Sounds to me like there is an opportunity here to set up a competitive service.
Say a network of bitcoin users get together and offer exchanges to local currencies world wide.
Makes me wish I had the capital to start up a venture of this nature. Someone will I'm certain as soon as there is enough confidence in the use of Bitcoins for this type of exchange.
im down. ill act as a gateway. get some more people together. |
|
|
|
i will be cautious at current prices,
until it hits the alltime high, then i will panic buy,
panic sell at 948, and watch is go to ~1900,
then buy back at 1078,
and then sell again a 500.
This is my grand plan, whats yours?
i dont have any idea what is fair value for something so abstract. i really dont even have a clue. my plan is to sit and patiently wait and hold untill walmart.com, amazon.com, and ebay.com all have a little bitcoin picture on their checkout options. that is when i MIGHT make a move. That ganna take many years, maybe Bitcoin has already been taken down that time .... thats why i never invested more than i was prepared to lose |
|
|
|
i would love to hear a rational proof for the non-aggression principal I have trouble believing that, since I typed the phrase, "rational proof for the non-aggression principal" into Google and the very first link was the book that I would recommend on the topic. So it's not like such proof is difficult to find at all for anyone who is truly interested in the subject. I don't provide links any more because almost always what happens is that someone will declare a desire for a rational argument and when shown one will reply with, "I don't like it" instead of a logical refutation. i dont think i need to look, i think i can guess accurately that it is UPB by stefan moleneaux. unfortunately his analysis appears to be flawed. bitbutter explains it better than i can. if you could show an error in bitbutters analysis than i would be pretty excited about that. i really truly would love for there to be such a thing as UPB. |
|
|
|
I think the US has already tried a similar approach: This is the first generation that will be less educated than their parents. How's that working out? ... at the same time China has 10's of millions of engineers graduating over the coming decade. This may not end well. The U.S. has basically a free education system if you go to a public school. The reality is education standards are worse than 10 50 or even 100 years ago. Most can't find Australia or England on a map or know basic algebra. The engineers and workers in the U.S pay all the taxes. We have a massive welfare system where a women with 15 kids actually expects to have everything paid for her. The majority expects massive amounts of free stuff. In China you are allowed to have one kid or face fines. I don't know how we can be less educated when virtually everyone qualifies for student loans. The problem is education does not necessarily lead to wealth or remove you from poverty. In many ways it is worse because a person with a B.S. expects to be paid such and such so they end up in government with fat salaries. Many in government also seek degrees to get a bump in pay, even though they don't even need the degree. Robert Reich is treated like a hero of the poor, yet in my humble opinion he is a financial terrorist to the workers and poor. His false solutions will only lead to the poverty it has already caused. Obama reminds me of Kirchner. Both are kind of cool cats which the welfare state just loves. i really don't get the Tea Party. And you'll have to forgive me cause im not an american. i mean, they have some legitimate claims: their middle class wealth has been stripped from them and they have bore the brunt of the GFC. But, instead of blaming the obnoxious financial institutions which caused the crisis, they blame the welfare class. And sure there are many people who rort welfare. there are many systems that could be improved. and there are governments who are not financially prudent and spend like buggery. But out and out the largest group of cheats and fraudsters come from the financial and banking and government industry. Ive never understood why the tea Partiers blame the minorities for the sub prime crisis when it was the financial class who undoubtedly caused it. and now blame welfare and spending because many lower classes dont have a home to live in, a toilet to crap but just maybe a part time job to slave at. its attacking the symptoms and not the cause. Well no i mean no matter which of these two groups of people is receiving more of the money that is stolen from them, its the same group of people DOING the stealing. So your right about the fact that they are wrong to blame the lower class wellfare recipients, but they would also be just as wrong if they blamed the banksters. It is the government that is enabling the theft. But even here you can be mislead into blaming the wrong people. If i proclaim that you must give 1/2 your income to Gabi, i haven't harmed you by doing that, obviously you would just ignore me, that would be stupid thing for me to proclaim. So when a politician proclaims that A must have half his income to B the politician doing literally exactly the same thing i just did. You want to know who to blame? here are the guys who are truly responsible for their plight as well as anyone who supports these guys having a special set of rights that is different from the rights that normal people have.  |
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner-popularity_n_3231726.htmlI just saw this article but what caught my eye was the government actually has the power to force you use Argentine Pesos. At least they try. So Argentines put their money in the dollar, which itself is a corrupt horrible currency. Then that is not bad enough, they want to force the residents to give up the cash to buy pesos. Basically this scene is worse than can be imagined in a Ayn Rand fiction novel. Then they want you to buy bonds at 4%, while inflation is at 30%. All this seems to be coming to the United Sates if the tea loses the house. Anyone live there? Despite this she was elected with a massive majority? Why? Do you like her? Vote the tea ticket! Sell the schools and fire the teachers. Its not the first time Argentina has been to this particular rodeo. The country defaults regularly. The creditors huff and puff and then they seem to forget it happened and all start lending to Argentina again. Look back 10 years or 20 years and you will see this story. Wait 10 years and you will see the same stories all over again. I have watch numerous videos and agree with you, mainly to learn about hyperinflation. The population has adjusted to the high inflation. Despite this there does seem to be something exciting in the air. I am just surprised with so much deception how they keep getting elected. how does any politician ever get re-elected? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome |
|
|
|
i will be cautious at current prices,
until it hits the alltime high, then i will panic buy,
panic sell at 948, and watch is go to ~1900,
then buy back at 1078,
and then sell again a 500.
