A hearty congratulations to Sir Riccardo, Earl of Forte Spagnolo for the recent gold acquisitions.
Very well done!

That thread would likely be more interesting.  It may have some science, chemistry, math.

I still can't figure out what this thread is doing on BitcoinTalk anyway.  Instead it belongs on WaPo's: Volokh Conspiracy.


There is no bitcoin discussion here, move along.

Often new retail spending options depresses prices, but this should be different.  Software development and ease of use are very important for Bitcoin and there is a rumor that Microsoft does still develop software.
It is a good thing for Bitcoin though, no matter what the price does.

Russia may suffer from lower oil prices, but why do you think that is a reason for them?

If it were political (US vs Russia), wouldn't you expect to see ANWR exploration and drilling started?
The US's largest oil fields are NOT being drilled, primarily because of Democrat (the party in power) opposition.

Or maybe your hypothesis is that OPEC nations have an interest in Ukraine?
Who is "punishing" Russia, and by what mechanism?   Prices do not move magically in globally traded commodities, there is some elasticity in supply and demand.

Was the high oil prices over the last few years because the US or OPEC was "rewarding" Russia?

Congrats to BitPay for bringing Microsoft into the fold.

This is a strange discussion.  Must oil prices be a grand conspiracy that is only about some politics?
Is it impossible that there are new oil extraction methods that have become cheaper with technical advancements.
No one has heard of "fracking"?
(It is very controversial, possibly polluting ground water, but it produces oil where it was previously impossible.)

Commodities markets tend to over-react before they balance out.

Or maybe it is all just a few people playing global chess over some imagined strange excuses that make everything happen?
People look for complex excuses instead of looking at simple data.

The conspiracy is the market conspiring to find the clearing price.
Today Saudi announced it is reducing deliveries, the fracking is not economical at prices below the $60 barrels. 
At this price, new demand will arise and price will rise, then Saudi may increase delivery (or not).

Maybe many people assume that governments control everything always.  Does it feel helpless to live in such a world?

People were less shocked when prices soared for the last few years then when they fall.  They went up from war and rumors of war which are certainly political.  (Or a failure of politics)  But now it is a conspiracy when they come down?  Maybe there is a conspiracy for peace?

Lets set up a company in Estonia.

This is the opposite of the truth.  Demand is not falling, supply is increased.  Demand ALSO is increased, but the balance is shifted to supply.
This depresses the price, which then INCREASES demand (because some uses of the oil are suddenly profitable now).
When demand at the lower price increases, price will rise, and there will be more consumption.

Econ 101 anyone?





You should expect increased use, and increased demand.  New car sales will rise also.  Airlines will do well.

Really.... who cares if it has any impact or not on income inequality?
This isn't the problem that Bitcoin is meant to solve.
It is entirely external to the protocol.

In Illinois, your car (and camera/phone) just becomes forfeit-able as it is used in the commission of a felony crime and then the car can be sold by the police.  The profit of which sale goes to the police force, whether or not you were guilty of anything when they stopped you, and even if they didn't give you a ticket.  It is "legal" for them to do this after the passage of this law.
It is a bad law.

PROTIP: Don't use a smartphone with a bitcoin wallet on it to record the police in Illinois.

There are some very prominent Bitcoin folks in Thailand.

Check this out:
http://www.bspend.com/blog?id=lt

This part in particular in the Thailand bar:

It pre-empts only law that is not already passed (so it creates a race for states to do stupid stuff ahead of it).
It encourages a redefinition from the IRS, it does not enforce that.

It is a good, but specifically weak law.  Perversely that may give it a better chance of passing.

There would need to be a corresponding bill in the Senate for it to go anywhere.  Nothing will happen with this any time soon.

What it does do is plant a flag East of Houston TX where there is one sane congresscritter amongst the horde of insane ones.

Not really, no.
California declared cryptocurrency "lawful money".

Congress can do all sorts of things, but HR5777 specifically states what it does.  It creates a moratorium on new law.  What passes ahead of it is not affected.  Did you read it?  I even copied the relevant part here and bolded the important words to make it easy for you.

I wonder if there are any cops who are pretentious douche bags?  Could that number be zero?  Is there a magic potion they get after getting through the academy that makes these people perfect?
All this law does is guarantee that people recording are going to have to keep the recording secret, which is probably bad for the police.  Knowing that they are being recorded may encourage best behavior, whilst not knowing (until it appears posted anonymously somewhere) may not be as good for them.  It is a bad law.
The law makes it look like they have something to hide.  The good cops may not be so worried about this. 

I can see some security issues, with facial recognition and zero privacy.  There are bad guys that might want to use this information for evil purposes.
My issue is more that it is a one-sided law... why a law that only protects police?  Why not make the same law protect everyone if there is really some privacy concern? 
The folks that want this for evil purposes will still be able to get their recordings, it will just cost more now that it is contraband.

There are already laws against interfering with the police.  A law against recording authority is a bad law and one-sided.

Different locations have different state burdens (the mandatory "services" that you must accept and pay for).  These affect cost of living, not just through taxes but also through pricing, building regulations (making building expensive) and all sorts of regulatory intrusions.

It isn't so much a dichotomy between greed vs equality as government market distortions (which minimum wages are also an example of).  It is however fostering freedom to pay people in areas (like Arkansas and Africa) without these burdens, so do your start up there if you like.

Increasing Minimum wage in the USA is pretty much baked in to the economic pie for other reasons (the Fed needs to create inflation, which is the hidden taxation).  So don't be fooled...the USA will get higher minimum wages, but it has NOTHING to do with creating equality.  It is instead about how to enrich the central banking and government tax base.

This Federal Bill 5777 would invalidate the NY State Bitlicense if it passes first.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5777/text


The Bitlicense proposal is wrong headed anyhow.
It accomplishes the opposite of its stated policy goal.  By its very structure it creates extreme centralization and limits options to consumers.  One of the principle offerings of crypto currencies is their decentralization.  Though it claims "consumer protection" it accomplishes the opposite.  It chases companies out of the state and thus limits options and kills business in the state.

If NY State wants to lead the world, they should make an optional bitlicense that is a simple certificate that shows that a company is in compliance with all the EXISTING laws, rather than make up a bunch of new laws and pretend that it makes anything better.

If they did this, companies would rush to get the bitlicense because it would be seen as a good houskeeping seal of approval and would possibly give a competitive advantage with the customers that seek such things.  If they did this, it would accomplish their policy goal instead of undermine it.

Maybe we do have a friend in congress after all?

This proposed bill creates a waiting period of 5 years before any new crypto currency law can be made.
(So it kills the bitlicense nonesense)

It also asks that cryptocurrencies be treated as currencies (not assets) ending the crazy IRS nonsense of adjusting for each and every transaction as a capital gain/loss.

It is the first SANE proposal by the US government.  This guy just has plain old fashioned common sense AND he's in government?  How did that happen?  It would seem impossible if it weren't true.

This is not likely the issue either.
If people eat, they shit, and someone (possibly themselves) clean up.
if people don't eat, they die, and someone (not themselves) clean up.

There are already public restrooms on that beach.

The violation is a food safety ordinance, go figure.  Without the city licence, the homeless would only be able to sue this 90 year old guy that has been feeding them for the last 25 years before the new ordinance.  If they suddenly got sick on his food (and not the stuff they pulled from the garbage) they wouldn't also be able to sue the city.
The city wants to also be responsible.
The license is easy to get, but it can also be denied.  This seems to be one of those "principle" disputes.  There aren't really any practical concerns, just a power struggle between a long time resident and his city.

These are some nice rooms!  The music must be wonderful!