Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 29065. (Read 26735526 times)

legendary
Activity: 2688
Merit: 2399
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
I'm looking for better definition on where you stand.

Alright, let's take this further: the argument is that we would support the poor through voluntary charity, yes? Now let's say after 10 years, charity turns out to be woefully inadequate. Let's assume that -- while the world has not devolved into chaos and anarchy as a result of a lack of government -- that some are suffering because not everything went as planned. There's slums with no police protection because everyone that lives in the neighborhood can't afford it. How do we approach that? Are some things up for socialization, or is it all strictly no go, no budge?

Sure, the poor ain't doing so hot right now, but in order for the change to be worth it, it's not enough to be different. It's got to be better, and noticeably so. The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

Oh, I'm fairly happy to take things piecemeal. If things don't appear to be working, back off and adjust approach. Obviously, I believe things would not tend to end up that way (though government action has created a huge underclass that would have to be accounted for) but I'm not one for big schemes that have to be implemented in one fell swoop (just look at Obamacare for how that kind of thing goes).

Basically I see it like a big game of Jenga. There are some pieces which can be taken easily and others which require the removal of other pieces before they can be taken without collapsing the whole tower. Fortunately, almost every step that is taken to improve freedom should make the next one easier.
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?

From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin.   So what is left?  


Lots of things are left - including:  Storage of value, exportation of capital from country and speculation.  Surely, those other aspects would be helpful for bitcoin in china, but they are NOT going to kill bitcoin in china.  Also, do you really believe that chinese people are good at following rules?  Surely, they can be good at following some rules, but they are also good at finding work arounds.  I put my money on the work arounds.




I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.)  Some countries (like the US)  have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses.  

If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties, they will have failed in their goal.

bitcoin is likely to be used whether with the cooperation of governments or NOT.  

I agree with you that bitcoin could become very marginalized if there were outright and extensive attacks - however, there may also be backlash and wider scoff law type issues.. such as drug trafficking and porn that are illegal but happen despite laws.

Yes, if there was extensive attack then maybe bitcoin could return to $10 or less per BTC.... the reduction of value does NOT automatically imply that BTC has been stifled to death... but just more underground in its uses.









hero member
Activity: 531
Merit: 501
China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?

From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin.   So what is left?

I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.)  Some countries (like the US)  have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses. 

If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine private commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties who don't care about regulation, they will have failed succeeded in their goal.

FTFY
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s. 
Whats this supposed to imply? That morality is supposed to change with time or something?
member
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
Ownership, I'm not 100% about it. The secrecy nature of  bitcoin challenges ownership. This is a fundamental problem, methinks.

P2P, freedom, privacy etc are good, but slippery ownership is not good, not at all.

The community will self organize a better ownership? But how, can we guess? This would be very interesting.
member
Activity: 66
Merit: 10
I have been thinking that meaning is more clear - or less ambiguous. 

I imagine that you are viewing this matter differently, otherwise you would NOT have commented on such a stylistic matter.

It doesn't help with non-existent ambiguity (not and NOT mean the same thing), but it certainly breaks up the flow when reading.

My 0.00001BTC
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Overstock CEO bought in the 800s and now is getting desperate  Grin Grin Grin
Is that a guess or did he admit to it somewhere?

Look for the news articles / interviews when he basically said "I wasn't going to buy the bitcoins but I changed my mind and bought all the bitcoins this week". The price really was in the mid 800s at that point in time. We can't be sure exactly what his average was but we can say for sure that a) he bought a boatload and b) his average was somewhere in the 800s.

Whether true or NOT, those kinds of stories make me feel good b/c smarter people than me seem to have higher buy-in prices than me.  My current average buy-in price is in the upper $600s.


The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

And that is why non-aggression is so important.  You can do what you want as long as you don't interfere with others.


John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s. 

We also have social responsibilities, too, so likely we cannot leave the matter at just do whatever you want so long as you do NOT hurt anyone.


I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence.   I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute.  I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything, and I have some difficulties imagining a community in which either all or some people do NOT pay anything into the community.  I admit, this lack of vision may be a result of my NOT understanding the new system that may NOT require contributions from either all or some community members.

DO YOU HAVE A MACRO TO CAPITALIZE 'not' EVERY TIME YOU TYPE IT?


I have been thinking that meaning is more clear - or less ambiguous. 

I imagine that you are viewing this matter differently, otherwise you would NOT have commented on such a stylistic matter.


















mzp
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
to make that cute little tarantula drawing complete and symmetrical look for about 18 hrs of sideways in the mid 640's, then a 1700 coin red candle to the lower 620's in the early afternoon tomorrow
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

And that is why non-aggression is so important.  You can do what you want as long as you don't interfere with others.

Two points:

1) You completely ignored the first part of my post, which is in my opinion far more important.

2) What if I want to interfere with others? What if I want to do it violently and aggressively, and rob all their stuff? What if I find a crew of like-minded individuals, and together we try to rob their stuff with force and overrun their paid protection? They could call us the "Tax Men," but I guarantee you our rates are far higher than the governments. Have all the faith in humanity you want, but this is a possibility that must be accounted for.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?

From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin.   So what is left?

I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.)  Some countries (like the US)  have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses. 

If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties, they will have failed in their goal.
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
False start?



I had never seen that one before... it is sooooo funny.   Smiley Cheesy Grin
member
Activity: 66
Merit: 10
I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence.   I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute.  I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything, and I have some difficulties imagining a community in which either all or some people do NOT pay anything into the community.  I admit, this lack of vision may be a result of my NOT understanding the new system that may NOT require contributions from either all or some community members.

DO YOU HAVE A MACRO TO CAPITALIZE 'not' EVERY TIME YOU TYPE IT?
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
False start?



Shorters gonna short any little spike. Dangerous game.
member
Activity: 82
Merit: 10
The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

And that is why non-aggression is so important.  You can do what you want as long as you don't interfere with others.
full member
Activity: 192
Merit: 100
legendary
Activity: 3962
Merit: 11519
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
I'm still hoping you'll admit that a community is voluntary and does not initiate violence, at least not against its own members, in contradistinction to a the involuntary membership and routine initiation or threat of violence characteristic of a gang, JayJuanGee.  If you want to hold a value system in which initiating or threatening violence against people who just want to mind their business is a routine way of life, I certainly can't stop you, but I would feel reassured if you at least recognized that you were doing so.



I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence.   I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute.  I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything, and I have some difficulties imagining a community in which either all or some people do NOT pay anything into the community.  I admit, this lack of vision may be a result of my NOT understanding the new system that may NOT require contributions from either all or some community members.
legendary
Activity: 1844
Merit: 1338
XXXVII Fnord is toast without bread
legendary
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
climb aboard, bears. now or never.

Only if we see another pattern of gradually moving walls. This could be an isolated incident.
hero member
Activity: 841
Merit: 1000
Wall guy decided it was marketorder-o-clock.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


bears gonna need some caffeine soon
Jump to: