|
I've used electrum so far, hasn't failed me yet.
|
|
|
|
Sodium flouride is rat poison too but everyone drinks it.
Don't remind me  |
|
|
|
|
This man is literally exploding with shit, he's so full of it.
|
|
|
|
|
The issue is in defining people: some define people as individuals, some define people as the state.
|
|
|
|
|
It gets easier the longer you're around it; I learned about btc back when it was 40$, and the first crash I experienced in April I believe, when it hit ~$250 and dipped back to double digits, I thought that was wild. Anyway now that seems silly, considering where it is now; thinking about where it will be in the future, this all will seem small.
|
|
|
|
So long as your money cannot be printed on a whim, nor is your money owned by any central organization, it doesn't matter if your money is limited in supply or steadily increasing. However, it is your burden to ensure the former remains true, while getting this money into as many hands as possible; nothing is stopping you, so go for it. Bitcoin will be inflationary until long after we're dead, so I don't see what difference it makes whether there's a hard limit or not. None of this matters, however, so long as you make a distinction between "socialist" and "libertarian"; these terms aren't compatible in this way. Many socialists are libertarian--the smarter ones, anyway. The others still think all our problems can be solved at the barrel of a gun, and then wonder what I mean by that since they banned all the guns already.  So long as there is a strong presence of authority in any given society, you will see empire, you will see wealth disparities, you will see endless war, and you will not use any money but the one provided by your "benevolent, democratically elected leaders". Inflationary money, deflationary money: it doesn't matter if your money is centrally issued. This is the difference between the bitcoin protocol and fiat: no altcoin, no matter how inflationary you believe it to be, will solve this fundamental problem. It's not that simple. |
|
|
|
|
Gox is always either the highest or the lowest for pricing; preev.com should give you the more accurate price, since it's an aggregate of several exchanges.
|
|
|
|
Money is not a source of wealth but a means of exchange. Its pretty simple. Money has no value, what has value are services and goods. Money is a utility You ask why would you spend your savings money. Again money isnt a commodity of value. There are some commodities that are easy to exchange like silver coins. But there are others that are much harder or impossible to trade for what you want in exchange. All money is is an agreed upon utility of exchange that you know will be accepted by everyone. You could trade in toe nails or wooden sticks if everyone agreed. Historical example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stickI'll rephrase, because semantics: why wouldn't you spend your savings commodity if it were as easy as spending your "money?" |
|
|
|
Bitcoin cant replace money. Money is supposed to be spent and not hoarded. Thats why inflation is needed so people go spend their money and create jobs and wealth for society as a whole.
Why do people believe this? Where did you first hear it? This is my personal opinion Everyone gets upset about inflation, its like this bad word. Money itself is a means of exchange, a substitute for trading actual goods and services. It doesnt need inherent value, it only needs to be accepted by society. If the growth of money is limited and money over time increased value people are less inclined to spend it. If its going to be 3% worth less next year people will go out and spend it for example for gold. Now the money beeing controlled and monopolized by a central authority is an entirely different problem. Check out The Wörgl Experiment for evidence how money circulation creates wealth and not money hoarding/saving. You can save in real estate and commodities but not in money. You can trade in commodities like gold but theyre not good money for society as a whole. If you can easily swap your spending money for saving money, why would you bother and not simply spend the saving money? The only way to stop people from doing this is to make it very difficult to use the saving money, which, as you mention, is the core point of central banking for further nefarious purposes. Even if there existed an infinitely inflating cryptocurrency, for example, what would the benefit be to the individual?--naturally, he wants his savings to be savings. How do you convince people to use the money which does not retain its value? Aside from coercion of course |
|
|
|
Bitcoin cant replace money. Money is supposed to be spent and not hoarded. Thats why inflation is needed so people go spend their money and create jobs and wealth for society as a whole.
Why do people believe this? Where did you first hear it? |
|
|
|
Global warming God doesnt exist except in the minds of oppressed and deluded human minds
Anyway if you'd taken the time to read Salty's post, you'd realize you're mostly in agreement. |
|
|
|
I took the test and here are my results: Economic Left/Right: -0.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08  You're the closest I've ever seen someone go into the authoritarian side I still want to find the guy who is the next Hitler. |
|
|
|
Monetary freedom.
 |
|
|
|
Hence, democracy destroys itself from within. Alas, such is human nature that democracy is not the answer - rather, the right to private property and wealth is the only way to create prosperity. But what kind of government prevents the parasites from voting theives into office yet simultanously ensures the right to private property and wealth? Anarchism; the only way to guarantee a right is to hold that right within you, and to encourage others to do the same; to give a man your rights in the hopes he'll do you good is to give a stranger your money in the hopes he'll spend it on you; ultimately, he only works to improve his own condition, and no one else's. That's not to say democracy isn't useful; a democracy is perfect in some situations. For example, if three friends wanted to vote where they'd go for lunch that day, then they'd practice democracy. OTOH, if said democracy involves three friends who voted where everyone else would eat lunch that day, we can't call this democracy anymore, since the parties involved aren't participating on their own accord. Needless to say, democracy does not mix well with large government; getting an entire nation to participate is impossible, for so long as one member says, "I don't want to participate," the actions proceeding, if not an immediate redaction from the use of democracy on said scale, is in no way, shape or form democracy, but demands, oft backed with the threat of violence. |
|
|
|
 Like so  |
|
|
|
Write awesome article, include bitcoin address, get paid; the effect is, bad journalists don't make cash, thus go back to doing something they're fit for, like sales rep or pit pat piffy wing wong wang, and good journalists make a nice living doing what they're good at. With all the bad journalists out of the way, the good journalists get far more exposure, and so make more money from their endeavors. Journalists no longer work for any given company, but instead pay a certain fee per month/year or per publish whatever to have their own spot on a platform to journal and get their articles out there. The best of the best float to the top, people get great articles with actual content, and thus, the free press is saved. |
|
|
|
there are a lot of anarchists here.. what's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian anyways? they seem to go hand in hand.