This is my grand plan, whats yours?
i dont have any idea what is fair value for something so abstract. i really dont even have a clue. my plan is to sit and patiently wait and hold untill walmart.com, amazon.com, and ebay.com all have a little bitcoin picture on their checkout options. that is when i MIGHT make a move. |
|
|
|
One of the things politicians want to achieve, is to adjust salaries and entitlements downwards. If and when everything is adjusted to expected inflation, inflation will increase to something that is unexpected.
Politicians want to win elections and have power, and they'll basically do whatever it takes to get those things. If you have skills, then in most markets your salary will roughly reflect your skills regardless of what inflation is, unless you're in some sort of hyperinflation. That's why companies adjust salaries using a 'cost of living increase' every year, usually about 2%, because inflation has been about 2% for a while. It's not a big deal. you are focusing on the seen and missing the unseen. that 2% inflation isnt just a magical mystical change in purchasing power that leeks into our dimension from the ether, it represents the fact that someone is printing money. that is a wealth transfer from the people who save to the people who print. thats represents a new computer or used car or w/e that you dont have, and that the printer of the money now does have. Yea in a prosperous economy you could still survive just like a human can survive with a tick on it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remove ticks. |
|
|
|
|
i dont have a facebook but i used my wife's just to help you out. i hope it works out for ya.
|
|
|
|
....and yet people wonder why general merchant and consumer adoption is non-existent of cryptos.
I WISH one would stabilize, then we would see a real revolution.
we have firms like bitpay to deal with that problem. for the user, yea it may be a wild ride but the general trend is up, that beats some other currencies i know. |
|
|
|
Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?
Thanks for your curiosity. Yes, if your sister steals your toy, you can't start hitting her. You can steal it back though. It's a principle indeed, fairness. Leveling up violence is not fair. Initiating the use of violence is immoral. The moment we accept this we will get a better world, and you also get a better life if you accept this. Don't hit your fellow man, don't hit your children, you will be happier. Threats of violence I'm not sure about as it is not violence but words. I think it is not immoral but it certainly is a warning that this person could be immoral. What do you think? Ps: Sorry moderator for the offtopic split you had to do. i think that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. i feel differently but my idea of morality is based on intuition so i really dont know how to make arguments about what is moral and what isn't. my intuition tells me that fraud is immoral and that people who are defrauded are owed restitution. but again if you say that this is wrong i dont really know how to use rational arguments to prove that it isnt. over all i like your value system not as much as i like my own (obviously) but MUCH more than i like most peoples. if it were widely practiced it would probably lead to results that i would find much preferable to the society i live in today. I got this from the 'non aggression principle'. Yeah today there is no morality. Also in West it's men with the guns make the rules while they are excluded. They steal (tax), couterfit (print), kidnap (arrest) as they please. Next evolution of mankind is no rulers but fair moral agrrements and those that break it get ostracized. That's how I solve personal problems now. Instead of abusing people back that abuse me, I kick them out of my life. Problem solved. Yes this is what i see as the difference between voluntaryists and more general anarcho-capitalists. you being the former myself being the latter. either way i would love to hear a rational proof for the non-aggression principal if you have one. i tend to consider it as more of a rule of thumb than a universal law. |
|
|
|
Heh. What else would they say? Bitcoin is their doom.
it sure was nice of the bitcoin foundation to go and rub some salt in those wounds |
|
|
|
I like ponies.
maybe you ought to consider a vote for vermin supreme  |
|
|
|
|
So we have an off topic section but why no off topic thread? Well here it is. Talk about what ever you like. Nothing is off topic in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?
