Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 02:30:05 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin is beggining to get "bad" publicity...  (Read 8521 times)
Anonymous
Guest

June 03, 2011, 08:05:11 PM
 #61

You've offered nothing. You stated nothing but rhetoric with no sound argument. No real counter. Just faith in the status-quo. You hold no higher ground but only willful ignorance.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481034605
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481034605

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481034605
Reply with quote  #2

1481034605
Report to moderator
1481034605
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481034605

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481034605
Reply with quote  #2

1481034605
Report to moderator
ene
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 08:41:40 PM
 #62

"UK Serious Fraud office is looking into Bitcoin" is this based on statement by some idiot sysadmin at a hosting provider who said so while banning a user who used lots of CPU on a "trial account"?

I think what happened was that this sysadmin read about bitcoins and got scared, called the SFO and was told "thank you, we have taken down these details and will deal with the matter as necessary". This doesn't mean a detailed investigation has actually opened nor does it mean the UK SFO are actually suspicious about bitcoins (yet). It does mean that a few people in SFO are going to discuss bitcoins and figure out whether it's in their remit to look at it or not.
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 08:52:01 PM
 #63

If anyone cares they can comment on these two articles and set them straight like I did:

"How to Purchase Guns and Drugs Anonymously"

http://blogs.forbes.com/benzingainsights/2011/06/03/how-to-purchase-guns-and-drugs-anonymously/

http://www.benzinga.com/trading-ideas/long-ideas/11/06/1137434/how-to-purchase-guns-and-drugs-anonymously

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
ptshamrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 479



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 09:13:06 PM
 #64

I hope they make us look like pigf*cking sodomite necrophiliac pedophile terrorist racist drug-dealing money-laundering gun-running slave-trading kiddy-porn puppy-stomping paint huffers. I need the price to stay down until I finish buying.  Nothing anybody does will kill Bitcoin. Nothing will stop it except nuclear war or a giant asteroid.  Satoshi Nakamoto himself couldn't stop it now. Critical mass has been reached. There is no going back. Cryptocurrency will be money for our great grandchildren. Austrian economics will be called...economics.


Hear, hear!

Hear, Hear !

made  my day!

"Money needs to be depoliticized, and the time has come for the separation of money and state to be accomplished."
xenon481
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 09:39:40 PM
 #65


Time to shrug.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr
Findeton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 09:52:41 PM
 #66


They are doing us free publicity with that. People will read that article, they will see Bitcoin interesting and get attracted to it. By the time they learn that it's not anonymous at all they'll be convinced anyways.

Bitcoin Weekly, bitcoin analysis and commentary

14DD7MhRXuw3KDuyUuXvAsRcK4KXTT36XA
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316

Armory Developer


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 09:54:03 PM
 #67

ah, well. ~~~~~, you were right.

Actually I found Atlas' answers to your points pertinent and well argued. If anything he gave you proper reply, so unlike the 17yo answer your were expecting. This calls for proper answer, unless you want to be branded the childish speaker harboring truisms. Awaiting for your enlightenment as of why the current state of affairs should be maintained regardless of its countless documented failures.

btcarmory.com
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 10:15:54 PM
 #68

Laughing is certainly easier than thinking.

15UFyv6kfWgq83Pp3yhXPr8rknv9m6581W
unk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 10:38:36 PM
 #69

Actually I found Atlas' answers to your points pertinent and well argued. If anything he gave you proper reply, so unlike the 17yo answer your were expecting.

i wasn't expecting or asking for a reply. what he wrote wasn't even slightly responsive, however. the problem here is that people think they're offering new thoughts on grand questions that have been debated to death by countless others who have examined the propositions in much greater detail. read 'anarchy, state, and utopia' and then nozick's own refutation of it, as a start. looking for new political thoughts in this forum is a fool's exercise.

in the end, almost no experienced policymaker or businessperson is an extreme libertarian (or whatever other minor variant of it you want to call your own ideology). you can come up with psychological theories for that ('the rest suckle the teat of the state' is a common one) or dwell on the exceptions (like peter thiel, for whom the first words that come to mind would probably be even too uncivil for this forum), but the beliefs are almost inconsistent with having significant real-world business experience in the end.

