# "Maybe I can trade my fedora for a hot soup?"



## Gryphoneer (Feb 25, 2014)

"Mt. Gox", Intertubes ground zero of play money trading, has folded overnight. Once the site ran out of actual money to continue defrauding Lolbertarian rubes the scam imploded and its boss took to his heels with the rest of the remaining hard currency.

And here we come to the point why centralized regulation is not only important, but essential for money: they guy doesn't own shit to nobody as the whole Buttcoin bubble exists in an extralegal space. Japan's financial supervision made that clear even to really dense by going "Lol, nope, we're not responsible for Monopoly dollars".

Expect a mass migration of Lolbertarians back to their mom's basements, if they're not already situated there. Hope you didn't park your retirement fund there, Rassah.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 25, 2014)

Remember guys, bitcoin is the future of currency.


----------



## RedDagger (Feb 25, 2014)

Firstly, shouldn't this be in the tech section? There's already a bitcoin thread...

But secondly, I'd like to see how this affects it in the long run, since if I've learned anything from cryptocurrencies it's that trying to predict anything further than an hour into the future is pretty pointless. 
I wonder how this will affect Dogecoin's ascent to the moon.


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 25, 2014)

A number of things could've actually happened:

*A (well-known) significant bug in the bitcoin protocol could've destroyed MtGox and allowed a few users to steal everyone's money, leading to mtgox's insolvency.

*MtGox could've been insolvent the entire time, and they could've just used the bug as an excuse (in this case the owner would get to run off with 750,000 bitcoins)

OR

*The owner of mtgox could've just flat out run off with 750,000 bitcoins because honestly there was nothing to stop him from doing so 

Also note that there's a certain bitcoin address that recently processed 750,000 bitcoins.

So yeah.


----------



## Wax (Feb 25, 2014)

Can you feel the schadenfreude? :V

I kid of course. I just didn't think bitcoins were a wise idea from the get-go - this is just exhibit A.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Feb 25, 2014)

How are the other Bitcoin places going, btw?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 25, 2014)

I can't wait to hear the excuses about Bitcoin being so not about to collapse, or at least take a giant dip >.>


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 25, 2014)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> How are the other Bitcoin places going, btw?


$650 to $450 (crash), back up to $500 now.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 25, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> $650 to $450 (crash), back up to $500 now.



Tellin' you guys, Cryptoshekels are the way to go.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 25, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I can't wait to hear the excuses about Bitcoin being so not about to collapse, or at least take a giant dip >.>


Question: "It's totally not a bubble!" Where were these words heard most frequently?

1. Japan, 1991

2. Wall Street, 2007

3. Libertopian blogs, 2014

Answer: Yes.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 25, 2014)

Where's that guy who keeps trying to promote buttcoin, I think we should see if he's alright


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 25, 2014)

Gibby said:


> Where's that guy who keeps trying to promote buttcoin, I think we should see if he's alright



He's probably formulating a 20 paragraph essay about how this is nothing to worry about and how we're all uneducated plebs for not recognizing his vast superiority...or something.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 25, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> He's probably formulating a 20 paragraph essay about how this is nothing to worry about and how we're all uneducated plebs for not recognizing his vast superiority...or something.



Aw damn.

At least the cash I have in my hand will make me feel a little better.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 25, 2014)

What if he IS the boss o:


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 25, 2014)

Gibby said:


> Aw damn.
> 
> At least the cash I have in my hand will make me feel a little better.



Cash is for peasants, you're only allowed to speak if you own at least 3 companies.


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 25, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Cash is for peasants, you're only allowed to speak if you own at least 3 companies.


Let me check my portfolio.... oh shoot I only own two, I'll shut up!


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 25, 2014)

I actually do want to get Rassah's POV on this.


----------



## Aetius (Feb 25, 2014)

No wonder the buttcoin fanatics on my facebook have been silent all day.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 26, 2014)

So, it has turned. Nice to see. Now the speculators will be gotten rid of and they can go back to running the currency of the internet at reasonable exchange rates.


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 26, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> So, it has turned. Nice to see. Now the speculators will be gotten rid of and they can go back to running the currency of the internet at reasonable exchange rates.


It is very nice how people have lost the entirety of their savings in an unregulated, insolvent exchange, yes. 

That is a good thing.

~*bitcoin*~


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 26, 2014)

Dammit, now what am I going to do with my college savings that I recently converted into magical internet money?


----------



## Kosdu (Feb 26, 2014)

If I'm not mistaken, Rassah is not a libertarian. He actually cares about other people and is not insane.

I would say he promotes it because to him it is a safe currency, him knowing how to play the game.

You can go fuck yourself if you feel like calling him out. Or the mods can hammer up your ass.


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 26, 2014)

I just legitimately want to hear his opinion on this; not to call him out at all. Could make for some interesting discussion at the very least.


----------



## Sonlir (Feb 26, 2014)

I don't see a benefit to this currency unless you hope it skyrockets and quickly cash out, it's basically gambling.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Feb 26, 2014)

Apparently in the comments section someone said the are just temporarily closed for some reason or another.


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 26, 2014)

d.batty said:


> Apparently in the comments section someone said the are just temporarily closed for some reason or another.


"we definitely *did not* steal all your money and subsequently get subpoena'd by the US government, do not panic"


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

Hi. Sorry guys, I was away being busy with other stuff. The Bitcoin conference I'm going to in Texas in a week scheduled me to give a speech about something, and didn't bother to tell me, with me only finding out last night. It's been a scramble to figure that whole thing out.

Anyway, on to opinions and such.



Gryphoneer said:


> "Mt. Gox", Intertubes ground zero of play money trading, has folded overnight. Once the site ran out of actual money to continue defrauding Lolbertarian rubes the scam imploded and its boss took to his heels with the rest of the remaining hard currency.



Gox hasn't been ground zero for a while now. It's somewhere between #3 and #5. Or was. This is because, while you could deposit and withdraw bitcoins from it, you couldn't really do that with government currencies. Not since their US holdings were seized way back in May. So, really, its main purpose has been for people to deposit bitcoins, day trade for a bit, and then pull bitcoins back out. Its why MtGox price has been consistently off by $100+ compared to the rest of the exchanges.




Gryphoneer said:


> And here we come to the point why centralized regulation is not only important, but essential for money: they guy doesn't own shit to nobody as the whole Buttcoin bubble exists in an extralegal space. Japan's financial supervision made that clear even to really dense by going "Lol, nope, we're not responsible for Monopoly dollars".



Regulation would have done exactly zilch in this case. MtGox did not fail to follow financial procedures, they had a software bug and were robbed. It's the equivalent of a heavily regulated bank having a few loose bricks in the wall of their building that let robbers break in and take all the money. As for whether they owe anything to anyone, that's a more complex legal question. Something of value has been lost, and it doesn't matter whether it was money, virtual money, or rocks. On the other hand, their liability is due to negligence, not fraud or theft. And we don't even know if they have any money left. Actually, we don't even know if the alleged claim of having all their bitcoins stolen isntrue, either. MtGox is notorious for never saying anything 



Gryphoneer said:


> Expect a mass migration of Lolbertarians back to their mom's basements, if they're not already situated there. Hope you didn't park your retirement fund there, Rassah.



End result is a drop in price from $640 to $450, with a quick recovery to $570... Wait, $600 now. Maybe will still go up overnight. For something supposedly so devastating, the loss isn't much worse than a typical fluctuation on a particularly volatile day.

My opinion on this is that it is definitely a terrible situation. If the claims that MtGox had 770,000 or so bitcoins stolen is true, that's obviously very sad. Hopefully most people who lost it either lost the amounts they were day trading with, or lost small amounts they stored at Gox thinking it was a more secure wallet than they could make themselves. Personally I keep all my coins backed up on paper in secure locations. I believe the market has already assumed the worst possible scenario, that all the money is gone, and won't go down any further. The only two outcomes now are that all money is really gone, or that some money is still available; I.e. status quo, or better than we thought. Regardless, this will undoubtedly put a dark cloud over all things Bitcoin for a month or two, and will slow down growth and adoption, especially by new people who may be nervous about this recent news.

On the other hand, things move ridiculously fast in bitcoinworld. 6 month ago Silk Road was shut down, causing a small crash and a quick recovery. 5 month ago China took up adoption, making the price shoot up from $120 to $650. 4 month ago US had Senate hearings, with very positive results, making the price spike to $1,200. 3 month ago China banned banks from holding bitcoin, while explicitly stating that Bitcoin is still legal, putting a damp on the rise. 2 month ago Overstock added Bitcoin, becoming the first major retailer to do so. And almost a month ago the transaction malleability bug that took out Gox started being abused full force. Every month something major happens, and people forget about the last major thing rather quickly. So, maybe this will all blow over within a month or two! I don't know. What's said is that this MtGox news is happening at the same time that tons of really good news stories are appearing every day. Google is still on track to add it to their wallet app, PayPal is apparently working on adding cryptocurrencies to their service, Playboy just started accepting it for their online service, 100 Bitcoin ATMs are about to be deployed all over Spain, a Bitcoin bank just opened in Cyprus, and a huge Bitcoin exchange targeting high wealth investors is just opening in New York.

So, apologies for the "it's good news cliche," but while being a terrible event and a horrible loss for a lot of people, MtGox was an incompetent service that was responsible for the crash at $30, $266, and now, and it will be good to see it finally go.

By the way, Kosdu is correct, I'm not a libertarian. Though I support them, I think they are still misguided and not going far enough.

I *wasâ€‹â€‹â€‹ *a liberal socialist democrat and voted straight D in every election. Then I learned about how business and corporations work (became "socialy liberal, economically conservative"), then I learned about how money and banks work (specifically how they use the system to rob us blind, and became libertarian), and finally I learned about how government, regulations, and lobbyists work, mainly from my experiences on the inside (this took me over the edge into anarcho-capitalism, or AnCap). Basically, after looking at how all the incentives are stacked, I have no faith in the system. You vote for one president and two or three represntatives, who were likely already bought and funded by wealthy special interests, while all the laws and regulations are written by millions of unelected bureaucrats and corporate special interest. The idea that we can "change things" and improve our country just by electing someone better is basically a delusion. The idea that regulations, almost all of which are written by people who used to work in government, and were hired away by corporations, and are designed mainly to keep out competition, can keep corporate greed in check, or protect our environment, is also. And when a country goes to war despite massive protests against it, wastes trillions of tax dollars, and gives no-bid contracts to friends in the industrial war complex, that just makes me cry.

Add to this my philosophy that *no one* should have the right to initiate force (regardless of what costume you are wearing), and an extremely high sense of ethics, and the only tangible political stance available to me is "Get all these f*ckers out of power, and let people voluntarily decide what they want to do, whom they wish to interact and trade with, and what kind of responsibility and consequences they want to subject themselves to." But, obviously you can't get the power hungry unethical burglars out of office by force. They have bigger guns. So the only option is to take away the one thing they use to support that power: money. Starve them of tax revenue, set up business, finance, communications, and contract law in a decentralized encrypted manner that can't be monitored or controlled, and they won't have any money or power to wield. Hopefully this means no more super-rich banksters stealing billions and getting away with a slap on the wrist, no more wars of choice; or wars of any kind for any despot, since wars are extremely expensive and unprofitable; no more corporations polluting the environment, and then claiming what they did was legal because they were following regulations; and no more corporations screwing their employees and the local population, where now they can get a way with it because that population is itself paying for the cops that keep them from rioting. I believe the world will be a much better place when power is a very expensive thing to hold, instead of very profitable, and when people in power have to be afraid of those they force themselves on.

So, the reason I support things like Bitcoin, 3D printing, BitMessage, and digital contracts is because I support the environment, the poor, those unjustly jailed for offenses that had no victims, and those oppressed by totalitarian regimes.

/rant.


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> So, apologies for the "it's good news cliche," but while being a terrible event and a horrible loss for a lot of people, MtGox was an incompetent service that was responsible for the crash at $30, $266, and now, and it will be good to see it finally go.


"This is actually good news" is pretty much the trademark phrase of bitcoin at this point, yes.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Alright Rassah, with this whole situation showing that it's exceedingly easy for these businesses to more or less steal everyone's "money" with zero consequences since there's zero regulation, why in the holy mother of fuck would I ever invest my money into bitcoin?


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Alright Rassah, with this whole situation showing that it's exceedingly easy for these businesses to more or less steal everyone's "money" with zero consequences since there's zero regulation, why in the holy mother of fuck would I ever invest my money into bitcoin?


To be fair, there's a decent chance that the creator of MtG:OX was just utterly incompetent; he might not've managed to steal anything!

When he started up the website, he stored people's passwords in plaintext, for example!

(note that Magic The Gathering: Online Exchange was the most popular bitcoin market for a good period of the protocol's lifespan so far)


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> To be fair, there's a decent chance that the creator of MtG:OX was just utterly incompetent; he might not've managed to steal anything!



I don't know what's worse to be honest. On the one hand that dumb fucker didn't get anyone's money, on the other hand it just makes everything even more sad.


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I don't know what's worse to be honest. On the one hand that dumb fucker didn't get anyone's money, on the other hand it just makes everything even more sad.


Ideally he just has all the bitcoin stored on an unencrypted plaintext file, in which (a government body that relies on tax money) can retrieve them and hopefully return *some* of it to its owners.

Unideally large numbers of people took advantage of the doublespend vulnerability and the money (~375 million +/- 30%) is now, essentially, untraceable.

Or unideally he has the bitcoin stored on an encrypted usb key tossed into some hole, where water damage will erode the electronics and make everyone's money irretrievable.

(also note that the one of the *other* most popular exchanges, bitstamp, is also completely unregulated and free of oversight, but something like this _couldn't possibly happen again_)


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 26, 2014)

I honestly don't get why I should care about this. A bunch of guys trusted their magical internet monnies and they also trusted a wonky internet service to handle their internet monnies.
And now they are surprised that their money is gone? Are you kidding me? XD

This kind of online currency may be "the future". Who knows. But Bitcoin is definitely not the future.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 26, 2014)

"Hey, guys, lets rebel against the government by investing a big chunk of our money into unstable internet currency 'cause fuck the system!"


----------



## Kosdu (Feb 26, 2014)

@Rassah

So essentially you do care about people unlike most libertarians I've had the pleasure to talk to, but simply have become dissillusioned with the game in play.

I can kind of understand that, even if you and I differ in terms of economic views.


@Thread

Regardless of the currency, if you give your money to some drunk at a bar, you probably aren't going to see it again. Seems rather a better idea to invest your money with someone competent and/or honest.


----------



## RedDagger (Feb 26, 2014)

Holy cow, there are people who have lost thousands of bitcoins - which, if converted to USD would be worth millions...if. 

There was a silver lining thread saying that, technically, you can use the bitcoin lost to cover tax in perpetuity - but only at the price when bought. Also, you needed proof about buying and losing. Which you can't get from mt gox, apparently. There was a user saying that they already do this from losing stock in the tech bubble. Lesson learnt? 
Oh dear.


----------



## 1000bluntz (Feb 26, 2014)

There's really only one proper use for them anyway


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> "Hey, guys, lets rebel against the government by investing a big chunk of our money into unstable internet currency 'cause fuck the system!"



Ron Paul 2012.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 26, 2014)

Kosdu said:


> @Thread
> 
> Regardless of the currency, if you give your money to some drunk at a bar, you probably aren't going to see it again. Seems rather a better idea to invest your money with someone competent and/or honest.



Like real money and not fake money


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Alright Rassah, with this whole situation showing that it's exceedingly easy for these businesses to more or less steal everyone's "money" with zero consequences since there's zero regulation, why in the holy mother of fuck would I ever invest my money into bitcoin?



Not all businesses are as closed up about their internal workings as MtGox was. Thanks to bitcoin balances and transactions being completely public, some exchanges actually publish their addresses, and you can verify that they have the money themselves. Others are actually following established regulatory procedures voluntarily. Yet others are creating their own Best Practices procedures, requested by customers, and are thus self-regulating. You don't need government regulations to tell an exchange how to behave. In fact, it's best if customers tell exchanges how to behave, and check to make sure they are behaving correctly, instead of just relying on "experts" in government who couldn't even see the 2008 crash coming.
Besides, regulations wouldn't have helped. If you store gold bars in a bank vault, and the vault gets robbed, there aren't any regulations for it. Ditto for cash in a bank if you store more than you're insured for, and insurance is insurance, not regulation (there is at least one exchange that now insures your funds too).

That said, bitcoin itself was not affected, is still just as secure as it was before, and you don't need to invest your money in bitcoin.



Mr. Sparta said:


> "Hey, guys, lets rebel against the government by investing a big chunk of our money into unstable internet currency 'cause fuck the system!"



"Hey guys. Let's keep supporting corporations raping the workers and the environment, drones blowing up wedding parties, and power hungry assholes raping our savings, because 'fuck, we're all lubed up, and we don't care about anyone or anything."

It's ok. Most people are like that (just look at the voter turnout). It's the active minority that does give a crap who changes things.

Incidentally, no "we" are not rebelling against the government by "investing a big chunk of our money" into Bitcoin. Most of us barely have any money in Bitcoin. We are rebelling against the government by building a financial system that can not be sanctioned, sensored, controled, regulated, monitored, or seized. Bitcoin or not, that's the goal, with the idea that if governments lose power to simply take people's money by force for whatever pet projects greedy politicians want, governments will be forced to provide what the people actually want, since the only way to get tax revenue will be by having people voluntarily pay for things they approve of. Besides bitcoin, there are also parallel projects that will do the same to the legal system, contracts, communications, crowdfunding, and other things that are typically done by government. The idea is that if we replace government services (like issuing and managing money) with automated distributed services (like bitcoin), then much of government will simply be redundant and irrelevant. Revolution by simply withdrawing and refusing to participate instead of by force.



Kosdu said:


> @Rassah
> So essentially you do care about people unlike most libertarians I've had the pleasure to talk to, but simply have become dissillusioned with the game in play.



I haven't met any libertarians that don't care about people. They just believe that different things harm them in different ways.

For example, a democrat may propose raising the minimum wage, make firing people more difficult, and force people who want to start a new business to follow strict expensive regulations, such as filing registration forms, paying for licenses, and setting up expensive insurances (social security, workers comp, unemployment) for everyone they hire. From their point of view, this makes sure that people get paid enough, can hold on to the "dignity" of having a job, and are fully protected while they work.
A libertarian would object, pointing out that minimum wage doesn't make sense in a global economy where manufacturers are free to move factories to wherever the pay is lowest, restrictions on firings will ensure that businesses only hire people as a last resort (France's unemployment is largely due to this), and regulations, licenses, and costs to set up a new business leads to new businesses being set up as just self employment, where the business owner just does everything on their own, instead of hiring help, since even if you are going around painting people's fences, just to hire one more person to help you out is a collossal headache. In the end, libertarians would say that these things that are designed to help people are actually causing massive unemployment and are hurting people.

So, both care, but they have different view on how things work.



Aleu said:


> Like real money and not fake money



It still amazes, and somewhat amuses me that with a $10,000,000,0000 economy consiisting of tens of thousands of businesses, hundreds of thousands of dollars in daily commerce, and tens of millions of dollars in daily currency trades, some people still consider this "fake money" XD
(Yes, I guess that post you found so insultting was about you)



PastryOfApathy said:


> Ron Paul 2012.



Awww, you Americans are so self-centered, thinking everything is always about you. It would be almost endearing, if it wasn't made so disgusting by all the attrocities in the world you ignore because they don't affect you personally.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Not all businesses are as closed up about their internal workings as MtGox was. Thanks to bitcoin balances and transactions being completely public, some exchanges actually publish their addresses, and you can verify that they have the money themselves. Others are actually following established regulatory procedures voluntarily. Yet others are creating their own Best Practices procedures, requested by customers, and are thus self-regulating. You don't need government regulations to tell an exchange how to behave. In fact, it's best if customers tell exchanges how to behave, and check to make sure they are behaving correctly, instead of just relying on "experts" in government who couldn't even see the 2008 crash coming.
> Besides, regulations wouldn't have helped. If you store gold bars in a bank vault, and the vault gets robbed, there aren't any regulations for it. Ditto for cash in a bank if you store more than you're insured for, and insurance is insurance, not regulation (there is at least one exchange that now insures your funds too).
> 
> That said, bitcoin itself was not affected, is still just as secure as it was before, and you don't need to invest your money in bitcoin.




So what you're saying is that I should just trust everyone and hope they don't just take my money and run because there's nothing stopping them from doing it as many of these places are based in countries like Japan that give zero shits about bitcoin. Sounds like a plan.




Rassah said:


> Awww, you Americans are so self-centered, thinking everything is always about you. It would be almost endearing, if it wasn't made so disgusting by all the attrocities in the world you ignore because they don't affect you personally.



Aww I missed that trademark condescending attitude and complete inability to understand a joke. Good to see you back in the swing of things.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> It still amazes, and somewhat amuses me that with a $10,000,000,0000 economy consiisting of tens of thousands of businesses, hundreds of thousands of dollars in daily commerce, and tens of millions of dollars in daily currency trades, some people still consider this "fake money" XD
> (Yes, I guess that post you found so insultting was about you).



Uhm, actually I didn't find it insulting, just funny. Just like everyone investing in monopoly money and then them crying once it's all gone and there's no way to get it back


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> So what you're saying is that I should just trust everyone and hope they don't just take my money and run because there's nothing stopping them from doing it as many of these places are based in countries like Japan that give zero shits about bitcoin. Sounds like a plan.



So what you are saying is that when you use dollars, you trust everyone and hope they don't just take your money and run? Seriously? You do zero research on whom you give your money to?
No, that's not what I am saying. Bitcoin is based entirely on no need for trust. If you have to trust someone, then you are doing it wrong. Or the people who are working on making things trustless aren't done yet. The exchange my group is is building will (probably) use accounts that require two signature keys, one kept by the owner, the other by us. All trades and transactions will require both of us to sign off on the transaction. We can't run with the money, or steal it, without the user's say so, and if we are robbed, our keys are worthless without the user's  as well. The distributed exchanges that are still being developed take that one step further, where trade listings will be completely distributed, people will trade directly person to person, and all trades will be atomic, meaning either the money moves between traders in both directions at the same time, or the trade fails. It would be impossible for one person to send money and the other one to hold it back.




PastryOfApathy said:


> Aww I missed that trademark condescending attitude and complete inability to understand a joke. Good to see you back in the swing of things.



The attitude is all yours. By the way, you must be a conservative republican. They are terrible at making jokes, and always come out sounding a bit racist, prejudiced, or awkward, too.



Aleu said:


> Uhm, actually I didn't find it insulting, just funny. Just like everyone investing in monopoly money and then them crying once it's all gone and there's no way to get it back



I find your ignorance funny. Kinda like watching a creationist adamantly defend their view that dinosaurs and humans coexisted  (or I guess like watching people say the internet is useless, because it's just a text based chatroom for criminals and pornographers). Though it is kinda sad that you find the fact that people were robbed funny. Do you laugh at people who lose their savings after their bank gets robbed, and then claim that that's an example of dollars being worthless, too? Or are you still having trouble grasping the idea that a service/business being robbed, is not the same thing as a protocol/currency being broken?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> So what you are saying is that when you use dollars, you trust everyone and hope they don't just take your money and run? Seriously? You do zero research on whom you give your money to?



Actually yes. Because unless I'm stupid enough to invest in a ponzi scheme, if they actually do try and take my money and run there's things I can actually do to get my money back.




Rassah said:


> The attitude is all yours. By the way, you must be a conservative republican. They are terrible at making jokes, and always come out sounding a bit racist, prejudiced, or awkward, too.



"You're the only one insulting people, so now allow me to insult you and make baseless assumptions about your political beliefs." This is why we keep you around, you're pretty funny.


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 26, 2014)

Jeesh, this thread is gonna turn into a popcorn thread here in a few moments if this keeps up.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I find your ignorance funny. Kinda like watching a creationist adamantly defend their view that dinosaurs and humans coexisted  (or I guess like watching people say the internet is useless, because it's just a text based chatroom for criminals and pornographers). Though it is kinda sad that you find the fact that people were robbed funny. Do you laugh at people who lose their savings after their bank gets robbed, and then claim that that's an example of dollars being worthless, too? Or are you still having trouble grasping the idea that a service/business being robbed, is not the same thing as a protocol/currency being broken?



Oh you're totally right. So if a bank across the street gets robbed, then there goes all my money....oh except not because there's another bank of the same branch a few blocks away so I can still get my money!


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Actually yes. Because unless I'm stupid enough to invest in a ponzi scheme, if they actually do try and take my money and run there's things I can actually do to get my money back.



Are you actually claiming that if someone steals your bitcoins, the police, regulators, and authorities will ignore it because it's "virtual money?"



Aleu said:


> Oh you're totally right. So if a bank across the street gets robbed, then there goes all my money....oh except not because there's another bank of the same branch a few blocks away so I can still get my money!



You are oversimplifying, because you don't know how the details of that actually work. If the bank is not insured, you *don't* get your money from the same branch. That money other people's money. When this happens, the bank becomes insolvent, and either hides it and tries to pay for the loss from its own profits, or closes up and redistributed all their remaining holdings proportionately. So, if half of all their money is stolen, you get half of it back. Lucky for you, all banks in US are required to be insured, but that's not the case everywhere in the world. Also, insurance is not an inherent proterty if USD. Anything can be insured. Even bitcoin. As I mentioned, if people ask for it, someone will supply it, and one exchange already does.
If the bank is insured, but it's a single bank with no branches, even if it's insured, you will not get your money back for weeks. As was demonstrated by bank failures multiple times in 2008, FDIC is really frikin slow at paying out claims.
If you have more than $250,000 in your bank, and the bank gets robbed, insurance will only cover you for $250,000. In other parts of the world it's much less.
If the government decides that it spent too much money, and you have too much money, they will just rob you themselves, as happened in Cyprus, and is being hinted at as a possibility in other countries.

So, no. Despite you living in coddled ignorance, depending so heavily on your parenting government, things are not as simple as that.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Migoto Da said:


> Jeesh, this thread is gonna turn into a popcorn thread here in a few moments if this keeps up.



Oh it's a guarantee. If you saw the last Rassah bitcoin thread you would know how crazy this shit gets.



