Most of the time stopping cold turkey wont kill you and continuing to take the drugs is far more dangerous. And I smoked for about a year in high school and just decide to stop one day. It's not easy, but it really is just down to your own willpower. Same goes for any other drugs. People can do a lot of things if they only put their mind and willpower to it.
But most People are just not going to do that. When you really think about laws, you have to take in account, that they are for everyone, also the stupid ones and I don't even trust the average Person with this issue. If it is really no Problem at all to just legally try out some Heroin, we would have more drug addicts, which will never get away from their addiction, than any System(regardless which Country) can handle. |
|
|
|
Alcohol can make you see other people as monsters and can also turn you into one. Logic should be used in most of these cases. You shouldn't smoke or drink whilst pregnant, and you shouldn’t do any other drugs either as they all harm your baby.
If you are addicted and realize you are pregnant, it is not like you can just stop taking drugs. That's the Definition of an addiction. I know that alcohol isn't as safe as most People think, but there are still a lot of worse stuff out there. All it ever takes is for an addict to just stop, and they're not just harming themselves anymore but another, and they should have help with that, and if they don't stop then that could be punishable by law. There are drugs including alcohol, which can kill you, if you just stop taking them. Getting rid of an addiction isn't that easy. Just ask any smoker. |
|
|
|
Owning BTC =/= controlling it.
Control is what FED has been doing with US dollar via quantitative easing (printing currency).
Now even if they have lots of BTC the only thing FED can actually do is sell it. Once FED does that that's it. They will need to buy more to dump the price again. See the difference here? If we stay councious of this situation FED will lose money buy selling and trying to dump it.
Yeah that's a positive viewpoint and hopefully true. I guess I wonder if the media onslaught against Bitcoin is orchestrated with organised price dumps to scare people away. But your right in the end they can't make Bitcoin like they do dollars. We need to stay strong through the storms... I'm not that familiar with the technology of Etherum bit with some rumors of Goldman Sachs (a well known proxy of the FED) I get concerned when I hear words like Derivatives thrown around. Gold is controlled by basically making the supply (paper gold) limitless through Derivatives and then controlling those Derivatives. I sincerely hope Etherum or anyone else doesn't turn a bitcoin into another manipulated financial product. It already happened to bitcoin. Gox owned less BTC than people thought they had available and this is just the start. Bitcoin is not the answer to fractional reserve banking and the 21 million cap is only on the protocol level. As soon as an established payment processor start dealing in bitcoin in addition to Fiat, they are free to go with fractional reserve banking ant thus create the illusion of way more than 21 million bitcoins existing. This can go on and on and because we don't want it to go on there will be an institution created to regulate this fractional reserve banking. Since the regulate it, they can create special rules for everyone and they will get special rules for the people that are part of this institution... which somehow happen to be the big banksters of today. Oh and while we're at it, lets call the institution the Federal Bitcoin Reserve. Eventually there will be lots of payment systems in place all dealing in Bitcoin. Bitcoin itself won't even be used anymore except for big deals between banks /mega corps / governments. Because of that it just comes natural to remove bitcoin from those systems. People are told it is way better because banks won't go broke because of not having enough BTC to cover their liabilities anymore so the customers don't lose their money in the bank. There are promises of insuring everyones money in the banks with this change so noone can ever lose it again because of his bank going broke. People like it. They love it because it seems so much saver. They didn't really use the Bitcoin protocol anyway - why would they? There were shiny and easy to use systems in place that allowed them to pay with bitcoin just as fine and this isn't gonna change. Eventually we end up like now. A Monopoly controlling the money supply and therefore controlling the government and the people. The only difference is that by them the world has grown to be one big state. Bitcoin and the internet amde this happen even faster than one would have thought. Theres now only one world government and only once government to control for the bankers - those same bankers that talked people into making the same mistake again by promising them to insure their BTC deposits with removing the BTC backing to prevent bank from going bust. What they didn't tell? They are gonna monopolize not only money, but they are gonna monopolize the ownership of the human race - again! There is a simple solution to prevent that outcome: Companies just have to Show, that they really have the bitcoins and that is what the blockchain is for. Some Exchanges are already implementing this. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't touch SR2 with a bargepole.
The majority of vendors have also left, or conveniently been hacked and had their accounts taken over.
Plenty of business still goes on there, seemingly.
It's probably a similar situation to Gox. Both Gox and SR2 ran shoddy services but they have a big brand and people often still used them unaware of the shitty service they actually currently provide. yeah, that's a decent analogy. it's possible that SR2 isn't a long con, just as it's possible Karpeles really was just incompetent and didn't deliberatley rob his clients. I don't think it was a longcon, but there's always going to be snakes among the grass. Exactly. I don't think using drugs should make you a criminal in any instance, and I don't believe most recreational drugs should be illegal in the first place.
