Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[CuntChocula]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it  ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Billy Joe, if I believe, as a bunch of angsty aristocrats our Founding Fathers did, that Man is God's creation, and it is not, indeed, the case, am I "a criminal [...] with no legitimacy"?

And do you understand what context is, or bombastic, overblown bullshit impassioned oratory?
"I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

TL;DR:
1. If TFF thought that there are "unalienable rights" and indeed there are none, this misunderstanding would not make them "a criminal organization with no legitimacy." Simply means they were dead wrong.
  1a. No suggestion of "unalienable rights" existing outside of TFF's belief in the aforementioned.   

2. Their "unalienable rights" are not your "Natural Rights," different shit.

3. There's bullshit said because it sounds purty, and makes people feel righteous and good about doing ugly shit. It's just bullshit people say, don't take it seriously. Niggers had no "unalienable rights," neither did bitches. That all changed over 2 & a half centuries. Obama ain't George Washington.
Go figure.

[poncho32]

Deomocracy, in the sense of one person one vote for control over pooled resources, is inefficient because there is no way to communicate the intensity of one's preferences. That is one objection.

That is true, and it is one of the reasons why "democracy is the worst form of government there is".  But other methods of reching "consensus"  are not any better in that regard, often much worse; hence the other half of the saying.

While democracy does not directly account for intensity of desire, it has some indirect ways. For example, if the majority chooses laws that are too unfair to some minority, the latter may resort to crime to make ends meet, or to terrorism and other anti-social behavior, in spite of the penal deterrents against such acts.  Then the majority, if it is not too stupid, will usually ease the plight of that minority, enough to keep those reactions down to a tolerable level.

Democracy, like anything else, will function better if most of its citizens have more knowledge (especially of other societies, past and present) and more intelligence (especially the social intelligence I mentioned: awareness of the reactions that other people may have to one's own actions, and to the actions of the government.  The fair treatment of minorities, above, is an example of decision that a majority will take if it has a minimum of those qualities.  

That is one reason, by the way, why even the richest classes should want a good public universal education: because their welfare never depends only on their own qualities and actions, but always depends on the state of the society around them.  

for example, if you don't have the right to take by force from your neighbor because you need his property more than he does, then you don't have that right even if the majority of voters decide that you do.

As I said in another post, "right" is a meaningless word if there is no government to decide who has it.  Property is not a "natural right": you property is what your government thinks it is.  There is no other useful way to define it.  

You grow a crop on the land that is property of someone else: who owns the harvest?  You may have signed a contract giving 90% of the harvest to the landowner, but if the alternative was to sign the contract or die of hunger, is that any different than him taking your harvest by force?  You buy a stolen car without knowing that it was stolen; is it your property, or still the property of the victim? If you trace the history of a land plot back in time, you will almost always find that it was originally taken by force from the previous owner; so, is the present holder really the rightful owner?

In those and many other examples, there is no "natural" answer to the question.  In each case, if the property right is disputed, the laws of the country will give general rules that say who has the property rights; a court would have to decide how to apply those laws to the specific case; and a government will have to forcibly enforce the court's decision, if the affected party refuses to accept it.

In the case where a country is at war the government can commander any private property it wants, and there's nothing the owner can do to stop it. The government can commandeer your house, your car, or the iron railings outside your house to make shells out of. The government decides whether you still own something when it's at war, and will use force to take it off you if you resist.

[billyjoeallen]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it  ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Billy Joe, if I believe, as a bunch of angsty aristocrats our Founding Fathers did, that Man is God's creation, and it is not, indeed, the case, am I "a criminal [...] with no legitimacy"?

And do you understand what context is, or bombastic, overblown bullshit impassioned oratory?
"I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Jefferson intentionally used the word "Creator" and not "God" because he was a Deist as was Thomas Paine.
You don't have to believe in God to have Natural Rights. We all have those rights because of our humanity regardless of how we acquired that humanity. Regardless, the overt stated claim of the Founding Fathers was that Governments exist for the purpose of securing rights that predated government, Rights that exist independent of the State. According to the Founders, governments do not grant Natural Rights. They either recognize them and secure them or they fail to do so and have no just power.  This is based on Enlightenment philosophy articulated by John Locke, only Lock used the word "property" and not "happiness". 

Look, I'm not going to prove Natural Rights exist with words. I do it with actions, as did the Founding Fathers. We hold those rights to be "self-evident", meaning we are not going to ask anyone to respect them. We will demand that they be respected by what we do.  If we make no such demands, then by default we consent to the government we have. It's not an "ought" argument. It's an "is" argument. You don't have to like it just like you don't have to like the Law of Gravity, but ignore it at your peril.

[AlexGR]

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Fork a multi-billion $$$ currency, shatter confidence in crypto, potentially even destroy lives, because some people don't like some other people - who they don't even know and just read about them in forums, reddit, mailing lists etc? I mean, wtf?

We've gone from the pretense of urgency to ...social disagreements as reasons to destroy bitcoin. Yeah, let's fuck peter todd and lukejr by forking it... that will show them (!) - along with a few million users of BTC. lol?

