If they collect too much Bitcoin it can be confiscated and redistributed more easily because we have a total log of how much they have from the transaction history.
What if it's me, and my wallet is encrypted? Are you going to torture me until I give up the passphrase? Murder my family in front of me? When you speak of "confiscation", you are nothing but a common thug or a tax man. Also, I feel that you really don't understand Bitcoin. The "log" is pseudonymous, how do you propose to determine which addresses belong to which individuals in the first place? |
|
|
|
I think part of the point is that Bitcoins are scarce and that the elite would not be able to create money out of thin air to the detriment of the working class.
I see no reason why the 'elite' (or generally wealthy) could not obtain a lionshare of the Bitcoin just as they can a lionshare of the precious metals, property, bandwidth, or just about anything else. In fact, I suspect it would be easier with Bitcoin, at least during the high inflation period. There's nothing stopping them from buying bitcoin, and I'm sure some will. However, I think it's far too risky for them to acquire a significant amount of them. You have to remember, the ones to worry about are entrenched in the current system. Buying into Bitcoin means buying into an alternative to the current system. |
|
|
|
That's only if we no longer multiply and stay on this planet.  I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Thesis: Inflation
Antithesis: Deflation
Synthesis: ? ? ?
You cannot both inflate and deflate the money supply, but you can do neither. That's essentially what Bitcoin will do around 2032. |
|
|
|
Once Bitcoin has solved that problem there may have to be a period of forced redistribution if the wealthy continue to game the system, otherwise the egalitarian society should rise on its own.
Can you please define "egalitarian"? Do you accept that some people will accumulate more wealth through their actions than others? How do you define the maximum "allowable" disparity in wealth before violent action is permissible? I assume by "forced redistribution", you mean that the rules of private property no longer apply, that those targeted lose their right to defend their property and can have violence used upon them to take said property, up to and including that which is lethal? Anyway... get rid of the state, and I see no system left to game. Keep it, and it will always turn against you. |
|
|
|
I notice your miner is asleep on the job (fan isn't spinning). Time to bring out the beating stick?
Cameras are magic in that they freeze time, though what you say is a possibility as well... |
|
|
|
that already exists.
Not a very informative post. To what are you referring? |
|
|
|
How can it be voluntary consent when they are forced into this position by the Central Banking world hegemony?
Because at the end of the day, they choose it over their other options, like subsistence living. That there are fewer other options is not the fault of the factory owner, but as you said, the governments which control the supply of money. Though you do raise a good point, "voluntary consent" is not perhaps the best phrase. At the same time, from that perspective, nobody voluntarily consents to anything. |
|
|
|
The caste system is a cultural problem. If even these religious dupes left their home country, they would still subject themselves to the same superstitious bullshit. It's going to take generations of reeducation to fix this. Fortunately, India is becoming a bit more secular thanks to work coming from overseas.
 Yes? What would those people be doing in the absence of that building, that capital? |
|
|
|
Just tell them there is a workable alternative system that does not need any bank to print money and transfer money. Now they can abolish the bank and there is no need to feed banker anymore. It just needs mining instead - and the #1 thing you need to get lots of mining power that you fully control is money. Have you taken a good look at the level of technical expertise that goes into something like HFT or investment risk calculations? If Bitcoin were ever to take off, the banks would be more than capable of getting a ton of enery-efficient mining grunt and skimming their take off the top. They wouldn't be skimming their take. They would be earning every satoshi by securing the network, just like everyone else. |
|
|
|
Look guys, some things are likely to hurt people. You can punch me pretty hard in the stomach and I won't care, that's my perception, but that doesn't make it right to go around punching people in the stomach at random, you know people consider it painful.
Sticks and stones... Oh wait, I forgot that words that you read on the internet cause physical damage to your body. |
|
|
|
Sure, there are more specific non-legal definitions out there that would exclude Nazis: speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speechIt's going to be a stretch to find one that excludes using anti-gay slurs as insults though. My point was that it is completely arbitrary. Go ahead and pick whatever definition most suits your stance, though... |
|
|
|
Log graphs are pretty misleading, which was my point. Not trolling at all, though I am laughing at your grasp of Economics. They're not misleading when you're talking about exponential growth. Constant growth is exponential growth. I recommend that you watch The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. Sure, 2-3% is probably the ideal inflation level, and we're usually a little higher than that, but around 4% and lower like we've been seeing is pretty damn good. A low steady rate of investment encourages investment and lending and is overall good for the economy.
Why is 2-3% ideal? 3% inflation per year means that every 23 years the supply of money doubles. Is that beneficial? Why should investment be encouraged? I don't think people should have to play stock broker in order to save money. That sort of system benefits those who can afford to lose money at the expense of those who cannot. |
|
|
|
No, it has a non-legal definition. I already posted it. Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless. That sounds like disparaging libertarians, furries, nazis, or just about any group or individual is hate speech. Rather broad, no? |
|
|
|
I just find the connections interesting, that's all.
My only post in that topic was to complete the list of exploitable open source cryptocurrencies lol ... it didn't even have anything to do with CryptoX but whatever you want to believe lol You know how this runs here, facts don't count , just unsubstantial accusations and FUD  You mean like this? |
|
|
|
Ha ha, maybe next you can pull out the log graphs and push the delusion even further. Bitcoins are down 86% since their peak less than a year ago. Are you disputing that fact?
Those were both log graphs. Yes, Bitcoin is down 86% from it's June peak. It's also up 400% from its one year low. Do you dispute that? Also, nominal yearly inflation in the low single digits like we've seen with the USD is pretty rad. It's pretty much ideal, actually. Wage stagnation isn't cool, though, which is the real problem at the moment. Ah, silly me... nice troll. |
|
|
|
If you explain that a currency that has been tightly controlled by the central bank/federal government since 1913 has lost 95% of its value, and that Bitcoin offers an alternative, then maybe they'll come around.
Then you can be like, "Your currency only lost 95% of its value in a century? Bitch, please. Bitcoins have lost 86% of their value in less than a year. Beat that!" ? Looks like it's quite significantly up from $0.01. Compare to this:  |
|
|
|
The Dollar is a regulated currency... that doesn't seem to be working out all that well. I'm not going to argue the merits of the position. This thread is about how to talk to OWS protesters about bitcoin. Ok... so tell them the truth, don't invent some convenient fiction. If make shit up about Bitcoin, they're not going to like it once they find out how it really works. If you explain that a currency that has been tightly controlled by the central bank/federal government since 1913 has lost 95% of its value, and that Bitcoin offers an alternative, then maybe they'll come around. Cast a wide net, some may not be at all receptive to the idea... it's probably best not to bother with those people. Make an announcement like "anyone who wants to learn about a form of money and exchange completely separate from any bank (or government), meet at X at Y o'clock". |
|
|
|
Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located. It's happening one way or another.
The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money. Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off. Again, I know, that's why I want to end the printing and switch to Bitcoin. It's a huge benefit for the poor at the expense of the rich and the corporations. I'd say it more levels the playing field, but yeah, I misunderstood what you were saying. |
|
|
|
Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located. It's happening one way or another.
The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money. Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
