With law you mean "rules written on a piece of paper"?
Since it's common to conflate the concepts of "law" and "rules" and even Wikipedia is confused so I think I should clarify: Law is a term which does not have a universally accepted definition,[2] but one definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.[3] Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures. That's more or less what I mean by law. The part of it being enforced by a social institution and made by government is the crucial one. People love rules, they always make up new ones. What I dislike is the idea of a single set of rules being enforced on everybody. I'd like to see a multitude of systems. I find it fair to assume that this might lead to better and more workable rules. You seldom get high quality with a monopoly and rules are no exception. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt. |
|
|
|
 Papercraft for the win. I guess I'm God now. |
|
|
|
people, people, its cyclic. to form a hypothesis one must first have some data, and to recognize something as data, one must first have a hypothesis.
In other words i can not ask the question "What is the floopliwuply made of?" when i don't know what a floopliwuply is or that it even exists.
A hypothesis is an idea. It requires no data. It requires only a direction in which one might look for data. My hypothesis is that the floopliwuply is a random string- not a word. I can collect data on meanings of words and random strings now. |
|
|
|
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Actually science starts with a hypothesis  How about.. Science starts with 'self' (interchangeably referred to as intelligence or consciousness) -- there's got to be "somebody home", so to speak. People have it. Supercomputers don't. Then they receive information -- sensory inputs, whatever. Then the data are interpreted. This includes forming a hypothesis about what (really) happened. And curiosity. The "aim" thing kinda ruins it for me because it seems like a formulaic crutch that students are taught in schools. The curiosity thing provides motivation and will to gather more data and continue the process. What I like about this is that anyone can basically be a mobile laboratory. Actual laboratories merely extend people's capabilities with cool sensory gadgets.  When I observe something it's either repeatable and demonstrable and record-able or it isn't scientific data. Supercomputers only exist so raw data can be crunched, algebraic formulas can be simplified, results can get published to people to interpret. Frankly, Science doesn't give a flying damn about Solipsistic Existential Epistemology. It would rather count things. |
|
|
|
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Actually science starts with a hypothesis A hypothesis is an assumption that looks for itself in reality. The statement is the assumption, made into a question by the looking, just as all questions are made. ...
We didn't make it that way. We observed it. Math is neither a superset nor a subset of nature. It's a protocol, expressed in many languages including base 12 and Roman Numerals. Our scale, the decimal point that was the atom, then the quark and string, and now this geometric construct is relative. The microcosm is the macrocosm.
EDIT: Smell consists of extremely quantifiable microscopic particles affecting our nervous system.
Don't be such a philosophical zombie!  I was talking about the 100s of feelings of smell. E.g.: "wow, this rose smell is beautifully rosy!"* Instead of "Alert! My atmospheric sensors are detecting aromatic carbon chains number 485! Exterminate them!" *Notice how those descriptions of qualia are always tautological? A rose smells rosy. Red looks red. Blue looks blue. A high-pitched squeal sounds like a high-pitched squeal. Of course, whether my sensation of blue is the same as yours, is another matter. That's why the Wikipedia page on qualia is so huge, it seems that scientists don't know where to start with things we know absolutely but cannot prove. Blue always looks "blue" to everyone who can see blue? Or "sensory relativism", kinda like synaesthesia but mixed between different people? I'm glad we agree. The assertion of intelligent design belongs in the hazy realm of subjective qualia, not fact, physics, math or science. EDIT: I'm a behaviorist. I'm immune to the P zombie argument. The sciences routinely have to deal with various assumptions, postulates, axioms, and so on -- they all rely on that hazy realm to provide a starting point with things we know but can't falsify. And indeed, facts that can't be falsified do seem a bit more reliable than 'facts' that could eventually be shown to be wrong. And by calling the above things a tautology, that wasn't a criticism, it was merely a statement of fact. It would be equally uninformative to say that the letter 'A' looks like an 'A' instead of a 'B', unless you're like me and are able to metaphysically see those letters, in addition to behaviourally storing the data in your biological data banks. Nope. That's where science beats speculative postulating. Science starts with things we assume, not things we know. The hypothesis is an assumption/question, rather than the answer/result. It's based on observable, repeatable phenomena. Nothing else meets the standard for acceptable, mathematically within-a-stated-acceptable-margin-of-error scientific data on which results are published. |
|
|
|
If you draw a perfect circle, then measure its diameter, measure its circumference, divide circumference by diameter, you get PI, always.
There's no intelligent design there, it just IS, it's fact, it's math, a circle is defined as an 2d object where the diameter is the same measured from any edge to another passing through the center, no intelligence, no magic, just math.
