Your interpretation of the phrase is, I believe, correct and I agree fully with the founders in this.  The phrase is, I believe, often distorted and used to justify absurdities by 'my people';  That is, the libs.


Heh.  We're back to significant agreement and mirrored behaviour vis-a-vis Obama.  At this point I would have more hope that Romney would pull an FDR on 'his people' than that Obama would actually do anything of significance for anyone besides his funders.

And I have the same hopes for Bitcoin and Bitcoiners (and others for that matter.)  At the very least, I hope Bitcoin provides utility and leverage in this struggle.


Least I am misunderstood here, let me clarify that I have a huge amount of respect for the 'free market' and consider it the powerplant behind modern society.  I only want to communicate my belief that left completely to it's own it has every bit as much of a chance of tearing itself and everything around it apart as it does auto-seek the ultimate solution to every problem.

Sadly it does seem to be the case.  I credit the MSM and influences which guide their direction as much anything for this unfortunate reality.

You've probably interpreted my statement as I intended.

Not perfectly clear in my original screed was that I do not believe that our modern world is structured such that the natural state is that there is an equal enough distribution to create even close to a harmonized society.  That, and only that, is the basis for my seeking means by which distribution of wealth to a level which makes society work as smoothly as possible.  I personally, while not wealthy by many standards, am distinctly in the 'have' catagory.  In other words, I have much more than I need and well beyond the mean on a global and local basis.  It's worth a lot to me to have a socioeconomic structure which works even if I have to shell out a sizable chunk of my income/fortune and more than most of my peers to make it happen.  That said, I am as human as anyone  will not necessarily do it willingly and am certainly in no hurry to part with my possessions to a political regime which is corrupt...I've zero interest in pissing into the wind and even less in forking over more of my shit than necessary to scum who give it to their well connected and wealthy friends.  You and I have been through this before.  I'm currently receiving a non-trivial amount of services in return for the taxes I pay and am happy for it...but while it is some combination of laziness and fear which induces me to overpay (and thus fund the notable war, death, graft and corruption that exists) I'm currently doing just that.  Sue me

I specifically do NOT wish to see anything like forced equality in wealth, and that is NOT the same thing as 'redistribution'.  My point is that in a modern society, it is not only possible but utterly likely that a large majority of individuals could work their fingers to the bone and have next to nothing to show for it.  That is not a healthy or stable situation.  My conception of 'redistribution' is nothing more than a mechanism by which the field is very roughly leveled such that most people who put in some effort can be suitable rewarded and most people who ride the backs of society do so at the expense of whatever fortune they may, for whatever reason, find themselves sitting on.  Taxes are probably the best way to do this if a decent political system exists to organize them.  But political systems come and go and evolve and devolve.  Other redistribution solutions exist as well.

---

Since this screed went longer than I initially intended, I'll double-up to include a basic response to cypherdoc as well:

In My (not so humble) Opinion, your slavish devotion to 'free markets' as the solution to every problem is as illogically and demonstrably absurd as are the various Love and Peace solutions of my kumba-ya friends who I tend to identify with a bit more.

Most people (or males at least) understand the relationship between a crankshaft and connecting rod.  Whether they are in a fight to the death to destroy one another, or in a harmonious relationship to do useful work is only a matter of perception.  They are designed to meet the force of one another and they exist is a stable relationship which functions well most of the time.  I seek similar solutions to a lot of problems including an exchange currency used by both people who, for whatever reason, have the ability to gain the upper hand in terms of wealth accrual and those who do not.

Exploiting a situation for personal gain is entirely normal and natural, and any rational system design would be centered around that being the base behavior of almost everyone.  I certainly exploit any situation which I run across or engineer (to the degree that my personal ethics allow, at least) and if anything this seems to me to be something of a cornerstone of Libertarian philosophy.  I've not much use for the fantasies of some of my Liberal brethren because they seem to neglect various realities such as this since they are unpleasant or something.

