I'm sorry, but one of us is confused.  Bitcoin crosses parity with the US $ months ago.

And no other way to effectively export that energy to Europe where it's really needed.

Mining will always be profitable, if you have already paid for your hardware and need to heat your space anyway.  Once again, anyone who lives in Iceland probably cannot be undercut by any miner who lives in Florida.

I let that slide because I figure that you can't really help that, and everyone has the right to be wrong.


Amazingly, some do not.


I'm sure that you sincerely believe that, but in reality it is a matter of degree.  If you accept that a legitimately elected government should have the power to take the resources necessary for survival from one group of people and give it to another group of people by use of the collective force of government, then the remainder is just a concern about under what conditions.  I'm sure that you would reject divine right as a legimitate justification for a nobility to impose their will upon the majority 'mobility' (yes, that's where we get "mob" from); but would you accept the results of a presumedly democratic elected congress doing something similar?  Why?  Because some special group that you agree with, desire to support, or identify with receives the benefits of that ruling?  I'm Cherokee, but wouldn't for the life of me want to live on a reservation for the side benefit of a $300 per month check and food stamps.  You probably wouldn't either, but would you argue in favor of continuing the practice for your cousins?  I would not, and do not.  The conditions that come with taxpayers' money pretty much promises that the mediocre remain where they are.


Worse, from their own children.  It's not unjustified, as it can be demostrated as being economicly accurate.  You just don't see yourself as we see you.  That is understandable.  Everyone likes to think of themselves as the reasonable ones, as the moderate.  Few people ever question themselves or their own indoctrination.  The irony of all that, which I'm sure that you will reject out of hand, is that the various flavors of liberty minded are those few.  This is why there are so few of us in the political sphere to begin with.  There is no such thing as indoctrination for libertarians, it's contrary to governments of any sort to promote that.  If you attended a school in the US, public or private, you have been indoctrinated in the church of the state, as you have literally been institutionalized.


If you want to say thinks generally about what you think libertarians want, go right ahead.  You are allowed to be wrong, but you have been intentionally antagonizing your opposition, not engaging in a debate.  I have no problem with you openly displaying your ignorance of your peers, no harm comes to me or others by that at all.

At best, you and him are exposing an opinion about those you hold in opposition, and know next to nothing about how those you and him make assumptions about actually came to the opinions that they hold.  For myself, I was a true green as a young man, and my parents were real hippies.  I started to question the logic of the green and progressive movements on my own, and never even heard of Mises or Rothbard until those names were thrown at me by my father during an argument around 22 years old.  So I started to read, and then I was changed.  I never read Rand until I was 30 something, and thought it was okay, but I'm not a randian.

"If you are not a socialist at 20, then you have no heart; but if you are still a socialist at 40 then you have no sense."

Yes, you presumed, and failed to understand.  The banking systems of the Western world are not remotely privatized or 'deregulated'.  That's all BS.  It's never happened, and cannot happen, because the bankers own the government not the other way around.  That's the short answer.  Austrian economic thought (i.e. libertarian thought, praxeology) is incompatible with central banking.  Central banking is, by it's own definition, central control of the money markets.

This topic is about politics, and no longer about Bitcoin or Spain.

this is exactly what I am talking about.  There is no argument here, only hateful retoric.  You have a right to your opinion, but if you can't be more civil, you shall soon find yourself keeping your opinions to yourself.

Liberal was already a bad word long before Fox existed as a network, much less before Fox News did.

This was a true statement as recently as 2006, but it is no longer true.  The US can no longer afford it's own social safety nets even if the entire military and war budgets were completely eliminated.

LotR was a great story, AS only so-so.  Both stories existed to promote an ideology of the author, LotR was just more subtle.

And Paul Krugman is a racist.

And as for you, you are pushing it.  Intentionally skirting the line so that I don't censor you as well.  I can tell that you are practiced at antagonizing your opposition, but do you have a rational argument to present?  I won't let you continue with your own style of insults for much longer.

And this thread needs to split...

I understand the frustration of being talked down to about morals by someone who doesn't understand the logical conclusions of what he openly supports, and thinks himself educated enough to consider others to be irrational and uncaring while in reality he is the one who supports human suffering.  I really do.  But he knows not of what he speaks, while you do.  You must keep a cool head while using this forum.

In my experience, people who say stuff like this don't watch Fox News enough to even know anything useful about the network or their viewership.  Like those who blab about how crazy Glenn Beck is only know what he looks like from two minutes youtube outakes.

No, that work creates value that gives the dollars meaning.

I didn't do it, but it's an awesome plan.

I don't either, but nor did I see a 100 fold increase in value in eight months when I bought in at 6.5 cents.

To be clear, are you saying that you know her personally and will stake your own reputation on her trustworthiness?

Wait, aren't the postal workers in Canada civil servants?  Civil servants in the US can't strike, union or not.  Which is how Regan got away with firing all of the air traffic controllers when they went on strike in the 1980's.

Hazek, that was way over the line.

Sometime after the death of FDR, the "progressive" movement that characterized the entire first half of the last century in the United States was discredited as having largely been co-opted by socialists.  Following this, these same socialist-lite progressives altered the public image during the next several decades by taking the term 'liberal' from what was once the libertarians of the day.  The liberty minded liberals of the 1900's and earlier are often called "classical liberals" today, and that means roughly the same thing as the term "libertarian" in the modern lexicon; which is a word that was made up in the 1970's because 'social progressives' had distorted the term in the view of the US political context.  So when you hear someone from the United States say "liberal" or "progressive" in a political context, Europeans can safely hear "socialist" and be pretty close.  Although Europeans are not likely to look at Obama and think that he compares with the socialists or progressives in European politics, this is because Obama can only do so much without severe political backlash and not a fundamental difference in ideology.

However, your understanding of "conservative" in the US context is also a bit wrong.  Generally speaking, a "conservative" in the US political context is not someone who wishes to 'preserve' the status quo, but a 'fascist lite'.

The miners are responding to the rise in the market price of Bitcoin.  If the price stalls, so will the rise in difficulty.  If the price falls, the difficulty will slowly drop off to meet it.  Changes in difficulty tend to follow changes in price with a 6 week lag.