Just as 1+1 = 2, no intelligence, it just is.
If these facts are true, and there are other facts that ring true regardless of circumstance, then you have solid building blocks for a complex system without design.
Whoa, slow down people! We take "1+1=2" for granted, but it's easy to forget the learning process that every child (or civilisation) goes through, that they start off in a world without numbers. It takes intelligence to imagine that there exists a "1" of something, and if that 1 exists "again", we can create the idea of "2" to represent "1 and 1", and so on. If nature somehow worked differently, presumably the maths deduced from it would also be different. So when you say "it just is" you skip the point that "1+1=2" is true because we made it that way. To me it seems that what we normally think of as maths, is deduced from whatever nature provides us with. Things are divisible? OK, so we have numbers. Things can be arranged in space? OK, so we have dimensions. Trouble is, that would make maths a subset of nature, and therefore it cannot fully describe everything about its superset. Hence the whole god / intelligent design / whatever she-bang. It could be said that our "inner being" that witnesses 1000s of different smells and sensations that simply can't be explained in terms of "microscopic Lego particles configured into Von Neumann machines", is the living embodiment of mathematical axioms: the things that are set to 'true' but can't be proven. We didn't make it that way. We observed it. Math is neither a superset nor a subset of nature. It's a protocol, expressed in many languages including base 12 and Roman Numerals. Our scale, the decimal point that was the atom, then the quark and string, and now this geometric construct is relative. The microcosm is the macrocosm. EDIT: Smell consists of extremely quantifiable microscopic particles affecting our nervous system. Don't be such a philosophical zombie! I was talking about the 100s of feelings of smell. E.g.: "wow, this rose smell is beautifully rosy!"* Instead of "Alert! My atmospheric sensors are detecting aromatic carbon chains number 485! Exterminate them!" *Notice how those descriptions of qualia are always tautological? A rose smells rosy. Red looks red. Blue looks blue. A high-pitched squeal sounds like a high-pitched squeal. Of course, whether my sensation of blue is the same as yours, is another matter. That's why the Wikipedia page on qualia is so huge, it seems that scientists don't know where to start with things we know absolutely but cannot prove. Blue always looks "blue" to everyone who can see blue? Or "sensory relativism", kinda like synaesthesia but mixed between different people? I'm glad we agree. The assertion of intelligent design belongs in the hazy realm of subjective qualia, not fact, physics, math or science. EDIT: I'm a behaviorist. I'm immune to the P zombie argument. |
|
|
|
Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery. No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older. A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures Since when have communities been matrileneal? a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters
Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes. I have two pairs of shoes and they were both gifts. YOU can start by not continuing demeaning stereotypes. Communities are matrileneal by default assuming there aren't any "I own you and your children"- type Men around. Think about it. When someone is born, the mother is known. The father isn't necessarily known. Patrilenality is rather inefficient and unnatural- just think of the trouble with surnames. Marriage without children is still marriage. It was invented for men to gain exclusive possession over women, and (admit it) is still used for the same purpose, despite whatever fluff has grown around it. The lack of community isn't because of men. Its because you probably live in a city. Cities have too many people to be communities. Also communities are more boring and filled with rules. I ask you in all seriousness. Who built cities? Women? No. Men built cities, and gave their wives no choice but to raise their kids. They did this personally and through establishing cultural norms. Wow I didn't know a man had to do was tell a woman to do something, and she has no other choice but to comply. Our evil powers have no limits. Not "a man." Generations upon generations of men- all trained by other men to think of women as things. |
|
|
|
|
All military action is unjust.
|
|
|
|
If you draw a perfect circle, then measure its diameter, measure its circumference, divide circumference by diameter, you get PI, always.
There's no intelligent design there, it just IS, it's fact, it's math, a circle is defined as an 2d object where the diameter is the same measured from any edge to another passing through the center, no intelligence, no magic, just math.
Just as 1+1 = 2, no intelligence, it just is.
If these facts are true, and there are other facts that ring true regardless of circumstance, then you have solid building blocks for a complex system without design.
