I really could not feel disappointed if he would not be successful with... whatever he is developing.
Although I have no idea of what he tries to create, just the name KimDotcom already has that touch of bad carma.
And this guy making his next business about bitcoin, that is something I would rather not want to read in the newspaper tomorrow.
Exactly right, he's poison. His involvement in Bitcoin to the general public would just be another example of a criminal element like Silk Road loving the new crime money. Every time someone like him preaches for Bitcoin it's just another nail in the coffin of public perception. About half of my friends already think I'm nuts for having any of my money tied up in "crime dollars" as one friend put it. Another one of my friends asked how much I have invested in the Medellín Cartel (because I support Bitcoin). And you are affected greatly by this? You know your friends' comments are retarded and that they know nothing about Bitcoin. Medellin Cartel in Bitcoin? I surely HOPE they discover and do use Bitcoin this will make their criminal enterprise move value much easier than dealing with cash. The underground was one of the markets Bitcoin was meant to be used into. Of course they're wrong but, like most people, all they know about Bitcoin they learned from mainstream media. I don't think anyone here understands Kim Schmitz will be extradited to the USA next year to face racketeering charges. Here's what he has to look forward to: Racketeering and money laundering sentencing guidelines are extremely strict. Although general racketeering statutes provide for maximum imprisonment of up to twenty years, a life sentence is possible if any of the underlying racketeering activities provide for a life sentence. For money laundering, the increases are currently based on two primary characteristics: the amount of funds laundered in excess of $1,000,000, and the derivation of the funds from the illegal activity. Above $5,000,000 qualifies for a life sentence. https://www.wired.com/2015/12/kim-dotcom-extradition-ruling/ |
|
|
|
|
Why do you people keep threads like this alive? You all realize if no one posts here then this thread will just sink to the bottom like whale turds in the ocean.
@ Lauda, why have you not put Franky1 on ignore yet? You're continuous arguing with him is simply giving him a reason to post.
To mods: I consider this post to be on topic because OP's premise is rediculous and should be ignored, therefore, it speaks to the topic.
|
|
|
|
The only Only ONLY thing that keeps Bitcoin secure is, the good intentions of the devs.  So what happens to bitcoin if the devs switch to bad intentions for example ? I have heard bitcoin is secured by the laws of universe which in my view are pretty secure but that sentence of yours is making me think , what if any of the insiders(devs) decides to destroy bitcoin by revealing bugs or implementing malwares and cracking the code of bitcoin ? What can the bitcoin community can do in such scenario to save bitcoin ? There are roughly 100 people that have worked on bitcoin or are currently working on bitcoin and thousands more looking at the code. University professors have talked about it in lectures and reviewed the code attempting to criticize what it does. Dozens of businesses worldwide are currently reviewing the bitcoin blockchain to see if it's useful for their business. Do you honestly believe there's not one honorable person among them that would stand up and tell about the problems? https://bitcoin.org/en/development |
|
|
|
I really could not feel disappointed if he would not be successful with... whatever he is developing.
Although I have no idea of what he tries to create, just the name KimDotcom already has that touch of bad carma.
And this guy making his next business about bitcoin, that is something I would rather not want to read in the newspaper tomorrow.
Exactly right, he's poison. His involvement in Bitcoin to the general public would just be another example of a criminal element like Silk Road loving the new crime money. Every time someone like him preaches for Bitcoin it's just another nail in the coffin of public perception. About half of my friends already think I'm nuts for having any of my money tied up in "crime dollars" as one friend put it. Another one of my friends asked how much I have invested in the Medellín Cartel (because I support Bitcoin). GTFO, he has a list of tens if not 100s of millions of people interested in file sharing, and he is building a decentralized file sharing service that allows content uploaders to monetize that content. Imagine piratebay + storj + bitcoin. Download anything for $0.05. It will be ENORMOUS. So, about the same number of people that thought Silk Road was cool then? Where is Ross Ulbrich right about now? |
|
|
|
I really could not feel disappointed if he would not be successful with... whatever he is developing.
Although I have no idea of what he tries to create, just the name KimDotcom already has that touch of bad carma.
And this guy making his next business about bitcoin, that is something I would rather not want to read in the newspaper tomorrow.
Exactly right, he's poison. His involvement in Bitcoin to the general public would just be another example of a criminal element like Silk Road loving the new crime money. Every time someone like him preaches for Bitcoin it's just another nail in the coffin of public perception. About half of my friends already think I'm nuts for having any of my money tied up in "crime dollars" as one friend put it. Another one of my friends asked how much I have invested in the Medellín Cartel (because I support Bitcoin). |
|
|
|
He had to pause development due to his hospitalization for double chocolate cheesecake and deep-fried banana split disease. His wife (shown below) recently visited him in the hospital and he ate her. He was recovering nicely before that but unfortunately he got her rib cage stuck in his throat and had to be rushed in to surgery to have it removed.  |
|
|
|
Scammers should be publicly ass raped with Negan's baseball bat.  |
|
|
|
Is there a way to determine the number of people who are actually using Bitcoin till date? Who would have access to such information? Meaning a way to find out, how many new people have used Bitcoin in 2016 , so that we can say exponential growth is natural not artificially created by hoarders.
Yes, that's kept in the Bitcoin users, subversives and terrorists database at the FBI. I don't think you can get access to it until the freedom of information act kicks in about 20 years from now. LOL |
|
|
|
And it looks like greg is back on reddit. His account is no longer marked as suspended.
Of course, didn't you expect that? I did because he's an "honor" kind of person. Even if he never wanted to visit Reddit again he was never going to stop until his name was cleared. |
|
|
|
Here's a picture of me in the year 2100. It looks like I don't really give two shits about Bitcoin at this point.  |
|
|
|
Praise Kek!
The Kek is strong in this one. What's Kek?  Sup /b/ “Kek” is a translation of the acronym “LOL” when reading text written by members of the Horde faction as an Alliance player in the online game World of Warcraft. “Kek” is also associated with the unrelated Turkish snack food Topkek, which is often discussed on the /s4s/ (Shit 4chan Says) board on 4chan. |
|
|
|
The bitcoin cannot stand alone on itself its way too small to do this and its also depending on other currency's right now so that is already saying enough right ?
I know it looks that way but that's not really true. Traders want to link it to a currency so they can buy bitcoin and sell them for profit, buy low and sell high. That's how traders make their money. A long time ago a guy traded bitcoins for pizza when bitcoins were relatively worthless in dollar value. Would you say Bitcoin depends on pizza, of course not. |
|
|
|
There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both There is no real contradiction First, scarcity is required but not sufficient. I remember I had explained that already, kinda seems about time to repeat the lesson. To be valuable, something should not only be scarce but also useful at that. If some shit is infinitely scarce but utterly useless, it won't have any value. Second, scarcity is not an absolute category (like yes or no questions), something can be more scarce than something else and vice versa. And last but not least, being infinitely divisible doesn't mean that you will have more of it. In this way, it doesn't matter if you divide one Bitcoin into 100 or 100,000 parts, you will still have only 1 Bitcoin in total. That's exactly where your logic fails Your logic fails when you take a world with an M1 money supply of 3340.50 Billion US Dollars alone and try to run a world with only 21 million bitcoins. I agree that if you don't want to make Bitcoin a national currency then bitcoins are scarce. What do 3340.50 billions of US Dollars have to do with 21 millions of bitcoins, and how is it related to the issue in question? Scarcity is not binary (either 1 or 0), and as I already said in my other post here, more goods will render the same amount of bitcoins more scarce, consequently, less goods less scarce... In other words, more bitcoins will be chasing less goods (i.e. Bitcoin less scarce) and vice versa (i.e. Bitcoin more scarce) At one time there was a $100,000 bill that featured a portrait of Woodrow Wilson on it. It was used mainly by banks to transfer large amounts of currency around before the advent of the ACH/EFT system. President Richard Nixon eliminated their use by executive order in 1969. If you are talking one Bitcoin being equal to one $100,000 dollar note then you're getting closer to the truth. However, to equal the dollars in circulation then one Bitcoin needs to be a decimal percentage of what we now call bitcoins of which there are plenty. 2.1 quadrillion of them in fact. That's not really what I would call scarce. In the "one world currency" realm of the future, none of us will ever walk around with one Bitcoin or one $100,000 bill in our pocket.
