|
I thing everybody should be entitled to sell their shares.
|
|
|
|
I just want to point out again for the nth time that if you bought $1,300 in bitcoin instead of preordered a BFL back when bitcoin was under $10 then you would have over $11,700 today  No. You would have ~130 BTC. Who cares about fiat? |
|
|
|
|
Tú lo has dicho: no más de lo que estés dispuesto a perder. Personalmente creo que un 15% es una cantidad razonable.
Diversificar siempre es lo más seguro. Oro, plata, incluso efectivo, son buenos complementos al BTC que reducen nuestra exposición a los bancos.
Edito: me refiero a un 15% de tus ahorros, y para mi los ahorros son algo que no voy a tocar salvo grave emergencia. Es decir, con los ahorros ni me compro un coche ni me voy de vacaciones.
Edito2: me hace gracia los que decís "compraré hasta los 50 más o menos"... Con lo volátil que es el BTC ponerse un objetivo en BTC es bastante absurdo. Por ejemplo, mis primeros BTC los compré en Virwox y por 40€ compré 4. Acumulé (y gasté) 150BTC por una cantidad de euros por la que ahora no compraría ni 20BTC. En resumen, si no disponéis de ahorros de los que sacar un pico yo me plantearía destinar una cantidad fija en euros que os podáis permitir cada mes y meterlos a BTC; de lo contrario podéis veros atrapados en una "carrera hacia adelante". Hace sólo 4 meses, un "objetivo razonable" en BTC podían parecer 200, hoy sólo 50. Por otro lado, yo ya hice mi inversión tanto en BTC como en minería, pero todos los meses meto un poquito más a MtGox, no tanto para ahorrar sino para invertir en varios negocios de BTC o simplemente para comprar productos y servicios. Al principio me jodía pagar con una moneda que la semana siguiente vale el doble, pero luego me di cuenta de que a la hora de manejar mis BTC había dejado de pensar en euros y lo que me gustaba era participar activamente en la economía bitcoin, no sólo acumularlos.
|
|
|
|
|
This BFl guys make me panic. Who's willing to bet that at least 30% of first units shipped will break, burn and/or fail during the first month of use?
|
|
|
|
|
You would not be able to buy 1 billion dollar on any exchange because currently there's not enough market depth
|
|
|
|
|
First post saying "I gambled on this because it was only ~10BTC" in 3, 2, 1....
|
|
|
|
I just caught up to these tickets. this is not Avalons problem nor we will aid in resolving it.
In this case, We are simply not going to honor the change of address, because this is a reselling/hosting/loan deal and this happens outside of Avalon control and must deal with the person who ORDERED these units.
as in, this unit will go to the original address Thaigo put on this order, which is neither rodigorc2's address, or the current "new" address he is changing to. Avalon does not "aid" the reselling of these orders, especially for reasons like this.
said ticket is referenced here: -redacted for privacy details-
BOTTOMLINE: if you want to resell. buy it first, have it delivered and ship it elsewhere yourselves.
thanks now everyone knows my address  its good ending, indeed. I like how Thiago managed to change the address back without paying me the coins. But I should not worry about that. His plan is almost done, like he said, now that he has one machine he will mine them and pay me 60 plus my account on insolvent bitcoinrain.com of 60. Oh man, you really like to extort people's money, don't you? |
|
|
|
Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries. So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts. Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives. Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is. I admit I don't know much about medieval Iceland, but I could bet that rich people ruled de facto, just because Unfortunately that is the natural outcome of capitalism IMHO |
|
|
|
Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries. So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts. Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives. And the ones fighting anarchists were mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain. State capitalists and State communists. Anti-state capitalists, you might not find so bad. We have more in common than we disagree on. I do not disagree on that. |
|
|
|
I think the American position of libertarianism is more market-oriented simply because they have much more land available and this was never really an issue, while Europe practically still lives in post-feudalism. Historically, land was under control by church and the kings and emperors because "by Grace of God".
And because a mutualist/cooperativist economy, not based on private property but on mutual aid, has never existed as a serious option in all American history. I would even say that that type of economy is against US foundational principles. |
|
|
|
If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do. Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" would be ridiculous. Well, yes, because the word "NAZI" is all bound up in the holocaust.. They'd be fools to label it so blatantly. Fortunately, "anarchy" doesn't have that level of stigma, and we can feel free to call any stateless system - however the economy is organized - an anarchy. Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries. And the ones fighting anarchists where mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain. But the fact is that anarchism didn't touch american history as nazism did - thus you feel the "level of stigma" is not the same. |
|
|
|
If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do. Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" wouldnt be ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.
Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy. Well, I think we know that first we'd have to get you to agree that fines backed by threat of imprisonment is violence for many of them. However, consider something like Sarbanes Oxley where penalties include imprisonment (sorry, that's not violence in your book either, I'm sure) for certain types of transgression. Please explain to me how there cannot be undesirable ramifications of not paying money to individuals or entities in an anarchic society. In an anarchich society you would have less crimes because 99,99% of crimes are related to private property. That's pure statistics my friends. In an "anarcho-capitalist" (lol lol and lol) society I'm not so sure you will have less street violence - You will still need police, thus you are not looking at an anarchy: your are looking at a minarchy |
|
|
|
I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence"  Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up. That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".
Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy. For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism." I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am. He didn't, but I fail to see why that's relevant. Go ahead and read it, it's not very long. Take you half an hour, tops. Well, it is relevant because Molinari was contemporary to Bakunin, and I'm very sure that he would never have even dreamt of conceiving a "capitalist anarchism". In fact I'm sure that he conceived his free market laissez-faire contrapossed to anarchism. Anyhow, we have been discussing facts. Now I would like to give you my humble opinion about WHY North Americans are not shocked by capitalist libertarians or anarcho-capitalists: For americans, non-US history has not much relevance. So most of US citizens don't know much about "original" anarchism and his foundation, even though it had an enormous impact on history, and millions of people have died while defending (or fighting against) the anarchist ideals. You give much more relevance to a modern and relatively non-relevant intellectual (Rothbard), whose theory has been quite anecdotical in the history of politics. I will follow-up with my "silly as it gets", "godwin-like" example: If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word ( National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence. Well, anarcho-capitalism is as ridiculous as jewish nazi, and insisting on etymology makes it even more ridiculous. Words does not mean what they mean only because of their etymology, that would be a logical fallacy. But from the other side I understand that US is founded on both capitalism and private property, and therefore in your short history you never seriously considered anti-capitalist anarchist theories, for you the "original" anarchism is something marginal that has no relevance at all. Therefore, you are not shocked by someone calling himself an "anarcho-capitalist", even if it's as silly as it can get. |
|
|
|
I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence" Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up. That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".
Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy. For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism." I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am. |
|
|
|
The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon... I see. So Libertarianism is still the opposite of determinism? Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard... Much like Bakunin created from thin air the term "Anarchism." Today, we have to distinct branches of "anarchism" (Which, itself, is only, and can only, be defined as: "the belief that there should be no rulers"): We have Anarcho-syndicalism, which, as you stated, uses the prefix "anarcho-" to differentiate it from "the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories" - ie, State communism. Then we have Anarcho-capitalism, which uses the anarcho-prefix for the same reason: to differentiate it from state capitalism, which is what Proudhon was against, as well. Just because for a time there was only one kind of anarchism - anarcho-syndicalism - doesn't mean that anarchism is defined as anarcho-syndicalism. I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence" That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism". |
|
|
|
Well, as we've already established that "anarchism" doesn't mean "anarchosyndicalism," using "Libertarian" as a synonym for "anarchist" doesn't rule out "radical free market, anti-state capitalist," now, does it? Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.
Could you provide the definition you're using? It doesn't seem to be a standard one. The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon... And Emma Goldman, Rocker, Malatesta, Stirner, etc. etc. Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard, and its a term that can be used seriously only by someone ignoring the true origins of the term anarchism. I will say more: no one who have read Bakunin and Kropotkin could ever use the word anarcho-capitalism without laughing out loud, even if they are convinced anti-state liberals. |
|
|
|
About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)
Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning: a-, an- not, without -arch- ruler -ism doctrine, belief Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market. That is like saying that Nationalsocialism is only a form of "nationalist" "socialism", and it has nothing to do with intollerance or racism. Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings. National Socialism is 'National' 'Socialism'. I recommend some Hayek on why it inevitably leads to what you identify as 'Nazi's'. Nazi's are Nazionalsozialists - and racism and intollerance is part of the core of the nazi ideology - full stop. I also have read plenty of Hayek and Mises, same thing for anarchist theorists and even more important: history books - and this is why I lol when I read about free market capitalists calling themselves libertarians or anarchists. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
