Your logic's not going very far. If you escape from a sinking ship into freezing water, you've got less than half an hour before you pass out from hypothermia and drown. If the water's not freezing, you might be able to survive for a day or two, but what are your chances of being rescued during that time? And a lifeboat by itself won't save you: it just keeps you alive for a few extra days. Unless your ship sinks close to the shore, you're pretty much fucked.

Of course. There are no special requirements for the output(s) of a generation transaction.

EDIT: Freakin' ninjas, man.

You can't possibly post seriously in the speculation forum while you don't have a speculative financial position. Put your money where your mouth is and step away from the keyboard.

It's a Poisson process, with a mean of 10 minutes. So...

63.212%

9.516%

1.653%

0.167%

Yes, it is quite easy to understand what happened to these inventions: they never worked is what happened to them.

What are you people on about? It's not subjective. It's a geometric figure composed of 15 vertices and 30 line segments. A closed figure composed of three sets of collinear line segments forms a triangle. How many triangles can be so formed from this figure? That is an objective question, and has a definite answer.

Yeah, I just found your other thread about that, thereby making my earlier response seem redundant. I've spoken on numerous occasions about the need for vanilla options, and now you're making me put my money where my mouth is. I'll need some time to think about this.

We already have some kind of insurance against that (you should know, you're providing it). What we need is a better kind of insurance, ie, vanilla options. Get to it.

I actually wasn't going to until I saw all the incorrect answers. I can understand 26; I can see how people might miss that the whole thing is a giant triangle. But 22? 34?? How do you get that? Do other people just suck at counting?

27

Charlie Shrem was sentenced to 2 years jail, finally putting an end to that little debacle. I think that's the most interesting thing that's happened during your absence. The US Marshals Service auctioned the second lot of coins seized from the Silk Road, but that's less interesting.

Utter bullshit is allowed if it's on topic. I think that's the reason dank wasn't banned sooner - he used to keep all his bullshit posts to his own bullshit threads.

Not for me.

What's wrong with donkeys?

Actually, there is only one reason to think that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, and that is that people are paying its inventor who promises to invest those monies profitably, but instead he is merely using the money to pay out earlier investors. But this is plainly not even remotely true of Bitcoin, therefore it is not a Ponzi scheme. It may overvalued, a speculative bubble, or any number of other things, but not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a specific type of scam which Bitcoin is not.

So, something is only valuable if you can force people to accept it? Funny, I thought thought something was only valuable if people are willing to accept it without being forced to. And I guarantee that very few of the people who use gold as money do so because they want to adorn themselves with it.

It has been duplicated. Many times. The duplicates are, without exception, almost entirely worthless. If you want to separate the coin from the technology, go ahead and try. Let us know how that works out for you.

And the problem is?
 
Without mining, how will you incentivise the security of the blockchain? Oh right, you were going to separate the coin from the technology. Carry on.

You've heard wrong.

Really? Every bank using its own currency? How will you pay people who use a different bank? Will you have to exchange your currency every time you go to the store? That doesn't seem very credible to me.

Why 10 years?

How does that make it a Ponzi scheme? In fact, how does that make it different from any other business?

Elaborate. What are the negatives? You can only make money in a free market by selling something people want to buy. You can't force people to buy something they don't want. Seller gets money, buyer gets something they want. What's the problem?

I don't get it. 64 dead and 687 injured from contaminated medication? That sounds like something worthy of investigation by the FBI. What's so controversial about that?

No, of course it reflects people demand. All bots are trading on behalf of real people, using real people's money. If there was no demand from real people, there'd be no bots.

He was BitInstant's AML compliance officer. By taking the job, he accepted a duty to report money laundering and ensure his company was complying with all relevant laws. The moment this duty conflicted with his own sense of ethics, he should have quit. Whether money laundering is ethical is beside the point, since he voluntarily agreed to enforce the laws (and the money laundering charge was dropped anyway).

It was the latter. Not only that, he used his position in the company to prevent btcking's transactions from being flagged as suspicious, and hide those transactions from the BitInstant's founder, Gareth Nelson. He abused his power in a blatantly illegal and unethical way, that's all there is to it.

Impossible. An ideal conductor cannot have a potential across it. An electric potential can only exist between two points if there is electrical resistance between those points. Maintaining that potential requires a constant power input. If the reasons for any of these points are not obvious, you need to go back to school.

This is the point where I gave up even trying to make sense of what you're saying. Orbiting potentials? Anyone else want to take a stab at it?


You left your keys in your car? What kind of idiot are you? Well, I guess you're only an idiot if you make the same sort of mistake twice.

Okay, now you're an idiot.