Would be cool if more charity shops do this. It'll really get the older generation talking about it.
The good thing about charities and charity shops is that I think bitcoin enthusiasts like to spread awareness and adoption this way by donating so it's win win giving/spending money to charity really. |
|
|
|
We don't need a "leading exchange". We need exchanges where all customers can get money and Bitcoins in and out with no delays and no nonsense. All exchanges where assets flow easily in and out will converge on price, because any difference will cause arbitrage transactions to pull them together.
Very good point, in most cases it is very easy to get BTC and $ in, but getting it out easy is a different story. The exchange keeps control over us, which makes it less decentral. A two way ATM would be awesome, it must be easy to buy and sell BTC without a hassle. I have seen a review of an ATM where you need to wait so long in order to get your BTC that was horrible, at first the machine have to scan your ID card, then it wants your fingerprints, then a picture of your face, then you have to wait 10 minits for the machine to process everything, also not so decentral.... But there are also good ATMs, where you just scan the QR code, insert the money, and you have the BTC instantly, no ID card required, no fingerprints.... Perfect ATM  The whole identity scan thing is most likely due to laws It is, but it makes the process very tiresome and confusing for many. ATMs are meant to be quick and simple, not drawn out and complicated. To the new user it's annoying and off-putting. |
|
|
|
|
A blockchain.info account works just like a debit account. You can just send the money after scanning the merchants QR code, but debit style cards have been made by people already based on Paper Wallets / QR codes. I'd prefer just to use blockchain.info though.
|
|
|
|
We don't need a 'leadin' exchange but the market will determine it eventually.
The bigger the exchange gets the more problems it will incur, but I agree the people will decide what the best or leading market is to use based on the service they provide. |
|
|
|
If I were the mods I'd nuke his post history and give him a fresh account. If he wants to change his ways to something that isn't considered horrific spamming then he can do so.
NUKE IT! On the contrary, I've seen repeatedly that the old adage "A leopard cannot change its spots" is very true and eventually everyone gravitates back to their original nature. Having his post history - not just the number of posts but more importantly their content - in the open for everyone to see is far more useful. Meh. Nukem or just bust em down to Newbie again... 6 minutes per post... hmmm? Maybe putting people back / restricting them to the newbie jail for a while could be a good punishment. Persistent trolls or spammers could have their time limit between posts temporarily lengthened as well. |
|
|
|
Haven't received mine yet but I'm in no rush. Stunna:
Are you going to increase payouts?
Are you wanting to know whether to switch or not and scared you might miss out? haha. |
|
|
|
|
Bittylicious is my favourite place for getting coins for cash. Used it a few times. It's very simple and swift and you'll have your coins within minutes.
|
|
|
|
I wonder if there'll be any communities that will rise up independantly and try use Bitcoin as a currency?
I'm sure we might get a libertarian commune somewhere eventually, but it'll be difficult to use exclusively without many more merchants or industries accepting it. A small country using Bitcoin or their own crypto would be a interesting experiment. |
|
|
|
Not sure if this is outdated info now, but: The way activity is calculated:The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
Activity is updated every 30 minutes.
It's still relevant, though it confuses many haha. There's an in depth thread trying to explain it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495948.0 |
|
|
|
No, this is actually just FUD spread by Christians to try make some of their claims valid, when it's actually lies. Einstein being a Jew is irrelevant. Where is his work religious in inspiration? "Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_EinsteinCarl Sagan was essentially an agnostic but against religion. Do some research. You might want to read his The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God book. And I have literally no idea what you just said about Hawking, but he's probably the most atheistic of them all, regardless of whether he comes out and point blank says 'There is no God', but clearly you haven't read his book The Grand Design ( I recommend you do): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.htmlSo please stop trying to claim prominent scientists as your own to further give any credence to childish myths. FUD ? What are you talking about, I didn't get some opinioned post like you did here, I got facts and clear quotes from the people here 2) Being a Jew is not relevant? this claim is plainly stupid do you even read what are you saying here ? and just another fact since you say that 3) Einstein believes in Spinozas God isn't that God, The God and not many? as in the main 3 religions where non of them says that God is human? and where is his work religious is inspiration? you don't see two of the most well known example in modern science I've mentioned? if you don't understand those just ask for explanation but don't go in denial as if I didn't back up what I said with know facts 4) Carl Sagan against religion? he was during much of his life an Agnostic THEIST, if he wasn't why would he say "Atheism is stupid." and other quotes that you are just plainly ignoring it again obviously because you can't argue against it. My comment on Hawking is clear you can read and reread it, also claiming I didn't read a book is a proof on it self on how you make your own thing and believes it but does that makes a fact NO it does not. 5) And as I said in my previous comment that you did quote if you want me to remove Hawkins from that list, as he did NOT start a clear stance about it I have no problem with that, but on the other hand how come you are just plainly ignoring the dozen of prominent scientist I mentioned, and focusing on one of them only, see where again you self denial kicks in and you just ignore as proven above again what was written So please stop trying to claim prominent scientists as your own to further give any credence to childish myths. for reference lol. You're actually wrong on every single point you've tried to make. 1) I find this very ironic. Your post is both highly opinionated, incorrect and is fud because you claimed those scientists to be religious when in fact they're nothing of the sort and the ones I pointed out are either atheist or agnostic, hence FUD which you continue to try spread. You didn't get any clear quotes and aren’t dealing in any facts at all but just misinformed opinion and assumption. 2) Clearly you don't know the difference between an ethnic Jew and the religion. Sagan was a Jew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism3) No. You're getting confused just because it has the word god there. Clearly you're not familiar with Spinoza's 'God'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism God is not literally meant as a god just like in the phrase 'God doesn't play dice with the world'. God in this sense means nature / physical laws, not a person or being. You clearly have trouble dealing with literal and figurative meanings (as do most religious people) and you still haven’t provided me with anything that alludes to Sagan being a theist (which he wasn't). He was actually a non-theist, but maybe you got confused there. I also still don't understand how you just saying Einstein's work on light & general relativity is religious in nature, especially with nothing to back it up but your opinion, so no, it's not clear. Please elaborate. A quote from Sagan on Einstein and Spinoza's god: "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws." A quote from Einstein: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” 4) Again, you are taking the 'atheism is stupid' quote out of context and misunderstanding its true meaning / intent. The full quote: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." He says atheism is stupid because according to him one cannot possibly know whether there is or isn’t a god. Charles Darwin also disliked the term atheist and didn't claim to be one. Are you going to try claim him as a prominent religious scientist now? If you read Sagan's works (clearly you haven't), whilst he never came out publicly and said he was an atheist, he was not a believer in religion or god, but to me he seems to be more of an atheistic agnostic, but if you watch this video from his lifelong friend James Randi he gives you an answer why Sagan never came out and said he was a full blown atheist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqkxo9gXzA5) You provided a list of allegedly religious people and I knew instantly three of them were not. I've already proved that they were not religious and essentially non-religious, yet you still seem to think they are based on nothing but your own desires and misinformed understanding. My argument wasn't everybody on that list but the three, so the rest are irrelevant to this. You really seem to go on the defensive attack and project your denial on to other people here. I really don't understand what I'm meant to be in denial about as I've backed up my points and you've either failed to provide any proof or continually taken yours out of context or misunderstood them completely, not to mention just making stuff up just to suit your argument. Back on topic: This is really funny. Australia and Malaysia has reached a deal on who should have the custody of the black box, once it is recovered. Why a deal even before recovering the black box?
not only that, but contradicting news are coming from each side and from the chinese as well, it's hard to follow and understand what's going on anymore I think they probably reached a deal to stop any bickering or further confusion if/when it was found. There seems to be a lot of confusion because I don't think anybody has established the true facts of what happened and there seems to be three or more parties involved in the search right now all operating on different knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
Do they accept payment in Bitcoin for items or is it just a donation address? Cool to see either way.
|
|
|
|
I started on May 2 2013 so when will I be senior?
