|
All your posts are about loans and you're a new member...
This seems legit so if you post your address I'll send it to you.
|
|
|
|
i have one 0.10 btc that can be lent to a member of community here.
i will require 0.11 back
you Must provide me with Proof of Identity and Address.
this loan will last for 7 days only
I don't know why people want to expose their personal information for only 12 bucks. Ridiculous Why would it matter if you give info so long as you pay him back? Even people who buy off of SR expose their personal info. |
|
|
|
ha fair enough!
At least you were honest about why you wanted the loan. |
|
|
|
|
I like how Forbes makes a big deal about how they communicated with him, despite the fact that literally anyone with a computer could go on the SR forums and talk to him.
|
|
|
|
Interesting. He makes it sound as if the SR economy is as big as the Bitcoin economy. It makes me wonder if Bitcoin really is primarily a vehicle for SR type trading with some small-time legitimate business frosting on top to make it look legit.
I'd say this is true. Maybe not drug dealing necessarily, but gambling makes up the majority of transactions. Certainly, most of the time if people want an "anonymous" (or pseudonymous) transaction they are not buying something completely legitimate. |
|
|
|
I think the sent feedback should be a different color than the given feedback. For example, I left negative feedback on a user's trust page, so when people glance at my trust page they see that bright red comment, even though it is not about me. Maybe sent negative feedback could be a dark red?
Well, that's just ignorance on their part. If they can't be bother to notice the difference between "sent" feedback and "untrusted/trusted feedback" then you probably don't want to deal with them anyways. |
|
|
|
Moderation is not that hard, unless you have personal issues. What's wrong with this?
Nothing is wrong with taking drugs in moderation, so long as you know the effects and dosage. The only drug which is horrible to take even once I think is Krokodil, but that's a serious drug. Heroin and meth are put to shame by that. |
|
|
|
Really give this guys some spare BTC he deserves some help for what he did !
I thought he was doing it for the greater good, not money? Besides, what's he going to spend the bitcoins on? |
|
|
|
The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.
Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887. What i meant was when during the 90s there were serious attempts to adopt it in Europe, havent heard a word about it since then. I think it was most serious during WWII, when Stalin and Hitler thought it was such a threat that they sent Esperantists to the gulags or concentration camps. And also, that other post I quoted inspired me starti lernas la lingvo. I'm also all in favour of Esperanto, although I see it more as an interesting experiment than something that really has a chance to win (at least not any longer). The grammar is quite nice, though.  (And shouldn't it be "starti lerni la lingvon"? But I've never really spoken any Esperanto, just read a bit.) At the time of that post, I had just started. I tried to say "inspired me to start learning the language", so I think that lernas could be correct. But the lack of n was definitely wrong, so thanks. While I don't see it ever becoming a major language, I do think it's cool because it follows set rules. However, I think the language is ugly as hell. It looks like a mixture of Hungarian, Spanish, and Russian written phonetically. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure any attempts to sell alcohol or drugs over the internet through bitcoins would be shut down pretty quickly.
 |
|
|
|
I understand what you're trying to do... but is it really helpful to abuse the trust system? If I asked for a loan would you give me negative trust? It isn't abusing the trust system by giving negative trust to someone who registered a new account and within four hours requested a (equiv) $11K USD loan. I challenge you to find a single successful loan request that was made by a same-day account that was ever paid back. You can begin your search using forum search feature here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=searchLet me know if you can find one because honestly I've never heard of a single one in the history of the Lending sub-section. I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I could be wrong since I haven't really checked that thoroughly. But without putting much effort into it I can probably point you to several dozen same-day loan request which were filled and NEVER paid back. This one I could somewhat understand, because it's so obvious. But I see you do it on pretty much every single noob loan. Maybe someone did legitimately sign up here only to get a loan. It's not impossible. But abusing the trust system because of what you think is just ridiculous. And really, all it does is make me (and I'm sure others) not want to trust you. |
|
|
|
Only Fabian PC faggots call them Roma, which is actually a kind of firm, tasteless tomato. Everyone else calls them Gypsies and is tired of their mooching, violence, disgusting lack of sanitation, and antipathy towards education or any other form of cultural/individual betterment. But you keep demanding 'More Free Shit' for them, and calling any who object Nazis. Meanwhile, we'll get some nice, warm ovens ready for you and the rest of the socialists, Marxists, and fellow travellers. So you're racist and homophobic... If Hitler was still alive he'd be proud that there are people like you still gracing the world with our presence. So you're authoritarian and transnationalist... If Lenin was still alive he'd be proud that there are people like you still gracing the world with your presence. /isn't life in a post-Godwin thread fun? Authoritarian? Because I think racism is wrong? If disagreeing with racism is authoritarian, then yes, I am authoritarian. |
|
|
|
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734206&download=yes The most recent studies find a significant negative correlation: An increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5 to 1 percent lower annual growth rate. http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844743534Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson make a strong case that there is a robust negative correlation between government size and economic growth. They base that conclusion on a review of econometric literature using panel data for high-income countries.
