| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362945 is a reply to message #362558] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 04:06   |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-08, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-02-08, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2018 8:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> In article <p5g9ut$oks$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>> > You can't pay taxes in bitcoin, therefore it isn't money.
>>>>
>>>> You're not allowed to send them cash, so that's not money either?
>>>
>>> My town and village are delighted to accept tax payments in cash. If
>>> you have some you don't want, I'd be happy to come pick it up.
>>
>> Your town and village, maybe. Try that with the feds, who're the ones
>> that minted it. UK pound notes are money,
>
> No they aren't. The pound note was withdrawn in 1988.
>
>
And withdrawn in favour of a heavy coin. A comedian that worked on
the North sea oil rigs said that the audience would throw pound
coins at people who did not amuse.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362946 is a reply to message #362940] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 04:10 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-09, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>
>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>> to them legal tender is.
>
> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>
> It is like soap operas, Big Brother or those 'watching people watch TV'
> shows I don't see the attraction in sitting indoors watching people, I
> would rather be outside watching people*
>
> * In a non creepy way obviously.
>
> Andy
>
There is currently a soap opera on English TV about people watching
TV,
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362959 is a reply to message #362927] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 05:33 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 03:02:43 +0000
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In this life anything that rises very rapidly, which is not genuinely
> scarce, falls soon after.
Bitcoins are genuinely scarce, they are now very difficult to
'mine'.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362961 is a reply to message #362558] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 06:11 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-09, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-02-09, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
>> The Royal bank of Scotland is
>> currently the only UK bank that continues to issue the £1.
>>
>> I am aware that there are now two partially open cans of worms regarding
>> the term UK and also regarding the definition of legal tender in the UK.
>> Give me a moment and I will get my tin hat and sandbags.
>
> Tee-hee.
>
> Scottish banknotes are, of course, not legal tender, so by the arguments
> being proposed by some of the "experts" here aren't actually money.
>
>
The Northern bank, based in Belfast was subjected to one of the world
biggest robberies back a while. The Loyalists blamed te IRA factions,
and visa versa. Most of the money, (in Northern Bank notes) has never
been found. As written before, during the 'bank strike' here many
years ago, a lot of those 'odd' notes turned up in the republic, and
I never hard of a problem.
Years ago, a Scottish financial institution was regarded as `gold
standard', but in recent years, some of those have been taken over by
dodgy English banks, with forseeaable results.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362969 is a reply to message #362940] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 09:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:39:33 +0000, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>
>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>> to them legal tender is.
>
> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>
> It is like soap operas, Big Brother or those 'watching people watch TV'
> shows I don't see the attraction in sitting indoors watching people, I
> would rather be outside watching people*
>
> * In a non creepy way obviously.
>
> Andy
I was on it around 2009. It was boring. I saw signs in the game about
a dance, shows, etc. Why ? It seems it would be better to go to a
dance or show.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362975 is a reply to message #362959] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 10:08 |
Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>> anything that rises very rapidly, which is not genuinely scarce,
>> falls soon after.
>
> Bitcoins are genuinely scarce, they are now very difficult to
> 'mine'.
The more processing power everyone throws at looking for them, the
harder they become to find, and as time goes by the reward for finding
new ones repeatedly halves compared to finding the old ones, it's only
when the XBC value is multiplied by HOPE to the power HYPE that you end
up with a large USD or GBP value ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362987 is a reply to message #362969] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 10:46 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-09, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:39:33 +0000, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>>> to them legal tender is.
>>
>> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
>> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
>> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
>> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>>
>> It is like soap operas, Big Brother or those 'watching people watch TV'
>> shows I don't see the attraction in sitting indoors watching people, I
>> would rather be outside watching people*
>>
>> * In a non creepy way obviously.
>>
>> Andy
>
> I was on it around 2009. It was boring. I saw signs in the game about
> a dance, shows, etc. Why ? It seems it would be better to go to a
> dance or show.
I think it was based in a way on "Snowcrash".
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362997 is a reply to message #362942] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 12:02 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-09, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 21:00, Huge wrote:
>> On 2018-02-08, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2018 8:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>> In article <p5g9ut$oks$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>> >> You can't pay taxes in bitcoin, therefore it isn't money.
