I voted for the bwanker; a lot of these professions are rotten but this fella takes the cake in regard to scope and scale over the longest amount of time.

Interesting; only person I know who reads Playboy is my father, but not so much anymore since he figured out how to internet   Nonetheless, I think it's great that such a big name is accepting bitcoin, even if for no other reason than an increase in sales.

A coin is just a unit of account, it has no value in itself; you're better off just giving charity to the poor as this currency will be no different than any other, and even then, it doesn't solve the core reasons why poor people are poor to begin with (e.g. warlords who call themselves "government" stealing their life, liberty and property--or said differently, democide, law/regulation, and taxation/eminent domain.)

Even ignoring that, people who are actually poor--i.e. nobody in the wealthy western nations--don't have the infrastructure necessary to use bitcoin or any of its incarnations.

Doesn't help that many of the better members are high-tailing it for other places

Only problem as I see it is, assuming this is a voluntary association, the society which does not have basic income is the society in which business flocks to (thereby making basic income unnecessary.)  As the people of crypto A, who do believe in a basic income, realize they're no longer generating enough revenue to pay for everyone to live, they're faced with two options: adopt the philosophy of the people of crypto B, or find a way to take their wealth in some fashion or another, the latter case being involuntary and back to step one of coercive states.

But it's certainly an improvement, I think, assuming no violence is involved.  What bitcoin is now is probably the perfect crypto for me, but I would be interested in seeing people making the basic-income crypto work.  I imagine you would need to prove every individual's identity, which requires some kind of central database, to ensure nobody receives double+ income while others receive half-.  You'd need to figure out who owns this database and how it can best be secured; who pays for the people who secure it.  Or find some other means to prove an individual is real.  Perhaps the cost can be directly removed from every transfer to a central wallet, i.e. what Freicoin does, as a fee for making the crypto function (I almost made the mistake of calling it a tax but realized usage is voluntary.)  I think these costs further push business away, but that's just my prediction; maybe it is the best way to go at it.

OP, I recommend taking a look at Austrian economics; it'll help balance the pro-Keynesian economics you learned in school, which I presume you're primarily operating from as you're not equipped with the knowledge necessary to see why this idea is not optimal in the context of "freedom".

I also recommend this video to help you understand why you do not want a currency tied to the worth of any fiat, and especially not the dollar.

I've never heard of this before; very interested in hearing your thoughts.

Just as with pedophilia, bestiality isn't going to go away, it's just going to stay on the hush-hush.  Only thing the Swedes accomplished is the luxury of paying tens of thousands (in USD anyhow) yearly to care for those prisoners.  Illegal, legal, it makes no difference; if people want to do it, they will, as we've seen with every single law passed since the birth of the republic, and nobody who wants to have sex with animals takes their interests so lightly that a fine or a couple years in jail is going to stop them; they're simply not going to let you know about it.

A child can someday speak of what happened; there's some chance of discovery even if the pedophile takes every precaution.  An animal cannot, making the act simple to hide, assuming Sweden doesn't plan on going full-retard Orwellian state to ensure nobody's doing unapproved acts within their homes.

Furthermore, this is entirely between the man who owns the animal property, and the man who makes love to them (without consent, I presume, or we otherwise will have to argue whether animals are people and, if they aren't, whether it should also be illegal to have sex with computers or dildos that someone has permission to have sex with); not only does the man who owns the animals does not get compensation for this act, but the cost of the individual's actions who violated the animals is now being paid for not by he who committed the crime, but by everyone else who pays for his visit to jail.  Under this system, you are paying for the crime someone else committed.

Silly bluepillers and their emotion-fueled politics; their logo should be a foot with a bullet hole in it.

You can thank your nation's regulators.

GTAIV Online: based on how hard I've laughed for the most amount of time.
TF2: based on how long I've played.
Civilization V: based on personal preference (hooray for TiFe.)

Also, Minecraft is fun with friends, if you don't have any other creative outlet (I do so I don't play much anymore.)  Starbound isn't bad, either.  And Rougelike platformers are great, I believe this includes Rogue Legacy, Spelunky and the recently released Katacomb Kids which I am looking forward to.  Oh--the Demon/Dark Souls franchise is also fun, if you're into sadomasochism.  Not to mention a few classics: FF7, Super Mario series, Poke-a-mans (the old ones that didn't involve ice-cream shaped monsters), Marvel vs. Capcom 2, Castlevania series, Metroid series...