..... elementary economic reasoning that tells us that economic costs of taxation rise approximately in proportion to the square of the tax rate provides a more powerful case against big government than the results of cross-country econometric studies.
.... The chapter of the book I enjoyed most is the one discussing the effects of high taxation on the choice between income-earning activities and non-income-earning activities. Economists usually view this as a choice between work and leisure and some even argue that high tax rates are likely to make people happier by inducing them to enjoy more leisure with family and friends rather than working. In the real world, however, when people are not earning income much of their time is spent on unpaid household chores. I doubt whether people obtain much more pleasure from housework and weeding the garden than from working for pay.
Seems like a solid empirical case is now being built for smaller governments ... long past time, imho. A recent study by J603 shows that China has one of the fastest growing economies and an authoritarian government. another study by the same individual shows that Somalia, which has no central government, is growing slower than Haiti, which was destroyed recently. Let's look at the top 25 (CIA World Factbook) and list their type of government. I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct? Because obviously the bigger the country, the more people in government, so it would be pointless to measure physical size. Red countries are not fully democratic (they may vote but there might be restrictions). Green are. Libya - Parliamentary Republic (although not everyone is allowed to run)
104.50 Sierra Leone - Democratic Republic
19.80 Mongolia - Democratic Republic
12.30 Niger - Democratic Republic (but the president was ousted in a 2010 coup and is still a prisoner)
11.20 Turks and Caicos Islands - Not a country (owned by UK) 11.20 Turkmenistan - Dictatorship
11.00 Panama - Democratic Republic
10.70 Afghanistan - Islamic Republic (occupied by the US and others)
10.20 Macau - Not a country (owned by PR China). 10.00 Timor-Leste - Democratic Republic
10.00 Cote d'Ivoire - Democratic Republic (in the midst of civil war, many war crimes committed)
9.80 Bhutan - Constitutional Monarchy
9.70 Papua New Guinea - Parliamentary Democracy
9.10 Iraq - Islamic Republic
8.40 Angola - Republic (President has absolute power)
8.40 Liberia - Democratic Republic (not purely democratic)
8.30 Laos - Single Party Socialist Republic
8.30 Uzbekistan - Presidential Republic (crack down on opposition)
8.20 Burkina Faso - Presidential Republic
8.00 China - Single Party Socialist Republic
7.80 Rwanda - Presidential Republic
7.70 Tajikistan - Presidential Republic
7.50 Mozambique - Democratic Republic
7.50 Zambia - Democratic Republic
7.30 Armenia - Democratic Republic (government controls media and discriminates against minorities)
7.20It would appear as though the strength and power of government has nothing to do with growth. |
|
|
|
That's why I don't have Euros here in the US... However if I went to Europe I could pay for gas, rent, and food with Euros. I can't pay for those anywhere with bitcoin.
Also, I believe the topic says "Why do people trust in fiat money?" not "Why do people trust in Euros?" or "Why do people trust in USD?" It is implied that when someone says "fiat" they are talking about the government issued legal tender, ie; what people actually use. There is no country where fiat is not accepted because it is the official, legal tender of a country.
