|
I assume you want to keep a good relationship with your client. Although you have kept up your end of the bargain, I suggest:
1. Help them use an independent block explorer to verify that the address has received the bitcoins even though the wallet may disagree.
2. Help them make sure their wallet is connected and synced or otherwise fully up-to-date with the block chain.
3. Help them make sure they are looking at the correct currency (as @dothebeats pointed out).
|
|
|
|
When the globe claims we're riding a 1,000 MPH (rim speed) flywheel that has a diameter of 8,000 miles, I call that weak because I know that the sheer forces involved would cause an instant explosion to happen.
That's because you don't have a good sense of the physics involved. The centripetal force is F = mv 2/ r. Plug in the numbers and you will see that it is much lower than the force of buoyancy and that is why we don't go flying off into space. When the globe claims a pressure gradient (air) exists next to a vacuum without a container, I call that weak because I know it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
That's because you are overlooking the effect of buoyancy on the air. Air falls to the earth in a vacuum just as other objects fall to the earth in a vacuum. When the globe claims we're travelling at 66,600 MPH while spinning 1,000 MPH, I call that weak because I've been on a mad carnival ride before.
Again, that's because you don't have a good sense of the physics involved. Haven't you traveled anywhere? Whether you are in a car going 50 mph, on a train going 100 mph, in a plane going 700 mph, or hurtling through space at 66000 mph, it is like you are standing still because everything around you is doing the same thing. It is called an "inertial frame of reference". And again, while "spinning at 1,000 MPH" might seem like a lot, if you do the math you will see that it is not. Spinning 1000 mph on the earth is as much of a carnival ride as a bug running around a basketball. ... the fact that the earth is observably and measurably flat for as far as a modern super-zoom camera can see.
That is open to debate because the same camera seems to show examples of flat earth (objects seen above the horizon) and spherical earth (objects obscured by the horizon). What's the debate? There's water in the air and it causes a refractive effect (there's a multitude of effects) called looming where objects in the far distance are magnified. The magnified objects are cropped at bottom by the horizon vanishing line. In fact I've discussed looming, other refractive effects & optical compression with you before so I'm really just left with the impression that you're intellectually dishonest. The fact you pressed me for censored/memory holed images & diagrams makes it seem like you glow in the dark. The debate is over why the camera seems to produce contradictory observations. Both sides have explanations, but neither seems to be sufficient to convince the other side. |
|
|
|
|
Some thoughts ...
My goal here is to understand the scientific basis behind the belief in a flat earth. I try to never assert that the earth is spherical or that evidence proves or demonstrates it because that would be unproductive.
My opinion so far is that the scientific basis for a flat earth is much weaker than I expected. I suppose that should not be surprising since those with the most aptitude for science are generally indoctrinated in mainstream scientific beliefs from an early age, and that generally leaves those with less aptitude to work outside of the mainstream. It also doesn't help that funding for such research is minimal at best.
The most interesting thing I have learned from flat earth science is that the Michelson-Morley experiment can also be interpreted as evidence that the Earth is motionless.
|
|
|
|
@odolvlobo you can see the wrap-around lighting effect in the bottom of a coffee mug FFS.
I can see a lighting effect but it is not the observed lighting effect, especially if the light is inside the mug. You want to speculate that the surface of the earth curves based on observations of lights in the sky, yet when I speculate on those same lights you start calling the kettle black.
Not true. I simply asked how the observation is explained on a flat earth. I made no assertions about a curved earth, though I don't deny my bias. The light sources in the sky are speculative in nature and any conclusions derived thereof must also follow.
That's a very reasonable reply. ... the fact that the earth is observably and measurably flat for as far as a modern super-zoom camera can see.
That is open to debate because the same camera seems to show examples of flat earth (objects seen above the horizon) and spherical earth (objects obscured by the horizon). |
|
|
|
|
Interest, followed by irrational exuberance, followed by panic, and now apathy. I think there are more bubbles to come, though they will continue to get smaller as utility and adoption increase.
|
|
|
|
|
It's like he buried his hoard of gold somewhere but he never made a map. Then he forgot where he buried it and now he is blaming the gold
|
|
|
|
anarchy not equals chaos,disaster etc. worldwide we are abusing this word into sentences every day.
pure Anarchy has ministers,officials,respect to the human rights and is the mother of Democracy.
correct me if i am wrong.
I think that needs some emphasis. anarchy ≠ chaos |
|
|
|
I agree. PoW will always naively be considered inefficient and wasteful. However, efficiency is relative and "wasteful" is subjective, so simply claiming that PoW is inefficient and wasteful without providing analysis is not enough. In PoW, calculations by design take a certain period of time and that is necessary so that the numerous network nodes are synchronized with each other. This artificial slowdown obviously affects the network’s bandwidth.
