Oh my God are there 80% lunatics on here .. i see hundreds of people cheering and 2 3 4 5 people speaking out . it's like an obama election .
It's ok... you're making up for it in double-postings. Let me ask you this: Is it wrong for people to trade Bitcoins for goods and services? Let me further ask you this: Is money (yes, even fiat) not a representation of goods sold and services performed? And to take it further: Is it wrong for people to trade Bitcoins for fiat currency? And another step: How are people supposed to EASILY trade Bitcoins for fiat currency without using fiat currency's existing infrastructure? Still going: How can it be a bad thing to make Bitcoins easier for people to get their hands on? That is all. |
|
|
|
|
I thought all the connections happened through IRC somehow anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
My hypothesis is that the ignore button is largely used to give people justification for not responding to others, but users still often show posts of the people they ignore, just because they are curious what that person is saying.
|
|
|
|
|
This has been discussed multiple times here before. I think it is an idea that holds merit.
"In an effort to attempt to control and track transactions made through the now-ubiquitous Bitcoin network, the government has required every citizen to be injected with a NFC chip, with which they will hold funds and verify transactions. Furthermore, a permanent government-provided stamping visually indicating that an individual has a valid NFC chip is required. This unique, non-replicable stamping will allow businesses to easily verify the legitimacy of anyone whom they wish to transact with.
"Any violators conducting transactions in Bitcoin outside of their own NFC chip will face prison time up to 5 years and/or fines up to 50,000 Satoshis. Subsequent violations carry penalties of lifetime in prison, or death."
Think about it. How else would any government be able to control spending or track transactions other than through the blockchain, and having each address identify a specific individual? And when 90% of transactions have identifiable senders and receivers, it would be pretty easy to track down the other 10% as soon as it entered the "legitimate" market of spending. A black-marketer couldn't go and spend his loot at Taco Bell, for instance, as it would connect him to illegitimately-gotten goods.
I think Bitcoin fits in perfectly with this prediction.
|
|
|
|
I give it two months before there are real problems between Paysius and their fiat banking partners. It won't be their fault, of course, but this will not last.
There's something seriously wrong with estalishing partnership with liquid dough fixing psychopaths . i held my tongue until at least someone who has some feeling put it in a just perspective . . i think .. I am absolutely blown a way i can not fully fathom or grasp what i'm feeling . Liquid dough fixing psychopaths? I am trying to figure out what that is a euphemism for... eccentric pretzel-makers, perhaps? Regardless, why are you getting all worked up about this? If you don't like the service, you don't have to use it. |
|
|
|
I was wondering about that reply. BFL has more exeperience creating ASIC devices? I call BS.  Maybe they're referring to hiring someone, either as an employee or a contractor, who has experience making ASICs. I think that's exactly what they are referring to. It is common for companies to refer to themselves as having "51 years of combined experience" in such and such a field. I think when BFL claims to be experienced in creating ASICs, they mean that their engineers have designed ASICs in the past, and thus have experience in designing ASICs. |
|
|
|
Rumour has it that the 10 people involved in the beginning mined (difficulty 1) about 1.5 million bitcoins between them. Which is fair enough for what they have added to the world.
1.5 million BTC is 30,000 blocks, which would need 208 days to be mined. I'm obviously new to this, but I doubt that ten people were solo mining for 7 months without anyone else noticing / being involved. Even they somehow did it though, I'd say it's far from 'fair enough'. Given that there will be only 21 million BTC ever created, it would mean that someone (or ten people) will be holding 7% of the currency's monetary base. So, all we've managed to do is substitute FED, ECB, ... (you name it) with Satoshi and company. Hope that's not the case though, or else... The difficulty was 1 for many 2016-block windows. It should have been lower, but 1 was the lowest it could go. It actually took longer than 2 weeks to mine 2016 blocks, but that was as fast as the diff 1 could produce. Eventually they were mining MORE than 6 blocks an hour, but not enough for the network to recalculate the difficulty to 2. Now-a-days, we don't have that problem.  If the network is 3.02% faster, the diff goes up by 3.02%. It's much more accurate today (not including variance). And ya, the difficulty was 1 for about the first 30,000 blocks, just like you said, and took almost a solid year.   And the diff was still ~20 almost 6 months later, at block 60,000! I know the hashrate even for a CPU was very low back then (strides in coding efficiency has made it much faster, perhaps by an order of magnitude), but I am curious... how many CPU's could have mined then without the difficulty increasing? This may help determine how many individuals hold on to those 2.5M coins generated in the first year. |
|
|
|
I don't see anywhere that it says limit order.