[CuntChocula]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it  ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Billy Joe, if I believe, as a bunch of angsty aristocrats our Founding Fathers did, that Man is God's creation, and it is not, indeed, the case, am I "a criminal [...] with no legitimacy"?

And do you understand what context is, or bombastic, overblown bullshit impassioned oratory?
"I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Jefferson intentionally used the word "Creator" and not "God" because he was a Deist as was Thomas Paine.
You don't have to believe in God to have Natural Rights. We all have those rights because of our humanity regardless of how we acquired that humanity. Regardless, the overt stated claim of the Founding Fathers was that Governments exist for the purpose of securing rights that predated government, Rights that exist independent of the State. According to the Founders, governments do not grant Natural Rights. They either recognize them and secure them or they fail to do so and have no just power.  This is based on Enlightenment philosophy articulated by John Locke, only Lock used the word "property" and not "happiness".  

Look, I'm not going to prove Natural Rights exist with words. I do it with actions, as did the Founding Fathers. We hold those rights to be "self-evident", meaning we are not going to ask anyone to respect them. We will demand that they be respected by what we do.  If we make no such demands, then by default we consent to the government we have. It's not an "ought" argument. It's an "is" argument. You don't have to like it just like you don't have to like the Law of Gravity, but ignore it at your peril.

from edit above:
TL;DR:
1. If TFF thought that there are "unalienable rights" and indeed there are none, this misunderstanding would not make them "a criminal organization with no legitimacy." Simply means they were dead wrong.
  1a. No suggestion of "unalienable rights" existing outside of TFF's belief in the aforementioned.  If you hold Natural Rights to be self-evident, and they turn out to be so much bullshit, this would make you neither a liar nor a criminal.

2. Their "unalienable rights" are not your "Natural Rights," different shit.

3. There's bullshit said because it sounds purty, and makes people feel righteous and good about doing ugly shit. It's just bullshit people say, don't take it seriously. Niggers had no "unalienable rights," neither did bitches. That all changed over 2 & a half centuries. Obama ain't George Washington.
Go figure.

[Arcteryx]

And I thought this thread was about the price of coin not about who has bigger internet shlong 
LOL sometimes this thread has the most humorous things I have ever seen.

[CuntChocula]

^Some folks r slow 2 catch on.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

In the case where a country is at war the government can commander any private property it wants, and there's nothing the owner can do to stop it. The government can commandeer your house, your car, or the iron railings outside your house to make shells out of. The government decides whether you still own something when it's at war, and will use force to take it off you if you resist.

Yes and a gunman can demand "either your money or your life", but that doesn't make the action morally legitimate or make you immoral for claiming that you don't have any money even if you do. You will resists if you wish or submit if you don't want to, but the right to resist is yours whether you exercise it or not. Paradoxically, most highwaymen understand this better than governments do. At least they don't usually claim moral sanction of their actions. Exercising your right may cost you your life, but some choose to die free rather than living unfree. That's actually common. Animals in captivity often live longer than animals in the wild. It's a quality of life issue, and the freedom many of us enjoy today is a result of others choosing quality over quantity of life.

People who don't love freedom don't really understand those of us who do. They don't get why we risked so much to create the Bitcoin market in the first place.  It shouldn't work, according to them. But it does and it will, even if it is co-opted by others. We have the protocol, and we can build it again if this instance fails. You can't disinvent a technology. Once it's out there, it's out there forever.



 

[Fatman3001]

And I thought this thread was about the price of coin not about who has bigger internet shlong 
LOL sometimes this thread has the most humorous things I have ever seen.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bitcoin as global currency. Locally regulated and exchanged digital currencies will organically emerge. There's your scalability roadmap.

i am not sure how ?? we are still arguing over scalability.. and the argument has become more complex with more versions of bitcoin.. looks more like a big giant clusterfuk .

You don't need to know how. That's how "organic" works. Bitcoin doesn't need to buy every coffee, nor does anyone really need to use it. The blocksize argument is only a short-term adoption solution. Altcoins are the obvious and most popular solution to adoption overall to date. Exchanges have always and will always take Bitcoin. It's just that simple.

This is a single view that is frankly bizarre, only recently have statements like these become commonplace. Bitcoin was always going to record every transaction.

Bitcoin can't scale for mass adoption, it would crack under the pressure. Even I know that now.

It's like when you realize why your dog has been limping.

[CuntChocula]

People who don't love freedom don't really understand those of us who do.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xy6be5evgtY/hqdefault.jpg

Chin up, Buttercup!

"We wanna be free! We wanna be free to do what we wanna do. We wanna be free to ride. We wanna be free to ride our machines without being hassled by The Man! ... And we wanna get loaded!"

[billyjoeallen]

1. If TFF thought that there are "unalienable rights" and indeed there are none, this misunderstanding would not make them "a criminal organization with no legitimacy." Simply means they were dead wrong.
  1a. No suggestion of "unalienable rights" existing outside of TFF's belief in the aforementioned.  If you hold Natural Rights to be self-evident, and they turn out to be so much bullshit, this would make you neither a liar nor a criminal.