All men are demonstrably NOT created equal.  Human evolution cannot keep pace with the shift from hunter/gatherer modes in which we evolved to modern capital-based  modes.  A slight advantage in one area can produce the ability to dominate in our modern world than was the case in hunter/gatherer times.  (And other degenerate issues such as inheritance where a person who would likely be a truck driver if left to his own devices ends up as the president of the US.)  The most reliable way for distribution of wealth to occur is for the masses to take rather than relying on the few to give.

Hoarding of any medium is usually in itself exploitation insofar as it reduces the carrying capacity of any system which relies on the medium.  Taking gold from the few is messy and probably not very effective.  My hope for crypto-currencies is that it would be easier and more effective for the masses to 'take'...and in being so produce the conditions which would keep hoarding and other abuses to a reasonable and workable level.

On the contrary, I think my attitude about Bitcoin has been surprisingly uniform throughout.

Back when you and I seemed to be among the dwindling count of the more vocal proponents, I never said it was going to go anywhere...only that there existed a decent possibility and what I was hoping for was simply that fewer people would be left out if so.

As for the 'potential' for a positive impact on society, I have to admit that I consider it, along with the $1000's/BTC 'jackpot' possibility, to remain much less than likely.  Bitcoin has as much potential as anything to be exploited as a sharp tool by the few against the interests of the many.  I retain my very early hope that were this to happen, there exists a possibility that the 'many' could, by consensus, destroy Bitcoin (relative to other vehicles.)  A fundamental reason I 'like' Bitcoin more than I do PM's is that such an exercise of democratic power is somewhat more tenable with a crypto-currency than a physical element.

To clarify, because the suggestion above is basically 180 degrees off of what I meant to say:

Firstly, I find PM's and Bitcoin to be very similar in one very important respect.  Counter-party risk (or I should say, lack thereof) and relatively few reasonably available modern vehicles have such a property.

Secondly, just about anything can have different purposes to different people.  In my case, I use PM's, and especially Gold, as a very basic wealth preservation tool to perform even the most trying of possible scenerios...up to and including complete anarchy.  If I 'make money' on PM's, fine, but that's not my fundamental goal with this particular asset.

I consider bitcoin is very much akin to playing the startup game in terms of risk/reward.  The big difference is that Bitcoin is far less work and a fairly dinky monetary investment besides.  I don't consider it a success unless I make a fair amount of money in the end and the potential for a monster jackpot is in the mix.

Similar to a startup, I consider the most likely outcome for my investment in Bitcoin is near full loss, but expect to learn interesting things along the way.

Similar to some (but not many) startups, I do see Bitcoin as having a potential to have a positive impact on some aspects of our societies.

I'm one of those people and I'm not buying Bitcoin.  The reason in my case is that I bought all I wanted as the price went from $16 -> $2 and am perfectly happy with the amount that I control.

There is a decent possibility that Bitcoin could be worth a _lot_ in some scenarios.  If I didn't have a sizable stash I would probably be a moderate buyer at these levels.  If (and it is not a given) Bitcoin realizes it's potential the only thing which would suck worse that not knowing it exists would be to have know that it exists and understood it and missed the boat anyway.

Another factor to consider is that, by accident or design...and possibly some combination...it has proven cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive to obtain BTC in exchange for USD.  The exchanges that have managed to stick around have had their share of mainstream banking hassles, security problems, and who knows what kinds of other internal pressures.  I think it quite possible that were there another significant price rise of BTC, there may be a corresponding increase in difficulty and danger in obtaining control of them.  That paranoia, although so far unfounded, existed in my mind a year ago and induced me to expedite my acquisition of BTC.  At this point I've no complaints however since I am deeply in the black these days.

Atlas had very little impact on my perception of Bitcoin.

OTOH, Atlas had a fair amount of impact on my perception of Libertarians...mostly in reinforcing my perception of the core persona to which such philosophies tend to appeal.

