Listen to yourself. You're telling me that Bitcoin is democratic, it just isn't democratic as we know what being democratic means in the real world.

It's like saying my bike is blue, it just isn't blue as we all see the color blue.

Can you see how little sense you make?

hazek, I’m not even going to argue with you since you are completely detached from the public and display no empathy. All you want to do is nitpick because you perceive democracy as BAD BAD BAD. Is this some new kind of libertarian political correctness?

Well, too bad most people approve of democracy. They will feel alienated if you describe Bitcoin as NOT democratic. If you want to just stagnate with this current circlejerk, I guess that’s okay though.

What I and many other people think democratic describes is fairness, openness/transparency, equal rights, equal vote etc.

I can guarantee you that advertising Bitcoin as non-democratic is one of the worst marketing strategies ever.

Hi Rudd-o

Thanks for sharing. We were more talking about investments like Depository receipts for equities in the real economy, that could be tradable within the bitcoin economy, rather than a currency peg like the hkdusd peg.

How does the regression theorem apply to prison 'money', eg. cigarettes, booze, drugs (not sure what is used these days)?

Bitcoin is similar to prison money, in that the Western states have gradually outlawed a freely traded digital money product and implemented a type of fiscal prison planet arrangement, whereby digital transactions are monitored and scrutinised with all the power of the state apparatus and every citizen is a suspect, presumed guilty. bitcoin monetisation is somewhat a natural reaction of the 'prisoners' seeking to trade with more monetary freedom. TSR being the obvious example as supposedly one of the biggest uses of bitcoin.

Arguing about the where, hows and whys of bitcoin being used as money without recognising the circumstances of our time, that has given birth to bitcoin, is discounting the context as surely as discounting the context of prisoners being incarcerated as having nothing to do with them monetising cigarettes.

You're just making yourself look like an ass and displaying your own ignorance. The effect of temperature on fission rates isn't something new - it's was already well-understood physics by 1950.

Any college physics textbook should describe the phenomenon and give you the information and the background to understand it.

I understand that you have some kind of anxiety problem and want to manage it by controlling the facts you are exposed to but you really should really find a more productive way to deal with it.

A therapist could help you out with the anxiety and a physics textbook could rectify the deficiencies in your understanding of how nuclear reactions work.

So given all that why did we use a uranium fuel cycle .... Simple, you can't build bombs with thorium.  The sad thing is the uranium legacy was for nothing.   After the DOD co-opted the DOE nuclear program and steered (forced ?) development away from Thorium and towards weapon friendly Uanium  it become obvious that power reactors would never be able to produce the quantity of weapons grade material necessary.  So we built dedicated "bomb reactors" optimized for the production of weapons grade plutonium.   The rest of the world copied the US model since the R&D, designs, and expertise already existed and Thorium being theoretical and untested got sidelined for 60 years.  

Thoruim reactors however don't require many concessions to safety, like building a huge dome around them, because they can't explode/vent dangerously, or containing uranium carefully, because they don't contain any uranium and much of the earth is made of thorium so it's quite safe.

If they worked in the same way uranium nuclear reactors do there would be no point at all.

First of all, look at the title of this thread, which you wrote yourself. Second of all, you made several comments in the past where you said that this or that person need to be forced to behave this or that way. You bitch all the time about "libertarians". This type of thinking permeates through your anti-libertarian pro-statist ramblings.

Even though I consider myself an anti-statist, I typically go at great lengths to not formulate my arguments in a way that their validity depends on the hatred of the state.

Many of your arguments, however, fail on this neutrality. Their validity pre-supposes that the activities of the state are economically beneficial or at least ethically permissible. Your very first sentence in this thread is


This is keynesian pseudoscience, akin to the argument that the purpose of blood letting is to cure disease.

Similarly, your last paragraph in the original post


indicates that you approve of this.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.

I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the scientific consensus was, at one point, that phlogiston caused and was released during fires.

Scientists can be wrong, even in great numbers. A wise man looks even at the consensus with skepticism.

This is good information to know.  Thank you!


From the angle of your post, you seem to be purposing this information more toward IPOs than Kickstarter sites.  Investment generally, though, is not a privilege that's allotted to us in drips and drabs by people who purport to be our political representatives.


That's a pretty big assumption.  It will probably remain in the Act, and the Act will get passed.  But people have forgotten these days that just because legislation is passed, it doesn't automatically become law.  Legislation is a paperwork term, a term of bureaucracy.  It refers to the process; are all the papers signed by the right parties?  dated correctly?  handed in on time?  Then it's legal.

But to also be law, it must be valid in law.  That means it must correctly adhere to the proper delegation of authority.  In the U.S., the delegation of authority goes from God -(into man's system of law)-> to the People -> to the political representatives we delegated.  With the Constitution, we delegated certain specific authorities to our representatives.  Anything not specifically delegated remains with the People, or with the various States.

That hasn't stopped any number of politicians drafting all manner of legislation and getting it passed, but it certainly doesn't make it law.  If we remembered that political authority doesn't arbitrarily flow out of a politician's pen, we wouldn't be so concerned when stuff like the blatantly unconstitutional NDAA passed last December for example, with 93 of 100 senators voting in favor of obvious treason.  Because we would all know it was void the moment it was penned, and never could be law.  Nobody would adhere to it as if it were, and we'd have quite a response to politicians who have the temerity to draft this stuff.  But for now, since the People have forgotten the nature of the political structure they built, politicians have been getting away with it with impunity.

On a more practical basis, an increase in legislation limiting crowdfunding will probably lead to a public increase in Kickstarter-like sites on the darknet.  Where the crowds can collectively fund anything they like.  Seems like the natural social response.


hazek, I quoted your response because my point above speaks directly to it.


It shouldn't be that long before someone creates a Kickstarter/BitCoin for taking down corrupt politicians and CEOs.  Wouldn't take much; a crowdsourced Wiki [that requires people to cite their sources] that also creates a ChipIn-like BitCoin fund to pay the court costs and the attorneys' fees.  Any court-awarded damages could go directly back to the users who invested in that fund, in whatever proportion they invested.  People could actually profit from sorting out all the corruption among corporations and politicians.  I mean, we are in a target-rich environment there.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

While the world will demand increasingly productive people the thought of humans as logic machines without feelings to interrupt that pursuit is majorly disturbing.

I'm not convinced mastering emotion is lacking emotion.