>>>> >
>>>> > You're not allowed to send them cash, so that's not money either?
>>>>
>>>> My town and village are delighted to accept tax payments in cash. If
>>>> you have some you don't want, I'd be happy to come pick it up.
>>>
>>> Your town and village, maybe. Try that with the feds, who're the ones
>>> that minted it. UK pound notes are money,
>>
>> No they aren't. The pound note was withdrawn in 1988.
>
> two points:
>
> 1) There is no such thing as a UK bank note, there are Bank of England
> pound notes, Scottish bank notes (3 issuing banks), Northern Irish
> banknotes (4 issuing banks) and notes issued by the other regions/
> dependencies/ Bailiwicks etc that comprise the confusing mess that is
> UK/GB/British Isles/Britain/GB&NI/<insert different way of describing
> the bunch of Islands off the NW of European mainland>
I like "UKoGBaNI".
> 2) The Bank of England withdrew their pound note in 1988 but other
> issuers continued to issue £1 after that. The Royal bank of Scotland is
> currently the only UK bank that continues to issue the £1.
>
> I am aware that there are now two partially open cans of worms regarding
> the term UK and also regarding the definition of legal tender in the UK.
> Give me a moment and I will get my tin hat and sandbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362998 is a reply to message #362945] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 12:02 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-09, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-08, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-08, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2018 8:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <p5g9ut$oks$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> You can't pay taxes in bitcoin, therefore it isn't money.
>>>> >
>>>> > You're not allowed to send them cash, so that's not money either?
>>>>
>>>> My town and village are delighted to accept tax payments in cash. If
>>>> you have some you don't want, I'd be happy to come pick it up.
>>>
>>> Your town and village, maybe. Try that with the feds, who're the ones
>>> that minted it. UK pound notes are money,
>>
>> No they aren't. The pound note was withdrawn in 1988.
>
> And withdrawn in favour of a heavy coin. A comedian that worked on
> the North sea oil rigs said that the audience would throw pound
> coins at people who did not amuse.
I've heard the pound coin referred to as a Thatcher because it's
thick, brassy, and thinks it's a sovereign.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #362999 is a reply to message #362946] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 12:02 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-09, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-09, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>>> to them legal tender is.
>>
>> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
>> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
>> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
>> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>>
>> It is like soap operas, Big Brother or those 'watching people watch TV'
>> shows I don't see the attraction in sitting indoors watching people, I
>> would rather be outside watching people*
>>
>> * In a non creepy way obviously.
>
> There is currently a soap opera on English TV about people watching
> TV,
I think "The Truman Show" said it all. Time to move on.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363001 is a reply to message #362940] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 13:06 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:39:33 +0000, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>
>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>> to them legal tender is.
>
> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
I took a look at a primitive interactive world, but it held
little of interest. Second Life might have had more attraction, but I
do not think that much. I play roleplaying games and interesting
worlds are interesting, but I like playing games with people around.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363003 is a reply to message #362558] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 13:13 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <fe5au5F4dhfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Just like Bitcoin, then.
>>
>> No, they have a stated denomination and everyone agrees that a pound
>> note has the same value as a pound coin or a pound deposited in a UK
>> bank account.
>
> That's a circular definition.
Yeah, definitions are like that. Nonetheless, in the real world, the
rule that if you can pay your taxes with it then it's money works quite well.
> Dear Ghod, it's good job none of you ever worked for a financial
> institution.
Whatever you say.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363034 is a reply to message #363001] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 17:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:06:21 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:39:33 +0000, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>>> to them legal tender is.
>>
>> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
>> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
>> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
>> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>
> I took a look at a primitive interactive world, but it held
> little of interest. Second Life might have had more attraction, but I
> do not think that much. I play roleplaying games and interesting
> worlds are interesting, but I like playing games with people around.
>
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
I do play Everquest, off and on.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363046 is a reply to message #362558] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 18:43 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2018 8:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> In article <p5g9ut$oks$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>> You can't pay taxes in bitcoin, therefore it isn't money.
>>>
>>> You're not allowed to send them cash, so that's not money either?
>>
>> My town and village are delighted to accept tax payments in cash. If
>> you have some you don't want, I'd be happy to come pick it up.
