I fail to see why that should be 'complicated'.  At least by the standards that one _should_ be employing to be secure in crypto-currencies generally.  And in fiat-land for that matter.

Yes, very sad <sniffles>.  Whatever you do, pleeeeese don't switch to an altcoin which serves your needs better.  That would break my heart.

Beautifully stated!

People who got invested thinking that Bitcoin was something it was not, or thinking it would become what they wanted it to be eventually, were either ignorant or were knowingly taking a risk.  There was a lot of marketing hype back in the day (which continues) so I can see how some people fell for it.  I personally did what I could to call it out.

These people don't necessarily deserved to have everyone bend to their (mis-)conceptions of reality, and especially not when doing so threatens some of Bitcoin's core pillars of strength.  This is particularly true since, as you stated, so many other options exist.

Will be to whom?  There are a range of use-cases so there is an equalibrium set by the intersect of two curves.  You're problem is actually something of a solution as I see things.

I do hope that what I've always called 'subordinate chains' and have more recently been known as 'sidechains' make it so that users can, in actuality, be enjoying the benefits of Bitcoin for buying and selling trinkets while the underlying core remains defensible.  This would make Bitcoin frighteningly powerful.

A second best which is still pretty good is that Bitcoin at least remains defensible, and is used by people who have a genuine need for such a solution.  This is what the current stalemate indicates.  To me.

Agree.  I was thinking that Franchi might be going to report that they ordered pizza and selected the Planned Parenthood special.

Back in the day one could not turn around without hearing that it was dumb to let someone else hold your funds.  Also, just about every Bitcoin 'business' that had ever been had been 'hacked' and 'lost' their customer's (aka, victim's) funds.  Even Gox had had their share of issues and there were some real questions about how competent they were even if they were honest.

It has always been best practice to only store BTC with an 'exchange' that one is looking to trade and to keep the bulk of one's holdings under one's own control.  I understand how people could have taken shortcuts so I don't assign 100% of the blame to the victims (though I've pretended that I do from time to time.)  Furthermore, it is probably as common for people to lose BTC by forgetting passwords or whatever than it is to be rooked by a criminal enterprise such as Mt Gox probably was, so 'doing it right' is not in and of itself a sure-fire means of protection.

The main galling thing to me is that every BTC lost through Mt. Gox is a BTC gained by some fucking thief.  This makes it different than someone overwriting their wallet.dat.  I can only hope that whoever the scumbags are they end up stealing from the wrong person and pay the price eventually.  Hopefully some of them already have.  There is little honor among thieves so the picture of some of these legacy heists will become more clear, and I'll bet that people who lost $100k will continue to be irritated as the value of their loss rises through $1M.

Spoken like a true Neocon.  That is to say, someone with zero military experience, zero concern for those who have, and zero consideration about what is good for the United States so long as an action is perceived to promote other goals and/or make them and their friends rich.

I guarantee that it will take longer than 'one month' even if we nuked the place first.  In fact I'm not at all convinced that 'we' would win.  Such an action would, however, delight those who would like to see the U.S. degraded (and collapsed when the time is right) so it doesn't compete with a more 'global' form of governance.

So were the Viet Cong.

So far, so good.

Frankly I've not seen this.  What I have seen over and over is:

  (mostly Israel plus US):  We are going to bomb you.

  Iran:  Bring it.  You'll regret it.

  (mostly Israel plus US):  Mommy, Mommy!  Iran threatend us.

Feel free to document your assurtion that Iran said (or does) anything to the U.S. when not provoked.  I know they bolster Hezbollah, but to the extent that that organization is a 'terrorist' one, it's not a threat to us and especially not if we would quite poking our nose into other people's business.

As for us defending our 'strongest ally' in the Middle East, I'm waiting for an explaination of what makes Israel so.  Seems to me that as often as not they feed us bogus intel designed to give us cover to fight their percieved enemies.

I hope so.  By far my biggest concern about Trump is that he might be inclined to do his friends/family a little favor and take care of their (and clearly not 'our') biggest long term strategic threat.  He could even have been installed to do this.  It really depends a lot on whether his fairly extensive list of Jewish associates are primarily American or whether they harbor either an affinity to the 'Jewish state of Israel' or dreams of a 'greater Israel' in the form of Zionism.  We'll know when we know.

If Trump lets America down here 2016 will prove to have been yet another choice between two wrecking balls and we'll have chosen between the 'New World Order' vs. the 'Jew World Order' to the extent that there is a difference.  Of course many of the proponents of both probably do believe in their heart of hearts that promoting their own agenda is _also_ in 'America's interest'.  For my part I doubt it.

Sadly, I am not at all surprised to see this from Trump.  I identified and predicted this weakness as outlined in an earlier post here.  Thanks to Infowars for holding Trump's feet to the fire in cases where he is abysmal.

https://youtu.be/O7DfDTjRe-s?t=12m36s

Civil asset forfeiture seems to be a place where Sessions can prove himself as someone who respects the constitution and can effectively stand up to Trump in the upward direction and his underlings in the downward direction.  Or he can fail.

