RICH PEOPLE

[evan]

27 minutes ago, Rassah said:

That's not a massive change. All purposed changes have been tiny and incremental. A massive change would be something like abolishing grades, or changing teaching styles from teacher led where kids just sit still and listen, to participatory learning where kids learn hands on in a group and the teacher just provides guidance. If it's still kids being forced to sit at desks and being told what to do, it's not a massive change.

 

You don't consider abolishing 97% of standardized testing to be a massive change in the classroom?

And before you continue making that argument, do you know what modern universities are teaching in curriculum study? This whole "engage the student hands on" thing...literally EXACTLY what teachers are trying to have happen in classrooms. What you're saying isn't happening is happening. That's what they are teaching education majors right now.

 

Edit: damnit was hoping for a post merge.

Edited December 15, 2015 by evan

[evan]

18 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Do I have proof that if someone wants to learn something, they will try to learn it? Does that require proof???

I'm talking about the ability to actually, on one's own, develop at the same rate as someone who is engaged by a professional consistently.

Quote

Please refrain from claiming what I think.

the expectation is mutually exclusive.

Quote

I don't have any thoughts on the difficulty of learning psychology, and have not indicated anything about that.

But it is entirely relevant to what you're talking about. You can't just overlook that aspect because you think self-directive classes are good enough.

Quote

They don't have to. The online materials break the knowledge topics down for them. They simply have to start with lesson one..

I'm referring to the fact that you did point out that there would be online classes that would be centered around self-directive. And I specifically acknowledged that there were classes that did a good job of pin pointing knowledge. There are others that fail miserably, and simply give you a bunch of pieces of information with no humanistic connection or perspective.

Quote

I only brought up online academies as a resource for those for whom other options are limited (e.g. if you can't get into a university, or can't afford the tens if thousands it will cost, you STILL have options to learn things, if you want to). As for traditional classrooms, they have had a shitload of decline in quality over the decades, while at the same time we are spending more on them than we ever have before. We need to break the pattern somehow. 

You have any proof for that statement? That's a bold claim and an integral part of your argument here, but to my knowledge, especially with the passing of the Every Student Succeeds Act. If anything, what you're saying just falls back into things that are already happening right now. More time is spent in classrooms working with students in a way that isn't a lecture format; more research is coming out showing the negative traits of them, and as a result more educators are posting papers highly discouraging this format, and more focus is being spent on praxial knowledge investment (a shift that has been in music education for at least two decades now; yet to be standardized but happening). The problem isn't the classroom itself, should the classroom be utilized correctly. The problem is a poor realization of how to standardize teacher expectations. Consider the video I posted, and how right now part of the reason classrooms are currently trying to work around damaging stigma is the fact that grading and scoring are the way the state rates the quality of teaching. Not the schools. The government, policy makers. They are creating problems for the educators. 

edit: ok that time i was just being negligent. first triple post of the year...

Edited December 15, 2015 by evan

[Rassah]

16 minutes ago, evan said:

although frankly i saw your little bit about "not wanting to change education" and i am a little aggravated because you dont seem to understand that i am in favour of change dictated by teachers, not bitcoin economists.

The "conservative" blurb wasn't about you anyway. And I'm in favor change dictated by anyone, be it teachers, bitcoin economists, enterprising businessmen, wacky entrepreneurs (Elon Musk and his school). Right now, it seems the change isn't allowed to be made by anyone but the board of education and district managers that control and restrict who and where can set up schools. And, again, I'm not proposing we take the current education system, throw it all away, and do what I suggest. Competition. Competition. COMPETITION. Do you notice that word now? Are you against competing ideas? Do you fear that if a bitcoin economist and a self described anarchist (i.e. someone who believes people should be able to make their own decisions and is against forcing people to follow ideas) implements an education change idea, that you and all kids will lose your own education system somehow?

11 minutes ago, evan said:

You don't consider abolishing 97% of standardized testing to be a massive change in the classroom?

Absolutely not. Schools went from not having it, to having it, and back to not having it, and overall haven't changed in any perceptible way.

11 minutes ago, evan said:

And before you continue making that argument, do you know what modern universities are teaching in curriculum study? This whole "engage the student hands on" thing...literally EXACTLY what teachers are trying to have happen in classrooms.

I went to college, university, and graduate school. In all of them, in all classes, we set at a desk, listened to lectures, and once in a while had lab work where we did some hands on stuff.  That's not what I'm talking about. And that's especially not the primary school level education that this whole topic started on before it was derailed. Adults in college have a choice to go or not to go, and have some semblance of a choice in which classes they take. I'm talking about little kids being forced to go to school, forced to sit at a desk, take all kinds of subjects, and in all cases just listen to the teacher drone on. And if they can't handle it (them being energetic kids and all), they get diagnosed with ADHD or something similar, and drugged the hell out of. THAT'S what my main complaint is about and what I want changed.

12 minutes ago, evan said:

I'm talking about the ability to actually, on one's own, develop at the same rate as someone who is engaged by a professional consistently.

I never claimed such a thing (in fact I claimed otherwise), so I'm not bothering with this.

12 minutes ago, evan said:

the expectation is mutually exclusive.

I don't even know what that means.

12 minutes ago, evan said:

But it is entirely relevant to what you're talking about. You can't just overlook that aspect because you think self-directive classes are good enough.

Self directed classes, or more precisely online classes with online direction and online discussions and support, should be considered good enough by employers and educators. If someone takes those classes, they should have just as much chance for being considered for a job as someone who took in person classes. Whether psychology is a difficult subject is irrelevant.

Now, can all people handle learning online? No, of course not. So what? I never advocated replacing all classes with online only classes. I never advocated replacing anything with anything. Frankly, you are starting to strike me as a conservative type too. Someone suggests some competition and innovation to see if we can improve things, and your first reaction is to strike down the very idea, lest you are forced to consider any change from what you have gotten used to.

12 minutes ago, evan said:

You have any proof for that statement?

