Just thought of something.
If Gox really had liquidity problems and were in need of cash to dig themselves out, they wouldn't just badmouth their ability to handle deposits (like they did in their latest update), on the contrary they would promote it. I think they have more problems than they'd like to admit though.
Growing pains are to be expected. Orders of magnitude differences each year has to take its toll. |
|
|
|
Just to clarify - these coins do not have any actual BTC value in them at all - they are silver rounds only, deriving their value from being made of silver. I like the QR code concept on the coin, but everyone should know if you buy these, you're not investing in BTC, you're investing in silver.
YES. THANK YOU. This deserves repeating. This is not bitcoin, it may be considered a type of bitcoin specie. For that, it may provide a new hard money backing for bitcoin (to the extent that bitcoin may be redeemed/exchanged for it). It is silver only (and soon gold as well). The value of bitcoin and these COLD HARD CASH pieces are however not bound to each other except for those that may voluntarily trade one for the other, and for this trade the QR displays the recommended trade value based on the current exchange pricing. There is also .025 BTC emblazoned on the obverse as a recommended trade value (and to commemorate the value of Silver/BTC in 2013). Chainsaw: Days to weeks. I'll announce a first day of issue date which might be a week or ten days out from the announcement and take pre-orders up to that date. There will likely be some specials available for quantity purchases on or before first day of issue that will not be available later. The OP will be updated with order instructions when the time comes for that. Progress is continuing: Initial marketing pieces are being minted, final touches are being put on the QR landing page. Other website development is needed as well, but can proceed once these basics are solid and tested out. I am as eager as you are to progress! Dwdoc: Some folks like the tarnish (more properly called "toning") on silver pieces, others not. They can be put in Airtites, or lacquered for preservation if you don't like tarnish, but they should do just fine with normal wear and use as pocket pieces too. OR you can wait for the gold pieces. Gold does not tarnish at all. |
|
|
|
|
We are missing the excluded middle (where the state does nothing). It is less a matter of whether the majority or minority "get their way" and more a matter of whether some percentage of the population gets to use the power of law (guns and jails) to do something. If so, what that percentage should be.
We get bad law when we act too fast.
The "mob rule" of satisfying a simple majority who elect to kill or steal from others for their benefit or satisfaction does not sit well with me at all.
It does not make it any better that >50% will be angry for failing to kill or steal, it still ought not be done just to satisfy a majority (of those who voted).
Even if 60% are upset at not using the law to steal or kill, that might still be right and just, given the ethical breach for using the law against their fellow country people for that purpose.
There are even likely some things that are simply wrong to do even in cases where 99% vote that it should be done (Stupid Talk Show Host example). The greater harm of murder over the harm of frustration with what STSH said on air doesn't provide sufficient justification. The lynch mob should not have their way just because they show up with pitchforks and torches.
Voting may also be done under non-factual information, prevalent media spending, emotionalism, or all sorts of situations that may skew an outcome. Upholding a simple majority as the arbitrator of justice and source of law has dangers and unforeseen consequences enough that we have "a republic, if we can keep it".
For civil matters it may be ok to have one level of majority, but for criminal (where life and livelihood are at issue) there is a higher bar in court cases. But we do not extend this to our legislative effort. We create new crime definitions and criminality through a simple majority of 51%, and often bundle much new legislation within a single measure.
The result being that we have ever-greater legal restraints and ever-greater judicial authority in a one direction path toward statism and socialism through democratic incremental addition. The question is: at what rate do we proceed?