Activity updates on the 29th so post then and you'll be a Snr Member. |
|
|
|
Full Member
Starting posts: 234 (Or 235, if you cant this.)
Bitcoin address: 1GnmCvKKMBGHtg6djeDzNTBGYWQE8ZGm25
Thirty Days From Now: Sunday, May 18, 2014
your signature is containing something extra in it. your count wont start until you remove it. Removed it. Post count starts as of now: Thirty Days From Now: Monday, May 19, 2014 Day started: Saturday, April 19, 2014 You need to state post count, and payments aren't 30 days from when you sign up but at the end of the month. |
|
|
|
I beg to differ, graffiti can be vandalism if some kid buys a spray can and scribble "fuk da polize" on the wall but graffiti can also be considered as art and require much more effort and talent. We have special spots designed for graffiti made available by the city council and we are not vandals. Can't say we don't bomb international trains occasionally and do wholecars but thats completely different story  Graffiti can be considered art, but it's still vandalism if you don't get permission regardless of how much artistic intent there is. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, I have decided to collate a list of signature spammers here on bitcointalk.org
EDIT: My definition of spammers.
Posts are one/two liners with no real effort at proper grammar/sentence structure. Often do not add depth to discussion. I don't know whether you're just trolling for reactions or trying to be ironic with this thread, but you might want to add yourself to that list (edit seen you already have). I find it very hypocritical of you especially given the criteria you provided as definition of spammers since you probably deserve a spot more than anyone else here. A high number of posts does not mean they're not constructive. If you look at my posts and compare them to yours you'll see mine are far longer and constructive than your usual short sentences. Further irony/hypocrisy comes from that you can't even be bothered to use proper grammar or capitalise words half of the time. This list is usefull how?
What makes is the difference between a spammer and a very active member who posts a lot of posts (possibly mostly constructive) for you?
Take a look at their post history. I am pretty sure you can't make 50 constructive posts a day. But again, feel free to tell me if there are any people on this list who you think are mistakenly identified. There are quite a few you've 'mistakenly identified' and most post far more better content than you. You seem to be making quite big assumptions here and presenting no evidence at all other than high post counts. You made nearly 10 posts in an hour today so why is 50 posts a day unreasonable? Posting 100 constructive posts a day that contribute to discussions adds more to this forum than the majority of your posts. I don't see what good this thread will do other than encourage the people who you've accused of being spammers to make even more posts. Well now, you seem to be making an especially big effort in correcting your own grammar and sentence structure here. And this thread just serves no purpose except to point out who are spamming this forum or not. Are you letting your emotions control you? Please point out my assumptions and if every post you make is as long and constructive as this from now on, I would gladly remove you from the thread list. I see you posted 33 times yesterday. What do you mean I'm making an especially big effort in correcting my grammar? Find me a post of mine to the contrary. You've just made baseless accusations with no evidence based merely on people who post a lot. I've just pointed out your assumptions and hypocrisy in your main criteria. This thread doesn't serve anything when it's inaccurate, unless your goal is to just troll or attempt to agitate people and invite the people you obviously have a problem with postong to make even more (constructive) posts (or spam as you seem to call it). And I don't care whether I'm on the list or removed from it because it's currently meaningless, incorrect and invalid and based off nothing but your own misinformed and contradictory opinion. edit: if you don't care, then why post here? As you said my list is " currently meaningless, incorrect and invalid and based off nothing but your own misinformed and contradictory opinion." I dont get your point or see what's the relevance of that post here? That was correcting the above user's post incorrectly blaming the source of the price drop on China when it was down to nothing but panic sellers. And why post? Well I need to to make my case for a start, but I don't care whether I'm put on or removed from somebodies troll list, but I'm not going to just let people lie about me and not defend my inclusion when it is unjust. I'm also pointing out your hypocrisy and contradictions and this is now available for all to see so they can make their own mind up with the evidence. You have just quoted the purpose of a forum. I really don't mind if you think this is a trollist, but as you said, they can make their mind up with the evidence. It doesn't help that you're number 12 