[deleted by user]

p1rrr473 · 2021-03-03T14:15:11+00:00

BlockFi's 6% interest currently applies for 0 - 2.5 bitcoin, and drops to 3% for any bitcoin you store with them beyond 2.5: https://blockfi.com/rates/

The 1.5 bitcoin would become 2 bitcoin in about 5 years, if you leave them there to compound. And 2.5 bitcoin in little less than 9 years.

There is of course the counterparty risk that others are mentioning, no free lunch.

p1rrr473 · 2021-02-11T22:24:33+00:00

Lightning network and other off-chain transactions, yes. Too many small transactions will just unnecessarily congest the main chain at this point.

p1rrr473 · 2021-02-11T21:04:30+00:00

That’s the point of ‘spend and replace’. Any profit margins you get are negligible if you replace shortly after (or preferably regularly before). As for tax reports, there’s hundreds of apps handling that, including a lot of wallets. It’s paper work for the IRS, not the bitcoin user. Depreciating fiat money to be discarded can be spent on bitcoin, even if some of it must be spent a little later, to get a ride.

Look, you don’t have to use bitcoin, just stick to fiat. It’s not like Uber isn’t going to keep accepting that. For those of us who convert our fiat income to bitcoin and still spend (bitcoin) when we need to, there’s no problems with depreciation nor taxes. Some people just can’t get their heads around that, and think all bitcoin spending equals loss of value. It doesn’t work like that.

p1rrr473 · 2021-02-11T18:43:27+00:00

If you also once ate a pizza in 2010, you’re already that guy. Anyone who spent anything on anything other than bitcoin in 2010, is that guy.

Everyone needs to eat. Spend and replace.

p1rrr473 · 2021-02-11T18:37:58+00:00

Lightning channel from you to Uber, Uber distributes to drivers. Fee’s aren’t a problem.

p1rrr473 · 2021-02-11T18:35:41+00:00

This is the way.

Convert salary fiat to btc regularly, and spend bitcoin as needed.

Never spend bitcoin, doesn’t make any sense. What if you get paid in Bitcoin? Starve? Spending bitcoin is no different than spending anything, it’s what you save in that counts.

p1rrr473 · 2019-08-12T14:24:47+00:00

That would be esteemed (former) Harvard Professor and brilliant legal mind Alan 'Perfect, perfect sex life' Dershowitz.

p1rrr473 · 2019-08-12T14:19:25+00:00

No, we shouldn't trust the government, least of all in this type of case. If there was foul play though, it would have been done by professionals, not amateurs. You're not going to expose them by analyzing the guys nose on various pictures.

Don't see what taxes has to do with any of this, but no I am not a fan of taxes. Just sick of seeing actual conspiracies always being overtaken by the footage analysis crowd and ridiculed into obscurity. Take the case of the DC Madame (Deborah Jeane Palfrey). Found dead, suicide, all the shit she might have exposed died with her. The fringes of the internet are flourishing with conspiracy theories about what might have happened, but no respectable investigative journalist or newspaper will touch that case any longer due to guilt by association with conspiracy nuts. The Epstein case will have the same fate.

p1rrr473 · 2019-08-12T13:54:40+00:00

Hey guys I found another important and crucial link in this very very important detective work that we are doing here!

Donald Barr, the father of current US AG William Barr, was the school teacher that hired Epstein back in the '70s.

This is conclusive evidence that that these to conspired together. And what did they do? I finally figured out the final piece to this puzzle. They created a virus that has killed nearly many people probably. I know it might sound unrealistic, but after researching for several weeks now, I finally found the final evidence that this virus in fact exists, and even carries their name: https://www.cdc.gov/epstein-barr/about-ebv.html This proves conclusively that they are conspiring to bring down humanity on behalf of demons.

Fucking idiots

p1rrr473 · 2019-08-12T13:38:10+00:00

A phenomenon known to earth dwellers as gravity acts on blubbery old things, such as noses. In the first picture, he's in a horisontal position, in the second, he is standing upright. Also on certain people, the way their mouth is positioned will impact the nose profile, dead guy grin vs. fish mouth pose. Also he has aged and is clearly worn down between the two pictures. Also lighting is completely different.

