Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Wekkel]

this new Princeton education video is fantastic and just what we need to educate the masses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOMVZXLjKYo

56 mins too long, and blank pages with text only... This won't cut it for the masses.

[1714211705]

1714211705

[1714211705]

1714211705

[1714211705]

1714211705

[1714211705]

1714211705

[1714211705]

1714211705

[ErisDiscordia]

well, but there is a difference between losing money of government/bank-backed fiat kind and losing decentralised BTCs, right?
In the first case, there are certain guarantees to protect you from a loss, even if that means 'let's print some more money', in the latter case, once the money is gone it is gone for good. Unless the receiving party will send it back to you. I just can't find the reason for doing so.

In the former case the banks loss is covered by increasing everyones premiums and insurances or with a bail out by governments in the form of QE monetary dilution. In the latter the company that lost all the BTC either goes bankrupt or recompenses customers loss, plus all of their contemporaries are incentivised into making stronger storage systems.

When you come down to it, the primary complaint detractors have against bitcoin is they cannot socialize their own losses, that are a result of their own incompetence, on others . The prospect that they will directly bear the consequences of their own bad decisions, and not be able to force their loses on others, scares them to death.

Those of us who are sick and tired of have other people's losses forced on us (as uki promotes), look at bitcoin as a salvation.

Nailed it. Another thing is that abandoning personal responsibility for the supposed safety of the "experts" or authorities makes you incapable of critical thought and independence. You can see the same effect in pretty much every area where government is heavily involved. Nowadays people can't even educate their own children, care for their own health, plan their own retirement or handle their own money. A pretty sad state of affairs which can imo be only remedied by relocating responsibility where it belongs and where it is most effective: with the individual.

[lunarboy]

well, but there is a difference between losing money of government/bank-backed fiat kind and losing decentralised BTCs, right?
In the first case, there are certain guarantees to protect you from a loss, even if that means 'let's print some more money', in the latter case, once the money is gone it is gone for good. Unless the receiving party will send it back to you. I just can't find the reason for doing so.

In the former case the banks loss is covered by increasing everyones premiums and insurances or with a bail out by governments in the form of QE monetary dilution. In the latter the company that lost all the BTC either goes bankrupt or recompenses customers loss, plus all of their contemporaries are incentivised into making stronger storage systems.

When you come down to it, the primary complaint detractors have against bitcoin is they cannot socialize their own losses, that are a result of their own incompetence, on others . The prospect that they will directly bear the consequences of their own bad decisions, and not be able to force their loses on others, scares them to death.

Those of us who are sick and tired of have other people's losses forced on us (as uki promotes), look at bitcoin as a salvation.

Nailed it. Another thing is that abandoning personal responsibility for the supposed safety of the "experts" or authorities makes you incapable of critical thought and independence. You can see the same effect in pretty much every area where government is heavily involved. Nowadays people can't even educate their own children, care for their own health, plan their own retirement or handle their own money. A pretty sad state of affairs which can imo be only remedied by relocating responsibility where it belongs and where it is most effective: with the individual.

I'd suggest your taking it slightly too far here, a person can not be an expert in everything, there simply is not enough time in the day. TRUST being the key issue. I trust a teacher to provide a good education or a service to perform as they claim. Obviously due diligence is an important factor but an unwatched business will frequently cut corners/ take extra risk to make a profit. (hence the misconception regulation will improve the status quo). The point most detractors don't seem to realise is that theoretically at least, Bitcoin businesses have the potential to eliminate the need for trust entirely.  (just wish more of them would implement it already)

This is hugely valuable and seldomly mentioned in the mainstream media.

[lunarboy]

Back on topic

seems the Greeks are buying gold

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-16/greeks-are-running-towards-gold-retail-demand-increases-123

[tabnloz]

well, but there is a difference between losing money of government/bank-backed fiat kind and losing decentralised BTCs, right?
In the first case, there are certain guarantees to protect you from a loss, even if that means 'let's print some more money', in the latter case, once the money is gone it is gone for good. Unless the receiving party will send it back to you. I just can't find the reason for doing so.

