|
jinni (OP)
|
 |
December 22, 2013, 10:21:55 PM |
|
The biggest argument against Bitcoin - and all crypto currencies for that matter - is that everyone thinks everyone else is out to rip them off in one way shape or form. It's sad but when you can't trust anyone, how far can it go?
To use Bitcoin trust is unnecessary. Consensus is necessary. As with trading anything, all parties involved must agree with the value of the item being exchanged. Fiat is backed by trust in the issuing authority. Even transactional trust is unnecessary if you use escrow. At some point though you would have to trust somebody (maybe not in a financial way), at least in order to be able to feel fully at ease with someone (or anyone). Trust is a great issue with the Bitcoin community, but I believe it already has improved and is improving further, so it is not a long-term issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that Bitcoin is still beta software. Don't put all of your money into BTC!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
December 22, 2013, 10:22:23 PM |
|
Sounds fair. So if we trust the developers on this, then scalability is pretty much solved?
Well, I wouldn't say 'solved' because the greater scalability issue isn't the resident size of the blockchain, but the real time latency and bandwidth requirements of the network. I don't even know if there is really much that can be done with 'solving' scalability within the main network itself. I tend to think that external solutions, such as overlay networks (such as Stratum) taking over a majority of small transactions. There are a number of ways this can be done, all of which are a balance between the trustless security model of the main bitcoin network against speed and cost, that I think will end up competing in any future that Bitcoin assumes more transaction volume than Visa can deal with. |
"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'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
December 22, 2013, 10:24:44 PM |
|
ASIC mining farms. I believe Satoshi intended for BTC to be cpu only Your belief is in error. Sataoshi expressed a desire that Bitcoin remain cpu only till the "kinks" were worked out, but he didn't get to decide that issue alone either. |
"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'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
December 22, 2013, 10:29:41 PM |
|
The biggest argument against Bitcoin - and all crypto currencies for that matter - is that everyone thinks everyone else is out to rip them off in one way shape or form. It's sad but when you can't trust anyone, how far can it go?
To use Bitcoin trust is unnecessary. Consensus is necessary. As with trading anything, all parties involved must agree with the value of the item being exchanged. Fiat is backed by trust in the issuing authority. Even transactional trust is unnecessary if you use escrow. At some point though you would have to trust somebody (maybe not in a financial way), at least in order to be able to feel fully at ease with someone (or anyone). Trust is a great issue with the Bitcoin community, but I believe it already has improved and is improving further, so it is not a long-term issue. I'm not a programmer, so to some extent I have to trust that those who program my client aren't hiding a backdoor. If you're not part of the US Federal Reserve or related monetary industry, you have to trust that they will continue to accept such paper for taxes and legal debts. Faith in some group or another is a reasonable expectation. Bitcoin shines in that it doesn't require faith in any particular institution, nor is would the Bitcoin economy at large be at risk if (for example) the Bitcoin Foundation were to simply close up shop. |
"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'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
December 22, 2013, 10:32:10 PM |
|
Germany is an example of a country that so far has managed to balance it's socialism with strong individual rights in many cases, after the war it has always championed a hard currency (even if it is a hard fiat currency) in addition to having a strongly federal political system as well as having a populace generally more politically aware than most others. However, they have no freedom of speech for neo-nazi groups, and much worse, criticism of Israel is still taboo. I think your admiration for the German solution to be misplaced. It's not just that neo-nazi based ideologies or israeli dissent that is verboten. Any kind of subculture at all is verboten, although (obviously) some are ignored. Notablely, however, Christian based homeschooling is not ignored; and a ban on home education of any kind remains in effect as the last edict started by Aldolf hitler still in effect. Put another way; while politics in Germany functionally ignores the dark side of Islam, but puts devout Christians who consider German state schools to be contrary to their faith in the same catagory as neo-nazi hate groups. One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate. I probably was too positive to the "German solution". I do not agree that any kind of subculture is verboten as such, in fact I saw much more subculture in Berlin than I have seen in any western European capital ever. Maybe I got lucky, but my impression was that it was less distance from the general populace than elsewhere - though other places in Germany are supposedly less subculture-friendly as far as I've heard. I highlighted the operative part of my prior post for you. |
"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'
|
|
|
|
jinni (OP)
|
|
December 22, 2013, 10:34:59 PM
Last edit: December 22, 2013, 10:56:59 PM by jinni |
|
Hence hard uncrackable anonymity is needed.