So, driving drunk shouldn't be illegal? I am also all for some Liberation of drugs, but there are really good examples of things that should be illegal. I meant just the fact of using drugs shouldn't be illegal. Obviously the caveat of as long as you're not harming anyone else applies here. I don't think alcohol should be illegal, but drink driving obviously should be and quite rightly is so. But it is not easy to decide, when you are harming others. Should taking a drug, that quite possible make you see other People as Monsters be just legal, even though it is very likely that People will start killing this Monsters? Should it be legal for a mother to take high addictive drugs and giving the addiction to their children? How to prevent such a Scenario, when taking the high addictive drug is legal? Alcohol can make you see other people as monsters and can also turn you into one. Logic should be used in most of these cases. You shouldn't smoke or drink whilst pregnant, and you shouldn’t do any other drugs either as they all harm your baby. If you are addicted and realize you are pregnant, it is not like you can just stop taking drugs. That's the Definition of an addiction. I know that alcohol isn't as safe as most People think, but there are still a lot of worse stuff out there. |
|
|
|
Where do you get this from? You're the ONLY person I've ever heard to say this!
I am pretty sure, that there were People who said the same, when BTC reached 200 USD for the first time last year or any other significant marks since the beginning of Bitcoins.
According to your Forum-Profil, you are not Long enough in the game to know the rules(if there are any).
Just ask yourselves how much of the current Bitcoin price is due to its utility (i.e. its use as currency for buying goods and services) and how much is due to the speculative bubble (i.e. people buying and holding coins only because they are sure price will rise). Think about this and you will get the answer. Could bitcoin price rise still more in the next few months? Sure, but the more it will rise, the harder it will crash once the bubble will burst. You are wrong for a simple reason: You think it's an easy question. I don't know, where the Price will go, there are too many likely Scenarios that could happen. |
|
|
|
Exactly. I don't think using drugs should make you a criminal in any instance, and I don't believe most recreational drugs should be illegal in the first place.
So, driving drunk shouldn't be illegal? I am also all for some Liberation of drugs, but there are really good examples of things that should be illegal. I meant just the fact of using drugs shouldn't be illegal. Obviously the caveat of as long as you're not harming anyone else applies here. I don't think alcohol should be illegal, but drink driving obviously should be and quite rightly is so. But it is not easy to decide, when you are harming others. Should taking a drug, that quite possible make you see other People as Monsters be just legal, even though it is very likely that People will start killing this Monsters? Should it be legal for a mother to take high addictive drugs and giving the addiction to their children? How to prevent such a Scenario, when taking the high addictive drug is legal? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin price has reached its maximum. There is no way it can grow significantly in the next few years. Actually it could decrease if the speculative bubble deflates (i.e. if the "investors" that are holding bitcoins realize that the price is not going to grow and decide to sell).
I am pretty sure, that there were People who said the same, when BTC reached 200 USD for the first time last year or any other significant marks since the beginning of Bitcoins. According to your Forum-Profil, you are not Long enough in the game to know the rules(if there are any). |
|
|
|
What if Silk Road 2.0 didn't have any customers, but claimed they did, then claimed they were hacked, then claimed all it's customers were to be made whole, with nobody complaining because there were no customers in the first place. Now that the hole is plugged sans a leak, trust is now established to garner real customers to participate in the long con.
Who, here, are customers of Silk Road 2.0?
Who, here, are customers of Silk Road 2.0?I am not, but if I was would it be smart to admit it here? If this forum is ever hacked, then many IP addresses will be leaked. Maybe people are using tor to post here? Silk Road 2.0 might have more products but it also has more scams and dodgy dealers. I haven't been on there in a while but since the hack and takedown of the escrow system even trusted vendors started scamming. These kind of markets needs to be decentralised really if they want to survive. Criminals are scamming people now ? This is outrageous  But who makes them criminals? The law. If drugs were decriminalised then we wouldn't have this problem. And the definition of "criminal" varies by jurisdiction. In some areas saying "tibetian freedom" makes you a criminal (China). In others, donating to a particular political group increases your chance of being audited by an order of magnitude (US). Exactly. I don't think using drugs should make you a criminal in any instance, and I don't believe most recreational drugs should be illegal in the first place. So, driving drunk shouldn't be illegal? I am also all for some Liberation of drugs, but there are really good examples of things that should be illegal. |
|
|
|
Interesting and also worrying..
How to detect and remove a botnet virus from a computer?
Malwarebytes?
