Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
View
Sort
Coming soon
[deleted]
-12 points · 16 hours ago

[removed]

see more

>bitcoin cash

>bad

No.

see more

Wrong. Libertarians should be supporting bitcoin cash over bitcoin core.

Load more comments

No they did it by going back to a system where people could own property. The "landlords" were peasant farmers owned their own land. The communists took that away and said all land will be owned in common now.

Dude I know my history and I know those landlords were killed by radicalized peasants.

see more
Score hidden · 14 hours ago

China. Peasants owned their own land. Farming was NOT like in feudal Europe with lords, enclosure, and landlordism.

Then who the fuck did those peasants kill

see more
Score hidden · 14 hours ago

You're the one making the claim, you back it up.

Load more comments

-3 points · 16 hours ago · edited 16 hours ago

Leon Trotsky, is that you? He was exactly post-class, post-race, favoring universal humanism.

So, apparently the only thing separating you goldandblackers from literal Trotskyists is semantic differences over what capitalism is.

see more
Original Poster18 points · 15 hours ago

Leon Trotsky, is that you? He was exactly post-class, post-race, favoring universal humanism.

That's a new low of dishonesty coming from you. So he was anti all these things, so therefore I must agree with his communist doctrine on everything else?

What a sad, pathetic debater you've become.

I bet you breath air and drink water, JUST LIKE MARX YOU COMMIE!

see more
Original Poster8 points · 14 hours ago

Heh, pretty much.

Load more comments

Abolish the ATF

That's not what we meant.

see more
Original PosterScore hidden · 14 hours ago

We who.

It's not going to crash just because its up. You have to identify a cause.

see more
Original Poster2 points · 15 hours ago

Inflationary bubbles are a thing.

then you have to establish that the growth is actually inflationary (that is, that is growing beyond its worth)

see more
Original Poster3 points · 14 hours ago

You can't see that it's not an inflationary bubble without a stable currency, that's the thing, the bubble generates fake price signals that look for all intents and purposes like increasing demand from buyers, therefore the industry spins up only to find demand was illusory and collapses.

They say that if you’re taking flak you know you’re over the target. Etc etc.

If you truly believe that a state-backed - let alone state-controlled commodity backed - crypto is doomed to failure, why waste your breath smearing it? Why do we need to make up childish disparaging terms?

The reason Core fans use terms like “bcash” is because they are worried that “the flippening” might actually happen.

The reason Bitcoin Cash fans use terms like “Segshit” is because they are worried the flippening won’t ever happen and selling their BTC will turn out to be a huge mistake.

The reason OP wants to start referring to “Craptocurrency” is because at some point state-backed cryptocurrencies might well eat a huge share of the market.

see more
Original Poster2 points · 14 hours ago

The reason OP wants to start referring to “Craptocurrency” is because at some point state-backed cryptocurrencies might well eat a huge share of the market.

Psh, hardly. Crypto is inherently a free-market for currency, and thus Thier's Law is in effect.

State-controlled crypto-currencies have little chance of gaining traction long-term. The state itself, though dominant today, is not guaranteed to survive much longer either.

Where I can buy Petro?

see more
Original Poster2 points · 15 hours ago

Nowhere far as I know.

Nothing communistic about it, moron.

But how is it not a racial issue if they're specifically targeting white land? Seems like a ridiculous position to just say "fuck the state" and act like anti-white ideology is not the cause of this.

see more

But how is it not a racial issue if they're specifically targeting white land?

Because it would be impossible for them to do this without the state. There's always a minority whom the power of the state is used to oppress on some basis, and race is only ONE of the excuses.

On what basis do the Tutsis and the Hutus fight? Not race, they're both black. They still use the power of the state against each other.

On what basis do the Sunnis and the Shias fight? Religious, but they also use the power of the state against each other.

In the US the divide is political far more than racial. The leftwing leadership is dominated by whites after all.

This can only end by ending the state, not by the political victory of one racial group over the other, as the altright seems to want to do.

Seems like a ridiculous position to just say "fuck the state" and act like anti-white ideology is not the cause of this.

Without the state, anti-white ideologies are powerless and thus the issue is solved.

You don't solve anything by trying to make one or the other side win and not removing the source of the problem itself: the state.

Not when it's fixing a vulnerability.

The willingness and history of fixing vulnerabilities in this manner is itself a vulnerability to the smart contract use case.

BCH is opening up to smart contracts after all in the form of restoring opcodes removed from BTC.

The reactivated opcodes certainly have some usefulness, although just how much they actually bring to the table remains to be seen. But all the opcodes in the world don't help smart contracts that can't be enforced because the format of the transactions used in their construction have been invalidated.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 15 hours ago

Again, we may be able to support legacy transactions while disallowing new legacy transactions.

