Those definitions don't match.

The whole reason war started is because 1 tribe wanted the other tribes food, water and women. Which was the first "wealth". Before you just got what you needed and used it. Now, we stockpile. That is the definition of wealth, period. Having enough resources to not have to hunt, farm, etc. for a day, week, month, year, etc.

Yes, that's the way capitalism works. A voluntary exchange of value for value is made, and the new owner gets the materials from the old owner.

If I come into your workshop (the workshop where you work, not necessarily the one you own) and steal the piece of marble you were going to make into a pillar, or a bunch of countertops, and take it back to my workshop, and make a statue instead, Does that make the finished piece of marble mine?

All right, we'll start with the easy one.

What makes them the "rightful" owners? There are only two ways to legitimately acquire property:
Original appropriation (homesteading), or voluntary purchase.

Secondary appropriation, or "squatting" is only valid on abandoned property. Certainly you're not claiming that the factory owner (or shareholders) abandoned the factory?

If you cut my grass and I promise you a meal that weekend as a thank you for a good job, you have just accumulated wealth.

You mean the attempted armed robbery, and possible murder of a factory owner?
People are not property. We're on the same side here.
Not without a State. I wouldn't try to violently stop any strike-breakers, though.
Not without a State.
There's no chance in hell you've read Man, Economy, and State in the time since I gave you the link. I read Proudhon, and Marx. Least you could do is give Rothbard a shot.
AnCaps don't tend to get violent enough to bring out Riot cops. We do get arrested pretty frequently, though.
You're talking to one now.
In order: moderately, and yes. And they don't enforce those wages, sweetheart. That's the market. The only enforcement is the minimum wage. And that prices people out of the marketplace entirely.

Now, I'm done derailing this thread. If you'd like an explanation of free-market capitalism, I will be glad to answer any questions you have, and explain that capitalism is not your enemy, and in fact, both you and I share the same enemy.

In another thread.

If you cut my grass and I promise you a meal that weekend as a thank you for a good job, you have just accumulated wealth.

It is mutual consent. If you cut 7 lawns and have a meal each day the next week you have accumulated wealth.

If instead of the promise of a meal, I give you money that is the equivalent of a meal which you then hold onto until you are hungry, you have just accumulated wealth. It is the same thing. The voluntary exchange of goods and services.

If you have accumulated knowledge and are the only person in the city that knows how to fix my car I choose between having no car or rewarding you properly for fixing it. I promise 1 meal a week for a month (or the equivalent monetary value).

If I have a computer system that needs someone to fix the database and you have accumulated enough knowledge to the point where you can fix it, I decide whether or not to have a broken computer system or reward you properly for fixing it. I promise 1 meal a week for a year in exchange for a week of your time dedicated to fixing it. Or more simply, I pay you enough money to afford 1 meal a week for a year. That is accumulated wealth.

All of these instances rely upon consent between the two individuals. If you do not want to do it, then you do not have to. If I do not want you to do the job, I do not have to ask you to do it.

If you had worded that more respectfully, I would've had no problem sharing how to make a few bob. But since you were so sarcastic o great one, you can go and take a fucking running jump. Good luck filling out them captchas, it fills out my wallet for sitting on my arse doing fuckall. Prick. Probs American ? Or even worse, English.

Is it possible to make a decent amount through free sites? 

No I think he's referring to the fact that you chastised him for not being respectful enough and then proceeded to call him a prick.  The irony is palpable here.

I would embrace this!


Can someone photoshop Venom->Coin?

Can someone with the authority do so clarify the motivation for the lobbying/interactions with regulators and the potential end results?

Is the protocol up for debate? Will development be guided away from certain less marketable ideas such as stronger anonymity (various coin-mixing)? Is transaction filtering a possibility?

Perhaps if the goal and methods were more clearly outlined, there would be less backlash, or at the very least the backlash would be more informed.

And aaaaall of them look like this...









 

Wut?
No mention of "tax-funded violence." In fact, it seems that your definition of capitalism is actually socialism:
"Social ownership," as in, the State.

The Radical
Politically radicalized and generally critical of the government. Always the first to make comparisons between administrations and authoritarian regimes. Committed to political activism and anonymity. Interested in bitcoin because of its political potential for disruption. Frequently anarchist or communist.

The Newbie 
Someone who is fascinated by the sentiment underlying Bitcoin and the technology behind it, and wants to be a part of the movement and where it goes.

The Fiat Converter
Those who flock to Bitcoin because they smell money to be made. Generally not interested in cryptology and stateless money.
Some are legitimate day traders simply hoping to get a return on their fiat money.
Others scam their way into a substantial number of bitcoins to cash out when the price is right.

The Scumbag
The unethical hacker, the poisoned drug dealer, the money launderer, the arms dealer, the child abuse image seller.
All the unsavory anonymous darknet bitcoin users who use Bitcoin for amoral purposes. Sometimes overlaps with the Fiat Converter or the Radical.

The Libertarian
The people looking for control over their wealth. Often similar to the Radical, but generally less  anti-capitalism. They seek the legitimization of Bitcoin and acceptance of Bitcoin as it is. Sometimes seeking a financial shelter. They are interested in making and protecting money through mining or investment in some sort of Bitcoin service.