Ich bin einer der „vernünftigen Leuten ohne Drogenabsicht“™ und finde es unvernünftig, Drogen derart zu kriminalisieren. Wenn Menschen dann sicher online bestellen können anstatt mit Dealergesocks umgehen zu müssen, so finde ich das gut. Immerhin erhalten sie dann eher hochqualitatives und keinen gestreckten Müll. Die Gesetze, die der Staat hier aufstellt, sind Unfug, und ich fände es schön, wenn sie ganz einfach durch neue Technologien obsolet werden. Ich kenne da so einige Leute, die unvernünftig mit Alkohol und Nikotin umgehen. Sogar mit Koffein, Zucker und Fertigfraß. Womöglich sollte man das auch alles kriminalisieren.  Dennoch bin ich noch skeptisch, ob Silk Road standhält. Besonders, was die Bitcoin-Geldflüsse angeht. |
|
|
|
CBS WHY U NO SHOW BITCOIN???
(屮ﾟДﾟ)屮 |
|
|
|
Sure, there will be setbacks from entrenched interests, but the best way to fight that is to be positive and help build the bitcoin economy. Soon, the entrenched interests will be joining our economy.
Please do explain how you could ever have a full Bitcoin economy (not relying on an exchange rate) if spending Bitcoins is only going to hurt financially. Honestly, I view Bitcoin more as a future store of value (encrypted wallet copied everywhere, easily redeemable, easy to acquire etc.) than a currency, just like precious metals. It will probably only be adopted as a currency in areas where it has critical advantages (where you practically *need* Bitcoin), not just "low transaction fees fees, no chargebacks, no middlemen". Hence Silk Road. I would love to be wrong though. |
|
|
|
It's not that it's overpriced. It's that the fee isn't subject to market forces. That's the biggest crime.
nobody's forced to use the main client. (i say this only because what counts as 'market forces' is a very flexible notion.) And nobody is forced to use a particular version of it, either. I guess the holy free market is in favor of a 0.01 fee for now? |
|
|
|
|
It’s wrong because people ought to stay poor, so the debt masters stay in control. You need to buy shit you don’t need with money you don’t have so the economy keeps growing while wasting the earth’s resources.
That’s why credit cards are a great invention!
|
|
|
|
|
2% Inflation = exponentielles Wirtschaftswachstum vonnöten, um sie zu übertreffen. Ansonsten Weltkrieg oder Währungscrash. Hat die Geschichte oft genug gezeigt.
Inflation bedeutet verschwenderischen Konsumerismus, Schuldenmmachen, Kreditkarten. Selbstverständlich gefällt das unseren Oligarchen und sie werden alles dafür tun, um gegen das Deflationsmonster Propaganda zu machen. Die Kriegstreiber stehen auch auf Inflation. Ohne sie könnte kein Staat seinem Budget einen Krieg zumuten.
Ehrlich, mir ist’s lieber, wenn nicht alles auf Pump gekauft wird, bloß um unserem Wirtschaftsgott zu dienen. Die derzeitige Maxime des Wirtschaftswachstums ist einfach nur grotesk.
Was ist so schlimm daran, wenn man nur kauft, was man wirklich haben will?
|
|
|
|
|
Great stuff. Small donation sent.
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn’t it be redeemed and not unredeemed Bitcoins per month then? I’m confused.
|
|
|
|
|
So for instance only ~1.5 out of 6.4 million BTC have not been moved in May? That’s pretty good actually …
|
|
|
|
This is their address, retrieved from the Google Cache. They received over 3.5k BTC in donations, so that would be worth 33k USD now. Pretty ungrateful move if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
I don't care if people speculate, that's not what I'm concerned about. I am concerned that millions of BTC at difficulty 1 are out there and stand to have the same effect on the Bitcoin economy as Bernanke's printing press.
I still don’t understand why this is a problem. The market prices this possibility in imo, and I would love if Satoshi or some other ancient miner decided to dump a few hundred k. It would just mean incredibly cheap coins for us, and I would gladly jump at the opportunity. They can’t unload forever/infinite amounts. |
|
|
|
perfect voluntariness is an untenable abstraction.
Thanks, I fully agree with this. As it stands, 50% of the world’s first decentralized currency will have been mined by the end of 2012. You may be happy as long as it’s all voluntary, but there might be lots of people who are struggling with the adoption of such a system. That’s why I ask. I want to know if this could turn out to be a problem in hindsight. I take the current poll result as an indication that there is a broad consensus in this community, so perhaps I’m worrying too much. |
|
|
|
It essentially voids the purchasing power of all the easily mined coins so that those coming into Bitcoin now do not have to plan on having their purchasing power vastly cut when those old coins come out of their generation blocks and onto the market. That’s correct, but the situation will essentially be the same later on. People will call for the same thing when it’s 200k Bitcoin users instead of 20k. Should it really be done this way? How so? This proposal does not call for a change to the mining rewards, so inflation would be exactly the same. And what's "freicoin"? German for "freecoin"? Nothing would be given for free, so I don't get it. What I want is a system where ten early adopters with a combined BTC balance of 3M BTC or more, who are 100% silent in the face of "who's the richest here", don't have an undeserved claim to a third or a half of my purchasing power. Is that too much to ask? No, it was meant as a version of Freigeld with demurrage. And I don’t see why it would be undeserved for 10, but for 100 or 1000 it would be? So it really boils down to the "problem" of having a fixed money supply. That, and 10 people aren't sitting on 1/3 to 1/2 of the world's gold supply having acquired it trivially, waiting to "retire" with it. I don’t know about the distribution of gold. But in the end, it should turn out to be the same with Bitcoin, when those Bitcoin colossuses spend their riches, right? |
|
|
|
Then explain this. Further explain why so many people voted him up and agree. It is obvious that it is a barrier to people who would otherwise be interested in Bitcoin. I’m trying to find out how many and if it’s a real problem or not, but that’s not easy. Bitcoin is the world’s first decentralized currency. 25% of its total supply has been mined without any mortal ever having heard about it. At least 1.8% of the total supply (375k BTC) is known to be in the hands of a single individual, and more of this kind are expected (Satoshi etc.). I fail to see an honest justification for this, fancy voluntaryist talk aside. |
|
|
|
Please explain why your "antidote" would turn out any different in two years. The mining scheme internally stays the same in your proposal. What you want is inflatacoin or freicoin imo. The $50k would ultimately come from other investors in gold, in the form of a very small devaluation in everyone else's gold. TANSTAAFL, money does not come from nowhere.
I don’t understand the fundamental difference between Bitcoin and Gold in this regard. The only difference is a large and mature market. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