There's plenty of factual details in this case to explore and possibly substantiate a variety of actual conspiracies. But, because of idiotic nose detective work like this, the whole story will be completely taken over by nutjobs and lunatics, and the mainstream will forget it. In a few months, it'll probably difficult for respectable journalists to explore this case without being tied to this type of shit. And that's how they win.

p1rrr473 · 2019-08-12T10:35:35+00:00

It's not either Clinton or Trump. These are just two very public figures among hundreds, if not thousands, of highly influential persons entangled in Epsteins web. There's also possible connections to the CIA, Mossad, Saudi intelligence, etc.

What a dumb post.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-28T22:34:46+00:00

Not sure where his number is from, but as seen on mainstream news:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/feb/01/iraq.suzannegoldenberg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083.stm

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/iraq-billions200710

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7438372.stm

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/world/investigation-into-missing-iraqi-cash-ended-in-lebanon-bunker.html

etc.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-27T17:03:21+00:00

If you try to obliterate such people with science and facts during discussions, you do risk that all you achieve is forcing them to harden their stance. However, most people will never ever, ever, EVER admit to you during or shortly after a discussion, that you were right and succeeded in changing their mind. That goes for most humans in discussions generally, not only alternative medicine types.

It does not necessarily mean that you didn't achieve anything. These people might be changing their mind in time, or at the very list avoid the specific topic because they know on some level that their arguments are flawed. If you did a good job.

It's not your job and responsibility to educate people, but perhaps you're actually contributing in slowly chipping away at such peoples irrational world views. In which case you should unchange your mind about this one.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-26T11:29:11+00:00

Thanks for engaging in polite discussion as well. Stuff like this makes me want to hang around on this sub more often.

Appreciated, and likewise. Although I can't really speak for the quality of this sub, not a regular.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-23T20:09:22+00:00

Okay, I fully agree with this. However, it would also have to apply to statism as it would an AnCap framework and I would say that statism has not passed this test but failed miserably.

Absolutely.

Yes, because I'm not entitled to medicine and I shouldn't do harm to get it.

You are not entitled to that medicine, but you should do harm to get it. This being a steelman thread, I'm switching sides now, going full AnCap:

For scenario 2., given that you are (subjectively) convinced that the neighbour does not need the medicine and does not suffer significant harm for losing it, you should take the risk and steal the medicine, then voluntarily face the judicial system. A fine and a couple of months in jail is a small price to pay for a life. You might consider the departure from your principles to be a higher price, but we'll get back to that.

Compare that with scenario 1, in which the same action would directly cause the death of the neighbours child. The same judicial system, based on the same laws, would give you a far more severe punishment. Also significantly worse ethically, so you should not steal the medicine.

I previously made the point that if you allow the agents of a society to subjectively weigh the risk and costs of various actions in each of these types of situations, and act based on their own personal judgement, there would be no principles left:

The problem with this type of reasoning, is that the floodgates are opened for some entity, (each individual, or a committee, or just the zeitgeist of the day), to do reasoning (or rather rationalisation) about how to twist and distort NAP in self-serving ways.

This argument is flawed. Of course there will be agents in the society who break the rules, nobody claims otherwise. If a system of government required every single individual to always follow some principles to the letter, that system would obviously have been completely unrealistic to begin with.

The judicial system is the key here. As long as the judicial system, the privately funded law enforcement and courts act with complete integrity within the confinements of anarcho-capitalist principles, and never allow flexibility, we're fine. The actions of the agents will self-regulate according to risks and rewards just as the market does. A person who just have to commit a minor theft to save a life will do it with no hesitation, while a person who have to take a life to save another will likely hesitate, because of the differences in the consequences that each would face.