Just all the news articles about increasing costs, decreasing graduation rates, decreasing levels of education upon graduation, frustrated teachers who can't fail their students any more because parents complain, worries about declining education being a threat to our national security, increasing reliance on foreign workers for high level skilled positions, etc. You really get the feeling for it just reading Facebook comments, honestly.

12 minutes ago, evan said:

If anything, what you're saying just falls back into things that are already happening right now. 

Well, yeah. I pointed out to online educational resources, Elon Musk started his own school as an experiment of what I was talking about, and I'm sure others are trying different things beyond just the old "let's see if we can still use a classroom with subjects and grades, but teach a little bit differently." That's more of what I'd like to see.

[Onnes]

I admire evan's patience with this thread, because at this point it's just silly.

Rassah, I legitimately can't tell whether you simply have a reading comprehension deficit or you are intentionally trying to distort the content of posts in order to troll people. You've taken damn near every reply here off on one tangent or another that has nothing to do with the original point.

This entire branch of discussion started because you suggested abolishing public education. You asserted that the loss of public education could be replaced by things like Khan Academy or MIT OCW. Since these sorts of services are largely self-directed, that naturally led to a discussion of the general efficacy of self-directed learning. 

For primary and secondary school education, where public education is free and guaranteed, self-directed learning is an obvious non-starter. My entire point here was that even adult college students, with substantial academic achievements, dealing with a subject within their chosen field, usually suck at self-directed learning. Saying that self-directed options can work for the general population of children is like claiming to have discovered an in-the-flesh unicorn. It contradicts all prior evidence and requires proof.

I've gone through multiple courses on MIT's OpenCourseware; it's where I learned quite a bit about computer science. But I was an adult with a strong drive to learn the material and a bias towards academic pursuits. These services are great as supplements to traditional courses or for students that are adept at working through material independently. However, there's no evidence that this extends to the population at large, and especially not to adolescents.

You can't just tear something important down with only the hope that something better will emerge from the rubble. You need some evidence that the replacement will be an improvement. As it stands, the evidence-based assumption is that the loss of public schools would lead to poorer families being unable to give their children a decent education. 

Edited December 15, 2015 by Onnes

[Rassah]

By the way, just a reminder, the topic here is RICH PEOPLE, and that topic diverged to Bernie Sander's "free higher education." All this online schooling and how much kids cost to send to school was basically pointing out that it actually costs $6,000+ to send kids to "free" primary education, and higher education alternatives already exist, though you have to personally work for them (that whole "self directed isn't easy" thing). Don't know why it all went into these crazy tangents.

[evan]

"by the way, I could have pointed out how the thread derailed at any time, but now that i don't have an argument i'm going to comment on things that can make me look right."

i'm going to reserve my patience up to that copout attempt to basically try and pull out a point that is fundamentally moot without context of the actual issues surrounding the educational system. you still haven't figured out why it's 6,000, have you? that'd sure help everyone in figuring out how to reduce it, if you'd so like that to change. you're just pointing out problems and saying that's why education needs a radical shift; well, i'll be in favour of that if the changes that we are trying to make right now fail. to which, yes, let's introduce something radically new. but right now, changes have been made and the stigma of education is changing rapidly; such that the problems you keep trying to argue are things most teachers are aware of and are something that needs adjustment from multiple levels.

that's all i've got left at this point. if you want to keep dancing this dance, be my guest.

 

something something the economy, if you really want to re-rail this thread. not that it was that great to begin with. it's mostly just everyone making fun of you.

[AshleyAshes]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

Easy. Competition always always always makes things cheaper. Again, there's little to no competition in schools. Even in private schools. Private schools can even charge a premium by claiming they are selling luxury education compared to the crappy public schools.

That isn't a real answer.  You are effectively using 'Competition' in place of the word 'Magic', where it is some incantation that explains immediate industry success without any supported facts, estimated budgets or anything like that.  If schools can be run like a business to boost student success and cut costs, then you can explain how that would work, just as how one would explain how any other business would succeed.  Instead, you're just saying 'Competition' rather than giving a meaningful answer to justify your point of view; Why?

[AshleyAshes]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

So you're 6 months worth of wealthy. Not bad. The question isn't how fast you can find employment again, but simply a more objective measure of wealth. Most people are less than 2 weeks wealthy. The rich are typically indefinitely wealthy. I'm about 10 years to indefinitely. Someone who earns $250,000+ a year and has a nice house and car, while spending all of their income on mortgages and loans, is actually still poor by that definition of wealth, while someone who has some assets that earn them $30,000 a year (like a rental property for instance), and who lives meagerly in a small apartment with an old car on $25,000 a year is richer than that $250,000 income person. This is why I don't consider the amount of money someone earns to matter when it comed to how rich someone is. I.e. even if you brag that you have a million bucks, that still doesn't say anything, since you could be in a situation where you'll be forced to spend it all in a few months. It's ALL about asset income vs liabilities/expenses.

Your thing sounds super lame actually.  Okay, so, if I had a property, I could generate revenues off of it and then live a meager living off it where as, on the other hand, I could make freakin' movies.  Making movies is awesome, sitting around and making less than my current salary off a rental property is the opposite of awesome.  I literally make movies.  Come 2016, I'll be involved in the production of the remake of my favorite franchise since childhood.  I had action figures, I had the car, the house, I have the poster on my wall, I have the Lego set, but all of that was just merch.  Now, I'm going to build a part of it.  I'm literally going to put together some of the pieces that will continue that franchise into the 21st century.  The funny thing?  All of your money, it couldn't buy that.  Your money could by merch, copies of media, even props that were used in production, but it would all be 'after the fact' stuff.  I'll get to build it.  I could never buy that but I'm in a situation where I will be paid to do it instead.  A bunch of money seems kinda lame in comparison.

[AshleyAshes]

9 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Good job giving enough information (especially since your entire house is plastered on the forums) to let us figure out which NDA you've just violated.

Oh, the project doesn't have an NDA.  It's not like it's fuckin' Star Wars or something.   I just can't LEAK shit.  And, seriously man, the POSTER was the ONLY clue you picked up for that?  I know you wanna pull the whole 'You were dumb and I picked up on something cause I'm smart' angle, but there was a LOT more in that post than mention of the POSTER.

