developing nations give empowerment to the poor. Better internet penetration, brings better education, and less superstition.
The Most Evangelistic Generation
They've been called "the social justice generation," and for good reason—Millennials are actively taking up the cause of the poor, the oppressed, the orphan and the widow. Yet the most common critique leveled at this surge in social compassion is that it comes at a great expense. Sure, skeptics argue, they might feed the hungry and free the captives in this life, but what about the next? According to this view, Millennials are elevating physical needs over spiritual needs and forgoing evangelism altogether.
Yet the latest Barna research reveals this is not the case.
In fact, in answer to the question of evangelism on the rise or in decline, Millennials are a rare case indeed. While the evangelistic practices of all other generations have either declined or remained static in the past few years, Millennials are the only generation among whom evangelism is significantly on the rise. Their faith-sharing practices have escalated from 56% in 2010 to 65% in 2013.
Not only that, but born again Millennials share their faith more than any other generation today. Nearly two-thirds (65%) have presented the Gospel to another within the past year, in contrast to the national average of about half (52%) of born again Christians. https://www.barna.org/barna-update/faith-spirituality/648-is-evangelism-going-out-of-style#.UrkeevbrmFbAnd this, from the only generation that can't remember a time before the Internet. Perhaps you might be projecting? |
|
|
|
To most scientists, it is common knowledge that the atmosphere and the world could not contain enough water to cover the tops of all the mountains on earth. Water does not evaporate into space, so to speak and all the water that was ever contained by the earth is still here in one form or another.
I'm aware of that, and there are other explainations that are more plausible. There is some evidence that much of the known world suffered a massive saltwater flooding event around 8 to 10 thousand years ago. That is not to say that I think that this particular story is factually accurate, but it's not necessarily just a story either. Noah’s family also lacked a sufficient gene pool to guarantee continuation of our species once the ark landed. Even if we assume that they were successful in surviving against these unprecedented odds, could we have all descended from only eight original members? Genetic markers, such as DNA, are excellent timekeepers to determine the interval back to a common ancestor.
Actually, we could have. Our most recent common ancestor was during the middle ages. http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/CommonAncestors/NatureAncestorsPressRelease.htmlHowever, even the bible cannon contradicts itself on whether or not they were the only people to survive. It's more likely that they were the only people to survive that they considered of note. Keep in mind that most of the patriarchs of Genisis are there because they were the wealthy leaders of a large "household". A more recent comparison would be the original owners of Biltmore; whose official household consisted of only three people, but lived inside the largest single private residence in the Western world with nearly 1000 staff members. Certainly, Noah wasn't the only family to own a boat at the time.
Since delving into the subject in sufficient detail would require a book in itself, just understand that it’s possible to observe the deviation of DNA strands by retroactively measuring them to a common strand. This period back to a common ancestor has been determined to be tens of thousands of years, an age remarkably consistent with the ones established for human civilization remains through previously mentioned dating methods. We do not see the five thousand years that our DNA would reveal if all humans descended from the sole survivors of God’s flood.
I didn't say that I was a young earth advocate. You're just making up your own religion as you go along. More precisely I'm reading the bible, cannon and more, and making up my own mind about what parts I agree with. I don't agree with the doctrine of divine preservation, either. You make thinking for oneself sound like a bad thing. You do realize that every protestant religion is founded upon the idea that the other guys had some detail wrong, don't you? |
|
|
|
"The terms of the enemy"? Come on, this is typical 1950s McCarthyist rhetoric. 1. He has since been proven right. 2. why shouldn't I call those who seek to make me into a slave an enemy? McCarthy was never proven right, Actually, he was eventually. McCarthy's core premise was that the Soviet Union had sleeper cells inside the United States, and he believed that spies held very high profile lifestyles, most likely in media. It took until after the fall of the Soviet Union to prove it, but McCarthy's paranoid premise was correct even though a great number of innocent people were included into the project as well. |
|
|
|
I AM PRETTY CONFIDENT OUR GRANDCHILDREN ARE THE NEW WEALTHY ELITE, GENTLEMEN (and bitchick)... NOT US!! DEAD SERIOUS
it will catch on a LOT faster than that ,probably faster than anyone ever imagines at the moment i dont think wel have to have grandchildren to see the btc network + coins reach a high value im thinking 10 years or less for a btc to be very valuable that depends upon one's personal view of what a high value is. |
|
|
|
One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate.
