snitko

35 ms·

301.
by snitko 13y ago
Ahh, yes, regulation. Like when big exchanges lobby the government, then monopolize the market and do whatever the hell they want while charging high fees? Great idea. What you want is an independent audit, not regulation.
302.
by snitko 13y ago
Gox will lose market share. While prices may remain the same across exchanges, the volume will decrease significantly for Gox. For an exchange to go out of business, you don't need the price on that exchange to go down. It will just lo
303.
by snitko 13y ago
It seems people in the chatroom and on reddit don't buy this. Blaming their inability to withdraw money for customers on the Bitcoin protocol? And somehow all other exchanges are doing fine? Super suspicious.
304.
by snitko 13y ago
While interesting, I think this kind of functionality should be implemented only by browser developers and should be turned off by default. Really, I can wait 1 second until the site loads. What I don't want is some library accessing s
305.
Russia bans Bitcoin, btc-e.com halts fiat deposits and withdrawals(reddit.com)
2 points by snitko 13y ago|0 comments
306.
by snitko 13y ago
Been using them for a long time. Best software for these purposes. Developers, if you see this, please enable Bitcoin donations.
307.
by snitko 13y ago
So what? Why is lowering wages a bad thing? If the wages are lower across the industry, it means consumers get lower prices. You're totally ignoring the consumer side of the equation. So really, any regulation has another side. It bene
308.
by snitko 13y ago
There must be a reason why people volunteer to do something. People wouldn't volunteer unless they thought it's good for them too. If it makes harder for someone to compete - great. Compete better.
309.
by snitko 13y ago
It's nice to see that some people are so eager to tell others where they are allowed to volunteer now. A whole new level, I'd say. Minimum wage is not enough of a burden to prevent those willing to work from getting jobs because n
310.
by snitko 13y ago
I was being sarcastic, yes.
311.
by snitko 13y ago
This is why people should stop paying before the government grows into a monster.
312.
by snitko 13y ago
Corporations are many. Government is one. Corporations don't have police force or armies because they would be paying for them out of their own pocket. Instead, they lobby the government to use violence/regulation/wars where
313.
by snitko 13y ago
I should also add the the sad truth about state violence is that it doesn't cost anything to those who order it. Taxpayers, the ones this violence is being used against, are paying for it. Problem is, they usually don't recognize
314.
by snitko 13y ago
Happened in Ukraine though. Pretty much out of the blue sky. People thought they were rather safe, judging by the experience of the past years and then suddenly this violence. Why? Because when government feels threatened it doesn't ca
315.
by snitko 13y ago
But people can still vote and I'm sure that voting and democracy will help them elect honest leaders who have their best interest in mind, right? I mean, it worked in 2008 with Obama, right? Right?
316.
by snitko 13y ago
How can you achieve collectivization without any central entity like government enforcing it? And what exactly do you mean by collectivization in the context of the subject being discussed? (I saw your comment and questions above, in the ot
317.
by snitko 13y ago
> what incentive is there for an individual to create a consumer protection agency? Being paid by people who would like a reliable information about the products and services they purchase? > What incentive is there for a company t
318.
by snitko 13y ago
> Have I argued for centralized power? Then what are you arguing for? My understanding is that you say free market cannot be better than having some degree of regulation. Regulation assumes government, doesn't it?
319.
by snitko 13y ago
Why? Why are there no more?
320.
by snitko 13y ago
You're right, I'm sorry. Having one centralized consumer protection agency with the power to shut businesses down, an agency that people cannot stop paying to (with their tax money) will create less possibilities for corruption an
321.
by snitko 13y ago
How can I evaluate risk when I vote when politicians are elected for 4 years and regulatory agencies are not even affected by elections? Can I switch a regulatory agency? Can I stop paying taxes, so my representative, whom I no longer trust
322.
by snitko 13y ago
I agree. But nobody asks people to do that. I'm just saying that consumer protection agencies could inform people "hey, this is an unreliable business, don't buy from it". Then people would be able to choose among variou
323.
by snitko 13y ago
Then in this case it turns out that taxpayers from developed regions subsidize those in the remote ones. I'm not saying helping people out is a bad idea, but forcing people to help out other people certainly is. It is absolutely no one
324.
by snitko 13y ago
No, it's just pure logic. If you're saying that "individuals are demonstrably bad at evaluating long-term risk" then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Electing someone is a huge long term risk and it is much more d
325.
by snitko 13y ago
If you are right, then these areas would remain without water supply at all. Last time I checked, government cannot force private companies to do business.
326.
by snitko 13y ago
By that logic, people shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Also if you don't allow people to learn to make choices, they never will, always relying on the nanny state.
327.
by snitko 13y ago
If there is a demand for clean water at the price level where it is economically feasible to supply one, it will be supplied. If people prefer to spend less money and have dirty water, they made their choice too. Your case is completely hyp
328.
by snitko 13y ago
What happens to a company if it's not doing the right thing and is not providing me with a good service (in that case, consumer protection service)? It first loses money because I stop paying immediately and then it goes out of busines
329.
by snitko 13y ago
Ahh, and that's the point. It wouldn't need to. Because no one should enforce anything. It would only inform. Consumers must have a choice. When you start banning businesses from operating, you have countless possibilities for cor
330.
by snitko 13y ago
I wonder what is so magical about government that only it can determine whether something is safe or not. I'm pretty sure private consumer protection companies would do a much better job for less money.

More ›