You will agree on the fact that the above logic is completely independent from the exchange rate. 1000BTC is a bad price for an Avalon even at $0,5 BTC/USD. 1BTC is a bargain even at $100.000 BTC/USD
Yes, I agree. However, this is still a hybrid World - so even Avalon had to pay fiat to obtain raw material to build their machine, and if with current difficulty btc/usd exchange rate was 10, I am 100% sure Avalon would have tied their sale price to usd, and not btc. You statement will be 100% applicable when we would be able to purchase anything and everything with btc - when no btc-fiat conversion will be needed. That day will come eventually, not sure when. I already "broke the loop" with my modest BTC stash. I really enjoy to invest my BTC to generate more BTC, without even looking at the exchange rate. The less money we feed to bankers, the more free we are  |
|
|
|
If the machine won't make more BTC in its useful life than its price (76,46btc) I don't buy it. If the opposite is true, I buy. And this has nothing to do with the exchange rate: if BTC/USD goes to $10K, would you sell your Avalon for 3BTC??
So you were willing to sell for 150 btc, right ? Now you would sell it for that price no matter what based on your logic, correct ? So, let's consider the other scenario. If btc exchange rate goes to $10, will you still accept 150 btc ? You would indeed isn't it ? Or will you vanish at that time ? I said: I might sell an Avalon for 150 BTC, which does not mean that I'm willing to sell it. Anyhow: yes, I would honor the btc price regardless of the exchange rate - I'm 100% sure about that. An Avalon will generate X btc in Y time, and exchange rate won't affect that, at least in the short term (long term network difficulty would be affected). Even if BTC/USD goes down to $1, 1000BTC is a bad price for an Avalon, as you will never get back your 1000BTC. If then BTC/USD skyrockets... Well, it would have been wiser just to keep your 1000BTC instead of purchasing a miner. Problem is, this logic is fine for people who have mined BTC and not for those who bought them with USD. Since I bought BTC with USD, I would constantly compare my USD investment. I guess many are in the same boat as mine. I understand this, but an Avalon will generate BTC, not USD. Thus, if the machine generates more BTC in its life than you paid for it, it is a good investment. If it does not generate the same amount or more BTC than you paid for it, it's wiser to just buy BTC and hold. You will agree on the fact that the above logic is completely independent from the exchange rate. 1000BTC is a bad price for an Avalon even at $0,5 BTC/USD. 1BTC is a bargain even at $100.000 BTC/USD |
|
|
|
OP: the train is leaving the station.... Can't you see it?  |
|
|
|
I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.
Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.
Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect? Those with weak principles perhaps, or who are still deluded enough to think working within the system will get you anywhere. The fact that I never voted in my life could mean that I agree with you. I do not have the guts to vote, it's a too filthy mechanism for me. Nevertheless, I still think that "working inside the system" can be positive to achieve specific goals that make our day-by-day life better. I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.
Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.
Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect? Those with weak principles perhaps, or who are still deluded enough to think working within the system will get you anywhere. - For left, inequality is an artificial construction of men
- For right, inequality is a product of nature
This is the first I have ever heard or seen of this definition of right and left. But, under that definition, you're damn right I'm Right. Inequality is a product of nature. You said it yourself: Mankind is not all equal. Some are taller, some shorter, some smarter, some stronger. Some have a head for finance, some do not. Some are risk-takers, some are not. Generally, those who do not have a head for finance, or do not take risks, end up working for those who do. I'm all for equalizing opportunities. That's why I'm anti-State. But when you try to equalize wealth, you only end up with fail. You'd need to continually steal from the more productive, and give to those less able. Then what are you doing, but trying to compensate for physical or mental inequalities? And eventually, the result is exactly the opposite of your goal. Opportunities are quashed, along with the drive to take them. Why bother, when anything you do to stick out from the crowd will just be cut off and siphoned to those who didn't take the opportunity you did? Meanwhile, the apparatus you've set up to equalize wealth has itself become the most powerful player in the game, and we're back to square one. I had no doubt that you were Right, my friend. About "left and right" in politics I recommend you Norberto Bobbios Left & Right. In that book he analyzes how these two terms have evolved since their first use in 1789, and how the very key fundamental that remains constant is the distinct position on inequality. And now a Wikipedia quote: There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists,[5][6][7][8] and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left's "civil-libertarians"), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.[9] So, according to Wikipedia (which is not a source I would 100% commit to) you would be considered an "economic-libertarian". For historical reasons I prefer the word "liberal" or "economic liberal", even if I know that the word "liberal" is associated to the left in US - not so much in Europe. |
|
|
|
I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.
Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.
Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect? This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.
I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.
Where exactly are you getting this from? And I don't mean this as a hypothetical; there must be some publication somewhere which has mislead you. You should take a moment to actually understand; nobody who identifies with AnCap considers themselves anywhere close to either "wing". If you've always laughed about it, it's troubling knowing you've been under a misconception for some time. I'm well aware the current system we're under is slavery, which is why I advocate anarchism to begin with. There's nothing I despise more than wage slavery; if the government sanctions on monopolies and oligarchies are torn down, you'll see the poor and the rich classes coincide and melt into one another; people work for themselves, not a boss, or their boss, or their boss. The free market is exactly that: a market without government intervention. How this translates into wage slavery is beyond me. 1) Right and left wing are still valid terms, even tough modern politicians tend to say that these are obsolete terms in an attempt of erasing all historical memory, class consciousness and revolutionary spirit. 2) The fundamental difference between right and left is not very clear for the majority of the people nowadays due to a lack of political culture, yet it is very simple: it's just a philosophical position on equality and inequality. - For left, inequality is an artificial construction of men; therefore left will work toward abolishing/diminishing the inequality in society (inequality of wealth, not physical inequality).
- For right, inequality is a product of nature, thus is not only not negative but its necessary for people to "work their asses off" in order to improve their condition. In fact, what would be a capitalist system without inequality fueling competitiveness?
This is of course linked again with Rousseau, who thought that the only natural inequality was the physical one: one man being taller than the other, etc. And yes, according to the traditional sense of the words "left" and "right" a capitalist supporter will always be right wingish, while an anarchist will always be left wingish. As explained above, the terms have nothing to do with being more or less authoritarian, pro-state, etc. They are just related with a position on what's the natural outcome of nature: equality or inequality. And now just a short quote from Rousseau's Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men) The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. |
|
|
|
I know there's anarcho-communism, but I don't see how that could ever possibly work.
except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland). 
Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)
but they were betrayed by state communists and republicans likewise. Just watched this amazing documentary - really really beautiful. Thank you, I did not know it. Myrkul (and the others, by the way): I really recommend you to watch that. You will hear directly from anarchist's who actually made a revolution about work, money, freedom... |
|
|
|
Por supuesto, esto suponiendo que creas en el verdadero valor de Bitcoin. Si compras solo porque crees que el precio va aseguir subiendo, entonces no compres.
Esta es la clave. Si crees, estarás de acuerdo en que a largo plazo la economía BTC sólo puede crecer. Dicho esto: ¿Que el BTC ha pegado una subida bestial? Claro. ¿Que nos esperan vaivenes brutales, con subidas y bajadas del 50% en un sólo día? Por supuesto, así ha sido históricamente y no tiene pinta ninguna pinta de cambiar. Lo ideal sería comprar siempre durante esos DDoS a MtGox que inducen al "panic sell"... Lo que pasa es que nadie sabemos cuándo vendrá ese bajón temporal que nos permitirá comprar más barato. Yo suelo pasarme un par de días trasteando con el dinero en Gox, quitando y poniendo órdenes de compra según vaya la tendencia, y así suelo conseguir comprar bastante cerca del mínimo de ese día... Pero OJO: lo normal es que ese mínimo sea igual o más alto que el precio al que podría haber comprado en cuanto me llegó el dinero a Gox, un par de días antes  |
|
|
|
Gentlemen, I am preparing for my batch two Avalon. Looking at the wiki, it seems like the instructions has gone over my head. According to the wiki, Connect your laptop to the eithernet port of the Avalon Setup your laptop IP address 192.168.0.101 Open http://192.168.0.100 Make sure WR703N can access Internet, Configure WiFi: Network -> WIFI -> Scan(select your WIFI network) -> Join Network -> WPA passphrase -> Submit -> Save & Apply for connect to WIFI Internet setup your mining worker: Status -> Cgminer Configuration. Restart the cgminer service: System -> Startup, Check your avalon status: Status -> Cgminer Status Setup password/using ssh I don't have a laptop, but I suspect my desktop will suffice in laptop's place. "Setup your laptop IP address 192.168.0.101" How would I go about doing this? I would recommend you to start using linux now to get used to command line stuff, cgminer, etc. You can change your local IP on your Network settings, which normal are inside System Preferences - where exactly it depends on your SO - but just go there and I bet you'll find it in 3 minutes. |
|
|
|
I've always said you need a state for property rights. But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled." I believe you describe a society in which you are as free as you are wealthy. You can have justice, as long as you can pay for it. |
|
|
|
Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; etc.
