Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28892. (Read 26609784 times)

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.

I had never seen that one before... it is sooooo funny.   

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

Shorters gonna short any little spike. Dangerous game.

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

False start?

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.

Only if we see another pattern of gradually moving walls. This could be an isolated incident.

Wall guy decided it was marketorder-o-clock.

bears gonna need some caffeine soon

climb aboard, bears. now or never.

CHOOOOOOOO CHOOOOOOOOOOOO

I think that my outline of the regulatory issues and obstacles are in line with reality.  NOT every "history" book is going to recognize certain kinds of dynamics, and some history books will get history wrong b/c they fail to take into account certain actual dynamics.  Surely, it will be easier to write a history book that minimizes taking on controversial topics....

HOWEVER, merely b/c a topic is controversial does NOT equate that topic to a fairy tale.

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?

I agree with the concept that governments could push bitcoin into the underground; however, it remains quite unclear how much they are able to actually and directly regulate bitcoin... we DO NOT have a world coordinated government at this point, which would also make it more difficult to regulate bitcoin b/c so far governments have NOT seemed to have been very concerted or coordinated in their attempts to regulate and/or control bitcoin...

There seems to be a hodge podge of governmental action.. and even governmental action in one direction and then redefinition and regrouping and reversing and then action in another direction... rinse and repeat.  The actions and reactions of governments are NOT a fairy tale... and different historians would frame these dynamics in different ways.

lmao xD

I dont think its the same guy tho, the rally to $700 seemed to have a pattern. This wall doesnt fit it. Unless they just found a couple hundred thousand dollars lying around and wanted to throw that change into BTC.

This poll is too damn old!

Wall guy is back! $5000 it is!

Explanation

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'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.