To be honest OP, this is one of those retarded threads I'd ban completely if I'd be moderator here.
I'm kind of glad we have these old threads to look back on now. It gives some perspective. Might be perspective on stupidity, but that's kind of nice nonetheless. |
|
|
|
|
Excellent news...and not a moment too soon.
When Monoprix launches in-store brick and mortar payments in BTC I'll definitely be going to France to do some shopping!
|
|
|
|
|
This is great.
Is there a timeline?
|
|
|
|
i think the alliance if it exists should be of distributed decentralized molecular groups
This. We don't need a centralized foundation. Maybe Bitfunder (or another crowdfunding site) can fund specific projects/causes as the community deems it necessary. Of course, the benefit of a foundation is that one could build up a war chest for possible future use. |
|
|
|
On a less scientific, more opinionated point:
I think BTC will, in about March, finally break the $1,000-1,200 barrier. It will make a few big fluctuations, and by the end of the year it will be holding steady somewhere between 1,500-2000.
Unless, of course, China decides to lay of on their rules and declare BTC at least a private currency. In which China will probably start to drive the price higher, and investors will start buying like crazy to try and get in "before the boom" then the price could see 5 figures before year end...IMO
China doesn't need to change their rules as they can just use offshore jurisdictions like Singapore and Hong Kong to get their Bitcoin. If they need it locally localbitcoins will do. Of course, the offshore jurisdictions are more accessible to HNWI than to masses of young geeks and hobby speculators - but they are savvy enough to do the whole voucher-btcchina trick. The Chinese are smart enough to realize that mass Bitcoin adoption is a fait accompli, and so is people all over the world. There is nothing that can stop it, and the faster people realize that the faster it will grow. I'm getting more cheap coins so that I can join the next 100x growth in 1-2 years. Of course when that happens the question is what to do with that wealth. |
|
|
|
|
Great news. This will bring some liquidity to Bitcoin so that for a while supply will not be so tight and then more people will come in. The next step is that the 30k btc sale ends and supply is tighter than ever making Bitcoin top 10k or even 100k. Luckily I will have more time to stock up before the next gargantuan rise.
|
|
|
|
Ban Ki-Moon is the secretary general of the United Nations but he does not represent all the countries in the world.
You are right. He represents the peoples of the world, not the countries. To clarify the secretary general's role, from http://www.un.org/sg/sg_role.shtml: a spokesman for the interests of the world's peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them.
[...]
The Secretary-General would fail if he did not take careful account of the concerns of Member States, but he must also uphold the values and moral authority of the United Nations, and speak and act for peace, even at the risk, from time to time, of challenging or disagreeing with those same Member States.
|
|
|
|
Ban Ki-Moon may be biased, but I'm really struggling to see the trial of Tymoshenko as anything more than a power struggle between eastern and western Ukraine. If you wanted to get rid of corruption in Ukraine you would probably have to convict the vast majority of politicians. It's not only the Cypriots who are getting their money taken away, but everyone holding fiat. Besides, Cyprus was bankrupt, should they have let the banks collapse so that everyone lost all their money? The Cypriot crisis was solely caused by useless EU regulations. Explain. Facepalm. Legalizing things is a good thing. In those cases where they are doing that they are doing the people of the EU a favor and saving them from being done over by their own governments. This is what I exactly meant. If 90% of the population from a particular country doesn't want a particular law, then the EU has no right to impose it on them. No matter whether you think it will be a good thing or a bad thing. It is up for the citizens of a nations to decide it. You have no voice there. Period. [/quote] So you are saying the tyrrany of the majority in the EU is worse than the tyrrany of the majority within an individual member state? In the same way you think the EU has no right to impose such and such laws on Poland. I however, say that Poland has no right to impose such and such laws on it's own people. In fact, almost all places you could live draconian and unjust laws will be forced upon you. I don't think those laws will be less draconian and more just in Russia than in the EU. |
|
|
|
Certainly they can, but as long as they keep collecting the money through taxes it is an immoral use of force. Saying that collecting taxes is immoral doesn't really advance your cause much. Most people think its immoral to allow the poor to starve and thus collecting taxes is the lesser of two evils. What you need to do is either make a moral case for allowing the poor to starve or stop complaining about taxation being immoral. I think there are far easier and cheaper ways to prevent starvation than through forcing someone to pay taxes and then spending a small portion of those taxes on actually helping people, while the vast majority of it goes into an ever expanding bureaucracy or to fund wars etc. Can you make the moral case of how it is moral to have an income and pay taxes if you know that a part of that money will be spent on mass murder? Anyway, starvation is normally solved by technology, not by government spending. |
|
|
|
Wall Street could push Bitcoin over $100k. Bitcoin went 100x in 2013, why not again in 2014?
Fairly simple actually, stocks don't grow exponentially after a certain point, it just isn't feasible. XBT increased its market cap in one year by ~10B. Which was a great feat. But for XBT to increase 100x again, the market cap would have to increase from 10B to something with way too many zero's on it in one year.  Can it get there eventually? Who knows. A LOT of factors have to fall into place for that to happen. It will keep growing exponentially until nobody will sell BTC for $. At that point there is no point of exchanging any more and the exponentiality will stop. |
|
|
|
|
Wall Street could push Bitcoin over $100k. Bitcoin went 100x in 2013, why not again in 2014?