As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.
That's the issue; once a single collective group of people reaches a large enough number, it becomes highly impractical to make a decision that doesn't step on someone's toe somewhere. In order for anarchism to work, communities would need to remain small enough to stay manageable among each other; to make sure communities remained small, you would encourage people to take complete responsibility over their own communities. Because large communities become so unmanageable, they have to elect leaders to help keep the "brain" functioning, this leads to conflict, because the elected leader can never agree with the entire populace, making it a moot point to elect one. The more people feel connected with each other, the less likely they'll feel the need to merge in great societies, and will stick to smaller ones, which communicate with other small societies if one society is stepping on another's toes, or they need/want something the other has that they themselves do not. In this regard, cities could only exist in division; a city united would need a ruler, and thus, the anarchistic ideal goes away. So the point would be: people must remain in their own "cliques", to keep a feeling of togetherness, to prevent the rising of rulers, and the division of people which happens anyway under statism. The fact is that we never actively worked to make that model of anarchist society possible: we always assumed that anarchy was "impractical" and we created all kinds of states to impose and maintain the order... Proudhon wrote: "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order"This is a very profound sentence that reflects the beliefs of Proudhon and the other anarchists on human nature... And by the way: aren't politics always about how we deal with what we believe it's human nature? But the truth is that it's never been empirically proved that an anarchist society is not feasible - it's just speculations, and the very few anarchist experiences we had in History (as per Aragón, Spain 1930-1938) worked pretty well until the enemies wiped them out by force.
Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; etc.
As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.
OTOH, would ~6 or 7 billion societies of "me" function right if capitalism was the only focus? I would say that we are pretty much looking at it - but still there have been major improvements in terms of freedom in the last centuries. |
|
|
|
snip
Anarcho-capitalo-communism...o I just got done with Living Utopia. Amazing! What I found interesting is that even in a communistic society, they still had to barter at some point in time with different towns; for example, if one town didn't have the means to produce wheat, they'd trade sugar for the wheat to a town which had lots of wheat but not a whole lot of sugar. I've also noticed that societies tend to fare much worse when in large packs. Would it be possible to combine both systems, so one caters to the "village" so to speak, and the other caters to large societal interaction? I don't think every town can support every little thing required to make all types of food, desktop PCs, deodorant, jewelry, smart phone a, smart phone b, etc, meaning communism on a large scale would eventually need to form some type of capitalistic method to exchange these goods in and out. Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; and so on, adding more layers in which coordinate decisions would be taken horizontally and not vertically. As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way. |
|
|
|
If the machine won't make more BTC in its useful life than its price (76,46btc) I don't buy it. If the opposite is true, I buy. And this has nothing to do with the exchange rate: if BTC/USD goes to $10K, would you sell your Avalon for 3BTC??
So you were willing to sell for 150 btc, right ? Now you would sell it for that price no matter what based on your logic, correct ? So, let's consider the other scenario. If btc exchange rate goes to $10, will you still accept 150 btc ? You would indeed isn't it ? Or will you vanish at that time ? I said: I might sell an Avalon for 150 BTC, which does not mean that I'm willing to sell it. Anyhow: yes, I would honor the btc price regardless of the exchange rate - I'm 100% sure about that. An Avalon will generate X btc in Y time, and exchange rate won't affect that, at least in the short term (long term network difficulty would be affected). Even if BTC/USD goes down to $1, 1000BTC is a bad price for an Avalon, as you will never get back your 1000BTC. If then BTC/USD skyrockets... Well, it would have been wiser just to keep your 1000BTC instead of purchasing a miner. |
|
|
|
I know what you say is true, but I still do not understand it. Avalon mines BTC, and if I'm willing to invest in Avalon I will project the return the Avalon will give me in BTC - therefore the exchange rate is not relevant when considering to invest in that machine.
Totally not true. You must always weigh whether its smarter to buy hardware that makes BTC vs just buying and holding BTC. If the machine won't make more BTC in its useful life than what you could have had by buying outright, then you should just buy BTC. If the opposite is true, buy the machine. I do not discuss that, in fact is correct: I pay my machine (Avalon batch #3, as per OP) in BTC - therefore I only care about the return I will get in BTC. That is the info I need to evaluate if I want to buy the machine or just to buy and hold BTC. If the machine won't make more BTC in its useful life than its price (76,46btc) I don't buy it. If the opposite is true, I buy. And this has nothing to do with the exchange rate: if BTC/USD goes to $10K, would you sell your Avalon for 3 BTC?? |
|
|
|
|
Proudhon, you INSPIRE people.