Rassah said:


> Are you actually claiming that if someone steals  your bitcoins, the police, regulators, and authorities will ignore it  because it's "virtual money?"



No, I'm claiming I won't get my money back.


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Oh it's a guarantee. If you saw the last Rassah bitcoin thread you would know how crazy this shit gets.


I prefer not to take sides. That tended to get me banned from a lot of forums.

I can understand where Rassah is coming from, however.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Oh it's a guarantee. If you saw the last Rassah bitcoin thread you would know how crazy this shit gets.


Sorry, I get a bit testy with wilfully ignorant ludites who insist on sticking to their misconceptions like jesus freaks stick to their religion. Especially when their level of discourse is entirely based on claims of "magic internet money" or "monopoly money." Reminds me of the Evolution V.S. Creationism thread, where someone was claiming that Evolution is based on crazy voodoo science, is just a "theory," and because it's so complicated and they can't understand it, it must be wrong. Some people you just can't get through no matter how many times you explain things to them.





PastryOfApathy said:


> No, I'm claiming I won't get my money back.


Read my reply to Aleu above. In short, there's no guarantee with government money either.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Sorry, I get a bit testy with wilfully ignorant ludites who insist on sticking to their misconceptions like jesus freaks stick to their religion. Especially when their level of discourse is entirely based on claims of "magic internet money." Reminds me of the Evolution V.S. Creationism thread. Some people you just can't get through no matter how many times you explain things to them.



So what you're saying is effectively "grr someone has a different opinion, he must be like one of dem dum religious peeples!!1 They just don't understand how smart I am!" I feel so convinced right now, thank you. 




Rassah said:


> Read my reply to Aleu above. In short, there's no guarantee with government money either.



I tried reading it but I kind of found it hard to slog through all the insults and patronizing. Sorry buddy.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 26, 2014)

Keep it clean folks, and try not to hit below the belt.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> So what you're saying is effectively "grr someone has a different opinion, he must be like one of dem dum religious peeples!!1 They just don't understand how smart I am!" I feel so convinced right now, thank you.



This is what I mean. You are saying "Evolution is YOUR opinion, and creationism is MY opinion. My opinion is just as valid, because evolution is just a theory and I heard so and so." No, doesn't work that way. There are concrete facts about bitcoin, about how it works, about what it's affected by, and about what things are problems with bitcoin itself, and what problems are with bitcoin's services (i.e. just because pets.com crashed in 2000 doesn't mean "Teh Internetz is Broken!!!111" And then there are opinions like it's just magic internet money, it's a ponzi, because I don't know what use I might have for it that means no one has use for it, it's only good for drugs and CP, or if you try to sell $1,000 of it you'll crash the market. Frankly, most of the commenters here don't even know enough about it to have an opinion, and just laugh at it. It's a little frustrating. Probably in much the same way as it was to people who were building planes, telephones, and many other great inventions of the last century.



PastryOfApathy said:


> I tried reading it but I kind of found it hard to slog through all the insults and patronizing. Sorry buddy.



F*ck all that complicated techno babble. I'd rather troll and laugh, right?

By the way, stepping back for a sec, what the heck are people here even complaining about? Specifically, what does a regulated service that was robbed due to a software design flaw have to do with bitcoin?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> This is what I mean. You are saying "Evolution is YOUR opinion, and creationism is MY opinion. My opinion is just as valid, because evolution is just a theory and I heard so and so." No, doesn't work that way. There are concrete facts about bitcoin, about how it works, about what it's affected by, and about what things are problems with bitcoin itself, and what problems are with bitcoin's services (i.e. just because pets.com crashed in 2000 doesn't mean "Teh Internetz is Broken!!!111" And then there are opinions like it's just magic internet money, it's a ponzi, because I don't know what use I might have for it that means no one has use for it, it's only good for drugs and CP, or if you try to sell $1,000 of it you'll crash the market. Frankly, most of the commenters here don't even know enough about it to have an opinion, and just laugh at it. It's a little frustrating. Probably in much the same way as it was to people who were building planes, telephones, and many other great inventions of the last century.



There's so much wrong with this that's actually numbing my brain trying to pick it apart. First of all stop it with the whole creationist shit. I know you're desperately trying paint me as some bible-thumping conservative type or something but I really don't care about your stupid r/atheism-esque circlejerk.

Secondly we went over this last thread, there really isn't any real practical use for bitcoin outside of short-term trading, and buying drugs. You couldn't list anything that I couldn't buy with actual money. 




Rassah said:


> F*ck all that complicated techno babble. I'd rather troll and laugh, right? By the way, stepping back for a sec, what the heck are people here even complaining about? Specifically, what does a regulated service that was robbed due to a software design flaw have to do with bitcoin?



No, I just don't really pay attention to people when they insist on being condescending and patronizing to everyone around them. Like I mean I wouldn't mind talking about this and actually addressing what you're saying but when the person you're talking to keeps lashing out everyone it's sort of hard. If that makes you "win" then go ahead and savor your win buddy, you earned it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Probably in much the same way as it was to people who were building planes, telephones, and many other great inventions of the last century.



Comparing Bitcoin (a digital currency, whereas physical currency has existed for centuries in a regulated format, and even longer in other ways) against planes, telephones, or anything else that didn't exist before the 1800/1900's is laughable at best dude. I don't care to try and take the steam out of your argument, because I have to assume you know more than I do about the whole thing, but really? _Really?_ Is Bitcoin going to literally re-invent the wheel next? Be the coolest thing since sliced bread? 

Or maybe just set its sights a _little_ lower, and try to establish itself as a legitimate e-currency that is widely accepted, and doesn't continually appear to be on the verge of becoming nearly (if not wholly) worthless - Even if it's not.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 26, 2014)

How many bitcoins does it take to crash the global economy?


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> what does a regulated service that was robbed due to a software design flaw have to do with bitcoin?


Well, I mean bitcoin, to me, has been defined by its plethora of scams and technological/economic incompetence. Magic the Gathering: Online eXchange *is* bitcoin; they are one and the same.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> There's so much wrong with this that's actually numbing my brain trying to pick it apart.



So you know how I feel about your inane comments about bitcoin >.<



PastryOfApathy said:


> First of all stop it with the whole creationist shit. I know you're desperately trying paint me as some bible-thumping conservative type or something but I really don't care about your stupid r/atheism-esque circlejerk.



No, I know you're a Massachusets Atheist Liberal. I'm just pointing out that your claims and misunderstanding about bitcoin is *as bad and misguided as* a creationist's claims about evolution. In hopes that it might maybe hit you hard enough to realize that you are doing something as bad and stupid as something else that you hate. Which you are btw.



PastryOfApathy said:


> Secondly we went over this last thread, there really isn't any real practical use for bitcoin outside of short-term trading, and buying drugs. You couldn't list anything that I couldn't buy with actual money.



I did mention it's not about what you can buy with it, it's about what you can *do* with it. I listed white a lot of things on that other thread that you could do with bitcoin that you couldn't with other money. I think I may even have posted this link http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=1786&piddl_msgid=1240030#msg_1240030
But you obviously didn't care.




PastryOfApathy said:


> No, I just don't really pay attention to people when they insist on being condescending and patronizing to everyone around them.



Sorry, no. You are the one who started being condescending to me, and never stopped, making sure to do it every time you address me, practically for any topic that I might post about. I am fairly convinced that you are a troll and a really nasty person iRL. So excuse me if I call BS on your "I wouldn't mind talking about this" ass kissing attempt.





Lastdirewolf said:


> Comparing Bitcoin (a digital currency, whereas physical currency has existed for centuries in a regulated format, and even longer in other ways) against planes, telephones, or anything else that didn't exist before the 1800/1900's is laughable at best dude.



Maybe I should have been comparing it to letters and e-mail, or physical newspapers you can hold and online news and blogs, both of which were laughed at when people suggested one will replace the other. But I just haven't seen quite as much misunderstanding, luditism, and derision as there is towards bitcoin, except in those older cases I mentioned.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Is Bitcoin going to literally re-invent the wheel next? Be the coolest thing since sliced bread?



No, just everything that has to do with finance, value transfer, and property ownership. And not Bitcoin but bitcoin's _blockchain_ invention.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Or maybe just set its sights a _little_ lower, and try to establish itself as a legitimate e-currency that is widely accepted, and doesn't continually appear to be on the verge of becoming nearly (if not wholly) worthless - Even if it's not.



E-currency is a minor app of the distributed blockchain technology. It's basically the e-mail of the internet. The internet is not all just e-mail. Besides currency, the bitcoin blockchain is being used for notary services, event tickets, property titles, trusts, stocks and bonds, crowd-funding, escrow, oracle services (contract automatically monitors something on the we, and automatically executes when something happens), and autonomous digital corporations (this one would take a few pages to explain).

*One of the major things that bitcoin finally provides a solution for, which was not realistically possible before, is Mesh Networking* (i.e. semi-free distributed global internet). Mesh software and hardware already exists, but the problem is, you and your neighbor both pay for internet, and there is no incentive to share. If you two somehow agree to share your internet connection, there is nothing to stop you or your neighbor from cutting off your own service and freeloading from the other person for a while. Basically, the incentive is to take as much from the other guy, while giving as little as possible yourself.

Bitcoin has a feature called Micro-Transaction Streaming. You connect to the entity (device) you are going to pay, create a time-locked transaction for a fraction of a penny, and give it to the entity. If no one does anything else after this, once the time lock expires (after an hour or two), the entity broadcasts your transaction and gets your money. Since it's time-locked, you can't spend that money yourself either. With a MT Stream, what you can do is, for example, pay $0.001 for one KB of data, then create a *second* transaction that invalidated the first for $0.002 for the second KB of data, then create a third transaction that invalidates the previous one for $0.003 for the third KB of data, and so on. Basically, as you keep using up more data (or buying more of some service), you keep replacing your old transactions with new ones for fractionally larger amounts, and you can do this as fast as 100 times a second. As long as you keep streaming these transactions to the entity, they can keep providing the service. Once you stop, they just broadcast the transaction, and as soon as the time lock expires, the transaction confirms and they get the money. Eve though the stream may have consisted of hundreds of thousands of tiny payments to get to the final amount, at the end only one transaction is needed.

The way this solves the Mesh Networking problem is that both you and your neighbor could be charging each other the same amount per KB, and continuously streaming transactions to each other. If you both play fair, then both of your payments cancel each other out, and neither of you gained or lost anything. If you cheat by cutting off your service for a while, you'll be charged extra for using your neighbor's service. On top of that, both you and your neighbor, and with a distributed mesh, everyone who participates, are incentivesed to provide the best possible service, since if you can provide more KB's to your neighbor than he can, he'll either have to pay you more for your faster web, or throttle down his own web. And all of this can be programmed and handled directly by your WiFi routers or mesh devices.



Kazooie said:


> Well, I mean bitcoin, to me, has been defined by its plethora of scams and technological/economic incompetence. Magic the Gathering: Online eXchange *is* bitcoin; they are one and the same.



Of course. It's the media's job to sell sensationalist stories. It's about as "the same" as HSBC and US dollars (HSBC laundered $10bil to Mexican drug cartels and middle astern terrorists). And it's technological incompetence because the entire economy is still basically in beta. Everyone is still figuring things out, as if this is Internet circa 1992. That's why you often hear "don't put in any more than you are willing to lose."


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> No, I'm just saying that your claims and misunderstanding about bitcoin is *as bad and misguided as* a creationist's claims about evolution.



The value, usefulness, and future of bitcoin is subjective. That alone makes it not even in the same playing field.




Rassah said:


> I did mention it's not about what you can buy with it, it's about what you can *do* with it. I listed white a lot of things on tat other thread that you could do with bitcoin that you couldn't with cash, but obviously you don't care. (if you do, read the Mesh Networking thing below)



IIRC you really didn't list anything that I couldn't buy with cash just as easily. Feel free to "correct" me though since I'm pretty sure the only things bitcoin can buy that cash can't is drugs and other similar things online.  




Rassah said:


> Sorry, no. You are the one who started being condescending to me, and never stopped, making sure to do it every time you address me, practically for any topic that I might post about. I am fairly convinced that you are a troll an a really nasty person iRL. So excuse me if I call BS on your "I wouldn't mind talking about this" ass kissing attempt.



Oh believe me you're the last person who I would ever want to brown nose. Glad to know you like me so much though, helps me realize that I'm doing something right.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> The value, usefulness, and future of bitcoin is subjective. That alone makes it not even in the same playing field.



The value, usefulness and future of evolution is likewise subjective. The features and tools that it provides are completely objective. And right now those features are better, more efficient, and more dependable than their banking counterparts. Sure, someone might value relying on having to trust someone else more than not needing such trust, but most people subjectively prefer to have a little reliance on trust as possible.




PastryOfApathy said:


> IIRC you really didn't list anything that I couldn't buy with cash just as easily. Feel free to "correct" me though since I'm pretty sure the only things bitcoin can buy that cash can't is drugs and other similar things online.



*facepalm* I'm having a "A scientific 'theory' is not the same as colloquial 'theory'!!!!!" moment here. Yes, anything you can buy with bitcoins you can buy with cash. But let me repeat what I said, in bold and all capitals. *IT IS NOT WHAT YOU CAN BUY WITH IT, IT IS WHAT YOU CAN ***DO*** WITH IT. *


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 26, 2014)

Isn't the whole point of money just buying stuff with it?

Your bridge is collapsing...


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> The value, usefulness and future of evolution is likewise subjective. The features and tools that it provides are completely objective. *And right now those features are better, more efficient, and more dependable than their banking counterparts.* Sure, someone might value relying on having to trust someone else more than not needing such trust, but most people subjectively prefer to have a little reliance on trust as possible.



That's the definition of subjectivity. Thank you for proving my point.




Rassah said:


> *facepalm* I'm having a "A scientific 'theory' is not the same as colloquial 'theory'!!!!!" moment here. Yes, anything you can buy with bitcoins you can buy with cash. but let me repeat what I said, in bold and all capitals. *IT IS NOT WHAT YOU CAN BUY WITH IT, IT IS WHAT YOU CAN ***DO*** WITH IT. *You can not DO many things with cash that you can easily do with bitcoin, and the things that you can do with cash, you can often do much more efficiently and securely with bitcoin. Like, for instance, buying things online with exactly 0 risk of identity theft.



What if I want to buy gas for my car? What if I want to go to my local supermarket to buy my groceries? What if I want to pay my heating bill? What if I want to do any of the thousands of things bitcoins can't do? It's not exactly super efficient to fiddle with a currency that only works in a limited amount of places as opposed to using the currency that pretty much everyone accepts.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm not even going to bother asking how things like efficiency and dependability, both statistically testable, are supposed to be subjective... -.-



PastryOfApathy said:


> What if I want to buy gas for my car? What if I want to go to my local supermarket to buy my groceries? What if I want to pay my heating bill? What if I want to do any of the thousands of things bitcoins can't do? It's not exactly super efficient to fiddle with a currency that only works in a limited amount of places as opposed to using the currency that pretty much everyone accepts.



What if it's 1900, I want to call my mom, but she does't have a phone, and only has a post box? What if it's 1993, I want to e-mail my fried but he does't have internet and only has a phone? Is lack of adoption shortly after something was invented proof that it's an inferior invention? Were you poopooing the internet just as hard back when some college kids had it and you didn't?
Did you even read the paragraph about Mesh Networking in this post?


The following is the most important distinction between what we have and bitcoin. If you can't grasp the implications, I can't help you:

Bitcoin is to cash, as Internet is to Bell Atlantic (or AT&T landline). The reason we had almost zero innovation in communication for almost a century, and then extremely rapid innovation with the invention of the internet (Skype, IM, chat, Google Voice, video calls, etc) is because Bell Atlantic is a closed proprietary platform owned by one monopoly, while the internet is a completely open and distributed system that anyone can build on top of. US dollars, and all the money transfer systems we have for it (VISA, PayPal, Western Union, etc) are all closed proprietary platforms owned by one monopoly, while Bitcoin is a completely open and distributed system that anyone can build on top of. Bitcoin is at it's heart a protocol that securely handles ownership in a completely distributed and trust-less manner (no need to trust anything or anyone else). If you can think of something that relies on proof of ownership, you can apply bitcoin to it.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> The following is the most important distinction between what we have and bitcoin. If you can't grasp the implications, I can't help you:
> 
> Bitcoin is to cash, as Internet is to Bell Atlantic (or AT&T landline). The reason we had almost zero innovation in communication for almost a century, and then extremely rapid innovation with the invention of the internet (Skype, IM, chat, Google Voice, video calls, etc) is because Bell Atlantic is a closed proprietary platform owned by one monopoly, while the internet is a completely open and distributed system that anyone can build on top of. US dollars, and all the money transfer systems we have for it (VISA, PayPal, Western Union, etc) are all closed proprietary platforms owned by one monopoly, while Bitcoin is a completely open and distributed system that anyone can build on top of. Bitcoin is at it's heart a protocol that securely handles ownership in a completely distributed and trust-less manner (no need to trust anything or anyone else). If you can think of something that relies on proof of ownership, you can apply bitcoin to it.



The difference is that the internet is actually a useful tool of communication where as bitcoin is just completely superfluous.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> The difference is that the internet is actually a useful tool of communication where as bitcoin is just completely superfluous.




The internet is completely superfluous. All you can do with it is use Lynx text-based browsers, play on MUCKs, and send e-mails to other college kids. You can't use it for business, it sucks for communications, and there's not even a way to search for anything on it other than crappy student university papers. It's just a toy for geeks and child porn peddlers - You 20 years ago

10 years from now you'll feel like an idiot. I guarantee it. I mean, seriously, how do you not see the parallels between this and very early stages of other technologies, like cars (slow, broke down, no gas anywhere), planes (sucked compared to dirigibles), computers (size of a house and useless for anyone but science researchers), and of course the internet (as in above paragraph)? "Oh my god! This brand new technology that was just invented, is still in it's infancy, and that people are still even trying to figure out what to do with, isn't able to do everything I need right the f'in way, and does't give me blowjobs! It'll suck for ever!" I'm sorry for being condescending, but... GAH!

I'm curious, do you have a similar opinion of 3D printers?


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 26, 2014)

I think, tl;dr of the whole argument is: Bitcoin is still young and it has not been implemented yet in a lot of places, but this doesn't mean it's useless, and saying that it is is pretty uninformed.

Bitcoin has potential, but nothing immediately achieves what it sets out to do in like 3 days. It's a long process; I find that bitcoins have found much more practical use over the past year or so, which means its uses can only really increase from here. I believe, at least, that is what Rassah is trying to say about this, and it makes sense.

I can also see how some would find bitcoins completely and arbitrarily useless, as uses for them are entirely limited at this point; just keep in mind that Bitcoin is still 'new' so to speak, and it takes time for stuff like this to be fully implemented into a lot of things. The internet took a long time to become mainstream, it's entirely possible that bitcoin could as well.

Give it a bit more time before making assumptions.

Both sides could do to be a little less hostile towards each other, but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

Just FYI, if I am overly defensive about this, it's because I understand exactly how this thing can improve the world and everyone's lives (even everyone on this thread who thinks it's useless), and believe in that so much that I have literally contributed thousands of work hours and tens of thousands of dollars of my own money (probably over $50k) to help develop it. Not money "invested in bitcoin" but "donated to" or "given away away" to bitcoin projects that I believe will make the world better. Meaning not that I am invested in bitcoin directly and will be rich if it succeeds, but that I gave out a ton of money and work because I believe we will all be richer if it succeeds. And that's not even counting the $50k+ that I gave out in donations to charities all around the world (including animal related charities) on behalf of the charity foundation in my sig that I work for, which was made entirely possible only thanks to bitcoin.

So, I sometimes feel like I'm seeing people in a deep ditch filled with shit, so I start buying up lumber and using my own labor to building a bridge or ladder to help get them out, and they just laugh at my bridge. If I am hostile, it's not so much because I think that those people are idiots, it's because I can see they are in a shit pit, and I am *trying to help them*, because I happen to care about everyone's welfare for whatever reason, but instead only get the frustration of them doing everything they can to break down my bridge, while I'm still building it, just so they can point and laugh at how flimsy and useless it is.
I mean, seriously, my initial intent for coming to this forum, however badly worded it was, was to propose setting up a system whereby artists can get compensated for their FA submissions through donations, regardless of where they live, or how little gets donated. This would be ridiculously easy to set up with Bitcoin (just copy/paste a BTC address into the description field), and nearly impossible with anything else (how else can someone in US tip $0.05 to an artist in Spain?). But that whole thread devolved into tons of misconceptions about bitcoin, accusations that I want artists to be underpaid (with donations?), and accusations that I'm trying to advertise something.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> The internet is completely superfluous. All you can do with it is use Lynx text-based browsers, play on MUCKs, and send e-mails to other college kids. You can't use it for business, it sucks for communications, and there's not even a way to search for anything on it other than crappy student university papers. It's just a toy for geeks and child porn peddlers - You 20 years ago



Oooo, you really got me bro. What a sick burn, surely have bested me in this game of wits.



Rassah said:


> 10 years from now you'll feel like an idiot. I guarantee it. I mean, seriously, how do you not see the parallels between this and very early stages of other technologies, like cars (slow, broke down, no gas anywhere), planes (sucked compared to dirigibles), computers (size of a house and useless for anyone but science researchers), and of course the internet (as in above paragraph)? "Oh my god! This brand new technology that was just invented, is still in it's infancy, and that people are still even trying to figure out what to do with, isn't able to do everything I need right the f'in way, and does't give me blowjobs! It'll suck for ever!" I'm sorry for being condescending, but... GAH!



If you were sorry you would stop doing it, but of course you keep at it.

 But I don't care about what buttcoin _could_ be as literally every new technology has the potential to be then next big thing. More often than not though it isn't and I have zero intention of becoming the guinea pig for something that might not even exist 10 years from now. I mean history is littered with technologies that were hyped up by people just like you that never went anywhere. Look at segways, look at laserdisc, buttcoin is no different until proven otherwise and these kinds of incidents don't inspire confidence.


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> But I don't care about what buttcoin _could_ be as literally every new technology has the potential to be then next big thing. More often than not though it isn't and I have zero intention of becoming the guinea pig for something that might not even exist 10 years from now. I mean history is littered with technologies that were hyped up by people just like you that never went anywhere. Look at segways, look at laserdisc, buttcoin is no different until proven otherwise and these kinds of incidents don't inspire confidence.


If it doesn't receive support, it's doomed to fail from the start. Rassah is supporting a cause he believes in. He wants bitcoin to succeed for the greater good, and it is for that reason that he has done so much to ensure its survival.

You can be indifferent towards it, you can hate it, but at the end of the day, you're contributing to its failure because you aren't willing to take small risks to help minimize the chance of failure. Now, is that really an issue? No. Someday, if bitcoin fails, something else will inevitably come up to try to pick up the pieces; you can ignore it or help it out, either way, whether it succeeds or fails is entirely dependent on how much support and awareness these things have. That's why people are vocal about it, because they want it to succeed more than anything.

The only reason planes are around is because planes were overhyped to the point of almost strenuous breakdown. 'A man flying? Impossible!' was what most people said, but regardless, people invested in it, paid attention to it, said 'You know, maybe this can work!' and what do we have now?

Commercial airplanes, military jets, aircraft carriers, crop dusters, you name it. Most of this stuff for the greater good. So what is so wrong about trying to promote or help a cause that could end up saving a life, or many lives?

While I understand that you're being the way you are because Rassah is being extremely defensive, it's still not a good reason to shit all over bitcoin just because 'It's not popular yet'.

Will it become popular? Who knows. The only way we will for sure is if we either wait, invest, or ignore. That's just about it.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> But I don't care about what buttcoin _could_ be as literally every new technology has the potential to be then next big thing.


 
Ooh, "buttcoin." I'm so sad now...



PastryOfApathy said:


> More often than not though it isn't and I have zero intention of becoming the guinea pig for something that might not even exist 10 years from now.



No one ever asked you to.



PastryOfApathy said:


> Look at segways...



proprietary product



PastryOfApathy said:


> look at laserdisc..



proprietary product



PastryOfApathy said:


> buttcoin is no different



except it's open, not proprietary, and it's a protocol, not a product (in case you don't know the difference, HTML/WWW is a protocol, FireFox is a product)



PastryOfApathy said:


> until proven otherwise and these kinds of incidents don't inspire confidence.



Why do you need proof? Rather, why is proving it to you necessary?



Migoto Da said:


> You can be indifferent towards it, you can hate it, but at the end of the day, you're contributing to its failure because you aren't willing to take small risks to help minimize the chance of failure.



Nah, hes only contributing to its failure, or rather delaying it's inevitable adoption and this fandom getting its benefits, by spreading FUD about it. He's not needed to take any size risks. All he needs to do is not lie about it, and stay out of the way.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Migoto Da said:


> If it doesn't receive support, it's doomed to fail from the start. Rassah is supporting a cause he believes in. He wants bitcoin to succeed for the greater good, and it is for that reason that he has done so much to ensure its survival.
> 
> You can be indifferent towards it, you can hate it, but at the end of the day, you're contributing to its failure because you aren't willing to take small risks to help minimize the chance of failure. Now, is that really an issue? No. Someday, if bitcoin fails, something else will inevitably come up to try to pick up the pieces; you can ignore it or help it out, either way, whether it succeeds or fails is entirely dependent on how much support and awareness these things have. That's why people are vocal about it, because they want it to succeed more than anything.
> 
> ...



So what am I obligated to support every new technology that may help people? Seriously? Don't pretend to know why I don't like things. I never liked bitcoin, like never. I don't care about it, I think it's pointless, that's it.


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> So what am I obligated to support every new technology that may help people? Seriously? Don't pretend to know why I don't like things. I never liked bitcoin, like never. I don't care about it, I think it's pointless, that's it.


Well if you think it's pointless, just say that you think it's pointless and move on. It's as simple as that.

I'm not pretending to know why you don't like things, I'm merely stating the fact that /other/ people think it isn't pointless, and it's not okay to shit on their opinion just because it differs from yours.

The same goes for the other side too. If they think it's pointless, big whoop. Just gives you reason to say 'I told you so' if it succeeds in the end.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Rassah said:


> No one ever asked you to.




