True, your statement of what backing is is accurate. But asking the question implies certain presumptions that are untrue, and I'd want to address that. A simple reply of "Nothing," with no follow up won't really progress the conversation.

Another successful purchase, another positive experience.

That depends on how socialist you intend the system to be.

If the system requires that ALL goods are to be held in common, and all acts should only be for the common good, then I'd say you shouldn't advocate for it because, it promotes the idea of the collective to the detriment of the individual. For example, if I make a widget, it's mine, and I should keep it... and I'll fight anyone who wants to take it to use "for the common good." You shouldn't take property from others that they aren't voluntarily giving to you, when they haven't harmed you.

If it's a system where people have their own personal property, but there is common property that everyone must contribute too, I'd still usually say one shouldn't advocate it based on the same principle, depending on what the common property is, where the line between personal and common property is, etc. For example, if everyone else in the community believes contributing to a specific charity is what should be done, and I feel the charity wastes too much money on overhead, then I simply won't contribute, regardless of whether I'm the lone holdout. I see no need for unanimity or consensus... why can't everyone just donate to whatever charity they feel is appropriate?

If it's a system that's pretty much a free market, but with individuals spontaneously and voluntarily contributing to group projects as they each deem
appropriate, then surely no one could have a problem with that. Ayn Rand's idea that individualism is the highest ideal, manifested in the exclusive pursuit of self-interest and profit, seems pretty immoral and indefensible. It seems more reasonable that each individual should just choose for himself when to be charitable and cooperative.

Interesting.

Most people I run into promoting socialism do so because, in their mind, "it works better." Whether it's moral or not usually seems secondary.

If it's your moral principle, well, I disagree, but OK... as long as you're not forcing it on me, carry on.

OK. A Bitcoin-like system, centralized and run by a government, would be an incredible tool of oppression. But what exactly is your suggestion here? Drop everything and head for the hills? Shoot ourselves and get it over with? The fact is, Bitcoin is a powerful, liberating technology. It's definitely worth using. If society as a whole rejects it, well, OK, but that doesn't mean I'm going to preemptively reject it just to be in sync. I plan to support it to the end, because it's a good idea worth implementing.

So again, what exactly is the point of whining that it "won't work" because people "are stupid?" Because I'm sure not going to support a system that encourages people to behave foolishly and then exploits them for it!

To be socialist and truly libertarian, you can't just vote or legislate the socialism into place. That's not libertarian, and anyone thinking it is is only fooling himself.

Now, you could start your own libertarian socialist community if you like. Churches in the distant past have been organized like that, and I believe the pilgrims in Jamestown started with that setup (which failed miserably, prompting them to change it.) Again, I doubt it'll last long.

Alternatively, you could try to convince everyone in society to throw their property into the communal pot, but let's be honest, that's never going to happen, so really, turning an existing society into a libertarian socialist one isn't a realistic option.

That said...

One thing I find people miss about the NAP in particular (regardless of how closely any particular "flavor" of libertarianism adheres to it) is that it's more of a moral principle for people to impose on their political views than it is a political system. IOW, whether anyone else "likes" the NAP, or thinks it will work, or wants to try to implement it in their life or their society is pretty irrelevant. Those who DO believe it to be a moral principle worth following intend to follow it, period. They will refuse to intrude upon the liberty of others, and that's that. All the debates in the world about the political workings of it isn't going to convince them to start voting for anything that, in their minds, is aggression.

So I find myself wondering why people who think the NAP is bad/doesn't work/is silly/etc. even bother debating it or whatever... it's not like those who follow it are going to try to try to intrude on those who don't. It's a little like wasting time denouncing a group of people who believe in the golden rule. You may think it's naive, but it's not as if by following it those people are possibly going to hurt you, so why waste the time? "You're dumb for believing people ought to be left alone! You need to start believing that aggression of innocents is OK!" It's not exactly an argument that is in one's own self interest.

Please do. I anticipate I'll have a constant need for more.

Well, yes, it IS perfectly acceptable to have a completely voluntary (read: non-aggressive, i.e. libertarian) form of socialism.

I doubt it would work, but there's nothing inherently coercive about multiple people holding their assets in common and voluntarily agreeing to a distribution method.

The kids will need to opt-in when they get old enough though....

A hole in the middle of the woods? The way things are (in the U.S.) nowadays, I'd trust my own ability to split my assets up and hide them away rather than trusting a federally-controlled bank to keep them safe.

It seems like the idea so far has centered around the concept of sending bitcoins unannounced to people who don't know much about them and then hoping they'll use them.

I think it might do well by simply being an Instawallet-like service that makes it easier for people who already use bitcoins to send them to others on FB who also already use bitcoins. You would have to be signed up already to receive the coins, and then the system just transfers the funds internally when sending to someone else within the system. Charge a monthly rate (in bitcoin, of course) to use, possibly pre-paid, and it just might be profitable too.

I disagree. Yes, cash will crash, but I believe that that very fact will only strengthen Bitcoin. Without the normal fiat electronic banking systems being worth anything, the world will be crying out for some form of electronic commerce. And since we've allowed the governments of the world (ok, mainly the U.S.) to suppress gold-backed and silver-backed electronic commerce, Bitcoin will be the #1 substitute.



Yes, it is all temporary. Have you sold everything yet?

Which app was it?

Yeah, this is probably the best way for a beginner to start nowadays.

If you have a smartphone, you can also download Blockchain.info's mobile app.

I'd also recommend a backup app on the off chance Blockchain.info is down for a bit: BitcoinSpinner. It's simpler (only one address) but still quite good. (Some of the other smartphone apps aren't exactly solid, so use caution.)

This is most accurate.

Although I'd probably go with "It's backed by human demand for a suitable money, just like gold."

*swoons*

This is awesome.

Buy gold/silver for BTC.

This, hardcore. If P2P won't work, centralize it, and allow loans/repayments via SMS as well

Other ideas:

- A simple, open-source Windows, Linux and Mac app that simply reads the wallet file you drag to it, and spits out a text file containing all the private keys

- Convert the C++ blockchain parser (thread here) into a nice, shiny, easy-to-use program that lets you pore over, examine, chart, etc. the data as much as you like

- Another lite open-source Android app (that works well) couldn't hurt. I'd download it.

- A "sweep" app for smartphones. Someone hands you a QR-code of a private key, you scan it, and the app collects all the unspent outputs and bundles them into one transaction sent to your default receiving address. All with one or two clicks for speed. (Optional: allow a "power-user" mode where you can scan multiple codes, choose which unspent outputs to spend, decide on transaction fee, split the amount across multiple receiving addresses, etc.)

- A (good!) strategy game where you can spend BTC to upgrade, and put up BTC competitively (you win, you earn his BTC, and vice-versa)


I'd pledge varying modest amounts of BTC to see any of the above get done.

My mindset has always been, if I mined, I'd like to save all the coins, but I'd need to sell a portion to pay for the electricity anyway, so I probably would have sold more than necessary.

But now with the electrical costs being so low, I can afford to take whatever meager amount I mine and just save it all away.

I suspect that, in general, ASICs miners will be doing far more saving than GPU miners do.

If you support the TSA, you're too much of a statist to be helped. It's the only explanation.

It's free, and doesn't demand you use Paypal. *shrug*