I didn't know about Paysius but i like their homepage, simple and clear I don't know anything about the service differences between Paysius and BitPay but Paysius has a better web designer. |
|
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)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==
=hBEX
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
|
|
|
|
|
I spent 8 years working for the Evil Empire (North American version) as a nuclear reactor operator / instrumentation technician.
5 years managing a factory maintenance department while also designing and building automated welding robots to replace manual processes.
Now I'm 2 years into an electrical engineering degree.
|
|
|
|
|
Is this a thread about sports or about who leaves the Euro first?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still not seeing the point of all this.
One could say that a child feels pain when he tries to move his broken arm because of his desire to move the arm and that he could avoid pain by learning not to want to move his arm but that would be asinine.
The only thing blaming "desire" accomplishes is to obscure the cause and effect relationship between the infliction of trauma and the resulting dysfunction. It's a way of letting the perpetrators escape recognition for what they have done.
|
|
|
|
you can't force your individual perspective on everyone. Can a woman force her individual perspective of not wanting to have sex with a particular man (or all man for that matter) on him? |
|
|
|
|
How is blaming "desire" for the problem not merely an avoidance mechanism to deprive the abuser of both agency and accountability?
|
|
|
|
Second, I contend there is a difference between pain and suffering. For example, let's say you break your arm. Obviously, this is painful and this pain can be experienced. But, I contend that suffering comes from subsequent mental processes such as "now that I've broken my arm, I cannot do x, y, and z, in the future and so my future will be bad." Relating this to child or sexual abuse, the actual event of abuse is temporary, and while this event can be extraordinarily painful, it is from the following mental processes that mental suffering occurs. Please do not mistake me for being insensitive to those who have experienced this kind of trauma. I am in no way saying that the negative associations formed from such an experience are easy to overcome; I am simply trying to provide a logical understanding of mental illnesses themselves. That's one way to look at it or you could use science and evidence and actually see the damage done to the brain on an MRI. Now that we have the tools to see it we know a brain injury caused by repeated verbal abuse is just as real as a broken arm caused by physical abuse. |
|
|
|
Note: I would expect one of the most common challenges to these assertions would be, "Well, what about chemical imbalances? What about genetic predispositions?" What about child abuse? |
|
|
|
Actually, I was talking about normal business practices of spending currency to:
* produce something
* convince Consumers to buy product
* make a profit doing it Ok. If the large holders can produce as much value as they consume by spending bitcoins they will keep the same number of bitcoins. Otherwise they will lose them over time. Is that a problem that needs to be solved? |
|
|
|
I keep a balance of between 50-500 BTC in my savings. It will never go below this. Why? Because I've determined so. That's just magical thinking to say it doesn't go below 50 merely because you determine it to be so. It doesn't go below 50 because either you don't spend the coins or because you expend resources to obtain more. |
|
|
|
In practical terms it means just exactly what I said -- disproportionate wealth distribution is likely to perpetuate itself. Look at the reply I posted above. Just saying that a disproportionate wealth distribution is likely to perpetuate itself doesn't mean anything unless you explain the mechanism of how. |
|
|
|
A company spends currency in order to reap even more currency.
True, they do not "have" the original items of currency, but they don't care, they have more total value of other items of currency.
If they don't get more (on average over time) then they go bankrupt. But what is the mechanism by which that happens? What your're talking about it the system in which people can use their money to buy political favors and coercively funnel other people's towards themselves. That's how wealth accumulates to the those at the top but it's a function of the State, not the currency. Without the ability of a central bank to print an unlimited amount of Bitcoins this wealth transfer mechanism is far less effective. If the early adopters want to hold on to their share of Bitcoins they must either never spend them, and thus never have an effect on the economy or they must somehow produce a value equal to or greater than they consume. If they can't manage to produce enough value their share of the Bitcoins will inevitably decline. |
|
|
|
Such an attitude isn't present on these forums at all!  If you review my posts you'll see that I call it out when I run across it here too. |
|
|
|
Even still, I think it's fair to say that an overwhelming percentage of Bitcoins are distributed among a relatively few number of people. It doesn't matter whether this is due to the risk that early adopters took. If Bitcoin becomes mainstream, it is likely that this disproportionate distribution of BTC wealth will continue to perpetuate itself. What does that mean in practical terms? Either they spend those coins or they don't. If they spend them then the don't have them any more. If they don't spend them they aren't consuming any products or services in the Bitcoin economy. Where exactly is the problem? |
|
|
|
This is one of the best articles ever. In general. Schlichter just owns and I hope this one makes waves in the libertarian and goldbug communities, since there are still way too many Bitcoin skeptics in those circles. There are many people in those circles who have spent a lot of money buying gold and silver and desperately hope to become wealthy because of it. Anything development which suggests this might not happen is treated with great hostility. |
|
|
|
|
The truth is that nobody really knows for sure. It's all just *educated guessing.
*sometimes
|
|
|
|
The drug gangs and cartels are clearly winning... True - just don't forget that some of the cartels wear blue costumes and collect pensions. |
|
|
|
If you want to limit supply, there are cheaper ways to do that, too. And proof-of-work doesn't, anyway (it just gives the lion's share to the guy with the cheapest/biggest hardware). How the coins manage to come into existence is the least interesting part of how Bitcoin works since mining is just the first data point on a very long series of transactions those coins will make. In the Bitcoin economy seigniorage is only a temporary phenomenon so it doesn't matter in the long run how it is initially distributed. Those miners only get to spend their coins once. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
