Looking For a Bitcoin Debit Card?

February 24th, 2015 1 comment

While more and more online companies accept Bitcoin, and a number of “go-between” services have launched, making it easier to spend your bitcoins, the easiest option of all is to have a branded debit card with which to access your “coins”.

The process is simple enough, you just need a Visa or MC branded debit card that you can load with funds from the sale of Bitcoin. Another way to look at this is as simply a way to exchange Bitcoin for fiat currency. So instead of using an exchange to sell your bitcoins and withdraw to your bank account, you use a dedicated service which enables you to sell your bitcoins and immediately load the proceeds on to a linked debit card. From there you can use the card anywhere in the world.

Right now there’s not much choice out there, but I believe this will change during 2015. Meanwhile, in the video below I take a look at the currently available cards, including one I personally recommend and have tested myself.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Bitcoin Tags:

A Deeper Understanding of Bitcoin

February 19th, 2015 No comments

Bitcoin can be many things to many people. But what I find intriguing is how I keep discovering new ways to understand it and, as a result, value it more. The following essay by Nozomi Hayase is well worth a read in this regard.

Understanding Bitcoin And Its Disruption Through Its Roots




Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Bitcoin, Freedom, Money Tags:

Mike Maloney on Operation Choke Point

February 18th, 2015 1 comment

Mike Maloney talking about Operation Choke Point and how the US government is using this strategy to close down businesses it doesn’t like. This is serious stuff and a must watch video…



Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Freedom Tags:

How to Buy Gold With Bitcoin

February 16th, 2015 No comments

Bitcoin and gold have few things in common, including being a non-government form of money and having a limited supply. However, unlike gold, Bitcoin can be used as a currency also, with more and more ways to spend and transact in it.

So imagine a way you can buy bitcoins with gold, then sell that gold whenever you like and convert it back to bitcoins?

A couple of the services quoted in my video below make that possible:



Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Bitcoin, Money Tags:

Territorial Integrity or The Right to Secede?

February 15th, 2015 3 comments

I don’t adhere to the notion of “territorial integrity” when it comes to nations defining their borders. All such borders are the results of wars and political machinations in the past – certainly not worthy of attaching the word “integrity” to.

Take Scotland’s recent independence referendum. No one went on about the “territorial integrity” of the United Kingdom. What was being discussed was the Scots’ right to “self determination” – and the referendum was about their right to secede.

Did anyone argue about their underlying right to do this? No, they didn’t. The arguments were all about such things as the Scots being either better or worse off as a result of such secession.

Now we come to Ukraine, where Russian speaking East Ukrainians want to effectively secede from Ukraine. But this time it’s supposedly different, we are told. The mainstream media are parroting the accepted political “wisdom” about the need to defend territorial integrity, and to use force against those seeking to break it.

Do you see a double standard here? I certainly do.

If the principle of self-determination was right for Scotland, and gave them a fully-legal referendum to decide on the issue, why are Eastern Ukrainians being denied the same option? Why are they being attacked by their own government, who call them “terrorists”?

When Bashar Assad of Syria began attacking his own people, the USA and its vassal states were all of one voice… “How dare he attack his own people!” And they were chomping on the bit to start a war against Assad. How different it is in Ukraine, where the government there has also declared war on its own people, while the USA and its “allies” cheer it on.

The idea of territorial integrity is “old thinking”. The new reality – although most dinosaur politicians haven’t realised it yet – is that people are increasingly seeking the right to self determination, as indicated by the many secessionist movements around the world. And while it’s true that on a political level the world has been moving to more centralisation – on an individual level, people are moving towards more freedom.




Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Freedom, Geopolitics Tags:

Is Bitcoin Cheap Right Now?

February 15th, 2015 No comments

This is the perennial question. Most news media like to quote last years dramatic decline in price when talking about Bitcoin’s value. But who decided to look at just the year 2014 when making such assumptions?

You only have to look at the two year price chart to realise that Bitcoin was around $13 at the beginning of 2013 – so rising from there to what it is now, shows a completely different picture. And if you look at the “all time” chart, Bitcoin’s rise in price has been even more dramatic

It’s all a matter of time perspective, and what timeframe you are wanting to look at.

