Hmm.

No dice. Gonna try restarting windows, see if something's hung up that way. If that don't get it, I have no clue. Steep learning curve, but with other coins this has been the one thing I haven't had an issue with yet S'pose it had to be somewhere. It is my intention to start mining this, as the diff is low enough that my pissant computer can probably do it. Plus, I just like the tongue in cheek nature of the OP.

There's nothing in it, nor any reference. I'll nuke the whole thing.

I've installed several other coin's wallets with no issue, so this was a bit startling

I'll give it a shot and let you know. Thanks!

ayYayYai!

I tried to wade through all that. You guys are funny as a three legged rabbit!

BFL?

I don't know what to think about them. It do look criminal.

On the other hand, there is an old gem of a statement that very well might apply.

Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be readily explained by stupidity.

PR is certainly not their strong point.

Without getting into all of the cases, though, I have to say that being convicted of anything at all by the USDOJ is not in itself proof that you did it, or to the degree that they claim. They both conspire AND are stupid. Not to mention as close to Acton's level of corruption as you can possibly get. Never trust the word of people with zero legal accountability.

And you can be a felon for mouthing off to a cop. Which ALL cops deserve. Yes, I know that is not directly relevant to this case. I'm just sayin' that in the modern Imperial court, Felon don't mean much, morally speaking.

ok, just started the qt program, and it's not connecting to the network. Any thoughts?

There has been no REAL line between banks and the rulers since at the very latest, 22 July 1944, and really I think 1913 is a better closure date from the complete miscegenation of government and bankster.

J.P. Morgan was openly trying for it before that, as were the Rockefellers, among others. John Maynard Keynes (who makes me wish I believed in an afterlife just so I could imagine him rotting in hell) published his General Theory of Economics in the early 30's, and catered to everything the governments wanted and that the central bankers wanted in his "theory". He even admitted, no, CROWED that it applied better to a totalitarian system than to a free market. He made it abundantly clear in his entire dealings and life that he simply didn't give a fuck about long term outcomes, his famous quote on it being "in the long run we're all dead.".

None of his "theories" hold water from an economic standpoint, but from the point of concentrating a huge amount of power in a very few hands, it's a marvelous idea.

Should any of you think that politicians have any goal aside from getting their hands on the levers of power, I suggest you hold your nose and get involved in the actual political process for a bit. I made that mistake in my youth. I recommend it whole heartedly to anyone who harbors any doubts about the nature of government and rulership. You will quickly discover, as I did, that a politician wants POWER over other humans like a drowning man wants air. Most of what they do in public is theater. They only care about the "people" in the sense that a rancher cares about his cattle. If even that much. They manipulate the currency that we use in order to gain the currency that THEY use, and in most of the West, that currency is YOUR vote.

Mine has been out of the system for the past decade. They have nothing I want.

eh. A religion is a successful cult. A government is a successful scam.

Well...

I've been following it since they made their press announcement (a few hours before they showed up here), and I don't think it's a scam. I think they bit off a bit more than they were ready for, but I also think they have it mostly figured out.

They haven't yet asked for money, which bolsters my opinion, and the rep is fairly responsive, if a little defensive. Then again, he got jumped pretty much in seconds.

I think that a lot of the people who have been here a while have gotten badly burned and think everything is a scam unless proven to a degree that you'll never see in a criminal trial. Not that a healthy dose of skepticism in this field is a bad thing, but I so far see no evidence of a con. Somewhat amateurish from the business side, but that's kinda the hallmark of a new industry. It's very rare to see a lot of really highly organized businessmen in this sort of field. You more likely get really smart geeks who know hardware and software, but aren't great at pr and the machinations of business.

I am not betting on any particular horse yet, but the three that I think have the highest likelihood of coming quickly to market are Knc, Terrahash, and Steamboat.

And before one of the "older" guys jumps me for my post count, yes, I'm a newbie. Both to the forum and to cryptocurrency. I lurked on this board for a month before I logged in, just learning. And what I've learned is threefold. One, I got a lot more to learn. Two, there are some really amazingly smart motherfuckers on this forum, and three, there are some people who would find fault with free gold, and they are vocal!

I'm a hard money guy, and I'm not sure what I think of bitcoin and it's variants yet. But they are really interesting, to say the least. Kind of a bridge between traditional fiat and hard money such as precious metals. I think the whole concept has a future, so I'm jumping in. Terrahash's rep (Amir) seems to be acting in a similar vein.

yeah, except that private scammers can only pull it off til they get caught or take their loot and vanish.

Governments and their paid servants/masters/symbionts can pull it off perpetually until the system either fails as in Weimar germany or until a revolution occurs.

Currently in the United States the so called "public sector" pulls in "wages" almost 40 percent above what you can make honestly. Even the lesser organized crime cartels aren't doing that well.

The guy got his shit jumped the day he showed up, and from where I sit, without much merit. He's been quite open, if a bit guarded, and hasn't promised the impossible. As for the copyright date on the website, that's easily explained, as I'm pretty sure I have the same template on a disk somewhere. You just cut and paste your data in, and it's easy to miss a spot. I think they are concentrating more on getting their background shit together, and working on the website as they have time.

