Until there is a massive adoption of Bitcoin in a paticular sector (i,e, gambling, craigslist) there will not likely be long term investors. People only seem to understand stocks and currencies of which Bitcoin is really neither. Currencies are subject to unpredictable inflation, and stocks are subject to inside information. Bitcoin is being treated like an unknown quantity with fear and doubt. This is unjustified because it is based on math. Sure there are unknown factors, but the chance of Bitcoin crashing are about the same as having a house-sized meteorite fall on your head. This game of buying and selling for short term profits will end when some visionary investors around the world get educated about the power of math.
We should organize a workshop/seminar, in some expensive ski resort or something, with a hefty entrance fee of something like $25,000. Make it invite-only. Seed some rumors Satoshi might show up. I absolutely agree. At the very least there should be a TED talk. TED was cold to Bitcoin back at $7... maybe they've changed their tune now  I nominate Max Keiser to do the TED talk.  Not sure if serious... but that would have to be the worst fit in the history of TED I actually believe Max can put on his game face, especially if Stacy Herbert is with him. It would be funny as hell if he did throw one of his trademarked fits. |
|
|
|
Until there is a massive adoption of Bitcoin in a paticular sector (i,e, gambling, craigslist) there will not likely be long term investors. People only seem to understand stocks and currencies of which Bitcoin is really neither. Currencies are subject to unpredictable inflation, and stocks are subject to inside information. Bitcoin is being treated like an unknown quantity with fear and doubt. This is unjustified because it is based on math. Sure there are unknown factors, but the chance of Bitcoin crashing are about the same as having a house-sized meteorite fall on your head. This game of buying and selling for short term profits will end when some visionary investors around the world get educated about the power of math.
We should organize a workshop/seminar, in some expensive ski resort or something, with a hefty entrance fee of something like $25,000. Make it invite-only. Seed some rumors Satoshi might show up. I absolutely agree. At the very least there should be a TED talk. TED was cold to Bitcoin back at $7... maybe they've changed their tune now I nominate Max Keiser to do the TED talk. |
|
|
|
Until there is a massive adoption of Bitcoin in a paticular sector (i,e, gambling, craigslist) there will not likely be long term investors. People only seem to understand stocks and currencies of which Bitcoin is really neither. Currencies are subject to unpredictable inflation, and stocks are subject to inside information. Bitcoin is being treated like an unknown quantity with fear and doubt. This is unjustified because it is based on math. Sure there are unknown factors, but the chance of Bitcoin crashing are about the same as having a house-sized meteorite fall on your head. This game of buying and selling for short term profits will end when some visionary investors around the world get educated about the power of math.
We should organize a workshop/seminar, in some expensive ski resort or something, with a hefty entrance fee of something like $25,000. Make it invite-only. Seed some rumors Satoshi might show up. I absolutely agree. At the very least there should be a TED talk. |
|
|
|
|
nTimeLock will poke a stick in this silly law. Soon, exchanges and sites like this will become decentralized and accessible locally. They can even be run on dim and darknets. It's fine to regulate on the fiat side, but once the blockchain is used, there can be no more effective regulation and they will just have to get over it and move on. Render unto Caesar what are Caesar's; and unto teh Blockchain all things Bitcoin. Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
Until there is a massive adoption of Bitcoin in a paticular sector (i,e, gambling, craigslist) there will not likely be long term investors. People only seem to understand stocks and currencies of which Bitcoin is really neither. Currencies are subject to unpredictable inflation, and stocks are subject to inside information. Bitcoin is being treated like an unknown quantity with fear and doubt. This is unjustified because it is based on math. Sure there are unknown factors, but the chance of Bitcoin crashing are about the same as having a house-sized meteorite fall on your head. This game of buying and selling for short term profits will end when some visionary investors around the world get educated about the power of math.
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between Bitcoin and a Ponzi scheme:
A Ponzi scheme requires a person lying about what is backing the investment.
Bitcoin only requires the truthful answer to a math problem to back the investment.
Otherwise they are very similar. The real question is why people invest in anything?
|
|
|
|
Proof or GTFO.
I'm going all in...
on this plate full of delicious pizza rolls. The roof of my mouth be damned!
Post a pic of a pizza roll on your head or it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
|
After over four years this is the best they could come up with? This is so full of loopholes. Essentially this outlaws all barter and exchange of services. Nowhere does it mention any money. In fact, Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, it is getting help with a math problem. They will have to ban math tutoring. Perhaps the attack on the education system was planned all along.
|
|
|
|
Says the guy posting memes on the internets.  |
|
|
|
I don't bind myself to currently accepted paradigms.