|
|
|
|
In the recent judicial opinion memorandum on the Pirateat40 case... There are some elements suggested against bitcoin being money: https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/06/Bitcoin.pdfOne being that it is not regulated by a central bank, and the other being that there is no specie or precious metal. I'm not interested at all in the first, central banking, but the second, absence of specie, is close to my heart. For this opinion, the memo relies upon http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Dion.pdf which in turn relies upon an unpublished version of the Satoshi white paper that states: 'the Bitcoin system does not require any backing or “trust”'. The authoritative version available at http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf does not include this statement. Notwithstanding this argument by Pirate that bitcoin is not money, there does exist some examples of specie, such as the Casascius physical bitcoins, many of which are also precious metal. https://www.casascius.com/The step proposed in this project (which incidentally is almost completed and ready for sale which is why it is here in "goods" rather than in "projects") is for a pure specie offering. As these pieces become more widely available, they can form a type of decentralized backing for bitcoin (even though bitcoin needs no backing). Because we will accept bitcoin as payment in purchase for the specie (as well as anyone else might do the same, we are not patenting anything), this creates a type of ad-hoc backing of bitcoin with precious metal. Further, in order to most widely spread this, we are setting prices as close as possible to actual costs, while leaving a little margin for those that volunteer to purchase at wholesale and aggregate sales for a locality. Bitcoin users, coin dealers, miners, and anyone with a local bitcoin community can play this role simply by purchasing in enough quantity to get the lowest premiums. This will allow the high volume purchaser to get "Bitcoin Cold Hard Cash" (We are adopting this nomenclature to distinguish from the "Physical Bitcoin" term used for Casascius, but please feel free and welcome to call them whatever you think appropriate.) |
|
|
|
It happens all the time in other ways too, Organ donors who could save several if only they would die... But also interesting, if we accept majority rule as the arbitrator of ethics. This raises the question of the 51%. Why not 55%, 66%, or 75%? Is avoidance of aggression only worth 1%? 51% seems an arbitrary threshold, and also a low value on non-aggression vs social cohesion (which may or may not be good in some cases). Some law seems to agree. Cloture=60% (US Senate), Delegation of Danish Soverignity 84%, US Constitution amendment 2/3 house + 2/3 senate + 3/4 States Now that we are aggression whores, and will initiate aggression if enough folks think we ought to do so, it is just a matter of setting the prices and menu.  Should exacting a new type of tax require a super majority? Does it depend on the claimed reason for the tax? |
|
|
|
Does it provide the best outcome, though? Take the revolution against Apartheid in South Africa. Initially, Mandela preached non-violence. He acted similar to Gandhi or MLK. What did his non-violence accomplish? Nothing. Then, once he started bombing government buildings, South Africa started moving towards equality.
Good example, thank you for this. Madman, trolly, apartheid. The trolly is the only one that does not appear to involve self-defense and is one of pure initiation of aggression. It also seems to be the one with which, you most disagree. From all appearances, you have (perhaps) a better or more evolved principle for "minimal" aggression, as it applies in the real world rather than the purely philosophical. It is less absolutist than non-aggression. Maybe it is closer to the Asimov 3 laws of robotics, and the struggle to find the balance between the three laws? Would the righteousness or effectiveness of Mandela's cause with respect to moral authority have been harmed if it started with the bombing? Or was the proof of necessity so integral to the moral authority that the bombing was acceptable as minimal aggression? Determining the point of ethical authority for aggression seems the sliding scale for where socialism finds its social traction. Socialism in contrast places a high value on social cohesion. It assumes societal splits are bad, or put another way, that the bigger a society gets the better it is. The relative weighting of the value of social cohesion vs non-aggression seems to guide many. There may be a fear that lack of social cohesion may lead to aggression and that fear/distrust conjures a higher weighting for social cohesion. Social cohesion may also engender societal fragility as well, in much the same way that mono-cultural farming can create famine. I am not convinced that it is always a good, even if it is more productive. I had recommended to me: "Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Black Swan Author). From a discussion this weekend. Going to have to digest that when it arrives. |
|
|
|
