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

[Walsoraj]

Overstock CEO bought in the 800s and now is getting desperate 
...

Is that a guess or did he admit to it somewhere?

[1713556308]

1713556308

[1713556308]

1713556308

[1713556308]

1713556308

[octaft]

In any event, I have NO issues with exploring various possible discussions on a broad array of topics, so long as they do NOT devolve and continually repeat into the ridiculous and silly realm.... such as continuing to assert that governments are the same as thieves b/c they make you pay taxes.  I would laugh, if it were NOT causing me to cry over such need to repeat what to me seems obvious.  

Asserting "Taxes are like theft because they involve taking without permission" leaves room for reasonable men to argue and come to an understanding about each others positions and can be enlightening. What is the nature of ownership, taking, permission. How strict is the definition etc.

Asserting "Taxes are not like theft because I believe taxes are not like theft" leaves nowhere to go and is the reason people are finding discussing with you frustrating.

And I can assure you that my academic credentials are sufficiently reasonable that you won't make me feel insecure about them.

Take those amazing academic credentials and put them to use explaining to me how we get to the ideal that you want. I swear I must have asked for this 100 times, but maybe some of you don't understand that "*wave wand* PRESTO! Libertarianism!" will not actually work?

[billyjoeallen]

EXACTLY.... if you cannot see the logic of the obvious, then it seems likely that you gotta go study up on some basics and possibly to work on your analytical skills... .. Maybe take a few classes or practice reading, writing and math.. things like that.    The brushing up is going to vary from person to person.... ... and I suppose my main point here is that if you cannot see the difference between a thief and a government, and we CANNOT get beyond that basic logical point, then why are we wasting time to engage in a discussion that is NOT going to get us anywhere....   Clearly, I consider the two to be different, and clearly I feel that I need NOT explain anymore than I already have about why the two are different.

In any event, I have NO issues with exploring various possible discussions on a broad array of topics, so long as they do NOT devolve and continually repeat into the ridiculous and silly realm.... such as continuing to assert that governments are the same as thieves b/c they make you pay taxes.  I would laugh, if it were NOT causing me to cry over such need to repeat what to me seems obvious.   

I have to concede that you are correct. The government is not a band of thieves. Thieves don't use violence or threat of violence to steal. Robbers do. The government is a band of robbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery

To claim that your opponents argument is silly on its face is not a logical objection. It is an appeal to incredulity tionalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity and it's a logical fallacy.

[Richy_T]

Take those amazing academic credentials and put them to use explaining to me how we get to the ideal that you want. I swear I must have asked for this 100 times, but maybe some of you don't understand that "*wave wand* PRESTO! Libertarianism!" will not actually work?

What do you mean by "how"? Do you mean a path to transition from the current government configuration to one which more respects personal freedom or a plan as to how to change government to lead into that change? Cause if it's the latter, I have to admit, it's not looking too hopeful and I'm sure you collectivists will drive things into the ground at least once, if not more before things start to look hopeful.

In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm a fan of Bitcoin.

[KeyserSoze]

Aaaaand suddenly the ask side grows a thousand coins bigger around 650... shall I make popcorns or it is just a fad?

Fad or not it is near impossible to have too much popcorn.

[Richy_T]

I have to concede that you are correct. The government is not a band of thieves. Thieves don't use violence or threat of violence to steal. Robbers do. The government is a band of robbers.

I quite like the alliteration of "Bandits with Badges".

[octaft]

Take those amazing academic credentials and put them to use explaining to me how we get to the ideal that you want. I swear I must have asked for this 100 times, but maybe some of you don't understand that "*wave wand* PRESTO! Libertarianism!" will not actually work?

What do you mean by "how"? Do you mean a path to transition from the current government configuration to one which more respects personal freedom or a plan as to how to change government to lead into that change? Cause if it's the latter, I have to admit, it's not looking too hopeful and I'm sure you collectivists will drive things into the ground at least once, if not more before things start to look hopeful.

Either/or, I'll take whatever I can get at this point, which so far is still nothing.

[JayJuanGee]

You seem to want more of an explanation in places that I feel that already that I have adequately explained.  For example, my outlining situation 1 and situation 2 was to ensure with thread participants on this topic that we are talking about the same thing.. and some posters are trying to equate situations 1 and 2 (including yourself) that in my view should clearly and logically be understood as different... b/c the actor in situation 2 is different from the actor in situation 1 (which makes a very meaningful and material difference).

The difference does not change the situation.