You complain that Bitcoin isn't completely anonymous, and then your solution is a impossibility. Anonymity is a scale that is derived from the actions of the user, not an absolute attribute of any currency. While cash is certainly more anonymous than Bitcoin, even cash in person isn't 'uncrackable anonymity' because you have to do it in person. Any detective with the resources to do so can determine who you are by interogating your business counter party and/or tracking location data near the location around the time of meeting. Keep in mind that Bitcoin is a compromise solution to a preexisting condition, and while it's certainly not perfect, I consider it unlikely that any or all of Bitcoin's own shortcomings will prove to be fatal to it's market dominance. You shouldn't put to much faith into AnonyMint's musings either. While he can turn a phrase quite well, I have personally put the lie to all of his arguments that I've seen thus far; to the point that he doesn't even like to respond to me at all. Feel free to research his and my interactions on this forum, and you will learn more than you did from him alone. I'm not putting too much faith in AnonyMint's arguments(/musings). And I will for sure research more as you said. The reason I started this thread in the first place is that I realized that I was not informed enough (which I thought was ok as I thought there was more time, but now btc isn't play money anymore, but something that has grown all too real faster than I could ever have imagined - I figured it was really time to understand where my play money really have gone, and more importantly where they are going). I have also not seen any of AnonyMint's arguments (that I agree with) saying how Bitcoin won't come to market dominance, but what got me thinking is the argument that what if Bitcoin does come into market dominance - what then? How will we prevent a backlash against the early adopters? edit: but having a completelty anonymous way to pay and hold money would make it sooooo much harder for anyone to track... |
|
|
|
|
|
jinni (OP)
|
|
December 22, 2013, 10:41:20 PM |
|
Germany is an example of a country that so far has managed to balance it's socialism with strong individual rights in many cases, after the war it has always championed a hard currency (even if it is a hard fiat currency) in addition to having a strongly federal political system as well as having a populace generally more politically aware than most others. However, they have no freedom of speech for neo-nazi groups, and much worse, criticism of Israel is still taboo. I think your admiration for the German solution to be misplaced. It's not just that neo-nazi based ideologies or israeli dissent that is verboten. Any kind of subculture at all is verboten, although (obviously) some are ignored. Notablely, however, Christian based homeschooling is not ignored; and a ban on home education of any kind remains in effect as the last edict started by Aldolf hitler still in effect. Put another way; while politics in Germany functionally ignores the dark side of Islam, but puts devout Christians who consider German state schools to be contrary to their faith in the same catagory as neo-nazi hate groups. One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate. I probably was too positive to the "German solution". I do not agree that any kind of subculture is verboten as such, in fact I saw much more subculture in Berlin than I have seen in any western European capital ever. Maybe I got lucky, but my impression was that it was less distance from the general populace than elsewhere - though other places in Germany are supposedly less subculture-friendly as far as I've heard. I highlighted the operative part of my prior post for you. Sorry, I was obviously not reading carefully enough - thank you for pointing that out. The question then becomes how many subcultures are ignored and how many are verboten? And how does this ratio compare to other countries? I admit I am not qualified to answer this as I do not have enough experience with German subculture. |
|
|
|
|
|
jinni (OP)
|
|
December 22, 2013, 10:52:16 PM |
|
The biggest argument against Bitcoin - and all crypto currencies for that matter - is that everyone thinks everyone else is out to rip them off in one way shape or form. It's sad but when you can't trust anyone, how far can it go?