Portal & Portal 2 are a couple more greats, albeit short.  The Last of Us is a good choice if you love stories.  Smash Bros. Brawl is hilarious with friends, though that happens rarely nowadays what with online gaming   Psychonauts is dated but it has one of the strongest personalities in gaming to date.  So does Hotline Miami; lots of character and style.  There's also FEZ...

...and Bastion.  And Amnesia: TDD.  And Cave Story.

This made me chuckle

We would first have to argue that slaves are not people; if slaves are not people, we have no right to call slavery immoral, for one cannot abuse an object lacking its own subject (i.e. damaging someone else's things e.g. it's fine for a person to damage their own property as the subject is okay with this, but wrong to damage another's unless that subject is okay with that; the slave, assuming it is property, has no subject of its own, ergo is not a person.)

If slaves are people, then we must assert that there is a subject involved who does not participate in another's voluntary exchange; if the individual agrees to slavery, he is not a slave (though he may play the role willingly; maybe he's into that), and if the individual does not, then he is being denied his right to his subject and, hopefully, none will agree that this is the righteous path and subsequently help him (sadly, this has hardly been the case considering the past several thousand years.)

Either way, slavery cannot exist within a free market.  There is no situation in which slaves are both people and involuntarily participating within a free market; this is a logical fallacy.  Either the slave is a person to which the slave-owners are wrong and the involuntary trade should be abhorred, or the slave is not a person therefore cannot be considered amongst other human beings as to whether the trade is good or bad for it, just as trading an iPad for however many BTC cannot involve ethics applied to either the iPad or the money, as they have no subject of their own.

The latter can never fit within the realm of ethics because we generally recognize slaves as human.  What we apply to one human, we must apply to another, as we otherwise develop a divide between which groups have rights and which groups do not (i.e. the state and its citizens), which presupposes that there are multiple groups of human beings when there is only one, as Occam's razor shows us.  The latter can only be achieved without human empathy (in which case every individual has their own moral category), but we cannot assume this is the norm, especially among people who bring up slavery as a good example of why free markets are not necessarily right or wrong (this implies slaves are considered people, otherwise it'd be as strange as bringing up a PS3 in this regard, and nobody would understand what was meant.)  We see here that it is illogical to place slaves in their own moral category, as morality, the very foundation of law, becomes null if people can simply decide when morality will apply to them, and when it will not.  Assuming we do want a society of order, then we must adhere to the idea that all people have equal rights; without this, there can be no free market, as there is always a subject, even if they are treated as property, who participates involuntarily, thereby revealing the authority figure necessary for regulated markets thus making the free market void to give way.  This does not mean that every crime nullifies the free market, but it does mean that every crime legitimized shows there are regulatory powers at work: they cannot coexist.

Ergo, for a market to be considered free, it necessitates all subjects claim ownership over their objects, i.e. ownership of their being, their time and energy, and the product of their past efforts, otherwise we are left with objects without subjects, to which other subjects claim ownership i.e. authority, even if temporarily (the core idea behind the regulated market); because there can be no involuntary trade within a free market, every trade is always to the benefit of the individuals involved, otherwise the trade would never occur; following this logic, we can also see that every trade made involuntarily (or trades disallowed by ulterior forces) are to the detriment of the subjects involved, as it steals or suppresses either the subject's time, their personhood, or their property, or all of it.  Even the situation in which a man trades his life and wealth for poison is beneficial for each party as they both get what they wanted (but of course, the man cannot trade his wife or children as this implies they have no subject when they do.)

Anyway, ethics is a science insofar a person understands it; to make a comparison, merely because a person believes 2+2=cupcake does not mean the concept of mathematics is a farce or otherwise inapplicable, it simply means the person isn't versed in concepts of math, and merely because the individual who believes 2+2=cupcake asserts that math is not a science for he can find no constants related to the universe does not mean the constants are not there.  It doesn't stop him from doing so, of course.

Well, fuck that.  Time to find another...