There are so many Antivir and Anti-Malware-Programs out there. Just choose one. Not going to be too effective, most botnets will disable anti virus and spyware. Couple that with constantly changing binaries and a large portion of antivirus software wont stand a chance. So, take one of the thousands of AntiVirus/-Malware Boot-CDs/whatever. Wouldn't I see it, when my anti-Virus Programm is disabled? |
|
|
|
makes me wonders, who decide all these patent case? I only see dumb patents coming out of US. Like a rectangle shape of a phone......
Every Country has their own Patent Bureau. So a registered Patent just Count for one Country. That means that an international Company has to patent their Invention in every single country As far as I know(I worked in a Company that distributed a Software for Intelecutal Property) the USPTO is the worst. So, if they got the patent in the US, it doesn't mean they also get it in other countries. |
|
|
|
Interesting and also worrying..
How to detect and remove a botnet virus from a computer?
Malwarebytes?
There are so many Antivir and Anti-Malware-Programs out there. Just choose one. |
|
|
|
Your not a true bitcoiner until you destroy some bitcoin. Or I should say you haven't experienced all bitcoin has to offer until you've lost access to a wallet.
When I first used blockchain on my phone I didn't write down my backup phrase and proceeded to lose about 54 cents worth. Thank goodness I didn't lose more. I should have send an even smaller test transaction, but whatever.
Does losing them on MtGox Count? That was the only stupid Thing, I did with BTC so far ... |
|
|
|
Or, maybe it has survived so long because it is the Feds running this site? Is that beyond the realm of reason?
I am not really that familiar with the DarkWeb(just visited it a couple of times), but from what I understand, it shouldn't matter who controls Silk Road 2.0, since they don't know the customers or sellers them self. That's the whole Point of the DarkWeb, isn't it? |
|
|
|
The visits have increased for the Bitcoin article in Wikipedia also: March 2014: 885,530 Feb 2014: 941,499 Jan 2014: 1,046,868 March 2013: 624,785 Feb 2013: 216,091 Jan 2013: 161,259 http://stats.grok.se/en/201301/BitcoinBut it seems to have declined pretty much in April 2014, where else it was pretty high in April 2013: Bitcoin has been viewed 1346386 times in 201304. Bitcoin has been viewed 370928 times in 201404. Bitcoin has been viewed 624785 times in 201303 Bitcoin has been viewed 885530 times in 201403 |
|
|
|
|
I read some of the interviews from Gavin and what I got out of it, is that Satoshi is most likely a single Academic Person, most likely a Professor.
|
|
|
|
Don't think this will go viral, most people do not care enough..
I really wonder, what People in the Bitcoin-World care about. Every Company/Organisation that accepts Bitcoin is a win. In this case it is pretty easy to participate. So, why do People ignore it? |
|
|
|
The problem is that 100 million satoshi to a bitcoin is not logical. Should have been 1 million or 1 billion. This makes no sense at all. So before you do anything you should either cut two zeroes or add one.
I never understood, why they made that decision. Maybe some veteran Bitconar could explain? Because it accounts for future growth of the world economy including inflation in the future since no future supply can be created it needed to go into Quadrillions  You misunderstood my question. I wonderer why they made the decisision to use this 100.000.000 step. Normally you would use steps of 1.000 (like in Mega or Giga), but they decided to make steps in 100 (?). We don't even use this System. We use µBTC which is 100 Satoschi but 1.000th of 1 mBTC which is 1.000 of 1 BTC. This 100 step to come from Satoschi to µBTC doesn't fit. The limit of 64 bit int. The Limit of int64 is 9.223.372.036.854.775.807(signed) or 18.446.744.073.709.551.615 (unsigned) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_(Datentyp) |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why each message has much influence on the decrease / increase of Bitcoin from China.
Indeed, there are many positive messages that do not have much influence on the value.
China has so much influence?
China has a lot of People, so there are a lot of potential panik-sellers directly influenced by China-Laws and since People know that the Price goes down, when there are bad News from China, there are also a lot of panik-sellers from other countries |
|
|
|
Spoken like a lawyer who tries to twist the truth.
"Assumed to be a law"... What kind of court is that won't even allow the law (or lack of) to be introduced into the case that the defendant is said to be breaking.
"I will not allow the law in my courtroom" was Dawson's response to Irwin Schiff's attempt introduce supreme court rulings to support his case. Completely relevant rulings to his case.
Yes, they used every dirty trick in the book in that case. Every dirty trick. It could not be more blatant a railroad job. Read the transcripts yourself, bbeagle. Then reread your last post, and laugh at your logic... cause it's laughable to try to use that logic to justify Dawson's own comments.
