|
This should be moved to the marketplace.
|
|
|
|
“As the gap between authority and capability widens, the government is increasingly unable to collect valuable evidence in cases ranging from child exploitation and pornography to organized crime and drug trafficking to terrorism and espionage –- evidence that a court has authorized the government to collect,” Caproni said. “This gap poses a growing threat to public safety.” I am so scared.  Who is going to save the children? They have not proved why they need such power. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin wasn't designed to bring down the current fiat monetary systems, they are failing under the weight of their own failed premises. After they have failed, bitcoin cryptocurrency, or its descendants, will replace the failed centralised, fiat monetary experiments.
I believe that Satoshi intended to replace the failed system with cryptocurrencies, if not to destroy fiat currency. Side effects and intent are indistinguishable in this case. |
|
|
|
|
Remember to use clearcoin, guys.
|
|
|
|
lots of people drunk on the libertarian kool-aid here, apparently.
i'd like to see bitcoin succeed as much as the next person here, but i fear this idealogical motivation of libertarianism is a deleterious trait to exhibit. libertarianism is capitalism on crack, maybe people are too naive to read history or understand their environments, but selfishness exhibited in policy is exactly what libertarianism is. please understand, there are laudable aspects to wanting to better your own position, but when that comes at the expense of altruism you cross the line into being a cunt.
i suspect many 'libertarians' will fail to see the logic presented here, and i won't back up statements with links and blurbs for those too stupid to think for themselves. where is the liberty in libertarianism? selfishness is foremost, unless i am mistaken and i welcome responses.
It is one thing to disagree and thinks libertarianism is completely wrong, but it is quite another to completely misunderstood libertarianism. I would describe libertarianism as an incomplete ethical framework center around autonomous moral agents who are self-owners. Libertarianism often permits more than they restrict. One example of permissibility is that I could choose to donate most of my earning to charity, or not. However, a restriction exists that I cannot engage in theft, even if it is government sponsored, which is known as taxation. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have a good overview of the philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/ |
|
|
|
I can't wait to use satoshi to denote a very small fraction of bitcoin  . |
|
|
|
When this is finished, I would like to be a bounty hunter for such a system. Will we have to register or anything?
Bounty hunter? I don't think we're be arresting and shooting people. |
|
|
|
The controversy is caused by bitcoiners with different goal in mind, not just what they think will be effective/ineffective. Nonetheless, I think there's a goal of bitcoin we all could believe in: Destroy and replace fiat money, and facilitate the economy toward human prosperity(material wealth, health, etc). That's it. I believe this is what Satoshi would have wanted. He thought all those trusting we must do are unnecessary and harmful to our economies. He designed bitcoin to fix the flaw inherent in fiat money. We should achieve his goal without compromising its very principles. When we get down to it, the government will never and should not have power to dictate the monetary policy of bitcoin by mere decree. The forum and community here may ban drugs and illegal goods for the pragmatic reason of protecting and growing the bitcoin economy, but we cannot compromise the system that Satoshi laid out for us, nor can we compromise the integrity of the community dedicated to achieving this goal. Remember, we must make bitcoin prevalent in the world, without compromising its power as a cryptocurrency, if we were to have any chance of changing the world at all. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. |
|
|
|
|
Is it lawful to be in your underwear?
|
|
|
|
I agree with all you say here, but you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not specifically trying to show cause and effect, but merely indicate that there exist cases of deregulation which have proved disadvantageous to the consumer. Right now we have a status quo of Big Interfering Regulating Government, and most people are sufficiently content with that that they won't go out and demonstrate on the streets demanding change.
Wrong. You said this example prove that deregulation have bad effects but you didn't actually *show* that is the case. Your conclusion may be true, but you failed to show how it is actually true. If you want to change the status quo, the onus is on *you* to convince people that deregulation is the right way to go and to get them out on the streets demonstrating.
I'm keeping an open mind, but I've yet to be convinced. I wrote what I see as the real problem (Big Corporation) in my last post and I find it interesting that you merely criticize my general points without answering my specific question about free-market policies.
I was never an opponent of all regulation, per se. It's a strawman. Moreover, today's corporations are creatures of today's regulation! The incentive system is VASTLY different in an anarchist system. It's like talking apple and oranges here. |
|
|
|
It makes no difference what people want, it will be coded into the system at that point. It's the same as the Fed. Res. printing money.
It's called forking. |
|
|
|
|
Throw caution to the wind or proceed slowly?
That's the crux of the debate, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
First, why aren't you all backing up your wallet data, when it changes, along with other pertinent data, on shutdown and startup, to a flash drive? They're cheap and can hold gobs of data
Why do you assume that we do not back up our wallet? |
|
|
|
We'll actually get wrecked if it doesn't grow some. The number of coins is going to double over the next 2 years.
I think it will grow, but holding coins is a bet on growth, not just on our staying interested.
Then it's our job to produce looooooooooooooooooot of goods and services so that bitcoin stays valuable. |
|
|
|
|
Well, I decided to dedicate my bounty somewhere long time ago when I realize that there is already a solution.
|
|
|
|
I really do think the guy lost his job. He was probably an admin at a hosting company and thought he could make some btc on servers that were not being used (without telling his boss). This is why I was able to get a dedicated server for only 10btc that first time, and why the prices were so good. It's also why he's been moving others around onto different servers. Requests came in for the servers and he'd have to move us off them (as we were the illegitemate customers) onto something else temporarily.
I'd say his boss caught him and fired him. Which is understandable.
I don't think the possible situation doesn't make anybody trust him more. |
|
|
|
Regardless of whether it's economically sound or not, ignoring the plight of millions of people makes for real bad sociology. Not everyone is an expert economist or financial advisor - some people have to be street sweepers and some people have to be teachers. The point remains that deregulation of Enron led to a serious abuse of trust on an enormous scale. In a wider sense, economies exist in order to improve the human condition so deregulation here was pure Economics Fail. Or maybe you think economies exist only to make capitalists wealthier?
I won't accept your conclusion because you fail to show cause and effects. As of right now, your argument is an assertion that doesn't prove anything, either in my favor, or your. Not everything can always be attributed to bad or good regulation. Sometime some actors think they can get away with something. If you trust somebody, and somebody abuse that trust. Well, it's abused. The only thing that can happen is how to punish people who abuse trust. We could make all the regulation we want, that's perfect and have no bad consequences... The problem is, it's only swaying you to do the right thing, but not actually do the right thing. If 99% of everybody decide to murder each other tomorrow, no economic system or government will save humanity. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