Except for the part where you attempted to shove it down everyone's throat. 



Rassah said:


> proprietary product



So are a lot of technologies. Doesn't change anything.



Rassah said:


> except it's open, not proprietary, and it's a protocol, not a product (in case you don't know the difference, HTML/WWW is a protocol, FireFox is a product)



I know what it is. And it is more or less a product in a sense that's something you're buying into. The only difference that it's not physical. 





Rassah said:


> Why do you need proof? Rather, why is proving it to you necessary?



Maybe because I would like some proof before I randomly adopt some fancy new technology that's supposedly going to replace cash which has been around for 200+ years






Rassah said:


> Nah, hes only contributing to its failure, or rather delaying it's inevitable adoption and this fandom getting its benefits, by spreading FUD about it. He's not needed to take any size risks. All he needs to do is not lie about it, and stay out of the way.



Yeah I'm single-handedly delaying everyone suddenly switching over to bitcoins. But you know what, if thinking that helps you sleep at night then by all means keep at it buddy. I'm not going to deny you your happiness.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 26, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I don't care about it, I think it's pointless, that's it.



Pages and pages of text seem to suggest otherwise. Either you really hate it, or you really want to be convinced. Or you are just bored and/or hate me for whatever reason >.<



PastryOfApathy said:


> Except for the part where you attempted to shove it down everyone's throat.



Can you quote me an example of that please? 




PastryOfApathy said:


> _"__proprietary product"_
> So are a lot of technologies. Doesn't change anything.
> 
> _"__except it's open, not proprietary, and it's a protocol, not a product"_
> I know what it is. And it is more or less a product in a sense that's something you're buying into. The only difference that it's not physical.



So you still don't know the difference *sigh*




PastryOfApathy said:


> Maybe because I would like some proof before I randomly adopt some fancy new technology that's supposedly going to replace cash which has been around for 200+ years



No you don't. You are blatantly obviously a Laggard on this graph. You'll just get dragged into using it when you have no choice. Like old people and e-mail. 





PastryOfApathy said:


> Yeah I'm single-handedly delaying everyone suddenly switching over to bitcoins.



Not single handedly, but you're definitely having an effect. People prefer to hear "Tulips!" and walk away believing they understand, instead of hearing "This is the underlying technology, this is what it enables, blah blah blah, etc etc etc." There is a ton of historical precedent of people following some idiot proclaiming a simple derision against someone or something, instead of taking the time to listen to facts and reason (Witch! is a good example).


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 26, 2014)

_Ladies and gentleman take your seats buy some popcorn, we have quite a smackdown tonight!

 In this corner...
He's big
He's Grey
The Bitcoin Battalion, Rassah!

And in this corner...
A reigning champion of forum drama
The Pikachu Penetrator, Pastry!

LETS GET READY TO RUMBLLLLEEE!_

Pretty much.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 27, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> _Ladies and gentleman take your seats buy some popcorn, we have quite a smackdown tonight!
> 
> In this corner...
> He's big
> ...



Honestly I was about to go to bed, seeing as I'm too tired for this shit right now. I had fun though, good night everybody and Merry Christmas.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 27, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Honestly I was about to go to bed, seeing as I'm too tired for this shit right now. I had fun though, good night everybody and Merry Christmas.



In a way, thanks for his. When I tried to explain or rebut anything about Bitcoin on the other thread, I was constantly warned against advertising. Here I was able to post much more about it simply as a reply to your tons of questions and protestations.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> It's always fun to bully people and shit on other's achievements  (I mean, otherwise, no one would do it, right?)
> Sweet dreams.


What kind of achievements were these again? Or do you imply you fancy yourself as one of those can-do CEOs in the making they salivate about on TED Talks?

With that and the stuff about inveighing against socialism/Big Government, rejecting both sides of the US political spectrum to position yourself as centrist or even "outside the system" and _running a buttcoin charity_, are you sure you ain't libertarian?

It's standard procedure of them to make themselves more appealing to the general public by pretending to be the golden middle way of center politics or an alternative for those disenchanted with the current state of things. Not to forget it's a big, shared goal among their various sects to dismantle all welfare programs and allay the fears of critics by claiming private charity initiatives can bear the brunt.

Walks like a duck, swims like a duck...


----------



## Rassah (Feb 27, 2014)

Gryphoneer said:


> What kind of achievements were these again?



For bitcoin? Taking an obscure, extremely difficult to use technology that's not worth anything, and making it into a $10billion rival for other money transmitters, with money transfer methods that are easier, faster, and cheaper to use than almost any other method?



Gryphoneer said:


> With that and the stuff about inveighing against socialism/Big Government, rejecting both sides of the US political spectrum to position yourself as centrist or even "outside the system" and _running a buttcoin charity_, are you sure you ain't libertarian?
> 
> It's standard procedure of them to make themselves more appealing to the general public by pretending to be the golden middle way of center politics or an alternative for those disenchanted with the current state of things. Not to forget it's a big, shared goal among their various sects to dismantle all welfare programs and allay the fears of critics by claiming private charity initiatives can bear the brunt.



A Democrat is a Libertarian who doesn't understand business and economics. Libertarians are not centrists. A centrist is someone who can't decide between Democrats and Republicans, either because they don't understand enough about the differences, or don't care. Libertarians take best parts of both sides. They are socially democrats (pro-gay, pro-drugs, anti-war, anti-violence, usually pro-choice) and economically *somewhat*-republicans (pro-business, pro-market, pro-free trade, pro-globalization, but ANTI-corporatism, anti-lobbying, anti-military industreal complex). 
However, they are still pro-limited government. They believe that government should still exist to provide security (like police), law (courts), and military defense. Since I subscribe to the belief that no one should have a monopoly on force, and no one should have the right to initiate force (Non-Aggression Principle), I don't support things like police, government courts, or military, either. What differentiates me, Anarcho-Capitalist, from Libertarians is that I don't want any government. I would rather have a choice of private security instead of no choice of police, private courts and arbitration instead of slow bureaucratic government ones, and private defence instead of military. Military seems to mainly be useful to go attack other countries, but if almost everyone is armed, like in Austria, other countries don't really mess with you.

Regarding welfare, I assume you believe that humanity as a whole are a bunch of assholes who wouldn't spare a dime to same their mother, and thus you need an appointed group of other assholes to force them to be altruistic?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> It's always fun to bully people and shit on other's achievements :grin: (I mean, otherwise, no one would do it, right?)
> Sweet dreams.



Nah, I just do it because I don't really like you personally. Also watching you get mad and attempt to save face is pretty damn amusing. Also I did get some nice sleep thanks. 

Also you shouldn't edit things like 8 hours after the fact.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 27, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Also watching you get mad and attempt to save face is pretty damn amusing. Also I did get some nice sleep thanks.
> 
> Also you shouldn't edit things like 8 hours after the fact.



Sorry, was getting too upset and whiny. Kinda hurts when people attack and ridicule something I have poured a few years of my life into, made more frustrating when it's done by literal nobodies who themselves have never actually accomplished anything. I know, I really should learn to have a thicker skin if I plan to continue being a public figure.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Sorry, was getting too upset and whiny. Kinda hurts when people attack and ridicule something I have poured a few years of my life into, made more frustrating when it's done by literal nobodies who themselves have never actually accomplished anything. I know, I really should learn to have a thicker skin if I plan to continue being a public figure.



Okay buddy, whatever makes you feel better about yourself. I actually have things to do now so goodbye my old friend. May you continue convincing yourself you're superior to everyone around you.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Feb 27, 2014)

Fuck y'all Im a doctor. I sleep in a pile of 100s.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 27, 2014)

d.batty said:


> Fuck y'all Im a doctor. I sleep in a pile of 100s.



Well *you* are obviously different! Though I hear that malpractice and other insurances doctors have to have cost a crapton and really hurts income. Like, a doctor earning $140k a year may be paying almost $100k in insurance. Is that true?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Well *you* are obviously different! Though I suspect that you only get to borrow that pile for a short while, before having to send it off for malpractice and other insurances. I hear that costs a crapton and really hurts income. Like, a doctor earning $140k a year may be paying almost $100k in insurance. Is that true?



Will you ever stop waving your "look at me I'm richer than you peasants because buttcoin" dick around, like, ever?


----------



## Rassah (Feb 27, 2014)

Gibby said:


> Rassah said:
> 
> 
> > Well *you* are obviously different! Though I hear that malpractice and other insurances doctors have to have cost a crapton and really hurts income. Like, a doctor earning $140k a year may be paying almost $100k in insurance. Is that true?
> ...



I'm not saying I'm richer, it's a legitimate question. He's a doctor, I heard that doctors get raped by insurance, and I wanted to know if it's true. I'm not claiming "Oh, but you aren't actually making as much as I am!" because honestly I seriously doubt I make anywhere near as much as a doctor. I'm just wondering if the jealocy about doctors making six figures (because peasants are typically jealous of and hate those who make too much money) is misguided, since doctors may not get to keep most of what they make.

And I'm not richer because buttcoin, I'm richer because of studying hard in school, 2 years of college, 4 years of undergrad university, 3 years of Master's university, continuing to learn on my own since then, taking the time to learn about money and investments, being as frugal as I can (I don't even have game systems), and working my ass off 9am till midnight every day (and note, I'm happy to share my wealth, and freely share the knowledge I paid almost $100k to obtain). So, sorry if busting my ass for the last 15 years resulted in me having more money than those who didn't.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 27, 2014)

[Edited out after Rassah's response]

Congrats Rassah. You poured several years of life and people are harassing you about it. 
Perhaps now you have a taste of what someone like Perri goes through who's spent their _lives _on an idea or concept and have probably had to deal with people talking smack about it or their writing abilities. People will talk crap on things that you do. Deal with it. Not saying it's right, but it'll happen.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I'm not saying I'm richer, it's a legitimate question. He's a doctor, I heard that doctors get raped by insurance, and I wanted to know if it's true. I'm not claiming "Oh, but you aren't actually making as much as I am!" because honestly I seriously doubt I make anywhere near as much as a doctor. I'm just wondering if the jealocy about doctors making six figures (because peasants are typically jealous of and hate those who make too much money) is misguided, since doctors may not get to keep most of what they make.
> 
> And I'm not richer because buttcoin, I'm richer because of studying hard in school, 2 years of college, 4 years of undergrad university, 3 years of Master's university, continuing to learn on my own since then, taking the time to learn about money and investments, being as frugal as I can (I don't even have game systems), and working my ass off 9am till midnight every day (and note, I'm happy to share my wealth, and freely share the knowledge I paid almost $100k to obtain). So, sorry if busting my ass for the last 15 years resulted in me having more money than those who didn't.



1. I think d.batty was being sarcastic.

2. That's nice and all that you are well off, but not all of us who manage to get degrees aren't so lucky. We have to bust our balls just as hard, and sometimes harder. Even then, sometimes it doesn't show and you get bitter for all the work you put in. 

Before you go "Look at all mah monies", think of how tactless it sounds. I am not defending the people here because I find the mudslinging back and forth just as abhorrent, but it is not making you look good either. It's better to step back and get some control than flail around trying to poke someone with a verbal pike. You'll put your eye out.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm starting to think Rassah's actually getting paid for this... (the volunteer part is just a ruse)


----------



## Rassah (Feb 27, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> 1. I think d.batty was being sarcastic.



I have no way of telling, and I seem to remember someone on here mentioned they at least were working on being a doctor



Ozriel said:


> 2. That's nice and all that you are well off, but not all of us who manage to get degrees aren't so lucky. We have to bust our balls just as hard, and sometimes harder. Even then, sometimes it doesn't show and you get bitter for all the work you put in.
> 
> Before you go "Look at all mah monies", think of how tactless it sounds. I am not defending the people here because I find the mudslinging back and forth just as abhorrent, but it is not making you look good either. It's better to step back and get some control than flail around trying to poke someone with a verbal pike. You'll put your eye out.



Meh, you're right. It's just weird that when people go "Look at mah awesome art skills!" or "Look at mah awesome mechanic skills!" or really any "Look at mah awesome X skills!" people typically go "Woah! Teach me how to do that!", when when it's "Look at mah awesome money skills!" it's always "Thats nice, fuck off" or "So how are you going to try to scam me?", never "Woah, teach me to do it too!", and if you offer free knowledge, it's basically pearls to swine. The "money is the root of all evil" culture/view is so pervasive, despite so many people wishing for it on the "What do you wish for" thread, and so many people complaining about a lack of it elsewhere


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 27, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> I'm starting to think Rassah's actually getting paid for this... (the volunteer part is just a ruse)


Redditors "tip" other redditors bitcoin (...and dogecoin) if you do things they like (or manage to tug at the heartstrings the right way). It makes for some interesting dynamics.

It's also in a bitcoin owner's best interest to have others buy into bitcoin, as that raises the price of bitcoin, meaning that the early adopters can then cash out for more money.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I have no way of telling, and I seem to remember someone on here mentioned they at least were working on being a doctor
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, you're right. It's just weird that when people go "Look at mah awesome art skills!" or "Look at mah awesome mechanic skills!" or really any "Look at mah awesome X skills!" people typically go "Woah! Teach me how to do that!", when when it's "Look at mah awesome money skills!" it's always "Thats nice, fuck off" or "So how are you going to try to scam me?", never "Woah, teach me to do it too!", and if you offer free knowledge, it's basically pearls to swine. The "money is the root of all evil" culture/view is so pervasive, despite so many people wishing for it on the "What do you wish for" thread, and so many people complaining about a lack of it elsewhere



It's not so much the "Money is the devil", but more of rubbing salt in the wound. To others (like myself) who'd like to make six figs with what they do, or other means, it is natural to wish for something that you feel is unobtainable. People will attack you for it if they feel like you are showing off. 

For all the shit I deal with on a daily basis where I work, I wish I was making more than 50k a year, but you can't have it both ways. 
Also, please do not all her out like that.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 27, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> It's also in a bitcoin owner's best interest to have others buy into bitcoin, as that raises the price of bitcoin, meaning that the early adopters can then cash out for more money.



I think that's a great reason to stop this guy from promoting Bitcoin in every possible thread.

Advertising and solicitation is against the rules here.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Meh, you're right. It's just weird that when people go "Look at mah awesome art skills!" or "Look at mah awesome mechanic skills!" or really any "Look at mah awesome X skills!" people typically go "Woah! Teach me how to do that!", when when it's "Look at mah awesome money skills!" it's always "Thats nice, fuck off" or "So how are you going to try to scam me?", never "Woah, teach me to do it too!", and if you offer free knowledge, it's basically pearls to swine. The "money is the root of all evil" culture/view is so pervasive, despite so many people wishing for it on the "What do you wish for" thread, and so many people complaining about a lack of it elsewhere



I kind of like Ayn Rand's take on that: "They say money is the root of all evil. Have you asked what the root of all money is?"
Also even Jesus didn't say that (like some people try to mis-quote him as saying); he said the _love for _money is the root of all evil. 
And don't _even _make me quote Good Charlotte.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Meh, you're right. It's just weird that when people go "Look at mah awesome art skills!" or "Look at mah awesome mechanic skills!" or really any "Look at mah awesome X skills!" people typically go "Woah! Teach me how to do that!", when when it's "Look at mah awesome money skills!" it's always "Thats nice, fuck off" or "So how are you going to try to scam me?", never "Woah, teach me to do it too!", and if you offer free knowledge, it's basically pearls to swine. The "money is the root of all evil" culture/view is so pervasive, despite so many people wishing for it on the "What do you wish for" thread, and so many people complaining about a lack of it elsewhere


You know, I've never seen anyone go around go "LOL I'm SO AWESOME AT ART"

Even if they did, they'd still be regarded as a braggart and would rub people the wrong way. True there are some people that will suck their dick but it's usually because they want something out of them. Not to be taught but given free art.


----------



## RedDagger (Feb 27, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> Redditors "tip" other redditors bitcoin (...and dogecoin) if you do things they like (or manage to tug at the heartstrings the right way).



Or, in a few cases, tipping a fiftieth of a cent in dogecoin to users lamenting about their loss of hundreds/thousands of bitcoin...which, thinking about it, may count as something they like if they're into schadenfreude. This is one application of magic internet money that I like. 

It is pretty interesting how tipping has become a...phenomenon? Something like that - on reddit. Though some people think it's to do with getting more people into whatever cryptocurrency is tipped, to raise the price of it like you said.


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 27, 2014)

RedDagger said:


> It is pretty interesting how tipping has become a...phenomenon? Something like that - on reddit. Though some people think it's to do with getting more people into whatever cryptocurrency is tipped, to raise the price of it like you said.


It's sort of a mix of:
*Genuine, innocent generosity
*Pure greed
*Libertarian evangelicalism

Certainly, if someone is tipped $0.05 in crypto, and they say "what they heck do I do with this!", many users will enthusiastically explain the wonders of cyptocurrency and how to get started right away !!



Gibby said:


> I think that's a great reason to stop this guy from promoting Bitcoin in every possible thread.
> 
> Advertising and solicitation is against the rules here.


Well, I mean, bitcoin is an actual Thing to Discuss, regardless of pyramid-scheme like mechanics. That said, I do find it unsavoury if a person includes their wallet address in their opening post, as it basically just screams "I AM PROMOTING BITCOIN, TIP ME"


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 27, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I kind of like Ayn Rand's take on that: "They say money is the root of all evil. Have you asked what the root of all money is?"
> Also even Jesus didn't say that (like some people try to mis-quote him as saying); he said the _love for _money is the root of all evil.
> And don't _even _make me quote Good Charlotte.


  This thread is going to need a rhinoplasty 
Maybe you should quote Good Charlotte just to mix things up a little.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 27, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> Well, I mean, bitcoin is an actual Thing to Discuss, regardless of pyramid-scheme like mechanics. That said, I do find it unsavoury if a person includes their wallet address in their opening post, as it basically just screams "I AM PROMOTING BITCOIN, TIP ME"



I don't have anything against buttcoin being discussed like seriously, it's just when it's being brought up at a ridiculously frequent rate it's problematic.


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 27, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> This thread is going to need a rhinoplasty
> Maybe you should quote Good Charlotte just to mix things up a little.


â€œWhy did you do all this for me?' he asked. 'I don't deserve it. I've never done anything for you.' 

'You have been my friend,' replied Charlotte. 'That in itself is a tremendous thing.â€


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 27, 2014)

Gibby said:


> I don't have anything against buttcoin being discussed like seriously, it's just when it's being brought up at a ridiculously frequent rate it's problematic.



Pretty much. I mean as much as I don't like bitcoin (as I'm sure that's apparent by now) I honestly don't mind people talking about it. It's just when people start acting like cunts about it and start obviously schilling it everywhere 24/7. It's like those r/atheism circlejerks that happen on occasion, you can have 'em just don't drag it everywhere like a dog with shit on its ass.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 27, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> It's also in a bitcoin owner's best interest to have others buy into bitcoin, as that raises the price of bitcoin, meaning that the early adopters can then cash out for more money.



Give me an example of a new invention or technology where it is *notâ€‹â€‹ *in the best interest of the inventors or those developing it to have others adopt it? 



Gibby said:


> I think that's a great reason to stop this guy from promoting Bitcoin in every possible thread.
> 
> Advertising and solicitation is against the rules here.



On no! This guy might give us ideas that will make us a bit wealthier, or at least slightly improve our lives! Quick, everyone, let's punch ourselves in the face!

Also, I'm not selling Bitcoin, so no matter how often you say that, I'm still not breaking the rules.



Nikolinni said:


> I kind of like Ayn Rand's take on that...



Her quote that's popular in bitcoin circles now is "The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won."

As I mentioned, I have paid. A lot. And when the great things we imagine come, I won't even ask for thanks.



Aleu said:


> You know, I've never seen anyone go around go "LOL I'm SO AWESOME AT ART"
> 
> Even if they did, they'd still be regarded as a braggart and would rub people the wrong way. True there are some people that will suck their dick but it's usually because they want something out of them. Not to be taught but given free art.



In this culture, anything that is related to money is considered bragging, and brings out the worst in people.
When an artist says they can draw, you ask for proof, and they show you their drawings, this is ok, but when someone says they can finance and bitcoin, you ask them for proof, and they tell you the results of their skills, that's considered bragging. I got first place in a race! Congratulations! I managed to earn $50k in my job! Stop bragging. I bought a boat, but there was a storm, and it sank! Aww, I'm sorry to hear that. I invested $10k in the stock market, but the company failed and I lost it! Haha! That's what you get for being risky! I figured out this awesome method and saved a ton of time! Cool! Please share! I figured out how to invest and made a lot of money! Stop bragging. Frankly, this is why a lot of poor people stay poor (and why I was very poor for a very long time). They distrust money, think its out of their reach, believe it's the root of evil, and are skeptical of anyone who tries to help them, ESPECIALLY if they succeeded. Not an opinion on the people on this forum, but that's just the way it is in general out there.



Gibby said:


> I don't have anything against buttcoin being discussed like seriously, it's just when it's being brought up at a ridiculously frequent rate it's problematic.



Brought up... at a ridiculously frequent rate... on a thread specifically about bitcoin? Also, "it's useless" isn't really a discussion, and that's been the primary "discussion" from the opposing side. I'd love to seriously discuss it too, but practically everyone else is just dismissing it. Er.. Worse. If they were dismissing it, they would just skip this thread. All they do is reply "it's useless" every time. If you think it's useless, move on. If you think it's a problem, bring up your objection. Just be willing to discuss.

And PofA, there are THREE bitcoin threads here. It only seems everywhere cause you plastered yourself all over this thread.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 27, 2014)

Shit man you're like a masochist.


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 27, 2014)

I think he's just incredibly adamant about his position.

If you spent a very, very long amount of time and money on something that you legitimately believe is a good thing, and try to inform people of it, only to have people constantly shit on it whenever you tried to convince them it was a good idea or concept, wouldn't you be a bit frustrated at that fact?

Yes, he's being extremely defensive, but honestly, if you just heard him out instead of calling him and his ideas moronic or stupid, then gave a valid and mature reason why you think it isn't such a good idea (I.E. Not dunking on the idea because it's Rassah's viewpoint on it) maybe he'd return the favour.

Just a thought. And if he continues to do that, I think the mods have already warned to keep things above the belt, so it would just be a matter of time before somebody slips up.

We're supposed to be having a discussion here, and being immature on both sides won't help further anyone's arguments whatsoever.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 28, 2014)

How about something different and more interesting. Here's a "Bitcoin challenge" of sorts. I'll describe something that can be done with Bitcoin, and you, anyone, describe how you would implement it with _ActualMoneyâ€‹â€‹ 

_Autonomous Entities:
We know Google is developing self driving cars, which will probably be out on the market within 5 to 10 years.
There is a service called Uber, where you can request a "taxi" through an app on your phone, telling it where you are and where you wan to go, and an Uber employee, also using an app, gets notified if they are close enough to pick you up, where to pick you up, and how to get to where you are going.
Take a self driving car, add Uber service to it, so it's a self driving taxi, and let the car hold its own bitcoins. Now the car can come pick you up, drive you where you want to go, and receive your payment, all by itself. No third party involved. It can even use its earnings to pay for insurance, gas, repairs, and cleaning service. And if it earns enough money, it can "reproduce" by buying another car. The car essentially becomes its own so called Autonomous Entity, where it "lives", works, earns money, and develops all on its own, without any people involved, or owning any part of it. It could even ask for feedback, and use it to pick out better routes, purchase better in car features, and if multiple such cars are out on the road, compete against other cars on price and service, just as if it was a real person.
(BTW, this Autonomous Agents idea can be applied to other more interesting applications, such as digital life on the internet, but this is the easiest to use example)

Anyone wish to speculate on how something like this can be done without Bitcoin?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 28, 2014)

Rassah said:


> In this culture, anything that is related to money is considered bragging, and brings out the worst in people.
> When an artist says they can draw, you ask for proof, and they show you their drawings, this is ok, but when someone says they can finance and bitcoin, you ask them for proof, and they tell you the results of their skills, that's considered bragging. I got first place in a race! Congratulations! I managed to earn $50k in my job! Stop bragging. I bought a boat, but there was a storm, and it sank! Aww, I'm sorry to hear that. I invested $10k in the stock market, but the company failed and I lost it! Haha! That's what you get for being risky! I figured out this awesome method and saved a ton of time! Cool! Please share! I figured out how to invest and made a lot of money! Stop bragging. Frankly, this is why a lot of poor people stay poor (and why I was very poor for a very long time). They distrust money, think its out of their reach, believe it's the root of evil, and are skeptical of anyone who tries to help them, ESPECIALLY if they succeeded. Not an opinion on the people on this forum, but that's just the way it is in general out there.



Uhh....I don't know where you've been but the only time that people have been annoyed by money or art is if the person was literally shoving it down someone's throat or bragging or something along the lines of "Here's a thing I drew now tell me it's awesome!" which any sort of asspatting gets on people's nerves (especially if the art is not deserving of any attention).

The opinion I've ever seen was "MUAHAHA LOOK AT ALL THIS MONEY I HAVE! You don't have money? Pft, you must not work hard enough!" or "you must be spending it on everything!"

People don't distrust money. I have no idea where you're getting that. If people distrusted money, there wouldn't be demands of raising the minimum wage.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 28, 2014)

_And Aleu goes in for the piledriver!

The Bitcoin Battalion is pinned down!


_I'm enjoying this...


----------



## Migoto Da (Feb 28, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> _And Aleu goes in for the piledriver!
> 
> The Bitcoin Battalion is pinned down!
> 
> ...


Where's the solid left hook? This isn't what I paid for!


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 28, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Give me an example of a new invention or technology where it is *notâ€‹â€‹ *in the best interest of the inventors or those developing it to have others adopt it?


R-right.

An investor or inventor trying to have others adpot a product, that's called advertising.

I mean, I was just going for more of a "conflict of interest" angle, a concept which *wouldn't* necessarily be against forum rules.

e: mtgox update! Turns out they lost 850k bitcoins, not 750k! FUN FACT: with 5000k bitcoins in circulation, that means a whopping 17% of *all  *active bitcoins were lost in one fell swoop!


