I have a strong feeling heavily monopolized/subsidized institutions will have a hard time accepting bitcoin; they will likely buckle and disappear before that happens, which I am not opposed to.  But it would seem to me government institutions especially, though perhaps specifically in America, will sink with the dollar.  They can't inflate bitcoin, which means taxes will realistically reflect what they're being spent on and nobody would accept that bill if they knew the real cost of all that military, there'd be a revolution the next day.  It seems like they're being backed into a corner ever so slowly, and though I recognize that it's inevitable that something will eventually replace the dollar (after all, nobody uses the denarius anymore, so certainly the dollar can disappear), and bitcoin just happens to fill that gap very well, my biggest concern is how badly oligarchical governments will lash out in their dying throes before croaking.

I'm not so worried about how people will transition from one currency to another; they seem pretty good with that, they've done it many times before, though many of us haven't in our lifetimes.  But this massive shift between a highly centralized environment to a highly decentralized environment is likely what can get us killed if we're not prudent and meticulous in our action.

This must be what limbo feels like

True, but they share the same fundamental qualities: neither are rational and both are fueled by emotions

Don't worry, we still have NK and Venezuela to show us why socialism gets progressively worse the more of it you have

I'd vote apolitical if there were an option; I do not agree with the practicality or ethics of politics, no matter the party; I do not see the value in robbing Peter to pay Paul; I do not believe coercion is good for my livelihood nor for global posterity.

It'll keep going so long as I live, I will at least make sure of this.

Or, NASA could break off from the US Government and advertise itself as a private research institution; either they'll get the donations they need to continue operations, or they won't and people prove they don't really care that much about space.  In both cases it's win-win.

It's not bad but all the ones I've had were much too greasy, I prefer thin crust myself.

A fun example of why wars must be funded at the barrel of a gun

They would not form religion yet; they might have supernatural beliefs, but they wouldn't have anything very organized that you could call a religion.  The majority of their time will be spent gathering resources; assuming they are not into agriculture yet, they will have spare time to develop better tools to help them gather, which will further increase their spare time.  They are unlikely to split up and battle each other as they will have nothing to really conquer, as food is abundant and wealth is largely nonexistent; it's not until food begins to run out--the breaking point between peace and chaos--that the stronger individuals will begin to dominate by demanding the lesser individuals follow them; this is a survival mechanism, wherein the stronger individual can use the energy of the lesser individuals to ensure his own survival, though he may insist it is for the survival of them all.  The tribes battle and take each other's food; the more powerful tribes, who are better at surviving this way, are the ones which will continue to procreate.  This continues until all the food is gone and everyone dies from cannibalism or starvation.

Now, at some point in time, or in a 2nd scenario considering they understand agriculture, this dark ending changes course and the majority of the tribe's time is spent ensuring their farms can continue to produce food.  They tend to war less as they have the basic necessities of life and have all their energy focused on sustenance; as agricultural methods improve, e.g. animal assistance, fertilization and farming tools, food quantities increase, the population grows, people can focus on doing things besides hunting or farming and have greater opportunities to, again, improve their living conditions.  Meanwhile, the stronger individuals, with the help of straggler tribe members--those who do not contribute a substantial amount--may insist that the work individuals are producing should be shared equally among the tribe members, of which failure to do so may result in ostracism or physical harm.  If successful, individuals tend to give in only a bare minimum of their effort, no savings can accrue to allow free time for innovation, and the tribe remains as a series of dirt huts for the next millennia; this is known as egalitarianism.  If unsuccessful, the stragglers may be supported by their individual families or pass away, while those who can save have better opportunities for improvement, and figure out more effective, efficient ways to get the most out of what they have to work with; better farming methods, more comfortable living conditions, sturdier houses, better waste disposal, time for art, music and developing language, formal and organized religion, on and on.

Two tribes who do not practice egalitarianism will realize the other has great new advancements in technology and different things to offer; they participate in trade and improve mutually.  They do this as they have a fundamental understanding of human rights, including civil and property, as they were able to understand why the egalitarian route was detrimental longterm for their survival.  Any tribe which does practice egalitarianism may attempt to conquer the tribes which do not, under the assumption that they, tribe A, deserves the fruits of the labor of non-egalitarian tribes B and C; tribe A does this because it is running seriously low on resources, after having consumed most of them and demoralized their working class, and if they don't conquer anyone, they will soon perish.  If unsuccessful, tribe A will disappear, and so have a huge life-or-death incentive to go to war.  If successful, tribe A's strongest will assume control over tribes B and C and, if he didn't already, will come up with a name for himself along the lines of "king" or "president".  Tribe a continues to eat the resources of tribes B and C until they, too, become close to death, and thus will attempt to conquer and assimilate the next tribe.  Meanwhile, individuals who do not agree with tribe A's egalitarian practices, continue to attempt to remove themselves from their society so they can continue working and saving so they can improve; tribe A's king insists that everyone must participate for their society to work, and threatens "traitors" with death if they do so.  There, the king, who does not have to work, comes up with a plot: if he codifies his desire into "law" and claims they are given to him by divine sovereignty, he can have something to point to when someone disagrees with him.  Further, the king insists he requires more equality than the others so he can perform his kingly duties; the amount he needs is at his discretion and failure to comply will result in punishment.