My four legged animal is brown. Your four legged animal is black. My four legged animal is a dog. It does not therefor follow that your four legged animal *is not* a dog.

Theft is taking without permission. In both situations, more than adequately explained by yourself, permission is not given and taking occurs. It does not matter the why for that does not matter under the definition of theft. What it is about your situation 2 that does not fit the definition?

Thank you Richy_T for such an apt example.

Example 1:
Let's say one four legged animal is a brown dog and the other four legged animal is a black dog
Therefore both of them are dogs, and it may NOT make a difference in the situation and the two can be compared with one another.

Example 2
one four legged animal is a brown dog and another brown four legged animal is a grizzly bear (or a lion)


You are trying to suggest that example 1 and example 2 are the same, but they are NOT.  In example 1, you will be closer to having similar situations unless the actual dog breed or the color matters for whatever application.  Sometimes the color will matter, depending on the application, and some times the breed could matter, depending on the situation, even though both are dogs. 

In example 2, you certainly have the same color and the fact that both are animals, but if the application is which one would you would trust to leave overnight as a pet to snuggle on the sofa with your 1 year old kid, then you may realize there is a material difference between the two.



The difference does matter especially when we are talking about the concept of theft and government and taxes.

I question why we seem to be caught up in arguments about definition.. what lack of meaning to this discussion... .NO? 

In any event, I have NO issues with exploring various possible discussions on a broad array of topics, so long as they do NOT devolve and continually repeat into the ridiculous and silly realm.... such as continuing to assert that governments are the same as thieves b/c they make you pay taxes.  I would laugh, if it were NOT causing me to cry over such need to repeat what to me seems obvious.   

Asserting "Taxes are like theft because they involve taking without permission" leaves room for reasonable men to argue and come to an understanding about each others positions and can be enlightening. What is the nature of ownership, taking, permission. How strict is the definition etc.

Asserting "Taxes are not like theft because I believe taxes are not like theft" leaves nowhere to go and is the reason people are finding discussing with you frustrating.

And I can assure you that my academic credentials are sufficiently reasonable that you won't make me feel insecure about them.

YES... your academic credentials are so great that you want to continue to pursue a topic that I have NO interest in pursuing.  Surely, you can answer your own questions above.. to the extent that they make any difference to my earlier points.  Maybe in some kind of parallel universe you are correct, and government does equal thief?  I am sure that we can find a large number of examples that either governments or government officials have acted like thieves, but so what?  Those kinds of facts do NOT cause all governments to be same as thieves or taxes to be a form of thievery.


Additionally, the concept of government equaling thief may be interesting to you, and to others in this thread, and feel free to discuss that topic, without me.  However, if you engage in such topic on this thread, I may chime in; however, I am inclined to think that I said as much as I need to say on the topic in order to make my point.  Maybe I will think of something else later, but at the moment, I cannot think of anything further that I need to say about the topic.

[Richy_T]

Either/or, I'll take whatever I can get at this point, which so far is still nothing.

Well, the former is fairly straightforward, you can just start unrolling things in the direction from which they came. Step 1 is probably a balanced budget. Taper off federal government funds to the states over a period of 5-10 years (this should not be happening in the first place). Axe the dept of education, eliminate loopholes from the tax code. All this stuff has been done to death before. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Oh, and let's not forget... Nuke the federal reserve from orbit.

[JayJuanGee]

EXACTLY.... if you cannot see the logic of the obvious, then it seems likely that you gotta go study up on some basics and possibly to work on your analytical skills... .. Maybe take a few classes or practice reading, writing and math.. things like that.    The brushing up is going to vary from person to person.... ... and I suppose my main point here is that if you cannot see the difference between a thief and a government, and we CANNOT get beyond that basic logical point, then why are we wasting time to engage in a discussion that is NOT going to get us anywhere....   Clearly, I consider the two to be different, and clearly I feel that I need NOT explain anymore than I already have about why the two are different.

In any event, I have NO issues with exploring various possible discussions on a broad array of topics, so long as they do NOT devolve and continually repeat into the ridiculous and silly realm.... such as continuing to assert that governments are the same as thieves b/c they make you pay taxes.  I would laugh, if it were NOT causing me to cry over such need to repeat what to me seems obvious.   

I have to concede that you are correct. The government is not a band of thieves. Thieves don't use violence or threat of violence to steal. Robbers do. The government is a band of robbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery

I am glad we got some movement on this topic... he he he...     