---

I am so sick of 'news' outlets who parrot the same idiodic non-sense about Trump.  I have yet to see one of the thousands of them even mention the real problems that the guy has.

As long as the likes of David Knight are free to call it like they see it I'll continue to buy toothpaste and other overpriced shit from Infowars.  If they fall off the wagon, there are other places I can obtain the things I want and need.

I don't know about the Russians, but it is crystal clear that Clinton received massive support from the 'Davos Man' types that I alluded to.  Thankfully it was not enough.  McCain, along with Ryan, are also recently rumored to have been a beneficiary of support originating from Soros-land.  That would explain a lot.  Notably both Clinton and McCain are finally permanently and irreparably damaged here in the U.S., but it sure took a while!

If the disruptive Russian politicians you mention are similarly corrupted, hopefully they'll be identified and run out on a rail as well.  Especially if the growth of citizen-driven information gathering and analytical thesis can persist.  That will be an area of conflict going forward I think, and I think there is a fair chance that 'we' will win this struggle.  Or at least have enough 'surges' to stay in the fight.

If Russia and the U.S. both have the goal of remaining sovereign and independent nations (or re-achieving that mode as the case may be) then they do have interests which coincide.  If there are 'Davos Man' type people and groups who seek to integrate the two nations...or get them to mutually destroy one another for strategic reasons...then the two nations might recognize a common enemy.

To me 'safe zones' means exactly 'Kurdistan' that has been in planning and implementation phase as part of 'A Better Middle East' from the early GW Bush timeframe.  If Trump goes through with it (rather than getting us the fuck out of the Middle East and 'foreign entanglements' generally) it will tell me quite clearly that at least in this way he is in lock step with the Cheney -> Obama -> Clinton  long-term plan.  And I won't be a happy camper about it.

---

An interesting dynamic here is that Russia and Iran are natural adversaries.  They both have fossil fuel supplies for Europe.  Russia's interest is to NOT have pipelines which will compete with their own (meaning they exercise an element of control over those which do cross Syria (or the 'safe zones' which used to be part of Syria.)  Iran would probably not be broken-hearted to see us and Russia slugging it out somewhere.  Russia would not be broken-hearted to see us bombing the shit out of Iran...and, of course, we're nearly under direct orders from Israel to do just that.  All of us would be lucky to come out of any such conflicts without big chunks of the world being vaporized.

As far as I'm concerned, we've got enough fossil fuel right here at home to MAGA thanks to fracking and such.  And plenty to focus on in doing so.  I would like to get the fuck out of the M.E. and forget that the place exists.  If Russia wants to leverage their friendship with Syria and gouge Europe for gas, that's fine with me.  The EU has already fatally fucked Europe up already and in the process taught us all a valuable lesson in the dangers of 'globalism' and what the Technocracy has in store for the planet.

As for Israel/Iran, as far as I'm concerned there is only one country that SHOULD get nukes and that is Iran.  After the decades of very serious threats they've had lobed at them, mostly driven by Israel, they sorely need a way to defend themselves.  The only risk I see to Israel who already have 100's of nukes is that their Zionist 'greater Israel' dreams may be dealt a blow and they won't be able to expand their genocide.  Oh well.  Not my problem.  If a bunch of the Zionists in this country (e.g., Chuck Schumer) go down to Pedogate and Israeli control of our government/media/monetary_system/etc loses it's punch as their compromised puppets in our govt get rolled up, fantastic!  Jeff Sessions as AG just happened and there is a very real chance that this could happen.  Maybe even starting tomorrow!

Book review on Roger Stone's 'The making of the President 2016' which I bought through Infowars.

The main reason I buy media these days is as a show of gratutude to a content generator who's material I've appreciated.  This purchase was an example.

---

The book was reasonably well written given the time constraints and the supposed health issue that Stone experienced.  Stone (or his ghost-writer as may be the case) has a readable writing style which is neither to dense nor to light for my tastes.

The book was almost without exception a simple documentation of events.  It contained very little which was especially debatable.  As such it can be reliable for reference.  Although a somewhat larger book than I thought, and the various events were covered briskly, a lot of minutia was left out including some of the most entertaining episodes.

Since Infowars was probably my main source of information from the midpoint onwards and Stone was a big player there, I sort of thought that he was more integral to Trumps campaign than the book indicates.

There was very little theory in the book.  I followed this election (and only this election) like a hawk when I started around Super Tue which made it so not much in the books content was new to me.  Of course there were reminders of little things I'd forgotten (such as Pence endorsing Cruz) so it was not a terribly exciting read.