To use Bitcoin trust is unnecessary. Consensus is necessary. As with trading anything, all parties involved must agree with the value of the item being exchanged. Fiat is backed by trust in the issuing authority. Even transactional trust is unnecessary if you use escrow. At some point though you would have to trust somebody (maybe not in a financial way), at least in order to be able to feel fully at ease with someone (or anyone). Trust is a great issue with the Bitcoin community, but I believe it already has improved and is improving further, so it is not a long-term issue. I'm not a programmer, so to some extent I have to trust that those who program my client aren't hiding a backdoor. If you're not part of the US Federal Reserve or related monetary industry, you have to trust that they will continue to accept such paper for taxes and legal debts. Faith in some group or another is a reasonable expectation. Bitcoin shines in that it doesn't require faith in any particular institution, nor is would the Bitcoin economy at large be at risk if (for example) the Bitcoin Foundation were to simply close up shop. I agree. But I was talking about trust in the community in general. That most people have to be able to trust at least someone to be able to feel safe. For many people, family means great trust. For other people, it is certain friends. In less unequal societies people trust strangers less than in more equal societies. This has good and bad implications. Bad implications because it makes people naĩve, but good because it is a lot less hassle. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
December 22, 2013, 10:59:58 PM |
|
Germany is an example of a country that so far has managed to balance it's socialism with strong individual rights in many cases, after the war it has always championed a hard currency (even if it is a hard fiat currency) in addition to having a strongly federal political system as well as having a populace generally more politically aware than most others. However, they have no freedom of speech for neo-nazi groups, and much worse, criticism of Israel is still taboo. I think your admiration for the German solution to be misplaced. It's not just that neo-nazi based ideologies or israeli dissent that is verboten. Any kind of subculture at all is verboten, although (obviously) some are ignored. Notablely, however, Christian based homeschooling is not ignored; and a ban on home education of any kind remains in effect as the last edict started by Aldolf hitler still in effect. Put another way; while politics in Germany functionally ignores the dark side of Islam, but puts devout Christians who consider German state schools to be contrary to their faith in the same catagory as neo-nazi hate groups. One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate. I probably was too positive to the "German solution". I do not agree that any kind of subculture is verboten as such, in fact I saw much more subculture in Berlin than I have seen in any western European capital ever. Maybe I got lucky, but my impression was that it was less distance from the general populace than elsewhere - though other places in Germany are supposedly less subculture-friendly as far as I've heard. I highlighted the operative part of my prior post for you. Sorry, I was obviously not reading carefully enough - thank you for pointing that out. The question then becomes how many subcultures are ignored and how many are verboten? And how does this ratio compare to other countries? I admit I am not qualified to answer this as I do not have enough experience with German subculture. They are all verboten, and some are still ignored. just because they are ignored, does not mean thty are not verboten. Germany is, thankfully, unique among democracies in that the legal code assumes all things to be banned, until they are explicitly permitted, while just about everywhere else, all things are assumed to be acceptable until they are explicitly banned. The fact that actual Germans ignore the flailings of their own politicos is a sign of progress socially, but it also means that the generations of strong social cohesion among Germans is drawing to a close. The Japanese were once as socially cohesive as a nation as well, and look at what the influence of Western culture(s) has done to them. Unlike the Chinese, the Japanese mafia are a relatively recent phenomenon. Have you ever een heard of the "German mafia" or "Swiss mafia"? Of course not, because it's a clash of cultures that presents the opprotunities that give rise to organized crime. The original Italian mafia is so old because there has never been such as thing as a single Italian culture, only the dominate one. |
"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'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
December 22, 2013, 11:08:42 PM |
|
edit: but having a completelty anonymous way to pay and hold money would make it sooooo much harder for anyone to track...
True; and if's & but's were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. If you can come up with a workable way to do this, feel free to share it. |
"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'
|
|
|
|
taltamir
|
|
December 22, 2013, 11:54:10 PM |
|
This is clearly an issue. The more unequal the spread of wealth the more problems. Other way around. Equal spread of wealth = everyone is poor, downtrodden, and live short brutish lives. The more unequal the spread of wealth the more prosperous a society is for everyone, even the people at the bottom. No, maybe I was to brief in my wording. I'm not saying wealth has to be spread exactly equally for everything to be perfect, only that grossly unequal societies tend to have problems because of the gross inequality (see my video and countless other evidence). It is definitely possible that a really unequal society can be better for the poor than a more equal society, but not if every other factor is equal between those societies. Look, complete equality should not be the goal of any society, but ignoring gross wealth inequality as an issue is simply not realistic and not backed by science. 1. what video? 2. When someone says wealth inequality they always misuse examples. They point at examples where you have LIFESTYLE inequality brought about by communism and say that the solution is to prevent WEALTH inequality. Wealth inequality comes from either a capitalistic society where the standards of living for the poorest are better than they are for the average communist. Or from a slave owning society where the slaves have 0 wealth and as such the ratio between the richest and poorest is infinity (X/0 = infinity) where the poorest have horrible conditions Or it comes from a totalitarian society where the king is said to literally own anything in the nation, even if its owned by someone else its still the kings property (I can't think of an example where this didn't overlap with slave owning society) The thing is, the latter two examples are non existent and are a binary status while capitalism and communism are a continuum where the more you move towards equality (communism) the worse life is for the average person. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
December 23, 2013, 03:43:49 AM |
|
The first link is news to me! Thanks! No VAT on Bitcoin spends in Germany. Fabulous! |
|
|
|
ZooKeeper74
Member
Offline
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
|
|
December 23, 2013, 04:43:40 AM |
|
Every argument against Bitcoin is a hypocritical one.
