You are correct, bitcoins make it easier for the average person to move large amounts of money across borders to facilitate any transaction (illegal or not). As it currently stands, you need the resources to set up a reliable way to cross the border with the money undocumented or shell corporations, etc that hide the true purpose of the money transfer.
The real question is : Since the well connected and wealthy will find a way to do this either way, is it not better that everyone can now do it?
Ever read/watch/listen to the news? Besides terrible things happening to people, 90% of the headlines are the government doing something questionable. Following your logic...
Right any climate change will be disruptive to life on earth, and possibly wipe out species that cannot adapt (behaviorally) or evolve. However, it did not "freeze us all". As the dominant species, humans should strive to limit climate change when possible, and plan to adapt when it is not possible. I don't think climate control technology is ready yet, but we have plenty of experience with adapting.
There is plenty of good evidence that pumping CO2 into the air can lead to warming. There is not so much evidence on where we are in terms of other cycles (should we try to stave off the next ice age?) or the extent to which the climate is sensitive to CO2. The highly speculative, unsupported, and unscientific idea that continued CO2 release will "cook us all" (in a runaway greenhouse effect way) gets in the way of rational decision making and should be discouraged.
What needs to be assessed likelihood of various climate change scenarios due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (lets say "a"), the cost of adapting to the new climate (X) , the cost of mitigating emissions (Y), and the likelihood of the mitigation strategy being successful (b). Assuming a runaway greenhouse effect for no good reason skews this analysis to always result in: aX > bY
Well I don't know much about farming corn so I may be wrong but this post doesn't seem to make sense.
1) What is stopping the farmer from harvesting the corn earlier. before it "turns brown"
2) Corn is a summer crop, so the concept of winter crops was brought up in a strange way.
Extra CO2 also means extra plant food, etc which may make up for shorter growing seasons. On the other hand sudden climate change may cause a temporary decrease in biodiversity. Whatever, the point is it is more complicated than a rise of +2C cooking the earth and destroying all the crops.
So why do you think everything is so much more expensive in other places? Because people there are paying more for gas to ship stuff around etc? How much of that gas price is indirectly paying for government services?
The people who want to gamble are going to to do it. This is just going to push legit gambling sites out of business and make it easier for fraudsters to run off with peoples money. Credit cards are a crappy solution because they make everything more expensive, just like a tax, except the money goes somewhere else.
This is pretty much my line of thinking. I guess if a government is not doing this the power to issue currency is one of the less scary things about it.
So "backed by guys with guns" make a currency legitimate in your eyes? So a company with enough firepower could issue "legitimate currency"? I would think legitimacy has more to do with the way the people who control the money issuing is determined. I guess might makes right usually wins out in the end though.
Right, but the parent seemed to distrust companies with the power to issue money. It didn't seem to be an issue of whether the value of the currency was reliable. In fact, it was the opposite.
Um no...straw man. A better way of putting it is that pretty much everybody except libertarians expect it takes less vigilance to get governments to behave rather than other organizations. Don't forget corporations are the spawn of governments.
I guess it is like getting a rat to eat a new type of food. There are two ways to do this:
1) Provide the food in their home cage where they are comfortable (attach the name of a known organization) 2) Put them nearby another rat who has previously become accustomed to the food. Then the "naive" rat can smell the food on the experienced rat's breath and see that the rat is still healthy. (some people will only use something new once it has been mass adopted)
Bitcoin is either cheaper or faster than the other solutions you mention... you are just too lazy or adverse to novel ideas to figure it out. That is fine (often new ideas do not pan out), but it ignorant to shit on other people for bothering to try the new things for you. If it wasn't for them you'd still be sleeping in a cave.
Well all religions are a scam... Anyway, clearly it is possible to exchange bitcoin for something else. Just because you haven't done it does not mean it is not going on. I have been on both sides of these transactions.
The usefulness as a means of exchange has nothing to do with "investing", bitcoin would be useful whether 1 bitcoin exchanges for $0.01 or $100. Think about what you are saying because it makes no sense. No one needs to invest in bitcoin for it to be useful.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct, bitcoins make it easier for the average person to move large amounts of money across borders to facilitate any transaction (illegal or not). As it currently stands, you need the resources to set up a reliable way to cross the border with the money undocumented or shell corporations, etc that hide the true purpose of the money transfer.
The real question is :
Since the well connected and wealthy will find a way to do this either way, is it not better that everyone can now do it?
The answer:
I dunno. It's complicated.
Ever read/watch/listen to the news? Besides terrible things happening to people, 90% of the headlines are the government doing something questionable. Following your logic...
