Bitcoins Lost

[wb3]

Yea, I tried to keep it simple.

I get your point. I know the actual decimal won't move. My point is that the base the smallest amount of gold that you will shave off of the  bar is 0.00000001 BitCoin 

That represents the foundation of all larger BitCoin amounts. 

The 21 Quadrillion is the real amount of currency.  Just like that $1 just represents 100¢ or 0.01 BitCoin is 1 Million 0.00000001 BitCoin

If 0.00000001 achieves parity with the 1¢ then the practical thing to do is to move the decimal place to 0000000.01 BitCoin

The one problem I see with fractional currency is the same thing that happened on Wall Street. 6 5/12 for example. People just forgot or didn't care about the left over unused fractional amounts less than a penny.

On an individual basis it seemed worthless and not worth the hassle. But when the firms took all the left overs and summed them together for the day they made millions from other peoples money.

The Mining Groups are running into this problem already. If you leave the group and your balance is 10.01653401 you only get 10.01 Bitcoin, they keep the 0.00653401 BitCoin.  No big Deal unless that happened to 1 million people. Then it is 65,340.10 BitCoins for left for the operator.

I don't want people to forget the fractional's that is where the scams will hit hard. Stealing a dollar from a 100 people is safer than stealing a $100.00 from one. Especially if were talking fractionals.

[ryepdx]

FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.

I'd give him a little more credit than that.  If the answers to these questions were as obvious as many people seem to think, there would be a lot more unanimity on these issues.

True. However, regardless of how hard these questions are to answer, a person can still have trouble understanding another. To such a person, the one speaking would make little or no sense, regardless of whether they have a valid point or not.

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.

Categorical assertions like this seem pretty ridiculous given the extensive data available to us.  For example, in my comparatively wealthy country children are disproportionately poor compared to the general population, and minority children even more so.  If everyone "chose" to be poor such segments would be affected with equal probability, or possibly even less considering the fact that most societies invest heavily in their children.  Clearly other factors are at play.

Well yes. I didn't mean that people are necessarily poor because they choose to be. I meant that one can choose to be poor. It's an option.

[ryepdx]

The 21 Quadrillion is the real amount of currency.  Just like that $1 just represents 100¢ or 0.01 BitCoin is 1 Million 0.00000001 BitCoin

If 0.00000001 achieves parity with the 1¢ then the practical thing to do is to move the decimal place to 0000000.01 BitCoin

The one problem I see with fractional currency is the same thing that happened on Wall Street. 6 5/12 for example. People just forgot or didn't care about the left over unused fractional amounts less than a penny.

Actually, I think once the bitcoin gets that strong, we'll start seeing people listing prices in terms of micro-bitcoins or something to that effect.  When everything was super cheap (by face value, anyway) here in the States, back during the Great Depression, a lot of shops began listing prices in terms of cents if they were cheaper than a dollar.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Yea, I tried to keep it simple.

I get your point. I know the actual decimal won't move. My point is that the base the smallest amount of gold that you will shave off of the  bar is 0.00000001 BitCoin 

That represents the foundation of all larger BitCoin amounts. 

The 21 Quadrillion is the real amount of currency.  Just like that $1 just represents 100¢ or 0.01 BitCoin is 1 Million 0.00000001 BitCoin

If 0.00000001 achieves parity with the 1¢ then the practical thing to do is to move the decimal place to 0000000.01 BitCoin

The one problem I see with fractional currency is the same thing that happened on Wall Street. 6 5/12 for example. People just forgot or didn't care about the left over unused fractional amounts less than a penny.

On an individual basis it seemed worthless and not worth the hassle. But when the firms took all the left overs and summed them together for the day they made millions from other peoples money.

The Mining Groups are running into this problem already. If you leave the group and your balance is 10.01653401 you only get 10.01 Bitcoin, they keep the 0.00653401 BitCoin.  No big Deal unless that happened to 1 million people. Then it is 65,340.10 BitCoins for left for the operator.

I don't want people to forget the fractional's that is where the scams will hit hard. Stealing a dollar from a 100 people is safer than stealing a $100.00 from one. Especially if were talking fractionals.

If the smallest unit of bitcoin gets to be too expensive for standard transactions, I'd imagine the only people holding onto a wallet.dat would be using it as a long term wealth storage. Account hubs would be the main ways of transferring wealth in smaller amounts, and they'd just settle accounts with each other internally.