To claim that your opponents argument is silly on its face is not a logical objection. It is an appeal to incredulity tionalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity and it's a logical fallacy.

I am of the belief that I have explained more than sufficiently ad nauseum about such a trivial point.

 And, you are NOT lacking in your ability to deviate from any topic with finger pointing rather than really engaging in some kind of meaningful discussion.

If you want to continue to assert that the government is the same as a robber, then why should we further engage in such discussion under the circumstances, that I am NOT going to go along with that stupid ass and simplistic framing of the situation.... that on the face of it, should be obvious to any one with brain cells and reason... although maybe the person would need to have at least the equivalent of a 6th grade education...  to be able to engage in more complex thinking... Now I should NOT be insulting 5th graders b/c I am sure that many of them should be able to understand the difference between government and robbers... even some 1st graders will understand such.

[JorgeStolfi]

Overstock CEO just emailed 41.7 [ million ] people about Bitcoin and why he believes in it!  That is bullish!  (It is the Wired article that came out a while ago about him.  It is a good article BTW.)

So that people know that bitcoin is not only scam but also spam.   

[Richy_T]

Example 1:
Let's say one four legged animal is a brown dog and the other four legged animal is a black dog
Therefore both of them are dogs, and it may NOT make a difference in the situation and the two can be compared with one another.

Example 2
one four legged animal is a brown dog and another brown four legged animal is a grizzly bear (or a lion)

You in no way made the case that your situation 1 was materially different from your situation 2. Your claim amounted to "It's the government, innit?".

YES... your academic credentials are so great that you want to continue to pursue a topic that I have NO interest in pursuing.  

You guys are a riot. You attempt to impugn my reading, writing and maths skills to which I respond that they are adequate and suddenly it's me claiming amazing academic credentials? This kind of thing is only to be expected, of course. Hyperbole, straw men and straight up ad-hom

Ah well, I'm done with running through logic with you. To descend to your level, "I'm right and you're wrong" and let that be an end to it. Your inability to express the reasoning behind your beliefs duly noted.

[Richy_T]

Overstock CEO just emailed 41.7 [ million ] people about Bitcoin and why he believes in it!  That is bullish!  (It is the Wired article that came out a while ago about him.  It is a good article BTW.)

So that people know that bitcoin is not only scam but also spam.   

Maybe a sham?

[KeyserSoze]

I have have been making typos all day.  Not sure why.  Oh well.

It's your god's purpose for you. If you were smart, like JoJo, you'd worship me. I don't do petty things like make you spell poorly. I also offer a nice afterlife points program, partnering with many afterworld shops.

[JorgeStolfi]

Just writing my thoughts, why usual people are probably not interested in buying Bitcoins.

First, they don't know what it is.
Second, they don't have easy access (say buy BTCs with paypal)
Third, they don't see the point - right now.
Fourth, they don't understand how an online currency can work.

Fifth, they smell a scam.

In the early 90s, the Brazilian branch of Amway started an obnoxious Ponzi/pyramid schema here.

To become an Amway representative, you had to pay a few hundred dollars, ostensibly for some sketchy sales training.  Then you could make a little money by buying their detergents and such by the box, and selling them by the bottle to your friends. Or you could make a lot more money by recruiting more representatives, and receiving part of their joining fees as commission.  Naturally Amway gave out brochures with photos of people in luxury boats and cars, all suposedly bought with those fat commissions.

Soon we were running into Amway recruiters everywhere.  Saying "no thanks" to strangers was easy; dismissing relatives and friends, sometimes in financial difficulties, was not.  We ended up joining only to preserve one of those friendships; but of course we did not even try to sell anything, or bestow the same annoyance onto others.

Like US schools, this university instructs prospective grad students to solicit letters of recommendation from former teachers or advisors.  Once we got a letter that said only "I do NOT recommend this student because he has joined Amway".  Fortunately that application was rejected for other reasons, otherwise we would have been faced with a thorny ethical dilemma.

(Amway in the US doesn't seem to be so obnoxious.  Perhaps the Brazilian "Amway" was only loosely connected to them.  Eventually the Brazilian justice stepped in and stopped their worst abuses.)

The point of this story is:

It is quite easy to tell wheter someone wants you to invest in something because he is genuinely enthusiastic about it and want to share it with you,  or because he expects to pocket some of your money.   The latter types are terribly annoying, and often end up losing their friends along with their money.  Be careful not to become one.

