I like this.

Very good stuff.

OK, I gotta intervene.  You got me all wrong.

First, let me say this: Freicoin looks like an interesting experiment.  It appears that Freicoin proponents have a comprehensive economic theory, which appears wrong to me, but I could be wrong myself.

So, test it!

The economic theories behind Freicoin should be put to the test -- Freicoin should be released.  Then, we shall see how it fares among the people that choose to use Freicoin (just like we're seeing people choose Litecoin today).

Once you guys have a sizable base of users, it'll be very easy to test whether the testable part of the theory behind Freicoin stands (including claims like "non-zero basic interest is the cause of the boom-bust cycle").

But the very first thing, the absolute first thing that needs to happen, is this: Freicoin is going to need users, and these users need to voluntarily choose to use Freicoin over other currencies.

Until that happens, there's not even a glimmer of hope that the economic theories behind Freicoin can be tested (with the implications that such a reality carries).  The key behind this observation: testing Freicoin in a scenario where people are threatened with punishment if they choose another digital coin, would instantly invalidate all tests of Freicoin, because the experiment would have been contaminated by said aggression-based intervention.  If you were an experimenter, and you threatened people to make a choice in the experiment, then your observations in the experiment are only applicable when people are subject to threats.

It should be obvious that, if no one chooses to use Freicoin, it's clear that the people who could have chosen of their own free will to use Freicoin, have declared through their actions that Freicoin is not good enough for them, and that they prefer other alternatives (like Litecoin, Solidcoin or Bitcoin).  In this case, whatever the Freicoin theories say is entirely irrelevant, as irrelevant as theories about unicorns.

So, let's see how Freicoin does.  Let's see if people willingly choose "freedom from usury" while paying the associated price. My most sincere wishes for success.

You know, I try to be pleasant... http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

I'd appreciate you actually participating in the conversation rather than making a mockery out of a very serious topic that affects millions of people.  But if you can't, please do disrupt the conversation once again, so I can file you in my ignore list.

In a few months, the attack will unfold.  They will write more of their holy papers that everyone considers sacred, prohibiting various forms of Bitcoin usage, and they will find a few scapegoats to throw in a cage, to scare the rest of the cattle.

You just wait.

I would love to have a conversation about the research exposed in the videos with you.  I understand they are very long, so I don't expect any kind of immediate feedback, but rest assured I would still love to have a conversation about it in a few days.

It's so not a mental illness, that it's being phased out from the DSM in the DSM-V.  They're eliminating it and inventing a whole new category of "mental condition" called "Autism spectrum disorder", lumping "aspies" and profound autist children in a single category.

Psychology / psychiatry are by and large not sciences.  They are not evidence based.

Note that I'm not saying "autistic children have nothing wrong with them" above.

Sup man, hope you're okay.

Modern science of mental health and neurology says otherwise -- in the vast majority if not all cases of mental illness (exception made for provable congenital defects affecting the brain), there is always an environmental trigger associated.  This is why there isn't a "schizophrenia gene" or a "psychopathy gene", but rather genes that make people propense to schizophrenia or psychopathy.

If you are interested in the topic, I suggest these conversation starters:

http://fdrurl.com/bib

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOScYBwMyAA <- this one in particular

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/19/reasontv-three-ingredients-for <- famous neurologist

Stef has a few interviews with (inb4 "fringe!") well-known mental health professionals about the topic.  I suggest you take a look at these too.

Please do ignore the two other people in this thread -- they are attempting to sabotage this post by either provoking me or derailing the topic.  Some people just have virulent and abusive reactions to discussing the (pretty much taboo) topic of child abuse; I won't speculate as to why they do that, but you can see for yourself that they definitely do, right here.

I did exhaust that option.  Every single person on my ignore list, I either added because (a) they openly abused people who were making serious and sensible arguments, or (b) I tried to persuade them peacefully and calmly, and they bit back like virulent angry dogs.  I want to stress that has been the case for every single member of my ignore list.  I don't just gratuitously add people who disagree with me.

Anyway, I am not the topic of discussion here.  The fact that we're discussing me, and that I was brought up as a topic by these people, is proof enough that these people have managed to derail the conversation and make it about me, to stall and avoid actually thinking about the ideas we were discussing.