[myrkul]

Actually, I think once the bitcoin gets that strong, we'll start seeing people listing prices in terms of micro-bitcoins or something to that effect.  When everything was super cheap (by face value, anyway) here in the States, back during the Great Depression, a lot of shops began listing prices in terms of cents if they were cheaper than a dollar.

The term is Satoshi. .00000001 bitcoin is a Satoshi. Should that achieve Parity with the penny, I will be a very happy man, even with only 666000000 of them. (Yes, my bitcoin balance is 6.66. Anyone who is paranoid about that number is welcome to remedy that using the address below. )

[ryepdx]

Wait, so what about this?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units

According to that page, 0.00000001 bitcoin is a bitcoin-bong...

[myrkul]

Wait, so what about this?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units

According to that page, 0.00000001 bitcoin is a bitcoin-bong...

huh. Well, use whatever terminology you like. Personally, I think bitcoin-bong sounds like just another way of saying "water pipe priced at 1 bitcoin", but that's me. There is no "official" term for anything other than the base unit: the bitcoin.

[wb3]

deal, 1 water pipe for 1 bitcoin-bong

How do we make the trade? and is there residue? 

[ribuck]

Wait, so what about this?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units

According to that page, 0.00000001 bitcoin is a bitcoin-bong...

Don't worry about that. There is one user of Bitcoin who is pushing that system of measurements and nomenclature. No-one other than that user will ever use "BitCoin-bong" as a serious unit.

[FatherMcGruder]

There is at least one case when this argument is valid - when you're talking about state capitalism (rather than free market capitalism). In state capitalism, the capitalists pay the politicians for favors, which they redeem to tilt the labor market more in their favor. Minimum wage laws, licensing regulations, tax except employer health care... all of these things sound good, but put up barriers to entry to the market. This means that the "exploited" employee must remain exploited, because it costs too much to start a competing business.

Capitalists inevitably support the state because it helps to increase and secure their profits. Up and coming capitalists, who want to topple the state, just want to have an easier time competing with the legacy capitalists who currently enjoy state support. The up and coming capitalists will eventually create a state, in one way or another, as newer capitalists and the indignant masses come to threaten their profits.

State capitalism is actually communism, wherein the state controls the capital and acts as everyone’s employer.

No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses.

But if he doesn't want an actual house, if he only wants a month's stay, then what? You're going to end up having a landlord/renter situation no matter what, unless Bob gives away his basement. Whether he gives it away or not, it's Bob's choice and I cannot assign morality to his decision to rent unless I know more facts about the situation. Is Bob putting himself and his possessions in peril by housing Adam? Then I couldn't blame him for charging a fee. If he suffers damage and Adam flees without helping repair the damage, then at least Bob has his fee. But will Adam die for want of shelter, and has Adam come to a want of shelter through no fault of his own, and will housing Adam do no harm to Bob? Then I would say it would be right for Bob to offer his basement on more lenient terms, perhaps for free. It would be wrong of Bob to leave Adam to die.

But you argue that the landlord arrangement itself is exploitative. You argue about straw men and abstractions that have little to do with reality. In a certain situation, yes, Bob's charging of Adam would be exploitative. If he raised his rent simply because he knew Adam needed it badly, and especially if his hike in rent locks Adam into his impoverished state, then yes, that is certainly exploitative. It is wrong in the same way that stealing from a baby is wrong. It is the gratuitous taking of what I do not need from someone who cannot afford to lose what I am taking and who is powerless to stop me. That is exploitation.

If Adam, however, is simply a wanderer by choice and wishes to lodge in Bob's basement for a time, and if Bob chooses to charge him for that, and if Adam accepts, then I see no wrong. From a certain perspective this is akin to charging Adam for shelter without which he would die: in both cases I am putting a barrier in the way of what he wants. And I think this is what you mean by exploitation, Father McGruder: putting a barrier between a person and what they want. Perhaps you would add the qualifier "needless" to the word "barrier," but I would have to stop you there. Because who is to say that Bob's need to accumulate capital by renting out his basement is any lesser than Adam's need to accumulate experience and contacts by wandering from town to town?

Your arguments work in the clean-room of idealism, but they cannot stand when they meet reality. Yes, it would be nice if everyone worked according to their ability and received according to their need. Unfortunately we live in a world of scarcity. Once that scarcity is gone, or far enough removed so as to be unknown to anyone first-hand, then we may begin talking about the even distribution of wealth. Even now we might be at the cusp of being able to talk about the even distribution of life's necessities.