>
> Your town and village, maybe. Try that with the feds, who're the ones
> that minted it. UK pound notes are money, even though I can't pay my
> taxes with them. The Venezuelan bolivar is money, even though not even
> Venezuelans want it as payment.
>
>>
>> In case it's not obvious, the definition of money has always been kind of
>> fuzzy, but Bitcoin is lightyears outside the fuzz.
>
> I'd say the essence is that money is a symbolic medium of exchange.
> Some versions are more stable, convenient, or useful than others.
> Bitcoin ranks low on stability and convenience. But it's
> nation-agnostic, which might be useful. It's a really interesting
> concept. But I wouldn't personally attempt to store value with it.
>
As I understand it, bitcoin transactions are not trackable in the way that
currency transactions thru banks are. That is the big advantage in a lot of
cases.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363047 is a reply to message #362940] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 18:43 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>
>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>> to them legal tender is.
>
> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>
> It is like soap operas, Big Brother or those 'watching people watch TV'
> shows I don't see the attraction in sitting indoors watching people, I
> would rather be outside watching people*
Some would rather. Why do two people sit across a room from each other
staring at their phones and texti one another occasionally instead of
looking up and talking to each other.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363048 is a reply to message #362909] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 18:43 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2018 11:12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now possibly taxes might in some way not be a debt, but they look
>>>> like one to me.
>>>
>>> Taxation is a protection racket promoted by those who ride
>>> its gravy train.
>>
>> Taxation is a way of funding common services that benefit "all". (FSVO
>> "all")
>
> Hey, it's simple civics but I see you have at least 2 cynical replies
> so far.
>
That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and a
lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes to
pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363054 is a reply to message #363047] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 20:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:43:49 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>>> to them legal tender is.
>>
>> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
>> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
>> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
>> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>>
>> It is like soap operas, Big Brother or those 'watching people watch TV'
>> shows I don't see the attraction in sitting indoors watching people, I
>> would rather be outside watching people*
>
> Some would rather. Why do two people sit across a room from each other
> staring at their phones and texti one another occasionally instead of
> looking up and talking to each other.
I saw that in the late 1980s. I went to a Halloween party, most of the
people didn't talk to each other. Then the host put up a chat thing on
4 or 5 computers. Then people sitting in chairs less than 2 feet apart
talked to each other in the chat.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363057 is a reply to message #362976] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 22:06 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 15:10:23 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>
>> none of you ever worked for a financial institution.
>
> You make that sound like a bad thing :-P
It kind of is. Most people don't have a clue how financial
institutions work. I certainly didn't but thought I did.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363058 is a reply to message #363046] |
Fri, 09 February 2018 23:20 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <1538232378.539879513.307552.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, bitcoin transactions are not trackable in the way that
> currency transactions thru banks are. That is the big advantage in a lot of
> cases.
Every bitcoin transaction since the genesis block a decade ago is on
the public Bitcoin ledger, so it's as least as accurate to say it's
the most trackable form of payment every invented. The wallets are
long random numbers which are nominally anonymous, but as soon as
someone links you to a known party through a transaction, you're
pwned. A lot of Silk Road customers learned that the hard way.
It's certainly true that Bitcoin has been very popular to pay for
illegal drugs, child pornography, weapons, and all sorts of stuff
that's traditionally been paid for with envelopes of cash. Let's just
say that opinions differ about how big an advantage that is.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363065 is a reply to message #362558] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 03:51 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-10, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/2018 5:43 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2018 8:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>
> Certainly not trackable with the ease that transactions through banks
> are. And some use it as if it is anonymous. I'm not sure that's
> entirely true, I believe that the blockchain contains a record of
> every transaction that has led to a particular coin's present state.
> If that's so, with sufficient computing power it might not be
> anonymous. (I'm sure that there are others here who know better than I.)
I am convinced that many supposably anonymous servicces or 'things'
aaare really honeypots.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363082 is a reply to message #363001] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 09:34 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:39:33 +0000, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>>> to them legal tender is.
>>
>> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
>> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
>> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
>> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>
> I took a look at a primitive interactive world, but it held
> little of interest. Second Life might have had more attraction, but I
> do not think that much. I play roleplaying games and interesting
> worlds are interesting, but I like playing games with people around.