Keep on man, we need you now more than ever!
|
|
|
|
most of us here are only here to cashout on a higher price
I'm not. I'm the 1%! A vast portion of bitcoiners are in it for the long run. Because it empowers people, not because they want fast fiat profits. Guys as "wopwop" are just "weak hands" that will allow us true believers to get "cheap coins" in the short term. |
|
|
|
This interview actually wen't quite well, especially compared to the previous ones I remember, but I must agree that his appearance may scare some people away from perceiving Bitcoin as a positive thing.
The same old suit-and-tie motherfuckers who actually run the economy scare a lot of people too. The crucial point is that Bitcoin is a revolutionary idea. This guy explained VERY WELL the fundamentals. If you are scared by a guy wearing a "mohawk", regardless of what he is saying, then maybe freedom - and Bitcoin - is not for you. |
|
|
|
I know you want to keep this to PM, but I am wondering what kind of offers you've been getting. I haven't seen any other batch 3 preorders for sale at all. Just wondering what the market rate is.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165152.0Also, I have been always offered about 15k$. When price was 100$, I got offered 150BTC, now I'm getting offers from 100-115. Note: One has been sold for approx. 15k$. I know what you say is true, but I still do not understand it. Avalon mines BTC, and if I'm willing to invest in Avalon I will project the return the Avalon will give me in BTC - therefore the exchange rate is not relevant when considering to invest in that machine. If now 1 BTC goes to $10.000, whould you sell an Avalon for 3 BTC ($30k)? No, because you know that it will mine at least x20 that figure (3BTC), because it's hashing power and therefore the returns you will have in BTC have nothing to do with the exchange rate. That said, I might sell an Avalon batch #3 for aprox. 150 BTC, but I would never sell it for 100-115 BTC, regardless of the exchange rate. It is all about selling risk and just making profit. It is not about longterm, but shortterm. Converting BTC to fiat is never a profit in my book, unless you only convert a tiny fraction of your stash for practical purposes. Profit is making your BTC stash grow. |
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about?
He did a great job, simply because he said the truth. Who cares about how he was dressing?
Bitcoin is a REVOLUTION that gives FREEDOM to people. This is the reality, and the fundamental REASON WHY of Bitcoin.
The guy in the interview understood this very well, and expressed it in a perfect way. Kudos for him.
|
|
|
|
|
I think everybody in BTC "for the long run" is dreaming with that dip that will allow us to buy a lot of "cheap" bitcoins
But this is only daydreaming
I bought my first bitcoins at $10ish, and the feeling was exactly the same: wow, this is expensive, just a few months ago the price was $2
But I decided that a) I was in BTC for the long run and b) that I was going to invest fiat regularly, with every paycheck - beacuse I profoundly believe in BTC
Since then I have bought at $10, $14, $25, $33, $55, $70 and next week I will invest again a not-so-small amount, as soon as my funds get to Gox. The exchange rate may be $200 or higher, but I don't give a shit, even if I can't avoid thinking that just a couple of months ago I would have bought with $500 what now I will buy for $5.000
I bet you are thinking "wow, $10 were CHEAP coins"... But I can guarantee you that they felt as expensive as $200 coins. Just take a look to the posts in "speculations", and you will check that the feeling was the same.
But the truth is that we all know that the potential of BTC is way higher than $1.000 per coin. That's pure math.
My advices:
1) Invest only what you can afford to loose (this is crucial)
2) Get as many BTC as you can and forget about the exchange rate. BTC economy is now super-reactive: get those BTC and invest them wisely in BTC related ventures. The economy is in such growth that a lot of opportunities are awaiting around every corner.
Personally I just think about how to invest my BTC to make them produce more BTC. I'm starting a venture in which I will try to operate with BTC only, in the limits of possible (still majority of providers want fiat). But the truth is that I broke the loop, the exchange rate is not relevant for me anymore. Bitcoins give you freedom, and there's no price for freedom.
|
|
|
|
That would suck. Mining centralization is not a good thing at all.
I don't like it either, but it's the only possible future. Don't underestimate the power of the community in action. Big corporations are slow when facing strategic decisions - individuals supporting each other in an open source type of model are much quicker and flexible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