You have libertarianism, which is a collection of political ideologies where individual freedom is the ultimate goal, and then you have "The Libertarians", which often refers to the right-winged political party which is centered around having a minimal state whose purpose is, variably, limited to protecting property rights, sometimes extending to public works and roads, military, etc.; in other words, minarchism.The major difference is the anarchist views the state as involuntary, and therefore not in favor of freedom; the minarchist views the state as necessary, and without it, your freedoms would be intruded on. Libertarianism can refer to both; anyway, they're both against giving central government too much power, which separates them from the modern day American liberal (I've seen liberal used in the place of libertarian outside of the states), and of course Republicans and Democrats, who believe a growing state is a boon to society. |
|
|
|
|
I long for the day news and bias are distinguishable by the general public.
Where does Fox get its funding?
|
|
|
|
Hey Mike, thanks for asking! Regarding "policy"-- As a twenty-five year old whom through no conscious endeavor of his own was raised by two individuals from the lower-class whom lacked any real semblance of analytical, emotional nor let alone existential prowess-- and having the predisposition of beautiful intuition and the capacity to see through the illusion of the modern world, I spent the majority of my adolescence and now adulthood in great turmoil, searching for a marked catharsis. I left high-school at the age of seventeen, despite having been in "gifted" programs in elementary school and scoring "above" the top one percentile nationally in most standardized testing. My parents did not allow me to "skip" the grades I was recommended to and instead moved me around from various districts, leaving me alienated, frustrated and severely depressed. Fearing suicide, I left high-school, concerned that there was something profoundly wrong with the state of the world, and convinced that there might actually be something I could actually do to possibly help it. After nearly a decade now of profound and sometimes frightening internal and external travel, I'm finally coming out on the other side and seeking like-minded/hearted individuals whom are seeking a similar path toward practical solutions to changing our world for the better. I do not mean to be egotistical when I say that I believe I have the capacity to lead selflessly and with great virtue; with patience and magnanimity that few or probably unfortunately none of "my" American "leaders"/"politicians" today share. I recognize my path as that of hardship and I appreciate it, as it has opened my eyes and toughened my skin that much for the better. From having lived homeless and in the woods for almost a year, riding my bicycle 3000 miles across the country and camping out in the woods each and every night, teaching music and guidance counseling at a prestigious performing arts camp for parents of "well-to-do" children and camping Occupy Philadelphia, DC and Baltimore, you can bet I have a lot to share regarding the nature of our reality and the current paradigm with which we as humans interact. Regarding today's politics literally, I have written a book which I unfortunately currently have no means to publish, but have placed online somewhat in the form of 31 "open letters" to humanity-- http://humanity.wordsweheard.org/As I continue to grow, a lot of those letters could use some editing, so don't hold me to anything too rigidly! Hahah. What are your political views, Mike? Very interesting story I'm glad you're able to see through the veil. I'll bookmark this site and take a look through it when I have the opportunity, but from what I've read, it seems to me that you've left the cave and taken a gander at what really casts those shadows we once called reality; I'm glad we've both come to terms with this. That moment of realization is an interesting one; it feels as though a burden is lifted from your shoulders, and you can finally see the sunshine with such vivid clarity that all you want to do is show everyone who's still clinging to their shadows that there's something more out there, that the world really isn't so black and white, that there is hope. Anyhow I have a lot of political views but I believe they can be compounded into voluntaryism: all human associations should be voluntary. Albeit a simple philosophy, applying it to all aspects of our lives, as our lives currently are, reveals many of the involuntary associations we must take part in and further begs the question of how we can resolve these involuntary associations and ensure they become and remain voluntary. Essentially this boils down to the following: A voluntary transfer of wealth is a trade, and we consider this good; an involuntary transfer of wealth is theft, and we consider this bad. Voluntary sex, we consider this good (usually ); involuntary sex, we consider this rape, therefore bad. Voluntary death, we call this a sacrifice, and though saddening, we consider this good; involuntary death, we call this murder, and we consider this bad. Voluntary employment, we call this a job; involuntary employment, we call this slavery. So on and so forth; it seems all of our mishaps within society are caused by the belief that some relationships must be mandatory, which I find an excuse to commit one of the crimes listed above; because people are naturally inclined to work toward self-interest, there is no reason to believe they would ever have to do anything against their will "but for their good"; people know what's good or bad for them, and if a relationship, an act, or an idea is done voluntarily, then it is naturally for the benefit of the parties involved. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