I liked the old-fashioned role-playing games. Now they all seem to
be constant fighting with no thinking involved. I've been buying
hidden object games. I do have Fate but it gets so boring after
15 minutes. It's like trying to dig a hole in the sand by the
edge of the water with the tide coming in.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363083 is a reply to message #363003] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 09:34 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine wrote:
> In article <fe5au5F4dhfU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Just like Bitcoin, then.
>>>
>>> No, they have a stated denomination and everyone agrees that a pound
>>> note has the same value as a pound coin or a pound deposited in a UK
>>> bank account.
>>
>> That's a circular definition.
>
> Yeah, definitions are like that. Nonetheless, in the real world, the
> rule that if you can pay your taxes with it then it's money works quite
well.
>
>> Dear Ghod, it's good job none of you ever worked for a financial
>> institution.
>
> Whatever you say.
>
<GRIN>
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363085 is a reply to message #362558] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 10:18 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> On 2018-02-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 08/02/2018 11:12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Now possibly taxes might in some way not be a debt, but they look
>>>> >> like one to me.
>>>> >
>>>> > Taxation is a protection racket promoted by those who ride
>>>> > its gravy train.
>>>>
>>>> Taxation is a way of funding common services that benefit "all". (FSVO
>>>> "all")
>>>
>>> Hey, it's simple civics but I see you have at least 2 cynical replies
>>> so far.
>>>
>>
>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and a
>> lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes to
>> pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>
> Interesting example, given that it is entirely possible to operate toll
> roads and bridges, and even the State does that.
>
> A much better example would be defence.
How would taking down fences help???
(Yes, I know, Britisher.)
Another good example, taking care of old people, disabled, that are not able
to take care of themselves.
The US roads that go interstate are part of the federal system, as they
should be.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363090 is a reply to message #363082] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 10:50 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 10 Feb 2018 14:34:03 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:39:33 +0000, AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/02/2018 14:17, JimP wrote:
>>>
>>>> Second Life, yes. I played that for a short while. I understand some
>>>> people make a living at it. In Real Dollars, or what ever their local
>>>> to them legal tender is.
>>>
>>> Second Life. Is that still a thing?
>>> I tried it a few times and then it occurred to me that while I was
>>> indoors on a computer pretending to be outside interacting with people I
>>> could be outside interacting with people so I never played it again.
>>
>> I took a look at a primitive interactive world, but it held
>> little of interest. Second Life might have had more attraction, but I
>> do not think that much. I play roleplaying games and interesting
>> worlds are interesting, but I like playing games with people around.
>
> I liked the old-fashioned role-playing games. Now they all seem to
> be constant fighting with no thinking involved. I've been buying
> hidden object games. I do have Fate but it gets so boring after
> 15 minutes. It's like trying to dig a hole in the sand by the
> edge of the water with the tide coming in.
>
> /BAH
Really ? Hmmm... There are still people playing d&d, Traveller,
Tunnels and Trolls, etc. Or did you mean a different role playing game
?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363096 is a reply to message #363048] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 12:40 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:43:51 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and
> a lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes
> to pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
I sometimes wonder, here the best palliative care unit in the
country was built from local donations.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363100 is a reply to message #363096] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 13:35 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:43:51 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and
>> a lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes
>> to pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>
> I sometimes wonder, here the best palliative care unit in the
> country was built from local donations.
>
My personal feeling, based on what I've seen, is that's generally true.
Anything the government "gives" you is so surrounded by pettifogging rules
and restrictions that it's only slightly better than nothing. We should
encourage more private charity and less government.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363102 is a reply to message #363085] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 13:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:18:45 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2018-02-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> > <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On 08/02/2018 11:12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Now possibly taxes might in some way not be a debt, but they look
>>>> >>> like one to me.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Taxation is a protection racket promoted by those who ride
>>>> >> its gravy train.
>>>> >
>>>> > Taxation is a way of funding common services that benefit "all". (FSVO
>>>> > "all")
>>>>
>>>> Hey, it's simple civics but I see you have at least 2 cynical replies
>>>> so far.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and a
>>> lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes to
>>> pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>
>> Interesting example, given that it is entirely possible to operate toll
>> roads and bridges, and even the State does that.