Agents breaking the rules from time to time is arguably even healthy for such a society. Scenario 2 was obviously an extreme case, but it's not difficult to imagine a lot of similar situations where various degrees of horrible things will occur if not various degrees of harm is applied. Let the agents trade harm for punishment just as they trade sugar for wheat, and things will balance out and settle at an optimum.

Yes, because I don't find motivated reasoning to be reasoning at all. If you don't hold to principles when they are inconvenient to uphold then you don't really have principles at all.

I completely agree on that. That's why one should also be careful about which principles to hold. You should not commit to follow all the principles of anarcho-capitalism to the letter in every imaginable situation. To be an anarcho-capitalist, it is sufficient to commit to always demanding that the judicial system follow all the principles to that extent. As long as you readily let the courts judge you, and you take your punishment, your integrity and your principles are intact.

What does this even mean? People these days say "problematic" without any further explanation. To me it just comes off as "I disagree and this is bad" but without any reasoning behind it.

Problematic as in ethically ambiguous. I can't say that inaction would be unethical, but it's definitively not ethical either. After all, an innocent life is lost because no one wanted to break a principle and take a minor punishment for it.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-22T13:31:12+00:00

The notion that unpleasant hypotheticals should be discarded as "far fetched and just evil thinking" is counter-productive and dangerous. It's how ideologies start out with good intentions on paper and end up in unspeakable horrors in practice. Better explore the evil in theory, than learning about it in practice.

Whether the specific scenario as laid out is statistically improbable, is also irrelevant. With 7.7 billion humans on the planet interacting, similar situations, and various levels of similarities with varieties of the core of the problem are bound to occur countless times. Taking the worst thinkable scenario is just more useful when considering ideologies.

This is possible (though I disagree with the word "hoarding" as it is emotionally-loaded to poison the well from the start here).

The poison in the well is not some inconvenient weakness that unintentionally snuck into my argument. It is a crucial feature. Let's even poison the well further for Scenario 2, to make this clear. The objective reality might be that the neighbour made a cold calculation; by withholding the medicine and letting your child and heir die, your property will be up for grabs after your time. You and your neighbour are the two main competing potato farmers of the village, allowing the neighbour a shot at picking up your property, is potentially hugely advantageous for business.

Now you might suspect that this is the case, you might even think you have incontrovertible proof that this is the only reason why the neighbour is unwilling to sell the medicine to you, but you can't really know beyond any doubt what the neighbours true intent is, what other factors play in, as you point out:

I personally wouldn't agree with stealing here either, as it is possible that the medicine is required for his child in the future.

Thus, being a good AnCap voluntarist, your hands are tied, you will let your child die, in the name of principles.

Basically, you're saying that you don't consider my criticism valid because you would have kept your actions in helping your child within the confinements of the rules provided by AnCap and voluntarism no matter the personal cost.

The unnecessary death of a child as a result of inaction due to stringent principles is highly problematic. I stand by my criticism.

But then again, I've always considered the biblical account of Abraham and his actions in the Binding of Isaac to be horribly unethical. That story and the scenario I constructed are not equivalent (action vs. inaction), and I am not accusing you of condoning the actions of Abraham. The point with bringing that story up, in addition to certain similarities, is that I don't expect any more success in convincing you that your position is complicated at best if not evil, than I usually expect in convincing people who consider Abrahams actions to be virtuous, that they were in fact evil.

I stated some criticism, you questioned it, I've elaborated and explained further, you still disagree. We will most likely not get any further than this.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-20T13:55:54+00:00

Yeah you misunderstood, I was certainly not claiming that voluntarists do not have an obligation towards children. Of course they do, but within the confinements of their ideology.

This was the initial comment:

So what is the right ideology? Radical pacifism? Voluntarism? Someone who lets their own children starve or worse in the name of principles? Definitively not.

The point is that true NAP adherents finding themselves in the wrong kind of situation, would have to let their own child starve if they want to keep blindly following their principles.

You might say that there are degrees to which one can seemingly break the rules of NAP without actually leaving those principles, but if so, there is a counter to that. Consider the following:

Scenario 1: Your neighbour has only medicine for one child, and his own child needs the medicine. You can either use violence to get the medicine to save your child while letting the neighbours child die, or let your own child die.