A clever person would have picked up that that post was designed to tip off what film it is.

Edited December 15, 2015 by AshleyAshes

[#00Buck]

10 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Your thing sounds super lame actually.  Okay, so, if I had a property, I could generate revenues off of it and then live a meager living off it where as, on the other hand, I could make freakin' movies.  Making movies is awesome, sitting around and making less than my current salary off a rental property is the opposite of awesome.  I literally make movies.  Come 2016, I'll be involved in the production of the remake of my favorite franchise since childhood.  I had action figures, I had the car, the house, I have the poster on my wall, I have the Lego set, but all of that was just merch.  Now, I'm going to build a part of it.  I'm literally going to put together some of the pieces that will continue that franchise into the 21st century.  The funny thing?  All of your money, it couldn't buy that.  Your money could by merch, copies of media, even props that were used in production, but it would all be 'after the fact' stuff.  I'll get to build it.  I could never buy that but I'm in a situation where I will be paid to do it instead.  A bunch of money seems kinda lame in comparison.

Why are you arguing with a guy who sleeps in his car?

It isn't even a nice car. 

The guy isn't even wealthy. 

[AshleyAshes]

21 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Why are you arguing with a guy who sleeps in his car?

It isn't even a nice car. 

The guy isn't even wealthy. 

I prefer the subway, it's faster than a car.

[Brass]

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, evan said:

You still haven't figured out why it's 6,000, have you? that'd sure help everyone in figuring out how to reduce it, if you'd so like that to change.

I already said how to reduce it. Increase competition (actual competition, not "permitted" competition), add a feedback system where schools get paid based on performance (better education, higher profit, higher pay for everyone, higher incentive to provide better education), and get rid of bureaucracies where salaries are assigned based on the job title, not based on what the people working those jobs are actually worth (all the administrative people at and above the principal level). I don't need to know what the $6,000 is spent on to know that's what will help. I only need to know that those things are lacking in the current system.

1 hour ago, evan said:

you're just pointing out problems and saying that's why education needs a radical shift; well, i'll be in favour of that if the changes that we are trying to make right now fail.

One change at a time, huh? And only with permission I guess? If you're still wondering why I'm saying the changes we're trying are minor, and the improvements are severely stagnated, this is why.

 

57 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

That isn't a real answer.  You are effectively using 'Competition' in place of the word 'Magic',

Kinda like saying "you claiming that lighter things always always always rise and thus lighter than air balloons will fly is effectively using 'lighter things will rise' in place of 'magic.'"

No, it isn't "magic," that's how markets work. Things can only compete based on two things: price, and quality. So if you have two things competing, you will either get continuing improvements in quality, or continuing decreases in price, as both of those things keep inventing new ways of doing things in order to get your business. If we allow businesses that want to provide education first actually exist, and second truly compete against each other, they will either get cheaper, or get better, because that's simply how competition works. It's the same "magic" that got you air-conditioned comfortable homes, big flat screen TV, and cheap multi-processor computers into your pockets.

57 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

If schools can be run like a business to boost student success and cut costs, then you can explain how that would work, just as how one would explain how any other business would succeed.

I don't actually have to, because it's not my job. It would be the job of whoever decides to start such a business, to figure out how to do it best, and the job of his competitors to figure out how to beat him. I just have to convince you that we, as a society, believe that education is important, will try to send our kids to the best schools we can, and will be willing to (not "can," willing to) pay for such schools directly. Do you think I can convince you of that?

 

41 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Your thing sounds super lame actually. 

That's how the rich actually measure it, so *shrug*

41 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Come 2016, I'll be involved in the production of the remake of my favorite franchise since childhood.  I had action figures, I had the car, the house, I have the poster on my wall, I have the Lego set, but all of that was just merch.  Now, I'm going to build a part of it.  I'm literally going to put together some of the pieces that will continue that franchise into the 21st century.  The funny thing?  All of your money, it couldn't buy that.  Your money could by merch, copies of media, even props that were used in production, but it would all be 'after the fact' stuff.  I'll get to build it.  I could never buy that but I'm in a situation where I will be paid to do it instead.  A bunch of money seems kinda lame in comparison.

Yeah, this is why I keep harping on you for being so materialistic, as if money is all about buying and owning things, or collecting money for money's sake. Yes, you are the materialistic one. You know what my money COULD buy me? All the time in the world to do whatever I want, including also working on your movie, even if I wasn't getting paid, if I was interested in being involved (because who wouldn't want free labor). Would you be able to work on making that movie if it didn't pay you anything, or if it paid less than your bills? Exactly. Me, I get to work on what I love, and do what I love, regardless of if there is a salary involved. And I get to pick up and go wherever I want, to visit family or friends whenever I want, without worrying about using up vacation days or if the boss will let me go. And, neatest of all, I get to help friends who need it. A new set of tires here, a plane ticket for a boyfriend who really misses his other boyfriend there, a tablet to replace a broken one for an autistic son who doesn't speak so my friend the dad can keep communicating with him, an investment for a dream business someone wants to pursue, etc, etc, etc. Can you do that? Can you help your friends and family out of tight situations, or help them fulfil their dreams? Or can you just pat them of the back and send them your condolences and well wishes? Cause that's what being "RICH PEOPLE" is about, and that's how money buys happiness.

43 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Why are you arguing with a guy who sleeps in his car?

It isn't even a nice car. 

The guy isn't even wealthy. 

Hahahahaha! Can't believe you're still on that. Anyway, off to the exclusive party at the Altitude Sly Lounge on top of the San Diego Marriott. We rented the whole place for the night. Ttyl!

[Onnes]

7 minutes ago, Brass said:

 

If the overall direction this thread went wasn't your intended outcome, I would be disappointed.

[evan]

4 minutes ago, Rassah said:

 I don't need to know what the $6,000 is spent on to know that's what will help.

well, at least we can end this discussion on a good joke.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Rassah said:

Kinda like saying "you claiming that lighter things always always always rise and thus lighter than air balloons will fly is effectively using 'lighter things will rise' in place of 'magic.'"