i know it doesn't satisfy the craving some seventeen-year-olds have for formal logic as applied in the political sphere, but it's hard not to let your interlocutor's absence of any experience enter your thoughts, even if that means you're resting partly on authority. dozens of people work for me, and i've created significant wealth for myself and for others. it's hard to debate 'political nihilism based on voluntary contract' with someone who's probably never negotiated or signed a single complicated voluntary contract and has no detailed understanding of contract law.

law is complex and subtle. it's more complex and subtle in the common-law world than in civil-law countries, though even then the difference isn't as stark as some continental commentators would like to suggest. it's fact-based and messy, like all practical reasoning. to boil it down to 'governments have done some bad things, thus there should not be governments' is exactly as juvenile as it sounds, and it deserves a laugh because i've never encountered an ideologue whose mind was changed by logical argument rather than by outgrowing their fringe beliefs.

one issue may be that certain conclusions are accepted on faith (on both sides!), and thus argument is pointless. if you accept on faith that the goal of all practical reason is to promote 'human freedom', and by 'human freedom' you mean the absence of government, then there's nothing i can say to convince you that libertarianism is mistaken. if, on the other hand, you are at least moderately a consequentialist, at least i can point you to empirical studies of happiness and make arguments about the cost-benefit analysis of various policies. very rarely is it clear which group the extremists on this forum fall into, however, and relatively few have even thought about it.

have you witnessed any political growth in this forum, ever, on anyone's part? if not, why shouldn't people simply laugh at foolishness?
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 11:20:01 PM
 #70

Actually I found Atlas' answers to your points pertinent and well argued. If anything he gave you proper reply, so unlike the 17yo answer your were expecting.

i wasn't expecting or asking for a reply. what he wrote wasn't even slightly responsive, however. the problem here is that people think they're offering new thoughts on grand questions that have been debated to death by countless others who have examined the propositions in much greater detail. read 'anarchy, state, and utopia' and then nozick's own refutation of it,


Just because I'm amused by your opinions and your rejection of logic in public policy, I just have to point out that the above is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.  It's every bit as wrong for you to expect us to read Nozick and agree with his conclusions as it would be for us to expect you to read Mises and do the same.  If you can't articulate the point without dropping names, you don't have a point.  Did you learn to debate on the Internet?
http://dilbert.com/strips/2011-06-03/

Quote
looking for new political thoughts in this forum is a fool's exercise.

In addition to being generally offensive, this entire subject is off topic, and if you intend to continue there are better sections of the forum for this debate.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
AtlasONo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 551



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 11:24:05 PM
 #71

Progressives are raving on Twitter about how Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme founded upon faux-libertarian economics.

Do you have anything to show that it is progressives in general, or just individuals who happen (or you believe) to be progressives?


Any takers?

No takers and no sources.

Atlas, you've given us absolutely nothing.
unk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 11:26:09 PM
 #72

Just because I'm amused by your opinions and your rejection of logic in public policy, I just have to point out that the above is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.

you didn't read carefully enough; i made a far more direct, outright appeal to authority later in my message!

you're entirely wrong, though, and it's demonstrative of the inability of people to read carefully in this forum. my reference to nozick was not at all a citation of authority. it was just a plea that people try reading something where all their ideas have already been defended better than they're defending them. i'm the last person who would cite nozick as an authority because i agree with almost nothing he wrote (except his temporary repudiation of part of it).

have you read him? you're writing as if you have no idea what he wrote or what positions he took. again, they are not even remotely consistent with mine.

have you even read mises?

Quote
this entire subject is off topic, and if you intend to continue there are better sections of the forum for this debate.

yes, fair enough.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 11:29:55 PM
 #73

i'm the last person who would cite nozick as an authority because i agree with almost nothing he wrote (except his temporary repudiation of part of it). have you read him?

Age is catching up to me, I honestly can't remember.

Quote
have you even read mises?

Yes.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316

Armory Developer


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 11:43:34 PM
 #74

i wasn't expecting or asking for a reply. what he wrote wasn't even slightly responsive, however. the problem here is that people think they're offering new thoughts on grand questions that have been debated to death by countless others who have examined the propositions in much greater detail. read 'anarchy, state, and utopia' and then nozick's own refutation of it, as a start. looking for new political thoughts in this forum is a fool's exercise.

Yet the point is that Atlas made this thread about the bad rap Bitcoin is getting, and someone brought in the political sauce to it, side discussion to which you contributed. I understand clearly from your stance that you think yourself far superior in experience and wisdom than the common poster on this forum when it comes to political matters, even though it doesn't surprise me since you fancy yourself as a "connaisseur" and this forum is about technology and economics, both which are not directly related to politics.