In the former case the banks loss is covered by increasing everyones premiums and insurances or with a bail out by governments in the form of QE monetary dilution. In the latter the company that lost all the BTC either goes bankrupt or recompenses customers loss, plus all of their contemporaries are incentivised into making stronger storage systems.

When you come down to it, the primary complaint detractors have against bitcoin is they cannot socialize their own losses, that are a result of their own incompetence, on others . The prospect that they will directly bear the consequences of their own bad decisions, and not be able to force their loses on others, scares them to death.

Those of us who are sick and tired of have other people's losses forced on us (as uki promotes), look at bitcoin as a salvation.

Nailed it. Another thing is that abandoning personal responsibility for the supposed safety of the "experts" or authorities makes you incapable of critical thought and independence. You can see the same effect in pretty much every area where government is heavily involved. Nowadays people can't even educate their own children, care for their own health, plan their own retirement or handle their own money. A pretty sad state of affairs which can imo be only remedied by relocating responsibility where it belongs and where it is most effective: with the individual.

I'd suggest your taking it slightly too far here, a person can not be an expert in everything, there simply is not enough time in the day. TRUST being the key issue. I trust a teacher to provide a good education or a service to perform as they claim. Obviously due diligence is an important factor but an unwatched business will frequently cut corners/ take extra risk to make a profit. (hence the misconception regulation will improve the status quo). The point most detractors don't seem to realise is that theoretically at least, Bitcoin businesses have the potential to eliminate the need for trust entirely.  (just wish more of them would implement it already)

This is hugely valuable and seldomly mentioned in the mainstream media.

Agree. For businesses: almost instant payment, no chargeback, multisig (no siphoning off funds), smart contracts (no reneging on deals). Main thing to solve is to verify the delivery from Person A to Person B without using a third party.

[cypherdoc]

I line the way these guys talk;

The Winklevoss twins have been vocal in their belief that bitcoin can match up with, or beat, the market for gold. Tyler told VICE News that if the currency can become a "better gold" — a commodity with long-term, bankable value — it could have a market cap of more than $1 trillion.

https://news.vice.com/article/a-nasdaq-for-bitcoin-vice-news-interviews-the-winklevoss-twins-about-the-future-of-cryptocurrency

[cypherdoc]

so sad:

AT&T charges $29 more for gigabit fiber that doesn’t watch your Web browsing

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/att-charges-29-more-for-gigabit-fiber-that-doesnt-watch-your-web-browsing/

[cypherdoc]

Michael Casey, incredibly frank:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LWk_P3g2fc

[Arnab biswas]

seems that bitcoin is collapsing again

[justusranvier]

so sad:

AT&T charges $29 more for gigabit fiber that doesn’t watch your Web browsing

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/att-charges-29-more-for-gigabit-fiber-that-doesnt-watch-your-web-browsing/

A good VPN is about 5 euros/month.

Take the $29 discount, route 100% of your traffic through a VPN, and you still come out ahead.

[Hróðólfr]

so sad:

AT&T charges $29 more for gigabit fiber that doesn’t watch your Web browsing

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/att-charges-29-more-for-gigabit-fiber-that-doesnt-watch-your-web-browsing/

A good VPN is about 5 euros/month.

Take the $29 discount, route 100% of your traffic through a VPN, and you still come out ahead.

but how can you know that the VPN won't watch you?

[cbeast]

I line the way these guys talk;

The Winklevoss twins have been vocal in their belief that bitcoin can match up with, or beat, the market for gold. Tyler told VICE News that if the currency can become a "better gold" — a commodity with long-term, bankable value — it could have a market cap of more than $1 trillion.

https://news.vice.com/article/a-nasdaq-for-bitcoin-vice-news-interviews-the-winklevoss-twins-about-the-future-of-cryptocurrency

As much as I want to, I can't hate the Winklevoss twins. I feel the same way about Libertarians. Bitcoin brings everyone together in spite of their differences. I guess it takes all kinds of ingredients to make a great recipe.

[razorramon]

so sad:

AT&T charges $29 more for gigabit fiber that doesn’t watch your Web browsing

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/att-charges-29-more-for-gigabit-fiber-that-doesnt-watch-your-web-browsing/

wow...i hope they bankrupt

[lebing]

so sad:

AT&T charges $29 more for gigabit fiber that doesn’t watch your Web browsing

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/att-charges-29-more-for-gigabit-fiber-that-doesnt-watch-your-web-browsing/

A good VPN is about 5 euros/month.

Take the $29 discount, route 100% of your traffic through a VPN, and you still come out ahead.

but how can you know that the VPN won't watch you?

you pay with bitcoin and it doesnt matter if they watch you. they won't know who "you" are.

[sporket]

so sad:

AT&T charges $29 more for gigabit fiber that doesn’t watch your Web browsing

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/att-charges-29-more-for-gigabit-fiber-that-doesnt-watch-your-web-browsing/

A good VPN is about 5 euros/month.

Take the $29 discount, route 100% of your traffic through a VPN, and you still come out ahead.

but how can you know that the VPN won't watch you?

you pay with bitcoin and it doesnt matter if they watch you. they won't know who "you" are.

^Horrible advice.  The VPN sees your IP, which is exactly what you're trying to obfuscate by using a VPN.

[cypherdoc]

Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin bottoming.

[cypherdoc]

Silver getting bitch slapped

[cypherdoc]

oh Lordy.  not again!

Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP:

[cypherdoc]

traderCJ, DZZ up 18%:

[ErisDiscordia]

well, but there is a difference between losing money of government/bank-backed fiat kind and losing decentralised BTCs, right?
In the first case, there are certain guarantees to protect you from a loss, even if that means 'let's print some more money', in the latter case, once the money is gone it is gone for good. Unless the receiving party will send it back to you. I just can't find the reason for doing so.

In the former case the banks loss is covered by increasing everyones premiums and insurances or with a bail out by governments in the form of QE monetary dilution. In the latter the company that lost all the BTC either goes bankrupt or recompenses customers loss, plus all of their contemporaries are incentivised into making stronger storage systems.

When you come down to it, the primary complaint detractors have against bitcoin is they cannot socialize their own losses, that are a result of their own incompetence, on others . The prospect that they will directly bear the consequences of their own bad decisions, and not be able to force their loses on others, scares them to death.

Those of us who are sick and tired of have other people's losses forced on us (as uki promotes), look at bitcoin as a salvation.

Nailed it. Another thing is that abandoning personal responsibility for the supposed safety of the "experts" or authorities makes you incapable of critical thought and independence. You can see the same effect in pretty much every area where government is heavily involved. Nowadays people can't even educate their own children, care for their own health, plan their own retirement or handle their own money. A pretty sad state of affairs which can imo be only remedied by relocating responsibility where it belongs and where it is most effective: with the individual.

I'd suggest your taking it slightly too far here, a person can not be an expert in everything, there simply is not enough time in the day. TRUST being the key issue. I trust a teacher to provide a good education or a service to perform as they claim. Obviously due diligence is an important factor but an unwatched business will frequently cut corners/ take extra risk to make a profit. (hence the misconception regulation will improve the status quo). The point most detractors don't seem to realise is that theoretically at least, Bitcoin businesses have the potential to eliminate the need for trust entirely.  (just wish more of them would implement it already)

This is hugely valuable and seldomly mentioned in the mainstream media.

Point taken. I'm not suggesting that everyone try to become an expert on everything, division of labor obviously has its benefits. Your area of expertise should be in knowing which expert opinions to listen to - as opposed to blindly accepting whatever is handed to you as "education" or "health care". Then there is also the question of how frugally we consume resources where the cost of production has been socialized (hint: not very much). But in general the more responsibility you give away, the more complacent and less adaptable you become.