Except competition doesn't always yield lower prices or better services.   Not all commodities experience significant shift in price as a result of competition, because demand remains largely steady regardless of the level of supply.  Gasoline is a prime example of that, despite a massive oversupply of oil currently, gasoline prices do not shift significantly as demand will not change largely even if prices are cut.  So you can put four gas stations at each corner of a four way intersection, you aren't going to end up with someone selling gas for $0.60/L.  You're assumption that competition will dramatically change the landscape of education is an untested theory that you are asserting as fact as an apparent result of blind belief that competition influences all things.  It influences MOST things but not all.  It is not universal.

This situation is more akin to you saying that a rock will float once someone makes it lighter than air, without explaining by what means you intend to make the rock lighter than air.

9 minutes ago, Rassah said:

All the time in the world to do whatever I want, including also working on your movie, even if I wasn't getting paid, if I was interested in being involved (because who wouldn't want free labor).

Unpaid, but completely unskilled labor that was unable to produce work would actually cost money rather than be 'free'...  But hey, put your money where your mouth is.  Legend 3D is still hiring, you can find their Linkdin page.  Let's see if you turn up in a couple of weeks.

[Brass]

18 minutes ago, Onnes said:

If the overall direction this thread went wasn't your intended outcome, I would be disappointed.

The turnout was better than expected I'll be honest with you.

[Spot]

lol furries

[Rassah]

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Except competition doesn't always yield lower prices or better services.  

Except it does... 

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Not all commodities experience significant shift in price as a result of competition, because demand remains largely steady regardless of the level of supply.

Um, both demand AND supply affect price, as well as that one thing people always forget: substitutes.

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Gasoline is a prime example of that, despite a massive oversupply of oil currently, gasoline prices do not shift significantly as demand will not change largely even if prices are cut.

Except gasoline prices have fallen drastically in the last year. So much so that they fucked Russia and Venezuela in the process.

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

So you can put four gas stations at each corner of a four way intersection, you aren't going to end up with someone selling gas for $0.60/L. 

If you just narrow the scope locally to 4 gas stations, yes, having 4 of them next to each other would definitely mean that you would pay less than if there was just one of them. With 4 competing that close you'll probably pay at cost. But gas stations don't produce anything themselves. All they can do is give you what they get as zero profit. Expand the scope a bit, and things get even better. Global oil companies competing, driving overall gas prices down, with things like deep sea drilling, shale oil tech, and yes, even substitutes like hydrogen and electric cars. Sometimes the goal isn't to drive $0.50 gasoline cars, it's to drive cars that use no gasoline whatsoever (like we don't have to worry about cheap whale oil to light our houses any more, we found a substitute in electricity). That's what competition does; it drives innovation. Always. No exceptions.

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

You're assumption that competition will dramatically change the landscape of education is an untested theory that you are asserting as fact as an apparent result of blind belief that competition influences all things.

Your assumption that competition will not improve education, and insistence that we should not attempt to explore ways to improve education in any way, is even more perplexing of a theory.

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

This situation is more akin to you saying that a rock will float once someone makes it lighter than air, without explaining by what means you intend to make the rock lighter than air.

The explanation in this case would be because we have a need to make it lighter than air, and if we provide an incentive for that to happen, people will keep trying to figure out how, until someone succeeds. I don't need to prove to you how it can be done, just that providibg an incentive to do it will greatly increase the likelihood that it will be done. But you don't believe such an incentive should even be attempted. Why are you all so against the idea of having some experimentation and competition in education???

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

But hey, put your money where your mouth is.  Legend 3D is still hiring, you can find their Linkdin page.  Let's see if you turn up in a couple of weeks.

Point went right over your head, huh. I'm not interested in working for that movie. I'm super busy as it is. I was saying that having enough wealth to not have to rely on your income would let you work on things you liked, even if they didn't pay or paid too little. You basically got lucky that you not only got to work on what you like, but they pay you a salary too. What would you have done if they paid you half, or couldn't pay you until the movie was out?

[Clove Darkwave]

[AshleyAshes]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Except gasoline prices have fallen drastically in the last year. So much so that they fucked Russia and Venezuela in the process.

No dear Rassah, that's oil prices, not gasoline prices.

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Point went right over your head, huh. I'm not interested in working for that movie. I'm super busy as it is. I was saying that having enough wealth to not have to rely on your income would let you work on things you liked, even if they didn't pay or paid too little. You basically got lucky that you not only got to work on what you like, but they pay you a salary too. What would you have done if they paid you half, or couldn't pay you until the movie was out?

I've been listening to people say 'I could do that... But I don't wanna.' since I was four years old.  This most recent instance has failed to impress me like all of the other times past.  Not interested in words.

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

No dear Rassah, that's oil prices, not gasoline prices.

I've been listening to people say 'I could do that... But I don't wanna.' since I was four years old.  This most recent instance has failed to impress me like all of the other times past.  Not interested in words.

Homeboy acts like a baller:

Drives a Prius...

Makes fun of someone for making movies:

Drives a taxi for a living...

Edited December 15, 2015 by #00Buck

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

No dear Rassah, that's oil prices, not gasoline prices.

No dear Ashley, it's both. Gas prices were $3.50 in 2014 and dropped to $2.00. That's a 43% drop.

Quote

I've been listening to people say 'I could do that... But I don't wanna.' since I was four years old. 

Except that's not what I said. I said having money gives you the option to, even without pay. Not that "I can, but I don't want." Like I said, went right over your head. You do understand the concept of you not being able to do that movie thing if it didn't also pay your bills, right? 

2 minutes ago, Rassah said:

No dear Ashley, it's both. Gas prices were $3.50 in 2014 and dropped to $2.00. That's a 43% drop.

Except that's not what I said. I said having money gives you the option to, even without pay. Not that "I can, but I don't want." Like I said, went right over your head. You do understand the concept of you not being able to do that movie thing if it didn't also pay your bills, right? 

 

5 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Homeboy acts like a baller:

Drives a Prius...

Is that bad? It's a $30,000 car...

