Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 01:46:43 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What happens first:
$65,000 - 59 (86.8%)
$48,000 - 9 (13.2%)
Total Voters: 68

Pages: « 1 ... 5140 5141 5142 5143 5144 5145 5146 5147 5148 5149 5150 5151 5152 5153 5154 5155 5156 5157 5158 5159 5160 5161 5162 5163 5164 5165 5166 5167 5168 5169 5170 5171 5172 5173 5174 5175 5176 5177 5178 5179 5180 5181 5182 5183 5184 5185 5186 5187 5188 5189 [5190] 5191 5192 5193 5194 5195 5196 5197 5198 5199 5200 5201 5202 5203 5204 5205 5206 5207 5208 5209 5210 5211 5212 5213 5214 5215 5216 5217 5218 5219 5220 5221 5222 5223 5224 5225 5226 5227 5228 5229 5230 5231 5232 5233 5234 5235 5236 5237 5238 5239 5240 ... 33205 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26336776 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (170 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted.)
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1743


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:02:27 AM


Explanation
1711676803
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711676803

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711676803
Reply with quote  #2

1711676803
Report to moderator
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- Greg Maxwell
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711676803
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711676803

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711676803
Reply with quote  #2

1711676803
Report to moderator
solarflare
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:12:13 AM

My freedom is measured by how free I feel and nothing else.
It's purely subjective.

So, if you thought that you were allowed to do anything, but you had no desire to leave an 8x8 concrete cell which you were sitting in, it would be the same as *actually* being allowed to do anything?

So it's true that freedom is just a state of mind...

Yes. I'm free until I discover that I'm not and only then might I realize I wasn't actually free.
And yes, freedom is just a state of mind, a feeling... Have you never felt free ?

Of course that's only one definition of freedom among many, all of them potentially valid depending on the context.

When it comes to government interference with peoples lives, it's not that I don't care, but I believe we all have the ability to migrate and should do so more often.
I move from a country to another like I move from a company to another. I just wish the control freaks in charge didn't make it so difficult (passports, visas, vaccines!, bank accounts, etc).
octaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:21:38 AM

If you claim the a monopoly government is necessary to prevent the predation of the disadvantaged by the powerful, then I ask, howz that workin out for you so far?

Here's a question: let's say you could, for the rest of your life, commit 30% of your income and savings to charitable organizations of your choice, with a certain amount required to go to basic needs charities, in exchange for never paying taxes on anything ever again. Would you say yes? If that's too much, what's the maximum you'd go up to?

My maximum is zero percent. It's my money. If I am forced to be charitable, it's not really charity, is it? How much freedom would you be willing to give up for freedom? Your question makes no sense.

Billyjoeallen has the point go right over his head. Shocker.

My question is a test to see who cares about their ideals and who is just greedy. Judging by your response, it's all about the money for you, which suggests to me your odds of willfully giving anything to charity are extremely low. If that is the case, why should I believe your ridiculous "support through voluntary charity" argument. You clearly don't.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3668
Merit: 10064


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:23:54 AM

I'm starting to think this isn't a repeat of 2013 and we are going for a triple bottom.

dont forget there is the mental barrier of $1k which is quite strong. sustaining a rise from 100 to 1000$ is as hard as going from 10 to 100$ and it didnt took a year for sure. but there are also those whales pumping and panicking the market that we should be careful about. weak hands will be purged. and ego-delusionals shouting "choochoo" every 100$ jumps are just making it harder for new comers not to get f*** in this jungle.

edit: for f*** sake we are talking about a f****g grand here. thats serious money for the average joe and its surely not the whole speech about buying a thousandth of a bitcoin that is going to help it to get mainstream and attract new money in. at least give it time. whats funny tho is that at the first panic sell movement all the choohooers will just follow. Cheesy Grin



This is sloppy thinking if we are of the belief that new investors need to buy in 1BTC increments.  New investors can buy in at whatever amount that they want or they feel justified.  Probably, a more important measurement is BTC's market cap, and whether there is room for expansion from about an $8 Billion dollar market cap to some new and higher value.  To me, a $100 billion market cap seems to be fairly conservative, once we get the choo choo moving along a little further... or get a little upward momentum, at some point... which seems that we will be progressing in that upward direction in the near future.. this year, and also 2015...
MAbtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 508


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:27:49 AM

I'm starting to think this isn't a repeat of 2013 and we are going for a triple bottom.

This has been my thinking for some time. We'll see. Cheesy
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:36:36 AM

I'm starting to think this isn't a repeat of 2013 and we are going for a triple bottom.

This has been my thinking for some time. We'll see. Cheesy

Markets never repeat, but they may rhyme.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3668
Merit: 10064


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:37:46 AM

If you claim the a monopoly government is necessary to prevent the predation of the disadvantaged by the powerful, then I ask, howz that workin out for you so far?

Here's a question: let's say you could, for the rest of your life, commit 30% of your income and savings to charitable organizations of your choice, with a certain amount required to go to basic needs charities, in exchange for never paying taxes on anything ever again. Would you say yes? If that's too much, what's the maximum you'd go up to?

