sure, but

• when CPU mining was still possible (2009-2010), the tiny amount of people doing it mostly considered Bitcoin experimental, there were no exchanges and no exchange rate
• when GPU mining started (2010-2013) BTC had a price (on MtGox). But Bitcoiners were ridiculed left and right
• when ASIC mining started (2013 - today), BTC price had really taken off. But Bitcoiners were still heavily ridiculed

if all the people pointing fingers had bothered to investigate Bitcoin seriously, they might not have missed the opportunity. But instead they were deriding it.


If you want to mock a new trend, don't complain later that it made all the people you were mocking wealthy. It's just plain salty bitterness, and nothing else.

name one instance where decentralized tech has been successfully disrupted by so-called "laws"


you can't. so be quiet

I hope BTC-e give them zero.

Who do these people think they are? They have no authority outside their remit, and certainly no authority on the Bitcoin network (unless they have private keys to some BTC, to which they would of course have a legitimate right of ownership)

you've been lucky, LND is not the most reliable Lightning software available, and it also causes compatibility problems with other Lightning implementations (which wastes the time of devs who must mitigate for LND's problems). Lightning Labs devs admit to this, yet continue to develop new features instead of focusing on fixing old bugs.

People who tacitly promoted LND without mentioning the alternatives share some responsibility for this situation, but ultimately it's Lightning Labs that are most responsible, their whole development strategy suggests they want to expand their influence, instead of producing good software.

if it includes anyone except the original people from the mailing list, then no.

Assange? A notable exception from the early days, he comes across as a likely infiltrator working for intelligence agencies. Either that or he really is more or less a complete idiot.

if this sounds tempting: check the details, very carefully


this company might not be letting you buy BTC, but "BTC price exposure" instead. That means they give you USD corresponding to the gain in the BTC price, and you never get a chance to own real Bitcoin. If the trade becomes incredibly profitable for you, they may just dump you out of the market at the price point they choose, then give you an excuse which is covered by their (no doubt too long to read) terms and conditions.

People who invite conflict in that sort of way would be likely to meet their demise rather quickly in a more anarchic world. But I don't really believe there are too many of them anyway, they'd soon catch onto that.

And as long as these people respect other's ways of handling resources, then they can do what they like with their own. You can't say "there's no rigid way of doing things", then say "except you've all got to do it this way". I wouldn't do that in my personal life, but if I was running or working for a company, it's inherently a collective as you're working as a team with pooled resources. Are we gonna start targeting businesses as communist cults because the ownership rights of company property is "too blurry"?

If you wanna fight socialists, or they wanna fight you, the best outcome is if you both kill each other IMO. Forget the ideological divisions, and simply leave each other be.

anything they've got to say is irrelevant. The blockchain is both anti-fragile and anti-corrupt, no politician can effect how it operates in any meaningful way.

So politcians (or anyone else, for that matter) can say what they want, it makes no difference

No it doesn't

Anarchy means that people agree rules between each other

which is a political group


I'll stick with Bitcoin, where capital interests determine access to the payments network, not political interests

"anarchy" does not mean "no rules"

in the definition for anarchy you presented, nowhere did it mention "no rules". It stipulated "no rulers", which is different



not much of a qualification then?



"self regulating" is a more accurate description of what anarchy actually means

I see where all this is coming from, but it carries a danger: factionalism. Those "branches/forms" of anarchism are arguably just the political divisions we already have today with new names.


My take is that it wouldn't be healthy for any one of these ideas to dominate, because any of them could have a role to play given the right circumstances. Real life is too complicated to assume that a single idea for organizing will work in every situation. How about using just one word describing the ideology of letting ideas prove themselves in real situations according to their observable efficacy: anarchy



anarchy is always presented to us in the media or in movies/tv as chaos. But it does not mean chaos; "self-rule" or "emergent order" are less politicized descriptions.

if the IRS applied every rule in the (voluminous) tax code, there would be very little legal trade as a result. Give a reason why making small purchases with BTC should be any particular exception. I can give several reasons why such an exception wouldn't make sense

---

quite often, practical reality defines the law. and in practical reality, declaring every small purchase made with Bitcoin is impractical, and so the law will eventually bend to reality's will

welcome. welcome to bitcoin. it doesn't care if you've learned about it yet

Countdown: someone in this thread saying "it's the jews, they did secretly commit every crime since kane did killed abel *hiccup*"


although to be fair, Ghislaine Maxwell is likely being protected by someone powerful, we just can't pretend to know who. no evidence unfortunately

that's unlikely

@TimeBits

please stop posting

search harder.

I just don't care enough to do it myself, but suffice to say: take a look at all these ultra-racist ring leaders, most of them have suspicious connections to establishment figures or bizarre former lives just like this "Tommy Robinson" character. It's likely (but difficult to prove) that they're agent provocateurs that are paid to stir up trouble, but ultimately protected by the state spying agencies.

precisely.

all the needed dependencies are compiled into the Bitcoin binaries in the default automake configuration of all branches of the Bitcoin github repo. they are intentionally static binaries, to keep Bitcoin nodes behaving consistently across the Bitcoin network. a side effect of that is that the binaries can be used on different machines that have the same OS, but different libraries installed. Pre-installed libraries don't matter, as the Bitcoin binaries bring their own 3rd libraries to satisfy all it's dependencies.