The network's bandwidth is unrelated to PoW. A tremendous amount of electricity is consumed just to build a chain of blocks and ensure its safety. Surely there have to be more efficient solutions to this problem.
Currently, most of the energy is spent ensuring an equitable distribution of new coins -- something that PoS does not have. Another problem associated with Nakamoto’s consensus is the so-called orphan blocks. A certain chunk of the resources that honest network members spend on finding blocks is simply lost. ... This leads to the fact that some honest miners will simply waste their time and resources.
That is irrelevant. Miners are already "wasting" time and resources. The additional time and resources "wasted" due to orphan blocks has no effect on the total time and resources "wasted" due to the design of PoW. And from here stems the problem of centralization. There are very few large mining pools and they are very large.
The danger of centralization due to pools is low. If a member of a pool doesn't like or doesn't trust its pool, then it can quickly and easily switch to another. A mining pool is only as powerful as its most apathetic members. The story of ghash.io provides an important lesson to pools that flirt with controversy. It will be interesting to see what happens to the cartel of BCH pools that are planning to take control of the BCH blockchain in May. |
|
|
|
If we were to go to a 100% bitcoin currency system. The banks and governments would loose control of whole financial system. The present governments would loose control.
Therefore a new system would be needed to run each country. What do you think would be the new body of control?
How could this work?
What type of system would be put in place on this.?
I don't think the people can control themselves as too many minds and ideas of where things can go in a direction. Therefore you still need a council or kingdom of control.
your thoughts.
Banks and governments would not lose all control. They would lose control of the base money supply and they would lose some ability to control how people spend their money. I think those losses of control are major benefits. There would be no need for new forms of control over people. |
|
|
|
^^^ You wanted an answer, you got one. The provided images while not exactly what I was looking for give some idea of what's going on.
I'm not wasting a massive amount of time producing or searching for illustrations and photos of an effect where agents have burnt a lot of time manually removing said images. I'll just take my chips to the cashier k thx.
The question at hand is whether the surface of earth curves or not, this is irregardless of what the lights in the sky are doing. Pointing at the lights in the sky is a distraction technique. The image you provided indicates that the earth is flat for as far as that camera can see.
You didn't really provide an answer. You provided some speculation. You claim that the firmament's concave mirror reflects the light and it wraps around, but you don't really know how that could even work. So, you are really just providing a guess and calling it an answer. I can accept that you don't have the ability to explain how some things work, but honestly I think that "I don't know" would go a lot further than providing some dubious and unsupported claim. You say that you don't want to waste time supporting your claim, but what about the time I waste trying to understand it? If you don't want anybody to waste their time, I suggest that you don't make claims that you are not willing to support. |
|
|
|
^^^ The firmament's concave mirror reflects the light and it wraps around.
That doesn't seem right. At noon, I could see the sun in the north as expected, but then as the day went on, it started heading around to the west and south. At what point did it become a reflection of itself, and why didn't perspective and refraction cause it to appear to set in the north like you would expect? Do you have a diagram to show how the light "wraps around" the firmament's concave mirror? Your images don't show that effect. I don't see how it is possible. |
|
|
|
|
A Bitcoin address is a base-58 encoding of a prefix byte followed by a 160 bit-hash followed by a checksum. To determine the number of possible addresses, follow these steps:
1. Decode the address prefix ("1Bitcoin" in your example) and determine the number of bits in the decoded data, N.
2. Subtract 8 from N to get the number of bits in the decoded portion of the 160-bit hash, P.
3. Subtract P from 160 to get the number of remaining bits in the hash, R.
4. The number of possible addresses is 2R. Note that this assumes that every 160-bit value is part of a legitimate address. That is likely, but it is not guaranteed.
In theory, I think it is possible to determine the number of decoded bits in #1, but I don't think it is as easy as it looks. I think you can calculate the number of bits by counting the number of characters following the initial 1's and multiplying that by 5.85 (ln 58 / ln 2) and then adding 8 times the number of initial 1's.
For example, 1BTC decodes to 25.57 bits of data (3 x 5.85 + 8 ).
1. N = 25.57
2. P = 17.57
3. R = 142.43
4. The number of possible addresses is 2142.43
|
|
|
|
There is no "pool" and I don't think that Occam's razor is relevant. There is simply some code that computes the correct amount of the subsidy for a block. At some point in the future, the amount will change from 1 satoshi to 0 and then forever remain at 0.