>>
>> A much better example would be defence.
>
> How would taking down fences help???
>
> (Yes, I know, Britisher.)
>
> Another good example, taking care of old people, disabled, that are not able
> to take care of themselves.
>
> The US roads that go interstate are part of the federal system, as they
> should be.
They are built and paid for by the states in which they are located.
The only control the Federal government has over them is that the Feds
can withhold a payment if they are not constructed and maintained to a
certain standard. Essentially the states are bribed to cooperate.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363117 is a reply to message #363102] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 15:00 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> They are built and paid for by the states in which they are located.
> The only control the Federal government has over them is that the Feds
> can withhold a payment if they are not constructed and maintained to a
> certain standard. Essentially the states are bribed to cooperate.
when they were extending I93 in massachusetts to Tobin bridge in Bostin
.... they eventually realized that multilane route one coming into Tobin
bridge from the north/left used all lanes on the Tobin bridge and much
of the traffic exited to the south/right at the other end of Tobin
bridge. The I93 connection would add as many lanes coming in from the
south/right and continue north/left at the end of the bridge
.... creating two multilane lane traffic patterns that forming bumper
car X-cross pattern over the length of the bridge.
The result would be that I93 (and route one) traffic would have to be
reduced to something like 15miles/hr several miles before Tobin
.... which wouldn't meet federal government interstate standards. So they
considered canceling the project ... because in theory they wouldn't get
the 90% interstate federal reimbursement however, the contractor
canceltation penalty was much greater than 10% they would be on the hook
for completing the bridge.
They apparently got a bill through congress that they could get their
90% reimbursement for the completed project even though the whole
section failed to meet interstate standards.
Something worse later happened with the "big dig" through downtown
boston ... was suppose to be $2B ... but graft and corruption drove it
to $20B. The long time senator from Massachusetts is claimed to have
said that the federal government "owed" the extra $18B to the citizens
of massachusetts (obfiscating the fact the extra $18B only went to a
small number of very wealthy people).
When I first moved to the IBM Cambridge Science Center, massachucetts
politics was explained to me that in most places, known association
with organized crime would adversely affect their chances of election,
while in massachucetts, it significantly helped chances of election.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363118 is a reply to message #363100] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 15:57 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:43:51 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and
>>> a lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes
>>> to pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>
>> I sometimes wonder, here the best palliative care unit in the
>> country was built from local donations.
>>
> My personal feeling, based on what I've seen, is that's generally true.
> Anything the government "gives" you is so surrounded by pettifogging rules
> and restrictions that it's only slightly better than nothing. We should
> encourage more private charity and less government.
BS.
Those "charities" are 99% religions.
Ie. scam artists, perverts.
Why don't we leave your future security up to them.
Me, I'll take my chances with paying taxes and hope that
some of the people in office care about the common good.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363119 is a reply to message #363102] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 16:03 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:18:45 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> On 08/02/2018 11:12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Now possibly taxes might in some way not be a debt, but they look
>>>> >>>> like one to me.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Taxation is a protection racket promoted by those who ride
>>>> >>> its gravy train.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Taxation is a way of funding common services that benefit "all". (FSVO
>>>> >> "all")
>>>> >
>>>> > Hey, it's simple civics but I see you have at least 2 cynical replies
>>>> > so far.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and a
>>>> lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes to
>>>> pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>>
>>> Interesting example, given that it is entirely possible to operate toll
>>> roads and bridges, and even the State does that.
>>>
>>> A much better example would be defence.
>>
>> How would taking down fences help???
>>
>> (Yes, I know, Britisher.)
>>
>> Another good example, taking care of old people, disabled, that are not able
>> to take care of themselves.
>>
>> The US roads that go interstate are part of the federal system, as they
>> should be.
>
> They are built and paid for by the states in which they are located.
> The only control the Federal government has over them is that the Feds
> can withhold a payment if they are not constructed and maintained to a
> certain standard. Essentially the states are bribed to cooperate.
I'm having trouble understanding the Wikipedia comment on the issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Fina ncing
The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and
fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), and it makes up about 60 percent of
the contributions by the states.
Does that mean the feds pay 60 percent of the money the states spend?