in terms of post count and yet you have not been making a significant presence on this forum What do you mean 'not been making a significant presence'? That sounds contradictory with your accusations, but it also sounds like your own misinformed opinion again and you're clutching at straws. High post count is irrelevant unless it's all spam or nonsense, but according to you I'm a bigger spammer than you even though I don't fit your initial criteria and you do. I openly admit to spamming last time. However, I have since then tried to post with some purpose in mind, not only to spam. lolwat? It seems you don't have a problem with you or others posting crap and meeting your own criteria, but rather the volume of certain peoples' posts. If you see any spam on the forum you can always report the posts and help out, but I bet you never do. |
|
|
|
Attempted posts also reset the clock[/color]
I don't think attempted post will reset the clock, and I never experience this ever. It does. If you attempt to post and it fails it resets the clock. Try it, though you might have trouble making three posts quickly to test it out at full member now. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, I have decided to collate a list of signature spammers here on bitcointalk.org
EDIT: My definition of spammers.
Posts are one/two liners with no real effort at proper grammar/sentence structure. Often do not add depth to discussion. I don't know whether you're just trolling for reactions or trying to be ironic with this thread, but you might want to add yourself to that list (edit seen you already have). I find it very hypocritical of you especially given the criteria you provided as definition of spammers since you probably deserve a spot more than anyone else here. A high number of posts does not mean they're not constructive. If you look at my posts and compare them to yours you'll see mine are far longer and constructive than your usual short sentences. Further irony/hypocrisy comes from that you can't even be bothered to use proper grammar or capitalise words half of the time. This list is usefull how?
What makes is the difference between a spammer and a very active member who posts a lot of posts (possibly mostly constructive) for you?
Take a look at their post history. I am pretty sure you can't make 50 constructive posts a day. But again, feel free to tell me if there are any people on this list who you think are mistakenly identified. There are quite a few you've 'mistakenly identified' and most post far more better content than you. You seem to be making quite big assumptions here and presenting no evidence at all other than high post counts. You made nearly 10 posts in an hour today so why is 50 posts a day unreasonable? Posting 100 constructive posts a day that contribute to discussions adds more to this forum than the majority of your posts. I don't see what good this thread will do other than encourage the people who you've accused of being spammers to make even more posts. Well now, you seem to be making an especially big effort in correcting your own grammar and sentence structure here. And this thread just serves no purpose except to point out who are spamming this forum or not. Are you letting your emotions control you? Please point out my assumptions and if every post you make is as long and constructive as this from now on, I would gladly remove you from the thread list. I see you posted 33 times yesterday. What do you mean I'm making an especially big effort in correcting my grammar? Find me a post of mine to the contrary. You've just made baseless accusations with no evidence based merely on people who post a lot. I've just pointed out your assumptions and hypocrisy in your main criteria. This thread doesn't serve anything when it's inaccurate, unless your goal is to just troll or attempt to agitate people and invite the people you obviously have a problem with postong to make even more (constructive) posts (or spam as you seem to call it). And I don't care whether I'm on the list or removed from it because it's currently meaningless, incorrect and invalid and based off nothing but your own misinformed and contradictory opinion. edit: if you don't care, then why post here? As you said my list is " currently meaningless, incorrect and invalid and based off nothing but your own misinformed and contradictory opinion." I dont get your point or see what's the relevance of that post here? That was correcting the above user's post incorrectly blaming the source of the price drop on China when it was down to nothing but panic sellers. And why post? Well I need to to make my case for a start, but I don't care whether I'm put on or removed from somebodies troll list, but I'm not going to just let people lie about me and not defend my inclusion when it is unjust. I'm also pointing out your hypocrisy and contradictions and this is now available for all to see so they can make their own mind up with the evidence. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, I have decided to collate a list of signature spammers here on bitcointalk.org
EDIT: My definition of spammers.
