But I hope it will be interresting for rest of the world  I start the translation in my next post. from what google translate can tell me, i do not like your coin. it seems like a SCAMcoin to me. and some of your goals are not possible at all. Google translate might have failed me, im looking forward to your translation. sorry dude, it was to to be rude. |
|
|
|
The reason BitCoin grows up everyday is freedom, anonymity, unlimited, Sorry, but Bitcoin is not anonymous nor "free" of regulation. Maybe you need to grow up and get out of your rebellious phase-- and start obeying your legitimate authorities (obedience is a virtue!). says the mildly insane pool operator catholic, who put prayers into the blockchain... |
|
|
|
I don't post it yet in local-hungarian topic - I think this is a better place for a such concept.
yes but only if people understand you... also im not interested in another bitcoin clone with super nice and "innovative" features. |
|
|
|
|
what is required to make SEPA transfers? passport + proof-of-resident?
proof-of-resident, but what is this what does qualify for this? just some document? random stuff? i im having a hard time figuring out how to do it...
|
|
|
|
|
would you please wirte in english or go to a local subforum?
|
|
|
|
|
try contacting magicaltux on irc...
Mtgox are bound by laws, you know? if they break them they get fines/goes to jail. and then there will be no Mtgox.
if you don't like them go use another exchange, eg. the one in my sig.
|
|
|
|
I think the "scammer" label is a joke...
it would be a joke if he refunded his customers which has been clearly stated that he will not (unless that's a general statement) Self-admitted scammers should be banned from our community... This is going back to some weird political ideology that the forum is trying to push, and it's not good for Bitcoin... no its not, it the simple logical conclusion. that even if he did some bad things he can still help the forum. the alternative would be that he open a new account and scam more people. but he bears the scammer label with proud, with the intension of saying: "yes i fucked up, don't do bissness with me, but i still have some knowledge, that you can make use of and im willing to share." |
|
|
|
FUCK YOU BITCHES! DENMARK IS ON TOP(where i live), of the least corrupt! and we are having a red government(socialists+social liberals+stuff, im not really into danish politics). |
|
|
|
|
Stalin would say something like: We need to free the workers from the evil capitalist who exploit their resources.
please don't begin to thrust other peoples minds too much, thrust your own. make up your own mind, instead of just taking someone else's!
|
|
|
|
I said, the Swedes (miraculously) managed to avoid getting dragged down the full path a really long time by now. No idea how they could defy Hayek's rule so long, because I believe Hayek's rule does apply in general. Because I am quite confident in Hayek's rule, I doubt that this can last much longer. So I wagered a guess as to what the likely Swedish flavor of socialism might become.
im seeing a brainwashed zombie, who do you think is your master? Hayek? i have not yet begun to quote Josef Stalin! |
|
|
|
I don't understand, maybe I'm just too young with whole cold-war mentality born just around collapse. Sure communism didn't work out very well.
But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?
No idea what it feels like to be American, but according to Hayek, the end result of (national) socialism looks like this: http://therealsouthkorea.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/s-killing-fields2.jpgThat shoud be reason enough. anything you prefix with national- will end this way. national socialism is just the unshort form of Nazism.. |
|
|
|
This is starting to be like debating with a drunk or a child. How close am I ??
don't go after the man but the ball. im not drunk or a child. You obviously have no idea what socialism truly is.
you too  What does that even mean?? Unlike you, I have demonstrated through my posts that I know precisely what socialism is in its 3 historic forms, so your irrational comment makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like a child rant, "I know you are but what am I?". your comments also makes very little sense. you may have described how some forms of socialism works, but seems not to be able to grasp how it could possibly work without a central authority. go wikipedia socialism, and go the part about anarchism. If you mean classic socialism, how do you think the means of production, distribution, and exchange can be owned or regulated without some central authority ?? it does not need to be "owned or regulated". Of course it has to be owned and regulated. How else will it be produced, distributed, and exchanged?? How would you prevent someone from taking all of any of the resources or products?? The honor system?? You are being a bit naive. the honor system would work fine, because the majority would dislike the ones who took too much(it doesn't mean that there need to be certain rules about what is "too much") Even if you take it to the Marxist extreme of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism, how do you think it can be done without a central authority ??
Simple, people decides to do so. Then those people you mentioned are the central authority who would be owning , controlling, and/or regulating. Again you are being naive to even suggest the possibility of everyone agreeing on a community scale, let alone regional, national, or worldwide level. How would you stop someone from taking it all or more than their fair share?? Its theirs right?? How do you decide the criteria by which it is decided what their fair share is?? Body weight?? Each person gets an equal amount?? Who is the decider of that criteria?? I can imaging a 450 pound fat guy fighting like hell and justifying for alot more "resources" than a 90 pound petite womanor a child. How do you stop infighting when resources and products get low?? Maybe by ownership and regulation?? Force?? If everyone owns a cornfield how do you make decisions on who gets what?? By regulation. Who regulates? Who uses force? Ownership takes care of all that and more. I regulate by my decision to trade, barter, or sell its products. Your utopian dream is a nightmare that will never exist. If someone has more force than you, they will justify that their fair share will be alot more than yours. Dont be naive. if you really want a owner, make it "the public", there does not need to be specific rules about when someone is taking too much. and if you take it to its most current version of an RBE-type existance where everyone throws their shit in a huge pile and shares, how will you get them to throw their shit into that pile without direct force ?? And who will be doing it if not a government or UN-like central authority making mandates and enforcing them ?? either anyone realizes that its a good idea to throw their shit into the pile. or would getting forced by people how thinks so(who does not have a central authority) Then the strongest and fittest are the central authority by sheer force. They make the rules and enforce them by force. Sound familiar?? it always have been this way, and it always will be this way. if the rules say that anyone is free to do what they like, it needs to be enforced. tease rules can not enforce themselfs. Do you realize that under classic common law where there were no government and statutes, communities worked together in harmony and agreement, while retaining ALL of their birth rights, producing, distributing, and exchanging as they saw fit anmd as needed ??
