OK, so you have multiple Occam's compliant explanations.
= Occam's Razor is great and all but it's subject to revision with new evidence.
Feel free to post again when you understand your own writings  (And have new evidence. "There might be things we don't know" isn't) |
|
|
|
Dude, I like Occam's razor too. Care to explain MyBitcoin in terms of Occam's Razor?
It's hardly relevant to the thread, but sure. Scam from the beginning to the end, as shown by the extreme caution being taken by the operator in setting everything up through anonymous proxies (not only network, but registration etc). I'm impressed by the foresight though. (The only other logical explanation that would be Occam-compliant was that the operator had had an accident, but than one fell through by the mysterious come back and 49%-promise) |
|
|
|
And as it was already said before, this can very well be a scam of the exchange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor would disagree with you. The simplest explanation that fit all the known facts are for Intersango to have by mistake sent bitcoins to someone who ignorant of the law sold them and now has been told by his lawyer to shut up. Any other explanation is a lot more complicated where the end benefit for anyone involved is much less likely - even doubtful. |
|
|
|
This does not change the fact that Wikileaks is legally questionable at best. To my understanding, if you provide a document that is labeled 'classified' by the department of defense to the public, it is a crime.
Your understanding has no basis in existing case law. VISA, Mastercard and Paypal do not need to make legal judgements themselves. Either there's a successful criminal case towards Wikileaks, after which they can act, or there is not. What happened is that behind-the-doors political pressure on American companies caused non-Americans significant harm, and it's not an isolated incident. Ideals are great things
Luckily for the world, throughout history, some people live by them as well. Your "Founding Fathers" would be one example. |
|
|
|
But if the primary drive of Bitcoin is to get money to business that paypal, mastercard, or banks won't touch because of legal concerns, the future of Bitcoin is not so bright.
Since I'm curious, are you by any chance american? Wikileaks have done nothing illegal and are not convicted of any crime, yet VISA, Mastercard and Paypal refuse me if I want to support them. (They have no issues aiding me if I would ever want to support the Ku Klux Klan though). Not only refuse, they froze existing assets as well, seriously disrupting WL business. It's actually a really good argument for why we need something like Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Nah I wanted to see if you considered after-the-fact to be the same as before-the-fact, which you did. Even if we go by "approx" and "about" being at the top of your own estimation - your numbers show that if there are 11 million traders in the world one will indeed be so lucky by chance alone.
There aren't 11 million people trading bitcoins. And if there were, do you think it's really that likely that we happen to be talking to him/her? Of course there aren't. Neither are we talking to someone whose "approx" and "about" really means 36/40  But you should expect that the most vocal about how good traders they are indeed are the ones on the far (profitable) end of the distribution - the ones who lose money don't usually go around claiming that they can beat the market. This makes the 'chance' analogy an invalid one.
Are you prepared to put your claims to the test or not? After-the-fact all traders beat the market. Before-the-fact no one wants to step up to the challenge. |
|
|
|
This all depends on the final legal status. Law is known to not care much about technical sense.
This is often sadly forgotten by [us] geeks. I've also seen in discussions here a disconnect between those of use who live in "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" countries. As a generalization I usually go with Europe as a whole often going with what the intention with a law was rather than evaluating whether a new technology needs new letters to be added to the law or not. |
|
|
|
.00000009279 = .000009279% chance I will flip at least 36 heads (i.e. trade positively at least 36/40 times)
Edit 2: You do realize that the chances of trading at 90% profit become less likely the more times I trade...right? I hope you weren't implying that my chances of doing this across 40 trials were good, were you?
Nah I wanted to see if you considered after-the-fact to be the same as before-the-fact, which you did. Even if we go by "approx" and "about" being at the top of your own estimation - your numbers show that if there are 11 million traders in the world one will indeed be so lucky by chance alone. That's what the whole "traders don't outperform chance" means. We talk about the successful ones, not the ones that don't beat the market. So, I propose the following: For 40 days you'll post if you believe the price of BTC will be higher or lower than the day before, MtGox GMT timezone. Now if we're indeed on a steady downward slope due to inflation there should be a slight skew, but I'm quite sure you won't hit 36/40. (The point being that after-the-fact is a lot easier, all you have to do is to be selective as to which trades you count) I've never so far had anyone doing TA take me up on such a wager anyway. |
|
|
|
The rest explains why Bitcoin is different than gold, or heirlooms, or sheep, or socks.