As I write this, Bitcoin is hovering around $250, and it may certainly be indicating the end of the long bear market. But what is Bitcoin’s price potential going forward?

Roger Ver Believes Bitcoin Could Be Worth Thousands of Dollars




Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Bitcoin Tags:

Ukrainians Resist Conscription

February 11th, 2015 1 comment

There’s a media blackout as to what is really happening in Ukraine – and I’m talking about the Kiev side of this – where people are leaving in droves in order to avoid conscription.

The following video shows a woman taking the microphone off a military officer who is making the rounds to collect conscripts, in order to denounce what Kiev is doing.

Read the full article here.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: General, Geopolitics Tags:

Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse

February 7th, 2015 1 comment

As someone who has been fascinated by Bitcoin for some time now, I often think about the reasons for my enthusiasm. And when I do, I realise that what initially grabbed my attention was the way Bitcoin was disruptive of the entire  existing financial order – something I have been against most of my life.

That’s why I often refer to this invention as the Bitcoin Revolution – because that’s what it is, revolutionary.

To fully understand all this, you need to have a grasp of the existing debt-based monetary system, and how it has been used to enslave us. When you look back in history, particularly the history of money, you will discover that it was typically a commodity of some sort, which came into circulation without debt.

I’m talking about the most common forms of money – like gold and silver – but also more primitive forms like tobacco and salt. The important point about money, throughout most of history, is that it arose in the marketplace as an asset, not a debt.

When someone dug gold out of the ground, it was no one’s liability. Contrast this with the modern fiat money. Fiat money (money by decree) is created out of thin air and lent into circulation. In other words, money in its modern form is issued as debt.

As a result, we are approaching a point of no return – when it is impossible to ever pay off the debt in the world. All the current financial order can offer us is more debt to service the payments due on previous debt. And that’s the debt trap we are in.

Then along comes Bitcoin, very much like gold in its conception and implementation – issued as an asset, limited supply etc. The difference, of course, is that it can easily be used to transact anywhere on the planet – to buy and sell on a day-to-day basis.

It is clear to me that whoever Satoshi Nakamoto was, he was deeply concerned about the nature of modern money and wished to see a new order come into existence. And that’s what Bitcoin is.

But here’s where it gets interesting…

While the early adopters of Bitcoin are mostly pro-market anarchists and libertarians of one sort or another, Bitcoin is now moving into the mainstream. Banks are talking about it. Governments are pondering regulations regarding it. Wall Street is taking a serious interest in it. International payment processors are climbing on board, and even the mainstream media is starting to talk about it seriously.

All of this is bringing Bitcoin into mainstream use and consciousness.

Not everyone is happy about this. There are some early adopters who are so wedded to their libertarian and anarchist ideals, that such mainstreaming of Bitcoin can only be bad for it, and take it away from its pure roots.

But I beg to disagree.

I see Bitcoin as a Trojan Horse. I don’t see governments and regulations killing Bitcoin, rather the other way around. I believe the underlying mathematical protocol that is Bitcoin, is capable of capturing and transforming every nook and cranny of our existing financial system – whether the “powers that be” like it or not. And the way this will happen is exactly the way things are happening now – with the gradual but persistent adoption of Bitcoin into the mainstream economy.

Just like the Trojan Horse of old, Bitcoin will reveal its full power and nature when enough people know about it and are using it, and start to see the benefit of holding and transacting in it compared to government controlled fiat money. And when that happens, there will be a stampede for the door – the entry point into the Bitcoin economy.

I believe it’s only a matter of time. I don’t know exactly how much time. But what I see happening is enormously exciting on so many levels.

Bitcoin is the new money. It’s just that the majority of people don’t know it yet.




Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Bitcoin, Money Tags:

The Crazy Idea of The US Sending Weapons to Ukraine

February 7th, 2015 1 comment

Sometimes I cannot believe what comes out of politicians’ mouths, especially those in the USA when dealing with the civil war in Ukraine.

While blathering on about the need to de-escalate the war there, in the same breath they are talking about the need to arm the Ukrainian army… to stop the aggression!

