Ok, so spread risks... i mean it has advantages this way too.
At least that's what I'd like to see. Can't speak for anyone else. We should propably do a google group or something so we could spread documents and do polls very easily. As a later buyer, I would not be overly-offended if somehow those earlier in ended up with some tiny advantage, but it was fairly clear at least past the first or second unit that it would be a group buy. In any case, it's clearly in everyone's interest to spread the risk across all the machines. Would the couple people first in truly be happy if machine one didn't come up and they sat on the sidelines for a week or two while the issue was resolved. Having so many units is really nice with this regard. You won't be able to tell which is "machine 1" or "machine 7" |
|
|
|
You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you? Perhaps. But there's always the direct trade of time for food - AKA farming. Though this is usually not efficient enough to keep a large population from starving. Thus, it's more profitable to work in the factory, and buy your food. That's why they do that. You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?
Foxconn employees have better working conditions, better sanitation, and better quality of life than the average Chinese person - as evinced by their lower suicide rates than China as a whole. So, you're not right. The wealth of US apple employees - as compared to the American average - is directly proportional to the wealth of Foxconn employees - as compared to the Chinese average. Are you telling me that Apple is using Foxconn because they are better than Americans doing what they do, that cheap labor is out of the equation, and that in fact Apple is actively working in order to raise the wealth of Foxconn's employees? Would they work with Foxconn if workers wages were equal in China and in the US? Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.
I would point to the nature of China as opposed to the nature of the US. State communism has always been ruinous to individual wealth - unless you're a high-ranking party member. So Apple is not there because of cheap labour, but as a service to the poor Chinese ruined by state communism? Anyhow: I think we moved way off topic my friend. |
|
|
|
Yo transferí el otro día a través de SEPA desde EVO Banco y sólo me cobró 1,88€  No me parece exagerado. Cuidado: luego te cobran comisión por cada operación que hagas. |
|
|
|
About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free
Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument?
I do. I've highlighted it for you. A factory owner is not the only consumer of labor - even in a relatively small area. If you don't agree, work elsewhere, or go into business for your self, and produce whatever you want. If people want it, you may even end up with a factory of your own. Read up on the history of Apple, (and Microsoft, come to that) to see what I mean. I can grant you that, but: You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you? You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right? Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades. |
|
|
|
I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).
Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.
In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.
Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position. I think both of you share a definition of "capitalism" that I find hard to grasp. If one or both of you could explain it, I'd be very appreciative. Well, I've been trying to explain it in a very prolific way. I will try to make it very simple: If you don't want to starve, you need to make moneyMake money = accumulate capital More capital = more power (you are able to set the rules) Now I will recommend you to read "The Capital", by Karl Marx, where he explains why more capital = more power in thousands of pages. I assume you did not read it, or you would understand "our definition" of capitalism. Then you can take a shit on it, but I'm afraid that even Wikipedia will agree that the modern definition of capitalism was set by Marx in his work. |
|
|
|
Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work. So you are a capitalist! As I said, capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less. At root, the means of all production is your body. Could you swing a hammer, if not for your arm? Could you push a plow, if not for your legs? Could you lift a box, if not for your back? Would you know how and why to do any of these things, without your mind? You control the means of production of your work. Perhaps you are using someone else's tools, but you control the means by which those tools are used. If nobody will let you use their tools, you can get - or make - your own. But the means of production, even the production of those tools, is your body, and you own that. About being a capitalist: when working at a factory, deciding how to organize the work (how many hours, what to do with production, etc.) and owning the factory is very different, both from a philosophical and a practical point of view. About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument? |
|
|
|
I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).
Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.
In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.
Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you Myrkul - I will reply to your comments later on. Please allow me to throw my personal opinion on why capitalism have been approach so differently in Europe and the US:
When Proudhon analyzed private property in the XIX Century (What is the private property?) he concluded that wealth have been concentrated in the same few hands for centuries. He demonstrated empirically that hundreds of years ago, private property of means of production was established by force, and since then nothing changed much. Obviously this gave arguments to the prolific anarchist terrorism we have had in Europe, because anarchists thought that if private property was established by force, it could be possible to revert this situation by force only.
This lead to a time where the majority of European population was anti-capitalist, but it was crushed by the pro-capitalist minority, which was wealthier and thus more powerful.
In the US the majority of population have never been anti-capitalist: just a few generations ago you started from scratch, and you have had a wide spread of wealth since then. As I said earlier, we could say that US is founded on private property, which is quite a different situation compared to Europe.
Summing up, this would be a simple personal explanation of why for US intellectuals, private property=freedom, while for some of the major European intellectuals, private property=slavery
|
|
|
|
Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.
I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist. Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists. Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes). Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powersIn capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself. You're confusing state capitalism - corporatism or fascism - with capitalism. To put it in perspective, it would comparing anarchosyndicalism to the Soviet state. Some definitions: Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production. Communism: Common ownership of the means of production. State capitalism: Ownership of the majority of the means of production by state-protected corporations. State communism: De-facto ownership of the means of production by the oligarchy put in place to manage it. Anarcho-capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted trade of same, as well as the product. Anarcho-syndicalism: Common ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted use of same, as well as the product. Sound about right? I'm not confusing anything - I'm just stating the fact that for anarchists private ownership of means of production = monopolies = the richest rules, which is in opposition to US "libertarians" views. For US libertarians the State is fucking up with the market making it imperfectFor traditional anarchists the modern State is only a tool for capital to grow and concentrate, thus is a product of capitalism itselfAs I mentioned before, Bakunin even accused lenin's interpretation of communism of being just a state based form of capitalismPlease understand that the core of anarchism has never been "no state" - the core is the liberation of the individuals. For an anarchist, if you have to accept the wage offered by someone wealthier than you, you are not free. Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work. Not the state, not your boss: YOU. If you do not, you won't be free. As I explained earlier, anarchism was born as an answer to the advance of capitalist free market theories, as communism did in parallel when The Capital was written by Karl Marx. |
|
|
|
|
Once the financial capitalists start messing around heavily with Bitcoin, Bitcoin will be doomed.
|
|
|
|
The worst thing is, that even a month ago I was suspecting that things can go wrong. In February, I several times called my banker and lawyer and asked them if money on the account is safe, mentioning that article in Financial Times. But they convinced me that there is no reason to worry, and even if country goes default, in no way current accounts may be affected. "This is European Union and banks here can't just grab your money and go" I was told.