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Feb 28, 2014)

Rassah said:


> How about something different and more interesting. Here's a "Bitcoin challenge" of sorts. I'll describe something that can be done with Bitcoin, and you, anyone, describe how you would implement it with _ActualMoneyâ€‹â€‹
> 
> _Autonomous Entities:
> We know Google is developing self driving cars, which will probably be out on the market within 5 to 10 years.
> ...


Debitcard?


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 28, 2014)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> Debitcard?


Or credit, in which case you could just insert the credit card upon entering, drive to location, sign/pin, remove.

Oddly enough, due to bitcoin's 10-20 minute confirmation time, it probably wouldn't be the ideal solution for something like a taxi service.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 28, 2014)

Aleu said:


> People don't distrust money. I have no idea where you're getting that.



Not money itself, but anyone dealing with it. I get it from a couple of years experience as a personal financial analyst, where people would even say no to me after I look at their finances, find how to save them $200 a month, and charge no fee to get it set up (I'd get paid on commission). That, and the general vibe I get, especially from furries, and it especially becomes blatantly obvious when bitcoin comes up.
By the way, I never mentioned how much I make, or what my net worth is. Just that I have a lot of experience and education in the stuff. Sure, I admit I made money on investments, financial tricks, tax tricks, and bitcoin, but I don't think I ever said I was wealthy ? I just pointed out that if someone uses their wealth as an example of them knowing that they are doing that's typically viewed negatively, like bragging, as opposed to someone showing anything else off.



Kazooie said:


> An investor or inventor trying to have others adpot a product, that's called advertising.



Sorry, you're right. This situation is actually made more complex by the fact that there is actual money involved in the system. If you never heard of Facebook, I joined it and thought it was really cool and useful, and then asked you to join too, which you make you a bit better off than you were before (assuming you have a good opinion of Facebook), then both of us have "invested" ourselves into a product, and through network effects made ourselves and the Facebook network better off. Though that wouldn't be advertising, it'll be "Hey, I found this awesome thing. I'm sure you'll find it useful too." If you join and start using the tools offered by bitcoin, there is actual money involved, and despite both Facebook and Bitcoin being a form of investment with a return, the later is more... I guess obvious?

I mean, I was just going for more of a "conflict of interest" angle, a concept which *wouldn't* necessarily be against forum rules.



Kazooie said:


> e: mtgox update! Turns out they lost 850k bitcoins, not 750k! FUN FACT: with 5000k bitcoins in circulation, that means a whopping 17% of *all *active bitcoins were lost in one fell swoop!



Interestingly enough, despite that, the price of bitcoin is still more than 5 times the amount it was when I first asked about it here just 6 or 7 months ago.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 28, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Not money itself, but anyone dealing with it. I get it from a couple of years experience as a personal financial analyst, where people would even say no to me after I look at their finances, find how to save them $200 a month, and charge no fee to get it set up (I'd get paid on commission). That, and the general vibe I get, especially from furries, and it especially becomes blatantly obvious when bitcoin comes up.
> By the way, I never mentioned how much I make, or what my net worth is. Just that I have a lot of experience and education in the stuff. Sure, I admit I made money on investments, financial tricks, tax tricks, and bitcoin, but I don't think I ever said I was wealthy ? I just pointed out that if someone uses their wealth as an example of them knowing that they are doing that's typically viewed negatively, like bragging, as opposed to someone showing anything else off.


Because usually when someone says "oh i'll save you x a month" it's a scam or something possibly illegal.

Also I never said that you mentioned how much you make. :I I was just going off of your example


----------



## Rassah (Feb 28, 2014)

Back to Autonomous Agents topic:



Toboe Moonclaw said:


> Debitcard?





Kazooie said:


> Or credit, in which case you could just insert the credit card upon entering, drive to location, sign/pin, remove.



Where will the money that you are sending wit your card go to? The card can't drive to a bank and open an account. All credit card and banking currently has to be tied to some person with a government ID, so an autonomous digital entity can't own its own wealth with the current system. Bitcoin provdes the solution of allowing software to have full ownership of its own money and spend it as it wants without any human input or help, so AI can actually live, earn, and spend all on its own.

What is you drive to your destination, pull out the card, and don't pay? (I don't know how PIN security works exactly, since we don't have it in US). What if you get to your destination, and don't have enough on your card? What if you just declare your card stolen every time, and charge back the transaction? The car won't be able to go to court to dispute it. Using a MicroTransaction Stream that I described above, you can "hook up" your bitcoin wallet to the car's, and continuously stream a payment for every meter driven, directly into the car's personally owned wallet, without a way of stealing the money back. And if you run our of money, as soon as that happens, the car can pull off to the side and let you out.





Kazooie said:


> Oddly enough, due to bitcoin's 10-20 minute confirmation time, it probably wouldn't be the ideal solution for something like a taxi service.



That's a misconception. Transactions show up within a second or two (with the new Bitcoin version you will actually give the transaction directly to the merchant), and the 10 minute confirmation is just a more secure guarantee of you getting it. It's the same as when you get paid with a credit card, where you get the transaction right away, but can't use the money or are guaranteed to have it for a few days. Doing a double-spend, which is where you send two transactions, one to the merchant and one to yourself, in the hopes that the one to yourself is the one that confirms, letting you buy something and take your money back, is actually very difficult to do, since as soon as the network hears about the transaction to the merchant, it will ignore any new transactions, including one to yourself. Once the new version lets you send the transaction to the merchant directly, I, as a merchant, will be able to hold it for a few seconds while listening to the network for double-spends, then if I don't hear any, send it directly to mining pools and the rest of the network. So the whole waiting for 10 minutes thing will be almost completely unnecessary for everyday purchases (still necessary if you want to sell stuff for thousands of dollars)


----------



## Rassah (Mar 1, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Because usually when someone says "oh i'll save you x a month" it's a scam or something possibly illegal.



Yes, that "usually it's..." belief is sorta what I mean. People distrust anyone with money, or anyone with suggestions about money. Like, if I told you that if you add this thing to your car, and it will make it ride smoother, you'll probably at least look into it and try it out. Money? "it's usually a scam."

FYI, as an example, what I would do (or "we" as I had a team of analysts behind me) is collect information about a family's income, mortgage payments, life insurance, debts, and investments. Then, a very typical "we'll save you hundreds of dollars without charging you anything" scenario would consist of:
1) Most life insurance that is sold out there is a scam (Whole Life, Universal, etc. If you ever get life insurance, never get anything other than Term). The way the scam one works is that it has an insurance part, and a "cash value" part. The "cash value" is you basically paying a lot more extra, and that extra goes into a savings account just for you, invested at some low rate. If you "cash out" your insurance, or reach an old age, you lose your insurance coverage, but get your money back (which was actually invested at a high rate, but you were given the low remaining part of it). If you die, you get the insurance but they keep your savings. Most of the time you die and they keep your savings. So, we taught people to just get insurance only (term insurance) and put the extra into their own savings. That way they keep both, and get a better rate. This typically saved about $50 a month.
2) Most mortgages were older, at higher interest rates (around 5% instead of %3 to %4 we have now), and they had something called Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI). PMI is insurance that *you* pay to the mortgage bank in case you default on your payments, in which case *they* get to take your house, *and* the insurance pays *them* for the entire amount of your loan. Basically you pay to protect them, and if you fail, they double their money (insurance payout, plus sell your house to someone else). Not only does this add another $20 to monthly expenses, it gives them incentive to see you fail. We pushed people to refinance for lower interest loans, with mortgages that didn't have PMI. That typically saved $20 for the PMI, plus another $100 on interest.
3) Most people have car loans, and large credit card debt from cards they ran up but no longer use, and are just paying off. Most of them also have equity in their home, meaning they owe less on their mortgage than their house was worth (so, your mortgage debt could be $80k, but your house is worth $100k, so your home equity would be $20k). So what we would do is, when they refinance their house, we would give them a mortgage for more than what they owed previously, and have them use the extra cash to pay off those other debts, and "roll" them into the house. So, for example, someone would have an $80k mortgage and $20k in equity, and would owe $12k on their car and $6k on their credit cards. Instead of refinancing their mortgage for the same $80k, we would refinance it for $98k, and have them use the extra cash to pay off their car and credit card. The benefit is twofold. First, their 5 year car payment and 10 year (or whatever) credit card payment now gets stretched out to the full 30 years of the mortgage. This would reduce that portion of the payments, and free up another $100 to $200 a month easily. The second benefit is that all that interest they were paying on the car and credit cards was not tax deductible, but now that it is part of a mortgage, it is tax deductible. This would be another maybe $20 a month in tax savings.
4) Finally, we would check their investments and make sure they are investing right. A lot of people were in money markets, making 2% a year, or CDs and bonds, making 4% to 6% a year at most. None of these investments are tax deductible, either. So we would teach them how to open up an IRA, which is tax deductible, and invest in total market mutual funds, which have a long-term average return of 12%. We would also suggest that they take all (or at least most of) the money we saved them in steps 1 through 3, and put that into the IRA, increasing their tax deduction eve further. As a very rough estimate, whatever you put into your IRA results in 1/4th of it coming back as a tax deduction.

So, in the end, they would save $50 + $20 + $100 + $100 + $20 = $290 a month, which they would put into a IRA, which would give them another $60 in tax deduction a month, which we would recommend putting into the IRA as well. But, assuming they didn't, and only put that $290 in there, after 30 years, when their mortgage is fully paid off, that IRA, growing at 12% a year, would be worth $$1,013,540 (with the extra $60 it'd be $1.22 million). So, in the end, they don't spend a dime of extra money, and don't even pay us anything (we get commission from the bank on the mortgage and insurance policy), but end up going from $0 to about a million, simply by restructuring their finances and paying for the right things. And despite me coming back to them with this detailed plan proposal, I still had about half say "no thanks."


----------



## Aleu (Mar 1, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Yes, that "usually it's..." belief is sorta what I mean. People distrust anyone with money, or anyone with suggestions about money. Like, if I told you that if you add this thing to your car, and it will make it ride smoother, *you'll probably at least look into it and try it out*. Money? "it's usually a scam."


Uh, no actually, I won't.

And I'd really appreciate it if you stop assuming I'd do things.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 1, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Uh, no actually, I won't.
> 
> And I'd really appreciate it if you stop assuming I'd do things.



Pretend I used the general "I" and "you." Obviously you don't know if I know enough about cars to trust my judgement. But it's also completely obvious that, like many other people, you are quite a bit more distrusting of things related to money than of anything else.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 1, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Pretend I used the general "I" and "you." Obviously you don't know if I know enough about cars to trust my judgement. But it's also completely obvious that, like many other people, you are quite a bit more distrusting of things related to money than of anything else.



It's best to use third person in these kinds of writings.

For instance:
_"When you rape someone, you feel really good afterwards"
_
It makes readers feel uncomfortable, don't use you.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 1, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Interestingly enough, despite that, the price of bitcoin is still more than 5 times the amount it was when I first asked about it here just 6 or 7 months ago.


And it rapidly halved in value soon after the "I believe the furry community should adopt bicoin" thread!



> What is you drive to your destination, pull out the card, and don't pay?  (I don't know how PIN security works exactly, since we don't have it in  US). What if you get to your destination, and don't have enough on your  card?


Initial prepayment after destination request, or, in the case of inserting the credit card, they'd have all the info on the credit card anyway, so either that person's gonna get found, or that credit card cancelled and the taxi service reimbursed. I mean, there's nothing technically stopping a person from jumping out of a regular taxi without paying.



> That's a misconception.


Its more a matter of "its unlikely for someone to manipulate an unconfirmed small transaction". 
http://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time

Considering the inherent bugs in the protocol discovered so far (hi mtgox), I wouldn't be surprised if one is better off waiting the 10, though.


*EDIT: /!\ BREAKING NEWS /!\*
-----Butterfly labs, company which theoretically produces bitcoin mining hardware (they generally just take people's money and then never ship anything ever), disappears off face of internet-----
Did the company forget to pay their server bill, or have they run off with everyone's money for real now? The world waits with baited breath


----------



## Rassah (Mar 1, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> Initial prepayment after destination request, or, in the case of inserting the credit card, they'd have all the info on the credit card anyway, so either that person's gonna get found, or that credit card cancelled and the taxi service reimbursed. I mean, there's nothing technically stopping a person from jumping out of a regular taxi without paying.



If a credit card gets declared stolen, most of the time the company doesn't get reimbursed. They get their money taken away, and are forced to pay for the loss out of pocket. But I digress...

You are missing the point. There is no "taxi service" to get ripped off, who can then go find you. It's just a car, and "Autonomous Agent," that owns itself, earns money by itself, and manages itself, using AI algorithms, which it itself can also hire others to improve. There are no people involved in this service at all, meaning the car can't open a bank account either. Bitcoin would let the car own its own money, get paid without a posibility of fraud or theft, and would let such autonomous agents roam free, competing against each other to service us, without any human involvement. Chances are, the first such agents will be a sort of computer viruses that, instead of breaking into computers to survive, will carry their own money in their own code, and spread by buying server storage space using money they earn by providing some sort of service.
That's the other thing Bitcoin provides that nothing else does: until now, AI evolution and development could only focus on subjectively preprogrammed ideas of what is desirable. I.e. a programmer tells the AI that doing a task is what the AI wants, and all the AI could do is learn how to do that task. Bitcoin is an objective desirable thing for the AI, and is literally something the AI would want to own to survive (since it can use it to pay for storage, processing power, and its own code improvements). So instead of someone subjectively telling the AI what it wants, you could objectively show it what it needs, and have it go and try to figure out how to earn it. Example could be to provide file storage services similar to DropBox, or maybe even combine Emily Howell, Miku Hatsune, and AI that writes poetry or lyrics, and have an artificial being that writes and performs songs, and learns how to get better by trying to earn more money and donations from fans. *Thisâ€‹ *kind of high-level innovation is why I'm so excited about cryptocurrencies.



Kazooie said:


> Its more a matter of "its unlikely for someone to manipulate an unconfirmed small transaction".
> http://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time
> Considering the inherent bugs in the protocol discovered so far (hi mtgox), I wouldn't be surprised if one is better off waiting the 10, though.



What happened with MtGox wasn't a bug in the protocol. That transaction malleability is a feature needed to enable some of the more advanced transaction types, such as built-in crowdfunding, and that MicroTransaction Stream I mentioned. This "bug"'is the equivalent of changing the check number on a check before depositing it. The source and destination are still the same, and are impossible to change. The reason Gox got screwed is that when a thief claimed they never got their "check," Gox did the equivalent of downloading the bank statement and looking if the check number they wrote cleared. Since the number was changed before it was deposited, they wouldn't find it, and issue another check. What they should have done, and what everyone else does, is check to see if a transaction went from their address to the recipient's address, regardless of the check #. In any case, Bitcoin worked just fine, and continues to work just fine.



Kazooie said:


> *EDIT: /!\ BREAKING NEWS /!\*
> -----Butterfly labs, company which theoretically produces bitcoin mining hardware (they generally just take people's money and then never ship anything ever), disappears off face of internet-----



Hmm, still there? BFL has shipped over 50,000 units, the vast majority of mining hardware on the Bitcoin network are BFL units, they have millions of dollars in their accounts (turns out their profit margins were 200% to 300%), they have extremely valuable manufacturing contacts and global supply chain system, they are still tons of hardware and ship within days, and they have enormous amount of capital in R&D for new mining hardware and Bitcoin devices, like a hardware Bitcoin wallet. They are not going anywhere.

BTW, just remembered, XXX nanometer CPU technology was planned to have been deployed almost a year from now, for things like Intel and AMD CPUs. It's an enormous capital investment to set up factories to produce that, and was slowly progressing for a while already. But Bitcoin miner manufacturer companies, wanting to compete, have dumped hundreds of millions into that tech, and sped it up enormously, to the point where it will be ready some time this spring, and the first processors will be used in mining, not CPUs. So, the Bitcoin arms race will apparently be bringing us faster and faster computers much sooner as well!


----------



## dialup (Mar 1, 2014)

I've tried reading everything I could about Bitcoin on here and other places and this picture is still the only thing I'm getting from it.

http://i.imgur.com/kuj9sPP.gif


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 1, 2014)

dialup said:


> I've tried reading everything I could about Bitcoin on here and other places and this picture is still the only thing I'm getting from it.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/kuj9sPP.gif


 About right yeah.

Except those pimping the bitcoin aren't that majestic.


----------



## RedDagger (Mar 1, 2014)

dialup said:


> I've tried reading everything I could about Bitcoin on here and other places and this picture is still the only thing I'm getting from it.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/kuj9sPP.gif



Damn, that ad was animated? I should pay more attention to these things...

Anyhoo, one of the main concerns I'd have with using Bitcoin as a currency is...well, related to this:

"Interestingly enough, despite that, the price of bitcoin is still more than 5 times the amount it was when I first asked about it here just 6 or 7 months ago."

Now, in terms of someone having Bitcoin goes this is a good thing, as overall you seemingly gain money. But this seems more like stocks or holding on to something like gold - sure, you _can_ use it to trade for stuff, but the price fluctuates more widely than something like the pound, with ~30% inflation over the past ten years, and only changing by a few pence compared to other currencies. So if I want to buy something, I know what the tenner in my pocket is worth, and I know for certain that if I wait a week, month or year that there'd have to be a grain catastrophe to make the amount of bread I can buy noticeably different - unrelated to the currency. But bitcoin, although it's been rising, can have events like what the Chinese did or, indeed, mt gox, changing it - which if I was a 'trader' I might not worry about since I'd just hold on to it then sell when it's risen again in a month's time, but if I just want to buy stuff then I don't really have the certainty that I can buy the weekly shop with the same amount of bitcoin. 

Basically, where's the incentive to use it as a day-to-day currency concerning price fluctuation over regarding it as an asset (if that's the right word)?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 1, 2014)

Mokushi said:


> About right yeah.
> 
> Except those pimping the bitcoin aren't that majestic.



Hey, fedora's and trenchcoats are classy okay? You just don't understand because you're just some plebian.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 1, 2014)

Since Rassah isn't touching on this, and it's kinda relevant since he's going on about Bitcoin and how it'll make people wealthy: Trying to actually sell a Bitcoin in a legal, trustworthy is like trying to pull teeth from Kujo with your bare hands.   

Oh sure, you can sell it easily... provided what you're buying is illegal substances or material like blow and child pornography. You can also find people who're willing to buy them off you fairly easily... if you don't mind scumming sites that are only marginally more trustworthy than Exiled Nigerian Royalty.  I talk with people who have exploited the Bitcoin Market. They've gone in on the cheap, waited, then sold 'em after the price rose. They've made money off it (one bought a new PC!). And they uniformly described the situation as "frustrating" because the few places that will buy Bitcoins, are at least semi-legitimate, and won't charge most of your earnings as a fee (See: charge only lots of your earnings as a fee instead) do things like "Limit of $1000 in transactions every month" and generally inconvenience you every step of the way for attempting to cash out.  

You can make money off Bitcoins, yes. The general summary of how it's been done, from people I know who tried it? "Scam the hell out of Bitcoin die-hards, hope you didn't accidentally papertrail yourself to the Yakuza or a Pedophile."


----------



## Aleu (Mar 1, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Pretend I used the general "I" and "you." Obviously you don't know if I know enough about cars to trust my judgement. But it's also completely obvious that, like many other people, you are quite a bit more distrusting of things related to money than of anything else.


People in general are distrusting. How is this new? You'd be stupid to just trust anyone just because what they say seems awesome. The saying is "If it's too good to be true...it probably is"


----------



## Rassah (Mar 1, 2014)

dialup said:


> I've tried reading everything I could about Bitcoin on here and other places and this picture is still the only thing I'm getting from it.
> http://i.imgur.com/kuj9sPP.gif



I own a T-shirt of that. I think it was made by bitcoiners to poke fun at detractors. Maybe not. Either way, I think it's funny.




RedDagger said:


> Now, in terms of someone having Bitcoin goes this is a good thing, as overall you seemingly gain money. But this seems more like stocks or holding on to something like gold - sure, you _can_ use it to trade for stuff, but the price fluctuates more widely than something like the pound, with ~30% inflation over the past ten years, and only changing by a few pence compared to other currencies.
> ...
> Basically, where's the incentive to use it as a day-to-day currency concerning price fluctuation over regarding it as an asset (if that's the right word)?



That's typically what happens when something new comes out. At first, no one knows about it, so it's not worth much, and then as more and more people adopt it in waves, it had periods of rapid spikes.  As it gets bigger, each new adoption group has a decreased effect, since it's harder to move once it gets big. And eventually, when everyone who ever will adopts it, there won't be any more adoption spikes, and its value will stabilize. Also, you should compare bitcoin to new currencies, or currencies of small countries. You'll see it's not that much more volatile. We had a few currencies inflate 20%+ in just the last 3 months (Argentina, Venezuela, Ukraine).
As for day-to-day, bitcoin is also a transaction system, and using it as GBP-BTC-GBP transfer, where you only hold Bitcoin for a few seconds, can be cheaper and much more secure than normal bank wires in some situations.



Attaman said:


> Since Rassah isn't touching on this, and it's kinda relevant since he's going on about Bitcoin and how it'll make people wealthy: Trying to actually sell a Bitcoin in a legal, trustworthy is like trying to pull teeth from Kujo with your bare hands.
> 
> Oh sure, you can sell it easily... provided what you're buying is illegal substances or material like blow and child pornography. You can also find people who're willing to buy them off you fairly easily... if you don't mind scumming sites that are only marginally more trustworthy than Exiled Nigerian Royalty.



This really depends on where you are. In US, you can open an account at Coinbase. The registration process is no different from opening a PayPal account, and then buying and selling bitcoins is as easy as transfering money in and out of your bank account. I think the sell limits are $10,000 a day. Elsewhere in the world there are exchanges like Bitstamp and BTC-e, which also let you transfer money from your bank. In total, about *$50 million bitcoins get traded daily* on exchanges around the world (http://bitcoincharts.com/markets) so if you can't sell them easily, you may just not be trying. Regarding buying things, in US you can use Gyft to buy giftcards for places like Target, Amazon, CVS, Burger King, and over 200 other retail stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. The fee they charge is a 3% discount for using Bitcoin. You can also shop on Overstock with a 1% discount, or refil a prepaid phone almost anywhere in the world at spend-a-bit.com. There's also Bitcoinstore for electronics, Wordpress and a ton of web services, Zynga and a few other game sites... Basically plenty you can buy without needing to convert them back to your own currency. It may not be as good in other countries, but it's getting there.
So, in short, the "it can only be used for crime" line is pretty much defunct now. That may have been the case two years ago, but not any more.

You can also use them to send fast and cheap donations to Ukraine *wink-wink*



Aleu said:


> People in general are distrusting. How is this new? You'd be stupid to just trust anyone just because what they say seems awesome. The saying is "If it's too good to be true...it probably is"



That is not what I was saying, or implying, at all! :V 
I was saying...
(in the something like 5 different posts, in as many different ways, which apparently was still not enough... Is my english really that horrible?) 
... that people are *MORE* distrusting of things related to *money*. That is why I was bringing up examples related to art and cars and such as compared to topics of money. Maybe you just haven't seen it? To me it's fairly evident in news, politics, the general public opinions, and even on this forum.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 1, 2014)

Rassah said:


> That is not what I was saying, or implying, at all! :V
> I was saying...
> (in the something like 5 different posts, in as many different ways, which apparently was still not enough... Is my english really that horrible?)
> ... that people are *MORE* distrusting of things related to *money*. That is why I was bringing up examples related to art and cars and such as compared to topics of money. Maybe you just haven't seen it? To me it's fairly evident in news, politics, the general public opinions, and even on this forum.



I don't see any of it unless you're getting that from people who hate the corporations for denying minimum wage increases? Or maybe you just listened to Pink Floyd too much, idk.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 1, 2014)

Rassah said:


> That's typically what happens when something new comes out. At first, no one knows about it, so it's not worth much, and then as more and more people adopt it in waves, it had periods of rapid spikes.  As it gets bigger, each new adoption group has a decreased effect, since it's harder to move once it gets big. *And eventually, when everyone who ever will adopts it, there won't be any more adoption spikes, and its value will stabilize*. Also, you should compare bitcoin to new currencies, or currencies of small countries. You'll see it's not that much more volatile. We had a few currencies inflate 20%+ in just the last 3 months (Argentina, Venezuela, Ukraine).
> As for day-to-day, bitcoin is also a transaction system, and using it as GBP-BTC-GBP transfer, where you only hold Bitcoin for a few seconds, can be cheaper and much more secure than normal bank wires in some situations.



That's a mighty big assumption.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 1, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I don't see any of it unless you're getting that from people who hate the corporations for denying minimum wage increases?



That's one example of it, yeah. The general gist is when it comes to "wealthy" that it's us versus them, like, they may not have deserved their wealth, or are getting too much of it, or are not sharing enough of it. Then there is misguided hostility and misunderstanding of what corporations actually are, or how business works, "money isn't everything," "it's not about the money," "money is the root of all evil," the topic of bitcoin exposing people's severe lack of understanding of, and hostility towards,  money and finance, the "you do not talk about how much you earn," despite it being perfectly ok to talk about any other accomplishments, the general belief that talking about one's wealth is bragging, and finally, there is the overall belief that, since "nothing is free," any suggestions that may make you a bit better off are automatically considered suspect if they have to do with money. Tell someone who's car's gas mileage dropped to add fuel injector cleaner, and at worst they'll ignore you, at best they'll try it. Tell them about a financial trick or investment that may save them a bit of money, and at best they'll ignore you, and at worst they'll think you're scamming or are trying to sell you something. Even if the amount of wealth you make is the same in both cases.

I guess you can blame it on banks and politicians, taking so much money from people in so many different scams.



PastryOfApathy said:


> > And eventually, when everyone who ever will adopts it, there won't be any more adoption spikes, and its value will stabilize
> 
> 
> That's a mighty big assumption.



All prices are the result of supply and demand. So far, all spikes in price have been due to new adopters adding to demand. It was drug users and cypherpunks in 2011, Cyprus last Spring, and China last Fall. If you believe my claim is an assumption, then I guess you know of another way in which the price can spike? Since in bitcoin, the supply is fixed, where will the sudden extra influx of demand come from, if everyone who has already adopted it already has it?