Christianity or Islam is never 'non-state'. The complicity of militarism and 'patriarchal' religion constitutes the State (organized violence). There are many historical examples of either being quite 'non-state', or at least anti-the-current-regime. |
|
|
|
I don't really require scientific proof and I don't see how anyone can prove that something doesn't exist any way,
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
but when something appears to no one, says nothing and does nothing, I tend to believe that it does not exist.
There are many things that you have no personal evidence that exist, yet you have faith that they do. I'm sure that I can guess a few. |
|
|
|
And what about all the parasites etc? And also AIDS. That didn't spring up until the twentieth century along with all sorts of other nasty diseases that are appearing all the time. Either you believe according to science that these diseases adapt/evolve/mutate etc, or you believe God made them, which would make him even more of an empire state bastard.
That's still a false choice. It's entirely possible to view 'natural selection' as it as known today as one process (perhaps one of many) by which God creates. Like setting up the rules and letting the program run. While it's demonstratablely true that teh process of natural selection is the dominate force in play today, that does not show that it's always been the case. We, almost certainly, don't completely understand that process itself, because there are many examples of species on earth that do not conform to our understanding of natural selection and it's outcomes. I have personally met many professors that will admit this, and a few that have openly converted to a more biblical worldview due to these same contradictions. |
|
|
|
To most scientists, it is common knowledge that the atmosphere and the world could not contain enough water to cover the tops of all the mountains on earth. Water does not evaporate into space, so to speak and all the water that was ever contained by the earth is still here in one form or another.
I'm aware of that, and there are other explainations that are more plausible. There is some evidence that much of the known world suffered a massive saltwater flooding event around 8 to 10 thousand years ago. That is not to say that I think that this particular story is factually accurate, but it's not necessarily just a story either. Noah’s family also lacked a sufficient gene pool to guarantee continuation of our species once the ark landed. Even if we assume that they were successful in surviving against these unprecedented odds, could we have all descended from only eight original members? Genetic markers, such as DNA, are excellent timekeepers to determine the interval back to a common ancestor.
Actually, we could have. Our most recent common ancestor was during the middle ages. http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/CommonAncestors/NatureAncestorsPressRelease.htmlHowever, even the bible cannon contradicts itself on whether or not they were the only people to survive. It's more likely that they were the only people to survive that they considered of note. Keep in mind that most of the patriarchs of Genisis are there because they were the wealthy leaders of a large "household". A more recent comparison would be the original owners of Biltmore; whose official household consisted of only three people, but lived inside the largest single private residence in the Western world with nearly 1000 staff members. Certainly, Noah wasn't the only family to own a boat at the time.
Since delving into the subject in sufficient detail would require a book in itself, just understand that it’s possible to observe the deviation of DNA strands by retroactively measuring them to a common strand. This period back to a common ancestor has been determined to be tens of thousands of years, an age remarkably consistent with the ones established for human civilization remains through previously mentioned dating methods. We do not see the five thousand years that our DNA would reveal if all humans descended from the sole survivors of God’s flood.
I didn't say that I was a young earth advocate. |
|
|
|
edit: but having a completelty anonymous way to pay and hold money would make it sooooo much harder for anyone to track...
