You have the gist of the two theories I'm struggling with, however I wouldn't describe the alternative theory as one in which there is any "desire" for adaptation, but rather it is the nature of consciousness to adapt. I can't count how many times I've driven a car someplace and I can't even remember the process of driving there. My awareness goes off somewhere else while some subconscious or unconscious process takes over and makes sure that I'm not only capable of driving my vehicle, but also of driving there so well that even the most sophisticated computer simulations would have difficulty calculating and measuring all of the spatial, weather, traffic, and road conditions in real-time so as to keep me from killing myself. For any thing to alter a course of action to avoid destruction or preserve itself is a sign of intelligence and problem-solving, and heck, maybe even self-awareness.
Yes, I'm suggesting that bacteria and plants are conscious agents. If you'd like a more detailed explanation of why I think this and why I think the evidence supports this, I can give it a shot, but it'd be pretty long-winded. There are certain-yet-uncommon assumptions I've formed over the past few years, yet I almost completely forget that most people don't hold the same assumptions, and so I also forget that it's pretty much impossible for me to make a brief statement in these kinds of threads and communicate what I'm thinking. The TL;DR version is that I believe this theory because I think subconsciousness and unconsciousness are actually just subtler levels of consciousness despite their riddled names, that consciousness is misunderstood by being defined too narrowly, and that these subtler facets of consciousness distribute to any living thing. The long-winded version would include a lot of philosophy, and I feel that I'd then have to justify the need for philosophy when talking about a scientific theory that is only supposed to consider empirical evidence, and this would include explaining why I think that the scientific method may not be the best method for comprehensive theory-making about evolution.
To me it sounds like you are wrapping a whole bunch of pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo around solid scientific theories to make them not only untestable but a whole lot more complicated than they need to be. You are trying to turn a scientific theory based on evidence into a faith based dogma because it makes you feel better. Please stop trying to turn science into religion. Whoa. I'm not even religious, and I'm certainly not interested in frivolous theories. I hope you understand that the scientific method carries certain untestable assumptions, e.g. we live in a positivistic universe, that have been proven false for literally thousands of years. Let me ask you this: If you have a set of empirical data that appears a certain way, but a logical or mathematical proof indicates that your interpretation of the data is flawed, would you dismiss the proof because it is non-empirical? The introduction of philosophy may render a theory unscientific, but in no way does it imply it is worse. The scientific method is *not* the highest standard for knowledge as it owes an extremely large debt to philosophy and mathematics. |
|
|
|
Yes, testing hypothesis and theories is done by making observations. How else would you test a theory?
Okay, but at what level of scientific rigor? We observe constantly, but those observations don't necessarily lend themselves to the development of strong, scientific theories. This is especially true given that theories (which are ultimately mathematical constructs) often face the problem of "undecidabity," or the inability to determine whether one plausible interpretation of a set of data is more true than some other plausible interpretation. As far as I'm aware, this just sounds like 'naturalistic observation' which has never been synonymous with 'experiment.' Edit: A theory can be complete, incomplete, right, or dead wrong. I think we can agree that we're both interested in 'good' theories which are testable, replicable, supported by multiple experiments and data sets, etc. Although I think modern evolutionary theory is supported by a large data set, I'm still having difficulty understanding how it is testable and replicable. Edit 2: I've posited many times on this forum that, given the available evidence, there are alternative theories that are at least equally plausible (e.g. The evidence supports a theory that evolution in conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice versa). How would you propose we test the theory of evolution against these other plausible theories? , which I mentioned earlier, is an example of a way to experiment with evolution. Every time a new fossil is described, that adds to the data set. If a fossil is found which does not fit the evolutionary theory, then the theory must be updated to account for it. RE Edit 2: I am not sure I understand what the heck you are talking about? What do you mean conscious states vs. physical states? Let's assume for a moment that certain evidence that indicates the possibility of a misinterpretation of the fossil record (e.g. proven-though-minimal changes in rates of radioactive isotope decay over time, the idea that "deeper" doesn't always equate to "older" when examining unearthed fossils, etc.) wouldn't have any substantial impact on current modern evolutionary theory if known absolutely. Let's just assume that we have a near-perfect perception and understanding of the evidence we've collected that supports the theory. The difficulty I have grasping how evolution is wholly testable is because there are two kinds of fallibility, and only one kind is commonly referenced in science, i.e. if you find evidence to disprove the theory, then it's either a bad theory or needs