And that would still break some contracts.

Expanding on the simple nLockTime inheritance contract. Let's say you have three children and want the inheritance to pay to a nested contract that can be spent by a 3-of-3 transaction signed by each kid. This would allow them to come to their own agreement on how to split it based on who wants other assets. So far this will survive not allowing legacy transactions - their transaction will be new and can follow any new format requirements.

But its not very safe. What if the kids can't come to an agreement? What if one of them is unable to sign for whatever reason? So also allow the 3-of-3 contract to be spent by a transaction you signed when creating this contract payable to a trusted arbiter, but only after an additional delay. Now the kids have a time limit to resolve the split before the arbiter takes over.

You die in a car crash and take one of the kids out with you. Once nLockTime on the initial inheritance transaction is reached it can be included in a block. In the meantime, however, old transaction formats have been disabled for transactions spending new outputs. The two remaining children cannot sign for their dead sibling and the presigned trapdoor transaction cannot be used to forward the funds to the arbiter. The inheritance is lost forever.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 14 hours ago

We'll have to see dev proposals for how to handle it.

Load more comments

I hope he wins just to deny the seat to one of the other parties, but honestly Gary Johnson is a failure as a libertarian and cannot represent us.

What are your thoughts on Larry Sharpe?

see more

Not familiar with him.

Owner offers to buy all the labor a worker is willing to sell him at a set hourly wage, worker agrees.

The worker agrees because they must labor to survive. All employers will offer them a wage that is significantly less than the value they actually produce, so a worker is effectively forced to sell their labor for less than it is worth. Any choice in the matter is illusory.

That is a market transaction, a trade.

All labor transactions are made under duress.

see more
Score hidden · 14 hours ago

Owner offers to buy all the labor a worker is willing to sell him at a set hourly wage, worker agrees.

The worker agrees because they must labor to survive.

Which is the reality we are born into. None of us can survive without working, and this constraint is true of literally every system. This constraint does not change under socialism, so why even mention it as if it were a criticism of capitalism?

Besides, a human being has multiple options when it comes to working in order to remain alive. They can just go out and try to find food directly, hunter-gatherer style.

This isn't very reliable, even back when it was being done as the primary production method.

You can go fund unused land and farm, there's still quite a lot of it out there. Only most people prefer to live in cities where they can use lots of services other people provide.

You can start your own business, but then you are responsible for everything and wear 10 or 12 hats, and failure in one aspect of the business can drag down your earnings significantly. Most self-employed people earn only slightly more than the average employed worker. Only a few self-employed people make it big.

Or you can work for an employer. So out of all those options most people, out of the need to work created by the demands of their body and reality, are choosing wage labor.

Now, wage labor is not causing them to make this choice. It is only offering them an additional choice. So the employer is not harming their position, he's just offering one more choice than people had before, and most people are choosing it freely, so it must be a good choice according to what most people are choosing.

In short, there's literally nothing wrong or bad going on here.

All employers will offer them a wage that is significantly less than the value they actually produce

And workers are fine with this, because the employer gives them access to productive capital that dramatically increases their income versus working without that capital. So they make more than they would otherwise even after paying a cut to the owner. They are willing to do this because if they did not pay the owner for the provided capital, they would not have a job, and their income would be dramatically reduced.

They could make more if they owned that capital, but that would requiring saving up money for possibly many years to obtain, or to get a loan and juggle interest payments or take on debt, etc. They don't want that risk.

The biggest problem of all for people who believe what you believe is that average and ordinary workers simply do not agree with you that they're being ripped off by employers, they understand that employment is a market transaction where employers agree to buy all the labor a worker is willing to sell at a set price.

They understand the employer is earning more on their labor than they are, but they also understand that employers are taking all the risk on their back. Workers get paid whether the employer is making a profit or not, and employees prefer stability.

Many companies don't make a profit all year long until the Christmas sales which finally puts them in the red. Workers aren't willing to wait that long to get paid.

so a worker is effectively forced to sell their labor for less than it is worth. Any choice in the matter is illusory.

Completely wrong, they have that choice, have always had that choice, and still have that choice, it's just that other choices suck in comparison so few people choose them.

The only thing you don't have a choice about is the need to eat, not the way that you produce.

That is a market transaction, a trade.

All labor transactions are made under duress.

Not duress created by the employer, but duress created by the reality of the need to eat.

So if you want someone to blame, blame your stomach. The stomach is creating the problem you decry, the employer is making it much easier to solve that problem than other available options that everyone still has.

Farming sucked. It used to take about 90% of the population farming to feed everyone.

Today it takes a mere 2% to feed everyone due to invested capital in automation and tech, and specialization.

