Topic: RALLY! - page 4. (Read 39284 times)

I wonder whether THIS is the great announcement:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/yjm3o/bitcoin_geniuses_creating_future_to_socrates1024/

I wonder if this could be the Bitcoin Project's major announcement?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-project-will-be-making-a-major-announcement-in-september-101011

Well, I agree that terminating a working business relationship does not help employees or customers and leads to a lower standard of living for the general populous.

But due to the business environment in the United States, carry-trade of the US$ and Greater Depression we have been selling, severing relationships and shuttering viable businesses in the United States. Additionally, we have withdrawn significant amounts of capital from any US or European business ventures and refused to make additional capital contributions in almost all of them.

Just because it makes money today does not mean it will make money tomorrow nor does it justify the continued investment of time, attention, money and future even if it is currently profitable.

It takes a lot of risk and effort to build a business. When the current one swims in carries you downstream faster than you can swim then why keep swimming upstream? Why keep moving the world? Why not just disappear to Atlantis?

this one's more popular

It isn't.

But our ultabulls always try to encourage discussion in it in order to have it at the front page. I thought I'd play along for once.
It's not often that people try hard in this forum. I must say this was a stimulating debate

cheers sunnankar

And I still don't see you this relates to the topic of this thread. Rally, anyone?

I still don't see how terminating a working business relationship would help anybody. But then I don't know what dealings you are in.


Yeah I can already see there are different ideologies at work here, we probably wont reach consensus and have to find out.
I'll be around... that answers your "issue" aq.

Wow, if we had more sunnankars and less ElectricMucuses, the bitcoin world would be at least 10 times as large as it is now.

If a service provider is unwilling to accomodate how I want to give them money then why would I think they would be willing to accomodate me when it comes to the goods or services I want from them?

When it comes to my customers I will take their money however they want to give it to me.

But when it comes to running my business then I have a fiduciary duty to shareholders and contractual duty to employees and suppliers. I strive to always pay in full on time as agreed.

In the current environment with (1) debt-based political currency, which can become worthless overnight, (2) a 500-year old payment transfer system that is a barbarous relic and can seize up at any time, (3) financial institutions constantly needing bailouts from the government to continue functioning and (4) constantly changing legal landscapes when it comes to currency controls [all types of problems with Argentina lately!] therefore a reasonably prudent business person will seek to mitigate those risks. I cannot afford to either put myself in a situation or be put into a situation by the actions of a counter-party where I am unable to pay in full on time as agreed.

The bottom line is that the current financial and monetary system has become a significant liability to people running businesses.

Bitcoin is an equity-based currency with a functioning transfer system that receives no bailouts and is censorship resistant. It greatly mitigates all of those risks. As those risks are mitigated then my ability to perform contractual duties, like making payroll, is increased and the risk of losing some or all of the enterprises' working capital, with a bank failure, currency collapse, misapplied seizure, etc. is greatly decreased.

Consequently, the business has a more solid foundation and greater likelihood of remaining a going concern and generating profits for shareholders.

It seems there was a slight misunderstanding on what I meant with arrogant and economical harmful attitude.

Ok let me clarify this:
Of course it is alright to say: I'm looking to do business only in bitcoin. It strengthens the economy and closes the money flow cycle.
However it is harmful to say: Don't accept bitcoin? You are fired.

The one thing are new business relations the other established ones. You should never burn bridges even if you think it suits you.

No, refusing to use government issued legal tender fiat is neither economically harmful nor morally questionable because it is peaceful and voluntary.

There is even an argument for moral people, who desire peace and prosperity, to do whatever they can to limit or eliminate their use of legal tender fiat. States are always aggressively violent and always results in lower standards of living because of the inability to solve the calculation problem.

Legally you are not 'forced to accept' legal tender for a transaction. You can refuse service unless people pay via bitcoins, seashells or whatever else you want.

When you are forced to accept legal tender is in payment of debt. Likewise if you sue and obtain a judgment it will become a debt and is usually denominated in legal tender. Legal tender laws are price controls, enforced by violence, for the legal tender instrument. As such, legal tender laws are economically harmful.

The least harmful is to make the legal tender instrument one which the market would otherwise choose as the monetary instrument because then the value the market places on the monetary instrument would generally be higher than the set price. The introduction of the price control, enforced by violence, leads to misallocations of capital because of the non-mutually advantageous economic relationships. The early American colonists understood this because of the depredations visited upon holders of capital by legal tender laws.

Hence Shakespeare's advice in Hamlet:


No, it is not the same because it is the local aggressively violent costumed criminal gang requiring payment of slave tribute in a particular form of a particular instrument. The tax liability may accure and the other party may choose to pay it, instead of being beaten or murdered by the aggressive criminal gang, and will need legal tender instruments to do so. They will simply have to acquire those instruments from a third transaction, either with you or some third party, and the savings or cost will be reflected in the price the two of you agree upon.


Yes, I agree that Bitcoin has the potential to make extreme divisions in the economy because it so profoundly changes the economics of violence because no amount of violence will solve a math problem. It is a great force multiplier for protection from extortion. However, the starved participants will be those that require on aggression and violence for their sustenance. On the other hand, the producers will keep what they produce because the ROI from stealing it from them will be negative.

BLOGDAIL makes a compelling case:


If you are a member of the aggressive criminal gang then having the productive cows refuse to produce or disappear is a real problem. However, if you are a productive cow then it only makes sense to disappear to Atlantis.

It's a valid flaw in your argument.  Demanding someone take what you have or not doing business with them is not arrogant or harmful to them.  It may harm you, but he's free to limit himself like that if he chooses.

Good job at nit-picking my argument.

Most people see no ethical issue in choosing dealers who accept the credit card I prefer over one who doesn't. Why Bitcoin? He didn't say: I only accept you as a provider if you do *not* accept fiat. Then you'd have a point.

No it's not it's arrogant, and economical harmful.

Why do you think the term "legal tender" refers to government issued turds which you are forced to accept? You might argue that this is something different as you don't have the means to use violence to enforce your agenda, you just refuse to do business with em. But ultimately it is the same because you can only pay taxes in legal tender.
If this attitude becomes the norm it will split the economy apart and in the end starving it of participants. It's about choice, you must choose to take part of it or else you aren't a real participant. People who are forced into a system will ultimately create their own one. (Guess what we are here  )

We just don't need that here.

Just out of pocket costs i.e. what banks/paypal/whomever charge us or if we can we just set "all charges to be paid by payee".

I suppose if they request me to swim over atlantic and deliver some banknotes personally, there might be some "administrative fee" for that. 

Do you include the administrative costs or only the transaction/exchange fees?

Bitcoin Magazine has a simple policy. We prefer to pay all contractors in BTC. They can ask for another form of payment, but then they cover any costs associated with their chosen method of payment. Once they see that instead of say 100$ in BTC they get only 88-90$ in their preferred currency and payment method, many quickly change their mind on how they want to be paid.

You are forgetting the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

I have already started boycotting goods and service providers that do not accept bitcoins. Have a long standing business relationship with an additional provider. Last week we signed another year long contract. After we signed it I gave him notice that next year if they wanted to keep our business and do not accept bitcoins then I will not be renewing the contract.

I think people underestimate the effect from wielding the power of purse, particularly in this economy, will have in persuading goods and services providers to accept bitcoins.

I don't think you got the joke....


Take that attitude elsewhere.