True; and if's & but's were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. If you can come up with a workable way to do this, feel free to share it. |
|
|
|
Germany is an example of a country that so far has managed to balance it's socialism with strong individual rights in many cases, after the war it has always championed a hard currency (even if it is a hard fiat currency) in addition to having a strongly federal political system as well as having a populace generally more politically aware than most others. However, they have no freedom of speech for neo-nazi groups, and much worse, criticism of Israel is still taboo. I think your admiration for the German solution to be misplaced. It's not just that neo-nazi based ideologies or israeli dissent that is verboten. Any kind of subculture at all is verboten, although (obviously) some are ignored. Notablely, however, Christian based homeschooling is not ignored; and a ban on home education of any kind remains in effect as the last edict started by Aldolf hitler still in effect. Put another way; while politics in Germany functionally ignores the dark side of Islam, but puts devout Christians who consider German state schools to be contrary to their faith in the same catagory as neo-nazi hate groups. One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate. I probably was too positive to the "German solution". I do not agree that any kind of subculture is verboten as such, in fact I saw much more subculture in Berlin than I have seen in any western European capital ever. Maybe I got lucky, but my impression was that it was less distance from the general populace than elsewhere - though other places in Germany are supposedly less subculture-friendly as far as I've heard. I highlighted the operative part of my prior post for you. Sorry, I was obviously not reading carefully enough - thank you for pointing that out. The question then becomes how many subcultures are ignored and how many are verboten? And how does this ratio compare to other countries? I admit I am not qualified to answer this as I do not have enough experience with German subculture. They are all verboten, and some are still ignored. just because they are ignored, does not mean thty are not verboten. Germany is, thankfully, unique among democracies in that the legal code assumes all things to be banned, until they are explicitly permitted, while just about everywhere else, all things are assumed to be acceptable until they are explicitly banned. The fact that actual Germans ignore the flailings of their own politicos is a sign of progress socially, but it also means that the generations of strong social cohesion among Germans is drawing to a close. The Japanese were once as socially cohesive as a nation as well, and look at what the influence of Western culture(s) has done to them. Unlike the Chinese, the Japanese mafia are a relatively recent phenomenon. Have you ever een heard of the "German mafia" or "Swiss mafia"? Of course not, because it's a clash of cultures that presents the opprotunities that give rise to organized crime. The original Italian mafia is so old because there has never been such as thing as a single Italian culture, only the dominate one. |
|
|
|
It was two of every Kind of animal not every species. The Ark was around 500 feet long and 3 stories tall. If Noah had gathered the animals when they were young and not full grown, then it would be entirely possible. Think of how many people can fit in a football stadium.
I think the idea of one guy building an ark that is as big as a football pitch to be just as ridiculous. The idea that Noah couldn't have hired locals who thought he was insane is, likewise, ridiculous. And viri and bacteria can live fine under water. They didn't need to be in the ark any more than the fish did. |
|
|
|
You choose to not seek, which is fine.
Wrong. Your talking to an ex-Christian. Brainwashed from birth, and suffered for it. Then did the seeking thing. Only it was all a bunch of phooey. I'm not wrong at all. You're damaged, therefore you do not seek. I, myself, am a "reformed" Catholic. I don't hate the Roman church because of the way I was raised; for that matter, I can't really put the blame on the church doctrine, but only on the particular interpretations of individuals. And yes, there was a time in my life that I strongly questioned the existance of God, and I did not seek. (or more accurately, simply thought I sought) Time heals all wounds, but some require more time than others. I can honestly say that I've never really met an athiest, although I've met many who claim to be an athiest. Upon inquiry, I've found that all of them were either agnostic (they didn't know if God exists, not that they believed that God could not exist) or they were damaged souls who had (in practice, not necessarily in doctrine) been taught that God is "a vengful God" that demanded loyalty and obedience, regardless of how well his appointed representatives in the lives of any particular child displayed their godlyness. The obvious reaction to a vengful God is rejection. Without a doubt, if you require scientific proof that God exists before you can have faith, then you will never find it. But I know from personal experience that a more personal form of 'proof' will often present itself when sought. There is nothing that I can tell you that would convience you that I'm more than insane or a great storyteller, but I've seen proof enough. |