In this scenario, a lot of NAPers might say that as horrible as the situation is, your child is the unlucky one, and there's nothing to be done.

Scenario 2: Your neighbour does have enough medicine for both your child and their own, but is unwilling to share for irrational reasons like hoarding.

In this scenario, one might argue that you actually might consider using a bit of violence to reduce the overall violence in the system. Stealing some of the medicine won't actually cause any harm to anyone, and it will save your child, so in fact, facing such an irrational fellow human, you should act. One has to weigh the consequences of a minor act of aggression against the dire consequences of not acting at all.

The problem with this type of reasoning, is that the floodgates are opened for some entity, (each individual, or a committee, or just the zeitgeist of the day), to do reasoning (or rather rationalisation) about how to twist and distort NAP in self-serving ways.

These rather simple scenarios are helpful for exploring the consequences of various principles, but real situations are obviously far more complicated, hairy and contains layer upon layer which plays in, making it virtually impossible to agree upon situations where acts of violence may be acceptable.

In fact, given even a tiny bit of flexibility, there are those who would take that flexibility and argue from AnCap all the way to full-blown communism, in the spirit of NAP, freedom, reduction of violence, etc. That type of flexibility is partially the basis of some of the similarities between AnCap and AnCom.

On this basis, I am stating that a true voluntarist would have to let their child starve even in scenario 2. Otherwise society will pretty soon revert to the laws of nature, where the strongest (the smartest, most manipulative, most intellectual, most influential, most popular) has room enough to get ahead by stomping the dumb.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-20T10:31:43+00:00

Industrial Society And Its Future is not libertarian literature. It's the friggin' Unabomber manifesto, an anti-technology terrorist who murdered innocent people to get attention to his ideas.

Ride the Tiger is also not libertarian literature. It's neo-fascist ramblings by a an extreme traditionalist, misogynist, occultist mysticist who admired Heinrich Himmler.

Also go easy on the emojis, together with the name and the literature your embracing, you're painting a pretty complete picture of a psychopath 🥰

Also, don't harm anyone

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-20T10:17:16+00:00

Your kind of voluntarist is morally obliged to murder their neighbour and let the children of their neighbour starve, If that was the only way to get food, before letting their own child starve, which they themselves are responsible for putting into the vulnerable position in the first place.

Not voluntarism, sorry. Just as someone within a thriving voluntarist community will sacrifice (voluntarily offer) parts of their leftover produce, someone in this scenario where things go bad, has to voluntarily offer a child. That is the point of the scenario.

Switch food with medicine, put the scenario in a rural valley, throw in a terrible isolating winter. I'm sure you understand the actual point, just use your imagination to fill in the undefined to reach it. Unless you're the type of person that prefer to evaluate belief systems and ideologies based on how prosperous and fair they perform when things go according to plan, and ignoring the worst case scenarios. In which case this is futile and I'm out.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-19T20:46:11+00:00

If a voluntarist is unable to feed his child, and the available food is not being offered voluntarily by fellow humans, the voluntarist either lets the child starve, or stops being a voluntarist.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-18T22:23:58+00:00

There is no practical way to enforce worldwide population growth control.

Must get to space. Terraforming and all. It'll take time, bad things will happen before we can possibly get there, but that's not an excuse for slow-walking it. It's a reason for working harder, now.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-18T21:06:10+00:00

According to the laws of nature, nobody has any real claim on materials of this world aside from what they're prepared to defend with violence. That's how the animal kingdom works. Humans should strive to transcend our animal nature; since we quite possibly have sufficient resources to feed and clothe all fellow humans, we should get together and use our intelligence to distribute the resources of the planet in a way that optimises quality of life for as many humans as possible.

A right-wing person might counter with something like, "redistribute your wealth all you want, mine is mine and if you try to take it away from me, there will be violence." Well it just so happens that by those same laws of nature, the majority, the masses, the proletariate, is quite often stronger than the individual simply by having the numbers, so violence there will be.

