FellowTraveler

They should publicly post all of these "Russian propaganda" items in a single place, so we can all see them.

TERM LIMITS

Everyone knows Seth Rich was the leaker.

once it is perceived as more than just a nuisance by some major government it will be shut down in a heartbeat

Actually, the unique feature that makes Bitcoin special is specifically its censorship-resistance. That's why people value it -- because it cannot be shut down.

Even if there is no other life in the Universe, the Universe would still have to be the size that it is, for life on Earth to even exist at all.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What is the Tor .onion address for hacker news?

That's what I'm interested in, I'll add it to my bookmarks and use it by default. I don't see why we want to involve exit nodes at all.

The title appears to be exaggerated.

According to the article, Overstock is performing all the transactions in their own private system, with hashes periodically posted to the actual Bitcoin blockchain for transparency purposes, and regular proofs of state.

The added transparency IS enabled by the Bitcoin blockchain, and this is commendable, but the units issued by Overstock do not appear to be actually circulating on the Bitcoin blockchain itself.

It's an important distinction. We're working on this problem at my own company (Stash).

Mass surveillance is only historically ever used for one purpose: to crush dissent.

Any sufficiently advanced civilization will have encrypted communications, and thus their broadcasts will appear to be noise.

This isn't true. A business can receive Bitcoin and convert it all to gold daily. They can sell some of this gold for cash to pay their expenses.

They can also start a separate company, say, an investment company, to take the gold and store it, or convert it to dollars or stocks.

There are lots of solutions made possible by Bitcoin, none of which are impacted in the slightest by the investment volatility of Bitcoin.

Cops are going to shoot these people.

I recommend Bitcoin.

Corn is subsidized.

It's not that "eating healthy" is "more expensive" necessarily in real terms.

A big factor is the fact that our government uses the threat of violence to extract money from people, and then uses it to pay people to make less healthy food cheaper.

Most of the time, when your CC merchant account is processing cards, they ARE debit cards, but they are being processed through the VISA or Mastercard system, and to the merchant, the distinction is irrelevant.

WTF you were using Paypal???

The current cost to send a Bitcoin transaction is about 35 cents.

In contrast, if you have a credit card merchant account (if you can even get one...) you will pay 3-7% in fees, plus often a 10% rolling reserve. This isn't counting the additional costs and risks associated with chargebacks.

This is why businesses who accept Bitcoin are often willing to drop the price by 10-15% for those who pay using that method.

IMAGINE -- 10-15% lower prices! Yet somehow Bitcoin is "expensive" ??

Nothing could possibly be more expensive, and more of a hassle, than the current legacy banking and credit card system, which functions as a massive tax on every transaction today.

Bitcoin is often accused of "wasting resources" but the work of the miners is what secures the transactions, and the balances, and the individual liberty, at a much lower cost than the legacy banking alternatives.

Because their whole field has become centered around a government monopoly over the issuance of money, rather than on human choices in a free market.

Since Bitcoin is violence-resistant, economists (and the bureaucratic institutions that employ them) view it as a threat.

I think you misunderstand what government actually is. Government is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

I have a right to use force in self-defense.

Therefore I have the right to hire a bodyguard to use force in my defense. (In fact it is the same right - delegated.)

Therefore we have the right to elect a sheriff to use force in our defense.

...But I do NOT have the right to beat and rob people.

Therefore, neither do I have any right to hire a bodyguard to beat and rob people.

Therefore, neither does our sheriff have any right to beat and rob people -- even if we voted for him to do so! Because you cannot delegate powers you never had.

Therefore the question isn't whether society should provide social welfare for the needy. Rather, the question is whether we have a moral right to use VIOLENCE to FORCE people to provide social welfare for the needy. (We don't.)

The only time we have a right to use violence is in defense against murderers and thieves. Once we start trying to use it to solve social problems, we end up making those problems worse, not better.

The reason you see poverty in various nations is because they do not have economic freedom and secure property rights. The nations with the worst poverty are the ones with the worst protections of rights. The nations with the lowest poverty are the nations with the best protections of rights. And note: those are also the nations who donate the most money to charity.

Government can never fix poverty by using violence to forcefully redistribute wealth. All that will do is cause worse poverty.

The best a government can do is strongly protect rights and economic freedoms -- then you will have a rich nation, which will not have poverty problems in the first place, and which will easily be able to cover the rest through private charity.

Unfortunately we do not see any governments today that respect rights and freedoms in this way, although some are better than others. But proposed solutions based on "social welfare" will only make those problems worse, not better.

You say that you do not deal in "what if" scenarios -- you say that there is no "perfect state." I agree with this. But behaving more and more like North Korea is not some magical solution either. It just makes things worse.

I have a right to use force in self-defense.