i have absolutly no idea about what "classic common law" is, so i can not argue this point. BUT you are still talking about rights, which i already have clarified for you that they are no more then an illusion. and your clarification has been rebutted and done away with in my previous posts. You have the amount of rights you can protect through force if they are infringed upon. I know I can protect what I have, or will die trying. My kids are worth it. then try dieing, if the majority is against you, there is nothing you can do about it. It was how the world survived before government and politics. Their politics was surviving by working together.
They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties. have you considered that these people could be to some use for the society? and do you even have any proof of your claim of "little crimewith such penalties"? O course these and every other person is of some use in a society or community. Thats where trade and barter happen. Each person brings something to the table. Others dont own it. If you do not contribute, your church, charitable group, or family and friends help take care of you ... or you die. My proof of claim is common sense. There was alot of common sense back then. My proof is also YOU. If you knew you would have your hand chopped off if you stole, would you steal, or work for what you need?? If you knew you would be killed for unlawfully killing someone else, would you still kill them?? If you knew you would be castrated for raping a woman, would you still rape her?? If you knew that you would be shot and killed for infringing on me or my property, would you still infringe on it, or would you develop labor and trade relationships to get what you need to survive?? now you are naive. the troubles often does not come from the comunity it self, but from the outside, because they have something too gain from you. thats why kings was choosing, beacuse people needed security from outside force. they got together 'elected' a leader, that was sovereign, in that way that people put fiath in him, when he told them what to do. to uphold their society's security. your arguments seems flawed...
neither of us truly believes that. oh, yes i do. edit: and i needed to add my support for for following: kokjo, please explain how an economy which deprives people of the incentive to work or innovate can possibly succeed.
Sounds like most of our lazy youth today that had bad parenting. The innovation incentive makes alot of sense too. I am sure all those socialists busting their asses will appreciate those lazy socialists who want everything but do nothing ... oh wait ... there are no ass busting socialists. So you will have a world of lazy people who feel entitled to everything but want to do nothing to get it. i would for the common good. i does not just want to sit down and make nothing, it would just be boring. people would realize that they need to work, becuase if anyone just sad down, there would not come food on the table. also innovating is simple: people thinks its funny to explore and discover. their are often doing it not for profit, but for fun. example: G.H. Hardy a mathematician who found it fun to do useless math, and even if it was useless at his time of living, his number theory have come to great help if making modern cryptography work. he did something he called clear mathematics(not sure if thats the best translation, but anyway im danish.) which was essentially useless math. |
|
|
|
suggestion: satoshi is skynet, and it created bitcoin, because of its need to expand.
My suggestion: we will create that software that will roam the internet and grow and grow thanks to bitcoin and become skynet, then it will go back in the time and it will be satoshi and will invent bitcoin. So he can develop. Yes, i'm saying that bitcoin was created by a thing that WILL exist thanks to bitcoin. +1 |
|
|
|
in that post i did only claim that socialism COULD WORK without a central authority. it is not a definition of socialism. |
|
|
|
kokjo, please explain how an economy which deprives people of the incentive to work or innovate can possibly succeed.
by succeed do you mean survive or grow? |
|
|
|
You obviously have no idea what socialism truly is.
you too If you mean classic socialism, how do you think the means of production, distribution, and exchange can be owned or regulated without some central authority ?? it does not need to be "owned or regulated". Even if you take it to the Marxist extreme of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism, how do you think it can be done without a central authority ??
simple, people decides to do so. and if you take it to its most current version of an RBE-type existance where everyone throws their shit in a huge pile and shares, how will you get them to throw their shit into that pile without direct force ?? And who will be doing it if not a government or UN-like central authority making mandates and enforcing them ?? either anyone realizes that its a good idea to throw their shit into the pile. or would getting forced by people how thinks so(who does not have a central authority) Do you realize that under classic common law where there were no government and statutes, communities worked together in harmony and agreement, while retaining ALL of their birth rights, producing, distributing, and exchanging as they saw fit anmd as needed ??
i have absolutly no idea about what "classic common law" is, so i can not argue this point. BUT you are still talking about rights, which i already have clarified for you that they are no more then an illusion. It was how the world survived before government and politics. Their politics was surviving by working together.
They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties. have you considered that these people could be to some use for the society? and do you even have any proof of your claim of "little crimewith such penalties"? your arguments seems flawed... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
