I refuse to pay rent in Vegas ever again. I will buy a house free and clear. And a couple ATVs. And a helicopter. Wait, an Avalon will be making me that much, right?



...right?  

Wait, so the PSU everyone is getting with the 4 module units in Batch 3 won't be strong enough to power it? Why would they offer it then?

They used to accept bitcoins directly back in the day. When Bit-Pay started doing it for them (and selling your bitcoins on the dark net), it kind of removed any possibility of them giving a refund denominated in the bitcoin commodity. I agree not to use bitcoins to buy high ticket items unless you absolutely have no other choice.

No amount of fancy titles and human resources can make a currency system work if there is a better one available-- isn't that the very reasoning bitcoiners themselves give when claiming bitcoin will "crush fiat money"? How come they don't apply it to bitcoin as well?

I enjoy investing my time, energy and work into bitcoin in any way possible. I enjoy promoting certain aspects of it when it seems appropriate to do so.

If a completely different group of people designed a type of money that was just as "sound" as bitcoin but didn't need miners to hash anything, you better believe all the ASIC and large BTC owners would try to downplay its significance and claim that "bitcoin is too big to fail!", whereas the users of it with common sense would say "great!" and either switch to the new one or continue using both.

On that note, be weary of people who attack alt-currencies and payment systems like Ripple prematurely. They absolutely have a vested interest in Bitcoin, sometimes to a point of manipulation and corruption.

It's cultism.

I'm actually pretty popular around here as the guy who "threw his reputation away to prove why escrow is important". Wouldn't that make me the absolute poster child for escrow? Also, you seem mad. Are you alright?

This is the sunk fallacies cultist attitude that makes me sick about bitcoiners.

"This project may eventually become completely outdone by something better, but because I took a large risk and invested everything I have, I'll singlehandedly keep promoting it to suckers".

You think I'm being a jackass and just insulting you? Think again. People like you are the reason why the media calls Bitcoin a ponzi.

This is common knowledge, what is wrong with people?

If it's Vegas you're talking about, Henderson was pretty boring to live in but functional. I wouldn't want to live on the strip though. Too many tourists and drunkard hobos. Any other good place to live in Nevada besides Las Vegas?

Vote above!

David Lory VanDerBeek is the Ron Paul of Nevada apparently.

Context: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=182046.0

The more I read, the more I am both excited and horrified at the same time. Excited that a guy like this is actually running for office, horrified that he may not win.

I absolutely mean this.

If he is elected, I will be moving to Nevada to support his office in any way I can.

Theymos (and everyone else) please see this as well https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68329.msg1908247#msg1908247

I think positive reputation is good, but right now it appears that there is only negative reputation (ignore color). Until positive reputation methods are introduced, negative reputation methods should be better managed.

Theymos,

I was thinking about the fairness of this and all and remembering the previous arguments about potential abuse and such, and I wonder if you wouldn't mind implementing the following modifications:

• when a user on the forum is marked as a scammer, their ignore list is cleared
• when a user on the forum is banned, their ignore list is cleared
• (optionally) when a user on the forum has been inactive for a certain period of time (4 months, 1 year, anything), their ignore list is cleared

The reason for this would obviously be to combat abuse by sockpuppets (which is what I think happens on a regular basis). People will create a new account, click "ignore" on someone they don't like, then use the ignore color as "ammo" in a discussion about someone being "wrong" in some way.

It's a sign of the times; this forum is a cesspool of suckers.

I wouldn't want to invest time and energy into something that I didn't think people would use either, but why not find out if that's actually the case?

What about a thread in meta asking for people to vote?

It is true though, think about it. If 1 person thinks you're a murderer (when you really are), and 100 people only know you as a good tennis player, your reputation will be good! Reputation is relative and is absolutely influenced by quantity over quality, hence popularity contest.

There's actually a solution for that (Facebook already does it). When someone "like's" something, it would show their name right under that person's signature on that post. "The following people appreciated this post".

Agreed. Except when your escrow is "dank".

Why do people always say "I don't want this reputation issue to turn into a popularity contest..."?

Reputation *is* a popularity contest.

Was it a positive idea?