I may have spoken too soon regarding there being no real alternatives.

Investigating DiskCryptor right now. It's Windows-only, but at least it's compatible with TrueCrypt....

EDIT: *sigh* Yes, I understand Windows itself is insecure, but it's still used by many folks, and having secure data on a Windows system is of use to many people.

EDIT: Never mind

Yep. Apparently, the key used to sign version 7.2 on the site (the modified, declared-insecure, decrypt-only version) is the same as that used to sign previous versions, so barring an even bigger issue, this is the same folks.

Them recommending Bitlocker (ha!) is their way of letting us know they've been coerced into stopping (or scared of impending exposure, which I guess is pretty much the same thing... I wouldn't want to be a publicly-known member of the TrueCrypt development team in a post-911 world.)

Considering the nature of this shutdown, and the lack of any real alternative, I personally have every intention of continuing to use earlier versions of the software, albeit with an extra precaution or two taken.

Eventually the annual tradition would end just because there would be nothing of note any longer... living on Bitcoin will be no more difficult than living on dollars, possibly easier.

That's what we all are aiming for, at least.

Whoever wrote this ^^^^ should never have children.

The problem at issue here is the "free rider" problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

There are many, many ways the problem can be addressed other than by forcibly making everyone "give something back." The idea that the only possible solution in each case is that anyone who might possibly benefit (especially from something as indirect as benefiting from "a vast and complicated global economy") must have money stolen from them at pain of imprisonment is both archaic and unnecessary.

This is illustrated by the fact that there are forms of taxation that allow free riding, and yet its possible for any specific governmental entities--or even just program--to make due with only taxes that allow it. One example of this is using gas taxes to support roads construction and maintenance.

Free riding occurs in this situation in a number of ways, from people riding bikes on the road (or walking along it) to people hitchhiking, or even using an electric vehicle. To, instead of taxing fuel sales, go to the homes of everyone within 20 miles of the road, and forcibly and regularly extract a fee for the direct and indirect benefits of the road to them, would be a far inferior approach to funding the road even from a statist perspective.

Focusing on making every single person who does or who might consume or benefit from a service (particularly services where consumption can hardly be avoided) pay a mandatory fee for the service is likewise an archaic way to look at such issues, and "solutions" resulting from that mindset can often lead to worse results than more voluntary, less intrusive ones... sometimes including just ignoring the free riders.

The high-level, abstract concept of environmentalism IS largely accepted today. People like getting out in the woods, not breathing smog, drinking clean water, keeping parks looking neat, and generally the "nice" side of the green movement.

What they don't like? Being forcibly prevented from building on their own land because some mouse or bird species was found there. Being taxed to "stop global warming" (as if they could, or should.) Facing pushy fanatics is one thing; when they get the law to enforce their opinions, beliefs and whims on others, people get rightfully pissed. They even get pissed seeing such nonsense happen to others. And this happens, to greater and lesser degrees, more often than you might think.

It's because the rich are typically the ones in control of structuring the tax system, including any loopholes.

This is why the idea of using taxes as a means of wealth-redistribution is such an eye-roller. You're never going to get the top 1%--or heaven forbid, top 0.1%--to have their wealth drained and given to the poor and needy in some politically-oriented karmic reparation. Real-world weath redistribution always boils down to taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor various groups, effectively rendering the lower classes, as a whole, poorer than before (due to the inefficiencies, fraud, waste and middlemen that such programs inevitably encounter.)

Still, as far as this thread goes, being upfront about one's intentions regarding taxation does go quite a ways towards explaining the "whys" of one's choices.

True.



Hmm, I don't fully agree.

The fact that he's white is irrelevant. Apparently, that's just become the "cool" way to slam overly-conservative mindsets. Slam them as "white." The hypocrisy in casually tossing around the remark should be obvious.

But unfortunately, his age is relevant. Of course not all old people hate, or don't know enough about bitcoin, or other modern technology. But it's pretty well established for most people that older folks, in general, don't understand technology, and tend to disparage it accordingly.

I tend to believe that older people could learn technology just as well as younger people, but rather that most choose not to consider it important or to spend time familiarizing themselves with it. The *why* isn't that important; if it's true that that's the tendency of older generations, then it makes sense to suspect and scrutinize (not outright dismiss) their opinions when they disparage new tech. Probably not the best way for Marc to have made his point, but I do feel Buffett's age is relevant in this particular case.