Power grid goes down and gold might still matter. Nothing else will. Unless you like wiping your ass with thin green presidential toilet paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jinni (OP)
|
|
December 23, 2013, 06:38:28 AM |
|
This is clearly an issue. The more unequal the spread of wealth the more problems. Other way around. Equal spread of wealth = everyone is poor, downtrodden, and live short brutish lives. The more unequal the spread of wealth the more prosperous a society is for everyone, even the people at the bottom. No, maybe I was to brief in my wording. I'm not saying wealth has to be spread exactly equally for everything to be perfect, only that grossly unequal societies tend to have problems because of the gross inequality (see my video and countless other evidence). It is definitely possible that a really unequal society can be better for the poor than a more equal society, but not if every other factor is equal between those societies. Look, complete equality should not be the goal of any society, but ignoring gross wealth inequality as an issue is simply not realistic and not backed by science. 1. what video? 2. When someone says wealth inequality they always misuse examples. They point at examples where you have LIFESTYLE inequality brought about by communism and say that the solution is to prevent WEALTH inequality. Wealth inequality comes from either a capitalistic society where the standards of living for the poorest are better than they are for the average communist. Or from a slave owning society where the slaves have 0 wealth and as such the ratio between the richest and poorest is infinity (X/0 = infinity) where the poorest have horrible conditions Or it comes from a totalitarian society where the king is said to literally own anything in the nation, even if its owned by someone else its still the kings property (I can't think of an example where this didn't overlap with slave owning society) The thing is, the latter two examples are non existent and are a binary status while capitalism and communism are a continuum where the more you move towards equality (communism) the worse life is for the average person. 1. 2. First of all I think you are wrong. At least in the sense of using the word "communism" - that is surely not what I'm taking about. Rather I think you should use talk about the use of force. Taxes in a liberal democracy are collected at gunpoint. What capitalist societies are you talking about anyway? I was not aware that there where any? Surely not the US, right? What I'm trying to say is that while I don't approve of the use of force, one should not brush of the inequality as a non issue. Imagine immense ghettoization with just a few extremely wealthy and almost no middle class, yes one could argue that it is better than communism, but what we are talking about is whether it is a fortunate situation or not. In fact wealth disparities that big, make it hard for anyone to change their wealth position and these conditions are ripe breeding grounds for revolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
jinni (OP)
|
|
December 23, 2013, 06:55:28 AM |
|
Germany is an example of a country that so far has managed to balance it's socialism with strong individual rights in many cases, after the war it has always championed a hard currency (even if it is a hard fiat currency) in addition to having a strongly federal political system as well as having a populace generally more politically aware than most others. However, they have no freedom of speech for neo-nazi groups, and much worse, criticism of Israel is still taboo. I think your admiration for the German solution to be misplaced. It's not just that neo-nazi based ideologies or israeli dissent that is verboten. Any kind of subculture at all is verboten, although (obviously) some are ignored. Notablely, however, Christian based homeschooling is not ignored; and a ban on home education of any kind remains in effect as the last edict started by Aldolf hitler still in effect. Put another way; while politics in Germany functionally ignores the dark side of Islam, but puts devout Christians who consider German state schools to be contrary to their faith in the same catagory as neo-nazi hate groups. One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate. I probably was too positive to the "German solution". I do not agree that any kind of subculture is verboten as such, in fact I saw much more subculture in Berlin than I have seen in any western European capital ever. Maybe I got lucky, but my impression was that it was less distance from the general populace than elsewhere - though other places in Germany are supposedly less subculture-friendly as far as I've heard. I highlighted the operative part of my prior post for you. Sorry, I was obviously not reading carefully enough - thank you for pointing that out. The question then becomes how many subcultures are ignored and how many are verboten? And how does this ratio compare to other countries? I admit I am not qualified to answer this as I do not have enough experience with German subculture. They are all verboten, and some are still ignored. just because they are ignored, does not mean thty are not verboten. Germany is, thankfully, unique among democracies in that the legal code assumes all things to be banned, until they are explicitly permitted, while just about everywhere else, all things are assumed to be acceptable until they are explicitly banned. The fact that actual Germans ignore the flailings of their own politicos is a sign of progress socially, but it also means that the generations of strong social cohesion among Germans is drawing to a close. The Japanese were once as socially cohesive as a nation as well, and look at what the influence of Western culture(s) has done to them. Unlike the Chinese, the Japanese mafia are a relatively recent phenomenon. Have you ever een heard of the "German mafia" or "Swiss mafia"? Of course not, because it's a clash of cultures that presents the opprotunities that give rise to organized crime. The original Italian mafia is so old because there has never been such as thing as a single Italian culture, only the dominate one. I have indeed heard of the "German mafia". They are a bunch of large companies with tentacles far into government and their control freak buddies in government that do their bidding. The difference you are talking about when it comes to cohesiveness is just that the crime is legalized and even more organized. At least the Italian Mafia is honest about that they are forcing you to pay them. But the German mafia are much better organized and hence a devil that is easier to deal with. Do you have any English-language sources of everything being de jure verboten in Germany until it is explicitly allowed? And are you actually saying that this applies de facto as well? Would I be arrested for picking my nose even though it is not expressly allowed? I don't believe it. At best it is a construct of no practical application. |
|
|
|
|
Zarathustra
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
|
December 23, 2013, 08:27:17 AM |
|
One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate.