improving. The other kind of fallibility is philosophical in nature -- given two seemingly equally-plausible theories, and given evidence that appears to equally support both, how can you test one theory against the other? A common-but-flawed argument against evolution that's been put forth is the idea that evolution isn't fallible because you can always fit some piece of evidence to fit the current theory. As you pointed out, this isn't true because some piece of fossil evidence that deviates from the theory suggests the theory itself is flawed as it isn't comprehensive enough to include the new evidence. But, I'm struggling with the alternative type of fallibility. What if you have two theories that are equally-supported by the evidence? How do you determine that one is fallible against the other? Usually, this type of fallibility isn't a concern. After all, if you find evidence to disprove evolution, then you know that theory needs to be replaced by a better one. But what about a case in which all data that has been found, and all evidence that ever could be found, supports two theories equally? For example, let's say two people are getting married and you are trying to develop a theory as to why they got married. A behaviorist psychologist might say that they're getting married due to a series of stimuli and responses, a neuroscientist might say they are getting married due to a complex series of electrical signals that facilitate the release of neurochemicals that provide the couple with feelings of love and attachment, and the couple themselves might just say they're getting married because they love each other and they want to. After examining all the evidence at hand, you will likely find that the evidence fully supports each of these theories. This relates back to the problem of mathematical undecidability of theories -- which is the best one? The evidence supporting evolution equally supports at least one alternative theory. Modern evolutionary theory describes a mechanism for adaptation through common descent by way of vertical and lateral gene transfer. However, the evidence equally supports a theory in which the mechanism for adaptation isn't vertical and lateral gene transfer, but rather evolution in states of consciousness which are evidenced by vertical and lateral gene transfer and the resulting changes in genotype and phenotype. This theory posits that we did not descend from LUCA, the last universal common ancestor, but rather LUCCA, the last universal common conscious agent. If two theories are both supported by the evidence, then you have to find somewhere that their predictions disagree and probe that area. In your example of two people getting married, those three explanations are just three ways of saying the same thing, they do not disagree with each other. Let me see if I understand this correctly, you are trying to decide between (change in genotype yields adaptations) vs (desire for adaptation yields change in genotype)? Are you suggesting bacteria and plants are conscious agents? I know there is much anthropomorphization going on in schools when evolution is taught, EG the giraffes wanted to reach the higher leafs of trees so they grew longer necks, but that is just analogical hand-waving to help people grasp a complicated subject. Lol. I'm actually almost positive I remember that giraffe example from class over a decade ago. You have the gist of the two theories I'm struggling with, however I wouldn't describe the alternative theory as one in which there is any "desire" for adaptation, but rather it is the nature of consciousness to adapt. I can't count how many times I've driven a car someplace and I can't even remember the process of driving there. My awareness goes off somewhere else while some subconscious or unconscious process takes over and makes sure that I'm not only capable of driving my vehicle, but also of driving there so well that even the most sophisticated computer simulations would have difficulty calculating and measuring all of the spatial, weather, traffic, and road conditions in real-time so as to keep me from killing myself. For any thing to alter a course of action to avoid destruction or preserve itself is a sign of intelligence and problem-solving, and heck, maybe even self-awareness. Yes, I'm suggesting that bacteria and plants are conscious agents. If you'd like a more detailed explanation of why I think this and why I think the evidence supports this, I can give it a shot, but it'd be pretty long-winded. There are certain-yet-uncommon assumptions I've formed over the past few years, yet I almost completely forget that most people don't hold the same assumptions, and so I also forget that it's pretty much impossible for me to make a brief statement in these kinds of threads and communicate what I'm thinking. The TL;DR version is that I believe this theory because I think subconsciousness and unconsciousness are actually just subtler levels of consciousness despite their riddled names, that consciousness is misunderstood by being defined too narrowly, and that these subtler facets of consciousness distribute to any living thing. The long-winded version would include a lot of philosophy, and I feel that I'd then have to justify the need for philosophy when talking about a scientific theory that is only supposed to consider empirical evidence, and this would include explaining why I think that the scientific method may not be the best method for comprehensive theory-making about evolution. |
|
|
|