Sorry but no, you have explained absolutely nothing in this whole thread You have had quite a few entertaining fantasies posted though. |
|
|
|
You can now ignore users using the links in topic pages or by updating the ignored user list in your profile.
Please tell me if you notice any bugs. Applying this mod required a lot of manual changes (which is why I hadn't already applied it). It probably doesn't work with the non-default themes.
I absolutely love this functionality. If there's anything that could make it even better is if a post by an ignored user wouldn't trigger "new replies to your posts" though. |
|
|
|
I am aware of those fees, I've known a couple small business owners. But for those fees to disappear- That would require bitcoin being adopted to a universal standard in which these businesses did not need to process credit cards at all.
Yes. What we need is an easy way for consumers to acquire bitcoins and for merchants an easy way to accept payment in bitcoins. For the latter I really like what Bit-Pay are doing, for the former I still think it's too complicated. When it comes to actual clients I stay away from showing people the Satoshi client completely in favor of Andreas' Bitcoin Wallet for Android. A quick demonstration of how easy payment via the QR code system is and most merchants respond by wanting Bitcoin to replace their current credit card system immediately. I agree that bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized in theory, but it really seems to me that a very large amount of traffic and funding is in the hands of a very small number of exchanges.
True. I've personally only traded once on MtGox, all my other BTC purchases have been P2P through Bitmarket.eu for that very reason. |
|
|
|
As strictly a consumer you are currently paying a premium (let's say 5% on average) above what the goods could cost if Bitcoin was the payment system used since it does not rely on some of the archaic thinking that has led us to the banking system we have today.
I'm not an economist, so I don't immediately grasp what you are meaning by archaic thinking that results in higher prices. I'm assuming you don't mean anything related to processing fees for credit cards? I do. Next time you buy something from a local store owner whom you believe own their own business, ask them how much they have to pay in fees to be able to accept credit cards. Do the math on how that affect their profit margins on low cost items. Those fees are passed on to you, the consumer. |
|
|
|
you are agreeing to
No. As to why you think your personal fantasies are of interest to anyone but yourself we can only speculate. |
|
|
|
And indeed, if Bitcoin is defined as online currency due to the fact it has market value and is traded in exchange for things, then WoW gold must also be online currency. Indeed, WoW gold even has a central issuer.
That's the major difference I took away from MagicalTux' post with regards to how Bitcoin compares to WoW gold, Zynga poker chips etc. “This case is particularly interesting because it involved a UK court recognising virtual currency - in this case, Zynga chips - as legal property which can be protected by existing UK criminal laws.
“The court effectively found that, even though virtual currency isn't real and is infinite in supply, it still can deserve legal protection in the same way as real world currency”.
http://www.develop-online.net/news/36921/Zynga-hacker-faces-jail-after-12m-theft |
|
|
|
Each bond is sold at 1BTC and each bond will be Purchased back at 120%. so it's recomended to not purchase at higher then 1.11 to make any money. When I pay off all investors you can buy back to make .12 BTC per bond.
You seem to be saying two diffrent things here. Are you buying back at 1.20, 120%, make 0.20 per bond, or at 1.12, 112%, make 0.12 per bond? Yeah that has been brought up before. Unfortunately Xenland seems to consider 120% of 1 BTC to be 1.12, and has been consistent in doing the math that way |
|
|
|
If you think that the person who unfortunately sent his BitCoins deserves them back or that somehow contract law applies or that a BitCourt should be in force, you don't understand the purpose of BitCoin.
I'm in envy of you, since you apparently live in a country of your own with your own separate laws. The rest of us, no matter how much we might like or dislike the technical workings of Bitcoin, must still abide by national laws and international agreements. According to those, not only does Intersango "deserve" their bitcoins back, they're entitled to by law. |
|
|
|
Here are a some profitability calculations
I just want to say thank you for taking the time to write up that post. There's a lot of back'n'forth currently on whether we're seeing a shift from GPU to FPGA (and ASIC) at all, sooner or later at the moment. More data always help. (More calculations in this thread, but also a fair bit of harsh language: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40865.20 ) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
