Again you are exposing your ignorance of economics here. The dollar is a debt note. A fiat paper stand in for real capital. Real capital is things such as gold, real estate, cars, etc. Commodities. The dollar is an IOU note.
The dollar is real capital. It's the most popular real capital in the world. This is a fact. The question is not will Bitcoin be above $500000 by 2020, it is what will $1 be worth?
You still failed to answer this question, because you can't do it. You can't name any other currency or basket of currencies to compare against in any meaningful fashion. Don't talk to me about ignorance when you don't even know the answer to your own question, rhetorical or not. Here's the definition of "real capital" since you are apparently unfamiliar with it: Real capital
Wealth that can be represented in financial terms, such as savings account balances, financial securities, and real estate. You're just making stuff up off the top of your head and proclaiming it as law while being snarky about it at the same time. Not a good look. You were saying something about being snarky and uninformed at the same time? Your arbitrary demands for a basket of currencies are irrelevant. I never made any price predictions, I asked a rhetorical question. Now if you are done with your sad attempts at brinkmanship... |
|
|
|
looks like you are on the wrong side of this forum
you should think long and hard about your principles My principles are just fine, thanks. You have repeatedly shown you don't understand how the trust system works, your misguided attempts to "overthrow" it would give literally thousands of scammers a clean trust rating to go out and scam again, and you live in an echo chamber by deleting every reply you don't agree with and adding the poster to your exclusion list. I happen to agree with theymos' point regarding the trust system, which is why I haven't red tagged any of you, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking you and your fellow "union of conspirators" are a bunch of morons. Can you explain to me why these people can not be rated again if appropriate? Also what is preventing these scammers from just buying a new account and returning moments later? The question is not if the trust police are helpful, it is at what cost, and is it worth it? I would argue they are doing more to divide the community and provide cover for scammers because everywhere is a sea of red over the most petty disputes. This makes it EASIER for these con artists to blend in. We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings. If this was the standard a LARGE portion of all of these disputes, if not the majority of them would simply cease to exist. Any disputes would be handled in scam accusations and reviewed by the community as all scams are without much problem. This system of arbitrary enforcement and abuse needs to stop. |
|
|
|
I only attack the intelligence of people with low intelligence. Anyone who can make a logical argument I would prefer that route, but that is increasingly rare it seems now days.
If it were not for your poor reading comprehension you may have noticed I did actually answer that question, real capital. Regarding that quote, other than it being something you decided to try to shoe horn into this it has nothing to do with me, kind of odd thing to include frankly.
I'm just pointing out that you fit a very classic personality type: those who hide behind insults in lieu of a counterargument. Besides, what's "real capital" if not the dollar? If you could simply answer the question without being insulting about it, it would be greatly appreciated. Yet I did make an argument and had a logical reply each and every time... "Besides, what's "real capital" if not the dollar?" Again you are exposing your ignorance of economics here. The dollar is a debt note. A fiat paper stand in for real capital. Real capital is things such as gold, real estate, cars, etc. Commodities. The dollar is an IOU note. |
|
|
|
Democracy is the government of the people for the people and by the people, in a Democratic government the people are at the central of the whole process and they decide who govern them. The people hold they representative accountable for they action either good or bad.
Another definition of republic. Does anyone know what democracy is? The difference between democracy and a republic can be boiled down to the rules by which the government is limited. A republic gives domain to the legislature to act within proscribed boundaries. A democracy is majority rule to do whatever the majority is so inclined to do. You just don't get it. We need Liquid Democracy and Modern Monetary Theory man. Dude. Man... |
|
|
|
Thinking it and not saying it doesn't count, sorry. "inflate the least" is a completely meaningless term, because it does nothing to establish fiat currency itself will be worth a damn, or how far the buying power as a whole will drop for them all.
Okay, so when you ask how much will a dollar be worth, what denomination to propose to value it in? I am sorry your understanding of economics as well as reading comprehension is so poor. It was a rhetorical question meant to evoke the thought of the relative value of fiat currency in relation to real capital. Ah, so nothing then. Just as I suspected you don't actually have answer and are pursuing your usual route of attacking the intelligence of the person posing the question to you. Like some other people that dupe people around this space (... say someone who posted earlier in this thread...) Wright compensates for cluelessness by applying an abusive attitude, technobabble, and choir preaching insults at respected authorities to both elevate his standing and make his audience feel superior (like "I knew it! all along those respected folks were really worst than me!").
