The reality of your joke of a system is this:
1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.
That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct? |
|
|
|
How will you prove you sent them Bitcoins if the wallet is anonymous.
It's not anonymous. You can sign a message to prove you own the wallet, and from there people can check the transaction history. Since this particular spend was done using Bitpay, THEY would have to sign the message. |
|
|
|
Continually spamming all carbon-related threads with links neither helps your cause nor advances the discussion. We have Google too, and you're oozing with confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
|
If they ask you a straight question, give them a straight answer. Bitcoin has no guaranteed exchange for anything else and is thus not technically backed by anything.
Nice sounding wordplay like "backed by freedom/internet/you" just sounds like you're trying to weasel out of it. If you demand backing, then don't use bitcoin or any major world currency.
|
|
|
|
If you buy bitcoins weekly as part of a long-term investment strategy, it's best to remain consistent. Otherwise, you'll quickly find yourself in the position of a daytrader, and unless you have experience in daytrading, you'll lose almost every time.
Judging by this week, it appears you were right and I was wrong. Thanks for the tip! |
|
|
|
Yeah, Rarity’s views are pretty extreme. I think most people that are that against anything fun were abused as a child. I don’t mean like their grandfather fucked ‘em up the ass. More like they lived in an authoritarian community that poisoned their mind with decades of Christian brainwashing. Things a Satanist might say. And because Satanists believe it, it must be ______? |
|
|
|
|
Today alone I've already taken three drugs (cannabis, caffeine, alcohol) but in small responsible quantities. In general I'm a huge fan of drugs, they've improved my life immensely.
However, I've never purchased anything off SR. Like many above have said, they just aren't yet competitive with traditional drug dealers. It's good to know they're available if I ever need it though, and I recommend SR for people who want hard-to-find drugs.
|
|
|
|
People who are (rightly, IMHO) afraid this could be a honeypot, could consider making their own 'fogger'.
On the other hand, isn't it possible to design a distributed 'fogger', and eventually include it (as an option) in the bitcoin client?
I would love to see a bunch of these foggers - use them in series and only one of them has to work as advertised. However, I don't think we should ever include them in the official client. * either gives preference to specific businesses or introduces trust problems * associates the whole Bitcoin project with eeeeeeevil "money laundering" * adds complexity and potential security vulnerabilities |
|
|
|
Because OP is a fagget.
FTFY |
|
|
|
I save a little in bitcoin every month and I'm waiting too. I'm by no means an experienced speculator, but I think everyone is just all worried because of Spain/Greece and bitcoin capitalizes on that uncertainty. (I'm giving away my insignificant position because I don't want to see what was stable growth turn back into scary volatility.) *shudder* over this past year I've slowly turned into a bear. Not as fun as wild optimism from last June!  |
|
|
|
Mark your calendars folks... On May 10th, MicroCash will be introduced
Did I miss it?  Notice they didn't specify which year. They also didn't specify to whom it would be introduced. Maybe after the successful closed-source launch of SC2, they decided to run with that and go closed-executable this time. First two months = MicroCash for inner circle members only! And of course they will need to reimburse these beta testers with special rules or tax money, a policy that will change after public release... |
|
|
|
And besides, it doesn't matter how much hashing power the government gets. They can deny to confirm transactions all they want. All that matters is that there is enough hashing power delivered by others, to confirm any pending transactions. Governments adding more and more hashing power for themselves, does not in any way decrease the hasing power of others.
Every heard of difficulty? That would just slow down non-government transactions, and make them more secure once confirmed by anyone. Kinda like the Mystery Miner who doesn't include new transactions. This whole thread is silly. "Sorry officer, my computer got hacked and they stole all my bitcoins." An easy one-way gate into the black market will always be available. All the government would accomplish would be to legitimize cryptocurrency and broaden its use. Just for shits and giggles, I would intentionally poison some high-profile green addresses with tainted coins too. People who actually launder money normally through businesses would have a field day. Ultimately, we would have people with brainwallets performing labor for one another, with no way to determine why they do what they do. |
|
|
|
|
Of course the free market can solve the problem!
First, allow me to defend against polluting aggressors by either:
A. making it really easy to sue them, or
B. allowing physical force, just as I can defend against a mugger.
Then I will join the other free-marketers and oppose carbon taxes. We can even do it gradually, or compromise if that helps. I just don't think the existing legal system is efficient enough to internalize most pollution costs on a case-by-case basis.
|
|
|
|
How's this for an idea:
In order to gain wifi access one must keep a webpage open that uses java to mine bitcoins, ala bitcoinplus.com.
Free surfing for the end user. Free bitcoins for the provider. Don't have to worry about money at all. Win-win.
My opinion: As a consumer, I would rather pay for internet directly than pay for CPU power that I usually won't need. If I wanted to pay for internet by CPU mining, I would do them independently. Unless there was a direct pay option, it would screw over people with slow computers, GPUs, or saved bitcoins. As a guy with wi-fi for sale, I just want money, I don't want to set up p2pool or whatever. |
|
|
|
...snip...
It's popular to hate on Nader supporters, but far more people never voted at all, or voted for Bush. Nader supporters didn't ask for a broken plurality voting system - they're just answering honestly. Maybe you should blame a Democratic party that has no intention of fixing the flaw that led to Bush because it keeps them in power too.
Hating them would be totally wrong but they tested their "it doesn't matter if Bush or Gore wins" view and when they got Bush, they were yelling about it being a disaster. In their case, they proved conclusively that voting does indeed matter. Agreed, whoever both claimed it didn't matter at all AND was upset about one beating the other is hypocritical. However, I think the number of people who intersect BOTH groups is quite small (if existant) and not representative of either Nader or his campaign. FWIW, I was a Nader '08 regional coordinator, I've even met him. The official Nader position is that there IS a difference between greater and lesser evil. It's still evil, though! We still would have yelled about Gore winning too, just not as loudly. |
|
|
|
You know, that's exactly what the 80,000 Ralph Nader supporters said in Florida in 2000.
For some reason, they changed their mind when their idealistic stupidity meant Bush won. I think you will agree that their votes did make a real difference, especially to Iraq.
Voting IS idealistic. You're more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the polls than you are to change the final result. You spend bus fare, wait in line, present ID, educate yourself about candidates, etc. If you're completely rational, then voting is a bad idea; your average utility will decrease. Even if your values include the welfare of others, there are much more efficient means to achieve it in the same amount of time. Most people unknowingly vote due to superrationality - they think about what if everyone like them skipped voting. Then the Bad Guys win! If you're willing to go to all that trouble to make an insignificant difference, why then take a step back and vote tactically, and with a one-move-ahead strategy like that? If you're using "if everyone did that" reasoning, shouldn't you vote for whoever you think everyone else should vote for? It's popular to hate on Nader supporters, but far more people never voted at all, or voted for Bush. Nader supporters didn't ask for a broken plurality voting system - they're just answering honestly. Maybe you should blame a Democratic party that has no intention of fixing the flaw that led to Bush because it keeps them in power too. |
|
|
|
Would somebody who's not on the ignore list please quote me showing the following link, thus giving him the opportunity to deny that that's not him: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=2482951~Bruno~ (see how easy it is to circumnavigate around the ignore option?)Your addition of the word "around" was unnecessary it's included in the definition of circumnavigate. Stop trying to use big words. Dipshit. I guess he should stick to short words like "faggets". I hate trolls so I keep coming back to this thread to show how mad they make me. |
|
|
|
I see the forum's two most preeminent sock puppets are hard at work derailing this thread.
Certainly better than a groupthink circle-jerk. I for one think FirstAscent raises valid and interesting points. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