There is one country that accept bitcoin payment, but this country does not physically exist, in fact it exists everywhere on this planet where people accept the bitcoin payment. And this country's economy is growing at an amazing speed The "value" of the bitcoin economy is increasing... If you measure it in fiat. A bitcoin is worth $100 only in USD. If measured in material goods it is worthnext to nothing, as you simply cannot buy all necessary items with bitcoins. Until this happens it is impossible to have a bitcoin economy. There is no bitcoin economy or dollar economy, there is really one world economy which is sometimes divided due to tariffs and monetary controls. The money that is used, is simply the best money available to the traders. We think that bitcoin is the best money ever by traits, except for a few fringe trade scenarios. If you don't see that, it is ok for me, just sit back and let it happen, and start using bitcoin as the last user. The bitcoin enthusiasts here see that, buy into bitcoin before the rest, and take a nice profit. A "few fringe trade scenarios". Here are some minor annoyances that come up when buying bitcoins (I already said this, but it has to be said again): I go to the grocery store, pick out my stuff, go to the register. Me: Hi, I'd like to pay in bitcoins. Cashier: What I go to Irving to get some gas. Me: Hi, can I pay in bitcoins? Cashier: What I go to my landlord to pay my rent. Me: Hi, can I pay this in bitcoins? Landlord: ¿Que? Currently, the only "profit" that is to be made is in fiat. Like I already said, even if bitcoins went up to 1,000,000 today it wouldn't matter because I can't buy any necessities with them. My only option to get rich would be to cash out. |
|
|
|
I guess i wasn't clear. I didn't mean to suggest Pascal's Wager had much merit -- just the opposite. I brought it up to highlight the ridiculousness of the "always bet on the unlimited positive potential" argument.
I didn't think you believed in Pascal's Wager which is why I didn't quote you, but I guess that I should have been clear in that it wasn't directed towards you, but rather towards other people who were using it (or at least the idea behind it) to make decisions about cryptocurrencies. I really just wanted to get the point out that placing your bets on one cryptocurrency is irrational, because there's a greater chance of it failing than succeeding, no matter how great or well thought out it may seem. Also, I didn't come up with the "There may be other gods" argument, so I'm sure that there's more to it. Unfortunately I forgot what the name of the idea is. |
|
|
|
this is still all just talk. someone around that area actually do something. this has been going on for months. its so frustrating watching you guys let him get away with it -_-
indeed. I am not familiar with US court system but isn't there a mediator level court (in my country we call it small claims court) where costs are very minimal? In our system at this level it's run by a mediator & people present their claims themselves. Decisions are legally binding & invariably backed up by any appeal to district court. Seems a good first step & if Austin had 0.4BTC to burn on this thread in the first place surely he has the 0.5 or so it would cost to go to something like this? It would also make for better reading for the next 25 pages of this crap, kind of a season 2 feel! ^^ Yes, there is a small claims court in the US which anyone who's been scammed could go to. At the very least even if they can't force him to pay back the loan they can make him pay the court fees. |
|
|
|
Sadly Joey's scams are more straight forward and less stupid than this so I think that this guy's independent. |
|
|
|
Past history has shown that people who borrow large sums of BTC (or any sum of BTC for that matter) have a markedly higher risk of becoming seriously injured to the point of requiring extended stays at a hospital, preventing them from paying back their loans or even logging into the forum. I flagged this guy with negative trust for his own protection and safety.
I understand what you're trying to do... but is it really helpful to abuse the trust system? If I asked for a loan would you give me negative trust? |
|
|
|
No, he is free to do whatever he wants with the benefit money. He's not allowed to buy illegal drugs. While that statement is, in itself, mostly true, there are things you can do with your benefit money (like waterskiing) that show you aren't really disabled at all. Just being able to engage in a combination of sitting, standing and/or walking for a full eight hours a day falls outside the category of disabled. That fat fuck sits on his leathery ass eight hours or more at a stretch. His "back problem" is fucking bullshit and he's stealing taxpayer money. Ok, are smart ass comments really productive? As far as I know he doesn't spend it on drugs. He gets disability money from being bi-polar, which I have no problem believing is true. He could water ski if he wants. |
|
|
|
Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan.
Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless.
Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers.
Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region.
McDonald's is a franchise. How many employees per store there are is not the McDonald's company's choice. Even if an individual McDonald's makes no money, the company still profits in the end off of that establishment. And all businesses focus on profits, but some (like McD's) make more than others. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