|
|
|
Germany is an example of a country that so far has managed to balance it's socialism with strong individual rights in many cases, after the war it has always championed a hard currency (even if it is a hard fiat currency) in addition to having a strongly federal political system as well as having a populace generally more politically aware than most others. However, they have no freedom of speech for neo-nazi groups, and much worse, criticism of Israel is still taboo. I think your admiration for the German solution to be misplaced. It's not just that neo-nazi based ideologies or israeli dissent that is verboten. Any kind of subculture at all is verboten, although (obviously) some are ignored. Notablely, however, Christian based homeschooling is not ignored; and a ban on home education of any kind remains in effect as the last edict started by Aldolf hitler still in effect. Put another way; while politics in Germany functionally ignores the dark side of Islam, but puts devout Christians who consider German state schools to be contrary to their faith in the same catagory as neo-nazi hate groups. One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate. I probably was too positive to the "German solution". I do not agree that any kind of subculture is verboten as such, in fact I saw much more subculture in Berlin than I have seen in any western European capital ever. Maybe I got lucky, but my impression was that it was less distance from the general populace than elsewhere - though other places in Germany are supposedly less subculture-friendly as far as I've heard. I highlighted the operative part of my prior post for you. |
|
|
|
The biggest argument against Bitcoin - and all crypto currencies for that matter - is that everyone thinks everyone else is out to rip them off in one way shape or form. It's sad but when you can't trust anyone, how far can it go?
To use Bitcoin trust is unnecessary. Consensus is necessary. As with trading anything, all parties involved must agree with the value of the item being exchanged. Fiat is backed by trust in the issuing authority. Even transactional trust is unnecessary if you use escrow. At some point though you would have to trust somebody (maybe not in a financial way), at least in order to be able to feel fully at ease with someone (or anyone). Trust is a great issue with the Bitcoin community, but I believe it already has improved and is improving further, so it is not a long-term issue. I'm not a programmer, so to some extent I have to trust that those who program my client aren't hiding a backdoor. If you're not part of the US Federal Reserve or related monetary industry, you have to trust that they will continue to accept such paper for taxes and legal debts. Faith in some group or another is a reasonable expectation. Bitcoin shines in that it doesn't require faith in any particular institution, nor is would the Bitcoin economy at large be at risk if (for example) the Bitcoin Foundation were to simply close up shop. |
|
|
|
ASIC mining farms. I believe Satoshi intended for BTC to be cpu only Your belief is in error. Sataoshi expressed a desire that Bitcoin remain cpu only till the "kinks" were worked out, but he didn't get to decide that issue alone either. |
|
|
|
Sounds fair. So if we trust the developers on this, then scalability is pretty much solved?
Well, I wouldn't say 'solved' because the greater scalability issue isn't the resident size of the blockchain, but the real time latency and bandwidth requirements of the network. I don't even know if there is really much that can be done with 'solving' scalability within the main network itself. I tend to think that external solutions, such as overlay networks (such as Stratum) taking over a majority of small transactions. There are a number of ways this can be done, all of which are a balance between the trustless security model of the main bitcoin network against speed and cost, that I think will end up competing in any future that Bitcoin assumes more transaction volume than Visa can deal with. |
|
|
|
Hence hard uncrackable anonymity is needed.
You complain that Bitcoin isn't completely anonymous, and then your solution is a impossibility. Anonymity is a scale that is derived from the actions of the user, not an absolute attribute of any currency. While cash is certainly more anonymous than Bitcoin, even cash in person isn't 'uncrackable anonymity' because you have to do it in person. Any detective with the resources to do so can determine who you are by interogating your business counter party and/or tracking location data near the location around the time of meeting. Keep in mind that Bitcoin is a compromise solution to a preexisting condition, and while it's certainly not perfect, I consider it unlikely that any or all of Bitcoin's own shortcomings will prove to be fatal to it's market dominance. You shouldn't put to much faith into AnonyMint's musings either. While he can turn a phrase quite well, I have personally put the lie to all of his arguments that I've seen thus far; to the point that he doesn't even like to respond to me at all. Feel free to research his and my interactions on this forum, and you will learn more than you did from him alone. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
