Darth, that's a really stupid argument. "All corporations must have a DUNS" doesn't mean all entities with a DUNS number are corporations.

You're engaging in a Converse Error fallacy here.

All squares are rectangles. → True. All rectangles are squares. → False.

Same pattern:

All corporations have DUNS numbers. X has a DUNS number. Therefore, X is a corporation. → Fallacy.

But more importantly, "Corporation" is a very well defined term with specific legal implications.

A corporation is a specific kind of legal entity created under corporate law. A government is a different kind of legal entity. Having a DUNS number does not make the government a corporation, it just provides a standardized identifier for administrative purposes. The government is a sovereign entity, created by a constitution or statute, with powers that a corporation does not have, such as taxation, law enforcement, and regulation. Governments may create government-owned corporations (also called state-owned enterprises or crown corporations depending on your jurisdiction), but the government itself is not a corporation.

It's perfectly fine for you to have moral qualms about what the government does, that's very good Darth. It's great that you don't like the government. It's not great that you don't understand what a corporation is and what it isn't. Having a DUNS number is not what defines a corporation. And governments are very different from corporations in many ways. Not sure why you're so hung up on this but it just ain't so.

Lastly, I'm not sure if you think that insulting people and constantly saying how fucked up the world is bolsters your argument or if you just enjoy being an asshole, but I just want to let you know that it does not bolster anything, and that you're a proper asshole.

Darth, focus. You're not responding to what I said, you're responding to a conversation you're having by yourself in your own mind. I didn't say they have power over you. I said they are not a corporation and to pretend they are is delusional.

"A gov will be in power as long the dumb people will continue to give their consent."

This is exactly my point. You know that the government is in power and you know why. Wether it's dumb for people to do this or not does not materially affect the real true fact that they are in power and that their power and behavior is very different from a corporation.

You know all this Darth, why are you pretending otherwise?

I'll give 1 example out of many possible ones.

The government has the power to set rules that all corporations must follow. No corporation has this power. Only government does.

That alone sets it apart, and makes it incorrect to state that the government is a corporation.

Wether you think this is how it should be or not is a different matter. Wether you think this is only because people are stupid and brainwashed is is irrelevant. This is how it is. I don't think this is how it should be. I don't support this state of affairs. But I acknowledge that this is the reality.

It's fine to think things should be a certain way. It's not fine to pretend they are that way when they are not. That's the difference between idealism and delusion.

I know I know, you've already made posts railing about how things aught to be.

Again, this is how things are. Your post does an excellent job of outlining the difference between a government and a corporation. They do not behave in the same way at all, they're not governed by the same incentives and constraints, they perform fundamentally different functions.

I know you think people are stupid and should not treat the government as any different than a corporation but again, this is simply how you think things aught to be.

A government is not a corporation darth, don't be ridiculous

Bitcoin is going to be the money of the entire world. That means all governments and all entities of all kinds will deal in Bitcoin. But they don't all deal in Bitcoin yet. Bitcoin being the money of the world is what we want, that's the goal. So when early adopters adopt it early, we cheer as progress is being made towards the goal of everyone adopting it.

Like it or not (and I certainly do not), governments provide certain services to the population. most people are onboard with this. A broke mismanaged government is not what people want. A financially healthy and well financed government is what people want. This move helps the government become more financially healthy and well financed, so people like it.

I know you're prolly going to rail about how things aught to be, but this is how things are.

I ain't reading all that. Don't be so rude man

Yea. Didn't need to add that last bit. That was pretty rude. No need for that. Would've been a nice conversation without it I bet. It's pretty clear that you're not here for "reasoned debate" you just wanna dunk on people.

I was down to talk man, why so rude?

I'm not sure I understand. Tariffs and trade wars are the opposite of free trade and free markets.

If these are causing problems, wouldn't this mean that free markets are preferable to tariffs and trade wars?

"Libertarian nonsense that free markets always deliver better results than government involvement"

Wouldn't the tariffs and trade war be the 'government involvement' in this case?

If nobody is willing to pay that price, how can you be sure that's the real value?

Are there numerical values that you can assign to each of these categories to determine the total value of the good?

Like is it:

score of 5 on work / difficulty / sacrifice / effort / cost to generate

Score of 7 on proof / truth / honesty / verity / cost to verify

Score of 1 on universality / care / inclusivity / diversity / cost of exclusion / for my enemies and friends

Score of 9 on independence / responsibility / sovereignty / property / cost of control / not your keys, not your coin

Total value: 22

Or something like that?

Block rewards are going up steadily

How much for the accomodations?

Idk man.. seems to me the skeptics spend all day and night conceding and it's never enough for the alarmists.

They're branded as "Deniers" and ridiculed and bullied into silence or smeared into pariah status. I haven't actually seen evidence for the inverse. Do you have any?

To say "the activists are terrified to enter into genuine dialogue" seems to me to be evidence of the opposite of what you're saying here. Its inviting a debate, not shutting it down. It may not be a particularly nice way to invite debate but it is nonetheless an invitation. A challenge.

The skeptics seem to say "look at this evidence, what do you have to say about this you idiot?" Which is not very nice indeed. But at least it invites a debate.

But the alarmists on the other hand say things like "look at this evidence, now shut up and do what I say because I'm trying to save you, you idiot" Which may be well intentioned, but is also not very nice, and shits down debate.

You don't hear skeptics saying absurd things like "settled science" or the tell-tale signs of trying to shut down debate like appeals to authority "99% of scientists..."

You may not like the style in which the skeptics express themselves, which is fine, but that's different from claiming that they shut down the conversation, that's simply not true. They're the ones opening the conversation.

If the car were the greatest asset in the history of mankind instead of a depreciating illiquid piece of metal then it might be wise for them to do so, yea.

A Personal Odyssey by Thomas Sowell

I'm not sure you understand what prices are.

Actually, I'm sure you don't understand what prices are

Well I don't think it will die at all.

I think you think there's a "fee pressure problem" because you don't understand the difficulty adjustment or the dynamic nature of markets or the inherently ever-changing nature of existence given the passage of time.

I think you want to "ensure the long term viability of Bitcoin mining" by turning Bitcoin into Ethereum when there's actually no issue with the long term viability of miners in the first place.

You didn't understand the analogy at all.

within the context of the analogy, you just said you don't care why people go to church, the important thing is that they go.

Well in that case, put a pole by the altar and strobelights in place of the chandelier and fuck it, replace the organs with speakers.

But now you just have a strip club dude.

There are already plenty of those.

Churches are for prayer. If people aren't praying, let the church close.

Bitcoin is for transacting. If people aren't transacting, let it die.

Seriously. Let it die man.

I don't think you have any idea what I mean.

You're trying to "save" Bitcoin in case people don't want to use it enough for it to survive.

That's silly.

If not enough people use it, it will die from lack of usage.

If you succeed in trying to save it from lack of usage, it will die by becoming something else.

If this is a problem, you can't fix it, and will in fact make it worse by trying.

If it is not a problem (it's not a problem), then leave it alone.

If people don't want to use it, let it die. Churches are for prayer. Go to the strip club down the street. Bitcoin is for money. Go to ethereum.