Scarcity should not be considered in isolation, it should always be related to something in respect to which it is scarce since otherwise it simply doesn't make sense. Is one bitcoin scarce or not? In your case, the amount of bitcoins should be linked to the amount of goods directly, not dollars. Dollars themselves are irrelevant to this question... Even if it is one hundred thousand dollars in gold And then you can say exactly in which case Bitcoin will be more scarce and in which less I think you're lost in semantics. It's either it's day or it's night, it can't be both. The sponge is either wet or it's dry, it can't be both. Either Bitcoin is large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable, it can't be both. |
|
|
|
For all you that love 'decentralization', it has made a right fucking mess of things.
Basically the open wild, wild west of 'consensus' is causing tremendous problems in the Bitcoin network. People are not working constructively together to achieve a remarkable new system, but rather fighting like little school girls on Reddit. This is a damn mess. We need a CEO and management to direct efforts and align them to reach a goal.
Is it the case there can be no noble CEO? I don't buy that theory.
I love the Wild, Wild West! You could ride a horse around all day, rob a bank, shoot anyone that pisses you off, hang around a saloon all night gambling while getting drunk and grab a whore on your way upstairs to pass out. You want Bitcoin to be a church social, or what?  |
|
|
|
On the Stein re-count topic for a moment...
...
The $7M that Stein took in for her efforts were sketchy due to the intake profile. Looked like one of those money laundering scams implemented by setting up an astro-turf project to accept 'donations'. Most people who noted it blamed Soros. I'm sort of leaning toward the hypothesis that the effort is funded by the Trump side. I noticed that Stein just gave a press conference from Trump Tower which is interesting. The reason for this could be to bore down to instances of election fraud, and if a movement was pretty sure that it would be found, it doesn't matter if it is in Trump-won states. Indeed, it simply helps the motive forces behind the effort (if my hypothesis is correct) maintain their cover. I've been hearing widely conflicting reports about what has been found so far. Some are reporting pretty staggering examples of hard-core fraud. The reports match the 'narrative' proposed by Bev Harris who is widely considered to be the leading authority in such matters. That is, specific corrupt jurisdictions producing whatever numbers are necessary to offset the broadly honest jurisdictions in other parts of the state. As she noted, these counts come in later in the count process because only then is it known that the amount of fraud necessary to flip the state. If it turns out to be the case that the effort is actually funded by the Trump side, it will be particularly LULZ-worthy that some mouth-breathing Democrats chipped in with their own hard-earned dollars to participate. This especially if Dr. Stein pockets the unused money. I don't think the fact that murrican politicians lie, cheat and steal is shocking to anyone anymore. As Vladimir Putin put it, "just more fun and games of the U.S. Election system". |
|
|
|
No one owns Bitcoin right?
Not until the patents are settled. ROFL Nice joke, or is it?  |
|
|
|
Destroys the value instantly.
Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There is your answer. There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be bothThere is no real contradiction First, scarcity is required but not sufficient. I remember I had explained that already, kinda seems about time to repeat the lesson. To be valuable, something should not only be scarce but also useful at that. If some shit is infinitely scarce but utterly useless, it won't have any value. Second, scarcity is not an absolute category (like yes or no questions), something can be more scarce than something else and vice versa. And last but not least, being infinitely divisible doesn't mean that you will have more of it. In this way, it doesn't matter if you divide one Bitcoin into 100 or 100,000 parts, you will still have only 1 Bitcoin in total. That's exactly where your logic fails Your logic fails when you take a world with an M1 money supply of 3340.50 Billion US Dollars alone and try to run a world with only 21 million bitcoins. I agree that if you don't want to make Bitcoin a national currency then bitcoins are scarce. At one time there was a $100,000 bill that featured a portrait of Woodrow Wilson on it. It was used mainly by banks to transfer large amounts of currency around before the advent of the ACH/EFT system. President Richard Nixon eliminated their use by executive order in 1969. If you are talking one Bitcoin being equal to one $100,000 dollar note then you're getting closer to the truth. However, to equal the dollars in circulation then one Bitcoin needs to be a decimal percentage of what we now call bitcoins of which there are plenty. 2.1 quadrillion of them in fact. That's not really what I would call scarce. In the "one world currency" realm of the future, none of us will ever walk around with one Bitcoin or one $100,000 bill in our pocket. |
|
|
|
Destroys the value instantly.
Bitcoin is largely based around the very finite supply of it, and adding more destroys the trust in the network and means that, essentially, more Bitcoin can be added indefinitely.
Basic economics 101, if you add to the supply, the demand gets filled and the value goes down. In this case, dramatically.
There is your answer. There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both. I must have glazed over that post when I read this thread the first time. I think it can be both. As the value goes up there is more wealth contained in each coin. Like gold. The wealth of the world could be held in gold, but we would be trading gold in micro-grams. Agreed but we need to come up with a more compact shtick because it looks contradictory as presented. The gold idea is good but not quite right for the scarcity argument. I thought about comparing it to penny's but they aren't divisible enough and money isn't scarce. I can't really think of a good short answer. |
|
|
|
Can you stop pricing yourself in fiat?
Bitcoin does not price itself in fiat. if there was not fiat how would you determine how much a bitcoin value is? let's assume that we don't know its value for a moment, for example to buy a car, how much bitcoin you are willing to give away? so bitcoin is indeed dependent on fiat do you agree? It could be valued in anything. Think about something you might not have a lot of access to but you like, say a bag of weed. You want some weed and your friend has some. You ask him to trade some weed for something you have. He says he will give you an ounce if you give him your car. You refuse but offer a pack of pencils instead. He refuses and says he needs a television and asks if you'll trade your small bedroom tv for an ounce of weed. You agree and make the trade. That means an ounce of weed is worth a tv. Bitcoin is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. If no one wants to buy Bitcoin it's worth nothing. If tons of people want to buy Bitcoin it's expensive regardless what item it's priced in. It could even be worth a car someday. |
|
|
|
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one understands it. You can even compile it yourself on a shit windowz computer after looking at the code if you want to install 7z, perl, python and MinGW. I've been downloading and compiling my own client since it was on sourceforge. The only thing I disagree with about the current release is the retirement of the alert key. I can still see possible uses for it. Privileged users shouldn't be able to send messages on a decentralized system, bla bla, bullshit. There's always going to be "privileged" people responsible for code and telling dumbasses like BADecker there's a problem.
The problem really is that you don't want to learn anything BADecker. It's the same reason you still think the earth is flat.
You really need to look at the franky1 post above your post. I can't see franky1's posts. I ignored him long ago. You've only franked yourself by doing that. The only reason I don't ignore you is that I find your ridiculous uninformed stone-aged bullshit amusing. I just find franky1's bullshit annoying. I kinda feel sorry for you. You have to ignore someone to keep from perusing his post? Don't you even have enough self-control just to scroll on by? By placing somebody on ignore, you are only ignoring yourself and your true needs. Tell your psychiatrist about your problem. He might be able to recommend a suitable funny farm. Maybe the same one notbatman and nomadxxxxxx are at. Yeah, I could scroll on by sweetie but his posts are freakishly large for saying absolutely nothing valuable at all. I just find it makes the thread two thirds smaller if I ignore him. You're cute though. Thanks for worrying about my welfare. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
