So if I come up with something smart and profitable you should be allowed to copy it without my consent and profit out of it too?

Lemme rephrase. Do you have anything against the concept of intellectual property?

shit, gotta get me one of those

computer hardware

Do you have something against IP?

I don't see how you guys ever expect to abolish scarcity. Even if it can be achieved with commodities (and I don't think it can), there is still scarcity in labor; i.e. it doesn't matter that I am getting this floor for free, i'm certainly not going to cook bread for you with nothing in return.

also


That just made my day. It's hilarious how hardcore socialist will deny that the actual and past communist states aren't communist. Seriously? How in the world are you going to enforce socialism without a state... goddamn kids

You should drop the 4850. 4xxx cards have poor hash to power consumption ratio. Even with your electricty cost I think you're actually losing money on the 4850

I understand your point very well in that matter. Let's say my answer is the typical response you would get from a "fundamental" anarchist, in that the responsabilities that I am willing to bear and the actions that I am willing to take are certainly not enough to properly and effectively half wrong doings, in this case pollution, but that such actions will put a term to obvious, tangible problems that the actual system perpetuates.

I am aware that ecological consequences are of an unfathomable complexity, yet there are a few obvious, potent ill effect that could be put to an end right now and that would have disappeared long ago if it wasn't for government support. Let's say extensive corn farming as an example. But my knowledge of the environement is too limited to present you with well documented arguments, so i'll provide you with an economic analogy, since i think we can agree money is managed as a common nowadays.

I am thinking about fractional reserve banking. See, there will be people who will argue that fiat currency is necessary to support today's economy, or that debt supports the kind of growth that a savings based economy could never dream to achieve, and i don't pretend that walking out of the fiat system will fix all the ills of the world, simply that I choose to not be part of it (one of the reasons I like Bitcoin). But whatever your stand might be on that matter, the fractional banking act is an abomination and needs to go.

My point, if you may percieve it so, is that to chose between an unknown future rathered than a well identified evil, I will pick the unknown, and that I will always be best served by myself. And also that political power attracts the corrupt, so I wish for as little of it to be available as possible.

Of course, a society where people are directly liable for their actions is doomed if their members aren't acting is a responsible fashion, but then again, such is the case in any other type of society.

The contradiction with communism or socialism globally, is that it purports people should be ruled, implying they are evil, and yet that to rule them is for their own good, which they don't deserve, since they are evil by definition.

I aknowledge that socialism has birthed some social progress, but it all appears to me as a band aid to fix ills that have been born from socialist reforms to begin with.

Works better with my card, what can I say?

Barring any unforseen consequences, i'll be there on the 25th too

Man those guys are awesome. Under their own logic, hot women should be made readily available to the masses as a social service. Finally i can score some poon for free!

At stock speed you're looking at ~300MH/s. At core voltage, o/c to 925~950 is expectable on any given card. On my card, 925 is 350MH/s, 940 is 360MH/s, I haven't seen how far it can go yet. This is all with ram at 300MHz, -f1 and -w256 on win7

The problem with commons is that they belong to the "public", thus effectively to the state, and as such are administered by the state. As some people mentioned it results in several problems: Not only is the government the biggest polluter, they setup arbitrary pollution limits that are not respected by big corporations, and the same governmental restrictions allows these groups to pollute in complete impunity. Some of the governmental regulations are also completely misguided, like limiting levels of carbon dioxide, which is not only pointless but pretty much gives license to people to emit any other highly polluting gases as long as they keep their CO² level down, while being marked as "green".

The problem comes down to a few simple fundamentals. Under the rule of commons, essential commodities such as land, air, water cannot be made your private property, they are managed by a corruptible and corrupted entity, and you are forbidden by that same entity to defend these resources against the polluters. In a free market scenario, that responsibility would be yours. In this case, consumers would need to stop buying bad products such as leaded fuel and CFC based refrigerators, but you can certainly expect that I, in an attempt to keep my land, air and water clean, will sue those who don't. Keep in mind that the great majority of polluting substances that have been banned by the government have been so thanks to consumer pressure, not governmental impulse.



That's corporatism, the opposite of a free market.


You can't achieve social freedom without economical freedom. Communists don't have the luxury of being naive, since their concept is contradictory by nature.

I'm fine with any place really. Let's discuss content a little. Do you intent to match the meeting with a f2f Bitcoin trade meeting?

What you are describing here is communism, or any form of authoritarian government in general. What about free market? Do you pretend employers will disappear under such conditions? Your idea is that if person A needs my expensive gizmo to build his widgets and that in return of letting him use my gizmo, i get to buy widgets off of him for less than i resell them for, that this difference in price should eventually bestow him ownership of my gizmo. This is in contradiction with the principle of private property for I never chose to sell him the widget for that cumulated price difference; and note that no state was involved in this relationship. Now, are you implying private property is wrong, or that the state, keeping the man down from his "fair" reward is wrong is supporting private property?

The "market" as you call it is an indicator of the potential price a given item can fetch GIVEN a few conditions:

1. That you have access to that market place. If a 5870 sells for $180 in the US and you live in Europe where they are $250, no amount of bitching about evil middlemen at your local store will bring the price down to American standards.

2. That there is a demand for that particular good in said market place. A PS3 is worth $200 in the US. Now try and sell it for that much in Somalia.

Even then there's no guaranty you'll trade for the market's quote. You might sell cheaper, or buy higher, since yeah, it is only a quote, no one is there making sure your goods will fetch the price displayed on some random sign. Unless you are supporting the existence of a regulatory institution that will ensure you fetch the 'fair' price. Technically, government.

Baring the existence of government to fix prices across the charts, the value of any given item is subjective. Now I'll let you ponder whether you want to stick with the evil government keeping the man down from selling his own labor which also happens to be the righteous government making sure you can trade your goods for the "fair" price.


Just pointing that this particular argument is several centuries old, is part of most constitutions of nations all around the world, and that since you are so attached to what is "fair", that it might be "fair" of you to research what mankind think is "fair" in that situation before you go around talking about some imaginary end user license agreement.

Ok, just to name a few:

Montmartre, les Halles, le marais. None of these are finances related, but they're nice places to hang. Also Montgallet to go check on some video cards while we talk =P

Since all value is subjective, what you are saying is that as long as both parties agree, the trade fair. Did you just defeat you're own argument there?

Well Bitcoins aren't a currency as recognized by the government, so can't you just declare all the BTC deals as barter and pay taxes regarding barter for these?

And what about declaring them as a commodity necessary to business practice. IIRC taxes only apply on profit, so you could hold onto the BTC indefinitaly, then convert to USD in one batch and pay taxes on that. Also, as long as the BTC volume remains small, you could declare all converted BTC as going towards paying wages, which would exempt them of taxes.

If an employer is not in his right to sell the production of his employees for more than he pays them, then exactly what incentive does he have in such a business to begin with? If he shouldn't make a profit, then he has no reason to run that business and he shall close it, rendering all his employee's effectively jobless. Which brings the simple question: is the employer needed for the employee's job to exist? If the employee is consenting to the conditions of the employer, then the answer is yes, and the employer is rightfully entitled to his profit. If the employee doesn't consent to the conditions, then he's either jobless, which is his own prerogative, or he's forced to labor anyways, in which case he is a slave and thus isn't relevant to this argument. As such, you're point is moot my good Father.

The discussion on air and water pollution is technically a discussion on commons, which I think are wrong.

Nowhere in the foreseeable future. Right now no one turns down free transactions, and the recommended fee of 0.01 BTC per kb of transaction is just insignificant right now for any miner to care.