----------



## Rassah (Mar 1, 2014)

On a separate topic:

Regarding minimum wage increases, what if the person who has a job that I can do is living with their parents, and I have been out of a job for 2 years, am desperate, and need the job so that I don't become homeless? Why can't I offer to do the job for a bit less money, if I need the job much more than the guy who has it now? What if an entire group of factory workers would prefer to continue working, even if for a slightly lower wage, than having their factory shipped overseas and them being out of a job, stuck with skills that are now useless in this country? Why is it always from the side of taking away the rights of the companies abusing the employees, and never from the side of the employees having the choice to work for less if they want to?


----------



## Aleu (Mar 1, 2014)

Because that's not how it works. Also people are being paid a shit already. Do you ever consider that people want to be paid more because they can't afford shit now on the pay that they're on?


----------



## Rassah (Mar 1, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Because that's not how it works. Also people are being paid a shit already. Do you ever consider that people want to be paid more because they can't afford shit now on the pay that they're on?



Of course. Everyone wants to get paid more because they can't afford shit they need or want. Even millionaires have wants and needs that are beyond their reach. Do you believe that just because someone wants something, it means that someone else should be forced to just give it to them? Why do you think that we should use violence and force to take things from people and give them to other people just because some people need and want those things?


----------



## Lobar (Mar 1, 2014)

Nobody *wants* to work for less.  People are *coerced* to work for less by the circumstances of poverty.  This is by design, and why conservatives desire to slash the safety net and social infrastructure more than anything else.

A minimum wage puts a stopping point on the race to the bottom.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 2, 2014)

I think this thread should be renamed "Rassah versus the World"


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 2, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Hey, fedora's and trenchcoats are classy okay? You just don't understand because you're just some plebian.


P-coats are classy, not trenchcoats, and fedoras have become banners of the fuckwit.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Nobody *wants* to work for less.  People are *coerced* to work for less by the circumstances of poverty.



How does a subjective inanimate concept of poverty coerse people? I heard this claim quite a few times before, but it doesn't make sense when you really examine it.



Lobar said:


> A minimum wage puts a stopping point on the race to the bottom.



Not really. It just puts a bridge between $0 and $X where you can either earn $0 or $X and above, and nothing in between. So if all you can contribute to the world is somewhere between those two, you get $0.



Mr. Sparta said:


> I think this thread should be renamed "Rassah versus the World"



Calling FAF "the world" is some hubris


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Calling FAF "the world" is some hubris


But calling it a sampling of the world (which is implied) isn't.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> How does a subjective inanimate concept of poverty coerse people? I heard this claim quite a few times before, but it doesn't make sense when you really examine it.



_Your own example_ was being willing to accept a job for less than the established wage due to the threat of homelessness. :\



Rassah said:


> Not really. It just puts a bridge between $0 and $X where you can either earn $0 or $X and above, and nothing in between. So if all you can contribute to the world is somewhere between those two, you get $0.



You're right, a minimum wage isn't enough.  We should establish a minimum _income_.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Lobar said:


> _Your own example_ was being willing to accept a job for less than the established wage due to the threat of homelessness. :\



How is that "coersion"? Are you basically saying your act of living, and your own fear of dying, is coersion? Are we coercing ourselves?




Lobar said:


> You're right, a minimum wage isn't enough.  We should establish a minimum _income_.



So, people should be compensated for the act of living, reproducing, and consuming resources? Where will this compensation come from if not from them?


----------



## Aleu (Mar 2, 2014)

Now this just don't make sense.
Rassah claims to "care" about people...yet is against them being on a minimum wage because poor corporations can't use people for pennies or for free.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Now this just don't make sense.
> Rassah claims to "care" about people...yet is against them being on a minimum wage because poor corporations can't use people for pennies or for free.



Forget poor corporations. They can just move anywhere in the world with lower wages, or spend more money on automation, so minimum wage doesn't affect them much.

I am wondering if you guys are freely admitting your belief that those who are able or willing to contribute less to the world should use force to take from those who contribute more? Like, if I am only willing to pick 5 apples, or my small tree is only able to grow 5 apples, but my neighbor has a larger tree, and picks more apples, do I have the right to take my gun, threaten him, and take 5 of his apples too?
P.S. I'm just trying to figure out the base, or axiom, you guys are arguing from.

And yes, I only very slightly support minimum wage, but only because it helps workers in poorest of the world in India, China, and Africa. If it wasn't for the minimum wage laws in US and EU driving so much oursourcing, we probably wouldn't have had almost 1 billion people pulled out of poverty in the last 20 years.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 2, 2014)

Eh, Rassah has to discount the prospect of dishonor or (hunger)death as not coercive to don't let libertarianism appear nonsensical; after all, that would make employment contracts of corporations or anybody else coercion.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 2, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Now this just don't make sense.
> Rassah claims to "care" about people...yet is against them being on a minimum wage because poor corporations can't use people for pennies or for free.


I am pretty sure that science has proven that exploiting human beings and removing all forms of social protections reduces the Societal Laziness Index (SLI) by a factor of 5 and doubles the bootstrap ratio. It's basically doing them a favour.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Gryphoneer said:


> Eh, Rassah has to discount the prospect of dishonor or (hunger)death as not coercive to don't let libertarianism appear nonsensical; after all, that would make employment contracts of corporations or anybody else coercion.



OK, so now feeling like you won't have honor is coercion? And, are you claiming that if you have something, and the other person does not and will die without it, that its your responsibility to give it to them?

Let's leave government enforced employment contracts and government defined and protected "limited liability" concepts (aka corporations) out of it for now.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> those who are able or willing to contribute less to the world


To determine the Contribution Potential of an individual human being, I postulate that:
*Each human being should have their genetics tested, and their muscles analyzed (or just hooked up to exercise machines with sensors), to determine their maximum possible energy output.
*The dietary intake and weight of each human being will then be carefully monitored, and total daily energy consumption will be calculated from this data.
*The ratio of (average daily energy consumed / total daily energy potential) will determine that human being's Efficiency Factor - a human being with a high factor will be allowed wealth and property. A low factor will mean poverty and despair.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Forget poor corporations. They can just move anywhere in the world with lower wages, or spend more money on automation, so minimum wage doesn't affect them much.
> 
> I am wondering if you guys are freely admitting your belief that those who are able or willing to contribute less to the world should use force to take from those who contribute more? Like, if I am only willing to pick 5 apples, or my small tree is only able to grow 5 apples, but my neighbor has a larger tree, and picks more apples, do I have the right to take my gun, threaten him, and take 5 of his apples too?
> P.S. I'm just trying to figure out the base, or axiom, you guys are arguing from.
> ...



"So the Maples formed a Union..."


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> OK, so now feeling like you won't have honor is coercion?


You don't seem aware of the ever increasing social pressure applied to the unemployed. It's dishonorable to be jobless, especially in the US where a great many believe people choose to be poor or jobless, and it doesn't matter whether you tell them that your job was outsourced overseas because Free Market Provides, because most will reply with a variation "Get a job you lazy bum/parasite!"

If you don't think the cries of them or Teabaggers who harass any and all welfare recipients for "being a drain on Uncle Sam's pocket" isn't coercion, you should maybe consider to take a step outside your gated community.



> And, are you claiming that if you have something, and the other person does not and will die without it, that its your responsibility to give it to them?


"Al-tru-is-em? Com-pa-shun? Are those prehistoric species of fish?"


----------



## RedDagger (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> That's typically what happens when something new comes out. At first, no one knows about it, so it's not worth much, and then as more and more people adopt it in waves, it had periods of rapid spikes.  As it gets bigger, each new adoption group has a decreased effect, since it's harder to move once it gets big. And eventually, when everyone who ever will adopts it, there won't be any more adoption spikes, and its value will stabilize. *Also, you should compare bitcoin to new currencies, or currencies of small countries. You'll see it's not that much more volatile. We had a few currencies inflate 20%+ in just the last 3 months (Argentina, Venezuela, Ukraine).*
> As for day-to-day, bitcoin is also a transaction system, and using it as GBP-BTC-GBP transfer, where you only hold Bitcoin for a few seconds, can be cheaper and much more secure than normal bank wires in some situations.



Uh...as much as that may influence someone living with a bad currency, as someone using GBP this just reinforces the idea that I shouldn't think of it as a similar currency, but something to be avoided as a payment method.

Also, following on from what PastryOfApathy said, aren't you saying it would be best to wait until it stabilises - I.e. not use it for the time being as a currency?


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> To determine the Contribution Potential of an individual human being, I postulate that:
> *Each human being should have their genetics tested, and their muscles analyzed (or just hooked up to exercise machines with sensors), to determine their maximum possible energy output.



A person'a potential for contributing to the world comes froom their mind and their willingness to use it, which is something that can not be measured or predicted. Not from their capacity for physical labor. Especially since we have machines to do that. So the rest of the points kinda fall appart.



Nikolinni said:


> "So the Maples formed a Union..."



BTW, I have no problems with unions, as long as they are voluntary.



Gryphoneer said:


> You don't seem aware of the ever increasing social pressure applied to the unemployed.



Oh, I am. I lost plenty of jobs, and have been unemployed before. At one point for about two years, not being able to find a job. And I have been poor (I don't mean "I only earn $7.50 an hour!" I mean "I only have $80 a month to live off of"), and still have a few friends who don't have much, and some who struggle to find a job. So it's not like I have a disconnect between me and "the poors."



Gryphoneer said:


> It's dishonorable to be jobless, especially in the US where a great many believe people choose to be poor or jobless, and it doesn't matter whether you tell them that your job was outsourced overseas because Free Market Provides, because most will reply with a variation "Get a job you lazy bum/parasite!"



So, because someone had skills, and their skills are no longer needed, and now they either have to find new skills, or starve, that is coersion? Who is doing the coersion? Are you saying that "social pressure" or general disdain for the unemployed is forcing them to be poor? How is that any fault of anyone who is not poor?



Gryphoneer said:


> If you don't think the cries of them or Teabaggers who harass any and all welfare recipients for "being a drain on Uncle Sam's pocket" isn't coercion...



I hate teabaggers. They're religious jingoistic nutcases who understand as little about economics as the people they are decrying. That said, in your example they are only coercing people to get a job. Why is that a problem?



Gryphoneer said:


> > And, are you claiming that if you have something, and the other person does not and will die without it, that its your responsibility to give it to them?
> 
> 
> "Al-tru-is-em? Com-pa-shun? Are those prehistoric species of fish?"



No, seriously, is that a yes?


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 2, 2014)

Was linked to this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zadj8/my_husband_recently_passed_am_i_able_to_recover/



> I'm hoping you can help me out. My husband recently passed away and I now believe he owned some number of bitcoins, which I am unsure of how to recover.





> secret_bitcoin_login 424 points 23 hours ago*
> Step 1) Don't trust anyone. Bitcoin was developed to be a trustless system. You are likely to receive messages on reddit from "kind" users who are willing to help. Ignore them.
> Step 2) Don't trust anyone. I recommend against contacting a local geek and asking for help. Anyone who is knowledgable about bitcoin will also know how to steal them underneath your nose without your knowledge.
> 
> Step 6) Don't trust anyone. Not even me.





> [â€“]mastermind1228 166 points 22 hours ago
> NO, NO professional help [...] Learn how to use bitcoin first, on your own. Do not trust anyone.





> juror_chaos 7 points 19 hours ago
> I'd strongly urge you to make as much progress on your own. Like that guy said above, don't trust anyone.


currency of the future


e: 





Rassah said:


> A person'a potential for contributing to the world comes froom their mind and their willingness to use it, which is something that can not be measured or predicted.


yes, my point was that, to attempt to value a human being based on their contribution potential is meaningless, as its a thing that's impossible to know


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Back to Bitcoin...



RedDagger said:


> Uh...as much as that may influence someone living with a bad currency, as someone using GBP this just reinforces the idea that I shouldn't think of it as a similar currency, but something to be avoided as a payment method.



Not as a payment method, as a store of money. If you hold it, you are exposed to wild currency fluctuations. If you use it as just a payment method, you convert GBP to BTC, send the BTC, and the recipient converts BTC to GPB, all within a few seconds. There's practically no risk from fluctuation, but the BTC transfers costs almost zero, and the only fees involved are for converting between GBP and BTC. Those fees are typically lower than the fees used by other money transfer options (credit cards are 2.7% and Western Union for international is as much as 10%, while bitcoin could be 1% to 2%). The other benefit is that if your merhcnat uses VISA, you have to use VISA. If they use PayPal, you have to use PayPal. If all you have is a AmericanExpress and they don't take it, you're screwed. Bitcoin is a free and open "in-between" mechanism, so you could use any service you want to convert GPB to BTC, and they can use any service they want to convert back. Meaning both of you aren't stuck having to use the same service, and also meaning more competition and lower fees. If VISA rips you off with crap service and high fees, you have to take it, because dropping VISA loses you customers. If a Bitcoin service (like BitPay) screws you with high fees and crap service, you can go to any other service, and still receive bitcoin-based money transfers. It would be as if VISA had dozens of competing service providers, all fighting to give you the lowest price and the best service, instead of it just being VISA. Either way, none of this is affected by currency fluctuations, or depends on bitcoin having any particular price, since no one actually holds bitcoin for more than a few seconds.



RedDagger said:


> Also, following on from what PastryOfApathy said, aren't you saying it would be best to wait until it stabilises - I.e. not use it for the time being as a currency?



Depends on your level of risk. If you have little money, can't aford to lose anything, and/or don't like risk, yes, you are better off just waiting until it stabilizes (and only using it as a money transfer system as above). If you are fine with risky investments, this may be a way to earn an enormous return on it (if you had bought $1,000 worth 2 years ago, you would have had $100,000 now, and quite a few wealthy insiders still think it will hit $10k per bitcoin by the end of the year). The other possible reason to use it is if you don't particularly care about the price at any particular point. For example, if you buy $10 worth, and only use it to tip artists a few cents for posting on furaffinity, you probably won't care if that $10 became $8, since you are giving away the money anyway, and the artists won't care, since it's money they would otherwise not have anyway.


----------



## RedDagger (Mar 2, 2014)

Hm. So if I'm thinking about this correctly, what you're saying is that Bitcoin should be thought of as a way to transfer money easily (skipping high transfer costs/not having the correct payment method, tipping) plus being usable as an investment, but not as a contender for replacing typical currency? Not to say that that's a bad thing, but it definitely makes a different idea of what Bitcoin is useful for compared to what I constantly see. 

Skipping the idea of a merchant not being able to receive bitcoins because it seems trivial to set up a wallet, and payment confirmation and the like...just how easy is it to transfer BTC to GBP? When looking at this sort of thing it doesn't seem like I can stroll into my local Lloyds and convert my money, it looks like I either have to trust some dodgy site to do it or find someone locally to give me cash in exchange...which doesn't seem all that better than being able to receive the money directly, especially considering you can get prepaid cash cards if you manage to not get a matching payment option to the merchant. Which, may I add, doesn't seem a problem for all the sites which currently operate like that.

So...what's the benefit of going GBP->BTC->(something)->GBP instead of a direct money transfer, aside from the transfer fee (which is ~15p for me)?


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 2, 2014)

RedDagger said:


> it seems trivial to set up a wallet, and payment confirmation and the like


Its trivial to set up a wallet and payment confirmation system. Its very, very nontrivial to set up a *secure *wallet and *â€‹secure* payment confirmation system. See: MTGox.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Depends on your level of risk. If you have little money, can't aford to lose anything, and/or don't like risk, yes, you are better off just waiting until it stabilizes (and only using it as a money transfer system as above). If you are fine with risky investments, this may be a way to earn an enormous return on it (if you had bought $1,000 worth 2 years ago, you would have had $100,000 now, and quite a few wealthy insiders still think it will hit $10k per bitcoin by the end of the year). The other possible reason to use it is if you don't particularly care about the price at any particular point. For example, if you buy $10 worth, and only use it to tip artists a few cents for posting on furaffinity, you probably won't care if that $10 became $8, since you are giving away the money anyway, and the artists won't care, since it's money they would otherwise not have anyway.



So you're admitting that using bitcoin is a shitty idea unless you're a diehard under the delusion that your magical internet money will be worth 10,000 dollars?


----------



## RedDagger (Mar 2, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> Its trivial to set up a wallet and payment confirmation system. Its very, very nontrivial to set up a *secure *wallet and *â€‹secure* payment confirmation system. See: MTGox.



Huh, looks like it. Looking up securing your wallet I'm seeing recommendations for keeping it physically separated, say, in a vault...which kinda removes the ease-of-use/alternative considering that's the same place you store money safely. 

Seems more and more to be the same hassle and less security than generic banking - I filled out a form and they mailed (yes, Royal mail envelope delivery, PIN and all) the card. I can go to the bank and give them money so I can use it online, which takes all of a minute or two, and can withdraw it at the same place whenever I want - so I'd still like to know how this works for Bitcoin, since information is a bit iffy on the matter.


----------



## Migoto Da (Mar 2, 2014)

Whelp. That's that.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 2, 2014)

Migoto Da said:


> Whelp. That's that.



The future of currency!â„¢


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> Was linked to this:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zadj8/my_husband_recently_passed_am_i_able_to_recover/
> 
> currency of the future



How is this different from "I found my husband's debit card, I don't know how to use debit cards, and I want to know if there is any money on it?" Scamers will try to get the debit card number from her and take the money, too. Eventually people will know how to use bitcoin, just like eventually they learn how to use everything else.




Kazooie said:


> yes, my point was that, to attempt to value a human being based on their contribution potential is meaningless, as its a thing that's impossible to know



Yes, and I completely agree. We shouldn't value a human being based on their contribution potential. But we can, and do, value human beings based on their actual contribution. So, my question was, should people who actually contribute less be able to take by force those who contribute more? Or, conversely, if someone has an unfulfilled need, maybe even one they can't live without, is it the obligation of someone who has that thing to give it to them?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> How is this different from "I found my husband's debit card, I don't know how to use debit cards, and I want to know if there is any money on it?" Scamers will try to get the debit card number from her and take the money, too.



The difference is that she can go to the bank and get everything settled safely there. She wouldn't need to rely on some chucklefucks from Reddit in the first place. 



Rassah said:


> Eventually people will know how to use bitcoin, just like eventually they learn how to use everything else.



That's a mighty big assumption.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

RedDagger said:


> Hm. So if I'm thinking about this correctly, what you're saying is that Bitcoin should be thought of as a way to transfer money easily (skipping high transfer costs/not having the correct payment method, tipping) plus being usable as an investment, but not as a contender for replacing typical currency?



That is correct. At least not until it gets big enough and adopted enough that it can be used directly by customers, merchants, and suppliers without having to change money back and forth (the point at which its price will begin to stabilize). So, there is definitely potential for that, but we are nowhere near that yet. Although for some people it is already a replacement for typical currency, because their governments have imposed severe restrictions on what they can do with their currency, or their currency is just as volatile, but in the downward direction (most recent news, Ukraine just limited withdrawals to $100 a day), or worse, their government has a risk of taking their money to pay off its debt (like in Cyprus last year)



RedDagger said:


> Skipping the idea of a merchant not being able to receive bitcoins because it seems trivial to set up a wallet, and payment confirmation and the like...just how easy is it to transfer BTC to GBP?



For a customer, not that easy yet. There are no (cheap) exchanges in UK yet, so your most viable option is to sell BTC on Bitstamp exchange and wire the money from there to your own bank. Swapping between BTC and your own currency entirely depends on exchanges, and they are still being build and deployed through most of the world. In US, you would be able to open an account at Coinbase and use it as easily as PayPal, simply depositing and withdrawing money into/out of bitcoin right from your bank account.
The other new thing that's coming out, that will eventually be all over the place, is bitcoin ATMs. With those you will be able to walk up to and deposit or withdraw cash into Bitcoin, as if from your own bank account. Except the only thing you will need to do to open a bank account is download a bitcoin wallet app to your phone. So, no forms to fill out, no restrictions, use any ATM from any provider you want, and no issues with foreign ATMs when you travel. But, again, this is more of a thing once bitcoin volatility decreases.

For merchants it's much much easier. There are merchant services, like BitPay and BIPS, that a merchant signs up with just like they would with VISA, and all Bitcoin payments go through that service. Then as soon as bitcoins are received, the service converts those bitcoins to GBP and deposits it into the merchant's bank acount the next day, for less than 1% fee. Merchants never even have to touch bitcoins, and save 1.7%+ per transaction, and can securely accept payments from anywhere in the world.




RedDagger said:


> So...what's the benefit of going GBP->BTC->(something)->GBP instead of a direct money transfer, aside from the transfer fee (which is ~15p for me)?



Locally, just the fee, and the guarantee of transfer. If you are selling something you don't want someone to run off with your money with later, BTC is best. For international transfers, there's also the benefit that most countries in the world can't accept credit cards or PayPal, and the WU fees to them are ridiculous.



Kazooie said:


> Its trivial to set up a wallet and payment confirmation system. Its very, very nontrivial to set up a *secure *wallet and *â€‹secure* payment confirmation system. See: MTGox.



MtGox is not bitcoin, nor a bitcoin wallet. Don't compare MtGox with bitcoin security, unless you want me to complain about how safe vaults are insecure because some bank in some other country got robbed. Obviously if you keep your money with someone else, instead of keeping it yourself, you'll have to be sure that that someone else isn't totally incompetent or a thief.

If you want to set up a *secure* wallet, go to http://bitaddress.org and hit "Print." Done. You can even encrypt the paper wallet key with a password, in case you're worried someone will steal it. The encrypted one you can even carry a copy of with you in your wallet, and just scan it with Mycelium when you want to spend from it. There are also at least three hardware wallets being developed, which will not be succeptible to hacks. Those you can just cary with you and spend without worry of theft, and keep paper backups of the keys at home or in a bank safe deposit box, in case your wallet is lost or stolen.
The main cultural shift that will have to happen with bitcoin is that you will have to be more responsible with your money, or pay someone else to keep you secure. Right now your only option is to pay someone else. If you like the banking system, where someone else keeps your money safe, limits how much you can spend and take out, and charges you a bit for the service, you'll have that option soon enough.



PastryOfApathy said:


> So you're admitting that using bitcoin is a shitty idea unless you're a diehard under the delusion that your magical internet money will be worth 10,000 dollars?



Yes, as with everything, you should avoid using things until they are nice, safe, and stable, AFTER everyone with more guts and brains than you has already taken all the profits.



PastryOfApathy said:


> The difference is that she can go to the bank and get everything settled safely there.



Yes, because pimply teenage bank tellers are completely trustworthy and will never write down your debit card number for personal use. Or because someone who has never seen or heard of a debit card before will know to go to a bank with it.



PastryOfApathy said:


> That's a mighty big assumption.



Your claim that people will always remain clueless idiots is an even bigger assumption. We learned how to use e-mail, didn't we?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Yes, as with everything, you should avoid using things until they are nice, safe, and stable, AFTER everyone with more guts and brains than you has already taken all the profits.



If thinking your magical internet money will make you rich and that everyone else is some kind idiot makes you feel better about yourself go for it. I won't deny you your happiness. 



Rassah said:


> Your claim that people will always remain clueless idiots is an even bigger assumption. We learned how to use e-mail, didn't we?



No, I'm saying that it's a big assumption to say that bitcoin will become so popular that everyone will learn to use it. People don't feel compelled to learn how to use things they won't use.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> If thinking your magical internet money will make you rich and that everyone else is some kind idiot makes you feel better about yourself go for it. I won't deny you your happiness.



No, I don't think people are idiots for not investing in it. People have different risk tolerances for things, and different life sitatuions, and that's OK. I only think people who dismiss it as magic internet money without actually understanding it are idiots.



PastryOfApathy said:


> No, I'm saying that it's a big assumption to say that bitcoin will become so popular that everyone will learn to use it. People don't feel compelled to learn how to use things they won't use.



Your assumption is that an open platform technology, with enormous support behind it, and features not possible with any other technology, will be abandoned? I can provide probably half a dozen examples of open technology with new features being adopted despite extreme growing pains (internet, email, Linux, VOIP, MP3, CD, and even internal compustion engine). Can you provide me an example of an open platform tech (by open platform I mean anyone can take, use, and build on top of) that provided benefits above what we already had, that was never adopted? If I'm making an assumption, surely you know of many such examples.


----------



## RedDagger (Mar 2, 2014)

Thanks for answering my questions Rassah, though not sure what to think about the fact that before I really understood it I had the same idea of just wait to see what happens. 

But when something new-ish comes along it isn't really the easiest thing to predict. Hell, even old economic systems aren't that predictable, if I've learnt anything from economists. 

Actually, one last question: how do you think Dogecoin, starting out as a joke then turning into a currency with small, albeit rising, value, compares with Bitcoin? It rises even when other cryptocurrencies fall, and is 'legitimate' enough to have helped fund an olympic team...but is based around a joke, and is still mostly used as joke - with discernible value.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

RedDagger said:


> But when something new-ish comes along it isn't really the easiest thing to predict. Hell, even old economic systems aren't that predictable, if I've learnt anything from economists.



Of course. When new things come out, there are really only four things you can do: Ignore it, Make fun of it, Try to make predictions about it, or Work with it to try to do something about. I may seem biased because I'm in the last category - I'm not so much predicting as relaying what I'm seeing many people behind the curtain working on. Maybe all their work will fail, but a lot of them aren't working for money, so won't care, and will still keep developing it. In that sense it's very much like the reclusive Linux nerds spending the last two decades in dark basements, completely convinced of their system's superiority, until finally Ubuntu and Android came out and vindicated them.



RedDagger said:


> Actually, one last question: how do you think Dogecoin, starting out as a joke then turning into a currency with small, albeit rising, value, compares with Bitcoin? It rises even when other cryptocurrencies fall, and is 'legitimate' enough to have helped fund an olympic team...but is based around a joke, and is still mostly used as joke - with discernible value.