As I've mentioned, I've enough contact with Libertarians, hard-core religious people, and so forth to understand that many thoroughly decent people subscribe to various belief patterns so it's wrong-thinking (and wrong) to make assumptions about specific individuals based on labels such as these.

Read a page or two.  They (including myself to some extent) are talking about it again.  The likelihood of such a thing as $1000's/BTC, while still remote, seems to me to be stronger than it has ever been by virtue of (among several things) another year of demonstrated core stability of the solution.

Bitcoin is worse off than just having derivatives + counterparty risk hassles...It is a very thin market in which anyone with any semi-significant bit of money to play with can manipulate greatly.

My theory is that Bitcoin is ultimately useful enough and sound enough so that this won't be so much the case.  The most likely way for that to occurs is that BTC values raise significantly.  As this starts to occur it will (hopefully) be a self-perpetuating thing and show a really delightful snowballing effect.  That would be the 'jackpot' I mentioned earlier in this thread vis-a-vis my Bitcoin 'speculation' bringing BTC into the $1000's per range.

An attacker willing to rubber-hose someone probably plans to kill them in the end one way or another.  So the choice comes down to:

  1) A shorter less painful death with the attacker getting the BTC (or whatever he/she's looking for.)

  2) A longer more painful death with the attacker coming away empty-handed.

A practical advantage of #2 is that there would be more opportunity to convince the attacker that they may be able to end up with something by keeping you alive longer.

The best solution in my mind is to arrange a credible deterrence solution.  Something akin Assange's 'insurance.aes256' file perhaps.  I think that Dr. Strangelove defined deterrence best to my way of thinking:

  "Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack" (55:09)

That was the best solution I could come up with.  An attacker could not get they keys out of me because I simply don't know them.  They could escort me to the bank, but that's a risky proposition since I will likely be able to conjure up some help in addition to whatever key material happens to be at that particular locale.

Problems:

 - An attacker could still torture the shit out of me trying to get the keys which I cannot give him/her.

 - An authority could (potentially) raid my safe deposit box and deny me the information I might have stored there.

One way or another, an attacker should hope they get all of my BTC (which is somewhat unlikely) because whatever I have left would be dedicated to extracting revenge.  I cannot honestly say that I have in place a solution to effect this outcome in the event of my being no longer among the living, but it's something I've mused about.

If one uses gold and Bitcoin for two different purposes, this is not particularly the case.  A pitchfork kicks ass on a shovel for moving hay whereas the same shovel kicks ass on the pitchfork for moving dirt.

Bitcoin and gold are both on an appropriate trajectory to meet the demands I place on them respectively.  In a good world I will never need to test gold.

I consider Bitcoin a win at $60/BTC within the next few years.  That is about 10x my investment and is the rate I want to see given the volatility and various risks.  The good news is that we are looking promising there, and the possibility for a jackpot ($1000's/BTC) is as real as ever.

I also consider Bitcoin to be a win if it helps me perform a variety of difficult financial actions.  Similar to gold, I hope for world where this never needs to be tested.

BTW, 10x is cool, but not especially unheard of.  I would have/could have had it with silver if I would have chosen to take it.  Like silver I bet that I won't take it in any quantity with Bitcoin even if it is offered.  Just depends on the conditions at the time.

Probably the most likely next step actually.  Something which could be done without admitting total defeat of the EU idea.

Splitting the EU into N and S seems to me like it would just cause the same issues in two areas.  In other words, the stronger S countries would be pissed about the weaker S countries riding on their backs.  The populations may or may not appreciate what advantages (in having some flavor of Euro) may exist to the point where it would effectively mute desires to return to national currencies.  Such desires would likely be strongest among those countries who have a fair amount of gold.