No, it is just that things will go more smoothly and fairly than under the alternatives.
Right any climate change will be disruptive to life on earth, and possibly wipe out species that cannot adapt (behaviorally) or evolve. However, it did not "freeze us all". As the dominant species, humans should strive to limit climate change when possible, and plan to adapt when it is not possible. I don't think climate control technology is ready yet, but we have plenty of experience with adapting.
There is plenty of good evidence that pumping CO2 into the air can lead to warming. There is not so much evidence on where we are in terms of other cycles (should we try to stave off the next ice age?) or the extent to which the climate is sensitive to CO2. The highly speculative, unsupported, and unscientific idea that continued CO2 release will "cook us all" (in a runaway greenhouse effect way) gets in the way of rational decision making and should be discouraged.
What needs to be assessed likelihood of various climate change scenarios due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (lets say "a"), the cost of adapting to the new climate (X) , the cost of mitigating emissions (Y), and the likelihood of the mitigation strategy being successful (b). Assuming a runaway greenhouse effect for no good reason skews this analysis to always result in: aX > bY
Well I don't know much about farming corn so I may be wrong but this post doesn't seem to make sense.
1) What is stopping the farmer from harvesting the corn earlier. before it "turns brown"
2) Corn is a summer crop, so the concept of winter crops was brought up in a strange way.
Extra CO2 also means extra plant food, etc which may make up for shorter growing seasons. On the other hand sudden climate change may cause a temporary decrease in biodiversity. Whatever, the point is it is more complicated than a rise of +2C cooking the earth and destroying all the crops.
I am basing 2 C off the possible scenarios provided by the IPCC. Where are you getting your information?
2 degrees C is not "cooking". It is probably trouble, but not cooking.
So why do you think everything is so much more expensive in other places? Because people there are paying more for gas to ship stuff around etc? How much of that gas price is indirectly paying for government services?
The people who want to gamble are going to to do it. This is just going to push legit gambling sites out of business and make it easier for fraudsters to run off with peoples money. Credit cards are a crappy solution because they make everything more expensive, just like a tax, except the money goes somewhere else.
This is pretty much my line of thinking. I guess if a government is not doing this the power to issue currency is one of the less scary things about it.
Right, what I was asking is: Why it is scary if a company does this, but not if it is a government?
Ok... now take my question in the context of what I was responding to.
So "backed by guys with guns" make a currency legitimate in your eyes? So a company with enough firepower could issue "legitimate currency"? I would think legitimacy has more to do with the way the people who control the money issuing is determined. I guess might makes right usually wins out in the end though.
Right, but the parent seemed to distrust companies with the power to issue money. It didn't seem to be an issue of whether the value of the currency was reliable. In fact, it was the opposite.
This didn't sound like scrip though. Maybe I misinterpreted the article.
Why is government-issued currency any more legitimate?
Haha, I was trying to match the original phrasing... I guess it does look like a strawman.
It works for me. There needs to be a good escrow service for the people who don't want to spend time evaluating vendors though.
Um no...straw man. A better way of putting it is that pretty much everybody except libertarians expect it takes less vigilance to get governments to behave rather than other organizations. Don't forget corporations are the spawn of governments.
I guess it is like getting a rat to eat a new type of food. There are two ways to do this:
1) Provide the food in their home cage where they are comfortable (attach the name of a known organization)
2) Put them nearby another rat who has previously become accustomed to the food. Then the "naive" rat can smell the food on the experienced rat's breath and see that the rat is still healthy. (some people will only use something new once it has been mass adopted)
Bitcoin is either cheaper or faster than the other solutions you mention... you are just too lazy or adverse to novel ideas to figure it out. That is fine (often new ideas do not pan out), but it ignorant to shit on other people for bothering to try the new things for you. If it wasn't for them you'd still be sleeping in a cave.
So now asserting that there is a difference between two things is a logical fallacy?
You haven't educated yourself about libertarianism. What you are talking about is the half assed libertarianism called conservatism.
He's voted consistently for 30 years... it is pretty clear what he stands for. Go find some videos of him berating greenspan in congress, etc.
Why would I be worried about doing time? And get out of what? I have 0 bitcoins right now.
Well all religions are a scam... Anyway, clearly it is possible to exchange bitcoin for something else. Just because you haven't done it does not mean it is not going on. I have been on both sides of these transactions.
The usefulness as a means of exchange has nothing to do with "investing", bitcoin would be useful whether 1 bitcoin exchanges for $0.01 or $100. Think about what you are saying because it makes no sense. No one needs to invest in bitcoin for it to be useful.