I just noticed the all-caps "THEORY" in the post you quoted and it reminded myself of how it is amusing that these people never seem to understand what the word 'theory' means in a modern scientific context. Then using it as damning "evidence" that because that word which they don't understand has been used to describe evolution, therefor evolution must be incorrect. From wikipedia just in case the cognition to seek out the definition is also missing: In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4] I've never quite understood how evolution is testable so as to be considered a scientific theory. If you find a fossil that does not fit into the evolutionary timeline, like if you find a dog fossil in rocks 100 million years old, that might shed doubt on the theory of evolution. That qualifies as testing? That method of "testing" seems more like observation. Yes, testing hypothesis and theories is done by making observations. How else would you test a theory? Okay, but at what level of scientific rigor? We observe constantly, but those observations don't necessarily lend themselves to the development of strong, scientific theories. This is especially true given that theories (which are ultimately mathematical constructs) often face the problem of "undecidabity," or the inability to determine whether one plausible interpretation of a set of data is more true than some other plausible interpretation. As far as I'm aware, this just sounds like 'naturalistic observation' which has never been synonymous with 'experiment.' Edit: A theory can be complete, incomplete, right, or dead wrong. I think we can agree that we're both interested in 'good' theories which are testable, replicable, supported by multiple experiments and data sets, etc. Although I think modern evolutionary theory is supported by a large data set, I'm still having difficulty understanding how it is testable and replicable. Edit 2: I've posited many times on this forum that, given the available evidence, there are alternative theories that are at least equally plausible (e.g. The evidence supports a theory that evolution in conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice versa). How would you propose we test the theory of evolution against these other plausible theories? , which I mentioned earlier, is an example of a way to experiment with evolution. Every time a new fossil is described, that adds to the data set. If a fossil is found which does not fit the evolutionary theory, then the theory must be updated to account for it. RE Edit 2: I am not sure I understand what the heck you are talking about? What do you mean conscious states vs. physical states? Thanks for the link, it's a very interesting read. I wasn't aware that studies of this kind were being done. Nice  Let's assume for a moment that certain evidence that indicates the possibility of a misinterpretation of the fossil record (e.g. proven-though-minimal changes in rates of radioactive isotope decay over time, the idea that "deeper" doesn't always equate to "older" when examining unearthed fossils, etc.) wouldn't have any substantial impact on current modern evolutionary theory if known absolutely. Let's just assume that we have a near-perfect perception and understanding of the evidence we've collected that supports the theory. The difficulty I have grasping how evolution is wholly testable is because there are two kinds of fallibility, and only one kind is commonly referenced in science, i.e. if you find evidence to disprove the theory, then it's either a bad theory or needs improving. The other kind of fallibility is philosophical in nature -- given two seemingly equally-plausible theories, and given evidence that appears to equally support both, how can you test one theory against the other? A common-but-flawed argument against evolution that's been put forth is the idea that evolution isn't fallible because you can always fit some piece of evidence to fit the current theory. As you pointed out, this isn't true because some piece of fossil evidence that deviates from the theory suggests the theory itself is flawed as it isn't comprehensive enough to include the new evidence. But, I'm struggling with the alternative type of fallibility. What if you have two theories that are equally-supported by the evidence? How do you determine that one is fallible against the other? Usually, this type of fallibility isn't a concern. After all, if you find evidence to disprove evolution, then you know that theory needs to be replaced by a better one. But what about a case in which all data that has been found, and all evidence that ever could be found, supports two theories equally? For example, let's say two people are getting married and you are trying to develop a theory as to why they got married. A behaviorist psychologist might say that they're getting married due to a series of stimuli and responses, a neuroscientist might say they are getting married due to a complex series of electrical signals that facilitate the release of neurochemicals that provide the couple with feelings of love and attachment, and the couple themselves might just say they're getting married because they love each other and they want to. After examining all the evidence at hand, you will likely find that the evidence fully supports each of these theories. This relates back to the problem of mathematical undecidability of theories -- which is the best one? The evidence supporting evolution equally supports at least one alternative theory. Modern evolutionary theory describes a mechanism for adaptation through common descent by way of vertical and lateral gene transfer. However, the evidence equally supports a theory in which the mechanism for adaptation isn't vertical and lateral gene transfer, but rather evolution in states of consciousness which are evidenced by vertical and lateral gene transfer and the resulting changes in genotype and phenotype. This theory posits that we did not descend from LUCA, the last universal common ancestor, but rather LUCCA, the last universal common conscious agent. |
|
|
|
|
Try kicking your powertune up to 20 or 30 and see if that helps. Also, what PSU are you using?