Most people in the U.S. with "off the book" gains rarely do that. It'd be like paying sales tax on your yard sale profits.

Now, if someone bought a yacht....

Electronics
Honey
Baklava
Bullion



They weren't worth anything at the time (early 2010.)

That's the very first recorded Bitcoin purchase, and it basically set the initial price for a bitcoin at $0.002 each. Quite a steal in hindsight.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.0

Yes, and that's a good thing.

You do believe that dust spam should have to pay a fee, don't you?



I'd argue that they were more private, not necessarily more secure.

Fortunately, you aren't restricted to one-transaction-per-address by the protocol.

While I've noticed vegetarians being lumped in with the other two groups, I've not noticed any real (as in socially acceptable and intense) hostility toward them like the others.

I suspect a lot of that is because most vegetarians aren't actively trying to punish other people for eating meat (or at the very least, maybe because those that do are considered animal rights activists instead.)



True, but it wasn't the only one. As I recall, at least several all pointed to the same outcome.

I'd disagree with that. If you make $20/hour, your employer is shelling that out for you regardless of how much income tax you pay. It shouldn't affect his books at all (other than the savings from the reduction in paperwork.)

As far as whether the job market would benefit or not, that would depend on what, if anything, replaced the income tax.

That may be true, but there's still another factor to consider.

If you have $15,000 in cash, your only options aren't to either keep it in your pocket or let someone store it in a bank in Romania. You can also take $12,000 of it and store it in your underground safe at home.

With bitcoin, the underground home safe is called an offline wallet. Done properly, it CANNOT be hacked; the ultimate in digital safety. Even if done in a less-than-perfect manner, your chances of getting hacked or defrauded are still greatly reduced. Add that you can create backup copies and even split the keys if you want (like with Mycelium's encrypted backup that also has a passcode,) it's a no-brainer.

Again, if someone only has $200 or so in Bitcoin, I understand them not wanting to go through the hassle. But for large amounts, not taking the time to secure your funds with an offline wallet is just lazy, and won't end well.

New users need to understand this!

Well, I don't believe taxes are an appropriate way of paying for societal needs, but I used to, and when I did the primary justification was (1) for centralized defensive expenditures that might be difficult to arrange privately (an army, police, etc.) and (2) for common-use goods/services that everyone needs yet would have questionable benefit from competition (primarily roads and courts.)

Of course, I would still rate those as the strongest arguments as far as what the purpose of taxes should be. Anything not for group-use (and this includes handing out charity) can be done by individual people and/or organizations, so why bother with bureaucratic centralization, expensive middlemen and politicizing the task? (The "free rider" problem can be addressed in a variety of ways beyond forcing everyone to pay for everything.)

Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose....

Well, that's one of the root problems with wealth redistribution; how far should the attempt to redistribute be extended? Within a neighborhood (where charity works best?) Within a region? A nation? Globally? Wouldn't anything less than global redistribution be arbitrary?

Apparently though, one's predisposition towards it seems to influence once's preference of certain taxes over others. In ways I hadn't expected, really.

While I can see where you come from with favoring property taxes over income taxes, you'd rather penalize saving/hoarding rather than consumption? I'd take a sales tax or excise tax over property tax any day, even if you had to massage the specifics (don't tax food or basic needs, etc.) to make it less weighty on the poor.

Not trying to sound harsh here, but just because something seems currently reliable doesn't mean it actually is, or that it can't change without warning.

Unless they spend and receive dozens of bitcoins daily, no one needs to keep that much tied to one online service (and really, I'd question it even then.) Maybe if they have several other wallets, including paper, with just as much in them, but otherwise that's an incredible risk.

If they have no other balanced wallets, I would strongly recommend suggesting to your friends that they diversify into a couple of other wallets too, including a cold storage (likely paper) wallet, with plenty of backups of each, all secured. They will most likely thank you for it later.

MOST fire departments in the U.S. are private. This again illustrates the large gap between perception and reality for many people when it comes to what they want/think/expect of government, and what actually occurs.

(Also, yes, there are plenty of private roads and gated communities with their own security forces in the U.S. Guess that should be pointed out too.)



That's really the bottom line. As long as I claim positive benefits for someone/everyone, and don't mistreat you too badly (or at least sweep the messes under the rug and just wave them off with "well, most people pay taxes, they should have too,") then I have some moral right to steal from you. 

Double standards. Double standards everywhere!