I think Doge is an excellent example of how people's claims about what money "should" be (backed by government, backed by metals, regulated by banks, be "real") is completely misguided, and that money is just a convenient tool, combined with mass delusion (or mass consensus) about what actually has value. Dollars don't have value because government backs it (it doesn't), dollars have value because others I trade with think it has value. Likewise for Dogecoin and Bitcoin. And the more people you trade with value it, the more stable, or "secured" it's value will become.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 2, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Hahahahahaha! "will" ... I mean, um, ahem... >.>
> No, I don't think people are idiots for not investing in it. People have different risk tolerances for things, and different life sitatuions, and that's OK. I only think people who dismiss it as magic internet money without actually understanding it are idiots.




So anyone who doesn't like bitcoin must only not like it because they don't understand it and as such are idiots. Okay I understand where you're coming from. 



Rassah said:


> Your assumption is that an open platform technology, with enormous support behind it, and features not possible with any other technology, will be abandoned? I can provide probably half a dozen examples of open technology with new features being adopted despite extreme growing pains (internet, email, Linux, VOIP, MP3, CD, and even internal compustion engine). Can you provide me an example of an open platform tech (by open platform I mean anyone can take, use, and build on top of) that provided benefits above what we already had, that was never adopted? If I'm making an assumption, surely you know of many such examples.



Just because something is open and does something nothing else does in no way means it's a guaranteed success. But hey, if you wanna believe it'll be super successful than go for it. But don't start belittling people who don't, it's kinda rude.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 2, 2014)

"I only lobbied hard to undermine your ability to survive without allowing me to extract and keep the bulk of the value produced by your labor, how is _that_ coercion?  It's not like I have a gun to your head like those welfare moochers."

seriously what fucking sort of advocate for the poor are you


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> So anyone who doesn't like bitcoin must only not like it because they don't understand it and as such are idiots.




Oh no, not at all! You obviously don't understand it, and thus my opinion of you, but there are plenty of reasons not to like Bitcoin for those who do understand it. For instance, if you want to enforce laws against drugs, gambling, or other "immoral" vices that generally don't hurt anyone except the people actually doing them in the privacy of their own home. If you want to keep people from funding organizations that fight to undermine your political power. If you want to keep robbing people by charging them exorbitant fees for services that until now only you could provide. If your job entails getting brownie points for bringing down non-threats by busting people for not following obscure overreaching regulations. If you get your jollies off from being power hungry and controlling people's personal lives because you believe it's what the citizens want. If you like being able to give out political handouts to your corporate friends. And, of course, if you like to be able to fund wars by borrowing indefinitely and having everyone unwillingly pay for your wars through inflation. All those types have a VERY good reason to really dislike Bitcoin. Note that all those examples involve someone wanting to control you and how you spend your money, and done by the types who are also power-hungry psychopaths who believe they know what's best for everyone else.
So, which one do you fit into?



PastryOfApathy said:


> Just because something is open and does something nothing else does in no way means it's a guaranteed success.




You can't even provide one example? And why shouldn't I belittle people for ridiculing things they don't even understand? We do it all the time with religion, science, and other topics.




Lobar said:


> "I only lobbied hard to undermine your ability to survive without allowing me to extract and keep the bulk of the value produced by your labor, how is _that_ coercion? It's not like I have a gun to your head like those welfare moochers."
> 
> seriously what fucking sort of advocate for the poor are you



Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this word salad. Can you rephrase it? And if you are proposing that you can actually lobby to lower someone's income below it's market value... I'm not sure it works that way. If an employer pays too low, no one will take that job, because other employers will compete for labor and offer a higher paying job. Kinda like in China, where there are no minimum wage jobs, yet after all the low paying positions were filled, Chinese factories are now forced to compete for employees by raising their pay substantially.

As for what sort of advocate for the poor am I, I guess I am the type that would advocate for about a billion people around the world to go from making $1 a day, to making almost the minimum wage we make in US and Europe. What kind of an advocate for the poor are you that you would propose to increase unemployment, add incentives to replace basic manual jobs with expensive robots, and then borrow from the poor in the future, to give to the poor now, which would inevitably result with another economic collapse similar to what happened in Greece and Cyprus, making the poor even poorer? Your "minimum income" idea is about as fallacious as a perpetual motor. Wealth can't be created out of thin air, so it would have to come from somewhere or someone. Maybe you can explain where, because no one ever does.


And, I ask again, should people who actually contribute lessless, be able to take by force from those who contribute more? Or, conversely, if someone has an unfulfilled need, maybe even one they can't live without, is it the obligation of someone who has that thing to give it to them?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 2, 2014)

You know what I'm done for real now. This is just becoming boring and I really don't feel like talking to someone who acts like a condescending prick to everyone who doesn't agree with him. You can keep doing whatever you're doing, I really don't care anymore and if you wanna run around acting like some super intelligent prophet in a land of idiots than go ahead, just know we're all laughing at you. Bye bye now.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> You know what I'm done for real now. This is just becoming boring and I really don't feel like talking to someone who acts like a condescending prick to everyone who doesn't agree with him.



So, no answer, or examples, or anything. Frankly, I still don't even know why you hate Bitcoin, since none of the examples you provided (theft and volatility) are either unique to Bitcoin, or inherent to how it works (I.e. it can be fixed)... Okay then. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 2, 2014)

Uhm, they're not going to compete to raise wages. They're going to say "deal with it or starve" and of course, people have to deal with it because if not, they'll starve. Companies aren't going to pay more than minimum wage if they don't have to.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Companies aren't going to pay more than minimum wage if they don't have to.



That's true. That also means that companies will have to pay more than minimum wage if they do have to. That usually happens if there aren't enough workers to fill a specific job. So, increase the number of jobs (make opening a business and hiring people easier), or increase the skill of the workers so they can get more competitive jobs (improve schools and come up with actual job training). One worked in China, where the influx of new manufacturing exhausted the pool of employer, the other worked in India, where a high focus on education (stereotype is that everyone there has an engendering degree) created a boom in high level employment where previously there was none.

And can someone please answer, should people who actually contribute less, be able to take by force from those who contribute more? Or, conversely, if someone has an unfulfilled need, maybe even one they can't live without, is it the obligation of someone who has that thing to give it to them? That's what welfare and minimum wage is, technically, but everyone here is dancing around this and doesn't want to answer. I wonder if because answering "yes" would make you a hipocrite for not immediately going to the nearest hospital and donating your kidney, or all your organs.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 2, 2014)

Small break: Strangely relevant to this thread in many ways  http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-behaviors-modern-world-only-making-worse/


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 3, 2014)

Rassah said:


> MtGox is not bitcoin, nor a bitcoin wallet. Don't compare MtGox with bitcoin security


CREATOR OF MTGOX:
"woah, transactions with bitcoin is so trivial!"
*creates transaction system*
*transaction system falls victim to specific bug in protocol*

The bug was known, yes. But the bug meant that creating a transaction system was nontrivial.


AVERAGE HUMAN BEING:
"woah, making a wallet is so trivial!"
*makes a wallet, buys bitcoin*
*trojan on computer immediately nabs wallet key, steals all bitcoin*

Having a theoretical strawman trojan was dumb, yes. But people get those things. Creating a bitcoin wallet is nontrivial.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 3, 2014)

Rassah said:


> That's true. That also means that companies will have to pay more than minimum wage if they do have to. That usually happens if there aren't enough workers to fill a specific job. So, increase the number of jobs (make opening a business and hiring people easier), or increase the skill of the workers so they can get more competitive jobs (improve schools and come up with actual job training). One worked in China, where the influx of new manufacturing exhausted the pool of employer, the other worked in India, where a high focus on education (stereotype is that everyone there has an engendering degree) created a boom in high level employment where previously there was none.
> 
> And can someone please answer, should people who actually contribute less, be able to take by force from those who contribute more? Or, conversely, if someone has an unfulfilled need, maybe even one they can't live without, is it the obligation of someone who has that thing to give it to them? That's what welfare and minimum wage is, technically, but everyone here is dancing around this and doesn't want to answer. I wonder if because answering "yes" would make you a hipocrite for not immediately going to the nearest hospital and donating your kidney, or all your organs.



No one is answering your question because it's mind-numbingly stupid. If a person doesn't contribute to the workplace, they get fired. And it's kinda the obligation of workplaces to give an incentive to employees to keep them (ie money so they can provide). Otherwise, there's literally no point in someone signing up to be a slave.

People who are on welfare aren't taking anything by force. Just in case you didn't know, we're a society. Removing welfare benefits only can hurt us because oh look now they can no longer pay for their food, guess what happens? Crime goes up because John Doe needs to eat too and people do some pretty bad things when they get desperate enough.

Unless this is some bullshit scheme to keep people poor so you can point to Bitcoin and say "LOOK ALL YOUR PROBLEMS ARE ANSWERED!"


----------



## Rassah (Mar 3, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> CREATOR OF MTGOX:
> The bug was known, yes. But the bug meant that creating a transaction system was nontrivial.



It's not a bug. None of the other 50 or so exchanges were affected. It was just incompetence of the coders, who created the trading engine back in 2011, when no one really knew how to do that stuff.



Kazooie said:


> Creating a bitcoin wallet is nontrivial.



No, not *yetâ€‹*. There are people working on it to make it trivial. In the mean time, installing a Bitcoin wallet app isn't that difficult, as long as you only use it for small amounts. And true, hitting "Print" after going to bitaddress.org isn't that easy for some people either.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 3, 2014)

Aleu said:


> No one is answering your question because it's mind-numbingly stupid. If a person doesn't contribute to the workplace, they get fired. And it's kinda the obligation of workplaces to give an incentive to employees to keep them (ie money so they can provide). Otherwise, there's literally no point in someone signing up to be a slave.



Um... I'm not sure what you are referring to with regards to not contributing to the workplace. I meant not contributing to society, or contributing something that is worth or valued very little. Like, if all I do is go out and pick up five pieces of trash a day, and nothing else, should I then be able to force someone to support me? Or should someone who works and contributes a lot feel obligated to support me because I picked up five pieces of trash?
Yes, it's an obligation of workplaces to give incentives to keep them, but the obligations are not to the people working, but to the work they do, and to the workplaces wishing to continue to compete in the market. So, yes, if the employees can't provide anything that will keep the business productive and competitive, I'm not sure why the business has an obligation to keep paying them...



Aleu said:


> People who are on welfare aren't taking anything by force.



Where is the money the welfare recepients get coming from?

Let's speed things up:

Government
Where does the government get its money?
From taxes
Are taxes voluntary or extracted by force?
There is no force involved in paying taxes. You just file and pay taxes.
What if I don't support taxation and don't pay taxes?
They you will be arrested and taken to jail for tax evasion.
What if I don't believe they have the right to arrest me and resist?
Then you will be shot.
So, how is welfare not something that is paid for by force, of everyone is threatened to pay for it under the threat of being shot? 



Aleu said:


> Just in case you didn't know, we're a society.



What does that mean???



Aleu said:


> Removing welfare benefits only can hurt us because oh look now they can no longer pay for their food, guess what happens? Crime goes up because John Doe needs to eat too and people do some pretty bad things when they get desperate enough.



There were discussions about welfare on free-market AnarchoCapitalist sites. We came to the conclusion that welfare is actually cheaper than the alternative. As evidenced by the studdy in NYC, it costs about $600 a month in police work, hospital bills, and other such expenses to manage a homeless person, including keeping them safe, out of trouble, and not dying on the streets, which is much more than if they would just give the money to the homeless person directly. So in Ancapistan, devoid of any government or social programs, where instead of police you would subscribe to protection from a private security company, it would actually be in the security company's interest (more profitable) to provide a small subsistence stipend to homeless and extremely poor people to keep them off the street.

But we're talking about minimum wage here, where someone who is not contributing as much believed they are entitled to receive more than the amount they contributed. BTW, when I say contribute, I mean the price, or dollar value, of what they add to business or society. I use that as a fairly objective measure of how valuable what someone does is. So, is it fair to say that if what I do only adds $3 of value to society, others who contribute more should be forced to give up what they contribute to me? Why, and how is that fair?


----------



## Aleu (Mar 3, 2014)

...since when are people shot for tax evasion? Is this the US we're talking about still? No one gets shot for resisting arrest (unless you're black then probably)

Also here since you must not English very well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

As for the rest of your nonsense, I honestly don't think you've ever held a job before. Seriously.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 3, 2014)

Aleu said:


> ...since when are people shot for tax evasion? Is this the US we're talking about still? No one gets shot for resisting arrest (unless you're black then probably)



No one? How does that scenario progress then? You don't pay taxes, they send you a fine, you don't pay, they send you cops with an arrest warrant, you ask them to leave, they try to physically subdue you, you try to defend yourself, they say "We're sorry, we see you are not interested" and walk away? 



Aleu said:


> Also here since you must not English very well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society



I know what the definition of society, or "a group of people involved with each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory" means, what I don't understand is what you mean by it when you said "Just in case you didn't know, we're a society", or what it has to do with minimum wage or welfare. Does the fact that we live in the same geographic region and have persistent relations imply something specific or impose some obligations? If yes, just say what it is instead of saying "but... Society!"



Aleu said:


> As for the rest of your nonsense, I honestly don't think you've ever held a job before. Seriously.



Huh, curious, why do you think that? Do you mean you think that I am so privilidged than I have never had to work in my life, or that I am so clueless that I just live off of someone else and have never had the indignity of holding down a minimum wage job? Or is it something else?


----------



## Taralack (Mar 3, 2014)

nvm, I'm retarded


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 3, 2014)

Libertarians like to generalize any and all forms of "force" or coercion as Bad and Evil so they can demonize parliamentary governance, but anyone who've had to beat up a bully or witnessed cops arresting a violent drunkard or amok killer knows force is necessary in a lot of situations.

Governments use tax money to pay for keeping roads crumbling into dirt tracks and keeping tab water cholera-free. This system is legitimized through consensus, meaning the majority of society know it doesn't work any other way, that you can't run countries like corporations without ending up with mountains of skulls. But humans be humans, and sometimes you have to use force in form of law-enforcement agencies to make tax evaders pay their due, seeing as they harm the common weal with their fraudulent egotism.

That some people can't seem to get that shows that they're supremely egocentric and fanatics on par with communists.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 3, 2014)

Rassah said:


> It's not a bug. None of the other 50 or so exchanges were affected. It was just incompetence of the coders, who created the trading engine back in 2011, when no one really knew how to do that stuff.


Yes it is. It's bitcoin's Transaction Malleability, and it is most certainly behaviour in the protocol that can be manipulated, You know what this bug is - I'm not even going to debate this shit; it's documented everywhere over the internet.

For everyone else:

-Bitcoin has this thing called a "transaction ID".
-After an exchange is complete, you're given a "transaction ID" to identify your transaction.
-MTGox relied on this feature.
-However, with a proper attack on the protocol, you can make a *second* transaction with the *same* transaction ID, and change the first number.

tldr; MTGox got a ticket: "Transaction #53, $5". Bug in protocol allowed someone to silently swap the ticket with "Transaction #53, $.01" and run off with the $5


----------



## Eggdodger (Mar 3, 2014)

Honestly, does it look like Rassah's doing this for himself? I would stop questioning his morals, at least. Bitcoin itself might not be your cup of tea, but the personal attacks on Rassah's humanity are simply nauseating.

http://bitcoin100.org/about/
http://bitcoin100.org/charities/
http://puu.sh/7huFV.jpg
In case you missed it:
http://puu.sh/7huLN.png

You wanna talk about nontrivial? I'd say his intentions are nontrivial.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 3, 2014)

Rassah said:


> No one? How does that scenario progress then? You don't pay taxes, they send you a fine, you don't pay, they send you cops with an arrest warrant, you ask them to leave, they try to physically subdue you, you try to defend yourself, they say "We're sorry, we see you are not interested" and walk away?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You do know that they are supposed to use non-lethal force well before lethal, right? Unless tax-evader has a gun and threatens the police, they're NOT allowed to draw their weapon. Where the ever-loving FUCK are you getting that cops are just going to shoot you? At the very worst if you struggle, you'll be tazed. Again, WORST.

Wow, yes society means that people work together because, if not, then we have a great big mess. In case this is also too hard for you to understand

Jobcorp hires John Doe.
Jobcorp pays Mr. Doe $$$ to compensate for his time and labor.
Mr Doe uses $$$ to pay for food, gas, rent, and whatever else.
THAT money goes to people who run the places that provide food, gas, rent, and whatever else.
THAT in turn pays for other John and Jane Does who have jobs.

If Jobcorp paid John Doe pennies then all of that is unraveled because John Doe can't pay for shit. 
John Doe takes another job which also pays pennies.
Now, John Doe is doing double the work for far less pay.
This means he cannot contribute to other companies.
Other companies see their profits dip.
They proceed to lay off other workers because they can't afford to keep them.

Now we have mass poverty and crime all because someone thought "boo hoo, these poor companies shouldn't have to pay people a living wage. It's not fair"

Also, both.
There is no way that someone who has any sort of job can say that corporations need to pay less because people don't contribute (whatever the fuck that means). It's either that or some serious cognitive dissonance going on up in here.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 3, 2014)

Aleu said:


> If Jobcorp paid John Doe pennies then all of that is unraveled because John Doe can't pay for shit.
> John Doe takes another job which also pays pennies.
> Now, John Doe is doing double the work for far less pay.
> This means he cannot contribute to other companies.
> ...



The classic downward spiral. 

Honestly, I'm not against raising the minimum wage up a little. Especially since it (supposedly) hasn't caught up with inflation. You should at least be able to work 1 -2 jobs and not always be worrying about livin' on the edge. I just think the whole "Push it up to $15!" was ridiculous. 

Yes they say that a minium wage job is a "Starting wage" job or a "Starter Job", but come on. I'm willing to bet my Disney Pin collection that even going to community college is something that loads of people can't even do, so the whole idea of "Take one or two classes" is more complicated. Especially if the 1 - 2 classes cut into much needed work time.


----------



## Tica (Mar 3, 2014)

Rassah said:


> That's true. That also means that companies will have to pay more than minimum wage if they do have to. That usually happens if there aren't enough workers to fill a specific job. So, increase the number of jobs (make opening a business and hiring people easier), or increase the skill of the workers so they can get more competitive jobs (improve schools and come up with actual job training). One worked in China, where the influx of new manufacturing exhausted the pool of employer, the other worked in India, where a high focus on education (stereotype is that everyone there has an engendering degree) created a boom in high level employment where previously there was none.
> 
> And can someone please answer, should people who actually contribute less, be able to take by force from those who contribute more? Or, conversely, if someone has an unfulfilled need, maybe even one they can't live without, is it the obligation of someone who has that thing to give it to them? That's what welfare and minimum wage is, technically, but everyone here is dancing around this and doesn't want to answer. I wonder if because answering "yes" would make you a hipocrite for not immediately going to the nearest hospital and donating your kidney, or all your organs.



If you have the means to help someone without detracting from your current quality of life, you are morally obligated to help them. How is this not obvious.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 3, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm willing to bet my Disney Pin collection that even going to community college is something that loads of people can't even do, so the whole idea of "Take one or two classes" is more complicated. Especially if the 1 - 2 classes cut into much needed work time.



You're not too far off with this. In my city, our community college is simply overloaded with students (the parking lot alone can only fit roughly 1500 vehicles, but the school has nearly 3,000 full time students, that's excluding the part-timers), and those that are going to go on student loans or otherwise cannot pay for the classes upfront are pushed to the back of the line (so to speak), then if _any_ classes are left, they get to fight over the scraps (which are typically non-degree courses, and they'll likely be 50+ students in a classroom intended for 35-40)


----------



## Aleu (Mar 3, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> The classic downward spiral.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not against raising the minimum wage up a little. Especially since it (supposedly) hasn't caught up with inflation. You should at least be able to work 1 -2 jobs and not always be worrying about livin' on the edge.* I just think the whole "Push it up to $15!" was ridiculous*.
> 
> Yes they say that a minium wage job is a "Starting wage" job or a "Starter Job", but come on. I'm willing to bet my Disney Pin collection that even going to community college is something that loads of people can't even do, so the whole idea of "Take one or two classes" is more complicated. Especially if the 1 - 2 classes cut into much needed work time.


Oh my god how are you not getting, after it was explained like, three times in that thread that their intention was NOT to raise it to $15/hr?
http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Door-in-the-Face Technique

Jesus christ psychology should be mandatory, I swear to god.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 3, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Oh my god how are you not getting, after it was explained like, three times in that thread that their intention was NOT to raise it to $15/hr?
> http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Door-in-the-Face Technique
> 
> Jesus christ psychology should be mandatory, I swear to god.



Actually it was a required class in high school >____>

Also sorry, I'm kinda not firing on all cylinders this morning, hell maybe not even this week. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 3, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Actually it was a required class in high school >____>



Not in all high schools. At least not since I've been there.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 3, 2014)

Eggdodger said:


> Bitcoin itself might not be your cup of tea, but the personal attacks on Rassah's humanity are simply nauseating


Transaction malleability is a bug the devs of bitcoin themselves have acknowledged. It's well known. It's well documented. It is an inherent flaw in the protocol that people must work around.


----------



## Tica (Mar 4, 2014)

Also, can someone explain to me why earlier in the thread we're trying to pay a taxi that isn't owned by anyone collecting the funds?

Are we assuming the taxi is sentient? what? if bitcoin is only indespensible in the case of sentient robots, then it's not a practical thing really, AI is miles away from that.

If a robot is not sentient I'm assuming I'm paying its owner and not the machine itself...


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 4, 2014)

Tica said:


> Also, can someone explain to me why earlier in the thread we're trying to pay a taxi that isn't owned by anyone collecting the funds?
> 
> Are we assuming the taxi is sentient? what? if bitcoin is only indespensible in the case of sentient robots, then it's not a practical thing really, AI is miles away from that.
> 
> If a robot is not sentient I'm assuming I'm paying its owner and not the machine itself...


Google has been working on developing Self Driving Cars. The idea was "If there was a self-driving taxi-service (owned by a company), how would people pay for the rides?"


----------



## Tica (Mar 4, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> Google has been working on developing Self Driving Cars. The idea was "If there was a self-driving taxi-service (owned by a company), how would people pay for the rides?"



No, I get that, that car is owned by a company that we're paying... which means we could just swipe a freakin' credit card like you can in vending machines these days.

No, whatever catsquirrelman was talking about, it was like a car that owned itself, or maybe I just didn't understand the reason bitcoin was necessary for that car to function


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 4, 2014)

Tica said:


> No, I get that, that car is owned by a company that we're paying... which means we could just swipe a freakin' credit card like you can in vending machines these days.
> 
> No, whatever catsquirrelman was talking about, it was like a car that owned itself, or maybe I just didn't understand the reason bitcoin was necessary for that car to function


The idea was that bitcoin would allow you to be constantly paying over time, rather than having to pay at the beginning or end of the ride.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 4, 2014)

I think the question is moot whether Bitcoin is any good for magic Knight Rider cabs 'cause they ain't real.


----------



## Migoto Da (Mar 5, 2014)

And this happened too apparently.


Lotta bad shit with Bitcoin/online currency in general going down right now it seems.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 8, 2014)

Good news! China said "F You!" to it's citizens, and devalued their currency again, so that China can keep exporting cheap crap. So Chinese citizens said "F You!" back, and bought a lot more bitcoins, driving the price up from $500 to $650. Though my Chinese contacts are rather pissed because, while for us buying Chinese crap is cheap, for them it's getting ridiculously expensive.



Kazooie said:


> > It's not a bug
> 
> 
> Yes it is. It's bitcoin's Transaction Malleability, and it is most certainly behaviour in the protocol that can be manipulated, You know what this bug is - I'm not even going to debate this shit; it's documented everywhere over the internet.
> ...



Yes, that is what happened, but it's not a bug, it's a required feature. When you want to verify whether a transaction went through, you are supposed to check whether the output you created was spent (money you sent was actually sent), not whether the "check number" cleared. The transaction number malleability will not be fixed, because its not a bug and is necessary. If I create a crowd funding campaign tyspe transaction, where it has to get to a certain amount by a certain time to confirm, and will fail and refund all donations if it doesn't, I would create a transaction with #1 to get it started, then someone would add their own money to the transaction and use this Transaction Malleability to change the transaction ID to #2 to differentiate it, then the next donor will change it to #3, and so on. Likewise if I was to use a MicroTransaction stream. It's an important feature with a specific use. MtGox was just using it wrong.
BTW, the Transaction Malleability "DDOS" attack is still going on. Its just that no one cares, because no one else is using this wrong.



Tica said:


> No, whatever catsquirrelman was talking about, it was like a car that owned itself, or maybe I just didn't understand the reason bitcoin was necessary for that car to function



The point was that Bitcoin is the only method by which a piece of software can own its own money. Whether it's a self-owned car, or a tipping not that can collect and keep track of funds for you, and send them as small tips to whomever you tell it to.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 8, 2014)

Gryphoneer said:


> Libertarians like to generalize any and all forms of "force" or coercion as Bad and Evil so they can demonize parliamentary governance, but anyone who've had to beat up a bully or witnessed cops arresting a violent drunkard or amok killer knows force is necessary in a lot of situations.



It's "initiation of force" or coersion, not just generalized "force." Obviously force in self defense of OK.



Gryphoneer said:


> Governments use tax money to pay for keeping roads crumbling into dirt tracks and keeping tab water cholera-free.



Let's say I come to your house every week, and threaten to stab you in the leg if you didn't give me $50. Then I would take that $50 and give it to a privileged kid friend of mine, to have him mowe your lawn for you, despite other kids in the neighborhood willing to do it for $20. Then when he mowed your lawn, he used the highest setting on the mower, making sure that your grass was as high as possible and would need mowing again next week. Would you then claim that you need me to keep your lawn trimmed?
Because that's what's happening with our roads. Our money is taken under the threat of jail time for tax evasion, then given through no-bid contracts to private companies with established political ties, who then use the cheapest crappiest materials just so they will have to replace them soon after (ever notice how there's almost perpetual road construction in pant parts of us?). If people want roads, they will pay for roads, government or not. If they want clean water, they will pay for clean water too, just like they do in places where water isn't a public utility. Besides, car-on-road is a horribly inefficient transportation method. You know why we still use it, and things like trains and busses are almost dead in US? Because they can't compete with heavily government-subsidized roads, and quickly go out of business.



Gryphoneer said:


> This system is legitimized through consensus, meaning the majority of society know it doesn't work any other way...



