Nice!

Goed geregeld dit!

Denk ook wel dat er echt gegantische sprongen tussen gaan zitten, waarschijnlijk nog wel groter dan vorig jaar juni/juli http://www.bitcoinx.com/charts/chart_large_lin.png

Er gaan natuurlijk ook wel wat mensen hun GPU-rigs uitzetten, maar dat compenseert bij lange na niet de hoeveelheid die erbij komt.

Wasta, ik heb niet al je berekiningen nagelopen, maar die zullen wel kloppen vermoed ik Wat wel ontzettend belangrijk is om in de gaten te houden is ten eerste dit; Je bent niet alleen. Daar bedoel ik mee te zeggen, er zullen meer mensen zo'n rig gaan kopen, sterker nog er zijn er waarschijnlijk al een dozijn of meer besteld. Dat betekend vervolgens dat zelfs als je morgen zou bestellen, er zeker 10 mensen em eerder krijgen dan jij.

Dan komt het belanrijkste; de difficulty zal hierdoor waanzinnig hard stijgen. Dat betekend dat jouw berekeningen al vanaf het begin anders gaan worden. En dat zal een stuk negatiever zijn, het is enkel onmogenlijk om te zeggen hoeveel negatiever. Wat onder andere daaruit blijkt is dat die 30.000 een extreem risicovolle investering gaat zijn. (er is namelijk niet eens zeker waneer je daar ook maar iets van gaat terug zien, en ook niet wanneer je die 30.000 weer terug hebt verdient, en al helemaal niet wanneer je dan ooit winst zou kunnen gaan maken.

Dan misschien nog wel het belangrijkste punt; je bent van plan om hier misschien geld voor te gaan lenen ... stel je voor ... wanneer je straks niet eens quitte blijkt te kunnen spelen, heb je geen winst maar wel een hele lelijke lening die je ook nog eens terug moet betalen, plus rente!

What happens between the IPO and the day you'll actually receive the ACIS's? Will you pay dividents? And if so, how much? Or is this just sort of a pre-order only not with BFL directly? :-)

I've seen several variations on the "this is just too convienient"  theme but I'm surprised that the alternate angle hasn't been mentioned. If you think this isn't a coincidence then you could just as well say it's too INconveinient. I mean for all the people involved this is the absolute worst case scenario. If there is something more then meets the eye, i would concider looking at people who would stand to gain from the damage (financial, reputation, trust) done to the parties involved or to bitcoin in general.

(I'm not defending anyone just giving an alternate view)

Any update on the weekly 1% bond?

I'd like to participate in the 1% weekly bond. I only have 40 though

There is afcourse another factor that could tip the scale. Let me put it this way;

Yes, there are instances where having a gun on you will prevent harm, where otherwise harm would have certainly come to one or more people.

There are instances where having a gun doesn't alter the outcome in any way

There are also instances where having a gun on you actually makes things worse, meaning (serious) harm has been done to on or more persons where otherwise no, or very little harm would have occurred.

This are all the options, of which it is easy to think that they just occur between attacker and defender, between criminal and innocent civilian. And might make you think that it could be worth is anyway.

But these instances als happen between one (usually) normal innocent civilian, and another, when people don't act rationally like I've described in my earlier post. Almost all of these encounters usually happen without serious harm being done to either, but with one or more guns added to the mix, suddenly it can end in irrevocable disaster. To make this a bit less abstact, an example;

imagine just to guys getting into an argument, they didn't like eachother very much to begin with, but let's say one looked at the other his girlfriend the wrong way. Neither of them backs down. What normally happens is that a few punches get thrown and a 2 minute wrestle occurs. In the end they go home with a bloody nose, a few bruises and a black eye, and probably a bruised ego. Add one or more guns in the mix; suddenly one is dead and the other in jail.

It's excactly these frequent, but mostly harmless situations that suddenly have very grave consequenses where people act just human, or even fairly stupid, that illustrate where the real danger resides with being permitted to carry a gun.

It's true that criminal can get hold of guns regardless of gun the gun laws for the lawabiding citizens. There is a tremendous amount of how difficult it becomes even for criminals, esspecially the much more common small time crminal.

When you give a person a gun and do background checks on him, and make him do all the paperwork, what you are actually asking from this person is that he acts responsible with the power he now wields for every second of every day, year after year, for as long as he is alive. For some people thats enirely possible. For many people however somewhere in their lives are at least on or more events where they act irrational. When you are extremely angry, afraid, jealous, depressed, or whatever. The chance becomes for irrisponcile behavior becomes even greater when you add the perfectly legal substance of alcohol to the mix. What you have now, in the perspective of an entire lifetime, a fairly likely event that is possibly dangerous, and now you are adding the free acces to a gun. Decades of voilent-crime statisics show that this is a very bad idea.