My maximum is zero percent. It's my money.
If I am forced to be charitable, it's not really charity, is it? How much freedom would you be willing to give up for freedom? Your question makes no sense.



Here you show the extreme nature of your thinking and how detached you are from the real world in some kind of ideological attempt to have some fantasy society in which there is NO taxes...(or compelled  charity), and in such a world, supposedly, necessary public services will still be carried out... ... OTHERWISE, we will truly be living in a survival of the fittest, dog eat dog world... Most people would NOT want to live in such a society.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3668
Merit: 10064


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:48:35 AM

If you claim the a monopoly government is necessary to prevent the predation of the disadvantaged by the powerful, then I ask, howz that workin out for you so far?

Here's a question: let's say you could, for the rest of your life, commit 30% of your income and savings to charitable organizations of your choice, with a certain amount required to go to basic needs charities, in exchange for never paying taxes on anything ever again. Would you say yes? If that's too much, what's the maximum you'd go up to?

My maximum is zero percent. It's my money. If I am forced to be charitable, it's not really charity, is it? How much freedom would you be willing to give up for freedom? Your question makes no sense.
I fear you are mistaking money for freedom.
your freedom is always measured by the freedom of the people living around you.


Yes... probably that is part of the problem in conflating concepts of economic freedom with other kinds of freedoms that may exist as a citizen... Yet, sorry to say, as members of a society, we also have responsibilities... that may rub against and compete with the extent, quantity and kind of freedoms that we are able to experience as members of society.

Monetary freedom, financial freedom is the issue at hand. If you think otherwise, then it is you who are mistaken.
Chalkbot
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:51:26 AM

My maximum is zero percent. It's my money. If I am forced to be charitable, it's not really charity, is it? How much freedom would you be willing to give up for freedom? Your question makes no sense.
Here you show the extreme nature of your thinking and how detached you are from the real world in some kind of ideological attempt to have some fantasy society in which there is NO taxes...(or compelled  charity), and in such a world, supposedly, necessary public services will still be carried out... ... OTHERWISE, we will truly be living in a survival of the fittest, dog eat dog world... Most people would NOT want to live in such a society.

Well, I might be wrong, but I think he's objecting to the idea of a mandatory contribution, not contribution itself. A free market for taxes, as it were. Once you put a number on it (say 30%, from the previous example) then suddenly you have a group of people looking to spend it. Government agencies, in today's society. They try to get all the money off the books every year, which means spending a lot of it figuring out what to do with the rest of it, and wasting a bunch more of it on shit that's not really wanted or needed by anyone.

Now imagine the opposite example, where there is no requirement, and everyone pays 0. Would they just sit around waiting for other people to build the infrastructure they want? That seems pretty miserable, obviously at a certain point, having clean water and electricity in your neighborhood becomes worth more than sitting in a hot dark room with your savings. You will spend that money, and there will be a person eager to provide those services at a competitive rate, because there is no central agency guaranteeing him the work, and his reputation really does matter for repeat business. The job gets done in the most efficient manner possible, as it didn't require a committee approval, or balancing it against other projects on the books, or waiting for votes, or some other bullshit that wastes everyone's time or money.

Now the reality is probably between those two things, but I wouldn't outright dismiss the idea of 0% taxes being feasible, or even better than what we currently have.
aminorex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029


Sine secretum non libertas


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 12:58:49 AM

Government agencies, in today's society. They try to get all the money off the books every year, which means spending a lot of it figuring out what to do with the rest of it, and wasting a bunch more of it on shit that's not really wanted or needed by anyone.

That's a bit generous.  The amount of government "spending" which is just graft and corruption is so amazingly vast that if I told you, you wouldn't believe me.  In a single incident the U.S. government "misplaced" a USAF cargo jet fully loaded with pallets of $US 100 notes.  That's just one incident, and by no means the largest.

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:00:19 AM

Yes. Perhaps I don't care that I don't have good access to roads if I can telecommute and Jeff Bezos will drone my groceries in.

So you'd like to return to pre-Roman times with no roads AND you want us to take that argument as serious?

Not at all what I said and not even simply a poor representation of what I said. I'm disappointed in you.

My point is that other solutions may be more optimal but we are locked into "roads roads roads" by government action. Perhaps we would all have flying cars or 300mph underground vacuum tubes or something.
octaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:01:08 AM

Governments aren't corrupt. People are corrupt. Why do so many people think getting rid of the government gets rid of corruption? All it does is changes where it takes place.

For comparison, let's look at getting rid of ALL guns. What happens? Does murder stop, or do we only see a sudden jump in the number of stabbing deaths? I argue the latter.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1743


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:02:44 AM


Explanation
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:03:03 AM

Billyjoeallen has the point go right over his head. Shocker.

My question is a test to see who cares about their ideals and who is just greedy. Judging by your response, it's all about the money for you, which suggests to me your odds of willfully giving anything to charity are extremely low. If that is the case, why should I believe your ridiculous "support through voluntary charity" argument. You clearly don't.

Your question is flawed because it substitutes involuntary action with involuntary action. A question such as "how much do you think you would contribute to charity if you were untaxed" would perhaps be more illuminating (though useless for totally different reasons)
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
March 11, 2014, 01:03:51 AM

If you claim the a monopoly government is necessary to prevent the predation of the disadvantaged by the powerful, then I ask, howz that workin out for you so far?