No, they should be based on the non-aggression principle. Support in that is the only opinion. From there everything is logical and consistent. The non-aggression principle is illogical in itself. It is the epitome of subjectivity. It says that regardless of the consequences, there should not be violence. It says that violence cannot be justified, which is a subjective, and opinionated view. Sorry, but, if that is what you believe, then you have no idea what the non-aggression principle is, and the rest of your argument is pretty much not relevant. Please explain to me what I said that was wrong, instead of acting condescending. I guess I should have phrased that better. I understand why you would argue- after all the NAP says that self defense is ok (or at least it does recently; it hasn't for thousands of years). But here's the thing: When is self-defense be justified? If someone is trying to kill you, and they will not stop until they themselves are dead, at what point does self defense end and aggression begin? It is entirely based on the subjective view of the person "defending" himself. If the defender kills the attacker, they have committed greater violence, and thus they've stopped following the NAP. That's why the NAP is illogical. The only way in which you could truly follow it would be to do nothing to defend yourself, or to avoid conflict in general. If you think that the NAP can justify self defense, then what's the point? You're saying that you're not going to run around killing everything unless they attack you. Congratulations, that's a philosophy that only rabid dogs have a problem with. The killing the madman logic trap. Good. There are other logic traps as well (the famous trolly-cart where you can switch the rail to kill fewer folks, but switching it to kill someone is an act of aggression, so greater harm would be the outcome of zero aggression) The resolution to these seems to be that the non-aggression principle provides guidance for the best outcomes. That the notion of "moral authority", at least in degree, seems to rest on how clearly those outcomes are best, and how much aggression is needed to achieve those outcomes, with a very strong preference for none at all, and a high bar to any initiation of aggression. The socialist's claim appears to be that creating cases of everyone suffering, for some outcome that benefits everyone (whether or not they agree to either undergo the suffering, or whether they agree the outcome is a benefit) is an acceptable degree of moral authority. Provided the responsibility for creating these sufferings is spread among a sufficiently large number of people (such as voters). Where this tends to fail (sometimes but not always) in real world is in the administration of the benefits, and the costs of doing so: balancing the flexibility of the benefit (for efficiency) with the arbitrariness of managing that flexibility (spawning corruption opportunities). |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the kind words!
Edit: No more waiting! Now for immediate delivery, you can order by PM or any of our other order communication channels.
|
|
|
|
the difference between vehicle insurance and health insurance should be easy to comprehend: while your scooter has a known value at any point in time, a limited value both you and your insurance company can agree it's better to declare a total loss, no such cap actually exists for humans, especially for loved ones. By law, no one can decide you're a total loss until the most emotionally involved human being decides to kill you. Are there any parallels in the commercial insurance world to this? No, human healthcare is in a category of its own.
This is inaccurate. Health insurance is very much like insurance in general. It is an actuarial exercise, and "value of human life" is an input to the calculus. There is much argument and science that goes in to setting the value. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html Governments also use this for deciding on policy and cost effectiveness. Sometimes they change the value of it. Sometimes that makes news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/epa-value-of-life-changes-_n_812105.htmlIf you have worked in the health or life insurance industry, this would not be a point of issue. It is very well understood, many articles in each of the major journals discuss it. http://library.soa.org/search.aspx?go=True&q=human+life+value&page=1&pagesize=10&or=TrueNotwithstanding this, you are certainly correct in that whether a caregiver chooses to attempt uncovered heroic efforts to preserve a life beyond what insurance will cover is an individual decision, and rarely an easy one. |
|
|
|
I agree. But do you have the authority to stop them by yourself? If you are the only one in town with the NAP idea, do you get to impose that idea on the rest of the people in town?
How authority accrues and is maintained is another interesting question. The notion that majority rules (and can contravene an ethical principle) likely has many limits. Ought majority rule be the absolute measure for how and when to violate fundamental ethics? There are some great benefits to cooperation, tolerance, and community efforts. To what extent is there justification to make those efforts compulsory (possibly violating NAP) rather than voluntary (adhering to NAP). Does accruing authority make that justification stronger or weaker? |
|
|
|
|
Is a zero trade rating considered positive for these purposes?
|
|
|
|
All the NAP is saying is that no-one has a right to order anyone else around or coerce anyone into doing something they don't want to do. Or rob someone. Murder them. etc
Look, the principle is all well and good as an abstract principle. But how do you get along with people that don't agree with it? Do you have the right to order or coerce them into behaving the way that you think they ought to? You said that a legal system ought to be founded on that principle. Is there some example of how exactly would that work? Would those that are not agreeing to the NAP be advocating a right to initiate aggression? Or are they simply claiming that there is some necessary or moderate aggression which ought be exempted from the general principle? It might just be the point that one ought NOT get along with those that don't agree with it. |
|
|
|
No law will ever be "fair" unless everyone agrees with it, and no one ever will.