Quote

Makes fun of someone for making movies:

Do I? Do I really?

Quote

Drives a taxi for a living...

Do I? Do I really?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Rassah

[Rassah]

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

Might as well repost this over here, too.

I guess then I might as well repost my reply here too.

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

Part of 'BitCon' is in the pretend commodity, because this is a completely shallow, liquidless market. When you know that there’s, what, 13 million coins in circulation, and more than 50% of the them are owned and managed by about 950 people, you realize how shallow the market it is and how subject the market is to manipulation.

Er, I guess $50,000,000 in trades a day is shallow, but so what? It started at zero, with 5 people owning 100%, and it's continuing to grow without slowing down. Who cares as long as it keeps growing and being adopted? Did you claim internet or email was worthless because only a few hundred computer nerds used it at some point?

Bitcoin is great at separating those who can understand technologies' potential, from common ludites who have no vision or imagination who dismiss things out of hand.

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

It’s essentially a pump and dump scam.

How does the dump part of it actually work? Let's say I dump a bitcoin at $500. That requires someone to pay $500 for it, and means now someone else has a bitcoin valued at $500. If they dump it at $500, it's still valued at $500. And whoever owns it can actually spend it directly (at Microsoft, Dish, Expedia, Starbucks, Amazon, Target). Dumps only work if you end up with something you can't spend or sell, but that's impossible with bitcoin.

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

And then I see these snake oil salesmen like the Winklevoss twins get on TV and tell people that bitcoin is going to be worth $40,000 per coin. And nobody is challenging them, asking, “What are you smoking?” Bitcoin isn’t an investment, it’s a slot machine. Or, more accurately, a loaded roulette wheel.

Waaaait, you think bitcoin price is totally random, and it's valuation is pulled out of thin air? Do you know why they claim that it will be worth that much? Did you look at their business comparisons, asset valuation, technology assessment, economic development, and other stuff? You kinda have to know that to challenge them on it. Sure, you can ignore the actual business/asset valuation and simply say "What are you smoking?" and claim it's all random numbers, but then you'll just sound like an uninformed idiot.

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

But it’s not a classic pump and dump because there is a base of ideological support for bitcoin. At the very least, there is a motivated group of people who want bitcoin to succeed, and aren’t just speculating. Rassah is one of these people.

Hundreds of thousands of people with ideology, who are supporting, financing, and developing an open source project, regardless of whether they even get paid to do it... Kinda sounds like Linux. Or IPV4. How did that turn out?

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

Rassah is part of the libertarian faction that drives the support for bitcoin. One of his supposed colleagues, Jon Matonis of the Bitcoin Foundation, has suggested that bitcoin is signaling the start of a post-legal-tender era. Where? In what country?

Um, that's kinda the point of post legal tender. In NO country. Legal tender is restricted by borders. Bitcoin, like email and internet, is not. Isn't it funny how we can communicate and deal with people all over the world without caring where they are, until it comes to the point of having to exchange money? That's what post legal tender means. Like with the rest of the internet, you no longer need to care which legal tender area the person you're doing business with resides in. You can pay them, in seconds, without institutional risk or intermediaries.

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

There’s not a legitimate economist of any note on the planet that thinks it’s a real currency.

Except, like, a ton of them? Also, Bitcoin has been hilariously awesome at proving economists wrong  Like the "bitcorn" guy who predicted that it will be worth $10 by last summer. Or the guys who claimed it's deflationary property will kill it because "why spend today when I can buy more tomorrow," when deflation actually increased spending thanks to "wealth effect."

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

That same anarcho-libertarian wing of the bitcoin party tends to believe in Austrian economics, but the three most prominent descendants of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek say it is not money, and Hans Herman Hoppe, another Austrian economist, says the same thing.

Because they were stuck on gold and didn't understand bitcoin before, but now do and actually do say it's money. There's plenty of Austrians who, like you, don't understand what it is, so it's not surprising they're confused. But bitcoin fits all the definitions and requirements of money perfectly.

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

So while the most enthusiastic supporters of bitcoin say Austrian economics matters, actual Austrian economists say that bitcoin doesn’t matter.

Yeah. Back in 2013.

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

To put that last sentence in terms for the geeky, the equivalent situation would be everyone clamoring "Move to Rust! C++ Is insecure!" when in reality, Rust's backend compiler is LLVM, which is... C++. Where is your Rust god, now?

Yeah, because the back end for SWIFT, ACH, Western Union, PayPal, the Federal Reserve, NYSE, Chicago Commodities Exchange, contract law, global asset and real estate registries, bank savings accounts, arbitration, and identities is all Bitcoin. 

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

It's a wonderful thing when the actual experts shit all over their supporters.

"

Actual experts" 

It's a wonderful thing when self described experts make uninformed claims, and make fools of themselves and those who listen to them. Remember the expert who claimed the internet won't have much more of an effect on business than a fax machine? 

Incidentally, in all of that, you forgot to actually explain why Bitcoin is actually worthless, or doesn't work, or has been hacked. If all you have is "it's worthless" (because we have to trust your say so?) and appeal to authority, then you kinda failed there.

[Rassah]

And hey look, some actual facts and data to support my position: http://btcmiami.com/uncategorized/2015-proves-bitcoin-is-here-to-stay/

"RICH PEOPLE" have invested $500 million to a billion dollars into developing this technology just this past year alone. Do you have anything similar to support your position that it's actually worthless?

[AshleyAshes]

Rassah doesn't care what we think.  That's why he tripple posts. *nods*

[Rassah]

40 minutes ago, 6tails said:

So it's been BOUGHT OUT, MONOPOLIZED, and will remain something for the RICH.

And again you demonstrate your compete lack of knowledge of what bitcoin is. Two of the richest companies in the world, Google and Apple, have invested heavily in email. By your logic, Google and Apple have bought out and monopolized POP3 and SMTP, and email will remain something for the rich.

Seriously, do you need some help explaining what bitcoin is and how it works so you stop making such silly claims? I had hoped you would have actually spent some time researching this yourself by now, considering how many authoritative claims you keep making about it.

