Wesley

This is a small thought that I wanted to get a gauge of the level of interest of people on. I have been on forums in the past where people have their bitcoin address in their signature. If someone does a listener project, helps you out significantly, has a great post, has a good comment, or anything else that you feel was very useful to you then you can send them a tip. It can be something very small, even a few satoshis or uBTC of value, or obviously if it is something that you wish to compensate even more then you are able to. For me, I do not particularly want to make bitcoin this way, but I would like to use the method to spread awareness of bitcoin and maybe give people a very small amount in order to encourage bitcoin usage and show others how it may work in a risk-free way. Obviously, this wouldn't work as an idea if I was the only one with an address in my signature so I am wondering what some others think (especially those who post original art/videos and are trying to get out their product and maybe accept donations to motivate continuing their work) but would also work for board members who are very helpful or who do private chats with people. I think it could be a small way to provide reciprocity for good content and to help to motivate people to be more helpful (more than the reputation system already encourages). This also can create a helpful person having a large excess of BTC at some point where they could just kick it Stefan's way as a donation. Let me know what you think of the idea and whether you would participate. If we can get a few participants, then we can start tipping each other for good posts which may increase the appeal to others on the board. Just for fun, I just generated a little vanity address. So I guess if you like this idea, feel free to send a tip? 1WeseFAK4zBx6EmMVa7Fk7WwbCifgmncC

But did you know people on average have 1 fallopian tube?!

5/3 people have trouble with fractions.

Give me an example where a government existed and it did not fill one at least of these two categories. Unless you disagree that doing these things does not count as force or threat of force, in which case we would have a different discussion.

By definition, government is actively using force or threats of force. Parents need not be. This is the difference.

Yes, it is possible. However, it is infinitesimal odds for those who desire to rule and control over others. Also, you missed my point. The state is not just a "differential of power" but is by definition forceful in nature.

...it is impossible to defoo because of gravity. ....her nickname is church. ...she is almost as large as Stef's forehead. ...she could be the most efficient DRO with WMDs! She just needs a cabinet for the beans.

100% of people who recite a statistic about statistics being made up are making up a statistic.

I would say it is unlikely without self-knowledge and conscious effort. However, I would say that empirically it has happened with a few people on this board and their children, thus humans are capable.

Dispersion would enforce cultural norms. For instance. I would not hit my kids. However, if I left them with people in my culture or my parents they would probably be hit. I would think you would have enough empirical examples on these boards or in the podcasts where at least one person has raised children peacefully. This means it is possible. Governments are defined as doing one of two things. 1. Forced paying for a service And/or 2. Monopoly provision of a service (exclusion of competitors by force) If they do not have either of these things, then it is not a government. It can be a DRO or a welfare charity or some other thing where you can choose to pay and you can have options of competition. The government by definition uses force. I there is no force it is no longer a government.

I think it comes down to that parents exist because of biological necessity. Parents can raise their children in a peaceful manner. Governments are axiomatically defined as not peaceful. If they were, they would not be governments anymore but rather charities or businesses.

That is what is so cool about bitcoin. There is no banker. It is completely determined by math which cannot change by the whims of any banker, any capitalist, or most importantly: any state. There is no need to keep anyone honest as with a basic program you are able to do all of your own electronic banking without a bank. Transfers around the world on transactions that are millions of dollars of equivalent value are done for pennies where a bank would require at least tens of thousands.

FDR1716 Freedomain Radio Sunday Show 1 Aug 2010 - How to Find a Great Therapist FDR1927 How to Find a Great Therapist!

I wouldn't know either. However, the pot/garden plant isn't a totally good comparison with bitcoin. Both pot and garden plants have value in themselves, so in any environment they would still have values. Bitcoin and fiat money only have value in their ability to exchange for goods and services. However, I do agree that it is nearly impossible that while a state exists, bitcoin will supplant state money,

Well, if this started happening with any regularity, people would probably start setting up the meshnet. I do agree that many will be deterred from bitcoin if illegal. I also think illegality will make bitcoin worth more (in the long run) than it currently is as it will add credibility to the system as something that needed to be made illegal. Kids have great access to pot even though it is illegal. Bitcoin (as it cannot be controlled and is just numbers) will continue to exist and be traded post-illegality if it were to come.