|
|
|
|
I just noticed the all-caps "THEORY" in the post you quoted and it reminded myself of how it is amusing that these people never seem to understand what the word 'theory' means in a modern scientific context. Then using it as damning "evidence" that because that word which they don't understand has been used to describe evolution, therefor evolution must be incorrect. From wikipedia just in case the cognition to seek out the definition is also missing: In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4] I've never quite understood how evolution is testable so as to be considered a scientific theory. If you find a fossil that does not fit into the evolutionary timeline, like if you find a dog fossil in rocks 100 million years old, that might shed doubt on the theory of evolution. That qualifies as testing? That method of "testing" seems more like observation. Yes, testing hypothesis and theories is done by making observations. How else would you test a theory? Okay, but at what level of scientific rigor? We observe constantly, but those observations don't necessarily lend themselves to the development of strong, scientific theories. This is especially true given that theories (which are ultimately mathematical constructs) often face the problem of "undecidabity," or the inability to determine whether one plausible interpretation of a set of data is more true than some other plausible interpretation. As far as I'm aware, this just sounds like 'naturalistic observation' which has never been synonymous with 'experiment.' Edit: A theory can be complete, incomplete, right, or dead wrong. I think we can agree that we're both interested in 'good' theories which are testable, replicable, supported by multiple experiments and data sets, etc. Although I think modern evolutionary theory is supported by a large data set, I'm still having difficulty understanding how it is testable and replicable. Edit 2: I've posited many times on this forum that, given the available evidence, there are alternative theories that are at least equally plausible (e.g. The evidence supports a theory that evolution in conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice versa). How would you propose we test the theory of evolution against these other plausible theories? |
|
|
|
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
Never heard of that guy, watched him talking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLMPure nonsense, it's hilarious!  I just noticed the all-caps "THEORY" in the post you quoted and it reminded myself of how it is amusing that these people never seem to understand what the word 'theory' means in a modern scientific context. Then using it as damning "evidence" that because that word which they don't understand has been used to describe evolution, therefor evolution must be incorrect. From wikipedia just in case the cognition to seek out the definition is also missing: In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4] I've never quite understood how evolution is testable so as to be considered a scientific theory. If you find a fossil that does not fit into the evolutionary timeline, like if you find a dog fossil in rocks 100 million years old, that might shed doubt on the theory of evolution. That qualifies as testing? That method of "testing" seems more like observation. |
|
|
|
This is a rather bold statement. Thanks for making it. I hope you uphold it, though I'd like some clarity: 1) Is this essentially just a few companies advertising both Bitcoin and themselves, or is this some vague announcement of a group that will actively work to implement some kind of inter-exchange checks-and-balances system? If, for example, you know that any of the exchanges in the group has some sub-par security practice or a vulnerability, what would be the consequence(s)? 2) ...And if one of you goes and f***s it up? 3) Is there any financial motivation behind this joint statement, e.g. is this Gox mess threatening business for any of the exchanges? The statement is specifically accusatory, though it's one that's hard to argue with. Thanks Edit: This, too, has been a Joint statement. |
|
|
|
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
Never heard of that guy, watched him talking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLMPure nonsense, it's hilarious! I just noticed the all-caps "THEORY" in the post you quoted and it reminded myself of how it is amusing that these people never seem to understand what the word 'theory' means in a modern scientific context. Then using it as damning "evidence" that because that word which they don't understand has been used to describe evolution, therefor evolution must be incorrect. From wikipedia just in case the cognition to seek out the definition is also missing: In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4] I've never quite understood how evolution is testable so as to be considered a scientific theory. |
|
|
|
|
I'm aware that lossless genetic data compression technology exists and is improving. However, I'm curious to know:
1) Can the entirety of data comprising an individual's genetic makeup be accurately compressed such that it meets the following criteria?:
a) All compressed markers (e.g. a marker might be information describing a nucleotide insertion, a genotype of a cell, etc.) must correspond to only one individual and no other.