Quote

When RICH PEOPLE get involved, it's doomed to gaming, corruption, and other bullshit. HISTORICALLY PROVEN FOR CENTURIES.

Like with email, Linux, BitTorrent, global internet fiber network (the reason India got connected to the global internet in the first place)...

Quote

Yup, so fucking mad that people won't fall for his snake oil that he has to espouse triple the amount of bullshit to make up for it.

So far you're the only one espousing uninformed bullshit. You haven't been correct in your claims once. Hell, you haven't provided any actual evidence for your claims once. Just a lot of bloviating and appeals to old dudes that don't understand technology (aka "authority").

 

Also, Patrick Byrne, talking about how the stock market as a whole is a giant fuckup and scam run by effectively organized crime, and how Bitcoin is the only thing that can save it, announcing SEC approval for his alternative settlement system. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Rassah

[Spot]

My understanding of Bitcoin is that it's designed in a way where it can't be bought and controlled by any entity. That's my understanding of it anyway. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Mr. Fox

[PastryOfApathy]

6 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Rassah doesn't care what we think.  That's why he tripple posts. *nods*

If he didn't care what we thought we wouldn't spend his whole life trying to convince us that bitcoin is going to save the world and that we're all too stupid to see it. Unlike him, whose like the neckbeard bitcoin Neo. 

[Clove Darkwave]

Any arena that involves vast amounts of wealth is controlled by some form of organized crime.

 

[AshleyAshes]

24 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

If he didn't care what we thought we wouldn't spend his whole life trying to convince us that bitcoin is going to save the world and that we're all too stupid to see it. Unlike him, whose like the neckbeard bitcoin Neo. 

If I ever invest more than 0 minutes of time on this forum while I'm on vacation, I want the mods to ban me for my own benefit.  Staycations and long weekends exempt.

[Kaizy]

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, PastryOfApathy said:

If he didn't care what we thought we wouldn't spend his whole life trying to convince us that bitcoin is going to save the world and that we're all too stupid to see it. Unlike him, whose like the neckbeard bitcoin Neo. 

Yeah but the question is why he keeps trying to convince everyone when it's so obvious nobody takes him seriously?

[Pignog]

I didn't know that about Linux. Depressing...

[Spot]

Well, that's fucking depressing to hear about Linux. I knew Ubuntu was mining data and selling it but now that? Fuuuuuuuuuuck 

[PastryOfApathy]

1 hour ago, #00Buck said:

Yeah but the question is why he keeps trying to convince everyone when it's so obvious nobody takes him seriously?

Because he's obsessed with us.

Apparently, we're the one community that saw through his blatant pompous bullshit and treated him like a joke and he can't fucking stand it. So now he won't rest until we all get on our knees and kiss his ass while sucking his glorious, almighty pasty dick for blessing us with the miracle of internet funny money.

Either that or he's basically our very own little furry Eric Cartman. Not like any else is going to tolerate his stupidity.

[AlexInsane]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of what a rich douchebag I am. 

 

I have a whole two dollars. And a taco. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by AlexInsane

[Rassah]

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

Yup. Rich people got involved and now your ass is data-mined and your very privacy invaded by scripts and NSA eyeballs.

That's... not... That's not rich people at all! That's government and regulators! The people you support and I'm all against. Rich people hate having to pay for the extra cost of providing that data to the NSA. Why the fuck would they be interested in spying on us? The part that was historically proven for thousands of years in this case is that governments cause corruption. Not rich people.

How much do you pay for your email by the way? Or will you back down on your claim that if rich people buy into it, it "will remain something for the RICH"?

Quote

Linux has gone to utter shit with corporate support of SystemD.

Really? I like my Android, and Debian, and FreeNAS, and SmartTV. Much better than the command prompt that it used to be.

Quote

Bittorrent got bought out by the RIAA, just FYFI.

Lolwhat? You can buy an open source protocol?

Quote

Global Fiber Internet? I installed fiber taps for the government at their mental health facility here in Riverside. I know they're spying BECAUSE I INSTALLED THE DEVICE.

The fiber I meant was one that was laid down by rich people and corporations that connects India to US, before the dot com bubble burst, after which all the companies that laid that fiber went out of business, the fiber basically became free for the taking, and India got connected to the rest of the world for practically no cost. Thanks to rich people, which also incidentally is why jobs were able to be outsourced. Sorry if you didn't know that history. Government spying? Vote harder? That's not an example of rich corruption. 

Quote

Try again when you can think of better examples. You won't.

Example of what, rich people getting involved, and as a result us NOT having corruption or the products being exclusive realm of the rich? Um, let's see, electric cars (just about to start being affordable with Tesla's next model), um, space travel (SpaceX, Virgin Galactic), but those are somewhat future... I guess in the past we have cell phones, computers, flat screen TVs, cars in general, really any new technology that required considerable VC funding to get off the ground. Which is, like,  almost everything nowadays.

 

6 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

Any arena that involves vast amounts of wealth is controlled by some form of organized crime.

That would be the entirety of the stock market. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like I can't, in good conscience, advise people to invest in anything stock related any more. Pretty much all stocks are owned by Cede & Co, not the people who think they own them when they buy them on brokerages, and the whole system is just too corrupt and risky. Which leaves just real estate, which is pretty hard for someone without a ton of money, physical goods like gold, which frankly sucks as an investment, direct investment in startups, which is super risky and you really need to know what you're doing, and Bitcoin, which you can easily buy ¢25 worth of.

Is there organized crime in Bitcoin? Maybe. But they can't control it like they control Wall Street.

 

3 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Because he's obsessed with us.

Apparently, we're the one community that saw through his blatant pompous bullshit and treated him like a joke and he can't fucking stand it.

Or, another simpler explanation could be, that I simply enjoy arguing and debating with people? Seriously, who doesn't like trying to prove that someone is wrong on the internet?

Quote

So now he won't rest until we all get on our knees and kiss his ass while sucking his glorious, almighty pasty dick for blessing us with the miracle of internet funny money.

 Not like any else is going to tolerate his stupidity.

