It's because you are not intelligent. And there is no legal way you got hundreds of accounts to this forum. You probably run some type of virus or you're FOS.
The forum's administrator allows multiple accounts per person. So how is it not legal for him to get that many accounts? Is there some limit on accounts registered per hour? You're really so stupid? Really? You believe he invested the time to make hundreds of forum accounts in order to sell them? There is 0 demand for 0 post newbie accounts. Anyone can make them. So anyone that sits down and makes 100s of forum accounts is an idiot or he fishes them. That's a red herring. What he's doing with the accounts is irrelevant. You claim "there is no legal way you got hundreds of accounts to this forum". Please tell me the exact law that he is breaking by obtaining multiple accounts. |
|
|
|
Those will last years, and I'm sure you can recover something even if 50% of the files get corrupted.
You do realize that multiple copies and recovery records only protects against bad sectors. If the storage medium is damaged physically, you would likely not be able to recover data. Same goes for any wear-and-tear damage that causes total failure of the medium. Cloud storage, on the other hand, has better reliability than any physical medium (probably because they use enterprise drives and keep backups). |
|
|
|
5ghz? holy shit you should mine with that, world record clockspeed right there.
AMD's next generation CPU runs at 5 ghz stock.  |
|
|
|
I think you read my massage not right. Read it again...
Your message was: Exchanges 21000 XPR for 4BTC
There's so such thing as " XPR", as far as I know. The closest thing I know is "ripples", which has the symbol " XRP". Note the 'R' comes before the 'P'. So you either made a typo, or there's some new alt-coin that has symbol "XPR". ('R' comes after 'P') |
|
|
|
And people still buying, price same for some 2-3 hours after announcement  irrational speculators |
|
|
|
The website WTCR.ca does not seem to exist.
The owner of WTCR.ca is selling ASIC Miner Erupters on Bitmit.com and says to buy them on WTCR.ca.
The problem is that the site is not up.
That does not speak well to the credibility of this company or of the seller.
No, it's up. |
|
|
|
|
XPR = ripples?
I think you made a typo, because ripples is "XRP".
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, with all these ripple giveaways, I really need an alt (or 100).
|
|
|
|
It's because you are not intelligent. And there is no legal way you got hundreds of accounts to this forum. You probably run some type of virus or you're FOS.
The forum's administrator allows multiple accounts per person. So how is it not legal for him to get that many accounts? Is there some limit on accounts registered per hour? |
|
|
|
bitcoind & bitcoin-qt will have wallet.dat behave exactly as before, or optionally the wallet file (wallet.dat) can now be any legal file name in your operating system, and it can be in any directory on any fixed or removable drive. This is done with an optional configuration argument:
walletpath=<full wallet file name>
This is in the same spirit as the conf option, which allows for a bitcoin.conf file anywhere and with any name.
Just to be clear, this doesn't make the client any more secure. A virus can just scan bitcoin.conf for the real location of the wallet file. If walletpath is included in a shortcut/command line, a quick search of start menu + desktop will likely reveal the wallet location as well. |
|
|
|
lel we are anonymous xD expect us!
I don't think you know who Anonymous is, or what they do. They don't do idiotic things like this, nor do they meaninglessly hack or scam. Obvious somebody trying to scare Theymos with nothing.. Maybe it's Azan 2.0. dat.was.the.joke.  |
|
|
|
|
lel we are anonymous xD expect us!
|
|
|
|
BTCTalkAccounts == buyer == viceroy == grue == crumbs right?
mind = blown! I should really ban myself. |
|
|
|
You're not in kindergarten & you're not talking to a 2-yr-old. You claimed that the notion of Obama being called a scamer is absurd on its face. I presented you with 947,000 reasons to think otherwise. In .25 seconds. Next.
Yay appeal to tone! I repeat, learn to logic. This has nothing to do with reductio ad absurdum. How old are you? Please explain to me how it's not logic instead of "L2LOGIC LOL". I claimed that your broad definition of "scam" can lead to absurd situations. Therefore, the definition can't be valid. Please tell me what logical error I made here. Although I do have to admit it's funny because you were anti-logic a few posts ago. [...]any logical deduction is guaranteed to end in disaster[...] Are you daffy?
so is ur mom (you see where this is going?)You are the one who stated logic=scam. You succeeded at pointing out the absurdity of your own logic.
Wait wat. Please quote the exact post where I said "logic = scam". edit: nice, oldsport added "Grue and Crumbs Bitchfight" to the topic title. Because when forum admins aren't in your favor (regarding duplicate accounts), you call "buyer" a scammer. If anyone opposes you, commence name calling. |
|
|
|
|
...or switch to a competing exchange instead of sitting on your hands.
|
|
|
|
This is getting ridiculous. This exact phrase, "Obama is a scammer," nets me: "About 947,000 results (0.25 seconds)" on Google. If we're down to being all technical & pedantic, then at least some people don't find the notion ridiculous. As far as Fox News? Who cares?
https://i.minus.com/iVw1xL2C11LnF.pngyour point? If you walked to up to someone and asked if Obama was a scammer, you would likely get a weird look. People may respond that he's a liar or a terrible president, but no one is going to call him a scammer. -"If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period." -- definitions don't "lead" to anything, derivations do. Learn to logic.
nope, it's valid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum -"...if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money..." -- This is exactly why we're having this back & forth, the point i'm trying to *address* in my original post. If i didn't feel that [in this instance] multiple accounts are created to defraud people ["losing money," as you put it], we wouldn't be having this discussion.
um, ok? -"if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer"" --Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Start/don't any thread you want.
It's to show how ridiculous your logic is. u posted a le epic me me |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