Christianity or Islam is never 'non-state'. The complicity of militarism and 'patriarchal' religion constitutes the State (organized violence). |
|
|
|
|
mateo
Member
Offline
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
|
|
December 23, 2013, 11:18:05 AM |
|
The fact that governments could simply ban it, like China almost did. China officials even said that "legitimacy of our national currency can not be chalenged" or something along those lines, so there's one reason for governments to ban it. And governments banning Bitcoin would effectively push it back to underground where it's only used by hackers and drug dealers.
Also, the fact that there's no central authority regulating the price means that Bitcoin is not very suitable for exchange for goods and services, due to volatility. But that might? change when/if Bitcoin becomes bigger.
Half of China are watching porn behind VPNs anyway, what stops them from broadcasting transactions as well? Like i said, if it's banned, then it will only exist in the underground. |
BTC to the moon!
|
|
|
|
TheFootMan
|
|
December 23, 2013, 02:17:39 PM |
|
money is working well for average citizen and for the economy. only criminals NEED to use bitcoin. they earn a lot. the ebthusiasm of bitcoiners makes criminals rich. u want that to be tbe basis of a new financial order?
edit the idealism and the greed of innocent bitcoiners make criminals rich.
If you gathered all the criminals in the world, then collected their total assets, and then looked at how much of it is btc, how much btc would be in their possession? And would they by any chance be involved in fiat money?? |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
December 23, 2013, 03:17:18 PM |
|
One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate.
Christianity or Islam is never 'non-state'. The complicity of militarism and 'patriarchal' religion constitutes the State (organized violence). There are many historical examples of either being quite 'non-state', or at least anti-the-current-regime. |
"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'
|
|
|
Zarathustra
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
|
December 23, 2013, 05:05:59 PM |
|
One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate.
Christianity or Islam is never 'non-state'. The complicity of militarism and 'patriarchal' religion constitutes the State (organized violence). There are many historical examples of either being quite 'non-state', or at least anti-the-current-regime. Yes, many historical examples, but of course not christian examples, which is hypercollectivist terror against the human nature. Patriarchy is the opposite of anarchy. LAW AGAINST CHRISTIANITY
Given on the Day of Salvation, on the first day of the Year I
(— 30th of September 1888 according to the false calendar)
WAR TO DEATH AGAINST VICE: THE VICE IS CHRISTIANITY.
Article. I. — Vicious is every sort of anti-nature. The most vicious sort of human is the priest: he teaches anti-nature. Priests are not to be reasoned with, they are to be engaoled.
Article II. — Any participation in church services is an attack on public decency. One should be harsher with Protestants than with Catholics, harsher with liberal Protestants than with orthodox ones. The criminality of being Christian increases with your proximity to science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.
Article III. — The execrable location where Christianity brooded over its basilisk eggs should be razed to the ground and, being the depraved spot on earth, it should be the horror of all posterity. Poisonous snakes should be bred on top of it.
Article IV. — The preacher of chastity is a public incitement to anti-nature. Contempt for sexuality, making it soiled with the concept of ‘impurity’, these are the real sins against the holy spirit of life.
Article V. — Eating at the same table as a priest ostracizes: one is excommunicated from honest society by doing so. The priest is our Chandala, — he should be quarantined, starved, driven into every sort of desert.
Article VI. — The ‘holy’ History should be called by the name it deserves, the accursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘Savior’, ‘Redeemer’, ‘Saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to qualify criminals.
Article VII. — The rest follows from this. |
|
|
|
|
|