Under these premises that I think you will agree to, I am trying to understand now the motive for your posts and their content. I frankly do not understand why you are willing to take part in a political discussion on a forum that isn't dedicated to such topic to only state to your detractors that the level in here is too low to deserve any contribution from your part. You are either genuinely attempting to elevate the discussion in here, in which case you can't deter from any arguments based on the premise that it is too low and unrefined for you, or you are being dishonest and reluctant to discuss in the very fashion you are accusing others of.

Also, this is a public forum, you might not be asking for replies, but you should certainly expect some. I think to establish a proper level of respect between the speakers, it is required that you either answer to post directed to you or you admit the point over and done. Which is not what you are doing. You are attacking the writer, not the content delivered. I regard this as disrespectful considering the people who answered you took the time read your posts and provide proper and honest answers. If you wish for such grandeur of speech, you ought to show the way.

Quote
in the end, almost no experienced policymaker or businessperson is an extreme libertarian (or whatever other minor variant of it you want to call your own ideology). you can come up with psychological theories for that ('the rest suckle the teat of the state' is a common one) or dwell on the exceptions (like peter thiel, for whom the first words that come to mind would probably be even too uncivil for this forum), but the beliefs are almost inconsistent with having significant real-world business experience in the end.

That's funny. The first thought that crossed my mind is that people nursing such political thoughts would naturally act against governmental expansion, which would in return close them doors in the political world, or they would altogether not seek office. It is but natural to expect people you qualify as idealists to stick to their ideals, isn't it?

Quote
i know it doesn't satisfy the craving some seventeen-year-olds have for formal logic as applied in the political sphere, but it's hard not to let your interlocutor's absence of any experience enter your thoughts, even if that means you're resting partly on authority.

A pure logical argument can subvert the need for common knowledge. I think politics are abstract enough at their core to allow for such arguments to prevail. And I think you should give it a try before dismissing the possibility of your interlocutor grasping the concepts you are trying to convey. I'll say it again, I think Atlas made valid points against your prior arguments, and you haven't answered them. As a detractor of your ideas, I could just as well accuse you to refuse to confront your points with someone that doesn't share your views of politics to begin with. This will only result in a succession of ad hominem stands on both sides until you chose to either attempt to refute Atlas' points or step out of this discussion. I'll view any other action from your part in this thread as proof that you are being dishonest about your intention to engage into a proper argument.

Quote
dozens of people work for me, and i've created significant wealth for myself and for others. it's hard to debate 'political nihilism based on voluntary contract' with someone who's probably never negotiated or signed a single complicated voluntary contract and has no detailed understanding of contract law.

law is complex and subtle. it's more complex and subtle in the common-law world than in civil-law countries, though even then the difference isn't as stark as some continental commentators would like to suggest. it's fact-based and messy, like all practical reasoning. to boil it down to 'governments have done some bad things, thus there should not be governments' is exactly as juvenile as it sounds, and it deserves a laugh because i've never encountered an ideologue whose mind was changed by logical argument rather than by outgrowing their fringe beliefs.

I'm quite startled by this stance. The frame upon which our current political system is built, which you appear to support, has been crafted in antiquity, and it's forefather, Plato and friends, have made quite a point of proving that politics is the affairs of every citizen, disregarding experience and standing. I think a quick re-read of the dialogue "Protagoras" will get you back on track on this one. Certainly laws are complicated to write, for them to be rigorous in such fashion that there is no room for interpretation outside of their original intent, but the rule the law is meant to convey is simple, and debatable by all. Unless you are refuting the very frame of republic and democracy, in which case I wonder who is the most anarchist of us 2.

Quote
if, on the other hand, you are at least moderately a consequentialist, at least i can point you to empirical studies of happiness and make arguments about the cost-benefit analysis of various policies. very rarely is it clear which group the extremists on this forum fall into, however, and relatively few have even thought about it.

I'm open to discussion, but let me make things clear when it comes to me, since I can only speak for myself and only wish to do so: I do not hold happiness to be synonymous of freedom. I also am more concerned about being in control of what it is that will cost me more than it's perceived efficiency. You can't properly discuss politics with an anarchist or a libertarian if you refuse to discuss the argument regarding aggression and the use of force by the government. I can just as well say you are stuck on your principles and deaf to my plea. Unless you're willing to agree on some middle ground for the premise leading to such discussion, nothing will happen. You have to perform a gesture to prove you stand by your own words before you can sermon others with them.