But really, I would rather human labor be removed from the equation before we start spreading the fruits of that labor. Once we automate farming and have food coming from fields where no human need ever have set foot, once by the simple motion of the sun and machinery we find food on our tables, then let the distribution be equal.

You confused Adam and Bob somewhere in there. It was Adam who had the house with a basement, and Bob who needed shelter, wasn’t it? Also, you quoted me a little bit out of context.

If Bob only need shelter for one month, then Adam can shelter Bob for one month, assuming that Adam has the ability and desire. The problem arises when Adam attempts to exploit Bob’s need for shelter by charging more than the costs associated with Bob’s stay. Adam has done no extra work to deserve the extra fee. For Adam to force anyone to overcompensate him is rotten. I understand the scarcity of housing. It rightfully enables a builder to sell a house for a given price, but to collect without transferring ownership is abuse. That’s the reality. Your landlord is screwing you. Your employer is screwing you. Your lender is screwing you.

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.

Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships.

No no, he said work or die, not be employed or die. Though I guess he did imply the latter, didn't he? But really, usually there's nothing to stop a person from becoming their own employer or from banding together with other workers to make a living. Sure, it'll take a lot of work, and sure, you might have to work at something you don't really care about, but at least nobody's employing you, right?

Yes, we must work for food, shelter, and fun, but why should my work provide those things to employers, lenders, and renters? Perhaps the exploitation we experience forces some of us to become exploiters, too, but we ought to band together and cease to tolerate it.

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.

Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.

And it's not the only one. We can always become our own employers. If you desire emancipation from a regular paycheck, then learn a skill people will pay you for directly, or make something you can sell.

With what means? Capitalism compels us to either appeal to a lender or exploit someone else.

Software is the best thing to sell, since you only have to make it once and can then sell it many times. (Bill Gates was smart about that one.)

Don’t get me started on intellectual property.

And hiring people? How's that exploitative?

Because you are living off their labor, instead of yours. Because despite the fact that they contribute most of the labor to the business, you retain all of the ownership.

If you pay fair wages, or if you give what you can give at the very least, then I can't find fault. The cooperation of a group to bring in greater wealth is still cooperation, even if the leader is somewhat autocratic.

The only fair “wage” is the ownership of that which you produce.

Anyway, sorry about the dissertation! I get carried away sometimes, once I start typing.

It’s cool.

At the end of the day, no outside force is going to make the "more equal" behave one way or another.  But if they want to face their own consciences there's really no avoiding that they have to be the ones working to keep exchanges mutually beneficial.

+1

Incidentally, if one wants to live without employing, lending, renting, or otherwise exploiting others, he will have to work.

[BitterTea]

McGruder, I think what you don't understand about the employer-employee relationship is that the employer bears the majority of the risk. The employer stands to lose his investment at any time, the employee merely loses his job. At any point the employee could take that risk upon himself and strike out on his own.

Now, I agree that in our current situation, this proposition is less desirable for most, but I contend that it is due to the state's interference in labor markets, not something inherent in a non-socialist society.

All that said, I don't call myself a capitalist, or an anarchist, but a voluntaryist. I found this to be a good read on the topic of the state's use of force distorting labor markets: http://c4ss.org/content/4043

My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

    Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
    Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
    Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

As the price of capital is diluted, the share of production that goes to the workers increases.  What we would eventually see is essentially, a permanent global labor shortage.  Companies would compete for workers, rather than the other way around.

There’s nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than they’d prefer.  Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than they’d prefer.

[kiba]

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.

Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.

Poverty and wealth are comparison concept. It does nothing to tell us if the poor is happy with their life or not. What is certain though that the average poor person in the US today is far richer than the kings of the past.

As for me, I do not associate rich, poor, or inequality with ethics. Hence, wage-slavery don't exists to me. There's nothing to fret over.

So this whole capitalist exploiting people are total blank to me. 

[barbarousrelic]

If Bob only need shelter for one month, then Adam can shelter Bob for one month, assuming that Adam has the ability and desire. The problem arises when Adam attempts to exploit Bob’s need for shelter by charging more than the costs associated with Bob’s stay. Adam has done no extra work to deserve the extra fee. For Adam to force anyone to overcompensate him is rotten. I understand the scarcity of housing. It rightfully enables a builder to sell a house for a given price, but to collect without transferring ownership is abuse. That’s the reality. Your landlord is screwing you. Your employer is screwing you. Your lender is screwing you.

Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent.

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.

Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.

Slaves fleeing plantations were subject to manhunts with dogs coming to forcibly return them, often accompanied by whippings and torture. A person in poverty is subject to no such manhunts.

I will qualify the previous poster's statement "poverty is a choice" - I believe it is a choice IF:

1) the person is in an area with adequate economic opportunity
2) the person is of sound mental health
3) the person is not phyiscally handicapped


Additionally, the person may not be able to get out of poverty due to previous bad choice they have made, but that's a distinction between 'a choice a person can make right now' and 'a choice a person has already made that they can't un-choose.'

[myrkul]

So, McGruder, What's your opinion on Hotels?

[FatherMcGruder]

McGruder, I think what you don't understand about the employer-employee relationship is that the employer bears the majority of the risk. The employer stands to lose his investment at any time, the employee merely loses his job. At any point the employee could take that risk upon himself and strike out on his own.

An employer only risks not making a profit. An employee always loses on his labor investment.  Furthermore, an employer can always pass the risk down to the employees in the form of higher expectations, furloughs, reduced pay, and layoffs.

Now, I agree that in our current situation, this proposition is less desirable for most, but I contend that it is due to the state's interference in labor markets, not something inherent in a non-socialist society.

I contend that capitalists naturally create states to reduce risks and secure profits. A little bit of welfare helps to pacify the working class.

All that said, I don't call myself a capitalist, or an anarchist, but a voluntaryist. I found this to be a good read on the topic of the state's use of force distorting labor markets: http://c4ss.org/content/4043

My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

    Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
    Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
    Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

As the price of capital is diluted, the share of production that goes to the workers increases.  What we would eventually see is essentially, a permanent global labor shortage.  Companies would compete for workers, rather than the other way around.

There’s nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than they’d prefer.  Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than they’d prefer.

That was a good read.

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.

Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.

Poverty and wealth are comparison concept. It does nothing to tell us if the poor is happy with their life or not. What is certain though that the average poor person in the US today is far richer than the kings of the past.

As for me, I do not associate rich, poor, or inequality with ethics. Hence, wage-slavery don't exists to me. There's nothing to fret over.

So this whole capitalist exploiting people are total blank to me. 

So what? One can still be happy while under someone's subjugation. That doesn't make subjugation a good thing.

Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent.

It's unfair that Bob should pay Adam for work that Adam isn't doing. Adam can enjoy the benefits of doing those things if and when he does them.

Slaves fleeing plantations were subject to manhunts with dogs coming to forcibly return them, often accompanied by whippings and torture. A person in poverty is subject to no such manhunts.

In our society, those who refuse exploiters are subject to poverty. The poverty one experiences may or may not include such treatment, but that's irrelevant. As Siddhartha demonstrated, poverty isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, it always is if someone forces it upon you.

I will qualify the previous poster's statement "poverty is a choice" - I believe it is a choice IF:

1) the person is in an area with adequate economic opportunity
2) the person is of sound mental health
3) the person is not phyiscally handicapped


Additionally, the person may not be able to get out of poverty due to previous bad choice they have made, but that's a distinction between 'a choice a person can make right now' and 'a choice a person has already made that they can't un-choose.'

4) Others do not extort a profit from you for the resources you need to live.

Without that fourth qualification, others can force you into poverty against your will.

So, McGruder, What's your opinion on Hotels?

Here's one acceptable model: The workers own the hotel. They accept guests and only charge for the cost of house keeping, supplies, any damage they might cause, and any other services they require. The workers share these earnings according to how much they contribute. They are free to spend these funds as they please, be it on the hotel or themselves. If they buy something for the hotel, any new income associated with that investment goes to pay back the workers who contribute toward it before getting shared as normal.

[kiba]

What is exploitation, again? 

[FatherMcGruder]

What is exploitation, again? 

When one party takes advantage of another party with no consideration except for the first party's own gain. A party will often employ trickery, deception, and coercion in exploiting another.

[BitterTea]

When one party takes advantage of another party with no consideration except for the first party's own gain. A party will often employ trickery, deception, and coercion in exploiting another.

So you're saying Bob is exploiting Adam by making use of his basement and offering little to nothing in return?

[FatherMcGruder]

So you're saying Bob is exploiting Adam by making use of his basement and offering little to nothing in return?

Adam inviting Bob to use his basement, at cost, is a completely fair exchange.

[kiba]

Adam inviting Bob to use his basement, at cost, is a completely fair exchange.

What if it is offered at a profit?