Topic: Bitcoin adoption slowing; Coinbase + Bitpay is enough to make Bitcoin a fiat - page 7. (Read 67180 times)

Talking of Armstrong this is the first time I've seen him make an error:

"Beware of history and its lessons. Russia’s air force just provoked the West sending its long-range bombers into Western Europe where they violated the Dutch airspace and had to be forced out by sending up NATO fighter jets."

It was Sweden not Holland that got a visit from Russian air force. Obviously no big mistake but kind of funny since to reach Holland the Russians would have to fly through half of Europe.

Edit: Also the Russian jets weren't forced out by Nato jets. Nato jets were sent up too late to intercept so they just followed the Russians at a distance.

Edit2: Actually the most comical part of this story was that the Swedish air force didn't have any jets ready since it was easter holliday (last year). So if anyone wants to attack Sweden do it on a Holliday.

Well written. Interesting to see if/what he replies.

Sent to the author of a blog you should make sure you are reading:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: People aren't sheep, rather they love Communism
From:    AnonyMint
Date:    Thu, April 24, 2014 12:31 pm
To:      "N" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin,

You recently wrote that the people are sheep and can only see as far as
the rear-end of the sheep next to them.

I am sorry but after writing in public forums since 2005, you are wrong.

Roughly 75% of the poeple love Communism (see the survey linked in the
following bitcointalk post). Here read this exchange in the Bundy ranch
thread and tell me it isn't so?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6373991

So that is why your idea of spreading the word won't stop the coming
collapse.

I wish you would admit this publicly.

At this point, what we need to be doing is figuring out how to opt-out of
the coming collapse so we can eat popcorn while it crashes and burns.

I am asserting that a superior crypto-currency is going to play a vital role.

Cross-posting...

A female US Air Force veteran of 9 years, explains what is going on very well.


Tell that to Hitler and the next European tyrant (Putin?) coming like him very soon, because you socialists fucks don't grasp the pathology of your philosophy.


You are ignorant. Learn who Sheriff Mack is and learn what the proper role of the Sheriff is in our Constitutional form of government:

http://www.amazon.com/The-County-Sheriff-Americas-Last/dp/B002PKCMFO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mack
http://sheriffmack.com/
http://cspoa.org/category/sheriff-richard-mack/


Only you getting more pathological in your attempt to spin his correct statements.

Socialist megakillers such as yourself always think they are innocent and don't understand the pathology of their collective philosophy.

There is no way to reason with you chattel. We must opt-out of your hell and watch you fuck yourselves.


You make me puke. You don't deserve America (U.S.A.), rather you deserve Amerika (U.S.S.A - United Socialist States of Amerika).

I will be very happy when you and I no longer share the same citizenship.

I am not going to repeat the Constitutional points already made, because you are never going to defend the Constitution.

So just go on and continue the slide into the hell you deserve.

We will find a way to opt-out of your hell and laugh at you.


Indeed there is war being incited between the Communist/Fascists which is about 75% of the population, and the remaining Constitutionalists which is 25% or less of the population.

We Constitionalists will lose the country, but we will gain the victory where it matters most by opting out in way that you can't touch us and then we will watch you fucks crash and burn.

I have my popcorn ready.

---

How powerful a scenario will be needed in order to counter the pervasive nature of the reality that's generally accepted today...

To what extent can any knowledge paradigm be introduced that can counter the pretty lights and repeating patterns and alluring whispers? How can 100s of millions of people come to accept, within any measurable amount of time within their own lifetime, that most of what they've come to accept as knowing or caring about within that frame of time is incorrect? How can I convince Erich that his fascination with Call of Duty is completely meaningless, and he should instead learn about finance like he said he wanted? How do I tell Erica that she should probably have gone to nursing school instead of marrying that wifebeater that she ended up with? These people have left society in pursuit of completely useless efforts, and instead chose to live as simpler animals. How can one hope to reason that that's incorrect? I've yet to be shown that the faith in humane efforts can go that far . . as I'm not convinced that they are physically capable of going that far.

Think about it . . with IQ tests, multi-tiered verification of intelligence through Associate's, Bachelor's, Masters, Phd's, tens of thousands of further tiered certifications . . it's impossible to refute that there's a distinctive bell curve present in human capacity and desire for knowledge. With the appearance of such a curve . . one so perfectly conforming to probability . . how can this go any further . . when that very appearance of the bell implies that the potential is maximized? There used to be a very low bar for everyone to pass. What we have now may very well be the extent of what humanity can manifest . . knowledge wise. There's just no more juice. That's not to say that the pursuit of knowledge is dead, only that it's pursuit by the majority of the population is exhausted. The majority of what we're left with is debt farms.

With television, video games, endless supplies of pornography, limitless troughs of food of infinite varieties, consumer culture, and an otherwise bottomless supply of past-times . . what shift in paradigm could possibly be manifested that would foster a particular interest for integration, differentiation, chemistry, physics, programming languages, manufacturing processes, computer architecture, astronomy, creation of art, cryptocurrencies, conceptual drawing, or pursuit of other true knowledge?

Underestimating? I fear most that hive-mind is the mind, not the mindset . . that for the first time in history the hive is set to become the world rather than towns, states, countries combined. I also fear that I don't know whether or not that's something to fear at all.

Removing the Armageddon scenario from this situation requires an insurmountable force . . which may very well come to be the crypto-currency you mention. I know it's not Bitcoin, but all I can continue to do is keep reading until it decides to show itself . . or given infinite time I'll make it myself.

Armstrong thinks gigadeaths are a possibility.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/23/the-two-most-dangerous-idea/

I don't think we will get to that, because I think humans will adjust their thinking as events worsen. But perhaps I am underestimating how engrained the mindset is that believes in government.

