The interesting thing to me about this 'bubble' is that the buy side of the order books are virtually stripped.  Nobody wants to be the first to catch a falling knife.  Also, nobody wants to cash out a significant amount of BTC that would significantly drop the price, thereby cutting into their profits.

I think when the buy side of the order book gains depth across the exchanges, then down we go.  But, the price needs to steady itself for this to happen.

Theories can be right, wrong, large or small in scope, consistent or inconsistent, incomplete, etc.  Someone could indeed state that they believe reading tea leaves is a method by which knowledge is acquired.  Whether you think it's bs or not doesn't mean it's not a theory.  A theory is simply a explanatory description of something.

I'm not sure why you think it's weird to that's the scientific method as a theory of knowledge because that's essentially what it is.  It's the idea that one can learn about reality through empirical study.

Jet lag?

lmao +1

Why is everyone receiving a call from an 866 number when I received my call from an Oregon number?

Weird.

Think of the potential consequence if this holds.  Those capable of withdrawing btc but not fiat from Gox now have (a larger) incentive to transfer their btc out and cash out on bitstamp.  This could bring down the volume on Gox (even more) significantly.

Although, I've been seeing complaints about btc withdrawal from Gox, too.

One might, but it doesn't work the same way.  Note that you say 'observing' physical reality, and unless you have a theory of observation then simply observing physical reality to describe it isn't much good.  The key distinction is that "observing" is largely a mental process that cannot be studied empirically.  So, when you then try to form a theory about reality without being able to take into account a real but non-empirical aspect of reality, then that theory will lack external consistency.


You'd be surprised what can be logically inferred from simple statements.   1=1 for example has vast implications.  

Fundamental inseparability touches upon the issue of the nature of identity.  Wouldn't you consider this an important matter given that you're...well...you?

 

It's not?  There are entire logical fallacies based upon that (fallacies of hasty generalization and slothful induction).  Also, set theory...


See what I said above about the distinction between observation (non-empirical) and physical reality (empirical). All you need to do is realize that the scientific method is essentially one of many theories of knowledge that utilizes a certain set of tools and wields certain assumptions.  Then, see that there are other (valid) theories of knowledge that utilize other tools that empirical ones do not, and may even hold fewer initial assumptions (thereby adhering more closely to Occam's Razor).


Carrying off of your last quote snippet, I think that part of what you're alluding to is certain limitations of mathematics.  For example, the 'undecidable' nature of math makes it difficult to discern whether one model is more or less valid than another in describing something (e.g. which is better in describing human interaction:  a behavioral model or a cognitive one?).  Because mathematics also has limitations, forming a purely mathematical model of reality doesn't do any good either.  A good theory of reality not only needs to account for all of reality, both mental and physical, but it also needs to take into account theory making.  In fact, a theory of theories is a requirement given that any description or definition of anything ever is a miniature theory of that thing.  Theories aren't just hypotheses that have been rigorously tested and supported; theories can be logical, illogical, right, wrong, small or large in scope, etc.

Interestingly enough, you touched upon what I believe is the essence of the solution.  A certain type of language is needed in order to talk about reality, theories, and even language itself...a 'metalanguage' (not my term).

Indian accent you say?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320996.msg3436735#msg3436735

I thought you were predicting low 100's.  Change of heart?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316854.msg3408110#msg3408110

I remember seeing 4+ and 5+ hour blocks in the past.  It happens.

You don't have to "give up" physical reality, but it does require that you recognize that physical reality obeys, and is subservient to, mathematical laws.  The idea is to build model that is internally consistent at a greater level of generality than all other models including the scientific model (which doesn't even permit formulating a model of reality based upon the very mathematical principles it depends upon).

Perception?  Really?  I never read that before. 

Also, "desire/perception" doesn't mean interchangeable, right, but rather both of them cause suffering?

For offline transactions, is there any problem with creating and signing a transaction but delaying the broadcast for a while (e.g. months)?

How about creating but not signing?