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363123 is a reply to message #363118] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 16:52 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:43:51 -0700
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and
>>>> a lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes
>>>> to pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>>
>>> I sometimes wonder, here the best palliative care unit in the
>>> country was built from local donations.
>>>
>> My personal feeling, based on what I've seen, is that's generally true.
>> Anything the government "gives" you is so surrounded by pettifogging rules
>> and restrictions that it's only slightly better than nothing. We should
>> encourage more private charity and less government.
>
> BS.
>
> Those "charities" are 99% religions.
> Ie. scam artists, perverts.
>
> Why don't we leave your future security up to them.
> Me, I'll take my chances with paying taxes and hope that
> some of the people in office care about the common good.
>
Tsk, tsk, so cynical. There are a number of charities, religious and
otherwise, that spend all or nearly all of what they take in for its
intended purpose (verified by audit). A number of non-religious charities
such as the Red Cross take a good chop off the top. If you donate for a
specific cause, for example Irma relief, there's no guarantee that any of
your contribution actually is used for that. There are websites that
provide information on charities.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363134 is a reply to message #363119] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 16:48 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm having trouble understanding the Wikipedia comment on the issue:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Fina ncing
>
> The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and
> fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), and it makes up about 60 percent of
> the contributions by the states.
>
> Does that mean the feds pay 60 percent of the money the states spend?
or fuel taxes makes up 60% of contributions by the states???
we've also had lots of past discussions that highways are primarily
designed for heavy truck 18wheeler axle-ton-miles (ESALs) lifetime and
nearly all wear & tear is all from heavy truck 18wheeler axle-ton-miles
(cars and light trucks play no factor).
heavy trucks frequently carry blurbs about enormous amounts that they
are paying for the highways ... but non-truck use is in effect
subsidising heavy truck use (with their fuel tax) ... the highway heavy
truck subsidy plays a role in trade-offs with railroad/truck freight
comparisons.
truck scales and other regulations motivated largely because overweight
trucks greatly accelerate highway wear and tear (overweight trucks add
significant infrastructure costs)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363136 is a reply to message #363119] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 17:35 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:03:05 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:18:45 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 08/02/2018 11:12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Now possibly taxes might in some way not be a debt, but they look
>>>> >>>>> like one to me.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Taxation is a protection racket promoted by those who ride
>>>> >>>> its gravy train.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Taxation is a way of funding common services that benefit "all". (FSVO
>>>> >>> "all")
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hey, it's simple civics but I see you have at least 2 cynical replies
>>>> >> so far.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and a
>>>> > lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes to
>>>> > pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting example, given that it is entirely possible to operate toll
>>>> roads and bridges, and even the State does that.
>>>>
>>>> A much better example would be defence.
>>>
>>> How would taking down fences help???
>>>
>>> (Yes, I know, Britisher.)
>>>
>>> Another good example, taking care of old people, disabled, that are not able
>>> to take care of themselves.
>>>
>>> The US roads that go interstate are part of the federal system, as they
>>> should be.
>>
>> They are built and paid for by the states in which they are located.
>> The only control the Federal government has over them is that the Feds
>> can withhold a payment if they are not constructed and maintained to a
>> certain standard. Essentially the states are bribed to cooperate.
>
> I'm having trouble understanding the Wikipedia comment on the issue:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Fina ncing
>
> The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and
> fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), and it makes up about 60 percent of
> the contributions by the states.
>
> Does that mean the feds pay 60 percent of the money the states spend?
It means that some character who who edited the page on May 12, 2012
to "put in clarifications" should have taken an English course before
doing so.
Prior to the "clarification" that sentence was: "The federal
contribution is overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes
(93.5% in 2007), as is about 60% of the state contribution."
Afterwards it was: "The Federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from
motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5% in 2007), and it makes up about 60
percent of the contributions by the States."
It now reads "The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor
vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), as does about 60
percent of the state contribution."
When you read wiki, if something doesn't make any sense note that
there are tabs at the top of the page for "Talk" and "View History".
Sometimes something that doesn't make sense is the result of a
previous botched edit--you may be able to find that, find out what it
was supposed to say, and fix it. Other times there will be in the
Talk section a discussion of the issue and why it reads the way it
does.
