I reset my password during the mtgox fiasco, but lost it immediately afterwards (my own keepass fail). It's been 3 weeks and mybitcoin have not reset my password, so I left them crappy feedback here:

http://www.bitcoinfeedback.com/viewuser.php?id=195

I'll retract that (if it's possible) and replace with a neutral if/when they reset my password. There was only 1BTC in my account at the time.

Whether your experience with them was positive or negative, I urge you to rate them too.

Here in the UK I have lived without my own car for the last 3 years, and I don't miss it. When I was in Denver not having a car was like not having a toilet. I felt like I'd be charged for vagrancy for walking, y'know, using my legs to get to work in the morning. Call me crazy but I think that legs ought to be the default mode of transport.

So if a corporation owned the streets and all streets and pavements were pay-as-you-drive / pay-as-you-walk, this would be better than paying taxes?

I live in the UK and wouldn't want to give up our national health service. The main thing is that I can break my leg and it won't bankrupt me, I'm automatically insured, I can take more risks, take my health for granted and not give a shit about losing my job.

School is about standardizing children; get the kids in society up to a standard level where they can compete in the market. Political and philosophical education is the responsibility of the parents, not the state.

The BBC isn't, no adverts on any TV or radio by law, no political bias either. The news is incredibly balanced compared to American news, it's rivalled only by Al Jazeera.

Politicians tend to dodge questions, but on the whole they represent their constituency. Adverts lie to you for financial gain, they aren't representing people with morals but a form of technology used to collect money.

Since our water, gas, electricity were privatized the end-user has ended up paying a lot more. I agree with this in principle, but it seemed like our government got a much better deal for the people when they were in control.

A private police force sounds ludicrous to me, police do much more than just uphold the law (if they don't, you're doing it wrong). Replacing the military with mercenaries is laughable too, who would they be loyal to?

It's important to find a balance between what's good for individuals and what's good for the economy, different political ideologies disagree on what to regulate and how, but the general consensus across the board is that regulation is needed to protect both.

Leaning toward democracy now are we? If not, bend over!

Good luck with that. I tell from your subject line and choice of words that you're certainly over 15 and will be posting a mature, informed, well-developed socio-political theory rather than flame-bait and circlejerk.

Oh wait, that was the post you should have made!

In whose eyes? Philosophical stances are all just opinion.

I guess you're on the journey to the second type, but don't call anyone a hacker until you've earned your beard and sandals or you'll look like a member of the first group, and certainly don't call yourself one unless you're widely recognised as one by beards who call each other one, if that even makes any sense.

On top of laws and regulations the government should control services which are useful to the population in the long term and are not commercially viable, and/or those services which should not be corrupted by commercial interests. For example investments in public transport, health-care, schooling, and even some public broadcasting (with appropriate regulation to avoid bias).

I don't mind paying taxes for these things because I think that they are basic requirements of a civilized society, politicians are maybe not the most honest people but they are certainly far less ruthless than businesspeople who are only loyal to money. Every time I see a politician on TV it's someone talking crap to save face, but every time I see an advert it is as close to a blatant lie as is legally possible.

You're missing the point. "bitcoin2cash rapes babies therefore his statement is false" is an ad-hominem.



By your own measurement of being civilized, assuming that being civilized is a good thing, yes. I make no judgement myself because I don't give a shit either way, but you're the one accusing people of barbarism based on the criteria of initiating violence.

Why not both? This hard-line shit is just childish. Regulation is required for some things, but where this line is drawn is a matter of debate.

Haha the age old hackers/crackers argument.

The low-down is:

If you think that hackers are people who break into computer systems then you're most likely an uncultured, mass media educated child wearing a soiled diaper sat in front of your first computer.

If you think that hackers are people who are smart, playful MIT types who write interesting solutions to software and hardware problems, then you're a smelly beard with no social skills who wears socks and sandals.

You can't win either way, it's best not to use the term at all.

No, trademarks don't work like that. You have to defend them to keep them, which is why this is worthless.

Rate them if you haven't already!

How is this not a pyramid scam?

Make that 3!

Why? What are the implications of this choice?

This is how MyBitcoin make their money, from lost accounts. They've had 1BTC from me

Prove it, troll. Send your coins to the bitcoin eater instead of burning wallets:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

Well mostly because the design doc explains a few of the hows but not many of the whys, everything seems arbitrary rather than calculated. Maybe I'd change my mind if the devs showed their workings

No, an ad hominem is a fallacy where the perpetrator uses an attack on the character of a person to deduce that they are wrong. In politics, it's foolish to suggest that anyone is right or wrong, there is no truth only opinion. I didn't even call you a hypocrite (an attack on your person), I commented on your statements (an attack on an idea).

In addition, your willingness to defend your property is the threat of initiatory violence toward anyone who rejects your philosophical stance on ownership.