If they weren't criminals, then we could possibly overthrow our government and not be criminals. If you are suggesting Might makes Right and they are not criminals only by virtue of winning, you have the bulk of Western Philosophy against you.

2. Their "unalienable rights" are not your "Natural Rights," different shit.

Wrong. They are exactly the same rights I am talking about.

3. There's bullshit said because it sounds purty, and makes people feel righteous and good about doing ugly shit. It's just bullshit people say, don't take it seriously. Niggers had no "unalienable rights," neither did bitches. That all changed over 2 & a half centuries. Obama ain't George Washington.
Go figure.

It's about consistency. One can error by saying something inconsistent with what they do or say two things inconsistent with each other.  Someone can be consistent and be wrong, but they can't be inconsistent and be right. Square circles don't exist. If the State claim it's just power to rule comes from the consent of the governed, then it cannot use that power to violate that consent.  It simply can't. It can use other power, coercive power, but in doing so it is no longer just and by it's own reasoning loses it's right to govern, even if it doesn't yet lose the ability.

Words mean things. You implicitly acknowledge this or you wouldn't be writing here. There's no argument you can make with words to prove me wrong, because the mere attempt is implicitly admitting that I am right.

[billyjoeallen]

Smallblockers don't seem to get it. The only way you can prove me wrong about Bitcoin is by making me rich. If the market goes down, it's because it rejects the smallblocker vision. Miners are more likely to take the big block fork. If it goes up, I can sell my coins at a nice profit so I can re-invest in a coin more true to what I believe Bitcoin is supposed to be.

so what's it going to be? Checkmate.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Smallblockers don't seem to get it. The only way you can prove me wrong about Bitcoin is by making me rich. If the market goes down, it's because it rejects the smallblocker vision. Miners are more likely to take the big block fork. If it goes up, I can sell my coins at a nice profit so I can re-invest in a coin more true to what I believe Bitcoin is supposed to be.

so what's it going to be? Checkmate.

Who's with me?

[CuntChocula]

1. If TFF thought that there are "unalienable rights" and indeed there are none, this misunderstanding would not make them "a criminal organization with no legitimacy." Simply means they were dead wrong.
  1a. No suggestion of "unalienable rights" existing outside of TFF's belief in the aforementioned.  If you hold Natural Rights to be self-evident, and they turn out to be so much bullshit, this would make you neither a liar nor a criminal.

If they weren't criminals, then we could possibly overthrow our government and not be criminals.

Only if you succeed. If you lose, you're a criminal. Just like Our Funding Fathers would have been, had they lost.
Should be self-evident. I'm starting to suspect our public education is not all it could be

If you are suggesting Might makes Right and they are not criminals only by virtue of winning, you have the bulk of Western Philosophy against you.

Western Philosophers! How many divisions have they got?
 

2. Their "unalienable rights" are not your "Natural Rights," different shit.

Wrong. They are exactly the same rights I am talking about.

So "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness"? Those are your Natural Rights? Who is trying to usurp those from you, exactly?
Or are you just mad 'coz you haven't caught Happiness yet? You were promised pursuit, not capture

3. There's bullshit said because it sounds purty, and makes people feel righteous and good about doing ugly shit. It's just bullshit people say, don't take it seriously. Niggers had no "unalienable rights," neither did bitches. That all changed over 2 & a half centuries. Obama ain't George Washington.
Go figure.

It's about consistency. One can error by saying something inconsistent with what they do or say two things inconsistent with each other.  Someone can be consistent and be wrong, but they can't be inconsistent and be right. Square circles don't exist.

That's debatable too, but not here.

If the State claim it's just power to rule comes from the consent of the governed, then it cannot use that power to violate that consent.  It simply can't. It can use other power, coercive power, but in doing so it is no longer just and by it's own reasoning loses it's right to govern, even if it doesn't yet lose the ability.

If you're suggesting that the state claims that it rules with universal consent of *all* that it governs, you're simply mistaken.

Words mean things. You implicitly acknowledge this or you wouldn't be writing here. There's no argument you can make with words to prove me wrong, because the mere attempt is implicitly admitting that I am right.

Of course words mean things. Bringing up bitches and niggers was meant to make you ask yourself "hey, maybe that flowery prose was just a tool to rouse the rabble, because rabble fight better with God on their side?"
Of course these Founding Fathers were criminals. Of course. They were TRAITORS. But they won, so they're heroes. As all victors are.
And you're gullible enough to hold the current administration to the letter of some agitprop penned 2 & half centuries ago.

Be free!

http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aLK4WZ6_700b.jpg

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[Fatman3001]

Holy Crap!

Lambie is a Hobbesian!!!

Edit: Well, and a Kantian, come to think of it.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Will I / Wont I troll the Core PR7833

Aw heck, I think I just did.

 

Reader Exercise:  Identify the rogue PR's in COre....

PR ####  Change constant 'COIN' to 1 Bong
PR ####  FULL RBF activation date change to Ratember TonTi

 

[marcus_of_augustus]

Holy Crap!

Lambie is a Hobbesian!!!

Edit: Well, and a Kantian, come to think of it.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.