See, you call me names (not the first time, by the way), but you never actually bother responding to arguments (mine or others') with valid rebuttals.  Yes, I've seen your posts.  You pretend to have a debate, but then you respond to arguments by calling them names all the time, and if that doesn't shut your interlocutor up, you call them names directly.  You try to pretend that your interlocutor "is not listening" or "does not want to have a debate", when those empty complaints of yours describe your very behavior.  I have yet to see a valid rebuttal coming from you... and I'm kind of tired of waiting for that, and seeing cheap stalling tactics instead.

You're going straight to my ignore list.  This is not a punishment -- I simply do not need to read your anti-contributions to the boards.

In NLP, this is called a "frame".  They're framing Bitcoin users as the demonized people of society, so as to generate popular hate for Bitcoin users.  This makes it easier for the rulers to later invent or lobby for rules and punishments prohibiting or sabotaging Bitcoin and its users.  If Bitcoin was a country rather than a currency, what they are doing here would be very well described as "beating the drums of war".

Now, I'm not suggesting any conspiracy here.  People unconsciously do this very thing all the time.  From a systems thinker point of view, all the people who worked together to produce this slanderous hit piece, are indeed collaborating (consciously or not) to produce a piece of work that is emergent, but looks like a concerted conspiracy.

Still, I can't quite shake the thought that evil is at play here.  What are we to call a person who allows or induces people to lie and defame a good (or, at least, neutral) project and its group of users, if not evil?  How taboo has the use of the word evil become, that not even Hitler gets called evil these days?

I can't really read what MoonShadow or firefop have said, because both are on my ignore list (the first one for openly admitting that he physically abuses his children, which I am firmly against, and the second one for verbal abuse against other people in this board).  If they have said anything in response to my comments, you'll forgive me for not responding -- I prefer not to interact with bad people.  I'm mentioning this because I think you all deserve to know who you're interacting with, and also because I don't want to look like I "didn't have any response" to their (usually not so clever) responses.

Look, I appreciate the advice.  I mean that.  But I will not take it.  While I do contribute constructively -- many forum members have bit-tipped me already -- I also have no problem calling out mad people for what they are, and giving up on them.  I really don't have time to yell at clouds.

To share with you what I've seen in the past week: I've already had two forum mods remove posts where I point out "So-and-so is on my ignore list for <X negative or dysfunctional behavior>".  It would appear, from my perspective, that madness and verbal abuse is openly tolerated here, but pointing out those behaviors in people is not.  That is already a sign of a dysfunctional community, where the bullies run amok, and the people who are affected by the bullies are not permitted to weigh in on that.

And, you know, I will probably be banned very soon.  I am okay with that.  If me pointing out the sociopathy and other assorted dysfunctional behaviors of certain people here, is going to get me banned, then that would mean the forum owners inexplicably *want* these dysfunctions here.  I would rather not participate in a community of that character, so getting banned for that reason would be good for me.  I already have plenty good people in my life -- I have a real-world community of real-world voluntaryists in my area, a radio show, a Facebook page with quite a few followers, hundreds of followers on Twitter, thousands of RSS subcribers to my blog, lots of people who follow my Reddit feed, and my own Reddit communities.  If I really need to talk to sensible people, there's plenty willing to listen to and support me, as surely as I am willing to listen to and support them.

Never underestimate the willingness of sociopathic lackeys willing to put you in a cage for doing something against their bosses' orders.

I disagree.

People with minds broken beyond repair won't change their minds.  Either the world will change without them and they will not matter, or they will die off and be replaced with people who do have healthy minds and will change the world.

In any of those cases, trying to reason with a person who has been made mentally ill by societal abuse, is not going to work.

I give people a chance when they behave in a way that leads me to believe they will take the chance.

I'll probably cry tears of love for Big Brother.

Translation: "We can't have people competing with us.  That's a 'problem' and we here in the Old Boys' club will surely deal with it swiftly."

I fully understand why Satoshi chose to remain anonymous.

Translation from propagandese to What-They-Really-Meanese "People peacefully cooperating without seeking approval from authorities are dangerous and evil."

"Just in time"?  It's got nothing to do with time.  The reasons those people got away with a crime is because they have power.

Brace for impact...