Topic: Bitcoins Lost - page 8. (Read 21589 times)

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

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

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

What is exploitation, again? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

deal, 1 water pipe for 1 bitcoin-bong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yea, I tried to keep it simple.

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

That represents the foundation of all larger BitCoin amounts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm reading your posts as you arguing that the moving of the decimal point is creating more bitcoins. Please correct me if I'm wrong - the rest of my post is in this context.



Okay. Say you have an block of gold. For whatever reason it is the only block of gold in existence, and more gold cannot be created. Trades will start off with you spending a large shaving of that block for a certain amount of work. Eventually, as the entire economy turns to running on gold, you will pay for that same amount of work with a smaller piece of gold.

The same is happening with bitcoins - the base value of a bitcoin is too much for smaller transactions because a bitcoin will be worth too much. To solve this problem, people will trade 'pieces' of a bitcoin, eg nanobitcoins, microbitcoins, etc. You aren't making more bitcoins, you simply trade fewer bitcoins for a given service.