If we say gigadeaths, most people would dismiss us as kooks.

In any case, the features we need in a better crypto-currency have far reaching synergies in positive ways such as micro payments and fostering new paradigms in knowledge and social interaction on the internet.

So we don't need such a dire scenario of Armageddon, in order to drive a desire for a better crypto-currency than Bitcoin.

Gigadeaths this time...

This is what we've got to opt-out of. Roughly 75% of the population is going to defend the Titanic as it sinks.

He thinks the powers-that-be can shut it down at any time with their control over the internet and their ability to regulate the exchanges.

I've tried to email and explain that decentralization, anonymity, and other technologies (in an improved altcoin that is not Bitoin) might be able to overcome. He has not responded on those points.

I expect his unspoken stance is that:

• Show me, don't talk.
• It won't gain enough scale fast enough to make a difference
• Substantive solutions will always be collectivized

I think it is our challenge to prove there is a new Knowledge Age paradigm. I understand his skepticism.

Also I think he is very concerned about the chaos that is going to hit the world, regardless of any such crypto-currency.

I hope he will admit that rescuing some of private capital is better than let it all be destroyed.

I am surprised that Armstrong seems to have not paid any attention to cryptocurrency.
In theory cryptocurrency can restore the ability to hop on a plane and take all your wealth with you.

However, to achieve this the link between a particular cryptocurrency account a particular individual must be severed.

Cross-posting...

Here comes the Mad Max...

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/21/uk-hunting-the-rich-abandon-uk-before-you-cannot/

Here comes Peter Thiel (Paypal) taking over Bitcoin from every angle (see also upthread posts about his role in Bitpay):


Good that he likes the word 'peer'

Why we need anonymity.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/21/how-your-cell-phone-threatens-your-liberty/

That is why this new anonymity coming will be superior as it won't be differentiated and stand out negatively that way.


You sure proclaim a lot without knowing all the technical details.


Can't fight openly because by the time the masses realize, it is already too late.

Fighting by blending in is the most successful war strategy in history, guerrilla war fare.

Not weak at all. It has never been defeated. Because the State can never figured out if they've killed the last guerrilla.

If you have any better strategy to fight the 1% of the 1% I am all ears..

Yeah, sorry, I skipped several pages.

Cash itself may be anonymous, but most cash transactions are not.

I have lunch at the corner cafe every day; the owner notes the amount down on a 3x5 card, and every Friday I pay whatever he says I owe, with cash; and he doesn't mind waiting until next Monday if I am out of cash in my "hot wallet".  That is because we both know and trust each other.  But I would not send cash in an envelope to pay for a bill, of course.

Even when the parties have never met before and don't know each other's name,  they can tell a lot about each other, with passable confidence, just from their appearance and context.  The mere fact that the other guy is NOT hiding his face may be sufficiently reassuring. I might buy a hot dog from a seller in a stadium, even if I never saw the guy before; but not from a stranger in a run-down street who wears a ninja costume and a ski hood...

In the political context: anonimity may be a valuable "tactical weapon" when fighting an oppressive illegitimate government.  However,  by the time it is necessary, it will be very difficult to obtain.  Moreover, it is not very effective -- because  anonimity is essentially act of cowardice, an admission of weakness and defeat.  It is fleeing rather than fighting, the way of the rat rather than of the badger.  The most effective time and way to fight such governments is before they take power -- openly, not anonymously.

It's too bad that there's no legitimate way to automatically measure whether or not someone's new here, a lot of people recycle their identities into new profiles. The repetitive bashing that results is fantastic though.


This logic is pretty fuzzy. When I go to an ATM and deposit cash . . and then use those funds to purchase something online . . it's effectively an anonymous transaction as far as the merchant is concerned. They don't have any way of knowing that it was my own cash from my own wallet that ended up in their account. They never have. They take the bank's word, on trust, that I paid for what I purchased and that the money is in their account. In this situation, the bank(s) are acting as a type of escrow.

You said that the parties trust each other. That is wrong. The parties trust the bank when a debit or credit card is involved. This has become pretty much every single time. It's now increasingly rare for people to use cash. Even people that have trust in cash have even more trust in their cards: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/newly-wary-shoppers-trust-cash.html?_r=0

Also, I feel like you're severely limiting the interpretation of anonymous transations, and using that to try and justify your main point. You have every ability to make the tx's non-anonymous by exchanging them in person or using a trusted escrow system(where trust takes the place of mistrust in anonymity). This system can be manifested through an actual person or group, or automated like the paypal or now bitstamp bitpay system.

This institution has already been built on anonymous transactions. This can easily be carried over and repeated with anonymous internet money.


Afterthought: Actually this is one of my major focuses that I'd like to work on. If anonymous currencies were to exist, and someone were to develop a banking system on that foundation . . what types of parallels would we expect to see with the current system of exchanging money through a bank?

Does bitcoin, with a traceable blockchain history, negate the need for banking because of the lack of trust necessary? Does an anonymous solution invite them? If we were to fit this into our present solution to inspire trust amongst consumers and merchants by using banks, would creating them again be the only way an anonymous coin would work?

Apart from those questions, the need for anonymous transactions would still be fulfilled in a world where banks built trust in anonymous currency . . because you'd still have the ability to find someone in the world who accepts your cash that trusts you personally to not screw them on the deal (without it being able to be recorded back to you). In this sense, there is quite a bit of anonymity and you only give it up to develop trust in situations where there can be none (for whatever reason).

Also, by saying 'trust' I only mean for the particular transaction. Not that you'd be comfortable sharing details of murder with the person. Just one simple instance of trust.