I think it was a test. Similar to the heart paddles that stop a heart when its in a rhythm that isn't productive. Either I was going to normalize it and be lost to the world (heart stays stopped) or be able to recover and spend some time recovering (return to normal rhythm and rest/enter physical therapy). I also was in a 3 year relationship that I shouldn't have been in from the start. After it was done I didn't want to do it again and so I actually started pushing towards the philosophy and psychology things and trying to find a way so that I wouldn't be in that situation again.

The worst feeling for me as a child was to feel completely alone while surrounded by people. Emotions were not allowed in my house and were often expressly punished. I just could not fake it like they could, and I could always tell that they were faking it. Everyone was just empty with a nice facade up. My father especially was in sales and knew how to fake a fun-loving guy you wanted to do business with. People would ocme over and he would be jovial and fun-loving. People would leave and the only emotions I saw were disgust, contempt, rage, and emptiness. I shut down by becoming a good student who could relay empty facts and had no emotions because then I was valued and not punished. I also would date women long term who I should never have even dated because I was so starved for attention and the idea of love where I would not feel so alone by hanging out with a girl with the pretense of "being in love". Of course, the eventual break-up lead to me feeling very depressed as I would realize for a brief period how alone I was until I could shut down and become empty again. I would have loved to have had a blanket negative view of women as it would have lead to me not dating these people as the drug to satisfy my lack of attention and love and may have lead to self-knowledge much sooner where I could develop my emotional experience. Addition: I can relate to your post Lians. However, it appears my self-destructive searches for attention and love were not wanting to be sick or hurt, but to get in relationships where I would be used for my emotional dependency and eventually rejected so that I could feel the loneliness and depression of having no real relationships.

My method (which is not philosophically thought out) is that I download whatever I want. Then, if I like it and gain value or want to support the artist then I buy the album/ a t-shirt/ an indie go-go campaign or whatever. I have a handful of CDs and movies that I never even opened because I had already consumed them before I bought them to support the creators. I think it is not an issue of morality, but of reciprocity and showing appreciation for something you value.

It seems that the reception is good and the movie did really well, but that there are a lot of inaccuracies in the movie. I am not particularly interested as I do not want to see the movie, however if it was popular enough then it may warrant a review and it would be pretty easy to rip apart.

They will use whatever method is cheapest/agreed upon. In signing the contract it is more likely that you will be assigned a tag or identification chip or barcode or something and risky behaviors will be sent to you in a bill which can be sent to arbitration if you disagree with the decision. If someone is doing so risky behavior that they put people in danger it is more likely that they will be kicked off the road and denied future access which only takes an escort most likely, but if necessary you could throw someone off the property. No one wants to use too much force as it would scare away customers and be very expensive. The only time force would be used is against a customer that is acting so badly that every other customer would cheer when they are thrown off the road and barred from entering again.

The vast majority of bitcoins do not happen in person, but happen based on account reputation or online store. I often have no way of knowing who I am buying from or who I have received bitcoins from in a transaction. The longer they wait to do this, the more impossible it will be as it will proliferate further into most everyone's computer. Not to mention that I can print out and distribute paper wallets which, if buried in the yard several weeks ago, would not be able to be found. Bitcoin has been used to successfully purchase almost everything which would already require immediate confiscation if discovered and it has still thrived. They already pose as buyers and sellers in drugs, prostitution, etc and in these areas bitcoins have become a common way to help avoid government more than before. If individuals get caught, bitcoin is P2P so as long as 1 person is still broadcasting, bitcoin will continue. Also, I can just mix and transfer any tainted coins to a new wallet at any time in order to dissociate myself from a transaction that went badly and there would be no evidence of my coins being linked.

yea....

It will not end the fed as long as the USD is still viable in the eyes of the public. It will find a niche market in the meantime that will keep expanding. (Like transferring large sums of money overseas for pennies in transaction fees) Also, if there is every a collapse or issue in the dollar, bitcoin will provide a viable alternative to make the transition easy as people find the dollar unusable. Most people won't change until they have a pretty big reason.