That theory could be useful to us someday, if not already (first time I've ever heard of it frankly.)  The theory that we could exist within someone else's computer simulations we will never have control over and that the simulation could end any moment now once the owner of the simulation became bored is unprovable and as pointless as postulating the existence of a deity (these really aren't much different, if you can compare God to whoever can modify the simulation.)  There is nothing you can do with this theory except to cause someone to say "Hmmm, that's interesting," after which they continue doing things which matter, such as going for jogs, or enjoying time with friends.

There are two possibilities here: the simulation is real, in which case the only one benefiting is the owner of the simulation as they would otherwise have no reason to create a simulation at all, or the simulation is not real, in which case it doesn't matter.  This is why it's pointless for those existing within the simulation to ponder whether or not they're in a simulation: there is nothing to gain from that position, except a loss in will for falsely believing one's own life to be trivial.  There are no gold medals in life for "getting it right"; there's nothing to gain from being first to discovering life in this carnation is a simulation, unless one is very new at philosophy and have yet to discover any higher meanings in life, thereby falsely believing one's short-sighted and baseless theories to have any validity or worthiness of being published anywhere, which is why I pointed out it's junk.  We are faced with the conundrum of requiring proof of that which creates the simulation and, just as all theories of there being a higher order, we're left with a catch 22 where the only way to discover this is to ask the owner (God) to prove it, and they have a huge incentive not to if they wish to acquire accurate results, or to be outside of the simulation looking in, in which case people would still ask themselves, outside of the simulation, whether they were in a simulation, and if the people who owned that simulation were also in a simulation.

I don't write it off because it's non-beneficial--that is a quality.  I write it off because there is no condition to be false about this belief, and an impossible condition to be correct, thus leaving the theory in perpetual limbo.  Fortunately, science teaches us that we do not have to bother with the unprovable, and that it is the burden of he who puts forward to prove, not to be unproven.  People to this day still attempt to rationally and empirically prove the existence of God, and I say, good on them, but I worry they'll lay upon their death beds wondering if there was a better usage of their time.

Junk philosophy.  The amount of power a computer would need to calculate every single human thought and action in a simulation, let alone the trajectories and properties of every object and atom in the universe, is incomprehensible.  The only hope this theory has is in nihilism and solipsism, neither of which and of whom are of any use to the rest of society, nor are their ponderings, such as this one.

Technology mimics reality, not the other way around.  The universe came first, mathematics built around it second to help explain the universe.  That's why everything fits; if it didn't, it wouldn't be math.  If the rules of the universe were any different, math would also be different, and they of the alternate universe, too, would still ask such silly questions as to how their own invention worked so perfectly when it was designed specifically for the universe given.

These are the same people who think the pyramids around the world are built by aliens.

All good things come in due time; Bitcoin is a relatively new technology, after all.  Nobody really understood the Internet for a while, and most people still don't understand exactly what makes the Internet tick, but now it's an irreplaceable item in our lives, even for people who don't directly use it.  Heck, people don't even understand how the dollar is made, and that's been around for a lot longer, yet they have no issue using it, they're used to it; it's familiar, and not 4 or 5 years old.

But as the technology becomes more familiar with more people, this view will shift.  We'll look back and think how silly it was so many people couldn't figure it out.  It's only a P2P distributed ledger, at its core, and I'm sure anyone could understand at least that if they know what torrenting is, and I think most do.

Problem is, even if you ban certain items, people still get them if they want them; it just makes it more profitable to the person taking the risk in selling the banned item.  The only way to truly ban an item is to instill a level of control equivalent to INGSOC.  We should not make attempts to control what anyone does with their body, as they only resist harder each time; rather than what should be available, we should use this research to determine whether it's good for us or not, and decide accordingly.  However, we have had this information for some time now, and readily available online, and people, though fewer than before, still choose to partake in activities which harm them; therefore, we can deduce the problem to child abuse (scientific research shows us that people who are abused more are more likely to become smokers and alcoholics and drug-abusers, as their ability to reliably reason is damaged), which is carried on by tradition (i.e. people who adopted the habits before they became enlightened, applicable both to abusing children and substances, e.g. there was a time when cigarettes were considered a gentleman's item.)

Ergo, to truly rid the world of alcohol abuse, smoking, and drug abuse (and a plethora of other problems for that matter, including marijuana being illegal for no reason), you must advocate not regulation, nor changes to how regulation occurs, but peaceful, competent parenting.

No biggie; if people don't like those prices, they won't buy, and if they do buy, there can be no complaint.