Employment allows specialization to develop to a much higher degree than it could before. A worker just focuses on his specialty and employers take care of the back office stuff.

It's easy to view the cut employers take as payment for all the stuff the worker doesn't have to do that the managers do.

Workers don't have to manage inventory, pay for supplies or fix machines, nor deal with customers. They just show up and work their specialty.

You're barking up the wrong tree and it's sad. Employment is not what is wrong with the world, it's what created the modern wealth. Socialism is incorrect, employment is not exploitation, and everyone in the world you guys have destroyed employment, the workers have been worse off after the fact, handily destroying your thesis. But this shouldn't be true if your theory is correct.

Yet you guys are immune to the failures of socialism.

Original PosterScore hidden · 17 hours ago

Because it has to compeate in a capiralist system to survive, which mean chase profit in order to have investment to don't be swolloed by its competitors.

Anything in a caputalist system is capitalist, because in order to obtain anything you need obtain work from others and for that you need capital and compeate to obtain such capital.

see more
Score hidden · 16 hours ago

Sounds like a rationalization. If socialist style of production can't keep up with capitalist systems on efficiency, then it will literally NEVER catch on in the world.

Load more comments

They have 1855 coins listed and a disclaimer telling you it’s not investment advice. They’d need a staff of hundreds to properly vet every coin they listed.

see more

DYOR

Heck yeah, good to see the bad guys who are hurting the reputation of crypto getting what's coming to them.

Sounds ok but most of the community here is focused on adoption.

see more

And price is a function of increasing network effect which is driven by adoption, so...

Give it time. Treat it like a business. You don't expect valuation to come before it has productive value.

Instead just keep working on improving the currency and the ecosystem. Price will come in time if the value is there.

see more

The first year of independent BCH development is laying the groundwork for the next 5 billion people to use crypto, and if we do our work right they'll be using BCH.

It's possible. He's likely looking forward to that kind of future.

Yeah, you can milk anything with nipples.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 16 hours ago

^_^ the point being of course that you can still drink milk and eat eggs until you get too hungry, not so much with cats and dogs.

"Thank god for Maduro giving his people a living wage of $28 per hour"

"Venezuela appears to no longer have any zoos as starving citizens have completely eaten every animal"

If Venezuela can provide its citizens with a living wage, why can't the US?--DSA, probably.

see more
Original Poster2 points · 21 hours ago

a living wage of $28 per hour"

...per month...

Load more comments

Here is what I think is going on. You see, lets say Venezuela waters down their currency 10%. Well, one would expect prices to increase 10%, but they don't, they are more likely to increase 30%, because nobody believes that they will stop there. Which is true, but next time they devalue, it will need to be even more to compensate for this. So this has been kicking their ass as inflation rages out of control.

By backing their money with oil, they can water their money down 10%, and only have it lose 10% value, without inflation exploding out of control and ripping everything to shreds. Also, by making it a crypto currency, people can audit it so they know that the government isn't secretly printing up money behind the scenes. But most importantly to them, as they default on their global debt obligations, creditors can seize bank accounts, and investment assets, but are going to have a hell of a time seizing crypto assets, or stopping crypto transfers through the financial system. This way Venezuela can continue to sell and export oil, in-spite of being in a state of default.

In truth, it is a brilliant innovation. All through history governments have had the problem that they can't water down their money without suffering the risk that people will abandon that money. Now they have a way of watering down the money without risking total abandonment, because even though they water it down it's still backed. It's a way of creating a permanent inflation tax, which could have profound implications because it enables governments to effectively tax people without imposing a costly tax infrastructure such as income, tariffs, and sales taxes.

see more
Original Poster2 points · 16 hours ago

You still have the problem of a backed cryptocurrency. You think you can audit the crypto, but you cannot audit the oil!

They will just fractional-reserve the oil and try to sell the crypto as if it were worth 1-barrel of oil when in fact there will only be 1/100th of a barrel back there.

And they will control issue of the cryptocurrency.

We need a new name for fake cryptocurrencies that are controlled by a state, like a craptocurrency, lol.

They will control issue of the petro and they will issue petro when there's more oil, and they will just say they've barreled more oil but there won't be anything there and by this means they can still effectively inflate.

It's all a ruse.

Score hidden · 18 hours ago

I'd say the right are more dishonest, tbh. They speak libertarian talking points and never live them. The left at least are honest about being progressives, the right ends up doing what the left wanted to do.

u/Anenome5
Karma
289,510
Cake day
December 28, 2010
Moderator of these communities
r/nature

51,841 subscribers

r/singularity

42,946 subscribers

r/Beekeeping

41,125 subscribers

Trophy Case (3)
Seven-Year Club

Team Orangered

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.