71–80 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you even Bitcoin? One of the main features of Bitcoin is that it can't be manipulated by a central authority like a bank or government (ie: they can't steal from the people by printing money).
That's also the biggest drawback since there wouldn't be anyone watching over speculations.
I keep wondering whether I should be buying bitcoins now, but I have mixed feelings about it. I'm pretty sure its value will continue going up for a while, but I guess I'm still skeptical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, as a matter of fact it simply never occurred to me that you might simply disagree thereby changing the underlying nature of reality in so doing. But I suppose I am not one for the acceptance that things are only what we label them with. If no differences can be iterated between one thing with a pretty label, say a democratic government for argument's sake, and another thing with an ugly label, say an organised cr…
Of course, because only your views represent the "underlying nature of reality", and anyone with a more positive view of collective government is necessarily blinded by labels. And it's so obvious that when it comes to human affairs, particularly those of a social/governmental nature, that there is one single empirical truth. Of course! How could I be so stupid? I don't think that most western nations do have a gover…
The labels you or I use to describe the institution in question are entirely irrelevant, it is the characteristics which those institutions have which dictate their actual material nature. Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so.
If you hope to convince me that the state is not an intrinsically violent and extortionate body you would do far better pointing to examples of how one might choose not to participate in the structure of the state without being subject to it's violent sanction. That you can't do this is precisely why the pretty labels you plaster it with are utterly unconvincing to anyone unswayed by simplistic feelgood propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, because only your views represent the "underlying nature of reality", and anyone with a more positive view of collective government is necessarily blinded by labels. And it's so obvious that when it comes to human affairs, particularly those of a social/governmental nature, that there is one single empirical truth. Of course! How could I be so stupid? I don't think that most western nations do have a gover…
You completely missed the point of what I said. The labels you or I use to describe the institution in question are entirely irrelevant, it is the characteristics which those institutions have which dictate their actual material nature. Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a mar…
No, because we can point at a marsupial and agree on the characteristics. You and I do not agree on the characteristics of government or currency. --edit-- In fact many of the 'characteristics' you list are emotional labels as far as I can see. Yet you continue to insist that they are part of an 'underlying reality'. I disagree.
"If you hope to convince me that the state is not an intrinsically violent and extortionate body"
I don't hope to convince you of that, it's clearly central to your outlook on life. I only hope to convince you that not everyone sees it that way, and that not everyone that doesn't see it that way thinks the way they do because of ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't the odds of making a single bitcoin as a lone miner, with an ordinary computer, over any sane period of time pretty microscopic at this point? To make any money that way, you'd need to join a mining pool, and at that point you're not really just dipping your toes in the water anymore.
First question, yes, I think you'd be talking about a timespan of months before seeing a reward as a lone miner. Joining a pool is pretty painless though. You just create an account, and probably give them an email address, and then start running GUIMiner or something. You also give them a Bitcoin address to send the rewards. That's it, no other personal information needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK this is called Chip and PIN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_and_PIN
Guess what? It's broken as hell ;) http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sjm217/papers/oakland10chipbroken.p...
The thrust of that paper is that using special equipment it's possible to use a genuine stolen card to do a non-PIN transaction, and that banks will often claim that PIN was used in a card-present transaction in order to avoid refunding money.
In the UK at least, and with a credit card, the bank is legally bound to return the money pending investigation, regardless of the circumstance.
(I agree this doesn't help with the BTC situation because chargeback is still a possibility)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You completely missed the point of what I said. The labels you or I use to describe the institution in question are entirely irrelevant, it is the characteristics which those institutions have which dictate their actual material nature. Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a mar…
"Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so." No, because we can point at a marsupial and agree on the characteristics. You and I do not agree on the characteristics of government or currency. --edit--…
Government is by definition;
Violent; the state claims a monopoly on violence and employs the use of violence when forcing compliance with its edicts.
Parasitic; the state functions by siphoning productivity from a captive populace and channelling it into the activities of the state such as bureaucracy, war and the continued maintenance and expansion of the state and its power. In the absence of a productive body there can be no state as there is nothing for the state to parasite from.
Extortionate; the state obtains money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.
Now you can deny these all you like, but the simple fact remains that all states share the above characteristics. It's not a matter of opinion or viewpoint, those are simple facts. Disagreeing with them does in fact make you ignorant to the reality of the situation as it stands regardless of how uncomfortable that might make you feel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so." No, because we can point at a marsupial and agree on the characteristics. You and I do not agree on the characteristics of government or currency. --edit--…
They are not emotional labels, they are simply facts. Government is by definition; Violent; the state claims a monopoly on violence and employs the use of violence when forcing compliance with its edicts. Parasitic; the state functions by siphoning productivity from a captive populace and channelling it into the activities of the state such as bureaucracy, war and the continued maintenance and expansion of the state…
We, the people, reserve the use of violence to those we collectively appoint to help run our society. This is necessary in order to protect the rights we grant ourselves. How would you propose to protect what you see as your property rights without violence? Oh that's right, it's only violence when other people do it, not when you do it.
We, the people, impose taxes (extortion! LOL) in order to provide collective services we all rely on.
And I disagree both that democratic government is parasitic or that expansion of the state and state power are necessarily the aims of all democratic governments.
So I absolutely can and do disagree that all states have those characteristics, that your ideal stateless existence is free of them or that all of these things are necessarily negative. Sorry. It really is a matter of opinion and viewpoint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not emotional labels, they are simply facts. Government is by definition; Violent; the state claims a monopoly on violence and employs the use of violence when forcing compliance with its edicts. Parasitic; the state functions by siphoning productivity from a captive populace and channelling it into the activities of the state such as bureaucracy, war and the continued maintenance and expansion of the state…
If you consider government to be formed of the people, rather than an external entity, then your view of these things changes. We, the people, reserve the use of violence to those we collectively appoint to help run our society. This is necessary in order to protect the rights we grant ourselves. How would you propose to protect what you see as your property rights without violence? Oh that's right, it's only violenc…
This is exactly why I look forward to the rise of cryptocurrencies; protection from people like you.