Quote
have you witnessed any political growth in this forum, ever, on anyone's part? if not, why shouldn't people simply laugh at foolishness?

You seem to overestimate the power of argumentation, and I'll wager that your stance is not humble enough for others to listen to you without animosity. If your wish is but to laugh at the content of the discussions in here, a simple "lol" will do. Calling people names on the other hand, will result in retaliation.

btcarmory.com
BitcoinRigs.com
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 68


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2011, 12:22:43 AM
 #75

I have a feeling in my gut that things are about to get really exciting.

Have you seen the charts? http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/mtgoxUSD.html

Dollar parity was "really exciting". We're way past that!

Dedicated Bitcoin Mining Rigs from http://bitcoinrigs.com/
MacFall
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


Agorist


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2011, 01:35:27 AM
 #76

I'm always wryly amused at how statists always think that libertarians couldn't possibly have read the works of people who support their position. "Read Nozick!" Because I couldn't possibly have read Nozick already and found his arguments to be insufficient to overcome objections which were so obvious to me that I came up with them without even having read the thorough (and heretofore unanswered) rebuttals published in response to him. No, I must be completely ignorant.  Cheesy

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty!

Fledge Press: Pro-Liberty Fiction and Art
1JBmYmG2U5ETj8BXZUBCXDKWCQcFoERBNP
unk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 01:44:13 AM
 #77

for crying out loud.

as i've explained twice now, nozick is a libertarian (as you'd surely know if you'd in fact read him), and i wasn't citing him as authority. i was citing him as an example of a more thorough and intelligent set of arguments than the ones being offered here, even though i don't agree with them. why is accurate reading comprehension such a difficulty here?

that's a third time. do i need to do it a fourth?

the irony is that in responding a point i didn't make while pretending not to be ignorant, you've demonstrated your very ignorance. you couldn't possibly think nozick supports me if you've read him.
Anonymous
Guest

June 04, 2011, 01:49:03 AM
 #78

UNK, I totally agree with your motives. You're a fine gentlemen. You have my upmost respect.

These arguments tend to be very shallow and I'm glad to see somebody who relates. It's a pleasure to meet you.
MacFall
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


Agorist


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2011, 02:00:10 AM
 #79

Unk, you seem to have missed my point: You assumed that we had not read Nozick. At least in my case, you assumed wrongly. That is all. I know that Nozick is thought to be a libertarian, and it's very clear that you aren't. I was under the impression that you were calling Nozick to the stand because he was a "libertarian" who argued for a minimal state, thus making him superior in your mind to anarchist (i.e., consistent) libertarians, or as you put it, he "argued better" than we did. I thought it reasonable to presume that you think he argued better than we because his position is closer to yours than ours, because it frankly makes no sense whatsoever to critique the argumentation style or quality of random people on the internet by referring them to a professional academic which you presume we have not read. Of course we aren't as good at presenting ideas as a professional academic. We're amateurs, at least most of us. It has nothing to do with who we have and haven't read.

In any case, Nozick is a poor choice for that. He was not a libertarian for most of his life. In fact he doesn't seem to have had any particular position on political ethics at all. His writings read more like "what if" maunderings than systematic treatments of any idea, positive or negative. From the time that he published Anarchy, State, and Utopia to the time of his death he had been a neoconservative, a social democrat, and an apathetic nihilist. I don't really care to mine the writings of such a muddle-headed and unprincipled thinker as he was for tips on how to present my ideology.

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty!

Fledge Press: Pro-Liberty Fiction and Art
1JBmYmG2U5ETj8BXZUBCXDKWCQcFoERBNP
unk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 02:11:11 AM
 #80

Of course we aren't as good at presenting ideas as a professional academic. We're amateurs, at least most of us. It has nothing to do with who we have and haven't read.

that's my only point.

as it happens, among other things, i'm a professional academic myself, hence my frustration with the debate. as goatpig rightly points out in a particularly thoughtful response, i probably just shouldn't enter them here. 'i think someone's wrong on the internet' syndrome and so forth . . .

my apologies if my prior post was given in an exasperated tone.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!