I got a hard lesson and now I know the meaning of phrase "TRUST NO ONE" Well, when everybody tells you this can't happen here is when you really have to start to worry. Note this Spanish, Greek and Portuguese citizens |
|
|
|
|
So, was the wallet encrypted or unencrypted?
|
|
|
|
this thread is epic thread, everyone here is now a millionaire
congratulations for such good investment I missed this boat
also, by the difficulty I thought all 300 were delivered.
Everybody a millionaire? That's a bit exaggerated, don't you think? Maybe libertybuck, but everybody? Let's say that everybody in this thread did an excellent investment  Definitely not. It was a "group buy" order. I explained it several times. Yeah I did not want to offend you, I just wanted to remark that the "everybody is a millionaire" comment was a big exaggeration |
|
|
|
Correcto.
Pero como por mi mismo soy incapaz de comprar un ASIC, era por lo que dije un post más arriba, el juntarnos varios de Madrid. Quedamos para conocernos, poner 100 ó 200€ cada uno para compra los BT qeu necesitemos y comprar un Avalon o similar a medias.
Yo lo puedo poner en empresa, ademas de tener AA, tengo un SAI y conexion a 100Mbs.
Saludos.
Antuam
Ya tenemos un grupito de Madrid que ha invertido en ASICs de primera generación, pero por ahora ninguno quiere disminuir su participación. Ahora mismo los Avalon están agotados y lo único que te quedaría sería hacer un pedido a BFL - lo cual no te recomiendo por el momento. Te aconsejo que vayas comprando BTC a la espera de que se concrete otra oportunidad. |
|
|
|
Yo de ti pasaría de quemar el ordenador, te saldrá más barato comprar. Yo empecé como tú y al final he comprado todo lo que he podido y no me arrepiento para nada.
Gracias. Voy a tratar de cambiar de VGA AMD HD 7750 por 113€ ya con portes. Es que tiene que ser de Bajo perfil y es lo más potente que he encontrado. La usare solo para minar cuando use el ordenador, eso si, sin meterle mucha caña, por que sino, no podre usar el ordenador. Lo de las webs de las migajas, lo descarto. 2 Dias visitandolas y a 0,000008 BTC como que no voy a conseguir mi primer BTC en la vida. Compraré, pero me hace ilusión conseguir uno con mis propios medios y luego ire alguna casa de cambio, pero eso si, trataré que sea en directo, por qeu como se entere mi Santa, me corta los "EGGS". Un saludo y gracias a todos. Antuam Tal como está la cosa (precio subiendo exponencialmente, GPU's poco rentables y ASICs aún por llegar en masa y perfeccionar) lo mejor que puedes hacer es comprar, y si te gusta la idea de minar, ir ahorrando para cuando los ASICs sean una tecnología asentada. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the excel sheet for calculating ROI - it looks good (ROI achieved in less than 1 month at current difficulty ) I'm willing to sell my participation - if someone is interested please just PM me. |
|
|
|
|
Myrkul: I thank you for your interesting information about Medieval Iceland. I didn't know much about it, but I have to say that I always superficially thought that Medieval Age is in general a good analogy for a no-state capitalist system (but this is not a positive analogy at all IMO).
I'll take this chance to remark another difference between the anarchism and the US "libertarians" views: in this case, focusing on monopolies
1) For an US libertarian, monopolies are an imperfection of the market, driven by non-market forces: state and lobbies. Without a State there would be no lobbies and the market would adjust itself, as an invisible hand would self-regulate the market and balance competition, reaching an always-fair market that would allow equal opportunities to market players.
2) For an anarchist, monopolies are the natural outcome of capitalism. The only goal in a capitalist system is capital growth/accumulation, and this goal has to be achieved by all means. The natural way to strengthen your position in capitalism is to wipe out the competition, thus creating a monopoly - and this is fairly easily achieved if your holdings are big enough... And there goes the invisible hand straight up your arse. In fewer words, state and lobbies are just a tool capitalists are currently using to achieve their goals.
I personally tend to agree with 2), based on my own analysis of both classic works and reality surrounding us.
|
|
|
|
Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.
I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist. Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists. Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes). Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powersIn capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself. |
|
|
|
this thread is epic thread, everyone here is now a millionaire
congratulations for such good investment I missed this boat
also, by the difficulty I thought all 300 were delivered.
Everybody a millionaire? That's a bit exaggerated, don't you think? Maybe libertybuck, but everybody? Let's say that everybody in this thread did an excellent investment |
|
|
|
No. You would have ~130BTC. Who cares about fiat?
I have not seen anybody selling goods or services in bitcoin that isn't pegged to the price in fiat. 130 BTC buys a lot more now then it did 8 months ago, so you should care. I can tell you at least 10 goods or services sold in BTC and not pegged to fiat. First example: Avalon ASICs |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