Here's a question: let's say you could, for the rest of your life, commit 30% of your income and savings to charitable organizations of your choice, with a certain amount required to go to basic needs charities, in exchange for never paying taxes on anything ever again. Would you say yes? If that's too much, what's the maximum you'd go up to?

My maximum is zero percent. It's my money. If I am forced to be charitable, it's not really charity, is it? How much freedom would you be willing to give up for freedom? Your question makes no sense.

Billyjoeallen has the point go right over his head. Shocker.

My question is a test to see who cares about their ideals and who is just greedy. Judging by your response, it's all about the money for you, which suggests to me your odds of willfully giving anything to charity are extremely low. If that is the case, why should I believe your ridiculous "support through voluntary charity" argument. You clearly don't.

No, the point has gone over your head. Forced charity is not charity. Involuntary wealth redistribution is not efficient because the victims resist and evade. Wealth is destroyed in the process making everyone poorer. The size of the pie is just as important as the fraction of the slice. You don't seem to care about the poor and needy nearly as much as you care that I might possibly spend my money as I see fit and not as you think I should.

You spend your money your way and I spend my money my way. That's agreeing to disagree, but when you advocate theft against me, that makes you my adversary.
aminorex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029


Sine secretum non libertas


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:04:48 AM

Governments aren't corrupt. People are corrupt. Why do so many people think getting rid of the government gets rid of corruption? All it does is changes where it takes place.

No, it is vastly worse, because the government is in charge of investigating corruption and has the ability to prevent others from investigating it.  Moreover, they have a LOT of guns, BIG guns, and are not shy about using them.

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:06:54 AM

Here you show the extreme nature of your thinking and how detached you are from the real world in some kind of ideological attempt to have some fantasy society in which there is NO taxes...(or compelled  charity), and in such a world, supposedly, necessary public services will still be carried out... ... OTHERWISE, we will truly be living in a survival of the fittest, dog eat dog world... Most people would NOT want to live in such a society.


WTF is "compelled charity"?
octaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:10:57 AM

Billyjoeallen has the point go right over his head. Shocker.

My question is a test to see who cares about their ideals and who is just greedy. Judging by your response, it's all about the money for you, which suggests to me your odds of willfully giving anything to charity are extremely low. If that is the case, why should I believe your ridiculous "support through voluntary charity" argument. You clearly don't.

Your question is flawed because it substitutes involuntary action with involuntary action. A question such as "how much do you think you would contribute to charity if you were untaxed" would perhaps be more illuminating (though useless for totally different reasons)

What is involuntary about it? It says "let's say you COULD," not "what if the rules changed." It's a voluntary option to get out of paying taxes, and I think it does a pretty good job of simulating what it would be like if we relied on voluntary contributions. The thing is, you all say that support will come from voluntary contributions, but when it comes time to actually, you know, contribute, all of you will be passing the buck. It's because it's not about the ideal, it's about the money, so stop bullshitting and acting like it's not. If the government charged no taxes, I assume a lot of you would care much less about getting rid of it.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:11:39 AM

Governments aren't corrupt. People are corrupt. Why do so many people think getting rid of the government gets rid of corruption? All it does is changes where it takes place.

For comparison, let's look at getting rid of ALL guns. What happens? Does murder stop, or do we only see a sudden jump in the number of stabbing deaths? I argue the latter.

When Overstock or Newegg or Amazon wants your money, they have to offer you something you want.

When the government wants your money, they offer you a small cell and nightly dates with Bubba and a bullet between the eyes if you resist.

That's the essence of it.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 11, 2014, 01:13:15 AM


What is involuntary about it? It says "let's say you COULD," not "what if the rules changed." It's a voluntary option to get out of paying taxes, and I think it does a pretty good job of simulating what it would be like if we relied on voluntary contributions. The thing is, you all say that support will come from voluntary contributions, but when it comes time to actually, you know, contribute, all of you will be passing the buck. It's because it's not about the ideal, it's about the money, so stop bullshitting and acting like it's not. If the government charged no taxes, I assume a lot of you would care much less about getting rid of it.

Doublespeak at its finest. You have to pay taxes or an alternative that we're not going to call taxes? You should be a politician.
Pages: « 1 ... 5140 5141 5142 5143 5144 5145 5146 5147 5148 5149 5150 5151 5152 5153 5154 5155 5156 5157 5158 5159 5160 5161 5162 5163 5164 5165 5166 5167 5168 5169 5170 5171 5172 5173 5174 5175 5176 5177 5178 5179 5180 5181 5182 5183 5184 5185 5186 5187 5188 5189 [5190] 5191 5192 5193 5194 5195 5196 5197 5198 5199 5200 5201 5202 5203 5204 5205 5206 5207 5208 5209 5210 5211 5212 5213 5214 5215 5216 5217 5218 5219 5220 5221 5222 5223 5224 5225 5226 5227 5228 5229 5230 5231 5232 5233 5234 5235 5236 5237 5238 5239 5240 ... 33205 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!