FTFY

cool! Rednecks taught me to fight. Y'all are dangerous

Hey, I'm just one poor Injun. I can't organize a huge brawl, and you two were the most vocal on your side of the fence

On a more serious note, I think he meant well, and I think you meant well. It's no crime to be enthusiastic. In other threads, all of you seem to be reasonable men. Right now, in this thread, all three of you are being a bit petty, don't you think?

And other forms of cash. It's a good start, but not good enough to go mainstream. Escrow is done with cash, too, for the same reasons. I think the next evolutionary step is probably something like gift cards (already done to some extent) and then prepaid cards that work OUTSIDE of just a single or few entities, much like Visa and Mastercard are for dollars and Euros. Once that happens, then there are no real obstacles to bitcoin going mainstream. This would be good for practically everyone involved, as it would simply by wide adoption raise the exchange value of BTC. The beauty of a deflationary currency is that, so long as it gets used, it gains value over time.

I have a modest proposal for Bargraphics, Atomicchaos, and possibly MinermanNC.

It is obvious that the three of you have personal problems with each other. Ok, two of you with Bar, to be specific. And it's obvious that all three of you are proud men who don't like to back down.

So.

Why don't y'all come out to Idaho and fight it out. I'll sell tickets, video the event, and split the profits with you.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. Bitcoin needs a company or companies to issue credit/debit cards in bitcoin. If I had the technical wherewithal and the funds, this is what I would pursue over mining. It would make mainstream adoption way easier, offer consumer protection, and give the regulators something to target that actually kind of makes sense. Bitcoin, in itself, is just money. You don't send cash by mail or give it to strangers for the same reasons.

Agreed. Which is exactly why there needs to be a similar scheme in place for bitcoin. Or more than one. Mining is just a piece of the game.

What the fuck are you talking about? A consortium is a group of companies for a specific task. Not a tort.

Yes. Or gross negilgence. I am not a lawyer, but my wife is. I think that proving outright fraud in this case is almost impossible. For one thing, I don't think it was. Proving stupidity, however, that could be a different story. Failure to practice certain business norms, lack of transparency to customers, changing of terms of sale after the fact, all of these could be construed as torts. Going for criminal charges is likely a much harder proposition, but here the intent is, or seems to be, recovery of purchase monies. That's civil, not criminal, and the burden of proof standards, evidentiary standards, and necessary criteria to convict are all lower.

LLC doesn't shield the principals from all liability if they fail to meet the criteria of an LLC. It is in fact easier to protect the principals with a standard corporation, but more difficult to meet the criteria. LLC is more flexible in it's rules, which is why it has become so popular. But a small LLC will be held responsible via it's corporate officers if the plaintiff can prove negligence or misrepresentation, both of which are likely in this instance.

I think this whole situation is rather unfortunate, and I foresee only lawyers making any gains from it. I do not believe that Amir and Justin actually set out to defraud anyone. I think they were overconfident and undercompetent and it ended up biting them, and all of you who bought from them in the ass. I would have been one of them had things in my life gone down just a bit differently. They were one of two companies I wanted to buy equipment from. And as much as I feel sympathy towards them, if I had money on the line I would be suing.

Not 100 % on this, but I think it was Albert Einstein.

Logic and finance don't seem to have much in common. Cynicism aside, I agree with that argument, as education is impossible to calculate.

However, the reason ROI calculation involves both the negative and positive side of the equation is because of time preference. ROI is usually calculated using a time factor, and that is what's scaring people right now. They see their machines becoming unprofitable (no continuing ROI) due to electrical costs. I think there are ways around this. No, I know there are ways around this, and they have multiple vectors.

That, and I have a fairly long time frame in mind. I am betting on the long term viability of bitcoin, rather than the short term viability of mining machines.

disclaimer, even though previously stated, I do NOT currently have any skin in the game other than time and learning. Wasn't for lack of trying, though. If I could have raised the money in time, I would have gone with a first day pre-order for KNC. Now I'm in the "watch and wait" category. I still think that long term, mining is a good investment for a number of reasons. The main one is that I believe bitcoin is still very young, and very undervalued. But to make it rise, there needs to be a lot more development towards mainstream adoption. And for that to work well, there need to be a lot of miners keeping the network large enough to prevent somebody from hijacking the blockchain. Which brings it full circle to mining being a good LONG TERM investment, with some ugly short term hurdles.