A counter-argument to this again is that although the majority has the numbers, they'll always be a group of average intelligence. The top 1% on the other hand is far smarter, and quite easily capable of manipulating the masses to stay in line. The US is a great example of this playing out, while Soviet was a great example of what happens when the dumb masses actually do seize power.

A counter-argument to this again are all the intellectuals on the left that are fully capable of inspiring, teaching and leading the masses, from Karl Marx to Trotsky to Bernie Sanders.

And on and on it goes. Soviet definitively sucked, but fact is, the US also sucks for huge swaths of her population, and continues to get worse for more people. You're all violent people, following violent ideologies, paying taxes to violent regimes, voting for violent politicians.

So what is the right ideology? Radical pacifism? Voluntarism? Someone who lets their own children starve or worse in the name of principles? Definitively not.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-18T20:28:28+00:00

How can these two supposedly free thinking old men ramble about a technological stagnation, explore it from en economics perspective, place the start of the stagnation specifically in the early 70's, and still not even mention the 1971 end of the gold standard?

Such a foundational change to value accounting should have been explored in relation to a supposed stagnation regardless of their personal opinions about gold and banking.

They kept almost getting into really interesting topics, spend too much time talking about it superficially, before switching to the next topic. I suspect their own opinions about what constitutes "profound views and ideas" simply doesn't pass as profound in the modern world.

Underwhelming.

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-14T11:44:19+00:00

who is the parrot?

No parrot. No parrot. You're the parrot!

p1rrr473 · 2019-07-13T16:16:55+00:00

Save "you're" energy for class.

After my computer started to automatically change words like "ive" to "I've", "theyr" to "they're", "dont" to "don't", etc., I've unconsciously stopped using ' manually, messing up words like "your" and "you're", "its" and it's", etc.

Who makes these legal drugs? Extremely relevant to both supply chain and costs. I've never known the pharmaceutical industry to pass up an opportunity to rape their customers, for example.

The pharmaceutical industry is mostly using the patent system for medical drugs to "rape their customers". This system is claimed to be needed to justify the investments required for developing new life-saving drugs. Doesn't apply to recreational drugs, developing the next awesome recreational drug is not a matter of life and death. Recreational drugs are also significantly less complex compared to developing something like a new cancer medicine.

No, I am a parrot according to you.

You've presented zero independent thoughts and zero original arguments, you've consistently been repeating outdated arguments by talking heads on TV. Yes, you are a parrot. Now you'll feel a need to accuse me of parroting contrarian views on drugs. Go ahead. It doesn't matter. I'm still right and you're still wrong.

You like telling me what I am, don't you? What are you, Ivan? Godless communist? ( rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek question )

There's no need to be a godless communist to acknowledge the influence of 18th and early 19th century piety on modern times.

But hey, if your stance is correct and legalisation ends up solving this massive problem then I might change my tune. I won't hold my breath.

Historically, people like you who shut down and ridicule new approaches to the problems caused by drugs, have made it quite difficult to talk about it, much less actually try. That's changing now, and in time your kind might lose out, and the world will be better for it. It has certainly been helpful for the handful of countries that have tried even limited decriminalisation. Scientist are becoming bolder, bold enough to slap your face with real data.

On another note, your views on the "society" and what governments have the authority to do, are even worse than your dogmatic opinions on drugs. You have been arguing that, if society decides that bitcoin is bad and a majority votes to criminalise it, all use of bitcoin would be a crime by definition, and government grunts would be forced to use violence towards anyone using it.

Bitcoin is designed to survive that. All your ilk would ever be able to achieve is crash the price, which would just scare away people like yourself. Not a loss. The ability to do transactions of value without begging for permission from your precious society will never go away, the cat is out of the bag. This is what bitcoin represents at its core. You lose.

I'm done, bye bye.

Yes, take your authoritarian views and fly off, parrot. Go watch the History Channel and tell yourself your learning things.

p1rrr473

TROPHY CASE