The moments where a gun is a very dangerous object far outweigh the moments it prevents danger. Both in frequency as in severity.

What is mostly overlooked in the pro-gun argument is that people are just people, and the amount of people who are -unlike most of the people here- pehaps not particularly bright, or not (fully) aware of the responsibility it actually takes to be able to point a kiling device at someone, are the vast majority of the people who'll have and use a gun. That should clearly be a bad idea. And unsurprisingly almost ever piece of credible information supports this.

I second this!

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt

Ik ga niet naar die conventie in London waarschijnlijk.

Ik woon zelf in Amsterdam

Eens!

Kan ik ook geld naar je overmaken vanaf een ABN rekening? Want dan heb ik wel interesse om eind deze maand een kop koffie te gaan drinken en bitcoins te handelen

Hmm, interessant, maar de prijzen zijn inderdaad aan de hoge kant aangezien ik waarschijnlijk geen gebruik hoef te maken van de "extras". Wel goed om te weten dat er betrouwbare nederlandse verkopers zijn!

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

As far as I know there has been a growing shortage in people willing to do those jobs in almost all western countries. Daycare and aged care are only taken care of privately in highly urban area's where there are lot's of relatively well to do people who have the means to take their bussiness elsewhere. In AnCap this problem would be maginified by leaving the people who have it the hardest with potentially the worst services. This would be a much worse outcome than having governments imposing standards and (pricing)regulations to those kind of services, and making them partially govenment-funded if needed.

Indeed, but because of that both the elderly and the infants died much quicker and much more often. you think any extended family can provide the proper care for Alzheimers, Diabetes, Osteoporosis or Arthritis? I think we are now rightly holding ourselves to higher standards than we have for a large majority of human history.

And even if it aren't essential services like you say, just this step back in quality of life that would accompany the AnCap would as far as I'm concerned be enough to reject it outright. (Someone in this thread used the word "barbaric" to describe AnCap I believe that this, among other things, is why he chose to uses that particular word.) Add to that the other critisms I've outlined it becomes clear that the removal of govenment would create much more hardship and problems than it would solve.

You could start your own, but many times that's not a option (lacking the time/skills/capital to do so.) But that doesn't really help the situation. You won't put the bad bussinesses out of business because of the reasons I outlined before.

But this does bring up another point; the free market presumes that there are enough people to do a job or run a certain venture, and when there aren't enough people to provide a certain service, it becomes scarce and the price will go up, drawing more people to the oppertunity and solving that problem. But what is that's not the case? What if there are not enough people willing to provide a service that is needed, and there are simply not enough people to do the kinds of jobs needed? The price will certainly go up, but it won't ever come down and that means a service becomes unavailable to many people. Depending on what the service is, that's anywhere from not really a problem (luxury goods) to clearly unacceptable when it's a service like running a daycare, medical care, running a retirement home, when this is only available to the (super)rich.

One of the many reasons we need a government is to fill in the gaps where "the free market" or market-forces are either not working, or produce unwanted results. The reason for the unwanted results is that there are many areas of life where we don't act rationally, or have something (or emotion) at stake to outweigh what you might call a rational market decision.

A free market works great when there are many options available (of a service or a good) and all options are competing. What is also nessecary is that you are free to take your bussiness eslewhere when the product you want is not to you liking. It's also required that you are well informed to actually make a sound decision. this works well with buying goods online; the competing products are just as many clicks away as the one you are dissatisfied with, and abundant information about competitive options are at your fingertips in a convienient format.

Imagine you are old and unable to properly take care of yourself. You do have a great and loving family in the town you're living at but they are unable to provide all the care you need since they are hardworking people and have lives of their own. You arrange that you'll be admitted to a retirement home. This is a commercially run bussiness, and it turns out it's a shitty one, they charge and extortionate rate and the board of directors are awarding themselves massive bonusses. According to "the free market" this retirement-home would go out of bussiness since you could get a much better service for your money someplace else. Turns out, it doesn't. Why? Well even if you as an elderly gentleman (maybe even in the first stages of dementia ..) would find out which place would get you the best value for money i'm sure you wouldn't even concider moving to the other side of the country since everyone you know lives nearby, and those are the last people you have left.

The point is that there are many instances where letting the free market take over is not the right solution. Infact in some cases that would lead to an awefull state of affairs, but in most cases it will lead to having the worst parts of a free market without any of the benefits of that free market since people for whatever reason need a certain product of service anyway.

Further examples are hospitals, dentists, children's daycare centers, pleces that care for the (mentally) handicapped, and primary schools. (You would not move little Timmy for the third time this year, making him lose al his friends again, and driving 150 miles every day to get him to a school)

Many times is better to let those evil govenments raise their evil taxes and make life better for everyone by removing the market incentive and simply demanding every school/daycarecentre/retirement-home/hospital to maintain a certain standard at a certain price.