The only reason I didn't bother watching those videos is because they are 1.5 hours long. If you can't make your point in 10 or 15 minutes, you don't know how to make your point, or you don't have one to begin with. |
|
|
|
My reason is actually trivially simple. I am free to make and trade stuff - Capitalism I need someone else's permission to make and trade stuff - Not capitalism (i.e. socialism, communism, whatever) That's it. I've never been one for authority, or requiring permission for how to live my life. Slippery slope (a logical falacy, I know) tends to gegress to the question, "May I be allowed to live?" It is trivial. I am free to produce structural violence and deprive people to death = capitalism I guess in your view it's a choice between structural violence and authoritarian physical violence, and you prefer the authoritarian physical violence? BTW, what would you call the starvation in USSR from a badly planned economy that killed millions? Was that structural violence? |
|
|
|
agreed, start small, I know from experience, you want something to succeed you start small, small parameters, perfect those then build on top of it; Monolithic projects with massive complexity from the beginning always fail too many things to fix and monitor and not enough experience or resources to tackle problems efficiently.
Da, eto byl ochen plohoy vek v chelovecheskoy istorii It doesn't matter how you start. What matters is how you end. If you start small, and end big, you will still end up with a big, monolithic entity that can't adapt or react to changes in time. We have seen this in USSR, and see it constantly with large monolithic corporations being killed off by new, more agile startups. You have to start small, and remain small, and the only way to do that is to keep everything distributed and decentralized. That means central planning is out. Even if you set up a bunch of small, distributed, centrally-planned communities, there may still be incentive for them to combine into ever bigger units, leading to the same deadly monolithic entity we want to avoid, so we would have to figure out how to set up incentives to avoid any sort of centralization. |
|
|
|
I'd like to propose the following as "Schiff's Law", and suggest that it applies to Alex Jones and all such publicly-known commentators. https://i.imgur.com/eku7Dnq.jpgI am living proof that this isn't actually true. Not smug about it, there are plenty of other people who are too. And many of us oldtimers would claim that it is still true, even in your case. |
|
|
|
My reason is actually trivially simple. I am free to make and trade stuff - Capitalism I need someone else's permission to make and trade stuff - Not capitalism (i.e. socialism, communism, whatever) That's it. I've never been one for authority, or requiring permission for how to live my life. Slippery slope (a logical falacy, I know) tends to gegress to the question, "May I be allowed to live?" |
|
|
|
Even if bitcoin is not anonymous, people can still refuse to give out passwords, or send to unspendable accounts in protest. Confiscatable form of wealth will be dwindling fast.
And then they can put you in jail until you pay. USD protester - Freeze your account, take your money, keep you poor and in jail. Despite spending lots of money to keep you in jail, they still get your money, so come out on top. BTC protester -  with your money, keep you in jail, you still have money to pay lawyers and buy off politicians. They spend money to keep you in jail, but get nothing in return. Long term, they'll just be losing money and pissing people off. |
|
|
|
1. Your mom must have sent it to this SWIFT #BACXSI22 - there is no other way to fund the USD account than to send it to a bank with this SWIFT code.
2. The catch is: this SWIFT code is / was assigned to two different banks:
Thanks for the info. She mentioned that the receiving bank was in Slovenia, but that may have been what they read in Bitstamp's wire form, not where the bank eventually sent it. |
|
|
|
No, I see the situation more like this:
-something will fill a power vacuum no matter what.
-free markets are always overseen by some higher-level entity that makes the rules. There is no "free" free market.
This is how I saw it as well until a few years ago. I may have asked you this before, but what is your opinion on going from a democratic vote to decide who will control us, to a democratic vote to decide who will not control us, such as through anonymous assassination markets? As deplorable as the idea may be (to some), at the core it's basically a way to add rather severe negative costs to being in power (those costs stemming from increased security expenses, not necessarily from actually having the market contract fulfilled) |
|
|
|
we will launch ticket IPO in a few moments
edit: well... hours, not moments... but we will get it done...
Two weeks?  |
|
|
|
I feel awkward, living in this country as a white person (immigrant), while still having a history of "my people" being forced into slavery just a few centuries ago  |
|
|
|
I don't see how CoinJoin can possibly ever be effective in a situation of address reuse.
Is Blockchain.info ever going to stop doing that?
I think they already have. Their default bitcoin transactions send change to new addresses, as does their CoinJoin. I'm only using blockchain.info's coinjoin it to offload and split up my larger bitcoin purchases into cold storage. Hopefully it was sufficient enough for the last few deposits I made. |
|
|
|
Phinn is looking as pretty as ever!  |
|
|
|
Some more requests: From: Peter Dmitry, We're a 501(c)(3) secular non-profit based in the US. We're considering implementing a BitCoin donation option. If Bitcoin100's offer still stands, it would certainly help offset a bit of the implementation costs. Would you let me know if we might be eligible? You can learn more about us at http://thewaterproject.org-- Peter Chasse President & Founder Follow-up:' Dmitry,
Thanks so much. We're moving ahead with the implementation phase.