Thanks for your curiosity. Yes, if your sister steals your toy, you can't start hitting her. You can steal it back though. It's a principle indeed, fairness. Leveling up violence is not fair. Initiating the use of violence is immoral. The moment we accept this we will get a better world, and you also get a better life if you accept this. Don't hit your fellow man, don't hit your children, you will be happier. Threats of violence I'm not sure about as it is not violence but words. I think it is not immoral but it certainly is a warning that this person could be immoral. What do you think? Ps: Sorry moderator for the offtopic split you had to do. i think that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. i feel differently but my idea of morality is based on intuition so i really dont know how to make arguments about what is moral and what isn't. my intuition tells me that fraud is immoral and that people who are defrauded are owed restitution. but again if you say that this is wrong i dont really know how to use rational arguments to prove that it isnt. over all i like your value system not as much as i like my own (obviously) but MUCH more than i like most peoples. if it were widely practiced it would probably lead to results that i would find much preferable to the society i live in today. |
|
|
|
thanks for the spit. i shouldnt have gotten so off topic. sorry about that.  |
|
|
|
ok but as a matter of principal losing investor money as a result of fraudulent behavior could in theory be a form of murder. many of those people might have lived quite a bit longer had they been able to afford medical treatments that they now can no longer afford, or healthier organic food that they now can no longer afford ect... not defending bitthink I just wanted to point that out.
You trust your money to someone? You cannot use violence against him because he lost it. Even if he told you lies. The initiation of the use of violence is wrong, unless self defense. That does not mean you cannot be angry. But don't forget to be angry with yourself also then. You should not have invested your money there. Take responsibility for your own actions, learn from it and move on. That Zeng case is just looting and murdering of rich people by politicians. This immoral jailing and killing of people, and the abusive way children are raised, makes a cold, heartless society. I stay away for that reason eventhough the economic opportunities are big there. Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you? |
|
|
|
People defend for Zeng because of two things:
1) The so called 'fraud' was supported by the government then, and he was caught after the government leader was changed and his assert was grabbed by the government without giving a chance for him to pay back the investors.
2) Just after the death penalty was approved, the execution was done quickly before notifying his family.
They are not saying Zeng is innocent and the death penalty is completely unfair.
There're also two things to clarify:
1) He indeed caused people to lose billions of CNY, and was not innocent at all.
2) His death penalty was debated for years online and finally approved by the Supreme Court, and his daughter knew that before he was executed. She just did not get notified the exact day of the execution and did not get her chance to see his father for the last chance. It was not a secret execution imagined by many westerners.
Let's come back to the topic. If BTCChina suddenly disappears with billions of CNY from the traders, then yes, they deserve death penalty. If they allow people to launder millions of illegal income or help people to transfer millions of CNY to overseas (to avoid this, BTCChina has daily BTC withdraw limit of 10BTC for unverified users), they maybe jailed for many years. But if they are forced to close by the government just because BTC trading is not supported, they will at most be charged on taxing and license issues.
Are you fucking serious? Nuancing a man being killed for losing investor money  You disgust me 'BitThink'. Fuck off!!! ok but as a matter of principal losing investor money as a result of fraudulent behavior could in theory be a form of murder. many of those people might have lived quite a bit longer had they been able to afford medical treatments that they now can no longer afford, or healthier organic food that they now can no longer afford ect... not defending bitthink I just wanted to point that out. |
|
|
|
well damn he convinced me with all those well reasoned arguments. I'm selling all of my btc at 1/2 price to make sure i get out as fast as possible  |
|
|
|
This is my take:
Silk road gets taken down.
People wait a week to see if Bitcoin can exist without it.
Bitcoin does fine.
Oh shit, legit currency guys! BUY BUY BUY!
LOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL! Silk road was a huge part of it but if you really want to know why bitcoin is doing fine, its because mt gox bitstamp btc-e dont want it to fail. They can do whatever they want with the price. there are no rules or regulations that they have to abide by. They are smart business owners. Why would you let the golden goose die? As long as there are more suckers out there that jump on board it will keep going. Hey fleabag, nice post history. Not sure why you're so bitter, though...  THE TRUTH HURTS HUH? SO TELL ME THERE IS GOING TO BE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF NEW MILLIONAIRES IN THE NEXT 10 TO 20 YRS? SURE. ALL THE WEALTH IN THE WORLD IS GOING TO BE REDISTRIBUTED BECAUSE OF BITCOINS? allright fbag i try to be really patient with people but its clear you are just a troll. welcome to my blocklist and if you dont want to find yourself on everyone's blocklist i recommend laying off the caps lock. the size of your text is not a substitute for the quality of your arguments. |
|
|
|
Come on people you are missing the point. Tell me some success stories of investments where people made a ton of money and the idea was already set in motion? AFTER THE FACT! You people now missed the boat and the REAL money is long gone. Give me an example of an investment that proves my point wrong. I am not denying the fact that there is money to be made yet. All I am saying is that very rarely are you going to get rich on something that has already happened.
Bought SIRI at $1.85 on 06/07/2012 still riding to todays high of $4.12, plan on selling at ~5ish, didnt have the balls to buy at $.09 Bought FB at $26 have a sell order in at $55, which was almost triggered today, hit a high of $54.76 I would say those are some pretty healthy returns. time to sell that shit man. technology moves FAST. siri is going to be as ancient as dated as cassette tapes in a couple of years. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