It's a Baby Jet 

depends on who's telling it. Normally yes, though some would call 100 percent ROI a doubling of your investment.

The term itself merely means that you get an income from your investment.

+1000

THANK YOU! I keep saying this. ROI does NOT equal breakeven. If it mines, AT ALL, you've "made ROI". Negative to be sure, but still a return on investment. Refund doesn't even equal breakeven necessarily, depending on exchange rates.

I'm going to suggest something here, and perhaps start a separate thread a little later. I think it would be a good idea for miners to invest their BTC in off grid power solutions. There are literally hundreds of ways to generate power. And as an added bonus, you could take your whole living space off grid if you do it right, or big enough. It's not truly "free" energy, as there are equipment and sometimes fuel costs, but it can be done where your non recurring costs will make you money vs. the grid in fairly short order. I don't know about other countries, but in the US if you produce more than you use, you can feed it into the grid and the power companies have to buy it by law. Even without the law, they still would as their generation capacity is always under pressure.

Something to think about...

FTFY

Is it a stretch? Here's some old news.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf

The meaning of terrorism, before it became a buzzword for 4th generation warfare, was a violent act or series of violent acts with the purpose of causing terror among a populace, thereby reducing trust and destabilizing an established government.

I give you Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yugoslavia, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada...

If you look at what the lords of mordor District of Columbia defines as terrorism, the only logical conclusions you can draw are that the DC cabal are:

a. pathological lying psychopaths, and
b. the greatest exporters of terrorism ever to have existed, and
c. the largest rogue government to have ever existed.

I am middle aged, and I have watched the vestiges of the american dream die due to the stab wounds inflicted by it's so called leaders. It saddens me. Bitcoin is not a threat. Nobody is likely to start wars to keep it active. Nobody is going to invade another people, flatten their cities, destroy their infrastructure, and poison their children's grandchildren for it. The same cannot be said of the dollar and the awful powers that back it.

Fair enough. Two years ago I was not here. But ten years ago, I was quite articulate and well informed on the actual meaning of NAP, and the two examples you cited, whatever some troll might have said, are clear violations of NAP, as both unnecessarily endanger other persons. That is an initiation of force. They might have an affirmative defense if they were doing so unwittingly, but not a real good one.

I am an anarchist. I do not subscribe to the idea that ANY group has the right either morally, ethically, or legally to have a monopoly of force. If you truly had people arguing the positions you describe, they were being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps had some sort of mental problem. Like a missing frontal lobe, at that scale of stupid. You won't find such arguments among honest proponents of anarchy, in any flavor that I've encountered.

The only utility I see in central governments is instructive. It's been done to death, and the results have always been sub-optimal. How bad on the scale is variable, but they always grow out of control. There has never been an exception that I am aware of, and I'm pretty damn aware.

Anarchy hasn't really been tried in any sort of a planned manner, other than small groups who either failed to plan or failed to properly promote themselves. Yet the time between the fall of a centralized structure usually has a period first of utter chaos, then people start to organize themselves spontaneously, and for a minute before some jackass feels the urge to rule, a lot of positive things happen. Industries sprout up, people innovate, and nobody steps on them. This is something I could go on for many pages on. In fact, I've been writing a book on the subject for some time. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to devote to bring it to market, but I am hoping to change that.

I do tend to get short with people who deliberately mischaracterize the substance of anarchic arguments, because they almost never have an actual argument. And that goes both ways. Those who are "anarchists" because they find it amusing or fashionable annoy me just as much as the knee jerk statist. This is my failing, and I know it. Doesn't always restrain me.

I will try to be more patient. I would ask that you try to see, if not agree, with what we as anarchists are actually trying to do, rather than what the "left" and the "right" boot of rulership tells you we're trying to do. They are the intellectual enemies of anarchists, and for good reason: If we are right, even on a small scale, they quickly become obsolete and might have to do something productive.

Rassah, haven't you figured out yet that these two have no idea what NAP means? I think they think we're taking a sleep break

For those who don't know, the wiki link is pretty decent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Sure, make me look old! I had one like that in school too. Grade 9. Arrgghh!

He likes the sight of his own typing. That's all. He's not as bad as Eve, the first and so far only member of my ignore list.