Whoa, slow down people! We take "1+1=2" for granted, but it's easy to forget the learning process that every child (or civilisation) goes through, that they start off in a world without numbers. It takes intelligence to imagine that there exists a "1" of something, and if that 1 exists "again", we can create the idea of "2" to represent "1 and 1", and so on. If nature somehow worked differently, presumably the maths deduced from it would also be different. So when you say "it just is" you skip the point that "1+1=2" is true because we made it that way. To me it seems that what we normally think of as maths, is deduced from whatever nature provides us with. Things are divisible? OK, so we have numbers. Things can be arranged in space? OK, so we have dimensions. Trouble is, that would make maths a subset of nature, and therefore it cannot fully describe everything about its superset. Hence the whole god / intelligent design / whatever she-bang. It could be said that our "inner being" that witnesses 1000s of different smells and sensations that simply can't be explained in terms of "microscopic Lego particles configured into Von Neumann machines", is the living embodiment of mathematical axioms: the things that are set to 'true' but can't be proven. We didn't make it that way. We observed it. Math is neither a superset nor a subset of nature. It's a protocol, expressed in many languages including base 12 and Roman Numerals. Our scale, the decimal point that was the atom, then the quark and string, and now this geometric construct is relative. The microcosm is the macrocosm. EDIT: Smell consists of extremely quantifiable microscopic particles affecting our nervous system. |
|
|
|
Poverty is necessary, because without poverty in some places, we couldn't live our privilieged lives with 90 inch plasma tv and Mercedes S-Class and diamond iPhones.
Diamonds and iPads would be much more expensive without poverty in Africa or Chicago.
Sincerely,
Supreme Leader of Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Kim Jong Un
Diamonds would be common if not for poverty in Africa. The metals in iPads would have less cost as well. The Fix is in... the coin?
Poverty and Misery are big business on this planet and work well together. Are you willing to let all those asylum directors' and prison guards' children go hungry? How about all those 911 phone operators? They have children too. How about all those people "feeding the children" by sending "80 cents a day" while looking at those sad, sad black & white videos of slumps on TV? They need a way to justify their 50inch flat screen TV. Taking away their 80 cents a day donation will make them feel bad and sorry for themselves, creating Misery and surely more Poverty.
People were poor 3000 years ago. 10 years is maybe short. Give yourself a bit or more rooms.
But good luck!
Perhaps the prison guards should take a cue from the market and find a new line of work. Same goes with anyone working for the state. |
|
|
|
Opening up your borders is bad, just look at the UK....
Let me know when Sweden starts bordering Syria. -and when the sun sets on the British Empire. It is actually the "right" that is in power in Sweden at the moment. But still they are on the left side of the Democrats Oh, I'm sorry. Yap, this left-right scale can be misleading, when I saw interviews with Swedish politicians on the immigration subject I assumed they were from the left, because they sound what I'm used to consider "left" ideas. I guess that's why Sweden is the best country to live... I think their "left" Fell flat off the spectrum back into sane discourse. |
|
|
|
Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery. No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older. A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures Since when have communities been matrileneal? a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters
Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes. I have two pairs of shoes and they were both gifts. YOU can start by not continuing demeaning stereotypes. Communities are matrileneal by default assuming there aren't any "I own you and your children"- type Men around. Think about it. When someone is born, the mother is known. The father isn't necessarily known. Patrilenality is rather inefficient and unnatural- just think of the trouble with surnames. Marriage without children is still marriage. It was invented for men to gain exclusive possession over women, and (admit it) is still used for the same purpose, despite whatever fluff has grown around it. The lack of community isn't because of men. Its because you probably live in a city. Cities have too many people to be communities. Also communities are more boring and filled with rules. I ask you in all seriousness. Who built cities? Women? No. Men built cities, and gave their wives no choice but to raise their kids. They did this personally and through establishing cultural norms. |
|
|
|
I feel sad for this person. I am not qualified to say anything to (her) as I am a man I guess. I just hope whoever made this person the way (she) is is paying dearly: jail or under a bus, etc. This link will be helpful. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#indexDescription of Fallacies In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false). There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true. A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true. Too bad all of us can't take the role of victim and have everyone around us be extra sensitive to our needs while we ignore the needs of others. Surely I see people of all genders, colors, and sexualities really being made victims all the time by other people of all genders, colors, and sexualities. Most people find a way to cope, or or get help from others around them if they are lucky. Some people will never heal. Some people CHOOSE to remain a victim. By choosing to remain a victim you are stealing support from actual victims who need it. This former category is often nothing more than a form of sociopathy designed to provide a veil of justness over ones own actions of systematic manipulation, abuse, and squandering of people's precious time, energy, and emotional well being. Do you see the possible gains in recognizing the general current in systems of oppression, or would you rather just pretend it's an even playing field with no regard to privileges? Seems like you're eager to place blame on the oppressed's resulting neurotic behaviors. I certainly do believe current systems of oppression need to be exposed. Currently whether you understand it or not you are being used as a tool of oppression as well. You do not seek to improve the world around you by contributing to it, you merely seek to receive personal satisfaction of catharsis via spewing hatred about half of all of humanity and suppressing viewpoints you do not agree with. This is not productive, and is little more than personal justification to perpetrate the same abuses onto others as you claim were perpetrated upon you, only in a polar opposite fashion. That is not progress, that is repetition of a failed system of oppression you claim to reject. I am quoting my removed text from your thread since you have no arguments which can withstand scrutiny of free speech, which is why you removed it rather then replied to it. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. because no woman has ever raped a man right?
