|
Fundamentally, the value of bitcoin goes up when more folks want them.
Folks might want them for two reasons.
1) They are like tulips (speculation)
2) They buy you what you want and are better money than other alternatives.
I am more interested in working on #2 than #1.
|
|
|
|
Do you pay taxes? If so, thanks for paying the cops to kick me in the head, and the NSA to watch me, and for me to get away with $200ebt in free food sometimes.
Have I ever bummed a cigarette of of you? I can't recall.
Yes, I do pay taxes. Against my own will, so that I don't get my own head kicked in also. I also have the joy of paying the NSA to watch me, as well. Here's an irony; up until very recently, I received EBT benefits as well. I was required to accept them due to terms of a contract, with the state. I know, a further irony. The reason was because I was fostering two brothers, and the birth parents already received EBT, and I was obligated to maintain all benefits until such time as parental rights were terminated. They were terminated shortly after my wife & I adopted them, because there is no way that we qualify and no way that we were going to pursue them anyway. I've never lived in Texas or Tennessee, nor do I smoke, nor do I frequent furry bars; so I seriously doubt I've ever given you a cigarette. How about NY, NJ, Philly, Baltimore, Hardy, AR, Raleigh or Asheville, ect,ect? Have you given spare change to someone who used it to buy cigarettes I could have gotten to? Or paid for a good or service from a smoker? Do you know what a "snipe" is? Edit: I hereby command you by the powers vested in me by whoever to start frequenting underground grindcore shows, SCUM lesbian bars, and furry conventions. I believe one of the latter was held ajacent to San Jose 2013. It was just a planning meeting for a furry con. There was a comic book con also adjacent. Fun folks. |
|
|
|
Murder was rare in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patriarchic, pre-state communities. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are determined to ignore history. They spread Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic.
You've never heard of territorial animal packs fighting each other for territory? Don't some types of apes that live in pack communities war with each other all the time, including to the point of killing members of the opposing tribe? The patriarchal chimps, yes, they fight sometimes against each other. The closest related species to the homines sapientes, the non-patriarchal pan paniscus, don't. They make love instead of war, all the time. pan paniscus = bonobos Is this the plan for your matrilinear consanguineous campground? You may have something there! I <3 bonobos. And because I have some capital, I can share the love with http://www.bonobo.org/Whether it is more communal or capital based, I wouldn't know. |
|
|
|
To be honest this sounds like the same guy or group of guys connected to this business talking to each other.
(I'm just saying.)
Heh, no. Just the first customer. That's my connection. Never heard about it before Tuesday. Today I have bitcoins bought through them and paid for at BofA.  No doubt I sound over ebullient, but after repeated missed connections with other attempted transactions I'd tried to organize on my own, I was pleased that this worked so well. The coolest part is that there are no fees for anyone, except what the bitcoin-broker takes. The website is a bit of a kludge but the process works. As a proof-of-concept stage start-up, it is a success. If it evolves, I suspect one of the large escrow companies will probably try to buy them out when they discover bitcoin and try to catch up. |
|
|
|
To share and to trade is a completely different story. To share water is no problem. To trade and accumulate water is the problem.
Distinguishing between sharing and trading seems an essential problem. Avoiding accumulation may be another problem. Consanguinity is fine as an arbitrary rule. It works like most arbitrary rules, for some-but-not-all. By matrilinial I suppose that you mean the women are the ones that don't wander and switch consanguineous groups, and the men have the choice of which consanguineous group they wish to attempt to join in order to prevent complete inbreeding? So far it doesn't seem very pleasant, or any any way preferable to even the shambles we have today, so I am very curious as to what makes it excellent. I am sure that I don't understand it yet. |
|
|
|
|
It was fast.
Easier even than localbitcoin! I could pick one of the many branches of the bank specified and do so at my convenience without worrying about keeping someone waiting for me at a coffee shop or wherever.
It is a great service and I hope for it to succeed.
I have attempted to arrange a similar process with folks independently of any service when using localbitcoin and had only limited success so the existence of a service that does this for me is very much welcomed to have a 3rd party arrange for it.
In fact, it is easy enough so that folks who are new to bitcoin can use it without difficulty.
The transaction takes place in the comfort of your home, and in a very secure banking location, on your own schedule.
It offers a lot of advantages. So far so good.
|
|
|
|
|
Confirmed, bitcoins received. The process was swift and effective.
You are off to a good start. It is an escrow with good visibility.
The criticisms above are good ones, (site management, security, business depth, insurance bond, etc) and they worth working through as your time permits. I hope for your success and look forward to more transactions in the future.
|
|
|
|
No it isn't.
The humans eat things which are not their own self.
If it were self sufficient, it would not need a forest or tundra. It could live in vacuum.
Forest and tundra (and air and water) may be shared resources, and so there is interdependent economy with the others that may cohabit.
Since you are absolutist with others, you should be with yourself as well.
To be economically self-sufficient means here nothing more than to be self-sufficient from economic interaction with other economic operators. I cannot remember of a discussion here to be independent from anything. That's the case in nirvana and nowhere else. I admit to being baffled by this. You have strongly stated that to be self sufficient is to be not dependent, but now you do not remember a discussion to be independent from anything. So it does seem that what you are proposing is nirvana-like. It seems so unreal and hard to even imagine. I need some help to imagine it. What are the other economic operators from which you will be self sufficient? (people, animals, plants, communities, or societies)? How will you avoid sharing air, water, land, weather, earth with these other economic operators without a pure isolation? How will this isolation/sharing be maintained without inter-dependency? Truly, it seems like ouroboros, if you can achieve it, congratulations. Many will likely try to follow that example once it exists, most folks in our simplicity adhere to the notion of ex nihilo nihil fit and do not consider such an amazing future. I am still far to young to have a philosophy, but I remain always eager to learn from those that have come to interesting conclusions. |
|
|
|
Sure, but selfsufficiency is an oxymoron for common definitions of self and sufficiency, if you want to be absolutist and not ouroboros.
No oxymoron. A community beyond the society (rain forest/arctic tundra) is selfsufficient and not economically dependent on other communities. No it isn't. The humans eat things which are not their own self. If it were self sufficient, it would not need a forest or tundra. It could live in vacuum. Forest and tundra (and air and water) may be shared resources, and so there is interdependent economy with the others that may cohabitate. Since you are absolutist with others, you should be with yourself as well. |
|
|
|
The State Specializing in: Rape, the explicit support of Capitalism and Murder Contact Info: Don't worry, We'll find you! Bias is in the eyes of the beholder. To the anarchocapitalist, the state seems socialist/communist. To the anarchocommunist, the state seems capitalist. Even if both are anarchs, the division conquers them. Truthfully neither know what a free society would look like today (even if they can imagine what it looked like in forests or long ago). It is just so much theory and hubris to plan this battle at the theoretical end. To me, as a consanguineal anarchocommunist, the state can be feudalist, socialist or capitalist. And again: a 'free society' is an oxymoron. In a society, where selfsufficiency is destroyed and non-existent, you are dependent on savings, pensions and the interaction with strangers. Sure, but selfsufficiency is an oxymoron for common definitions of self and sufficiency, if you want to be absolutist and not ouroboros. |
|
|
|
The State Specializing in: Rape, the explicit support of Capitalism and Murder Contact Info: Don't worry, We'll find you! Bias is in the eyes of the beholder. To the anarchocapitalist, the state seems socialist/communist. To the anarchocommunist, the state seems capitalist. Even if both are anarchs, the division conquers them. Truthfully neither know what a free society would look like today (even if they can imagine what it looked like in forests or long ago). It is just so much theory and hubris to plan this battle at the theoretical end. |
|
|
|
don't you still have to wait 2-4 business days for the transaction to clear to the bank?
There would be a delay with a check. This is depositing cash to your bank account by handing them bills and telling them the account number. It is credited before you leave the window. Convenient and fast. |
|
|
|
"Intrinsic value" is a misnomer, intentionally designed to mislead people. The only legitimate use of the term is in futures/options trading as there is a "present value".
Case in point, answer these three questions:
1) What is the intrinsic value of water?
2) What is the intrinsic value of water if you are lost in a desert?
3) What is the intrinsic value of water if you are drowning?
Σ(N * (% of time N applies)) If everything had the same value to everyone else at all times there would be no trade. How does any of this refute the notion of things having intrinsic value when it seems to indicate the opposite? Please compute the example above and give us the solution. The explain why it so. There is no something "intrinsic value" and using fuzzy words cause just fuzzy thinking. Substitute "intrinsic value" with "direct use value". Direct use value is the value of gold (for example) when it started to be used as a mean of indirect exchange (like many others). There is nothing "intrinsic" in "direct use value", because the subjective value change with the quantity available and its direct uses. Certainly true. Nothing has value without someone valuing it, so there is no "intrinsic" value, it is semantic slight of hand. It is elementary to philosophy of perception. Though when we climb out of the ivory tower and enter the town, there are things that have value without a law giving it value enforced by a state, and there are things that do not. The things that do, we have adopted the convention of calling that value, intrinsic. So sure, it is not strictly true, in that water has no value unless there is something to value it, but it also does not rely on a legal tender law to get that value, or being useful for paying a tax to a government. One of the core requirements of bitcoin was that it not have a value as something other than "money". This way it does not compete with a market for its use as money. It is designed to have no intrinsic value or backing, other than what we the people choose to back it with. I back it with gold and silver, others with their time, everyone that uses it for trade backs it with something. I will leave the computation and explanation to the reader as an exercise. Stuff has had the value people give it, over time, each in their own situation. |
|
|
|
Encryption itself seems safe, but the problem is that for SSL/tls the centralized certificate authorties which are subject to government coercion, hacking and the like. Meaning fake certificates and man in the middle attacks. Plus some centralized vulnerabilities in tor.
Without some type of working peer to peer CA (perhaps tied to bitcoin or namecoin) this is a big vulnerability as Moore's law marches on because it becomes easier and easier to monitor more and more. (Or save more and more for use later). Namecoin project has recently got TLS (https) working for names in the namecoin blockchain, "NAMESEC" ... i.e. TLS without CA's is now possible using namecoin blockchain and .bit domains. http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4285#p4285.... the "NAMESEC" protocol This is profoundly delightful. |
|
|
|
|
I bought the coins, paid at the bank.
So I should see the bitcoins show up shortly, and will post again when I do.
If this floats, it is super convenient.
Can drop off spare fiat at most any bank as I do my errands.
Or sell bitcoin easily direct funding into my own account.
It seems very good for fast liquidity of small amounts.
|
|
|
|
oh ya their will be a rally tonight no question.
silver just took a hit.
Dow, gold, silver, anything $ denominated. Bernanke is contemplating easing his foot from the accelerator. So dollar goes up a notch against other stuff because folks are believing it. |
|
|
|
For what it is worth, there is also some disagreement on the tern "slavery".
Some here are using it inclusively to also cover "entry level employees".
I'm not sure if you find that absurd, but think back to serfdom (commonly considered a form of slavery, just hit wikip & the wikipedophiles seem to agree). What was it if not renting the chunk of land from your feudal lord in a fair & mutually beneficial exchange? No like? Where's that entrepreneurial spirit?! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps & market your vast skills elsewhere!  I'm no expert but couldn't Feudal Serfdom be more similar to communal autocracy than to capitalism? (The general population owns nothing and works for the central planning authority who holds the monopoly on the right to violence within the geography). The point I was looking to make was that there is a vast slushiness in the terms which is not helping my understanding of what folks are hoping to discuss here. It seemed to start out on reconciling the notion of capitalism with the notion of taxes, and veered widely. I suppose the taxation regime in feudalism had a great deal of coercion involved, and probably more in some than in others. |
|
|
|
We, as a society, make toilers rich all the time through capitalism. Just look at India ten years ago compared to now. People with degrees were earning almost nothing, living in really horrid conditions. Then those same people started getting menial unskilled jobs, working in factories or phone support. Now those people are able to demand pay 10 to 30 times or more than what they used to get, working in research, software development, and engineering. India is no longer an ideal place to hire toilers, because millions of people were raised from the slums into middle class, not because of government programs, but because of market competition. Same deal with China. 10 years ago, people were working in horrible conditions in factories, toiling day and night for little pay, while barely earning enough to survive. Now, even though a lot of the work itself is similar, the working conditions are vastly improved. They are clean, well lit, with much better housing, resembling that of university campuses, instead of shantytowns. Sure, China has a bit to go still, but there's no argument that their toiler's situation has improved as well. And again, decades of communism and social planning couldn't do a thing to help those people out, but as soon as they allowed capitalism, however restricted, and outside companies to come in and compete for workers, things improved dramatically.
Unbelievable. This is your 'answer' to ktttn's argument, that this 'improved things' are exploitative and therefore not sustainable? Why are selfsufficient, stateless, non-capitalist communities in the rain forests not affected by 'horrible conditions'? The unsustainable nature seems more of a feature than a bug. Shouldn't a good economic system should foster socioeconomic mobility (rich becoming poorer, poor becoming richer) based on merit? This feature has degraded significantly in the USA since the broad adoption of state socialism over the last hundred years, but even still, the richest tend to not have been born that way. They have famously tended to give the bulk of their wealth to charities rather than to their children. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