b) Furthermore, these markers must provably correspond to the same individual over infinite time.
c) The markers themselves must be able to be encrypted, compressed, or altered in some way such that there would be a set of *new* markers, and these new markers must also provably correspond to one individual over infinite time, but cannot be (at least easily) traced back to the original markers.
2) If this can't be done for the entirety of data comprising an individual's genetic makeup (e.g. changes to an individual's genome over time make it impossible to provably link him to old markers), is there some specific set of genetic data that would work?
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin could learn from Dpge What TiVo learned the hard way -- nobody cares about a brilliant idea or revolutionary technology if it's marketed in a way that doesn't appeal. Linux and Android advocates need to understand that this is why Windows and iOs can and will continue to dominate consumer space. |
|
|
|
The same principle would also apply to the super high transaction volume they boast. Its like they are just throwing coins through a blockchain tor-type system.
If you have enough coins to pay transaction fees for long time, you can make any cryptocoin almost stall due to transaction volume, just use auto-sender to move coins within your own wallet and set it to very high rate. The same goes for exchange volume, set trade BOTs on two or more accounts to trade between themselves. You'll pay 0.2% or so trade fees to exchange but if your goal is to create an illusion of high volume (to attract big players) and you invested a lot into coin that should not be a big problem. Factually, the growth in popularity, alluded to by indicators like transaction volume and network hash rate
There is hashrate pointed at DOGE only if it's profitability is artificially increased to point where miners won't go mine some other scrypt coin. Contrary to that, most people were and will be mining Bitcoin (especially that one), Litecoin and other major coins no matter what so your story about DOGE having high hashrate due to popularity is provably wrong. Stop pumping DOGE price and let me know how many miners will stay mine it after one or few difficulty retargets, once profitability drops way bellow other scrypt coins. 1) What? Artificial profit? It's been very real far as I can tell. 2) "Not I," said the fly. 3) I've been mining DOGE due to my perception of its popularity, so in my case that's self-evidently right. 4) I'm mining it right now. |
|
|
|
Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote." If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.
What's the less crazy alternative? Involution. |
|
|
|
|
Speculatively, Doge's meme marketing strategy reminds me of the Quizno's spongemonkey commercials (which were wildly popular and affiliated with a serious company).
Factually, the growth in popularity, alluded to by indicators like transaction volume and network hash rate, suggest that Doge is arguably the second strongest market to Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I built my 6x R9 270 Last week for $1762.91 exactly. And its pushing 2.68 MH/s
I also picked up 4x ASUS 280x @ $320/ea for my new rig to keep at work. If you are patient you can find the deals. I just have to wait another 2 weeks before they arrive.
When they are in stock 270(non-X) go for $190-210. That's only $1200 for a 420-460 KH/s card.. Just sayin...
I'm sure you're right, that there are better deals out there if you're patient and persistent. Just keep in mind that time is money, or about $15-20 USD/day currently. Edit: I also doubt you have the same warranty benefits. The Tiger Direct square trade warranty is a miner's wet dream. My rig is a true zero-risk investment. |
|
|
|
Either buy a KNC miner or build a scrypt mining rig. With 10 grand you probably can build a good one.