i had an asshole female boss once. i assumed she was feminist because she was always nice to the female employees. that didn't make me hate all females though.
i believe many feminists nowadays are just misandrysts (man haters) and it really undermines the feminist movement. i believe if a woman is for equality, then feminism is not necessary. if a guy is an asshole to you, don't pigeonhole all men as misogynists, because theres assholes in both sexes.
i know in some countries such as in the middle east, women are still very oppressed, and feminism is needed in those places. but in america, for a feminist
to say that "its a mans world" feels insulting. example: americas family courts are totally biased in the woman's favor as the mother usually gets custody or most custody of a child.
women also are able to get away with a lot more; maybe sweet talk their way out of a speeding ticket, etc. Guys- when was the last time a woman bought you a beer at the bar?
i dont condone violence, but if women want to be treated the same as men, does that mean a man can get into a fist fight with a woman without impunity?
Men get raped, and women can do it. It's missing the point however to make rules based on exceptions. To focus on this is to lose focus on the worldwide (including the first world) nature of rape, which is men raping women. Misandry is a cop out word with no real meaning when considering currents of sociological practice. Whether you're in the middle east or not, women are at a disadvantage- often being seen as your most american of consumer goods and nothing more, whether subconsciously or explicitly. Child custody hearing statistics are irrelevent when you consider that men often feel that children are women's problem. I say good riddance to fathers. In what ethical reality would anyone punch anyone with impunity? How is this a rubric fro equality? Why is equality even valuable? It seems to me that "feminists" such of yourself are so self centered that you completely lose your frame of reference for yourself and the world, and pay no attention to the harm you cause to men and women, and so casually dismiss it. Misandry is a real problem that men often pay for with their lives. The fact that you are so sexist to dismiss the issue as a whole as being a "cop out" is just a tactic to make sure that men are only seen as victimizers, and never the victim in need of help, or even a helpful person. Your speech is full of nothing but misdirected hatred and discrimination and it is quite repulsive. In my opinion you have issues with your own sexuality and are projecting your dissonance on everything that is male. I think you should work on your personal issues before you advise other people how to behave and what to believe. Men are humans and deserve rights regardless of your total disdain for half of humanity. Is quoting in an approving posthumanist tone "The SCUM Manifesto" honestly a good enough reason for you to unleas a tirade including "total disdain for half of humanity"? See, the Phrase "Misandry is a real problem that men often pay for with their lives." should be re written to say "Misandry is a real problem that men VERY SELDOM pay for with their lives." Qualified by the statement that Patriarchy is a real problem that women constantly pay for with their lives. Because we do. Also, the fact that I identify as female is none of your business. I identify as a woman because I am a woman. That I do not fit your definition is a problem with your definition. |
|
|
|
Honestly all of the snide woman-bashing in this thread makes me not want to listen to anti-feminists. At all. I wonder how many women dumped you all before you got all bitter. :/ Now let's watch you all whine and cry about feminist hypocrisy while you spend the better part of this thread making fun of and ganging up on any woman who cares about women's issues by calling them man-hating hairy-legged ivory-tower hormone-raging feminist psychos who are completely disconnected from reality. I will give you all this much, though: threads like this are a good way to know who to stay the hell away from. :/ Thanks, friend. I'd like to see you in the Radical Feminist thread. Perhaps you're clear-headed enough to show me the "man hating" error of my ways. These jokers certainly aren't. |
|
|
|
Additionally this is more men are only perpetrators women are only victims bullshit. Both men and women are victims and perpetrators. This "woman" we are "bashing" Is neither a woman, nor is anyone being bashed. What is happening is a bigoted supremacist is being called on his hatred and bias.
Pronouns can be used as a weapon. This is a case of such a thing. My hatred and bias is nothing in comparison to antifeminists, or as y'all prefer to be called antimisandrists- or whatever convoluted crap can be come up with to run away from and distort feminism. |
|
|
|
You're actually glorifying with an excessive amount of drama how attractive you are
OP is actually a guy, so.... Though admittedly he's kinda got that Justin Bieber ambivalency thing going on. I hear the very young people are attracted to that. Holy shit, a male feminist? >_< I stand corrected then he's glorifying how attractive women are and being melodramatic about it all we need now is for people to start supporting the idea of overthrowing a government and establishing a matriarchy. Matriarchy. Hm. Seems like a stupid idea thought up by insecure men to make themselves feel like they have something to defend against. Also, it says clear as a bell in my profile that I'm female. Your independent research as to the Y contents of my genes doesn't match up to that. |
|
|
|
And this hints at intelligent design how?