They know? How? Did they see a comparison of privately owned roads somewhere? Or were just taught this by someone? And if they are taught this, who is doing the teaching?




Aleu said:


> You do know that they are supposed to use non-lethal force well before lethal, right?



Of course. And you will use non-lethal forms of resistance well before lethal. It will just keep escalating until either it becomes lethal (you resist, you fight back, tazer doesnt work so you just get shot), or you stop resisting and allow yourself to be subdued.



Aleu said:


> Wow, yes society means that people work together because, if not, then we have a great big mess. In case this is also too hard for you to understand



As an anarchocapitalist, I advocate for society, and people depending on living together in a society. Government does not mean society.



Aleu said:


> If Jobcorp paid John Doe pennies then all of that is unraveled because John Doe can't pay for shit.
> John Doe takes another job which also pays pennies.
> Now, John Doe is doing double the work for far less pay.
> This means he cannot contribute to other companies.
> ...



What actually happens in real life is Jobcorp spends its own money to train and educate John Doe, as well as provide for him to keep him happy and productive, so that Jobcorp has better employees than its competitors. Currently Jobcorp can pay pennies because it knows the government will take care of Joe by giving him free education, health care, and food stamps. That's not the case in countries like China, and so they do what I mentioned instead. If, in a free market society, John Doe still gets paid pennies, it is only because the type of work John Doe contributes is actually worth pennies, and there are many other John Does who are willing to do that same job for pennies.



Aleu said:


> There is no way that someone who has any sort of job can say that corporations need to pay less because people don't contribute (whatever the fuck that means).



I never said corporations need to pay less. I said everyone (corporations, businesses, private employers, self employed) need to pay what the work being done by people is worth. If what you do or make is more or less worthless, either because not many want it, or too many are also willing to do it, then you should get paid accordingly. Otherwise we have resources going to support work that is wasteful and inefficient, and people relying on performing wasteful inefficient work to survive, instead of trying to improve and specialize. If anyone could earn $20/hour just being a janitor, then why bother with more complex and difficult work that might otherwise only earn you $15/hour without minimum wage? Plus we'd end up with way more janitors (or fast food employees) than we need.



Tica said:


> If you have the means to help someone without detracting from your current quality of life, you are morally obligated to help them. How is this not obvious.



How much of your own money have you given away, and do you still have both kidneys or have given bone marrow?


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 8, 2014)

Stop, Rassah.

Just stop.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 8, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> Stop, Rassah.
> 
> Just stop.



Why, because you have no good counter arguments, or because what I am saying is making you uncomfortable for some unknown reason?


----------



## Khaki (Mar 8, 2014)

Forgive me for being a luddite, but how exactly does this currency gain value?


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 8, 2014)

Khaki said:


> value


Well, there's the problem...


----------



## RedDagger (Mar 8, 2014)

Khaki said:


> Forgive me for being a luddite, but how exactly does this currency gain value?



Enough people agree that it has a worth thus it can be sold for that value. As the popularity and demand increase, this perceived value increases to compensate. That's my understanding, anyway. 

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Where_does_the_value_of_Bitcoin_stem_from.3F_What_backs_up_Bitcoin.3F


----------



## Aleu (Mar 8, 2014)

Rassah you have literally NO IDEA how the real world works.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 8, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Rassah you have literally NO IDEA how the real world works.



Your world involves your town, your experience as a low wage employee, and your experience as a student, with whatever bureaucracy that entails. Mine involves traveling around the world and living in different countries, working minimum wage, being unemployed and almost homeless, being a student with all the bureaucracy, getting higher level jobs, dealing with what it actually takes to start and run a business, working for the government and seeing all the bureaucracy from the inside, and learning, both from classes and from interacting with people in related businesses and parts of the world, about how things work and who screws whom.

And you, from your little sheltered and inexperienced position, are telling me that *I *don't know how the real world works? What gives you the authority (intellectual, experience, or whatever) to make such a claim?


----------



## Migoto Da (Mar 8, 2014)

What difference does that make at all, Rassah?

So what. You run a business. That just means more responsibilities for you to deal with. The real world to you is significantly different compared to the real world of people like myself or Aleu. In a lot of ways, you have it easier, and also harder, than we do.

But that still doesn't give you the right to shit on everyone who doesn't agree with you. No matter who you are, I don't care if you're the damn Pope, you should respect the opinions and beliefs of others, without further antagonizing them for no reason other than the fact that it amuses you.

Some people have legitimate questions about what you believe Bitcoin can do, and you always take it as an attack, and therefore, treat everyone in the thread like absolute garbage, and they return in kind, and you get all defensive about it.

Honestly, if you feel that you're so vastly superiour to everyone else here, why not just shut up and move along? It's obvious not many people here can be convinced what you're saying is true.

I mean, I understand you invested a lot of time and money into this crap, but really. Doesn't give you an automatic right to stand on a pedestal and call everyone else plebeian.


tl;dr Just stop. This is getting nobody anywhere.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 8, 2014)

Rassah: I have been very poor before, have worked numerous minimum wage jobs, and have had the experience of feeling dread about having little money, worry about losing my job, and feeling mistreated or unappreciated as an employee. I also managed to get out of that, and have seen the other side of the situation, with regards to the dread and frustration businesses experience when they try to do anything or hire anyone, and the fraud and theft they have to deal with from the government.

Aleu: I'm going to stand up on a pedestal among my peers, look down on you, and declare that you don't know what it feels like to be poor, and don't know how the world works!

Rassah: But... ^^^

Migoto:  Get off your pedestal Rassah

^-.-^ *sigh*  Fuck it, you're right. Plebes will complain about their shitty situation, and fight to the death to defend it from anyone who hopes to improve it.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 8, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Rassah: I have been very poor before, have worked numerous minimum wage jobs, and have had the experience of feeling dread about having little money, worry about losing my job, and feeling mistreated or unappreciated as an employee. I also managed to get out of that, and have seen the other side of the situation, with regards to the dread and frustration businesses experience when they try to do anything or hire anyone, and the fraud and theft they have to deal with from the government.
> 
> Aleu: I'm going to stand up on a pedestal among my peers, look down on you, and declare that you don't know what it feels like to be poor, and don't know how the world works!
> 
> ...



I'm pretty convinced now that you're actually getting paid for "volunteering'


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 8, 2014)

Migoto Da said:


> tl;dr Just stop. This is getting nobody anywhere.



This is the 10th page of the second thread on the same exact topic and we've literally gone absolutely nowhere. I told everyone before this is a fruitless effort, you'd have a better chance of convincing a Neo-Nazi to have a bar mitzvah.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 8, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Mine involves traveling around the world and living in different countries, working minimum wage, being unemployed and almost homeless, being a student with all the bureaucracy, getting higher level jobs, dealing with what it actually takes to start and run a business, working for the government and seeing all the bureaucracy from the inside, and learning, both from classes and from interacting with people in related businesses and parts of the world, about how things work and who screws whom.


SOUNDS LEGIT


----------



## Aleu (Mar 8, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Rassah: I have been very poor before, have worked numerous minimum wage jobs, and have had the experience of feeling dread about having little money, worry about losing my job, and feeling mistreated or unappreciated as an employee. I also managed to get out of that, and have seen the other side of the situation, with regards to the dread and frustration businesses experience when they try to do anything or hire anyone, and the fraud and theft they have to deal with from the government.
> 
> Aleu: I'm going to stand up on a pedestal among my peers, look down on you, and declare that you don't know what it feels like to be poor, and don't know how the world works!
> 
> ...


You don't hope to improve it. You want to destroy it. Seriously, getting rid of minimum wage? Corporations would actually PAY for education of their employees? What the fuck are you even smoking?
Businesses pay pennies not because people's worth are pennies, but because they can get away with it. 
So yeah I'm pretty sure that I know far more than you would if you claim that businesses would hire people and educate them out of the goodness of their hearts. That's a god damn LAUGH


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 8, 2014)

You realize there will always be a minimum wage regardless because of basic corporate darwinism, right? Unless people become mindless zombies who will work for absolutely nothing.

Rassah just got rekt.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 8, 2014)

One billion was pulled out of poverty, in countries without minimum wage laws, where corporations actually pay employees what they are worth, and provide job training that those employees use to move up in the field.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/ta...xtreme-poverty-in-20-years-thanks-to-markets/
http://blog.michaelpage.asia/double-digit-salary-increases-and-high-employee-turnover-in-2014/
http://articles.economictimes.india...0_1_wage-growth-high-inflation-indian-job-mkt


----------



## Destova (Mar 8, 2014)

I'm by no means an expert on economics, but wouldn't abolishing the minimum wage mean that corporations would possibly lower the wage of people? Wouldn't that then create a situation where no one could afford anything at current market prices, causing corporations (in the short term) to lose money by lowering costs? Wouldn't this eventually balance out wage and cost, and create natural growth instead of artificial inflation? If demand still exists then eventually costs WILL drop. It's the whole short term high price low wage problem that I would see being the problem. This could possibly be avoided by gradually lowering the minimum wage instead of abolishing it out right.

Seems good on paper anyway; I hardly have the expertise to know if this is what would really happen.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 8, 2014)

Rassah said:


> One billion was pulled out of poverty, in countries without minimum wage laws, where corporations actually pay employees what they are worth, and provide job training that those employees use to move up in the field.
> 
> http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty
> http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/ta...xtreme-poverty-in-20-years-thanks-to-markets/
> ...



$1.25 per *day* was the ONLY figured discussed specifically in any of those four articles you linked. Is there a place in the world where you can live safely, with basic amenities, for less than 100USD/year?

Is that what people are worth to you and yours? 5 cents an hour (per 24 hours)? Even with job training, where the fuck is moving up in the field at 1.25USD per day? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8USD per *day*? That's not "moving up in the field", that's being abused in pretty much every sense of the word, for literally pennies a day. 

Taken out of context of this thread, and wholly taking your singular post on its own, you look like one of the worst sorts of conservative assholes in this world - That means there are your average conservatives, your abhorrent conservatives, and then you, below (at the bottom) all of those - Even skewed in your favour.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 9, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Is that what people are worth to you and yours? 5 cents an hour (per 24 hours)? Even with job training, where the fuck is moving up in the field at 1.25USD per day? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8USD per *day*? That's not "moving up in the field", that's being abused in pretty much every sense of the word, for literally pennies a day.



Why do you hate poor people and want them to continue only earning $1.25 a day?

P.S. India's wages are so high now, that it is no longer competitive to outsource to. A business outsourcing to there won't save much money, because they'll have to pay employees there almost as much as they pay them here. When it used to be $1.25 a day. Quite a jump.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Mar 9, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Rassah: I have been very poor before, have worked numerous minimum wage jobs, and have had the experience of feeling dread about having little money, worry about losing my job, and feeling mistreated or unappreciated as an employee. I also managed to get out of that, and have seen the other side of the situation, with regards to the dread and frustration businesses experience when they try to do anything or hire anyone, and the fraud and theft they have to deal with from the government.
> 
> Aleu: I'm going to stand up on a pedestal among my peers, look down on you, and declare that you don't know what it feels like to be poor, and don't know how the world works!
> 
> ...



You know trying to convince people you are right doesn't work well when you ooze myopic condescending attitudes. Also traveling the world doesn't mean you understand how the world really works. I've met military folk who have been all over the place and had the ability to visit many places and experience many things. Some of them still had the intelligence of a goldfish.



Rassah said:


> Why do you hate poor people and want them to continue only earning $1.25 a day?
> 
> P.S. India's wages are so high now, that it is no longer competitive to outsource to. A business outsourcing to there won't save much money, because they'll have to pay employees there almost as much as they pay them here. When it used to be $1.25 a day. Quite a jump.



Sources?


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 9, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Why do you hate poor people and want them to continue only earning $1.25 a day?
> 
> P.S. India's wages are so high now, that it is no longer competitive to outsource to. A business outsourcing to there won't save much money, because they'll have to pay employees there almost as much as they pay them here. When it used to be $1.25 a day. Quite a jump.



If that were true, we would see a boom of production and telemarketer's jobs in the US, which we aren't. Wages in India, Taiwan, and China are still low because they STILL do not have any human worker's rights laws that get them wages above 3.00.

The fiscal year right now puts the wages for India at 10% for production worker's (up from 9% last year);  that is due to a population boom in China and eastern Asia. The only people who are getting high paid wages right now are businessman CEOs, college teachers, and surgeons.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 9, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Why do you hate poor people and want them to continue only earning $1.25 a day?



I know it might be a struggle for you, but _try_ not to be dense, and actually _read _what I wrote_. _


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 9, 2014)

Face it, Rassah, you can't convince anyone at this point.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 9, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> Face it, Rassah, you can't convince anyone at this point.



I'm pretty sure he's not trying to. I'm pretty sure he's at that stage in an argument when you've fucked yourself so bad that you're only continuing to argue because you feel like you need to "win" because you're under the delusion that you're some kind of internet Crypto-Jesus that knows the true, bitcoin-laden path, and that every lesser man must follow him.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 9, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> If that were true, we would see a boom of production and telemarketer's jobs in the US, which we aren't.




Why would we see the boom in US? There are still plenty of other countries to expand capitalism to. The current boom is in Kenya.



Lastdirewolf said:


> I know it might be a struggle for you, but _try_ not to be dense, and actually _read _what I wrote_. _



I did. You were upset that people were earning $1.25 per day, and are now being exploited for $8 per day (it's actually closer to $40 per day). So either you are against capitalism and want them to go back to $1.25 a day, or you want your particular country to "spread democracy" to them, make all their businesses get the hell out of their country to escape regulation, and make then earn $0 a day without any social safety nets.



Trpdwarf said:


> Sources?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocent...f-outsourcing-and-other-it-management-trends/
http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/mar/05bpo.htm

It's not just travel. It's travel, plus business research and relations, plus stuff they teach you in graduate level business schools. I actually learned about the outsource issue from my Global Sourcing class, which was taught by the CIO of CSC corp who is in charge of setting up outsourcing offices for other companies. They're not even looking at India and China any more, due to huge increase in wages, and are focusing on southeast Asia (Indonesia for example), and Kenya.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 9, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Why would we see the boom in US? There are still plenty of other countries to expand capitalism to. The current boom is in Kenya.


Just because you see a capitalism boom in places like Kenya, does not mean that more than 55% of it's people are reaping the benefits, especially if they have less and less regulations in place for businesses that make more of a profit by outsourcing to set up shop. Once you go more eastward towards Uganda, you start to see a severe drop. Nairobi doesn't count.



> I did. You were upset that people were earning $1.25 per day, and are now being exploited for $8 per day (it's actually closer to $40 per day). So either you are against capitalism and want them to go back to $1.25 a day, or you want your particular country to "spread democracy" to them, make all their businesses get the hell out of their country to escape regulation, and make then earn $0 a day without any social safety nets.



Despite if they were making 1.25 or 0, there are no social and work environments safety nets in foreign countries for the lower class. The difference then our "pimp and Ho" situation here and the "pimp and Ho" situation there is that we have regulations and other things to prevent us being paid a buck and a quarter an hour, among a few other things.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 9, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I did. You were upset that people were earning $1.25 per day, and are now being exploited for $8 per day (it's actually closer to $40 per day).



I don't even know or care if you're just _that_ stupid, or trolling, but for the others entertainment, here we go:

_Clearly _you *didn't *read it before, and yet you still *don't *understand it _after_ reading it. I can't believe you're older than 13, claim to be the Director for some Bitcoin operation you cease to shut up about (that is, Bitcoin), and yet can't understand basic words with a simple context, so I'll lay it out for you nice and simple:

I'm not _just_ 'upset' that people were earning 1.25 a day, I'm 'upset' that _you _make it *sound *like that it's *okay *to pay people that much (thus fulfilling the circle - People took what they could get, which was  pocket change, and therefore that is what they were worth in your eyes,  despite the fact that they most likely can't find anything else), even to the point of _defending _shitty wages (even though your own links stated that employers were paying much more each year, and _that_ is why people are being pulled out of poverty bit by bit), *and *on _top_ of that, I _really _didn't feel like counting all the way to *40* (if that's even correct), so I stopped at *8 *because I felt as if I had made my point - Which clearly, I didn't. 

I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your delusional post with a proper response.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Mar 9, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Why would we see the boom in US? There are still plenty of other countries to expand capitalism to. The current boom is in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You seem to be missing my initial point. I apologize if it was unclear. Your so called "credentials" are completely pointless to tout here because they don't mean a damn thing. What matters is the substanance of your argument, and if you are capable of connecting important dots to understand the bigger picture. 

I don't consider Forbes to be a good resource or place for information. The people who write the articles have a tendency to not link back properly to more legitimate sources, engage in articles written based on pure speculation, and or tend to ban anyone who in the comment sections actually brings up legitimate points with evidence that contradicts the writer's PoV.

Now as for your second article, I feel as though it is missing a very big point that is causing people to push away from India. India has a lot of bad corperations that are treating their people like expendable garbage. I've searched over and over and can't find it again, but there was news that broke within the last 6 months where a garment factory that often tied it's mostly female employees to their stations to force them to stay there went up in flames. A lot of people died because they were not able to get out. The owners of the company were more concerned about replacing the equipment and less about the loss of actual lives if you read their full statements about the issue.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of regulations protecting the people right now so ethical obligations that companies should be filling, as well as obligations to ensure proper safety and planning are often ignored. This is why it's not surprising me to anymore to keep hearing about various places (especially the garment factories for some reason) to end up on fire. The sad part is this has a partial hand from Wal-mart here because they purposely outsource this kind of work and buy this kind of product produced by labor...in an area where the people have just as much rights as cattle, which is none. So forgive me for not being so thrilled with the idea of people outsourcing to struggling countries. I will also point out that a lot of workers in India are beginning to revolt against the practices as they demand better treatment, and better wages. If you are a corp looking to take advantage of desperate people India isn't looking so hot right now. Again this is something that article fails to take into consideration.

Now as for places like Kenya seeing a boom, part of that is actually due to tourism as people have made the switch to start to protect local wildlife from poachers as opposed to helping people hunt them. This in turn has created a special situation where people are able to hold down jobs, and it's promoting a tourism spot. This is happening across Africa right now. Unfortunately when Corperations come in while they may finally provide a stable source of income where-as the only options are often to resort to poaching and feeding a terrible black market for animal parts....the double edge is that these corps don't always play nice and have a tendacy to spoil the land with toxic dumping.

Take some time to look into how some corporations for bottling water have moved into areas providing jobs, but they end up bleeding a limited resource dry and as such the people living there then can't even get basic access to water because some company moved in and now owns it. You seem to treat this as a good thing...that our jobs keeping getting outsourced to places that people can be taken advantage of? No if this is the case, you are the one who seems to have no concept of actual reality, and you seem to hold no compassion for the poor/impoverished, and no understanding of what is really going on. That so many corps are moving into these areas is a crisis, and a tragedy.

As for information:

http://www.georgewright.org/291karanja.pdf
http://www.awf.org/country/kenya

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/walmart-bangladesh_n_3201358.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/w...ory-fire-caused-by-gross-negligence.html?_r=0 (there are too many of these in the news, go look em up for yourself).
https://libcom.org/news/article.php/bangladesh-garment-revolt-140706 little bit about the revolt. Not hard to research yourself.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304330904579133573505195610

Again it's not hard to research information about water companies attempting to privatize water sources. It's being fought in the US and so some are turning their sights on 3rd world countries where ignorant people are easy to take advantage of, and who have little to no power to fight for what is theirs.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/10...a-fights-profit-american-water-public-control
http://www.world-psi.org/sites/defa...ch/psiru_conflicts_human_rights_and_water.pdf


----------



## Rassah (Mar 10, 2014)

Long airplane flight...



Ozriel said:


> Just because you see a capitalism boom in places like Kenya, does not mean that more than 55% of it's people are reaping the benefits



So because not everyone reaps the benefits, no one should? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.



Ozriel said:


> The difference then our "pimp and Ho" situation here and the "pimp and Ho" situation there is that we have regulations and other things to prevent us being paid a buck and a quarter an hour, among a few other things.



I think the difference is that they had almost a billion people become employed and get pulled out of extreme poverty, while we had continued or increasing unemployment, and increasing poverty.



Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm not _just_ 'upset' that people were earning 1.25 a day, I'm 'upset' that _you _make it *sound *like that it's *okay *to pay people that much (thus fulfilling the circle - People took what they could get, which was pocket change, and therefore that is what they were worth in your eyes, despite the fact that they most likely can't find anything else)



I am not "OK" with it, I simply believe that that's the reality. If labor and the business environment there can't generate more than $1.25 per person, then it really doesn't matter what someone's opinion of it is. I would be OK with everyone there earning $100,000 a year, and politicians could even pass laws mandating that, but that would be as effective as politicians passing laws banning hot and humid weather.



Trpdwarf said:


> Your so called "credentials" are completely pointless to tout here because they don't mean a damn thing.



Neither do Aleu's claims that I don't know anything, or don't know how realty works. At least I have some experience and credentials that are worthless.



Trpdwarf said:


> I don't consider Forbes to be a good resource or place for information.



Fair enough. I just googled for terms, and those were some of the ones that popped up. There were plenty of others. My original source was a Harvard Business School research case that was part of my university class from two years ago. If you search for the topic, you'll likely find other sources too.




Trpdwarf said:


> Now as for your second article, I feel as though it is missing a very big point that is causing people to push away from India. India has a lot of bad corperations that are treating their people like expendable garbage.



That may be the case for some of them, yes. And I heard about the fire incident as well. But those types of cloth or very basic hand made manufacturing businesses are not really the main thing being outsourced there, and are mostly the remnants of pre-boom India. My business sources tell me their main reasons for deceased outsourcing are a combination of wages being too high, and regulations starting to be too ridiculous. For instance, you apparently need to get a permit to run a LAN cable between two buildings you own, even if they are 3 feet apart, which could take up to two months.




Trpdwarf said:


> The sad part is this has a partial hand from Wal-mart here because they purposely outsource this kind of work and buy this kind of product produced by labor...in an area where the people have just as much rights as cattle, which is none.



But what are the alternatives? You either don't hire these people at all, so they resort to starving or prostitution. You pay them higher wages, but that means you have to sell your product for higher prices, and other businesses undercut you, so you go out of business and your employees are in the same situation. You pass a law forcing all companies to pay higher wages, so you again have to sell for higher prices, but other companies move to places without such laws, undercut you, and you are in the same situation again. Or you let these people work for whatever their economy will support, even if it seems very little to the rest of us, hope they increase the value of their skills through job experience, and their country catches up to the rest of us. As I probably said earlier, minimum wage laws don't make sense in a global economy, unless they are enforced worldwide (though at that point you'll start losing jobs to automation).




Trpdwarf said:


> I will also point out that a lot of workers in India are beginning to revolt against the practices as they demand better treatment, and better wages.



I would point out that the only reason they are even able to do that is because of increased competition for labor among companies. If there were few companies and a huge labor pool, no one would protest, since employees would very easily be replaced by hundreds of others hoping to get that person's job. But since there are too many jobs and too few to fill them, they have the power to demand more.




Trpdwarf said:


> I will also point out that a lot of workers in India are beginning to revolt against the practices as they demand better treatment, and better wages.
> If you are a corp looking to take advantage of desperate people India isn't looking so hot right now. Again this is something that article fails to take into consideration.



That's actually exactly what those articles were talking about. If there were very few companies and lots of people looking for work, no one would protest, because they would know that there are hundreds of others out there ready to take their job. But since the situation is that there are too many jobs and not enough people to fill them, employees understand that they are a scarce and valuable resource, and thus have the power to demand higher compensation.



Trpdwarf said:


> Now as for places like Kenya seeing a boom, part of that is actually due to tourism



Actually, it's because Kenyans are educated, and speak either a slightly British or plain-American sounding English, and still have a lot of people without work looking for something to do. Perfect combination to set up call centers, which is what is driving the boom now.



Trpdwarf said:


> Take some time to look into how some corporations for bottling water have moved into areas providing jobs, but they end up bleeding a limited resource dry and as such the people living there then can't even get basic access to water because some company moved in and now owns it.



Who gives those corporations the rights to those resources, and protects their given claim from the locals?



Trpdwarf said:


> You seem to treat this as a good thing...that our jobs keeping getting outsourced to places that people can be taken advantage of?



I'm not for taking advantage of (though some of you seem to define everything, even being hungry, as being taken advantage of). I only think it's a good thing that our privileged, wealthy jobs are being outsourced to people who used to make $1.25 a day. People who actually need them way more than we do.



Trpdwarf said:


> That so many corps are moving into these areas is a crisis, and a tragedy.



And, again, I'd ask, what is the alternative? Begging and prostitution? 




Trpdwarf said:


> Again it's not hard to research information about water companies attempting to privatize water sources.



Who is giving those companies those water resources though?
Resource privatization is an even more complex topic though... I'd argue that publicly owned resources is actually the #2 reason for our environmental destruction (war being  #1), but the reasons are somewhat counter intuitive. I'll elaborate if you want.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 10, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I am not "OK" with it, I'm simply believe that  that's the reality. If people and the business environment there can't  generate more than $1.25 per person, then it really doesn't matter what  someone's opinion of it is.
> 
> I would be OK with everyone there  earning $100,000 a year



You really, _really _sound like you're okay with it, regardless if it's the "reality" or not. The thing is, many businesses probably _can_ afford to pay a livable wage - Sure, not every one of them is a multi-million/billion dollar business, but _even_ those that are, do they pay that aformentioned, unsubstantiated ~40USD a day - More? I seriously doubt it. 

I'm sure you'd be okay with a _bunch _of dumb shit, like using _dated _and _asinine_ republican talking points against raising the American minimum wage. 100k/year? Why not 100k/day, or 100k/hour? Pull your head out of your ass for just a _fleeting _moment and try your absolute hardest to gauge a wage between 15k/year (assuming the unsubstantiated number is _factual_, that they consistently make 40/day, and that they work 365 days a year, with no deductions or fees anywhere) and 100k/year.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 10, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You really, _really _sound like you're okay with it, regardless if it's the "reality" or not.



If I was OK with people earning little and being exploited, can you explain me promoting the "1 billion pulled out of poverty" thing?