Thanks. Yes we decided to build a scrypt mining rig. Parts ordered and should arrive soon. To get started our first rig will cost about £1,100 ($1,800). That'll get us to about 2.7Mh/s and energy usage of about 990watts. Hope to do a 2 week test and then invest the rest into more rigs. (farm) Out of interest what sort of £/$/btc/ltc per day per Mh/s would you aim for? So far I am seeing references to about 5.5USD per day per Mh/s but hoping to hit about 8. $1800 USD for 2.7 mh/s at 990W? Please direct me to your supplier! Your talking 2k in gpus alone? I want your supplier too! Only way to get close to this would be 3 heavily OC'd R9 290x's. It will use closer to 1300 watts and you still have to buy the rest of the components to build the rig. Exactly. I priced out a 2.9 mh/s scrypt rig with a 4-year square trade warranty through Tiger Direct (IMO, this warranty is absolutely essential for minimizing risk) for $3600, though this includes installation costs which I could save on by building it myself. This is one of the most cost-efficient solutions I know of. And, I repeat, that warranty is essential!! |
|
|
|
Either buy a KNC miner or build a scrypt mining rig. With 10 grand you probably can build a good one.
Thanks. Yes we decided to build a scrypt mining rig. Parts ordered and should arrive soon. To get started our first rig will cost about £1,100 ($1,800). That'll get us to about 2.7Mh/s and energy usage of about 990watts. Hope to do a 2 week test and then invest the rest into more rigs. (farm) Out of interest what sort of £/$/btc/ltc per day per Mh/s would you aim for? So far I am seeing references to about 5.5USD per day per Mh/s but hoping to hit about 8. $1800 USD for 2.7 mh/s at 990W? Please direct me to your supplier! |
|
|
|
Scrypt farm. Go from there
+1 If you have $10,000 to invest and can afford to sacrifice the liquidity, scrypt rigs are, in my opinion, one of the safest ways to invest in digital currency right now. The components act as a solid hedge on your investment, and ROI times are ridiculously appealing at present. Basically, as long as the current value of scrypt coins remains relatively stable for 1-2+ months, you should be able to meet 100% ROI when taking into account the resale value of your hardware. If prices remain stable for ~4-6 months, you'll have recouped your investment solely through mining profits and would have the option to continue mining and potentially scale-up your mining operation, or sell your hardware for profit. |
|
|
|
I gave you a good reason why it's impossible. Gox is reported to owe as many as 68,000 BTC, and your proposed solution does nothing to erase that debt. You can't just set a withdrawal limit when a withdrawal of any amount is already owed to someone else. What Gox needs is a solution to pull them out of debt, not just to get people who will never be able to withdraw their deposit trading again.
Thanks Mr.TheJoint I think you are making some false assumptions here. Seems GOX has a pretty high level of operational latitude here. Going on the stated circumstances... So at some point they determined that there was a problem that required them to hault withdrawals. Reportedly there are withdrawal orders that were placed at this time that have not yet been fulfilled. Seems right. Sure. I would expect as much. So they're basically just late on fullfilling those. Under the claimed circumstances I don't know that has any other impact or implications on the situation legal or otherwise. I think they have the right to take the time they need to solve the problem without additional cost to them. Don't they? So: - it's possible they will actually fulfill said withdrawals first prior to newer withdrawal orders. - it also seems possible that, under the circumstances they could void withdrawal orders that occurred at that time, claiming that they were part of the problem, and under newly set withdrawal limits, ask those people to kindly reorder their withdrawals. Either way, I'm not sure why any of that would make my originally posted theory impossible. My scenario could still play out. What's my false assumption? The 68,000 BTC owed to customers was a figure put out by media outlets. What do you mean this doesn't have an impact? This is the primary reason that withdrawals are halted. Gox didn't halt withdrawals because they have a "right" to do so, but rather because playing catch-up is, at present, an impossibility. Your proposal is impossible (well, absurdly unrealistic) because you're making the false assumption that trading will accelerate when withdrawals come back online, but you're not accounting for the fact that withdrawals can't resume if there is nothing to withdraw, and Gox won't see either increased deposits or accelerated trading if people know that nothing comes out the other side. Edit: When you're ready, I've got my BTC address waiting. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