The basic train of thought is this: If properties of space-time take their origin from a pure mathematical object, then one can assume that space-time is a result of some intelligence as all mathematics apparently is. Wouldn't you agree? The article also mentions that space-time along with quantum mechanics are emergent from the geometry, so make what you want out of it. How can a music be a prof of intelligent designer? Everything in the world and universe has its own frequency, giving music as a prof of a God is just stupid.
When Edgar Cayce was asked in his usual trance-channeling state "What is the Universe?". His short and only answer was: "Music of the Spheres". So, earth is 6000 years old?
Will we need to worship this designer in some way (sing songs, sacrifice goats etc), or can we just ignore the fact and get on with our lives as normal?
Ok apparently it was my (failed) attempt at trolling. I got bored and decided to see what happens if I post this. No need to sing songs or worship anyone, just relax and proceed as normal, I will be careful next time. Well, if we're living in a computer simulation, then obviously there is a designer/programmer of the " Matrix computer code". What you may question is if we live within simulations within simulations within simulations, then it may only be the very first world that would have happened by evolution alone. All simulated worlds run largely on evolution but may have variable amounts of code. It does look more and more like simulation to me. Maybe there is a reason we all love playing computer games - we are in one! Thanks for the links I'll have a look! If math itself were an intellectual construction it would fall apart at the seams. It begs the question. Psychic Channelling and science aren't friends. |
|
|
|
I'm thinking of something like, feel free to work on top of that, I haven't really put a lot of effort into it:
Here's bitcoin. It's open source money.
Like other successful open source projects, for example Linux, it's impossible for anyone to take control of it. Banks, the government, Evil Overlords, they have to accept that people use it just the way it works best for them.
Paying with bitcoins is easy. In the blink of an eye you'll be able to send them to anyone anywhere on the planet, no credit card, bank, postal service required. It's just as simple as sending email.
Counterfeiting bitcoins is impossible. Each and every bitcoin is scrutinized not only by you or a bank, but actually by all of the computers on the bitcoin network.
There will never be more than 21 Million bitcoins.
Unlike government issued paper money, noone can ever simply print more and reduce your holdings' value.
That might sound like there's too few of them to be useful, but don't you worry, they can be divided into bitcents and even lower. We won't run out on them.
Take money into your own hands. Use bitcoin.
Thanks for that, this is definitely closer to what we are looking for. We don't want to mention "mining" we feel that the average user dose not need to understand mining, much the same way as the average user of paypal dose not need to understand its mechanisms to use it. It's important to mention mining. Otherwise it's unclear where they come from. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin:
In 2009, a big problem was solved- the problem of how to spend cash on the internet.
Bitcoins, instead of being minted by a company or the government, are generated by powerful computers that spend all day verifying and compressing earlier Bitcoin transactions. When a miner figures out how to compress old records, it gets 25 new bitcoins. The computers are called Bitcoin Miners and anyone can buy or build one to connect to the bitcoin network, the most powerful computer network on earth.
To use bitcoins, you need a Wallet. There are dozens of options from Armory to Blockchain.info or Inputs.io. They're all free to use. You can even use your brain as a wallet by memorizing a passphrase that translates into a Keypair.
A Wallet is essentially two long numbers, an Address and Private Key. You can buy second-hand bitcoins on an online or local exchange like Satoshi Square in NYC or Bitstamp, Coinbase or Kraken online.
What this means for online commerce is that middleman companies like Paypal are getting closer to becoming obsolete. There are lots of other implications for the whole world, too.
What's a bitcoin worth? It depends on what someone is willing to pay for one. Coindesk.com has a ticker that tells you current exchange rates based on the online market. They're worth around $130 as of the time of this writing, but have been slightly past $200 in the past. Nobody knows how valuable they might be one day.
Bitcoin is:
P2P, which means that there's no middleman.
Open source, which means anyone can help build the program.
Cryptographically secure, which means that the transactions you make are encoded so nobody can intercept them.
Highly Divisible, instead of having two decimal places, like $1.00, bitcoin has eight, like this: BTC1.000000.
Optional fees, to speed up a transaction, you can pay a fee to a miner, but it usually isn't necessary.
There's lots to bitcoin. Visit bitcointalk.org or bitcoin.org to learn more.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