Therefore I have the right to hire a bodyguard to use force in my defense. (In fact it is the same right - delegated.)

Therefore we have the right to elect a sheriff to use force in our defense.

...But I do NOT have the right to beat and rob people.

Therefore, neither do I have any right to hire a bodyguard to beat and rob people.

Therefore, neither does our sheriff have any right to beat and rob people -- even if we voted for him to do so! Because you cannot delegate powers you never had.

Therefore the question isn't whether society should provide social welfare for the needy. Rather, the question is whether we have a moral right to use VIOLENCE to FORCE people to provide social welfare for the needy. (We don't.)

The reason you see poverty in various nations is because they do not have economic freedom and secure property rights. The nations with the worst poverty are the ones with the worst protections of rights. The nations with the lowest poverty are the nations with the best protections of rights. And note: those are also the nations who donate the most money to charity.

Government can never fix poverty by using violence to forcefully redistribute wealth. All that will do is cause worse poverty.

The best a government can do is strongly protect rights and economic freedoms -- then you will have a rich nation, which will not have poverty problems in the first place, and which will easily be able to cover the rest through private charity.

Unfortunately we do not see any governments today that respect rights and freedoms in this way, although some are better than others. But proposed solutions based on "social welfare" will only make those problems worse, not better.

It's NOT just porn they're blocking. "Extremist" sites, too.

Why assume the economic problems in Bangladesh are caused by lack of social welfare, versus being caused by a lack of protection of property rights and economic freedom?

The question is not whether to redistribute income, but how much and by which mechanism.

The question is not whether to redistribute income, but whether it is acceptable to force people to do so through threat of violence.

Just because society is supposed to do something, does not mean that government is supposed to do that thing.

Likely the problem you are so quick to put government in charge of, wouldn't be a problem in the first place if we had a free economy.

We already know: there's no good reason whatsoever for the app to have access to this kind of information.

Fair enough if you are gay. However, having been in relationships with various women, I can say my experience has been quite different. There is constant pressure against risk-taking and business-starting, in favor of "finding a normal stable job" as a wage-slave and spending more time away from work, so as not to make her feel neglected.

Her concerns are legitimate, of course, and rooted in her own evolutionary strategy, but I would certainly recommend to my sons that they make their fortune _before_ getting tied down, and that they not get married too early, for this reason. Because they are less likely to take the necessary risks. Women, like it or not, tend to be much more risk-averse than men, and in a committed relationship, they will apply pressure toward this end. (And no risk, no reward.)

This is probably the same reason why many trust-funds are designed to give payouts to those who remain unmarried until at least the age of 25. There are many benefits to having a wife, including their perceptiveness and sensibility, which can be very valuable especially while climbing the social ladder, but given what I know now, I would want to make a success of myself first, before taking one on, and I would advise the same to my sons. (Just as I would advise my daughters to find a man who is already a success, versus getting tied down early on with Johnny Football Hero.)

One piece of advice I was given a few years back, is to "be your own inner parent." Which is to say, whenever you find yourself making a decision, to ask yourself what you would advise your own children to do, if they were to find themselves in the exact same situation you are facing. Then do precisely that.

This is why I'm saying it's outdated advice rather than sexist advice: it presumes a model of marriage and relationships that has changed...

It very well could be that society has evolved, as you say. But it might instead be that the sexes are living in a bubble of wealth that was created by those who came before, enabling them to afford the luxury of a society that is able to constantly subsidize the "new reality" through educational programming, entertainment programming, social programming, glass ceiling legislation, welfare spending, etc which poorer societies are simply unable to afford.

What we see in Kazakhstan, for example, is a society returning to polygamy as the realities of poverty leave them unable to afford such luxuries as we enjoy. Perhaps, as you say, our culture has progressed. But maybe, just maybe, our culture is currently in a bubble, and as our economic freedoms decline, so will our wealth, causing gender relations to resolve back to equilibrium again -- the same mean we see in many other nations in the world.

Dual incomes may actually be a harbinger of this. For we know from the research that many women in our society do not work because they want to, but because they have no choice. A "modern" household cannot sustain itself without those dual incomes, can it? Yet in decades past, households were easily supported on a single income. Our society is becoming poorer.

Don't you think it becomes a lot more difficult to make your fortune, once you are tied down in a relationship? Suddenly the concern becomes about stability instead of success? Would you want your own son getting married before he had made a success of himself?

Which maxims, specifically, did you think were sexist?

"Why would you want to hide your identity unless you are writing something crappy"

Yeah like if you are Mexican and you made a comment online about drug cartels, and then you were disemboweled and strung up from a bridge as a warning to others.

If you save your dollars in the bank and earn interest, you end up with more dollars than if you spend them now.

Therefore, no one will ever spend their dollars to buy actual stuff.