There are a lot of good articles on that site, but the author should tone down the ads. I made it to the site, I don't need to see an ad for the stuff I'm already reading...

This is what I quoted. Are you planning on throwing a burning rock through his window?

Obviously, they won't get you if a rock goes through his window unless you actually do come to the US.

But I was talking about those people who are saying they're going to come to his house and beat him up, or burn it down, or otherwise do something very illegal. I stand by my statement that those actions are moronic, but I guess I should revise my statement a little and say that "they're mostly equally stupid, but that some ideas were born stupider than others.

Why doesn't someone just sue him?

Why did you quote me, halfwit? Nothing you said was relevant to what I said.

It doesn't matter. You can still file a claim. It would certainly send a message to other potential scammers. Besides, people have talked about going to his house... That's much more drastic, not to mention stupid.

51% is arbitrary. I was just using it to represent the majority. However keep in mind, that there's no way to disregard a law.

Say we vote on a new amendment. 65% of the house agrees. 65% of the senate agrees. 36 states agree. The law doesn't pass. Thus, the government has gone with the will of the minority over the majority. More people are angry now than if the government had passed the law, all in the name of fairness.

That's why I believe in the majority. It makes no sense whatsoever to give the minority what they want. 51% seems ridiculous. But it's more ridiculous to go with the 49%.

Show me an example of the US hurting any Iranian. And your source has to be legitimate, not a conspiracy theory. And Israel is not the US, so I don't care what they do.



Actually, the majority of US domestic money comes from oil, and Walmart. No joke, Walmart is the second highest grossing company in the US, after Exxon Mobil. I guess that Walmart does sell guns, so you're kind of right. Fannie Mae is also up there on the list of "defense" companies that makes the US' money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

The US exports mainly industrial machinery and supplies.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/14/148460268/what-america-sells-to-the-world

The US exported $8,760,000,000 worth of military equipment last year. This is compared to the $10+ billion worth of military-grade soybeans exported to China alone. The US truly is an exporter of death and destruction, but mostly soybeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_defense_budgets

Those are some actual facts. Do with them what you will.

But what does that mean? What is the "best" practice? The "best" standard? Best is a very subjective term.


Explain to me how legislators will control BTC. They can't stop SR, The Armory (and similar sites), money laundering, or any of the illegal activities that go along with it. How will they stop legal ones?



People are free to do what they want with their money. Once bitcoin takes off as an actual currency there won't be laundering money through bitcoins because bitcoins will be the money.


Who defines these "standards"? Why are standards needed? Aren't bitcoins supposed to be regulated by the community?


Since when is bitcoin an industry? It's supposed to be a currency. You don't talk about the booming "pound" industry or the "USD" industry. And why would you comply with the government? They are not friends of bitcoin.


Why is bitcoin an industry?


I don't have to be a member... but I'm sure at some point it would become impractical to not be a member if you are a large exchange or business. If there are "standards" for members then there is some form of regulation.

These "standards" worry me. You keep saying "you don't have to join DATA" yet you want it to be popular, and you're going to be enforcing standards upon all of your members.

Which is it? Useful "suggestions" or actual, member-compliant standards that must be followed?

If bitcoin gets regulated, it's basically just fiat, rendering it pointless.

Really the only reason I disagree with the trolly situation is because it is so implausible. Real life does not just have two options, and I think that the best way to discuss philosophy is use realistic situations, as opposed to hypotheticals. I can see the value in it- and I'm sure that there are situations where people would believe that they must choose between the lesser of two evils. But there is always a third choice.

I think that the trolly could (sort of) be represented by appeasement prior to world war II- the Allies knew that giving Hitler Czechoslovakia would lead to violence and death, but they thought it was justified because they thought that forcefully stopping him would lead to greater violence. Of course, 40 million corpses later the Allies choice of non-aggression was a mistake. Had they stopped Hitler in Czechoslovakia, perhaps he never would have been able to occupy Europe and slaughter millions of innocents.

In this case, it appears that non-aggression led to greater violence.

However, say that you choose to pull the lever and switch the rails. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an example of this. Allied commanders knew that they had to do something to stop Japan- the country was going to fight to the death. They believed that they were saving more lives than they were ending.

However, the problem with any of these logic traps is that you can't know more than one outcome. We can't go back in time and stop Hitler, or invade mainland Japan. That's my main problem with NAP- There's really no way to prove it either way. However, just for the record, while I don't fully agree with NAP I don't agree with initiating aggression either.


I do believe that philosophy should have a base in reality, and that it should be judged based on realistic examples. Otherwise it's very easy to prove anything. I also believe that choosing a philosophy to follow is often detrimental. We should not allow a fixed set of ideals to determine how we act. Instead, everyone should have their own philosophy.


I think that his "righteousness" would have been affected had he immediately started killing Apartheidists. It is clear that he did everything in his power to negotiate with the government, but there's no negotiating with racists. Racism in itself is one of the most illogical ideals, and racists can't see reason. I think that they forced his hand.


I agree that forced social cohesion is not a very stable system. Obviously, if everyone truly agreed to one system and one society it would be stable, as it was based on the choice of the people. But if a government forces this cohesion, it creates paranoia and distrust, like you said.

That's why I believe that laws, and "morals", should be chosen by the majority of society. That way, there's less forced social cohesion.

I don't want to bring up a hypothetical, but if I use a real world example I'll offend someone, and that's not the point. Let's say a group of aliens from Mars come to Earth. They're different from humans in every way: They look different, they communicate differently, they don't even have the same genders we do. They even breathe nitrogen instead of oxygen. Naturally, the majority of Earth, let's say 90%, distrusts them, if they don't outright hate them.

The government has two options: they can force cohesion upon the populace. The aliens are given equal rights under UN law, and maybe are even given land to start settling on. 90% will be unhappy. Some are going to get violent. The majority of society will rise up, and probably end up hurting the aliens anyways. Society is completely unstable, as Earth devolves into a civil war.

Or, they can expel the aliens from our planet. This doesn't mean genocide, just that the government will not allow the Martians on Earth. In this case, 10% would be unhappy. A relatively small amount. The majority of people remain happy. The 10% might resist with their Martian friends, but ultimately they will have to concede.

There is still violence either way- whether it is the majority enforcing social cohesion or the minority attempting to. But when the majority takes control, there is more natural cohesion.

This is why I believe that "majority rules". Going way back in the posts, someone (I forgot who) said something along the lines of "If 51% of people are against gays does it make it ok to discriminate against them?"

I support everyone's equal rights. I want to make that clear. But in this case, I believe that supporting the 51% would be the more logical decision, as it enables more "natural" social cohesion. Society will be fractured in either case, but better to see the majority of society be happy then the minority. That being said, I would not take the "logical" decision and support bigots.


This looks interesting. I'll definitely check it out.

Actually, Joey Rondini got the tag and he scammed a grand total of .4 BTC...

I still don't understand the purpose of DATA.

Is it to influence good business practices?
    -What does this mean? No organization should have any power over bitcoins, whether it's just "influence" or outright control.

Is it to talk to legislators?

And finally, why do we need it? Why do legislators have to be talked to in the first place? Any "law" they make is a joke, since they can't actually regulate bitcoins.

Is there a mission statement? I haven't checked the DATA site in weeks, but when I did quite frankly it was pointless...

I don't think you're a jerk for that. Although it seems as if no one's interested...

Good. At least someone noticed. I was sick of seeing all the other posts that were believing it blindly.

I already posted a HuffPost article that said that no one visited her, and I posted a link to the Suffolk County site which shows that the "press release" was fake. Of course the blogger claimed after she got called out that the "press" release was released to only her, even though it is not addressed to her in particular. Plus, the photoshop sucks as she used the wrong font and forgot to include the name of the person that gave it to her, probably since impersonating a police officer is illegal...

I think the thread's resolved guys. OP already said that she called the bank.

But in the actual population, there is a greater difference between the lowest and the highest. In your example, the second set of numbers is the bitcointalk population, correct? You're wrong to assume that there is a "1" here or a "49". The smartest person on Earth and the dumbest are not on these forums. Bitcointalk is more "average" than the entire population, simply because it will lack extremes. It would make more sense to not include the 1 and 49. Instead the set should be 4, 9, 25, 36 which has a deviation of 14.71 (rounded). Of course, these are just random numbers, and that's not how the actual population is distributed. But you should still see the main point of how bitcointalk cannot possibly have a greater difference between the highest and lowest than any other population.

Well, in the case of the trolly, wouldn't the non-aggressive way be to not touch the rails? After all, you didn't put the people there... But by switching the rails, you've killed people that otherwise would not be killed. A better situation would be that you can either choose to kill the would-be murderer, saving the people on the tracks, or do nothing. But even if you chose to do nothing, it is not your fault, and you have followed the NAP.

Edit: You basically said what I said in the quotation. I wasn't reading carefully...

The "madman" logic trap makes more sense because in this situation, the defender is directly involved and has to make a decision. Their life, and the life of the attacker, will be changed depending on the action they take. One way or another a death will be their fault.

And logic trap or not, it only proves that the NAP is illogical. And what is the point of following an illogical philosophy that is basically impossible to follow?


Does it provide the best outcome, though? Take the revolution against Apartheid in South Africa. Initially, Mandella 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.


Well, that's why I dont agree with socialism.

He hasn't committed social security fraud  SS fraud is when you lie about needing money for a disability, so like if I claimed I was paralyzed, that would be fraud.

Seriously, why hasn't anyone sued him? This is the easiest way to get your money back, and more.

Damn, $15 shots? Is that normal? I'm not of legal drinking age (in the US) but I've bought them in other places and they were like $4 max.

You are not shooting down an ICBM with small arms. You are not shooting down a cruise missile with small arms. You cannot destroy an M1 Abrams with small arms. In fact, good luck destroying an Abrams with anything but another Abrams. And yes, you could kill the operators... If they open up the door and let you in. Otherwise they'll just laugh at your second amendment and tear you apart.

The only heavy weapon you could take would be a rocket launcher. But that's useless against any of the other things listed.

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.

For scams. Although if they're just junior accounts then they're more suspicous than a modern junior account...