Oh don't you wish you listened to me back when I told you about it when it was worth $7?  back when you dismissed me with the exact same "internet funny money" line? When you could have been buying $100 bucks a month or so for a year, and could have been most of the way to retirement by now? 

And now I hang out with and discuss issues on an equal level with some of the smartest and most accomplished people in the world, while you wouldn't even be able to get an audience with them. And you ridicule me and call me an idiot. That's pretty funny actually. Maybe the reason you're broke is because you ridicule smart people instead of learning from them, and make fun of opportunities when they slap you in the face? Pride can be a bitch sometimes. But please, continue to not tolerate my stupidity. I enjoy schadenfreude too!

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Rassah

[PastryOfApathy]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Or, another simpler explanation could be, that I simply enjoy arguing and debating with people? Seriously, who doesn't like trying to prove that someone is wrong on the internet?

So you spend all your free time "debating" with people whose opinions you allegedly don't give a shit about? That's honestly kind of sad.

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Oh don't you wish you listened to me back when I told you about it when it was worth $7?  back when you dismissed me with the exact same "internet funny money" line? When you could have been buying $100 bucks a month or so for a year, and could have been most of the way to retirement by now? 

And now I hang out with and discuss issues on an equal level with some of the smartest and most accomplished people in the world, while you wouldn't even be able to get an audience with them. And you ridicule me and call me an idiot. That's pretty funny actually. Maybe the reason you're broke is because you ridicule smart people instead of learning from them, and make fun of opportunities when they slap you in the face? Pride can be a bitch sometimes. But please, continue to not tolerate my stupidity. I enjoy schadenfreude too!

To be perfectly honest I don't give a shit about bitcoin. I mean if I were buying drugs or illicit paypal accounts sure then I'd use it but unlike you I sincerely don't give a shit.

[Brass]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Really? I like my Android, and Debian, and FreeNAS, and SmartTV.

Much better than the command prompt that it used to be.

I honestly don't think you have enough experience working with unix-like systems to say this. Android is utter shit with enough fragmentation to look like a fracking accident. Fuck I bet you think Ubuntu is great too don't you. 

 

6 hours ago, 6tails said:

Linux has gone to utter shit with corporate support of SystemD.

Install gentoo or maybe void linux. I think they both use a custom init. Systemd is fucking cancer. 

[Brass]

Just now, Mr. Fox said:

I was lead to believe that the Linux OS doesn't deal with fragmentation like Windows because of the way the two file systems are set up, hence no need for defragging tools on Linux; or some shit like that. Plus one is more developed for than the other and money high motivator.

Developmental fragmentation and lack of actual support for many android devices. It's not so much a problems of compatibility yet, but still a problem of vulnerability.

 

https://opensignal.com/blog/2015/10/15/androids-fragmentation-is-creating-a-lot-of-security-holes/  

[#00Buck]

4 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

So you spend all your free time "debating" with people whose opinions you allegedly don't give a shit about? That's honestly kind of sad.

To be perfectly honest I don't give a shit about bitcoin. I mean if I were buying drugs or illicit paypal accounts sure then I'd use it but unlike you I sincerely don't give a shit.

Yeah, look at how much he types. 

I just post two lines and then wait for his giant wall of text response. It is sad. Maybe he has no friends in real life. 

[Clove Darkwave]

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

Is there organized crime in Bitcoin? Maybe. But they can't control it like they control Wall Street.
 

Any arena. They'll always be one step ahead. Mario coins are no different.

[Terminal7]

6 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

To be perfectly honest I don't give a shit about bitcoin. I mean if I were buying drugs or illicit paypal accounts sure then I'd use it but unlike you I sincerely don't give a shit.

Same. Except that for me and my pals it's just an ongoing joke of : "Come on man, tell me! I'll pay you in bitcoins!" .

What I think is hilarious is the value of one coin. It's fucking crazy.

[Rassah]

5 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

So you spend all your free time "debating" with people whose opinions you allegedly don't give a shit about? 

No, I don't debate with you. You probably noticed how I usually ignore you. Just wanted to point this out before you go back to that.

5 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

To be perfectly honest I don't give a shit about bitcoin. I mean if I were buying drugs or illicit paypal accounts sure then I'd use it but unlike you I sincerely don't give a shit.

Of course you don't give a shit about it. Or anything about what people you instantly assume are stupid tell you. That's why you're still broke and miserable.

4 hours ago, Brass said:

I honestly don't think you have enough experience working with unix-like systems to say this. Android is utter shit with enough fragmentation to look like a fracking accident. Fuck I bet you think Ubuntu is great too don't you. 

Why would you think I have no experience? Android was mich utterer shit back when the first devices came out, and before then we had nothing but Windows Mobile as an option. Android is a godsend compared to all that old shit. And no, Ubuntu is a privacy nightmare. That's why I build my own Debian distro, and I prefer KDE over Gnome or whatever Ubuntu uses.

 

42 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Uhh, yea, Google isn't rich people? Data-mining your ass for advertising and feeding info to the NSA? Try again.

Uhh, yeah, data mining isn't Google, it's NSA, your beloved government. Google gets a gun put to its head and forced to do shit they don't even want to pay for, and you're like, "RICH PEOPKE!!! ARGH!!!"

42 minutes ago, 6tails said:

You like your horribly insecure product that most likely won't ever see proper updates within any reasonable amount of time thanks to your carrier's own proprietary bullshit?

Of course! Don't know why you claim it's horribly insecure. Each app runs in its own VM, app storage is partitioned, for extra security you can run critical components in ARM's TEE. It's LOADS better than the Windows shit we used to deal with, or the prior devices that saw no security updates at all. Let me guess, you have an iPhone? Still FreeBSD, and just as horribly insecure as Android, but worse, cause it's closed source. We don't even know what's broken inside of that.

42 minutes ago, 6tails said:

There is a Bittorrent Inc company, which made the protocol - yes, the MPAA/RIAA bought that and uTorrent. 

Oh, OK. So I guess that means no one can use BitTorrent without buying it from RIAA, or use it to download movies and music any more. Huh. So what have I actually been doing for the last 7 years?