[farnsworth7]

In other news, Magic The Gathering Butt Cracks : http://www.buzzfeed.com/mrloganrhoades/man-goes-to-magic-the-gathering-tournament-poses-next-to-but

[JorgeStolfi]

Btw. I am in the process of coauthoring (with sirius) an e-book about "History of Bitcoin Economy". What would you like to have discussed?

Are you going to discuss [ ... ] the fact that governments may see their abilities and efforts as very difficult to regulate and/or stifle bitcoin given the P2P nature of it...

I think that he said "history" and not "fairy tales". 

Bitcoin is very easy to regulate and stifle, see China for example.

[JayJuanGee]

Take those amazing academic credentials and put them to use explaining to me how we get to the ideal that you want. I swear I must have asked for this 100 times, but maybe some of you don't understand that "*wave wand* PRESTO! Libertarianism!" will not actually work?

What do you mean by "how"? Do you mean a path to transition from the current government configuration to one which more respects personal freedom or a plan as to how to change government to lead into that change? Cause if it's the latter, I have to admit, it's not looking too hopeful and I'm sure you collectivists will drive things into the ground at least once, if not more before things start to look hopeful.

In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm a fan of Bitcoin.

HERE, HERE... if you take out the attacks on your fellow posters.. I largely agree that it looks as if there are a lot of problems in current government.... including its trampling on personal freedoms... and its irresponsible monetary policies that seem to be doling out money to the rich as if it were candy.

Example 1:
Let's say one four legged animal is a brown dog and the other four legged animal is a black dog
Therefore both of them are dogs, and it may NOT make a difference in the situation and the two can be compared with one another.

Example 2
one four legged animal is a brown dog and another brown four legged animal is a grizzly bear (or a lion)

You in no way made the case that your situation 1 was materially different from your situation 2. Your claim amounted to "It's the government, innit?".

I was NOT trying to make any case, and I do NOT believe that i need to - b/c it should seem pretty obvious that the two situations are different.  I outlined situation 1 and situation 2 in order to outline what appeared to be the parameters of the various arguments that seemed to have been being put forth to suggest that those two situations are the same, even though it should be logically and analytically obvious that the two situations are different. ... even thought they "feel the same" on the self-centered person who cannot imagine a world beyond him/herself

YES... your academic credentials are so great that you want to continue to pursue a topic that I have NO interest in pursuing. 

You guys are a riot. You attempt to impugn my reading, writing and maths skills to which I respond that they are adequate and suddenly it's me claiming amazing academic credentials? This kind of thing is only to be expected, of course. Hyperbole, straw men and straight up ad-hom

Ah well, I'm done with running through logic with you. To descend to your level, "I'm right and you're wrong" and let that be an end to it. Your inability to express the reasoning behind your beliefs duly noted.

There is NO ad hominem attack here.  And, maybe finally, you may be seeing the light that we have adequately explored this topic to realize that we do NOT need to keep discussing a matter in which the foundational presumptions cannot be agreed upon.  So, yes, we can agree to disagree and move on to other topics.

[octaft]

Either/or, I'll take whatever I can get at this point, which so far is still nothing.

Well, the former is fairly straightforward, you can just start unrolling things in the direction from which they came. Step 1 is probably a balanced budget. Taper off federal government funds to the states over a period of 5-10 years (this should not be happening in the first place). Axe the dept of education, eliminate loopholes from the tax code. All this stuff has been done to death before. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Oh, and let's not forget... Nuke the federal reserve from orbit.

I'm looking for better definition on where you stand.

Alright, let's take this further: the argument is that we would support the poor through voluntary charity, yes? Now let's say after 10 years, charity turns out to be woefully inadequate. Let's assume that -- while the world has not devolved into chaos and anarchy as a result of a lack of government -- that some are suffering because not everything went as planned. There's slums with no police protection because everyone that lives in the neighborhood can't afford it. How do we approach that? Are some things up for socialization, or is it all strictly no go, no budge?

Sure, the poor ain't doing so hot right now, but in order for the change to be worth it, it's not enough to be different. It's got to be better, and noticeably so. The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

[aminorex]

I'm still hoping you'll admit that a community is voluntary and does not initiate violence, at least not against its own members, in contradistinction to a the involuntary membership and routine initiation or threat of violence characteristic of a gang, JayJuanGee.  If you want to hold a value system in which initiating or threatening violence against people who just want to mind their business is a routine way of life, I certainly can't stop you, but I would feel reassured if you at least recognized that you were doing so.