I think they are legit. I ain't willing to risk money on it till I see more, but they are one of three that I'm watching, the other two being KnC and Steamboat. I basically think it'll come down to who gets the avalon chips first between Terrahash and Steamboat.

I tend to agree in the short term, however I see problems in the longer term. Gold exists. It is a basic element, can only cease to exist if the laws of physics cease, and is a known quantity.

Both have scarcity working for them. Both are currently viewed as a safe haven. But gold doesn't have the extreme volatility of bitcoin.

I see them working in tandem. But if the average man starts to see btc as a store of wealth ON PAR with gold, could make for some very interesting opportunities.

And of course a two week trend of correlation is hardly more than speculation, so this could be meaningless.

All in all, I think that cryptocurrency. Is a positive step away from the current clearly doomed to fail versions of free floating currencies. But so far its adoption is wide but not deep.

Hey y'all.

I've noticed something over the last few days. An interesting correlation proving nothing, but interesting nevertheless.

Gold goes up, bitcoins go down vs. the dollar, and vise versa.

Wonder if people are starting to see bitcoin as a better hedge?

I'd disagree if they do, but it's still and interesting correlation.

Factually, and historically provably, a State is a group of people who claim and attempt to enforce a monopoly of violence over a given territory. Statists hate that definition, but cannot FACTUALLY counter it.

Citizen is a bit more slippery. In a democracy (which in my opinion is potentially the most oppressive of all forms of tyranny), a citizen is generally a nominally human person who has the franchise.

However, in operating practice, the only place I can think of where having that franchise ACTUALLY gives an individual even a modicum of power over the ruling apparatus is Switzerland.

The term "citizen" is deliberately obfuscatory. It can mean a number of contradictory things. In it's original conception (as near as I can determine), it literally meant "city dweller" and purposely excluded the people outside the boundaries of the city state as in the case of Athens.

Back then it had significantly more impact on the individual outside of their own head. It entailed a great deal of responsibility, including being an active part in the rule of the city-state. That principle carried through somewhat to Rome, where being a citizen gave a man much more privilege and personal power than NOT having the title. It could be purchased, in fact, and often was. The cost was great, and not just in sestercii. Prior to the idea of universal suffrage, the commoner (peasant, denizen, vagabond) understood that they were subject to a ruling authority, but had no illusions as to being actually a PART of said hegemony. Democracy is a grand con game. It allows the commoner to have the illusion that they make  a difference to the State, other than as a milch cow. As Emma Goldman put it so well: If voting could make a difference they would make it illegal.

having spent most of my life in the so called real world, I'd say yes. The Average Man (TM) Is significantly dumber than a rock. And proud of it!

Any idea how much money you are talking about? (that looks snarky, but isn't. I honestly don't know.) I like this idea, in principle.

Will you accept 1,000,000 1936 Reichsmarks? If so, I'm in. 

I think you and I are in agreement on this. Though as noted, I think we've gone significantly off topic.

I also note how you illuistrated how much more of their income the ROMAN slaves/citizens got to retain, and back somewhat on topic, The Caesars, especially later in the Roman experiment, became infamous for debasing the currency and requiring the "Citizens" to use the debased coin as if it were at full weight. Which, currently, is very difficult if not impossible for OUR Caesars to do to bitcoin, which is why it will be/is seen as a threat to their hegemony.

depends on what you are good at.

Yes, I do. In order to be a citizen, by the general meaning since AT LEAST 100 BCE, one has to give up a degree (or in the modern sense just about ALL) of their individuality and rights. To be a CITIZEN is to be a servant of the body politic. To be a SLAVE, within that reference, is to be a servant to a private individual (who it could be argued couldn't really be a citizen).

Though in this case, especially in the modern world, I think I shall defer to Lysander Spooner's definition that Slavery is that which makes a thing of a man.

As to the use of "latin phrases", we are engaging in formal debate to a loose degree, and the logical fallacies have latin labels.

We are, not very loosely, debating what it means to be human, and whether one can still claim that status and be a citizen. My argument, again loosely, is that the two cannot equate as being a citizen makes a thing(property) of a man, and is thus slavery in an "exalted" form. I freely admit that I am a subject of the empire, and thus a slave. I do NOT believe this is in any way a good or even morally defensible thing.

If to be human means to be part of a hive, then I am an idiot. If to be human means to be a discrete individual with discrete motivations, then I am not. History seems to be on my side here.
Further more, ad hominem is usually used when you are unsure of or don't have a valid counterargument.

Look up non sequitur. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html this will help you out.

The concept of Citizen, and the concept of human (beyond just a tag for the species homo sapiens) is a complex subject. My opinion, stated above, is incomplete as it must be in a short reply. Yours has no obvious thought behind it, nor even any explanation of what it means, to you, to be a citizen. The standard definitions of the word are contradictory. The most common understanding of a citizen, vs. a subject, is that you have some hand in your own governance in exchange for some loss of autonomy. In the modern world's actualities, that exchange is so uneven as to be meaningless, OBJECTIVELY.

I may be an idiot, but it certainly doesn't follow from what you posted.