Lastly, if there was a law that obligated the average American to pay the income tax they most certainly would allow it in the court room... rather then using all this skullduggery.
Wake up! There's a reason tax cases aren't tried in a true criminal court.
Sage, I guess I'm on the other side of the fence than you are, therefore I see this differently. There is nothing for me to 'Wake Up' to - I have a different philosophy than you do. I would say the same 'Wake Up' to you before you end up in jail. I agree that Americans need to pay the income tax. I know the court MUST use skullduggery because, technically, income tax is not in the Constitution. I don't have a problem with that - because I feel that Americans must all pay income tax for the good of the country, I do not support the idea that you can question this in the court. There have been numerous court cases brought to the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has ruled that people must pay their taxes. For example, Cheek vs. United States: ' The Court ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense.' OMG what's this waffling? Now you're openly admitting to the skullduggery used to railroad a man that was exposing the fraud. Whereas before you tried to use lawyer tricks to justify Dawson's skullduggery? WTF??? It's okay in your book to subvert the Constitution? To do away with the right to due process? To use skullduggery in a courtroom? For a federal judge to railroad a man. Putting him jail for life, because it would expose that fraud? All because you believe that system is justified? All for the "greater good"... Where have we heard that kind of logic before... Hint: Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, & every genocidal regime before & since. Which is exactly what the powers behind the Federal Reserve & the income tax scam are conducting right now... genocide. Good Lord...bbeagle are you that ignorant? Or just brainwashed beyond hope? Or have they bought you off too? You obviously don't understand laws. It's not like every law is written in a constitution. That's not the function of a constitution. A constitution just has some Basic laws. I don't think, that in your (US) constitution there is anything written about driving too fast. Still, if a cop caught you driving too fast, would you just refuse to pay up, because it "subverts" the constitution? No turvarya YOU obviously don't understand laws. The Constitution & Bill of Rights supersedes ANY & all laws of the land. Any law that is unconstitutional is null & void! Otherwise why the hell would we have a Constitution & Bill of Rights? Perhaps you should stick to commenting about your own country's system of law & not one you're completely ignorant about. You didn't answer my question. Where does the "The Constitution & Bill of Rights" says, that you are not allowed to drive too fast? Otherwise why the hell would we have a Constitution & Bill of Rights? I already answered that question. Look closely. |
|
|
|
Spoken like a lawyer who tries to twist the truth.
"Assumed to be a law"... What kind of court is that won't even allow the law (or lack of) to be introduced into the case that the defendant is said to be breaking.
"I will not allow the law in my courtroom" was Dawson's response to Irwin Schiff's attempt introduce supreme court rulings to support his case. Completely relevant rulings to his case.
Yes, they used every dirty trick in the book in that case. Every dirty trick. It could not be more blatant a railroad job. Read the transcripts yourself, bbeagle. Then reread your last post, and laugh at your logic... cause it's laughable to try to use that logic to justify Dawson's own comments.
Lastly, if there was a law that obligated the average American to pay the income tax they most certainly would allow it in the court room... rather then using all this skullduggery.
Wake up! There's a reason tax cases aren't tried in a true criminal court.
Sage, I guess I'm on the other side of the fence than you are, therefore I see this differently. There is nothing for me to 'Wake Up' to - I have a different philosophy than you do. I would say the same 'Wake Up' to you before you end up in jail. I agree that Americans need to pay the income tax. I know the court MUST use skullduggery because, technically, income tax is not in the Constitution. I don't have a problem with that - because I feel that Americans must all pay income tax for the good of the country, I do not support the idea that you can question this in the court. There have been numerous court cases brought to the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has ruled that people must pay their taxes. For example, Cheek vs. United States: ' The Court ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense.' OMG what's this waffling? Now you're openly admitting to the skullduggery used to railroad a man that was exposing the fraud. Whereas before you tried to use lawyer tricks to justify Dawson's skullduggery? WTF??? It's okay in your book to subvert the Constitution? To do away with the right to due process? To use skullduggery in a courtroom? For a federal judge to railroad a man. Putting him jail for life, because it would expose that fraud? All because you believe that system is justified? All for the "greater good"... Where have we heard that kind of logic before... Hint: Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, & every genocidal regime before & since. Which is exactly what the powers behind the Federal Reserve & the income tax scam are conducting right now... genocide. Good Lord...bbeagle are you that ignorant? Or just brainwashed beyond hope? Or have they bought you off too? You obviously don't understand laws. It's not like every law is written in a constitution. That's not the function of a constitution. A constitution just has some Basic laws. I don't think, that in your (US) constitution there is anything written about driving too fast. Still, if a cop caught you driving too fast, would you just refuse to pay up, because it "subverts" the constitution? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