People seem to have this idea that Wiki is an encyclopedia where the
worlds experts are sought out and persuaded to give their opinions.
It's not, it's a lot like USENET where any idiot can make changes (one
of the edits I noted added to the page we are discussing "I like
chicken". I didn't follow that one to see how long it took for
someone to notice and remove it.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363137 is a reply to message #363118] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 17:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:57:52 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:43:51 -0700
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and
>>>> a lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes
>>>> to pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>>
>>> I sometimes wonder, here the best palliative care unit in the
>>> country was built from local donations.
>>>
>> My personal feeling, based on what I've seen, is that's generally true.
>> Anything the government "gives" you is so surrounded by pettifogging rules
>> and restrictions that it's only slightly better than nothing. We should
>> encourage more private charity and less government.
>
> BS.
>
> Those "charities" are 99% religions.
> Ie. scam artists, perverts.
>
> Why don't we leave your future security up to them.
> Me, I'll take my chances with paying taxes and hope that
> some of the people in office care about the common good.
When I was in trouble Easter Seals gave me a lot of help. I was also
placed with a government agency for a while that was supposed to be
helping people in my situation and that was a disaster--the people who
were supposed to be "helping" spent more time filling out paperwork to
prove to multiple levels of government that they had helped people
than they did helping people. Talk to somebody for a half an hour and
they had to then spend an hour filling out forms. The thing that
pissed me off was that it was the same information on three different
forms for three different agencies (local, state, and federal). It
could easily have been consolidated but the agencies' security clowns'
heads exploded any time that was suggested.
I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks that government is efficient in
dispensing charity hasn't worked for the government trying to dispense
charity.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363152 is a reply to message #363123] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 20:35 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:43:51 -0700
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and
>>>> > a lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes
>>>> > to pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>>>
>>>> I sometimes wonder, here the best palliative care unit in the
>>>> country was built from local donations.
>>>>
>>> My personal feeling, based on what I've seen, is that's generally true.
>>> Anything the government "gives" you is so surrounded by pettifogging rules
>>> and restrictions that it's only slightly better than nothing. We should
>>> encourage more private charity and less government.
>>
>> BS.
>>
>> Those "charities" are 99% religions.
>> Ie. scam artists, perverts.
>>
>> Why don't we leave your future security up to them.
>> Me, I'll take my chances with paying taxes and hope that
>> some of the people in office care about the common good.
>
> Tsk, tsk, so cynical. There are a number of charities, religious and
> otherwise, that spend all or nearly all of what they take in for its
> intended purpose (verified by audit). A number of non-religious charities
> such as the Red Cross take a good chop off the top. If you donate for a
> specific cause, for example Irma relief, there's no guarantee that any of
> your contribution actually is used for that. There are websites that
> provide information on charities.
So, you're agreeing with me...
First you say I'm cynical, then make claims about some legitimate
charities without naming names. Then you identify some not-so-legitimate.
Seems like you believe we should leave helping the helpless up to chance.
As for religious charities, they're all scam artists. No exceptions.
They'll get you one way or another.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363156 is a reply to message #362959] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 21:47 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 09/02/2018 10:33, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 03:02:43 +0000
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> In this life anything that rises very rapidly, which is not genuinely
>> scarce, falls soon after.
>
> Bitcoins are genuinely scarce, they are now very difficult to
> 'mine'.
>
Bitcoin no longer has a monopoly. Other makes of crypto coins exist.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bitcoin confusion? [message #363157 is a reply to message #362558] |
Sat, 10 February 2018 21:51 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/02/2018 10:35, Huge wrote:
> On 2018-02-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 08/02/2018 11:12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Now possibly taxes might in some way not be a debt, but they look
>>>> >> like one to me.
>>>> >
>>>> > Taxation is a protection racket promoted by those who ride
>>>> > its gravy train.
>>>>
>>>> Taxation is a way of funding common services that benefit "all". (FSVO
>>>> "all")
>>>
>>> Hey, it's simple civics but I see you have at least 2 cynical replies
>>> so far.
>>>
>>
>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and a
>> lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes to
>> pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>
> Interesting example, given that it is entirely possible to operate toll
> roads and bridges, and even the State does that.
>
> A much better example would be defence.
>
>
Who ever controls the army becomes the government.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