I can try, but probably not.  The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration.   The problem with "normal every-day words" is that they're often not as poignant, and you're looking for proof which requires exquisite poignancy (and my vocabulary isn't very large).  My statement that you quoted is pretty damn precise in that it's rather self-explanatory, but I'm guessing you want me to expound on the sameness-in-difference principle and the boundary proof.

The sameness-in-difference principle is easy to understand.   It's a well-established logical rule that states that any two relational entities 'x' and 'y' must occupy and share some relational medium.  For example, if I am real, and if you are real, then we share a relational medium of "realness" and are to that extent the same.  Even if you try to assert that two things are absolutely different from each other, than those two things still share a relationship of absolute difference, and they are bound by the syntax governing that relational medium.  Therefore, any differences that arise between any two entities must do so because they share a fundamental characteristic of identity with each other (because there is some common law or syntax governing both).

The proof for a boundary of a boundary = 0 extends this concept further, but it's harder to understand its implications, and so I'm not sure how clearly I can convey what I'm saying.  The boundary of a 3-dimensional cube, for example, is marked each of its 2-dimensional. square faces.  This boundary creates a distinction in information between the attributes contained within that boundary (e.g. the attributes that make a cube a cube) and those contained outside of that boundary (e.g. mathematical attributes that aren't cube-like but are complimentary in that they allow the cube to be distinguished as different from everything else).  So, the cube is a cube because it is not a not-cube (it needs something else outside of itself to be defined...like an axiom which is incomplete by itself alone).

When we look at the boundary of this boundary, which is measured by summing both the clockwise and counterclockwise values of the linear boundaries of each face (i.e. the 1-dimensional boundaries of the 2-dimensional faces of the 3-dimensional cube), the result of this sum is zero...each object has a self-cancelling type of symmetry.  Because the value of the boundary that separates the boundary of one entity from another is zero, the sameness-in-difference principle emerges into view.  In physics, this proof helps demonstrate that matter and space are intertwined, and there is a greater syntax governing both in tandem.

Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Thus, when we observe the Real Universe, it means that part of the Real Universe is observing itself.  You could say that consciousness is self-referential.

So, when god "creates people," what you get are stratified "pieces" of global consciousness.  This is why we perceive time as linear...we are stratified and localized to particular swaths of spacetime.  In contrast, the mind of god observes everything in perfect superposition where things like freedom and constraint (structure...determinism) are counterbalanced.

I find it ironic that so many fallacies and false assumptions are being made in many of the responses to BitChick's stated beliefs.  A couple are: the assertion of a false dichotomy between free will and determinism, arguing that it is inherently wrong to circularly use the bible to support itself when logic circularly supports itself (and so does the Real Universe as it, too, is, self-contained), misunderstanding the implications of what a monotheistic god is, etc.

You guys need to get your marbles straight first before you criticize her beliefs.  The worst part is that, in general, her beliefs are more accurate than yours (yes, God exists by logical necessity).

Congrats!

Friendly advice: Be as enthusiastic about proper wallet security as you are about getting your first coins.

Buying hardware can be better than investing in BTC under a certain set of conditions.  Generally, these conditions are as follows:

1) Hardware must be purchased with fiat, or BTC used to purchase hardware must be repurchased immediately.  ROI must be calculated in terms of fiat.
2) Value of BTC must go down after date of purchase
3) If you sell your hardware such that (selling price + value of mined BTC) > (purchase price), then you're in the green.  If you had purchased BTC from the get go, you'd be in the red.

At this point, it's essentially impossible to find a deal on hardware that would enable you to mine more BTC than you could purchase with fiat.  So, if you think the price of BTC will increase in the future, it is absolutely better to invest in BTC.  If you think there's a reasonable chance that the price of BTC could drop, there is some probability that investing in hardware is better.

It worked for me on 5 out of 6 occasions.  I failed to meet ROI once on a BFL device I sold as a pre-order, and that was because I had paid up front with BTC and didn't repurchase the BTC.  Even my first purchase of block erupters already reached ROI, and the second batch I purchased will ROI in a few weeks.  That being said, don't expect this to work in your favor very often.

TL;DR: Buying the right hardware and selling at the right time can be advantageous (and even profitable) when faced against a drop in BTC value, but good luck having the stars align for you!