No one bought BitTorrent, just the company that created it. So, what, do you think someone can buy Bitcoin the protocol? Maybe you believed those headlines about the CEO of bitcoin being arrested? Seriously, do you know the difference between a product and a protocol? Because it doesn't sound like you do.

42 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Bitcoin as a tech might stay alive with the blockchain tech. Bitcoin as a commodity (it isn't) will fail.

Hahaha! Omg, you're one of those "I don't like bitcoin, but I think the blockchain is good" people? Seriously, PLEASE figure out what bitcoin actually is before you keep bashing it. "IPV4 might stay alive, but IP packets, as a form of data transmission, will fail." Lol! You can't have one without the other. Blockchain the communications and records protocol doesn't work without bitcoin the data packets.

And why don't you think it's a commodity? The legal system and regulators already defined it as such.

42 minutes ago, 6tails said:

You're in almost the same position as the Liberty Dollar guy. You probably stand to do as much time in prison, too, once the government levies charges of domestic terrorism against you and other major bitcon playersplayers

My buddy Bernard? He was the reason Bitcoin was designed the way it was. In his case he was in charge. His thing was a company and a product, and to shut it down, they only had to go after him. In the end, that peace-loving hippy surfer dude who started a church of canabis in Hawaii was only charged with counterfeiting, after only 5 minutes of jury deliberation (which itself was questionable), despite his $25 silver piece looking nothing like a $1 coin, and no one being stupid enough to try to pay for a $1 item by trying to pass off $25 worth of silver as a counterfeit coin. When that prosecutor lady stood up and declared him the biggest threat to US government, that was surreal! That whole case was totally ridiculous. Incidentally, if I stand to do as much time in prison as him, then I'm not going to prison. He told me he finally got sentenced this summer, and he's just got probation.

But with bitcoin, NO ONE is in the same position as he is, because (and this is important, since you don't know what a protocol is) no one is in charge of it, single handedly controls it, or can even take control of it. It was specifically designed so that, unlike Bernard's case, the government can't go after anyone in order to try to shut it down, no matter how much it wants to.

As for me and other major bitcoin players, I'm a small fry. First they would have to go after the following "major bitcoin players":

• NYSE
• Goldman Sachs
• Fortress Investment Group
• Microsoft
• Google
• Overstock
• Facebook
• IDG Capital
• Lightspeed Ventures
• Andresen HorowitHorowitz
• Ribbit Capital
• Barclays
• BBVA
• Commonwealth Bank of Australia
• Credit Suisse
• Goldman Sachs
• J.P. Morgan
• Royal Bank of Scotland
• State Street
• UBS
• BNP Paribas
• Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
• ING Bank
• Macquarie Bank
• Wells Fargo & Co
• Bank of America
• BNY Mellon
• Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
• Citi
• Commerzbank
• Deutsche Bank
• HSBC
• Morgan Stanley
• National Australia Bank
• Royal Bank of Canada
• SEB
• Societe Generale
• Toronto-Dominion Bank

Yep. Despite you claiming it's been powned by black hats and can be taken down with stenography (still waiting for an explanation on that one), is worthless, or that it won't go anywhere, Bitcoin is srs bzness. How's that list for "appeal to authority?" So many people with so much more expertise than you completely disagree with you. Must suck.

42 minutes ago, 6tails said:

since it's becoming quite obvious that terrorists are utilizing the technology as a means of transferring money and while YOU KNOW ITS HAPPENING YOU DO NOTHING TO STOP IT, instead you work HARDER to push the scam on.

You know what terrorists mainly use? USD cash. So, I guess that means that US dollars are an even bigger scam.

42 minutes ago, 6tails said:

This is probably worth reporting to the authorities.

Hah! Cause authorities don't know what bitcoin is? You're funny. Maybe we should report the Mint to the authorities, since their product is the one used on 99.9999999% of all terrorist financing.

 

Maybe some day you'll actually explain to me how Bitcoin has been hacked, or why it's not worth anything, or is not money or comodity, or how it can be taken over and controlled by rich people.  I mean beyond you simply claiming that as fact. Which means that maybe someday you will actually learn about what bitcoin is and how it actually works (you're a tech guy, it should be easy). Or even figure out what protocols are and how they differ from companies, and how opem source platforms differ from products (which, being a CTO you'd think it was a prerequisite to know...) But, I'm not holding my breath. Frankly, I suspect I'll sooner break down and ELI5 it to you if you keep posting such uninformed tripe.

7 minutes ago, Terminal7 said:

What I think is hilarious is the value of one coin. It's fucking crazy.

Um, just curious. The value of one coin was 0.000001 of a penny. Then 50¢. Then $1. Then $3. Then $10. Then $100. Then $260. Then $320. Now $460, and it seems to be on its way to break $500, and in a year break $1,000, then within five break $10,000, and eventually, through "Speculative Attack" (look it up) very quickly climb to tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. At which point will the price go from being hilarious, to really pissing you off when you are forced to use it (due to all your banks using it for tracking account balances and settlements in the background), and feel like you misses out? Just want to hear a price point. (You'll probably say "Never lol!")

[Rassah]

By the way @6tails, I was right, wasn't I? You are a CTO of a scammer "penny auction" site, aren't you? The type that prays on the poor, gullible, and those prone to addiction and gambling, where that "brand new $2,500 Tesla" is paid for by extorting $72,500 or much much more from gullible people by praying on their hopes and dreams? The type that often gets shut down for being an actual ponzi? How does your brain explain that away to you to let you sleep at night? Cause I wouldn't be caught dead in something so unethical. Maybe you and your company should get reported to the authorities.

[AshleyAshes]

The accusations in this thread are just getting weird now...

[Naesaki]

5 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

The accusations in this thread are just getting weird now...

Seems like every little sentence evokes this reaction from Rassah. http://i.imgur.com/gn5I2vZ.gif?noredirect

Like why is this whole debate still even going on? Its clear either side won't come to an understanding :v

[Pignog]

Burn all banks to the fucking ground and bring them up on domestic terrorism charges, regardless of whether they have bitcoin.

[Kaizy]