We found Bitcoin100.org in our search for similar charities who might accept Bitcoin. We linked over from the Wiki. There is scant information out there for non-profits. I believe so few orgs have adopted bitcoin because no one of note (other than Khan Academy) has made the donation option available. Two big things stand in the way for most; technical implementation (and the associated costs...remember a lot of charities lack web developers) and perhaps regulatory concerns. With Coinbase and BitPay I think the latter is much less of an issue as a charity can opt to not ever actually hold bitcoin. Still, the implementation cost vs. potential return is a considerable obstacle.
Anyway, we're thankful that your fund exists. We look forward to allowing folks to participate in our work in this way.
--
Peter
Looked over the charity and did the Phinn style vetting (whois and web archive), and they pass in my opinion. Thoughts? From: Will Hello! I am with a registered 501(c)3 and I would like to know more about how we might be listed on your website as open for bitcoin donations! Thank you, Will Davis Jovial Concepts http://www.jovialconcepts.orgThese guys have a bitcoin donation option, but it was apparently a very recent addition. Checking the internet archive, it wasn't there in September. I asked them when they added it and how they found out about bitcoin, but I suspect it may be another one of those "what is the cutoff point for donating to charities that just started accepting" question. If there is one. EDIT: And here is his answer From: Will Davis
I added it less than a week ago as some folks I know are into bitcoin and mentioned I should accept bitcoin donations. It's all pretty new to me and I feel like I'm taking a leap of faith on the platforms!
I registered a BitPay acct but apparently it doesn't crate a wallet, so I have a coinbase acct for that. I'd be more than open to suggestions for the best wallet whether directly on my desktop or through a service.
I use a widget on our site that makes a QR code and displays the wallet ID...not sure if it's the best way to do it.
Thanks for getting back to me! I hope to learn more about bitcoin and how we might be able to work with you. I am planning to launch a full on bitcoin campaign in the very near future.
Thanks again and I look forward to hearing from you,
Will
By the way, I would LOVE to hear some feedback from our donors. It's your money we're giving out, not Phinn's |
|
|
|
hi, I'm trying to get some charities I know of to accept bitcoin and I found your site http://bitcoin100.org/ but I kinda can't figure out how this works. Can somebody enlighten me?  thanks! If the charity is non-religious and non-political in nature, just get them to accept bitcoin, and we'll give them $1,000. That's it. Let us know what charity you are thinking about, so we can vet them please. |
|
|
|
|
My mom deposited $5,000 over international wire on that Friday when Bitstamp had their issue (November 15th). They kept asking for more proof of ID, which she sent in, and at this point just reply a few days after she asks, only to tell her that they will notify her by e-mail as soon as her transfer is located and her fund balance is credited. (Ticket #32798). It has been almost 4 weeks now. So, Bitstamp, despite claims on their website, has not caught up with their deposits yet, and we have no idea what to do any more. Just sit and wait, and wait, and wait a few more weeks?
|
|
|
|
You know, all our fuel would be renewable and leave a negative carbon footprint if we grew hemp biodiesel. But that's illegal.
Except it wouldn't be, because when a plant grows, it pulls stuff out of the ground, and when it dies and decomposes, it puts stuff back into the ground, but if you remove that plant, you basically just end up pulling stuff out of the ground untill there is nothing to pull. We would essentially switch from oil based energy to fertilizer based energy. |
|
|
|
I understand, but if we have 3 people, I put in 5BTC, someone else puts in 2BTC, and the third person puts in 3.5BTC, the coins all get broken up into random amounts and go through two stage mix, in the end, we still have 5BTC, 2BTC, and 3.5BTC, just in new addresses. Isn't that fairly easy to track? I know I'm missing something... What is it?
You don't re-assemble them into the original amounts. Why would you want to do that? That's what Blockchain.info does. You send from a single address, you give it an amount and a destination address, and it goes through 2+ CoinJoin steps, split up into random amounts from your source address, then after all the steps gets recombined into the amount you sent (minus transaction fee) into your destination address. Basically, it's as if your amount is exploded into random chunks, and then recombined into the same amount. Unless multiple steps involve multiple different coinjoiners, and much of what you get isn't tied to your own bitcoin at all, I'm not sure it's secure. |
|
|
|
|
Even if bitcoin is not anonymous, people can still refuse to give out passwords, or send to unspendable accounts in protest. Confiscatable form of wealth will be dwindling fast.
|
|
|
|
I do believe we are headed for complete economic collapse, but not by the year 2020. The US will manage to borrow enough to stay afloat until then. 2030 is a more realistic goal.
2030?! Don't you know that economics follows a cycle based on some arbitrary number that has nothing to do with economics, which is Pi, or something? |
|
|
|
|
Any bitcoins lost from malformed addresses? Or was it just preventing you from creating a multisig address to begin with?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
