Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

OK, let's see if some one can help me understand bitcoins


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#26 crashnburn

crashnburn

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 111 posts

Posted 06 September 2016 - 06:24 AM

I like the technology & speed aspect of it. 

 

I like how they want to free us from Big banks & financial institutions. 

 

I don't like how "Initial" creators of the currency and book keepers get to be "the ultra Rich" 

 

They are doing the same thing... When a new king starts printing his COIN, the old king's coins must be thrown out and one has to run behind the new king & his generals and beg for coins.. And since they are the "initial owners" they have the upper hand. 

 

Doesn't sound like the Free Democratic Currency that they all talk about. 



#27 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13338 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 September 2016 - 07:11 PM

Hey, wait, it is money :frusty::
http://fortune.com/2...tcoin-is-money/

 

:duff:

Wonko



#28 Wonko the Insane

Wonko the Insane

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 458 posts
  • Location:The Inside of the Asylum (gate is wide open)
  • Interests:Oh, so you hate me too? Well, join the club! There are weekly meetings at the corner of Fuck You St. and Kiss My Ass Blvd.
  •  
    United States

Posted 20 September 2016 - 09:09 PM

The only reason that judge ruled that BitCoin is money, is because s/he works for the Feds. The US govt has a vested interest in being able to tax anything that can be classified as income. By being able to levy taxes against something, this gives them more of an ability to regulate it. One of the reasons BitCoin was established, is to have a currency that is as free as possible from commercial/govt influence.



#29 Zoso

Zoso

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 605 posts
  •  
    Isle of Man

Posted 20 September 2016 - 11:36 PM

according to that article, the judge did NOT rule "bitcoin is money", that articles title is misleading but im sure its an honest mistake by an author who is also most probably mislead too.

highly doubtful that bitcoin will ever be ruled officially and specifically as "money" by any official government. most definitely not by the U.S. govt. and just try to actually find an official definition of "money" from any "official" source and recognized as such (official definition)

and their congress (US) uses a different law dictionary when drafting *so-called* "laws" than their court system use to interpret them. (those same *so-called* "laws"!) so trying to make sense of any US or UN statutes, codes, rules, regulations is futile. its all void for vagueness actually but you must be able to articulate and prove such should you find yourself caught up in that matrix.

#30 Wonko the Insane

Wonko the Insane

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 458 posts
  • Location:The Inside of the Asylum (gate is wide open)
  • Interests:Oh, so you hate me too? Well, join the club! There are weekly meetings at the corner of Fuck You St. and Kiss My Ass Blvd.
  •  
    United States

Posted 21 September 2016 - 12:19 AM

No federal court in the US can pass laws, only Congress and the state legislatures can do that. The US govt is divided into 3 branches:

 

1. Executive (president/White house/all associated employees/armed forces)

2. Legislative (Congress, which is comprised of House of Representatives and the Senate)

3. Judicial (federal courts and the Supreme Court)

 

The federal courts can make rulings and these can be considered legal precedent, but not necessarily laws. The courts can, however, overturn laws, but it is up to Congress to actually pass laws. Congress can review the courts' decision and revise or overturn current laws (particularly if the courts rule something as illegal/unconstitutional). Congress either passes potential bills into laws or shoots them down. The president has the decision of either approving laws pass to him/her by Congress, or vetoing them, which can be overridden by a majority vote in Congress (not sure what the exact percentage required is). The president also possesses the power of executive order, which allows them to issue directives that are like laws but not quite the same. There are also federal agencies which can institute policies/rules/regulations, but these arent laws either.

 

Also, the US is *NOT* a democracy (which means direct rule by the people), instead it is a republic (which means representatives are elected/appointed to represent the people) with democratic qualities.

 

The 50 states are structured in a manner that is similar to the US govt, and have their own laws which are only applicable statewide. The US Constitution gives the states a certain degree of autonomy, but the states still must adhere to certain federal laws. And there are situationsvin which state laws can override federal laws or vice versa.

 

I'm not an expert in the politics/govt of this nation, but I did take history/civic classes in school (and did very well in them), so I have an above average understanding of how things work. I was my history teacher's favorite student, he was known for being extremely strict and experienced. I aced almost every subject except math, and came close to graduating with top honors, until I was arrested for something I dont feel obliged to talk about. A good while later I enrolled in university with the intention of getting a degree in business management/administration, but was forced to drop out due to economic circumstances (and not getting along well with staff/students due to my antisocial personality and seeming inability to cope with most people). I'm most skilled/interested in computing and technology in general.



#31 Zoso

Zoso

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 605 posts
  •  
    Isle of Man

Posted 21 September 2016 - 02:13 AM

No federal court in the US can pass laws, only Congress and the state legislatures can do that. The US govt is divided into 3 branches:

1. Executive (president/White house/all associated employees/armed forces)
2. Legislative (Congress, which is comprised of House of Representatives and the Senate)
3. Judicial (federal courts and the Supreme Court)

The federal courts can make rulings and these can be considered legal precedent, but not necessarily laws. The courts can, however, overturn laws, but it is up to Congress to actually pass laws. Congress can review the courts' decision and revise or overturn current laws (particularly if the courts rule something as illegal/unconstitutional). Congress either passes potential bills into laws or shoots them down. The president has the decision of either approving laws pass to him/her by Congress, or vetoing them, which can be overridden by a majority vote in Congress (not sure what the exact percentage required is). The president also possesses the power of executive order, which allows them to issue directives that are like laws but not quite the same. There are also federal agencies which can institute policies/rules/regulations, but these arent laws either.

Also, the US is *NOT* a democracy (which means direct rule by the people), instead it is a republic (which means representatives are elected/appointed to represent the people) with democratic qualities.

The 50 states are structured in a manner that is similar to the US govt, and have their own laws which are only applicable statewide. The US Constitution gives the states a certain degree of autonomy, but the states still must adhere to certain federal laws. And there are situationsvin which state laws can override federal laws or vice versa.

I'm not an expert in the politics/govt of this nation, but I did take history/civic classes in school (and did very well in them), so I have an above average understanding of how things work. I was my history teacher's favorite student, he was known for being extremely strict and experienced. I aced almost every subject except math, and came close to graduating with top honors, until I was arrested for something I dont feel obliged to talk about. A good while later I enrolled in university with the intention of getting a degree in business management/administration, but was forced to drop out due to economic circumstances (and not getting along well with staff/students due to my antisocial personality and seeming inability to cope with most people). I'm most skilled/interested in computing and technology in general.



standard runathemill indoctrination basically LOL!

would sign your name under penalty of perjury that all youve written above is true and correct?

oh but before you do that, whats the difference between a signature and an autograph? and how do you intend to prove that that is indeed your name?


(that'll probably burn just a tad)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users