The rights of the individual vs. the power of the collective is one of the oldest paradigms there is. What paradigm are you working under? There are many others. Morals, mores, religious experience, customs, rituals, laws, etc., spring from the mirror neuron receptors. Social dynamics such as heirarchy predate the evolution of homo sapien. Technically we are nothing but food machines for the bacterial collectives that we spring from and infest our bodies and will consume us when we expire. |
|
|
|
I am not accepting your false dichotomy of statist vs. agorist (or whatever).
One is either prone to accept the yoke or not. If nothing else, this is what political history teaches us. Then that is the limit of political history. I don't bind myself to currently accepted paradigms. |
|
|
|
|
As long as I can use coinbase, I have little need for coinlab.
|
|
|
|
If you guys want to scare away potential Bitcoin users, keep sending them memes. Would you want to trust your money in a system that promotes goofy tag lines and even goofier-looking meme characters? Start presenting BTC in a professional manner, people will take notice.
Oh lighten up. Let the nerds have their day. It won't be long before they replace their youthful indiscretions with the responsibilities of life. Bitcoin doesn't care either because it stands on it's own merit as the bad boy rock-star and doesn't need anyone to dress it up in big boy clothes. |
|
|
|
I don't believe either one of us can be persuaded from our positions so I'm going to refrain from further engagement in a pissing contest. I've found that by and large, an individual's nature is either geared toward bending to the authority of the State and its decrees or its geared to less centralized modes of existence. No amount of debate is going to change a person's nature. An excellent history of the rise of centralized authority of the past 100 years and its fruits is found in Advance To Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare From Sarajevo to Hiroshima by Veale. You probably won't see this work used as a history book in any state-funded university. As a return, perhaps you could direct me to a work that details the positive aspects of the centralized control of economic, jurisdictional and civil matters. We have examples in the Soviet Union, Maoist and modern China, the European Union and the United States so there's plenty to draw from. I am not accepting your false dichotomy of statist vs. agorist (or whatever). There are a lot of books these days with highly provocative themes. Most of them use cherry-picked facts and twist statistics into things that would make a contortionist wince. I have my own hypotheses that are far more complex and involve the rise of religion, developmental psychology, linguistics, and other correlational research. People tend to see the patterns they want to see in complex systems, but these systems arose from somewhere and somewhen. I am more curious about fundamental forces in psychohistory and sociohistory. |
|
|
|
|
Does the USA currently recognize Bitcoin as money?
|
|
|
|
|
There are still two puzzles to be solved. Volunteers wanted to restyle the website. Interested parties PM me. I plan to completely redesign the game itself.
|
|
|
|
You did not answer my question about supporting the posited Oppenheimer hypothesis in a peer reviewed science journal. Or at least some historical example that demonstrates the dynamic.
I'll look around and get back to you. While I'm doing that, find me a something in a peer reviewed science journal supporting Bitcoin. I'll probably have a little more luck than you will but let's post our findings here. I did not proffer an argument about Bitcoin in this discussion, so I'll concede the point if I did. I would truly like to see a study about how bandits form governments as the argument you are championing:
Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.
|
|
|
|
Look. He threw the first ad hominem. I agreed with you. You said you weren't a historian. That's not ad hominem. Unless you are an accredited historian Yes, I have publicly acknowledged expertise in certain branches of history, mostly having to do with the rise of central banking in America. What would you like to know? You did not answer my question about supporting the posited Oppenheimer hypothesis in a peer reviewed science journal. Or at least some historical example that demonstrates the dynamic. Or maybe you too are a naive person? According to you, that is not ad hominem. |
|
|
|
Let's see something that has been written in recent anthropological or sociological peer reviewed journals. Moving the goalposts isn't an intellectually honest approach. It was your claim that only "trolls" would posit that the State is a gang of thieves. Now that your claim is disproved, it might serve you better to educate yourself further or refrain from commenting out of ignorance again. I am not an historian
That's quite obvious. I can safely discount your further opinions of anything having to do with historical matters, theories of the State being one of them. Look. He threw the first ad hominem. Calling him a troll was for that more than the argument. Besides, Oppenheimer's opinions are interesting, but hardly prove or disprove anything. Perhaps he was only trolling Marx or vice verse. As far as my opinions, you may discount anything you like. Your feelings add nothing to the conversation. Unless you are an accredited historian, shall I discount your conjecture as well? |
|
|
|
|
That Guy (as in Don't Be That Guy) is the Alfred E. Newman of the Bitcoin milieu. "What, me worry?"
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