But doesn't that imply that there is a virtual pool? I introduced Occam's razor because I have seen some people say that the pool will never be emptied. I agree that that isn't true. Occam's razor is applicable when the shaved chunks become successively smaller. This isn't the case with Bitcoin, as the chunks remain at the same size for set periods. There is no pool. The amount of the subsidy is computed independently for each block based on its height. Here is the code ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp): CAmount GetBlockSubsidy(int nHeight, const Consensus::Params& consensusParams)
{
int halvings = nHeight / consensusParams.nSubsidyHalvingInterval;
// Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
if (halvings >= 64)
return 0;
CAmount nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 210,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
nSubsidy >>= halvings;
return nSubsidy;
}
... and Occam's razor has nothing to do with shaving. Occam's razor ... is the problem-solving principle that states that "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." ... It is sometimes paraphrased by a statement like "the simplest solution is most likely the right one". Occam's razor says that when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions, and it is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has never been mined. Miners mine blocks, and they receive rewards for their success. The rewards include transaction fees, and a payment from a depleting pool of Bitcoin, that was created when the genesis block was laid. This means that blocks will continue to be generated , even when the pool is empty. Some say that if one considers Occam's razor, then the pool will never be emptied, and when it is down to one Satoshi, then a further subdivision could be created. However, I haven't looked at the code to see if there is a mechanism to empty the pool once it drops to a certain level. I suspect that the pool will run out during a final "halved" stage, and the last reward that empties the pool will be incomplete.
Foes anyone have a better understanding of the final stage?
There is no "pool" and I don't think that Occam's Razor is relevant. There is simply some code that computes the correct amount of the subsidy for a block. At some point in the future, the amount will change from 1 satoshi to 0 and then forever remain at 0. |
|
|
|
Well, I have returned from my trip to Antarctica ... I took this picture off the coast of Antarctica at 1:30 am, facing south. The sun set a couple of hours before in the south and it rose in the south a couple hours later. I would be interested in knowing how the flat earth model explains this. According to my understanding of the flat earth model, the sun should be on the other side of the north pole right now, and not south of me. In fact, it should never be south of me if it is circling the Earth 3000 miles above the Tropic of Capricorn. https://i.imgur.com/jwal1dY.png |
|
|
|
In my opinion, bitcoin can be mined earlier than the year 2140, since we do not know how quickly new technologies will develop. Throw stones at me, but this is my personal opinion.  You might want to correct your misconception. Bitcoin is designed so that a prescribed number are created every 10 minutes, regardless of advances in technology. |
|
|
|
So I haven't been that long in the industry and from some articles I read online, I was made to understand every 3rd of January was assigned as a "proof of key" day and the event take place every year and today is 3rd of January but I was trying to observe if that would influence the price of bitcoin but haven't noticed anything extraordinary or am I making a conclusion too soon? For those who have been active in the space for quite sometime, does this event usually affect the price of bitcoin considering most users would likely sell their coins in anticipation of a dip in price.
It doesn't have anything to do with buying or selling so I don't think it will affect the price. On the other hand, if it causes an exchange to fail, that could result in a loss of confidence in Bitcoin , which may cause the price to fall. |
|
|
|
|
I think it is a bad idea for Google (or anyone else) to protect greedy people from their own stupidity.
|
|
|
|
The opinion by Tendayi Kapfidze is not unique. However, it is also a bit dubious. Based on his first statement, all investment markets are pyramid schemes. Investors benefit from others buying the same investment vehicles that they do. This applies to any and all markets, and isn’t unique to bitcoin.
I disagree. He gave the standard generalized definition of a pyramid scheme, and I agree with his opinion to some extent. It is hard to argue that Bitcoin has not become somewhat of a pyramid scheme in the last few years. Those people that claim that Bitcoin is a "store of value" and not a "medium of exchange" are describing a pyramid scheme, because the stored value does not come from the utility of Bitcoin, but from the belief that new people will invest in it. People that promote Bitcoin as a way to make money because it is a "store of value" are promoting a pyramid scheme. Unfortunately, because Bitcoin currently has very little utility, that is how many people are now promoting it. It is not surprising that intelligent people think of Bitcoin as a pyramid scheme -- because that is how it is being promoted! On the other hand, those of us who see Bitcoin as a "medium of exchange", or even a "store of value" because it is a "medium of exchange", don't see Bitcoin as a pyramid scheme. In order to convince people that Bitcoin is not a pyramid scheme, you must show them that it is primarily a medium of exchange. You must teach people that if they promote Bitcoin as primarily a "store of value", then they are promoting a pyramid scheme. |
|
|
|
dont need merit or rewards. but i bet the secret has something to do with the letter k
I'm guessing that the k value for the signature is 2020, and with that information you could derive the private key. I'm to lazy to check it, though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