You are the "other people that dupe people." I only attack the intelligence of people with low intelligence. Anyone who can make a logical argument I would prefer that route, but that is increasingly rare it seems now days. If it were not for your poor reading comprehension you may have noticed I did actually answer that question, real capital. Regarding that quote, other than it being something you decided to try to shoe horn into this it has nothing to do with me, kind of odd thing to include frankly. |
|
|
|
Thinking it and not saying it doesn't count, sorry. "inflate the least" is a completely meaningless term, because it does nothing to establish fiat currency itself will be worth a damn, or how far the buying power as a whole will drop for them all.
Okay, so when you ask how much will a dollar be worth, what denomination to propose to value it in? I am sorry your understanding of economics as well as reading comprehension is so poor. It was a rhetorical question meant to evoke the thought of the relative value of fiat currency in relation to real capital. |
|
|
|
No. It literally doesn't. At most it requires time which is arguable as far as availability, but people don't lack free time. They lack the will to better themselves. Nothing is stopping people from educating themselves in a world with more information available than every in human history for free. The government is not the center of the universe, nor should it be. If people have to use their time to work in order to meet bare necessities, they no longer have time for education. Time itself is capital. We sell time for money and buy other people's time with capital. Capitalists have more time. In terms of labor time, someone like Bezos has thousands (or is it millions?) of hours in a day. You can count this up by adding up all of the time it took to create the things they consume in one day. The information you say is "available" requires capital to access. Where does the book come from? Where does the device come from? Where does the internet connection come from? The best answer is public libraries provided by government, of course. You contradict yourself. You demand all these things must cost money, and you yourself gave a good example of free use. Also not all libraries exist solely on government funding so.. not exactly. Also there are access plans as low as $20 a month I have seen, or even $1 at McDonalds to get wifi. There is no reason people can't afford these things with minimal amounts of effort. Your argument is moot. The government is not our savior, it is our jailer. |
|
|
|
I think McAffe has already backtracked on the whole eating his own dick thing......
Also DONT MURDER ANYONE?
I think McAffe fled some country to avoid some murder charges
If you look into the story, supposedly he was being set up by the Belize government because he had dirt on them and was trying to fight them. I looked at the circumstances and frankly his story makes more sense than theirs. |
|
|
|
The question is not will Bitcoin be above $500000 by 2020, it is what will $1 be worth?
My guess is $1. It will still be the world's #1 reserve currency, and still the most stable and widely used. Worldwide economic turmoil between now and then will only result in a strengthened dollar. Thanks for the non-answer. The question is of buying power. Saying a dollar will be worth a dollar is like calling water wet. "buying power" = the dollar will inflate the least out of every single other currency in the world between now and 2020 = I already explained that to you. Thinking it and not saying it doesn't count, sorry. "inflate the least" is a completely meaningless term, because it does nothing to establish fiat currency itself will be worth a damn, or how far the buying power as a whole will drop for them all. |
|
|
|
The question is not will Bitcoin be above $500000 by 2020, it is what will $1 be worth?
My guess is $1. It will still be the world's #1 reserve currency, and still the most stable and widely used. Worldwide economic turmoil between now and then will only result in a strengthened dollar. Thanks for the non-answer. The question is of buying power. Saying a dollar will be worth a dollar is like calling water wet. |
|
|
|
|
The question is not will Bitcoin be above $500000 by 2020, it is what will $1 be worth?
|
|
|
|
That's one big hell pile of bullshit you have here xD Sure now in Canada you have to prove that you haven't done anything when you're accused of rape. That's exactly what the bill says. Well I could quote the part of the bill saying something even remotely close to that but i'll just... Well I could but... Well I could. Those are some impressive mental gymnastics you have there. I linked the law. I quoted. I gave hypothetical examples. I linked multiple reviews of the law. You... you deny reality and claim I substantiated nothing. Sorry you just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the legal system enough to make a judgement here. Perhaps you should take your ignorant criticisms to the appropriate thread. |
|
|
|
The problem with enforcing an "objective standard" is that that in itself can be pretty subjective and is dependent on enforcers of the standard to themselves be completely unbiased, which isn't gonna happen. I don't know what OP's problem is. He has a good trust rating. None of the changes effect his ability to carry out his business on the forum, which it sounds like his life is dependent upon -- he can still see negative trusts he leaves for other people. He won't rest until things are exactly the way he wants them, which again, isn't gonna happen.
It just sounds like he's been crying for the last 4 years straight. Sorry for "derailing" your thread.
It is far more objective than what is the standard now, not even close. This standard relies on statements of fact, not feelings or suspicious which are completely open to interpretation and abuse rationalized 1000 different ways. Any dispute over what is and is not evidence is already regularly examined by the community in the scam accusation section as it always has been. There is no reason this can not be used as the rubric for what is an acceptable rating. Really it is not subjective at all, which is the whole point. My problem is I don't want to be subject to a system of arbitrary enforcement, stalking, and abuse that is the standard around here. This is creating an extremely caustic environment on the forum and is destroying the core of the community from the inside out. The trust system as it is, is wide open for scammers and trolls to slide right in and make is user base tear itself apart as we have seen so many examples of. I am being so vocal about this because I am one of the FEW cases where these complaints can not simply be dismissed as some kind of scammer trying to cover up their crimes which is standard operating procedure any time a complaint is made. I am one of the few people that is willing to step forward and risk harassment by these entrenched abusers in the current system. For the most part everyone doesn't want to get involved because they fear retribution themselves, but the problem with that is it lets the abusers run the forum. I don't intend to stand by quietly and allow this to happen like most of the rest of the forum unwilling to take the risk of speaking up. That is to say if the trust system had an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws none of this would have ever been an issue to begin with.
I have no disagreements to this philosophy, and I agree it would be easier to have guidelines to follow. But I'll risk a speculation: that's probably not the decentralized vision theymos has for this forum. In the short time I've been here it's been made pretty clear that theymos is libertarian. And so yes, libertarian philosophy and lack of authority may lead to anarchy. As long as nobody loses an eye, I'm enjoying witnessing this unique study in human behavior. Theymos has already issued "guidelines" but they are so subjective as to be completely meaningless in effect. Regardless of what Theymos's vision is, this objective standard would serve the forum and its user base much better as it would eliminate the VAST amount of conflict and abuse simply by creating that objective standard. As far as I have read, Theymos actually considers himself "some what of a anarcho-capitalist", which is all fine and dandy, but after a while it becomes a bit childish to run a forum as your personal social experiment when some very simple rules would prevent so many problems for the user base. The fact is the forum is a centralized entity. All the fantasizing in the world about anarcho-capitalism is not going to make that any different. It is kind of hard to have anarchy when he is ultimately the dictator of the forum. Also anarchy means without rulers, not without rules. |
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with my tiny handful of negative ratings left. I wonder what I would find if I went through you ratings since we are talking about hypocrisy here?
I'm not the one advocating some new standards so not sure where you see the hypocrisy. I am confused because I refuse to let you hijack this thread and make it what YOU wish it was about? There is nothing wrong with my ratings, even if there was THIS is not the forum for it, perhaps you should move your complaints to reputation as you like to say so much any time some one brings up ratings YOU DON'T want to discuss.
Ok. You don't want to discuss what's in the OP. Weird but ok. Does everyone see the same pattern here of every time some one tries to point out the flaws and abuse in this system and tries to advocate for a change toadies like Suchmoon come out of the wood work to constantly derail the threads. The trust system needs an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.
All I said is that you should lead by example. I find it weird that you want standards but you don't want to adhere to them yourself. Anyways, enjoy the discussion with somebody else who will hopefully have better luck understanding what it is that you're discussing here. None of your horse shit derailing was in the OP no matter how much you are going to pretend it was. This is the same pattern you play out any time some one is critical of the current trust system status quo, only you can't just easily dismiss me as a scammer like every other person who brings these issues up is. As a result you need to pick thru my tiny number of ratings to find something to blow out of proportion to distract from the fact that the trust system is counter productive and widely open to abuse. Now that you have dropped your turds on the thread and you have run out of ammo you are now forced to move along with your further dismissive comments on the way out never once having addressed the actual arguments made, just the way you like it. I have been leading by example, by standing up to power hungry little toads like you for years regardless of how much harassment results. I would call that a fairly accurate summary of what I am advocating for yes. The rest here is just noise from people who don't like the idea that they will no longer be all powerful and above criticism around here. Then I'm not sure where we went wrong. Let's avoid the tirade of drama and talk about improving DefaultTrust as a system. The individuals can come later (or in separate discussions). Agreed?
There was a post by someone when explaining negative trust. Paraphrasing here, but I believe this is critical: "Is the negative feedback worth ruining the user's reputation?" This should be mainly for preventing the degradation of the forum. Scams, egregious abuse of forum systems, etc. I don't usually send out negative feedback based on dissenting opinions. (if there is feedback that I sent of which you disagree with, please let me know.) There are some cases in which consistent blatant lying that is not outright scamming (i.e. does not involve any monetary transaction) might deserve a strongly-worded neutral or at worst, a negative. **may not have actually occurred yet
I think you will find when addressed rationally and with intellectual honesty I will respond in kind. There are a lot of people who go around here who only speak the language of intimidation, inquisition, and relishing their authority over others over anything else. It is easy to say just lets agree, but the people who will continually derail don't have the principle to even honor that agreement as they have no incentive to. I am not aware of anything you personally have been up to that I object to, I am sorry if it sounded as if I was addressing you personally. As I stated in previous posts we need this core set of principles because it is what will ultimately achieve those goals of preventing abuse, scams, and general degradation of the forum. It is not rocket science. Look at any society without a rule of law and see how it is controlled. This forum is not quite that chaotic, but operates under systematic arbitrary enforcement. Arbitrary enforcement results in not only confusion of what the rules are but creates a feedback loop of disregard for the "rule of law" or observing rules on the forum in general. You combine this with a small handful of cliques that have made an industry out of going after scams or manufacturing them to then "bust" them with various levels of complication, and now you have direct incentive for abuse without recourse for those abused. This again breeds disrespect for any authority around here, as well again creates a feedback loop of driving away constructive users who simply didn't understand the arbitrarily enforced patchwork of rules, while actual scammers are back in seconds with a bought account. There needs to be a standard of evidence for negative ratings of some kind of documentation of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. This would cut out SO MUCH of the bullshit we are seeing right now. The sky will not fall. The forum will continue. There will be less drama, more cooperation, more constructive users, less scamming (because they can't hide in the noise), and most importantly people can enjoy the peace of mind of generally BEING LEFT THE FUCK ALONE if they haven't harmed anyone else as is traditional in this community.
Neutral trust with a warning the account "may be" changed hands is enough.
The only problem with Neutral trust is if a person has a zero trust rating, many people don't even bother to check the trust comments. Perhaps a message under trust to "click here to read peer comments" should be warranted. That is the issue. The trust system is supposed to be a simple guide for noobs right? Unfortunately though no system is free from exploitation. We should be encouraging users to use the green and red numbers as a QUICK REFERENCE, then to do their own due diligence before trading. By overly applying the ratings we are just creating signal noise and confusion allowing this kind of manufactured crime of suspicion creating complete ambiguity as to who is actually a scammer and who is not. The net is too wide so you catch too many innocents, or for very petty reasons, people notice, then the whole system becomes useless for its intended purpose. We need a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating, otherwise it can never be a useful quick reference as explained above. Even if it WAS a good quick reference, teaching noobs to just use those numbers and not do due diligence is feeding them into a wood chipper of fraud by teaching them to trust a system that can be manipulated. Furthermore these trust police feed into this feeling by giving the perception that they actively stop scams. I am sorry but this whole thing that has arisen here is what we call a clusterfuck and it needs to stop. I can't even imagine how much more we could have accomplished if all of this energy was redirected towards constructive things rather than playing cops and robbers and ripping apart the foundation of the cohesiveness of the culture of the forum itself. |
|
|
|
There doesn’t appear to be any policy in place removing merit.
Sure about that? There is a higher standard for merit sources, however it is not unreasonable to put additional (retroactive) rules on merit sources because this merit effectively comes directly from theymos. Well I am glad I have your assurance it is ok. I am sure this will not be abuse like every other tool he has created relating to trust. |
|
|
|
Yes, why take into account the other 8 years of trust ratings when you can pick one single event and use it to delegitimize every argument I make for years. That sounds logical to me.
After all it does serve as quite a convenient tool to distract from the fact that none of this confusion would have happened to begin with if there was an objective standard. Perhaps when that standard is met and you pick the beam out of your own eye, I will remove the speck from mine.
You're confused. Your own OP quotes those events from ~5 years ago. Why do you post stuff that you don't want to be discussed? And it's not the only rating that doesn't meet your own standards. Some others that stand out: Hippie Tech (at least the first rating) Quickseller (not that he lacks reasons to be untrustworthy but your feedback is quite ridiculous) I'm not "delegitimizing" your arguments, just finding it impossible to take you seriously when you sound like a spoiled brat in your posts and in your trust ratings every time someone disagrees with you. There is nothing wrong with my tiny handful of negative ratings left. I have left less than 4 negative ratings per year on average since it existed. I wonder what I would find if I went through you ratings since we are talking about hypocrisy here? I am confused because I refuse to let you hijack this thread and make it what YOU wish it was about? There is nothing wrong with my ratings, even if there was THIS is not the forum for it, perhaps you should move your complaints to reputation as you like to say so much any time some one brings up ratings YOU DON'T want to discuss. Does everyone see the same pattern here of every time some one tries to point out the flaws and abuse in this system and tries to advocate for a change toadies like Suchmoon come out of the wood work to constantly derail the threads and attack the posters? The trust system needs an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not by far the only one who thinks the status-quo is a problem. I think the trust system does way more harm to the community than good, it should be removed IMO. The amount of people I get direct messaging me on Twitter complaining how they stopped using this forum because of issues around trust is noticeable, or ranting about Lauda. I don't think these people are necessarily scammers either.
Better to just remove it. I'm sure the overall happiness of the community would go way up. Let people figure out for themselves if someone or a business is trustworthy, as they do on the rest of the internet. It's a noble idea but it just builds resentment among members which might actually lead to more shady and dubious behavior. Mobs going around bullying members with trust scores is shady activity. Feels like more people complain about getting their trust fucked with and characters like Lauda than they do about scams here.
Trust scores are mostly meaningless, it's closer to a popularity contest than a true measure of someone's trustworthiness. Just by using this site, all of you are implicitly trusting me, but that isn't reflected at all in my trust score, in fact I probably seem less trustworthy on first observation than some actual shady people on here. There's so much angst with the whole system, maybe there's a way to make it work better, and tweaking it could eventually lead to that, but for now it just looks like something that's dividing the community.
|
|
|
|
There doesn’t appear to be any policy in place removing merit.
Sure about that? |
|
|
|
Interesting how you are allowed to interpret your own ratings how you like, but my rating for a SINGLE USER you take objection with is some how out of line even though it falls well within your currently accepted standard under the guidelines. The point that you think this single user's rating is some how impugning my character is fucking laughable. Hey tell me, where is that user now? Oh right he was just operating a fly by night "charity" and is long gone.
You're free to post any ratings you want (even outside of the guidelines) and other users are free to evaluate your judgement based on that. I'm fine with that approach. However you're also advocating for a regulated system where everyone is supposed to post ratings according to your rules, which you aren't following yourself. I consider that hypocritical. Yes, why take into account the other 8 years of trust ratings when you can pick one single event and use it to delegitimize every argument I make for years. That sounds logical to me. After all it does serve as quite a convenient tool to distract from the fact that none of this confusion would have happened to begin with if there was an objective standard. Perhaps when that standard is met and you pick the beam out of your own eye, I will remove the speck from mine. |
|
|
|
|
Pure Democracy is just mob justice where the minority have zero personal rights. I prefer a Constitutional Republic with a limited democratic element as we have in the US to choose our representatives. We need to enforce the laws we already have, not rebuild the whole system.
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is your court, if you bring suit, and if it is common law where the judge/magistrate is simply a referee so that there is order in the court. In a Federal District Court trial, if the magistrate steps out of his position of referee, he can be charged with contempt by any tribunal member. But, be careful if you are doing this, contempt charge of a judge. Judges usually aren't imbeciles. If you aren't careful, it can backfire on you.  I think you mean a claim. A suit is filed under the civil code/maritime law. You know Karl so you know words mean things. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