Lastdirewolf said:


> The thing is, many businesses probably _can_ afford to pay a livable wage



Define livable wage. Mind you, we (a family of four) lived on $350 a month in USSR. We "lived," so I guess it was livable. Do you believe livable requires a car, a TV with a game system, and your own house?

Also, where do you think money comes from? Like, where do businesses get it from that they can "afford" to do things?




Lastdirewolf said:


> Pull your head out of your ass for just a _fleeting _moment and try your absolute hardest to gauge a wage between 15k/year and 100k/year.



Fine. Let's say we institute a $15k a year minimum wage in India. What do you believe will happen to everyone currently earning, or said another way, contributing $3 to the price of a product? (I.e. you take $7 of raw materials, the employee puts it together, adding $3 of value to it, and the business sells it for $11, making a $1 profit).


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 11, 2014)

Rassah said:


> 1)If I was OK with people earning little and being exploited, can you explain me promoting the "1 billion pulled out of poverty" thing?
> 
> 2) Define livable wage.
> 
> ...



1) Are you a part of it personally, or are you just promoting it like people promote stuff on Facebook? Though that whole noise is because those people have been getting paid significantly more than the number discussed earlier.

2) You don't know what livable wage means? I thought you were promoting the "1 billion pulled out of poverty" thing?

3) Oh _yes_, because hurr durr I'm an american, and money grows on trees! (_gubment _trees of course)

4) You got me, I dunno what 350 is in USSR money, nor do I know if that is sufficient for _anything _in the USSR, frankly. I do know that my family was in debt up until a handful of years ago, that my mom had a job when she was 16 (she's nearly 58, quit couple years ago), my dad had a job since he was 10 (he's now 70, quit a couple years ago), my sister has had at least 1 job since she was 15 (she's nearly 28 ), and I have had at least two jobs since I was 13 (I'm nearly 26). We've never been on government assistance either, but go on about your woes though, I'm _dying_ to hear them.

5) From tree's, _gubment_ trees of course (see #3)

6) I am *only* using 15k/year as a minimum because it is what *you* said ($40/day, with no stipulation, works out to $14,600/year) earlier. I can also throw around various, unsubstantiated and/or hypothetical numbers, but I don't claim to know them, I'm simply working with what _you_ give me.


----------



## Khaki (Mar 11, 2014)

RedDagger said:


> Enough people agree that it has a worth thus it can be sold for that value. As the popularity and demand increase, this perceived value increases to compensate. That's my understanding, anyway.
> 
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Where_does_the_value_of_Bitcoin_stem_from.3F_What_backs_up_Bitcoin.3F



Ah ok, I guess that explains things.

That sounds like a very fragile concept for something worth investing in, given that it's value is determined by mere preference and exists purely as an electronic entity.

But then again, isn't that what the banks have already been doing?

Everything has to start from somewhere, so it will be interesting to see where this leads to, provided that the internet continues to exist by then.


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 11, 2014)

Rassah, you so silly.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 11, 2014)

Maybe if we keep typing page-long posts, this thread will look like we are actually debating something.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 11, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> 1) Are you a part of it personally, or are you just promoting it like people promote stuff on Facebook?



I did not have businesses or outsource any work there, so no, I was not a part of it. But I do support the fact that outsourcing and capitalism reduced global poverty by more than half before anyone even noticed, and without any politicians bloviating about how it has to be done.



Lastdirewolf said:


> 2) You don't know what livable wage means?



Correct. I lived on $40 *a month*, though only had a place to stay thanks to someone's generosity. My parents, along with us two little kids, lived on $350 a month. People in some parts of the world live on $1 a day. They are all apparently livable wages. Which makes the statement "livable wage" about as precise as "big." So I ask, what is livable wage? Can you define it?



Lastdirewolf said:


> 3) Oh _yes_, because hurr durr I'm an american, and money grows on trees! (_gubment _trees of course)



Sorry, I have no idea what you meant or implied, so your insult, if it was one, went right over my head 



Lastdirewolf said:


> 4) You got me, I dunno what 350 is in USSR money, nor do I know if that is sufficient for _anything _in the USSR, frankly.



Sorry, it was $350 USD equivalent. We "livabled," barely, so apparently it was sufficient.



Lastdirewolf said:


> I do know that my family was in debt up until a handful of years ago, that my mom had a job when she was 16 (she's nearly 58, quit couple years ago), my dad had a job since he was 10 (he's now 70, quit a couple years ago), my sister has had at least 1 job since she was 15 (she's nearly 28 ), and I have had at least two jobs since I was 13 (I'm nearly 26). We've never been on government assistance either, but go on about your woes though, I'm _dying_ to hear them.



Good for you. I was a latchkey kid since I was 5, coming home, cleaning, preparing ingredients for food (peeling veggies and such), and picking up and taking care of my little brother later in the day, until parents came home after 6pm. I also started working when I was 16, and worked two jobs since I was 19. Now I have no debts (positive net worth) "work" four jobs as a consultant, meaning from home whenever I feel like, and one full time job, which I plan to retire from in a few weeks. My remaining "work" will consist of only doing what I like, when I feel like it, so you could say I'm about to retire (though I'll still be ridiculously busy, not because I need a paycheck, but because a lot of people really depend on me). I'm in my early 30's. What was the question again?



Lastdirewolf said:


> 5) From tree's, _gubment_ trees of course (see #3)



So... You think money comes from government? (#3) Or from a job paycheck? (#4) I hope you're kidding! 



Lastdirewolf said:


> 6) I am *only* using 15k/year as a minimum because it is what *you* said ($40/day, with no stipulation, works out to $14,600/year) earlier.



Fine. You know algebra? Let's say we institute a $X an hour minimum wage in India. What do you believe will happen to everyone currently earning, or said another way, contributing $X-3 to the price of a product that takes 1 hour to make? Said another way, if a product brings in $X amount of revenue, but government passes a law requiring the labor part of that product to cost $X+3, do you think the company will continue to make the product and employing the people?


----------



## Rassah (Mar 11, 2014)

Back to Bitcoin:

By the way, totally missed it before, but there was news from the Hackathon that happened the day before the Texas Bitcoin Conference last week, about a new thing being developed with bitcoin technology: *Distributed Storage*.

Instead of contributing CPU power to mine currency, you will contribute a portion of your unused hard drive space. For doing so, the blockchain will reward you with it's own specific currency, which you can sell for bitcoin or other money. If you want to buy storage space, you will buy this specific currency from those providing storage space, and use it to buy storage through the blockchain. All of this will happen automatically, in a completely trustless environment, with no one in control. The idea is that you'll be able to have completely distributed and encrypted online storage, which you can buy on a completely decentralized and anonymous market (if buying with bitcoin), which will exist in a way where no one is in charge, and thus no one to force to take it down. It will also be much much cheaper than DropBox and others, since you'll be using idle spare storage space, instead of dedicated servers in a warehouse, and be much more robust, since your data will be redundantly backed up around the world.
Combine with Namecoin providing distributed DNS services (which can even give URLs to anonymous Tor sites), and we have the seeds for the fall of DropBox, web storage providers, ICANN, and copyright. Add shared 3D printer templates, and you can toss patents on the pile.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 11, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I did not have businesses or outsource any work there, so no, I was not a part of it. But I do support the fact that outsourcing and capitalism reduced global poverty by more than half before anyone even noticed, and without any politicians bloviating about how it has to be done.
> 
> Correct. I lived on $40 *a month*, though only had a place to stay thanks to someone's generosity. My parents, along with us two little kids, lived on $350 a month. People in some parts of the world live on $1 a day. They are all apparently livable wages. Which makes the statement "livable wage" about as precise as "big." So I ask, what is livable wage? Can you define it?
> 
> ...



Well outsourcing from the USA has also helped persist a problem in our own country, but that's a whole other topic.

I guess if you have _no_ idea what a livable wage is, I can sorta define it for you. It's being capable of meeting basic needs (food/water/shelter/etc.) _without_ largely being supported by anything other than your job, and in a best case scenario, you also wouldn't have to sacrifice privacy. 

It's not a terribly difficult statement, though if you don't understand sarcasm (or the likes), then yeah.

What the fuck is "livabled"?

"Good for me"? Yeah, thanks. I'm not going to go tit for tat with my _whole _sob story, but when I say work, I mean _work_. Landscaping, driving, heavy lifting/hauling, tonnes of research, and more.

I was not only being sarcastic, but it was at your expense. Forgive me if English is not your native or most-used tongue, but it's what I work within. 

_Basic _algebra was my highest level of math, even through college (oh yes, I did). Though honestly, your uh, "example" was far more confusing than your original post. From what I gather, if X=10, there is a deficit and/or positive gain of 3 or 6? Is that meant to clash or what? I'm not going to just assume any math problem you throw out has reliable numbers or wording (especially because most math problems use meaningless numbers), so it literally means nothing to me. I _think_ I might get the jist of it, but it wouldn't excuse multiple million and billion dollar companies paying so little to their workers.


----------



## Khaki (Mar 12, 2014)

I have another question.

Do these bitcoin entrepreneurs make a profit out of these bitcoins and if so, how do they achieve this?


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 12, 2014)

Khaki said:


> Do these bitcoin entrepreneurs make a profit out of these bitcoins and if so, how do they achieve this?


Currently the way you make profit from bitcoin is to get other people to buy into bitcoin. By doing so, you raise the price, so you can cash you higher. This fact likely isn't going to change any time soon.



> Correct. I lived on $40 a month, though only had a place to stay *thanks to someone's generosity.*


Out of curiosity, where did those $40 go towards? Were you getting everwhere on foot and eating noodles every day? If you were using mass transit/a car/a bike, you'll probably want to revisit those numbers. Also, as someone who cooks primarily vegetarian meals only using ingredients on sale, I spend ~$3 on food/day, which equates to $90/month. This doesn't include when I go out to, say, cafes to interact with friends.

From that I'm gonna go ahead and assume you were getting:
*Free food
*Free rent
*Free living expenses
*Free transportation

Unless you were in a 3rd world country at the time, in which case $40 would be realistic (unfortunately, not everyone has the luxury of living in the 3rd world).

e: You also talked about how you didn't pay taxes earlier in the previous bitcoin thread, so I would also assume you were getting:
*Free social services
*Free city infrastructure and free infrastructure maintenance
*Free national defense


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Mar 12, 2014)

Are you saying someone would lie on the internet? I don't believe you.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 12, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Are you saying someone would lie on the internet? I don't believe you.


Not sure if it's a lie, but if it was 40bux/month in a first-world country, then he definitely missed something in his calculations. A whole lot of somethings.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 12, 2014)

Khaki said:


> Do these bitcoin entrepreneurs make a profit out of these bitcoins and if so, how do they achieve this?




Either investing directly buy buying bitcoins and having them increase in value as it gets used more, or by building services on top of it that charge fees. For example

Exchanges typically let you trade bitcoins for fiat at 0.5% fee
BitPay and Coinbase work as a merchant processor, similar to VISA, and charge 1% fee to process sales and convert bitcoins into cash in your bank (compared to VISA's 2.5% fee)
Mining hardware manufacturers sell devices you can use to secure the network, for which the network pays you
Wallet hardware manufacturers made secure bitcoin storage devices that can't get hacked by malware
Software wallet app makers could charge a fee for plugins and services for their wallets
Insurance companies charge fees to secure your bitcoin in an online "bank"
ATM manufacturers sell ATMs that let you use your bitcoin address like a bank account, depositing and withdrawing cash to it like you would from any other ATM
Notary services charge a fee to create a hash of a document you want to have "Proof-of-Existance" of, and permanently embed it into the bitcoin blockchain to prove that you owned the document in that form on that date
Stock share companies charge for the serviice of letting you raise money by issuing shares of your company on the blockchain.

and new services are still being developed that we don't really know of. Like with the internet. Bitcoin is as if you had a choice to make money by developing on top of the internet, or buying shares of the internet itself.

EDIT: The big thing about Bitcoin is not how much profit people will make, but how much profit people who are profiting now will stop making. Credit cards, money transfer services, banks, lawyers, title registers, notaries, stock brokers, and investment bankers are all looking at a massive pay cut due to bitcoin replacing much of their work, and providing it for free. That means a lot more freed up money for the rest of us that's no longer wasted on that system.




Kazooie said:


> Out of curiosity, where did those $40 go towards? Were you getting everwhere on foot and eating noodles every day? If you were using mass transit/a car/a bike, you'll probably want to revisit those numbers. Also, as someone who cooks primarily vegetarian meals only using ingredients on sale, I spend ~$3 on food/day, which equates to $90/month. This doesn't include when I go out to, say, cafes to interact with friends.



I used a bit of the money on gas to visit my parents, and drive to interviews. Mostly I went around on foot, with a grocery store and library with internet nearby. Grocery shopping consisted of a dozzen eggs, some onions, and some green peppers. That would make enough omelettes for a week. Sometimes I would treat myself, and buy one of those fruit pies that used to be 2 for $1. I was getting free rent, or rather borrowed rent which I had to pay back after I got a job and moved. Owner also got sexual favors that I consented to. I don't remember getting any free food. Roommates typically ate out. Sometimes I would get free food when I visited my parents for dinner every few weeks.



Kazooie said:


> You also talked about how you didn't pay taxes earlier in the previous bitcoin thread



I do pay taxes.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I used a bit of the money on gas to visit my parents, and drive to interviews. Mostly I went around on foot, with a grocery store and library with internet nearby. Grocery shopping consisted of a dozzen eggs, some onions, and some green peppers. That would make enough omelettes for a week. Sometimes I would treat myself, and buy one of those fruit pies that used to be 2 for $1. I was getting free rent, or rather borrowed rent which I had to pay back after I got a job and moved. I don't remember getting any free food. Roommates typically ate out. Sometimes I would get free food when I visited my parents for dinner every few weeks.


One two-egg omlette a day, huh. Okay, that's part of a breakfast. How about the rest of the food?



> I do pay taxes.


you might want to edit the post where you stated you use bitcoin to evade taxes, then


----------



## Rassah (Mar 12, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> One two-egg omlette a day, huh. Okay, that's part of a breakfast. How about the rest of the food?



Two one-egg omelettes a day. Plus plenty of water. I was only about 140lb back then or so.



Kazooie said:


> you might want to edit the post where you stated you use bitcoin to evade taxes, then



I don't, but I may have made a point that it would be trivially easy for everyone to. In the same way that it's trivially easy to skirt copyright laws with bittorrent.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Two one-egg omelettes a day. Plus plenty of water. I was only about 140lb back then or so.


Ok, so your $40/month figure requires malnourisment and borderline starvation.

That is not a very good "cost of living" example.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 12, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> Ok, so your $40/month figure requires malnourisment and borderline starvation.
> 
> That is not a very good "cost of living" example.



Maybe not a good "cost of living" as defined by X, but I had my protein, veggies, water, and wasn't hungry, so "livable."


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I used a bit of the money on gas to visit my parents, and drive to interviews. Mostly I went around on foot, with a grocery store and library with internet nearby. Grocery shopping consisted of a dozzen eggs, some onions, and some green peppers. That would make enough omelettes for a week. Sometimes I would treat myself, and buy one of those fruit pies that used to be 2 for $1. I was getting free rent, or rather borrowed rent which I had to pay back after I got a job and moved.* Owner also got sexual favors that I consented to.* I don't remember getting any free food. Roommates typically ate out. Sometimes I would get free food when I visited my parents for dinner every few weeks.



Wow...My mind is blown.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Maybe not a good "cost of living" as defined by X, but I had my protein, veggies, water, and wasn't hungry, so "livable."


ahahahahahahahahahahaha

No.

2 eggs. 155 calories.
1/2 onion. ~40 calories.

Yeah, good luck with your 200 calorie/day diet. For the thread's reference, people generally need to consume around the lines of ~1500 calories/day (in terms of raw energy).



Ozriel said:


> Wow...My mind is blown.


I need to add "free condoms" to my list :V (seriously though, those things are expensive)


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 12, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> ahahahahahahahahahahaha
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



Last I recall, the average for a adult male was about 2K calories a day. Women about 15-1850. Depending on your level of activity, you may consume more than 2500 calories. Since I am active, I consume about 2.5K on average. (3000 during the winter since I burn more calories keeping warm) 

Still agreeing with you though.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 12, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Wow...My mind is blown.



So THATS how people pay for college.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 12, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> So THATS how people pay for college.



The art students give handjobs and blowjobs for art supplies and ramen at my college. :V


----------



## Rassah (Mar 12, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Wow...My mind is blown.



I should add, "A very common thing for people in 3rd world countries who don't have the luxury of a sweatshop job."



Kazooie said:


> 2 eggs. 155 calories.
> 1/2 onion. ~40 calories.
> 
> Yeah, good luck with your 200 calorie/day diet. For the thread's reference, people generally need to consume around the lines of ~1500 calories/day (in terms of raw energy). I, personally, consume around the lines of ~2500 or so, as I'm male, physically active, and tall.



I wasn't active, nor tall. Maybe I had a loaf of breaf. It was 10 years ago, and not a time I remember well, or wish to.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I should add, "A very common thing for people in 3rd world countries who don't have the luxury of a sweatshop job."
> .



No...No...You are right. I shouldn't be surprised since i work in a place where "humpday" is common place in the non-fic section where I work. And library cards are their form of payment.

Then again, I lived with a big kinda family commune like a latino, but food was often a group thing since your family sticks close to you to support each other.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I should add, "A very common thing for people in 3rd world countries who don't have the luxury of a sweatshop job."



And also 1st world white college students.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 12, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> And also 1st world white  art college students.



Fixed that for you for more accuracy.


----------



## Mentova (Mar 12, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> The art students give handjobs and blowjobs for art supplies and ramen at my college. :V



I should keep this in mind next semester. I've got the skills to pay the bills :V


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> and not a time I remember well, or wish to.


Most likely because you were _*starving to death

*_Please tell me your diet has become a *bit* more sane?


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 12, 2014)

Mentova said:


> I should keep this in mind next semester. I've got the skills to pay the bills :V



You just have to remember that the reference area in your college library is the best place to give handjobs. If you get caught, just say "Biology anatomy studies".


----------



## Mentova (Mar 12, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> You just have to remember that the reference area in your college library is the best place to give handjobs. If you get caught, just say "Biology anatomy studies".



I'll make sure I remember that. It sounds like a useful excuse.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 12, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> Most likely because you were _*starving to death
> 
> *_Please tell me your diet has become a *bit* more sane?



I wasn't starving, but why do you care?


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I wasn't starving, but why do you care?


According to the data you have presented, and humanity's current knowledge of the average daily energy consumption of a person, you were objectively consuming far less energy than you were expending. The calculations are not difficult.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 12, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> According to the data you have presented, and humanity's current knowledge of the average daily energy consumption of a person, you were objectively consuming far less energy than you were expending. The calculations are not difficult.



How does that apply to the other 2billion in the world who live on less then?


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> How does that apply to the other 2billion in the world who live on less then?


You claim that 2 billion people eat less than 200 calories/day?

Where did you get that data?

e: but yes, a sizable fraction of the world's population is starving and/or malnourished. Not to the extent that you were starving yourself in your $40/month scenario, though.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> How does that apply to the other 2billion in the world who live on less then?



Depends if they live past 30.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 12, 2014)

MtGox filed for bankruptcy in US BTW. Is Bitcoin dead yet?

Also, will no one make comments about child porn in regards to this? I am seriously dissapoint -.-



> There was news from the Hackathon that happened the day before the Texas Bitcoin Conference last week, about a new thing being developed with bitcoin technology: *Distributed Storage*.
> 
> Instead of contributing CPU power to mine currency, you will contribute a portion of your unused hard drive space. For doing so, the blockchain will reward you with it's own specific currency, which you can sell for bitcoin or other money. If you want to buy storage space, you will buy this specific currency from those providing storage space, and use it to buy storage through the blockchain. All of this will happen automatically, in a completely trustless environment, with no one in control. The idea is that you'll be able to have completely distributed and encrypted online storage, which you can buy on a completely decentralized and anonymous market (if buying with bitcoin), which will exist in a way where no one is in charge, and thus no one to force to take it down. It will also be much much cheaper than DropBox and others, since you'll be using idle spare storage space, instead of dedicated servers in a warehouse, and be much more robust, since your data will be redundantly backed up around the world.
> Combine with Namecoin providing distributed DNS services (which can even give URLs to anonymous Tor sites), and we have the seeds for the fall of DropBox, web storage providers, ICANN, and copyright. Add shared 3D printer templates, and you can toss patents on the pile.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 13, 2014)

This thread has been derailed to shit and beyond so at this point it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Khaki (Mar 13, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Either investing directly buy buying bitcoins and having them increase in value as it gets used more, or by building services on top of it that charge fees. For example
> 
> Exchanges typically let you trade bitcoins for fiat at 0.5% fee
> BitPay and Coinbase work as a merchant processor, similar to VISA, and charge 1% fee to process sales and convert bitcoins into cash in your bank (compared to VISA's 2.5% fee)
> ...



Ah ok, so it's like an alternative virtual stock market?


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 13, 2014)

Khaki said:


> Ah ok, so it's like an alternative virtual stock market?


With actual, real-life stocks, you can use knowledge about a company to predict its performance.

Bitcoin isn't really predictable, it's more like gambling, except without the guaranteed securities that regular casinos give (usually casinos don't flat-out grab all your cash and run). And the casino consumes a city's worth of power.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 13, 2014)

Kazooie said:


> With actual, real-life stocks, you can use knowledge about a company to predict its performance.
> 
> Bitcoin isn't really predictable, it's more like gambling, except without the guaranteed securities that regular casinos give (usually casinos don't flat-out grab all your cash and run). And the casino consumes a city's worth of power.



Yes, it's a bit like a stock market. People with extremely high credentials, in really high up financial sectors, are able to make predictions just like they do in any other stock or currency. It's more like a conglomerate corporation though. Like GE, which comprises General Electric, General Motors, General Foods, etc, with lots of disparate components and subsidiary companies working independently to make up and effect the whole. In bitcoin, there are now over a hundred different companies making up the whole bitcoin economy, which also make up somewhat disparate components, such as hardware for mining, hardware for security, software for transactions, software for security, and software/services for business. Each has its own effect on the bitcoin economy. So, as you would in stock, you would predict what bitcoin would do by using knowledge about what kind of companies are involved, how well they are performing, and what kind of new companies (or big investors) are on the horison. Plus, since bitcoin is global, you'll have to take into account foreign country effects, which, again, is no different from stocks. If China puts restrictions on rare earth materials, you can be sure that will effect hard drive and hybrid car manufacturers (magnets and batteries). Lastly, you can predict what it would do by looking at the usability it offers (what it can do), and comparing it to similar established businesses, to see if bitcoin could replace them (pretty much anything to do with finance or property registry). If it does it cheaper and more efficiently, then it will likely replace it eventually, in which case you can take a chunk of that existing market and add it to bitcoin to see how it would change the price. Just as you could predict that the internet would replace much of post mail, fax, and eventually TV and retail shopping (despite lots of people proclaimiing that internet is a fad, e-mail is too clunky, and no one would trust their credit cards online). Except you couldn't invest directly in the "internet"...

Or you can be an idiot that has no experience in trading stocks and securities, and pretend that bitcoin is like gambling. Though even if you do that, you still have an enormously higher chance of gaining considerably, as compared to casinos, where the house always wins in the long run. Bitcoin may be volatile, but it's volatile up, and the reason is because, like with Linux developers, bitcoin developers don't actually give a crap about the price, or investments, or what anyone else says about it. They're doing it because they believe in the project and what it can accomplish. So, with bitcoin and detractors, just look at it as Linux developers back when Linux was a clunky mostly command line system, and detractors being the people promoting the closed source, really expensive, and rather buggy and insecure Windows OS. You could point to Windows' easy to use GUI, huge library of software, and much nicer features, and the Linux guys would pretty much ignore you and keep working on Linux, because the two OS's have really different goals, one being profit, the other being security and open platform. In the long run, open platforms always win.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 24, 2014)

So, since this whole BS started, Bitcoin has been added as a method of payment to Tigerdirect, Overstock, Newegg, CheapAir, Expedia, and Dell, as well as on a bunch of payment terminals such as those by Toshiba and Intuit, many of which offer big discounts for using it. It is also usable at Target, Whole Foods, Best Buy, a few large chain restaurants, Amazon, and with some online services, practically anywhere where you can buy things online (I used it to order two $200 watches from Google Play). There are also now fully insured banks that can safely secure your bitcoins just as well as your own bank can secure your dollars, a whole ton of new phone-based wallets that make using it trivially easy on both Androids and iPhones, and Wall Street is diving in with hedge fund and ETF options, plus some large multi-million investments by some famous millionaires (Melon, Musk, etc). Plus since the MtGox fiasco, the price has risen from $450 and has been hovering around the $620 mark, being quite stable for the last few months, and has been on the slow long-term uptrend. Frankly, when I first mentioned it as "a good idea" it was hovering at around $10.

No point and nothing to say, just wanted to rub it in.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 24, 2014)

Rassah said:


> So, since this whole BS started, Bitcoin has been added as a method of payment to Tigerdirect, Overstock, Newegg, CheapAir, Expedia, and Dell, as well as on a bunch of payment terminals such as those by Toshiba and Intuit, many of which offer big discounts for using it. It is also usable at Target, Whole Foods, Best Buy, a few large chain restaurants, Amazon, and with some online services, practically anywhere where you can buy things online (I used it to order two $200 watches from Google Play). There are also now fully insured banks that can safely secure your bitcoins just as well as your own bank can secure your dollars, a whole ton of new phone-based wallets that make using it trivially easy on both Androids and iPhones, and Wall Street is diving in with hedge fund and ETF options, plus some large multi-million investments by some famous millionaires (Melon, Musk, etc). Plus since the MtGox fiasco, the price has risen from $450 and has been hovering around the $620 mark, being quite stable for the last few months, and has been on the slow long-term uptrend. Frankly, when I first mentioned it as "a good idea" it was hovering at around $10.
> 
> No point and nothing to say, just wanted to rub it in.



So basically since it's being regulated, you thought about digging up the dead horse just to show there's some beating left in it? Good to know!

Anyways, closing.


----------