Hopefully Stone will do a follow-up or someone else deeply involved will and it will be more encompassing of the theory and practice of presidential politics applied to 2016.  Maybe even Trump will write such a thing...I suspect he personally was more involved than anyone since Nixon.  Especially notable since he is (or was) not a professional politician.

---

One last little note which is a little bit disappointing vis-a-vis Trump.  Stone clearly has no use for Lewindowski and didn't paint a very endearing picture of the guy, but observation also indicates that he was something of an obstruction and lacking in some ways.  My guess about Trump was that he would have recognized the problem and gotten rid of it (e.g., you're fired!)  This (purported) failure is worth noting as we try to analyze Trump's performance as POTUS.

I was sort of sensing that Trump was going to get rid of Lewindowski before the 'arm grab' incident.  Since it was a bullshit incident it actually made it difficult for him to do so.  He could, however, have started Lewindowski on the fast track out and made it so he could't as easily have done the kind of things that Stone reports vis-a-vis interfering with Manafort's tasks.  I had hoped to get some more incite into Trump's thoughts (or lack thereof) about such incidents which I could only muse about when they were happening.  I guess I'll have to wait for Trump himself to write about them if he stay's 'healthy.'

Of course.  I counter-troll by 'pumping' Infowars, but as with any decent trolling there are underlying elements beyond simple entertainment.  In this case I think it of value for people to realize that it is 'safe' to tip-toe into the minefield and actually absorb information from them since other people already do.  In spite of the silly sound-effects and rants and what-not they do put out a decent quantity of pretty good stuff.

I think that people have been conditioned to deliberately in immediately shunt anything which is labeled by TPTB a 'conspiracy theory' and that it is having a negative effect on society.  The thing about a 'theory' is that it is not to be 'believed'.  (If it were then it is a 'fact' rather than a 'theory'.)  Every 'theory' should be understood by anyone who has the time and interest to look.  Understanding something does not mean that one agrees with it or accepts it.  Indeed, one cannot logically reject a theory which one does not understand.


At this point I believe that Jones' primary goal is political and social rather than monetary.  Of course some of his work is 'fear-mongering' and there is a tie-in to the products he merchandises, but my sense is that it is more incidental than anything and a great deal of the time that it is not a driving force in his and his team's content generation.

As for Trump, it never made sense to me that he would try for POTUS as a money-making opportunity given his situation.  To much risk to life and limb, and if it materialized within his lifetime he would be denounced by those who are currently his most adamant supporters...if not his only supporters.

Trump might be trying to develop a political dynasty for his family to enjoy, but doing a shitty job as POTUS won't help that goal.  Look at how the Clinton and Bush families fared by being money-grubbing sell-outs.

It is possible that Trump envisions a totalitarian non-democracy where dynastic rule reigns supreme, but that model only maps well to what the one-world globalists are cooking up and if Trump is in that philosophical camp then he's doing a pretty good job of hiding it.  In a 'one-world' technotronic situation technology can deter Democratic sentiment from forming in the first place and that which does cannot coalesce and gain a foot-hold since no part of the world is available for it.

Infowars.com?  I certainly don't 'always' mention them.  In fact I think only when talking to you because you mention them and their 'brain force' even more than I do.

I do very much like the fact that Infowars in particular is becoming a dominant force in media, and I expect that it drives a lot of astute and semi-astute people to distraction.  They have a unique funding model which includes merchandising which makes them, to the establishment, a tough nut to crack.  Even more so because they put out a lot of valuable and powerful information.

To answer your question, 'yes', I do realize that I am 'getting scammed'.  I think that their products are overpriced and hyped to excess sometimes.  Not only that but I doubt that many people really need most of the stuff.  The alternative is to simply gift money and I do that even more with other entities who I respect.  In fact I've given both Wikileaks and Corbett Report more money than I've spent at Infowars.

Ya, that's the expected response from a state-worshiping control freak.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx


Generally speaking I'd feel in better hands with some street pusher peddling Mexican tar than from an AMA certified doctor pushing big pharma product.

BTW, I did another order from Infowars.  Mostly I wanted Carroll Quigley's book 'Tragedy and Hope' and it came into stock.  I didn't get any 'super male vitality' after all.  As much of a kick I get out of the name, it was not worth the $60 to have sitting unopened in my collection.

I did notice that Jones himself recently echoed my concerns about contamination of his 'nutraciudicals'.  My concern was that if Jones were a deep cover operative then he could be in on a scheme.  The concern Jones mentioned was related but different; industrial sabotage to discredit his operation.  He claims that they do their own random sampling and testing to avoid or detect this.  To me both are valid concerns although not likely.  I any event, I only buy his wares to support the effort and don't actually use them (except the vitamin D) since I have no medical issues.

I'll bet that an even lower percentage of these dumb-shits will declare their earnings than the percentage of Bitcoiners who will.  Could well become their 'get into jail' card.  I cannot say I'd be terribly saddened to see that, and if we need to spring some non-violent offenders to make room, so much the better.