Now, as I listened to such nonsense I realised the Orwellian nature of the conversation. The aggression being carried out in Ukraine is against the inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine. When people talk of 5,000 deaths so far, the non-military deaths are those of East Ukrainians, being caused by Kiev.

So the very idea of aiding Kiev by sending more weapons will have the complete opposite affect to de-escalisation – and will escalate the conflict even more. But it’s worse than that. Russia will see such arming of the Ukrainian army – which is attacking Russian speaking civilians in Eastern Ukraine – as a proxy attack on Russia itself, by the USA.

Most of us in the West are deeply ignorant of Russia, its interests and intentions, but there are bloggers out there who have some real insight, and below I quote from a post by one such writer, “The Saker” entitled: About US Weapons Deliveries And Novorussian Mobilisation Plans.


US weapons deliveries to the junta

US political culture and propaganda has deeply ingrained in the minds of those exposed to the corporate media the notion that weapons or technologies win wars.  This is not so.  Or, not really so.

Yes, when the difference in technologies is very big AND very wide, meaning a full generational change across most key weapon systems, this can help.  But not one weapon system alone, and not when the difference in quality is marginal.

Furthermore, a simpler, more “primitive” weapon which totally outclassed on the testing range can suddenly become much better suited to real combat then some techno-marvel.  This is, by the way, one of the biggest problems with US weapons.  Here is how they are designed:

You take all the latest and most advanced technologies, put them together, then create a new “superior” design, then design a new mission profile to fit that design, then sell (figuratively and literally) the new concept to Congress, especially to those Congressmen who come from the districts where production is planned – and, voilà, you have your brand new top of the line US weapon.  And the costs?  Who cares?!  Just print some more money, and that’s it.

Russian weapons are designed in a totally different way:

Take a mission profile, determine a need, then take all the cheapest, simplest and most reliable technologies available  and combine them into your weapon system, then have that prototype tested in military units, then modify the weapons system according to the military’s reaction and then produce it.

In other words, US weapons are designed my engineers and produced by businessmen and politicians, they are not really designed for war at all.  Russian weapons, in contrast, are ordered by the military and created by design bureau’s and they have only one objective: real, dirty and ugly warfare.

This is why the good old MiG-29 could fly better with its old fashioned hydraulics then the F-18s with fly-by-wire.  It was never that the Russians could not built fly-by-wire aircraft (the SU-27 already had it), but that for the MiG-29 design goals, it was not needed.

What I am getting at here is two things:  a) US weapons are not nearly as good as their marketing and b) “older” Russian weapons are often much better for actual warfighting.

Let’s say the US delivers large quantities of Javelin’s to the junta.  So what?  All that Russia will have to do in reaction is deliver 9M133 Kornets to the Novorussians.  Can you guess which system is both cheaper and better?

When the US gave the junta counter-battery radars what did Russia do?  The same thing.  Now both sides have them.

Now here comes the key question: which of the two sides relies more on armor and artillery?  Exactly – the junta.

When confronted with a problems, Americans love to do to things: throw money at it and throw technological “solutions” at it.  This never works, but that is what they are good at.

The fact is that even in the 21st century what wins wars is not money or fancy gear, but courage, determination, moral strength, will power and the rage which seizes you when faced with brute, ugly evil.

The junta forces have none of that.  Their death squads (Aidar, Azov) can’t fight a real ugly battle, and the regular military is demoralized.  You can throw all the money and fancy gear at these guys, but they will never have the will power of the soldiers of Givi, Motorola or Mozgovoi.

The real reason why US weapon deliveries to the junta would be a big deal is not military, but political – it would be a visible sign of direct US aggression against Novorussia and, through it, Russia herself.   That is why the Russians that the consequences of such deliveries on a large scale would be very serious.  But in purely military terms, it would change very little.

Quoted from The Vineyard of The Saker




Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Geopolitics Tags:

Was The Charlie Hebdo Massacre a False Flag Operation?

January 17th, 2015 1 comment

Paul Craig Roberts believes it has many of the same characteristics as a false flag operation, and while I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to prove this, I have no problem believing that such is possible.

Read about the inconsistencies yourself:

Charlie Hebdo



Powered by Facebook Comments

Categories: Geopolitics Tags: