Luckily, one of those things has now been fixed.

And I'll also ask, again, if you do indeed have obligations to others, which I agree is a reasonable statement, how much is that obligation/debt/claim worth, and what does it cost to pay it off?

Quite a few things:

1) Blockchain.info identified a possible software security issue and patched it
2) Blockchain.info identified a situation that may cause a conflict of interest, and resolved it.
3) The community as a whole was made aware of the issues that may arise from conflicts of interest, poorly worded TOS, and public sharing of information.
4) People and business owners got to discuss and brainstorm how to deal with these situations, and have made their own conclusions along with differing alterations to their TOS. Specifically regarding how to deal with private information, whether to share info on suspected scammers amongst other businesses, etc.
5) We got rid of at least one dishonest person. Whether he is a scammer or not (I don't think think he was), what he did want right, and Roger got 100% conclusive evidence of that (blockchain.info's anonymizing addresses are NOT one-time use like the guy claimed).
5a) We maybe have sent out a warning to others that you're not as safe as you think you are, and your specific country's laws may not protect you, so it's best to start maintaining a clean reputation record now.

Yes. Yes there would be. But they wouldn't be cheap. Someone would have to be worth way more dead than alive for someone else to spend the $50,000 or so it takes to hire one.

Dalkore, just caught up reading the rest of your arguments. The gist of your claim is that, since you were born in this society that provided you, you now "owe" that society for the things it provided. Fair enough. So, tell me, how much is that debt, exactly, and how can one pay it off? I'm not even suggesting "i paid of my debt, so nowI can ignore rules and laws when I'm visiting others or am on public property." Rules that others establish for their own property I'm fine with. I mean, how much do I have to pay to buy back the claims that the state has laid on me and my own property, so that I can be free  to have my own rules on the land I own, and pay taxes only for services  I want?

Either get rid of government, OR start our own society elsewhere without it, OR slowly make government irrelevant, the same way BitTorrent made their copyright powers irrelevant, Bitcoin+Tor is making their drug policy irrelevant, and 3D Printing will soon make regulations on what you can and can't have irrelevant (gun control laws will have to be rethought when anyone would be able to print almost any weapon at home). And self-organizing isn't that farfetched. We are social beings who do it all the time with or without government.


You are contradicting yourself in the bolded parts. Is it "people are more scared of corporations," or "people are more scared of other common people?"

I think you need to realize that you are the ones who are headed towards nothing. Do you disagree that corporations lobby politicians and help write the laws? Or that those who know the industry go to work for corporations who pay more, and only those who don't understand it completely, and thus don't know how to regulate it right go to work for the government? There is no fix for this. You can't legislate it away, because corporations write the legislation and pay to elect politicians. This has only gotten worse over the last few decades. How do you stop it?

I don't believe they will change, either. There will always be assholes in any society. What will change is whether there is a government to enable the corporation's bad activities. Instead of the people saying "That's wrong!" and the government saying, "Well, it was still perfectly legal," there will only be people saying "That's wrong!"

As for how do we get people to genuinely care about about other people, the environment, and future generations, we don't actually "get people to do that" now. People already care about that, and they only pass (ineffective) regulations to try to enforce it. People will still care in AnCap society. They will just have to figure out how to enforce those regulations without a government that gets most of it's lobbying funds from the corporations it's trying to regulate (e.g. Boycott bad businesses and anyone dealing with them, use force to protest them, donate to private "awareness" groups who can help spread the message, etc. Imagine if Greenpeace had the funding, resources, and ability to own battleships, instead of rubber boats)

In the end, the value of the society will truly be measured from the base, with the people deciding what is important to them, what they believe to be moral, whom they wish to fund, and how to spend their money, instead of having all of that dictated to them by the government (for example, personally I would prefer all the taxes I pay that go to fund the wars and oil/farm subsidies, go to NASA instead, but I don't have a say in that)

The negative image others try to pin on Bitcoin is not that it's only being about scams. The negative image is that Bitcoin is full of scams, and that we either don't ever do anything about it, or run to the police contrary to our free-market beliefs. Regardless of whether asking police for help is hypocritical or not, it is simply not effective on a global scale Bitcoin operates on. So the only solutions we have are 1) whine about it and keep getting scammed, 2) go to the police who ignore us, and keep getting scammed, or 3) live up to the "horrible free-market" ideals we get ridiculed for, and actually take care of the scamming ourselves.

We tried 1 and 2

It wasn't. The "third party" in question was one of Blockchain.info's customer support staff, who used that info for personal reasons, and has since been fired from that position.

Yeah, I was thinking about much nearer term. Like, "I've been living and working on this mining station on this asteroid for a few years now, and it's pretty cheap do fly-by's around Earth's orbit while I drop off the raw materials, but I better not screw up and get caught in the gravity well, otherwise I'll get stranded down there, and it will cost a fortune for me to get back home."
Or even just that visiting neighboring asteroids is cheap, but visiting family at home on earth is not.

I sincerely hope that one of the lessons learned from this whole experience is that all Bitcoin-based businesses will add the following to their TOS in big bold letters:

"NOTE: if you try to scam us, and we find out, your account will be canceled, all your information, public and private, will be shared with all third parties we do business with, who may stop doing business with you as well, and this information may be shared publicly at our discretion."

Since Bitcoin business is done globally, some guy from China calling the police on someone in Greece is really not practical, and the threat of being even mistakenly labeled a scammer would hopefully knock these "Prove that I scammed you, asshole!" guys down a peg.

Also, I am concerned about the deceptive title damaging the reputation of blockchain.info, who, if you actually understand how they work, have absolutely no way of getting your coins even if they wanted to, the owner which was not involved in this, and who handled the issue quickly and professionally.

Just had a weird realization - right now it costs a not small fortune in fuel costs to go out to space, and is cheaper to stay down here. Once we're more or less space-bound, it will be cheaper to stay in orbit, and cost ridiculous amounts just to come down to visit a planet and come back up.

No aggression is very simply "don't hurt me, or take my stuff without permission." Nothing more. There's no "cherry-picking."
What do you mean by "continuation of violence?" Are you saying that if someone violently robbed you, you should just let them go and let them keep the stuff they took, because doing otherwise would be a "continuation of violence?"
Can you give an example of your activity based on greed and narcissism that causes harm to society? There are two ways someone who is greedy can satisfy their greed: take what they want by force, or exchange their wealth and labour for it. Our premise is that the former is aggression, and will be checked by aggression in kind, and the later only works if the greedy person has something of value to exchange and contribute to society. So I want to know how else might a greedy person be greedy and cause harm?

OK, a little misleading. Yes, they pay taxes, though not a lot, and the people it is abusing do still pay (in part) of the security force that is keeping them down. And if it's a government entity that is being abusive, then it's directly people paying to keep themselves at bay. At least with AnCap you could hope that those people would stop buying/paying for services provided by that security firm.


Actually, no. This wasn't somethingI just pulled out of my ass. I'll admit, "trading peacefully is way more profitable than using force" isn't even my original idea. It's supported by most of last century's history. See Japan, and more recently China, and America's relationship with both as a blatant example, and there are many more out there.

I was a statist too, so that can't be it...

Oh dear fucking god, we will have actual real trolling in actual real life 

Step one on your trail, you have to realize that rules and regulations exit to protect corporations, not to restrict them. Many regulations are structured in such a way that only the corporations can afford to follow them, essentially keeping all smaller competitors off the market. Also, business people know business very well, while politicians who pass laws do not. So any laws and regulations that get passed are often written by the corporations themselves. The most egregious offense in regards to this abuse is corporations helping pass regulations that either make what what do actually legal, even if it is unethical, or they pass regulations with suggested fines, which when levied are actually way too small to punish. Heck, look what happened when BP spilled oil in the Gulf. All their safety regulations were followed, because they wrote them, and the regulators were too incompetent to follow up on and enforce them, and the "huge" fine they had to pay, which they got in exchange for not being allowed to be sued by anyone else, was tiny and way less than the cleanup cost.
In an AnCap state, the first thing that may go is the corporation's "limited liability" status. If the person running it fucks up, HE has to answer for that, not the shareholders out of who's stock the fines get paid out of. The second thing will be that there wont be a government with its laws making what the corporation is doing "legal." If it's not screwing people, it will do well. If it is, it wont have a  veil of "legality" to protect it. Here's another thing: what do you think will happen now if a corporation screwed people so much that the people decided to go beyond simple boycotts, and staged a violent protest, trying to kick the corporation out of their area? In AnCap nation, either the corporation will have to leave, or it will have to spend enormous amounts on private security 24 hours a day. Now, the corporation has such a security force, in the form of the police force and US military, providing that security protection for them for free, paid for by taxing those very same people who are protesting!

In short, misbehaving in an AnCap setting will likely be much more expensive than playing by the rules and staying ethical,  which is very much not the case now. What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

I was under the impression it had everything to do with someone way more intelligent and mature for his age than his peers, driven to madness from having to deal with bullying and ostracism by those too dumb to understand him (like the few cases of highly intelligent loner school shooters before him), and nothing to do with our sociopolitical structure?

I don't know... what do people do about it when it's happening now?


I guess what we have now isn't any better then?

Apparently the same thing that is happening in states with privately run prisons - police arrest people for stupid minor infractions, just so that the prison can make extra money, and no one is willing to stop it because "crime is bad."
Or the same thing that happens in every social republic turned dictatorship.
So, in other words, AnCaps will have to figure out how to deal with that just like democratic government types have had to. It's a stupid question, because someone else can just say, "What happens when voting becomes suppressed, and a democratic government becomes tyrannical? See? Democracy is bad/doesn't work!"

BTW, nice thing about AnCap is that, unlike Zeitgeist, AnCap can be started with a small community. It's even starting to materialize online. So, the answer to what will we do with free-loaders, irresponsible people who didn't save for retirement, and the lazy who never bother to learn personal responsibility is easy: we'll deport them to your countries