Posts are one/two liners with no real effort at proper grammar/sentence structure. Often do not add depth to discussion. I don't know whether you're just trolling for reactions or trying to be ironic with this thread, but you might want to add yourself to that list (edit seen you already have). I find it very hypocritical of you especially given the criteria you provided as definition of spammers since you probably deserve a spot more than anyone else here. A high number of posts does not mean they're not constructive. If you look at my posts and compare them to yours you'll see mine are far longer and constructive than your usual short sentences. Further irony/hypocrisy comes from that you can't even be bothered to use proper grammar or capitalise words half of the time. This list is usefull how?
What makes is the difference between a spammer and a very active member who posts a lot of posts (possibly mostly constructive) for you?
Take a look at their post history. I am pretty sure you can't make 50 constructive posts a day. But again, feel free to tell me if there are any people on this list who you think are mistakenly identified. There are quite a few you've 'mistakenly identified' and most post far more better content than you. You seem to be making quite big assumptions here and presenting no evidence at all other than high post counts. You made nearly 10 posts in an hour today so why is 50 posts a day unreasonable? Posting 100 constructive posts a day that contribute to discussions adds more to this forum than the majority of your posts. I don't see what good this thread will do other than encourage the people who you've accused of being spammers to make even more posts. Well now, you seem to be making an especially big effort in correcting your own grammar and sentence structure here. And this thread just serves no purpose except to point out who are spamming this forum or not. Are you letting your emotions control you? Please point out my assumptions and if every post you make is as long and constructive as this from now on, I would gladly remove you from the thread list. I see you posted 33 times yesterday. What do you mean I'm making an especially big effort in correcting my grammar? Find me a post of mine to the contrary. You've just made baseless accusations with no evidence based merely on people who post a lot. I've just pointed out your assumptions and hypocrisy in your main criteria. This thread doesn't serve anything when it's inaccurate, unless your goal is to just troll or attempt to agitate people and invite the people you obviously have a problem with postong to make even more (constructive) posts (or spam as you seem to call it). And I don't care whether I'm on the list or removed from it because it's currently meaningless, incorrect and invalid and based off nothing but your own misinformed and contradictory opinion. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, I have decided to collate a list of signature spammers here on bitcointalk.org
EDIT: My definition of spammers.
Posts are one/two liners with no real effort at proper grammar/sentence structure. Often do not add depth to discussion. I don't know whether you're just trolling for reactions or trying to be ironic with this thread, but you might want to add yourself to that list (edit seen you already have). I find it very hypocritical of you especially given the criteria you provided as definition of spammers since you probably deserve a spot more than anyone else here. A high number of posts does not mean they're not constructive. If you look at my posts and compare them to yours you'll see mine are far longer and constructive than your usual short sentences. Further irony/hypocrisy comes from that you can't even be bothered to use proper grammar or capitalise words half of the time. This list is usefull how?
What makes is the difference between a spammer and a very active member who posts a lot of posts (possibly mostly constructive) for you?
Take a look at their post history. I am pretty sure you can't make 50 constructive posts a day. But again, feel free to tell me if there are any people on this list who you think are mistakenly identified. There are quite a few you've 'mistakenly identified' and most post far more better content than you. You seem to be making quite big assumptions here and presenting no evidence at all other than high post counts. You made nearly 10 posts in an hour today so why is 50 posts a day unreasonable? Posting 100 constructive posts a day that contribute to discussions adds more to this forum than the majority of your posts. I don't see what good this thread will do other than encourage the people who you've accused of being spammers to make even more posts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