As a US citizen the big question in my mind is whether it would cause continued distraction from the USD's structural issues, or serve to strengthen is as a 'stable' currency.  I could see either pressure winning out.  In the latter case I would expect more pressure to ease to lessen the stain of having a strong currency.  I see no near-term threat to our ability to export inflation.  Ongoing issue with the Euro are very helpful in allowing us to do so so the best outcome for us is that they find some more road to kick the can down.

Is your suggestion that Blackwater would act differently (and in particular, 'better') if they were given money by a private entity to do the same job and there were no entity to define or grant legal rights?  If that is your suggestion the balance of reason and observation seems to me to fail to support this conjecture...especially observing events in the lawless failed states such as the more recent examples in Africa.

Heh.  You mean like Blackwater in Iraq?  I suppose that the meaning of 'civil liberties' could eventually be managed down to a point where it is OK to randomly shoot at cars for the fun of it and run down people who are close enough to the street that it is doable without swerving to much.

But back to the original point, I think it is appropriate (currently) to enlist the support of law enforcement on the basis of there being a general computer related crime.  If the crime resulted in a demonstrable loss (and as long as exchanges are operational and legal this should be easy to demonstrate with some precision) then there is a basis for a fair judgement against loss.  Plenty of my tax dollars go toward fighting various crimes including computer related ones...as long as the thief is not a well connected person like Jon Corzine that is.

Seemed pretty ho-hum to me frankly.  The usual droning on about how fucked up things are and will be.  No real actionable information.

Whenever I hear someone go on about how 'liberty' and 'democracy' are in danger I usually think to myself that that person is somewhat behind the ball.  My personal belief is that to the extent that these things still exist it is mostly just an aftertaste and a forgone conclusion that they will vanish.  The challenge will be to win them back at some point and it's not to early to start thinking about and setting up for that struggle (which is probably why I retain an interest in p2p crypto-currencies.)

I've really only 'actively played' one market:  Bitcoin.  I 'doubled down', or formally close to it in a mathematical sense multiple times from $16 -> $2.  Then I had to wait in the red for half a year or so.  I must say that I was somewhat frustrated...which was the motivating force to keep doubling down.  I had been prepared to do it one more time if BTC got below $2, but it didn't (yet) and Tradehill closed down and I've been standing pat since.

PM's on the other hand are the easiest and most stress free thing in the world.  Got to much money in the bank?  Convert some to phyzzz.  I try to ignore the FOMC completely so-as not to have the same influences as the rest of the herd.

Good points.  Always appreciated as are the interesting links.

Our analysis differs somewhat.

 - I don't think the world has (relatively speaking) yet realized any significant supply problems and probably will not for some time particularly if the economies stay sluggish.  There is, however, some political utility in making mountains out of the current mole hills...invented or real.

 - I expect that the US and a few other Western societies are much less dependent on oil for 'legacy infrastructure' reasons than most.  Particularly the large developing BRICs countries.  In the most optimistic circumstances it takes a great deal of time and wealth make semi-significant infrastructure shifts, and would be much more challenging for countries fighting a rear-guard action just keeping their populations fed.

 - I expect China to be run out of most of the other countries you mention as easily as they were run out of Libya and Iraq as needed.  Absent some pretty significant shifts in power structures and modes of political and military operations, that is.  China can buy any resource they want and their stake is effectively nullified when we install some new puppet to head things up.

Now as best I can tell, China's methods of assisting with civilian infrastructure projects and making themselves useful at various tiers of the trade economy is setting that nation up with a much more favorable rating amongst the general populations of the various third-world countries.  This compared to our blatant support of some pretty awful despots when that seems like the path of least resistance (the common-case in most parts of the world...which, to be fair, a practice not unknown for China to partake in...)  I do believe that this popular support will be one of China's aces in the hole in future times.

That last part is something of a point of agreement I guess.

It would not surprise me if China did not feel that the planets were aligned enough to make their move for some time.  Perhaps not in my lifetime.  My best hope is that there will come a point when the the West has something of an organic collapse in the West and China steps into their place with minimal fuss and loss of life.