This is some advice that might save you some headache: 

Contact BitPay and see if you can't open a miner's account.  This will allow you to cash out through BitPay, bypassing the exchanges entirely.  Talk to them about the amount of BTC you may cash out at any given time and see if there are any transaction limits.

This will allow you to do several things:
1) You can cash out without worrying about the clusterfuck that occurs on exchanges during massive swings.
2) You can cash out without having to hold your funds indefinitely on an exchange.
3) You can let BitPay credit your bank account via an ACH transfer rather than waiting forever for exchanges to clear a wire transfer.

...While jealousy and passive aggression characterize his antagonists.

Trust me, it's way cooler when you don't have to sacrifice your motor skills, and when you don't have to pay some guy with smelly dreadlocks 10 bucks to suck on a sugar cube.  LSD imposes certain obvious constraints at the same time it removes others.

1)  I think the problem is that I'm making a fine distinction that you're not picking up on.  We both agree that there is a single objective truth regardless of what we think that truth is.  I think we can also agree that there is objective information out there, and this objective information makes up walls and such.  I won't even necessarily contend that the information that makes up the wall ceases to exist in a Universe with no observers and no subjectivity.  The fine distinction I'm making is this: if information is not being communicated, then that information is utterly unintelligible.  If the information is utterly unintelligible, then we cannot call it a wall because a wall is intelligible...it has 'wall-ness' so-to-speak.  When you remove all observers from the Universe, you remove all entities that are capable of rendering the available information in an intelligible way.  And while this information might somehow continue to be available absent of any observers, we cannot in any way say that there will still be a 'wall' anywhere because the Universe you're describing has no way to communicate or render 'wall-ness'.


2)  As weird as it is, I both think he's nuts and I think he says some accurate things.  Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to make any statement and convincingly argue it to be true in one context or another.  The problem is that when one starts switching the context of their argument, contradictions are bound to arise.

Dank seems to be saying that because anything can be true in a certain context (e.g. If Bob likes pizza, and if Mike likes pizza, then Bob is Mike...to the extent that they are both pizza-likers).  He also seems to be suggesting that because anything can be true in a certain context, you can discover or even manipulate truth if you just "believe" in your own ideas with enough intensity.  In contrast, I'm asserting that 1) there is a set or context that contains all other sets and contexts, thereby uniting all subsets within a common linguistic or mathematical landscape, and that 2) there is a way to act as though you yourself are reasoning from this greater set about all lower sets, thereby creating a model that remains internally consistent at the highest possible level of generality.

Dank does, however, seems to place an emphasis on learning through direct experiences (which is why he uses LSD and such) to uncover truth in a different way.  I absolutely believe this approach is valid, and I would in no way rule out "tripping" as a valid means of accessing otherwise inaccessible information and/or re-rendering the same information in a new way.  I personally think our minds are more or less 'tuned' to a certain frequency of energy at one time or another and that there are ways of fucking with the dial.  He seems to share a similar belief (he advocates drug consumption while I advocate meditation).

1)  The fact that a projection of a house isn't actually a house doesn't mean the projection doesn't exist.  Likewise, the fact that a mere concept of a house isn't actually a house doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The difference is that the projection of a house on a screen is empirical while the concept is not, but rather is abstract (i.e. mental...non-physical).  But you treat it as though even the concept doesn't exist which leaves you with an impossible task of explaining how you can experience something which doesn't exist or is totally unreal.

2)  Of course imagination follows rules.   The fact that you can't imagine simultaneous yes/no states (e.g. the both 'red' and 'non-red' shirt) implies a constraint.  Constraints are imposed by rules and laws.  That's where structure comes from...rules and laws.  Without rules or laws, your concepts could have no form...no structure...no definition.  To suggest imagination doesn't adhere to any rules would actually imply that it transcends all rule and law.  I don't think this is what either of us would suggest.

3) For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a pure dichotomy:  Either there is 1) at least one observer in the Universe and 2) there are absolutely no observers in the Universe.

In scenario 1, the Universe exists. Reality exists.  If that person is in your room, your room exists.  But as soon as that person leaves the room, asserting that the room exists (and that it is still the same room) flies out the window.  Why?  Because it's always possible to imagine a case in which you could be deceived.  So, maybe you'll go to the mall and you say your room still exists, but what you don't know is that a termite colony ate the wall between your room and the next room and now the state of that room has changed.  

In scenario 2, the Universe can't be asserted to exist.  The act of observation is an act of measurement.  Without measurement, we cannot define anything.  Without definition, there is no structure to uphold the concept.  Measurement is absolutely required to define an event (e.g. such as calling something "a Universe" to begin with).  You can't even so much as label anything without observation to give you a preliminary measurement.

By the way, you could learn one HELL of a lot from children.  The Biblical quote that says something like "those with minds like children will enter the kingdom of Heaven" or something like that is wise as hell.  I highly suggest you take some time to think about why that is.  Children generally cope with stress better and much more realistically than adults, they aren't quick to judge things according to their personal biases, etc.  And, when they lose something, they don't sulk and bitch about it endlessly.  Object permanence isn't everything its cracked up to be, not to mention that quantum mechanics would have a field day with a such a concept.