|
|
|
|
Ban Ki-Moon has criticized the Tymoshenko-trial. I'm not saying he could not be wrong or even lying, but where are your sources? Ban Ki-Moon is from South Korea, an American puppet state. Ban Ki-Moon is also the secretary general of the United Nations. He represents all the countries in the world. Where are your sources that Tymoshenko is corupt? The share of GDP taxed in Russia is actually a little higher than the unweighted EU average. In the EU it is possible to voice dissent publicly without being punished. The income tax in Russia is 13%, where as in some EU nations it can reach 61%. Energy giants like Gazprom and Rossneft are heavily taxed in Russia, and that's why the total tax revenue of Russia is higher. Yes income tax in can be higher in Europe. In Russia VAT is 18%, in Europe it is between 15% and 25%. In total though, even if you remove the tax on energy companies in Russia from the picture, still EU countries Croatia and Romania are pretty much taxed at the same percentage of GDP. Smaller countries have surprisingly large amounts of influence in the EU. As a puppet of Russia, all Ukrainian policy will be decided in Moscow. In the EU parliament, MEPs are directly answerable to their constituents and as such their positions depend more on their ideology than the country from which they are from. Tell that to the Cypriots. It's not only the Cypriots who are getting their money taken away, but everyone holding fiat. Besides, Cyprus was bankrupt, should they have let the banks collapse so that everyone lost all their money? Borders and other immigration-stopping boundaries are immoral and not liberal at all. Immigration is a sign of more freedom, not less. Thinking you can stop homosexuality by just passing a law is naive, besides accepting it gives more personal freedom. May be. But those are the internal issues within a country. The EU should stop pressurizing their member states to legalize everything. Facepalm. Legalizing things is a good thing. In those cases where they are doing that they are doing the people of the EU a favor and saving them from being done over by their own governments. What the EU should stop doing is wanting to regulate everything. That's what the EU should stop doing, not trying to stamp out ridiculous moral laws. |
|
|
|
Certainly they can, but as long as they keep collecting the money through taxes it is an immoral use of force. |
|
|
|
There is this saying, maybe some of you know it. Goes something like this: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a fishing rod, and he will trade it for a fish! This is because man is lazy and will always have his hand out as long as there are hand-outs.
It wont solve the worlds problems, but it will at make Bitcoin mainstream. Who runs the fund? To who can we trust to distribute these hardship donations? I'm thinking along the lines of, no-one! Maybe these need to be super-localised, someone needs to step up in every locality that covers x thousand people. Kind of removes the temptation toward sticky fingered types. The fund could be managed just by code. Or maybe the Bitcoin foundation could be custodian. Then you can make this hardware fingerprint-scanner that only works with live fingers, scan and get access to your wallet. The cost of the scanner would be higher than the value of the satoshis but one scanner can be used by many people. So one guy with a computer and a fingerprint scanner could make a business out of scanning peoples fingerprints and giving them access to their wallets for a fee. I think the market will solve the problem. Hold up. Bitcoin is, among other things, about personal ownership. You are setting up a bank for satoshis that people have to pay a fee to access. Sounds like a great business model. They pay the fee once and then they have access to their funds forever. Then they are their own banks. You just scn their fingerprint so they can have access to a blockchain.info account or a paper wallet with the funds - that is a fingerprint scanning service, not a bank. |
|
|
|
There is this saying, maybe some of you know it. Goes something like this: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a fishing rod, and he will trade it for a fish! This is because man is lazy and will always have his hand out as long as there are hand-outs.
It wont solve the worlds problems, but it will at make Bitcoin mainstream. Who runs the fund? To who can we trust to distribute these hardship donations? I'm thinking along the lines of, no-one! Maybe these need to be super-localised, someone needs to step up in every locality that covers x thousand people. Kind of removes the temptation toward sticky fingered types. The fund could be managed just by code. Or maybe the Bitcoin foundation could be custodian. Then you can make this hardware fingerprint-scanner that only works with live fingers, scan and get access to your wallet. The cost of the scanner would be higher than the value of the satoshis but one scanner can be used by many people. So one guy with a computer and a fingerprint scanner could make a business out of scanning peoples fingerprints and giving them access to their wallets for a fee. I think the market will solve the problem. |
|
|
|
If bitcoin needs to stoop to bribery to become mainstream instead of doing so on its own merits then it won't last and I want no part of it. No matter the form of money, once socialism sets in we will be right back where we were. Only without the ability to print money, which will make the system collapse that much faster. There can not be winners without losers, and everyone being equal means nobody is doing that great. Set up your own private soup kitchen if you want but don't try to drag the world along with it.
When ushering in a new system it makes sense to get everyone started with some satoshis to even the playing field a little. |
|
|
|
Making such a fund will make bitcoin gain legitimacy as everyone has a stake. Once you have 70BTC every human can have a stake in Bitcoin. At least on paper until the fingerprint reading equipment thing is sorted out. It would be in every Bitcoiners best interest to donate a portion of their holdings to such a fund.
Edit: in fact every Bitcoin-holder would benefit from giving away Bitcoin until it hits a sweet spot of potential increase in BTC price and BTC-percentage given away.
If you mean each person will have 70 btc, you may want to check the math. :-) I meant 70 BTC is enough to give everyone one satoshi, and then everyone has a stake in making Bitcoin more valuable. If more than 70 btc comes in, then great, more satoshis for everyone. If 7000 btc kome in everyone will have 1000 satoshis. That means that the price has to go to $100k/btc for that to be worth $1, but it wont flood the market because it will take time to implement so that people can actually access their wallets. Price went up 100x in 2013. If 7000btc were given away as a free gift, the price could easily go up to $100k in 2014. And according to Dan Arielys Predictably Irrational, the best way to make someone want something is to give away a free gift. |
|
|
|
There is this saying, maybe some of you know it. Goes something like this: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a fishing rod, and he will trade it for a fish! This is because man is lazy and will always have his hand out as long as there are hand-outs.
It wont solve the worlds problems, but it will at make Bitcoin mainstream. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