Might there be an example of a law that everyone in a geography agrees with? (It looked like the assertion being made was that everyone agrees with the non-aggression principle.) Given a sufficiently small geography, it is certain that there will be 100% agreement on some laws. |
|
|
|
And the closest thing I've found is that socialism is the ownership by the people of the means of production. In practice that ends up meaning ownership by the government.
In what geographical location of this planet is "the government" = "the people"? Every location. A populace that does not consent to be governed has the option to violently overthrow their government. …which addresses your point about as well as your post addressed mine. I did use the words "in practice." I do not feel qualified to address your entire posts yet, I am still working to understand them. You seem to have a different experience of the world, which may mean that we live in different places or simply have a different perspective, or different definitions. For example, in practice, there are many levels of government in most geographies globally. Often the government in control of some asset "means of production" is not the same government as that which is representing the local population. So in practice, only very very small countries would come close to your definition for most of the assets. In practice, popular revolutions are also not the best way to achieve civic representation any more than "the government" is "the people" anywhere on the planet. At best "the government" is a very small subsection of "the people" and have convinced "the people" that they are sufficiently responsive to "the people" that those of "the people" that could possibly have any hope of successfully violent overthrow of "the government" if they wanted to do so, have other things to do instead that keep them busy. That is most of the planet's geography currently. Fundamentally, also consider whether advocating civil war as the backstop of justifiable authority is best way to achieve your desired levels of socialism? The USA, in practice, has achieved very high level of Marxism through democratic incrementalism with relatively few civil wars. We also get a lot of it through selling fear to our populace and terrorizing ourselves. It also may not be the best method but seems effective for creating socialism in a population that rhetorically tends to demonize the notion. |
|
|
|
From what I can tell, this is not really a "physical bitcoin". It is a silver "medallion" whose value in BTC is readily available. In other words, its value is the value of the silver it contains and nothing else (except for perhaps its collectibility).
I guess that is why you write that it doesn't compete with current physical bitcoins.
Yes. Your understanding looks accurate. That was one of our goals, not to compete but to be in a different and new market space. They are not useful as wallets, or as containers for bitcoin in the way that other pieces are. They are not unique, each is the same as all the others. In the same way that a silver dollar does not contain a paper dollar within it, there is nothing contained within these. They are only what they are. I think of them as "Cold Hard Cash". If we ought reserve the term "Physical Bitcoin" for pieces that can function as wallets with tamper-evident holograms, then these would not qualify. Perhaps calling it Bitcoin Specie would be more accurate nomenclature? It would be best to avoid confusion. The "Physical Bitcoin" descriptor was created by the BitcoinMagazine article. Folks will describe them in ways that make sense to them. Additionally, with one of these to check current value, other pieces may be included in a trade that of similar composition but of different maker. So a "used" physical bitcoin could be traded as a fair value by checking the QR for example on one of these. |
|
|
|
And the closest thing I've found is that socialism is the ownership by the people of the means of production. In practice that ends up meaning ownership by the government.
In what geographical location of this planet is "the government" = "the people"? |
|
|
|
Definitely want one of these if the price isn't beyond reason. Prices similar to Casascius's prices would be good.