4)  Remember, everything is defined not only by what it is, but also by what it is not.  You're simply defining subjectivity and objectivity according to their differences and not their similarities, and while differences exist (of course), differences can only arise out of similarity.  As I've tried to tell you, trying to argue against this is attempting to argue against logical precedents that have been recognized and set millenia ago.  You can refuse to believe it all you want, but it's hard not to just keep saying, "No, you're wrong, I know you're wrong, thousands of philosophers and mathematicians know you're wrong, so you're just wrong."  It's really not even hard to grasp.  If you can't even recognize that everything in existence shares a fundamental similarity of existing and thus a fundamental characteristic of identity, then I don't know what else to tell you.  I can only keep telling you that you're dead wrong.  Seriously, you need to concede this point.  

Edit 5)  Why are you talking about "physical laws" which are abstract and non-physical?  If you're going to acknowledge that physical things abide by non-physical laws, then why don't even attempt to include those laws in your interpretation of reality?  Do you believe something non-physical and abstract is objective?  Or do you think that, perhaps (as I do), that another word for abstract might be...mental?

Sorry, dank, that makes no sense.  If what you say is accurate, then everything Rassah believes is true and you shouldn't even be debating him.  It would also mean that there's never such a thing as a false belief. 

I'd also like to point out that in attempting to make a truthful, objective statement about the nature of subjectivity you demonstrate why the two can't be mutually exclusive. If they were, then it would be impossible to make any objective statement about the nature of subjectivity.

Exactly.  We have two different ways of looking at and interpreting information.  That is exactly why objective information cannot be absolutely independent of subjectivity.

If you walk into what you believe is a wall and you believe that you bump what you think is your head, then you have subjectively defined some real information.  That's what subjectivity does.  You learn about the world by forming a series of abstract categorical relationships about it.  This literally defines the way reality appears to you.  There is no wall for you to bump your nonexistent head upon unless categorical relationships exist between concepts such as "head" and "wall" and "you.". Without subjectivity, all that objective information is rendered completely unintelligible and is therefore meaningless.  Thus, you can't say what reality would be like without subjectivity because you would need to use meaningful words to describe a reality totally absent of meaning.  You can't say "well there would still be planets and stars and space without any subjectivity" because words like stars and planets and space are meaningful and are defined subjectively.

The problem is that anything you would call 'objective' is still filtered through a subjective lens.  This is inescapable.  It's impossible to say objectivity exists independent of subjectivity because subjectivity is required to acknowledge that which is objective.  We simply don't have the luxury of asserting what reality would be like if we stripped away its subjective components.  You can't strip away a CPU from a desktop and still call it a working model of a computer.  Similarly, you can't strip away subjectivity and call what remains a working model of reality.  It's a necessary component of reality, and it's a logical impossibility to assert what a reality absent of subjectivity would be like because you have to communicate from a subjective reference point to do so!

Don't feel bad.  I had 30k.  Sold most of em at like 15 cents lol.

Win some, lose some

This has been discussed before, but as far as I know nothing ever came of it.  The problem is preventing cheating.  Even if your opponent isn't directly using an engine to beat you, he could just imitate your moves against a chess engine on a 2nd computer and move according to the engine's responses.

No.

Let's say I spend 10 BTC at $200 apiece ($2000) for mining hardware.  BTC balance = -10; USD balance = $0

Then I rebuy those 10 BTC at $200 apiece.  BTC balance = +0; USD balance = -$2000

Notice that I'm now in the same BTC position as I was when I started, but I'm down USD.  But, I have the mining hardware.

All this means is that from now on, profits are measured in USD.  If the balance is -$2000, I now need to mine $2000 worth of BTC to reach 100% ROI.

Let's say I mine and hold 5 BTC.  During the time I'm mining, the price goes from $200 to $1000.  Those 5 BTC are now worth $5000.  So, in that scenario I profit $3000.

It seemed like you were referencing all block erupters and that you were saying block erupters 'back then' were expensive as hell and had no chance of ROI.

I immediately repurchased the BTC used to purchase the erupters.  Then I mined for several months.  Then the price went up like mad.

Of course I profited.  I just didn't profit as much as if I had bought more BTC.  But it was better than sitting on my hands doing nothing.  If  the price of BTC had gone down it's possible I would have been able to dump my hardware and be left better off than if I had bought BTC outright.

My block erupters reached ROI four times over.  They're working on a fifth.

Use escrow.

No, I'm sure we all contributed.  I was just excited when they emailed me to tell me about it

By the way, PM me your chess.com handle if you want to play a match.  But take it easy on me, I'm learning

This is a voice recording I did for a friend who was auditioning for a voice-over role for an instructional video:

https://soundcloud.com/musicmelody123/adam-voice

I could refer you to him.

I scored a win.  I emailed Chess.com through my account and convinced them to accept Bitcoin as payment.

Enjoy!