Anyway, as advancements occur, albeit very slowly, and populations grow, tribe A conquers more and more tribes until there are but a few very large tribes who practiced the same deeds as tribe A; we can now call these tribes, kingdom A, kingdom B, kingdom C etc.  The kingdoms fight over resources and power to get more resources until they become the size of nation-states (how big is this island anyway?), technology has finally advanced to the point that people can stop working at farms and do other things with their lives, political thinking leads to concepts like capitalism, socialism, anarchism, fascism, which are all just rebrandings of events which occurred long ago but nobody remembers as too many generations have passed and nobody has the time to stop and study anyway until just recently; the nation states get into an arms race to rid the world of one another once and for all but eventually get to the point where their weapons are so powerful that they can blow up the entire island if they weren't careful; nations A and B convince nation C that nuclear weapons are off-limits and nation C naively complies, and gets conquered by nation B once they get rid of them all; superpower A develops remote-controlled machines which can fly anywhere and bomb anything, superpower B starts swallowing up the neighboring smaller nations, superpower A installs its own presidents in countries which don't agree with it.  Eventually, everyone's a part of one of three tribes, it's illegal to think things you're not allowed to, you can be killed with a single order from the king, big brother is watching you, and 2 + 2 = 5.

So, either two things happen beyond that: the superpowers eat themselves alive and everyone dies from war, disease or famine, or the superpowers are discarded as a superstitious, illegitimate institution and people finally move out of the tribal island era and into an era of secular rationalism.  Beyond that is anyone's guess.

I'm very happy you like it

It's beaten out of kids when they're young through physical harm, negligence and religious and political indoctrination (arguably the same thing) via poor parenting and public schooling.  Those kids grow up to believe the "might makes right" philosophy which supplants any notions of there being rights or freedom (for they were denied both growing up, combined with undeveloped empathy and a damaged frontal cortex), and express their childhood trauma through a desire to dominate by following the state.

Does this adequately sum it up?

Seems like they want to discourage hodling.

This is a catastrophe.  Where are this forum's socialists to reassure me that this isn't "real socialism"?

I can hardly imagine what kind of toll this is having on Venezuela's economy; those 3-4 hours aren't just a nuisance, it's time people could've used to do something productive.  It essentially puts the nation on hold.

Bitcoin is going to work just fine.  The article he should've wrote is why the legacy tax system is no longer compatible with modern money.

Care to clarify why you're having such a strong emotional reaction to these types of people?

If you truly didn't mind it, you wouldn't need to be taxed

Feels like bitcoin is doomed every other week.

I wonder if the residents of Turkey have seen this movie.

The nations without money in the past have all been hyper-violent; this occurs because the socialist countries, without a pricing mechanism, run out of resources made in a market system and can't figure how to distribute new ones efficiently enough, thus resulting in a need for this nation to conquer to keep itself going and a need to enslave and murder its own members to keep what's left functioning.  We saw this with the purely moneyless societies of the past and continue to see this with partially socialist nations of today, where non-market institutions interfere and, for example, commit to hidden taxes via inflation to support massive militaries to commence the conquering; the trend is, the more moneyless a society gets (that is, the less money in the hands of the individual controls his surroundings wherein politics supersedes his decision making), the more chaos ensues.

Money is the root of all evil like guns are the root of all murders like books are the root of all philosophy like cat memes are the root of the Internet like art is the root of all creativity like machines are the root of all productivity.  Money is not a symbol of greed; it is merely another tool which is falsely attributed to acts which only humans can commit to.  To wish for the removal of money as a means to attain peace is to wish for the removal of computers as a means to protect children: it's missing the fundamental human component which greed inhabits to begin with.  Money does not inflate itself; money does not initiate war; money does not starve nor impoverish anyone, it is an object, it cannot think or do or say or control.  Only people can do this, and these people exist to commit evil acts with or without the existence of money, and have proven to be much more effective without.

If it's true that voluntary exchange is always peaceful, then world peace is achieved through global voluntaryism.  Nothing more, nothing less; it's not any real puzzle, it's a very basic, logically simple argument--the difficulty is in the emotional toll required of us as a species to recognize where our involuntary associations are and to stop them.  Where we are forced to follow, violence, war, slavery, famine, and other thefts always succeed; peace can only be achieved when these associations end, when we allow each other the right to decide who we will associate with and who we will not, whether it be friends, family, businesses or leaders.  When we assert that someone must be jailed for disagreeing with our politics (say, for example, putting someone in jail because they like a similar gender, or because they wanted to keep their hard-earned cash for themselves), we lend ourselves to the increasing detriment of society.