First, please understand that these are not like the Casascius coins in that these do not contain bitcoins. These are silver pieces denominated in Bitcoin. They will be far less expensive, closer to one ounce silver spot price in BTC + a small premium based on quantity to compensate for those of you who will engage in distribution. (You should be able to make money by spending these.) Though if they are at all like the New Liberty Dollar sales, most sales will be in quantity >100. If you just want one, chances are that you can get it for less from someone near you who bought a lot more than one. These pieces are not really made primarily for the collectors, but to be USEFUL commercially with easily determinable barter value (just like Bitcoin has with its exchanges). They are designed to be trade-worthy, and pocket-friendly rather than sitting on a shelf. We don't want you to fret if they accidentally go through the washing machine, they should still work just fine. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the kind words. As the project matures, we are very interested in the input from this, our community, so that we may refine and improve. This thread is not self-moderated and so we also look forward to criticisms and healthy debate. The best solutions are those that are based on the desires of the group they are designed to serve. In this case that is you who are reading this now. We have taken input from many here already (you know who you are!) and looking forward to more. The goals of this project are many. Here are some of the top items on our bucket list of what we hope to accomplish with this offering: - Create a durable and attractive specie for Bitcoin.
- Provide a floor backing in hard physical asset for Bitcoin as a global currency with a distributed decentralized bank, all the holders of specie.
- We wanted this to be a pocket-friendly piece, for easy daily carry as pocket change.
- Pieces ought to be easily carried and useful for trade at point of sale without worry about damaging the piece, or waiting for confirmations.
- Offer low-priced intrinsically-valuable high production volume quality piece that would be numismaticly attractive and innovative.
- Provide options for the collector community without pulling any Bitcoins out of circulation in the blockchain.
- Provide a means to swiftly and assertively present an accurate current value as both precious metal and bitcoin can suffer price volatility
- Support both completely anonymous and non-anonymous transactions through total fungibility (most previous physical bitcoins are individually unique and serialized) just like paper currencies.
- Support a definitive unit of account.
- Provide a bridge to non-bitcoin users so that the bitcoin economy may expand through the use of this innovative project.
- Global attractiveness, there should be something for everyone within the design, to encourage the peaceful prosperity that common units of trade have done through out the ages.
- Sold at volume, these should be available at a slight discount to displayed trade value so as to engender an organic distribution network of folks naturally compensated for providing that distribution service to their local community.
- Provide a commensurate but better value for money than was traditionally offered by the strongest specie offered by nations of old (US silver coins were 90% silver and 80% weight yielding 72% value for seigniorage). Ours are starting at 75% and projected to increase.
- Support the capability of conversion to any currency, crypto or fiat that a recipient of a trade may chose to honor, globally.
We do not seek to compete with any of the other physical crypto-currency available, but to provide a complementary offering. We owe a debt of gratitude to the previous offerings that have helped to foster the Bitcoin economy from early days. These are fundamentally different in an important way, they do not have any bitcoins embedded within them, they are fine gold and silver pieces denominated in Bitcoin. The advantages of bitcoin and bullion are relatively opposite, but by unifying them, each gain strength from the other. Bullion pieces are most useful in person and locally. Shipping them is costly, requires security, and delay. Bitcoin is less useful at point of sale, requires time to confirm, but Bitcoin is the best there is for long distance transactions. Bitcoin's value is consensus based, not backed, and not intrinsic. Bullion is the opposite. The hope is that by providing this offering we create a way to unify these, and in so doing make each better than they could be alone. The idea is that these specie can be used at a point of sale for trade value (barter money) in the same way that a crypro currency can, but with folks that have never used or wanted any bitcoin... It is a physical object, valuable to everyone, and as silver and gold are great conductors it will be warm out of your pocket but cold as it quickly offers up its heat. Drop it into someone's palm and it will glisten with a nice BTC on it. Flip it over and scan the QR code and show the current value of it in bitcoin (or dollar/euro/litecoin/yen...) and make your trade. The recipient of it will be enticed to scan it to show it to their friends, and they will see the price of bitcoin change over time. They may wish that they had taken the bitcoin instead of the silver. They may also be happy that they took the silver instead of the local fiat. So they won't be entirely disappointed. We hope you will let us know how we are doing after you learn more about this project. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