It doesn't have to state that, because that is exactly how it acts. Look at your order history to confirm it. |
|
|
|
I would ask you whether or not someone who is unable to produce enough value to sustain even their own lives is entitled to the products of those who are able to sustain their own lives? Do you believe a market wage till tend to be unfairly decoupled from a workers marginal revenue product in a free market society?
If a worker accepts employment in which he does not receive a high enough wage to sustain himself, then he's an idiot. A worker should only accept employment in which he receives a high enough wage to sustain himself. If all workers do this, it creates a natural minimum wage floor. The minimum wage floor gives the job seeker some bargaining power, in a sense. Put another way, it kind of removes the ability for the job seeker to be an idiot and accept a job for which he cannot sustain himself. But, it would be much better for the free market to determine what this sustainability wage floor should be, instead of the government. The problem is, the idiots may reduce that wage floor for everyone else, making it more difficult for those who are not idiots to find a job in which he can sustain himself. you may be missing the point that it is in the interest of some workers to work for a wage that is not high enough to sustain themselves. Imagine a teenager who has all of his needs met by his parents and gains valuable work experience from the low wage job. A very valid point indeed. So then, jobs that require little experience and can be worked part-time would be overtaken by teenagers who already have their basic needs met. They would compete with each other to find an artificial floor, something along the lines of "the wage is more beneficial than the opportunity cost and benefit I could have by participating in other activities". Maybe $4/hr or something. I know when I was still in high school, I didn't like work all that much, and the $5.95/hr I was paid in my first job was just barely enough to keep me interested in working instead of doing other activities. More aged workers who need a higher wage to sustain themselves would have to differentiate themselves from these teenage workers in order to compete. Experience would be the large factor here, perhaps with ability to work a full-time, non-flexible schedule being a close second. Those are valuable traits to many companies wishing to hire, traits for which they very well may be willing to pay a significant amount higher to attract non-teenagers to the positions. |
|
|
|
I'd rather see ads on my screen than pay to view articles, even if it is a tiny amount.
That is because you don't understand the simple matter = your sensors are receiving all information at all times, but you become aware of just part of it. "That what I'm not aware of can do me no harm" = no, it does not work that way. So you're saying my preference is wrong?  I say you go and install AdBlockPlus and Ghostery, use them for a week and than turn them off for next week. You'll see the issue 1st hand. I say I want to support the sites I visit, so I will not do that. If I prefer to see ads instead of make micropayments to view webpages, that is my prerogative. |
|
|
|
Is only one fish big sized now or is it a static or dynamic threshold? Is there a bigger size we haven't seen yet?
I lol'd. This is still the only Bitcoin-based poker site (that I know of) accepting US players! Cheers! And develop an iOS version already  |
|
|
|
Still no US players allowed...  |
|
|
|
I'd rather see ads on my screen than pay to view articles, even if it is a tiny amount.
That is because you don't understand the simple matter = your sensors are receiving all information at all times, but you become aware of just part of it. "That what I'm not aware of can do me no harm" = no, it does not work that way. So you're saying my preference is wrong? |
|
|
|
As much as I'd like to jump right in and say "hell yeah", without ads, the internet would be dead. It costs money to run the internet, and ads generate money, and make it easier for us, the end user, to use.
No, that's actually what ad networks want you to believe. Without ad networks to drip-drop-drip cents into websites we would already have decent micropayment systems for web services, like we should have had a bazillion years ago. The absurd "everything is free, lol" mentality would never had the chance to infect a whole generation, it there was a system where say reading an article on the web costs 0,1 cents with an easy transparent per-use payment resolvement. Alas, I fear it is too late now. Ad networks already have destroyed any chance of that. I'd rather see ads on my screen than pay to view articles, even if it is a tiny amount. I think most people feel the same way, which is why ads, not micropayments, became the dominant method of revenue on content-publishing sites. It's all about it feeling free, not it necessarily being free. Exactly. Making any payment whatsoever, even a very small amount, would make many people feel subconsciously guilty about aimlessly browsing the web. |
|
|
|
That's a pretty good price for what you get. If I needed another server... |
|
|
|
As much as I'd like to jump right in and say "hell yeah", without ads, the internet would be dead. It costs money to run the internet, and ads generate money, and make it easier for us, the end user, to use.
No, that's actually what ad networks want you to believe. Without ad networks to drip-drop-drip cents into websites we would already have decent micropayment systems for web services, like we should have had a bazillion years ago. The absurd "everything is free, lol" mentality would never had the chance to infect a whole generation, it there was a system where say reading an article on the web costs 0,1 cents with an easy transparent per-use payment resolvement. Alas, I fear it is too late now. Ad networks already have destroyed any chance of that. I'd rather see ads on my screen than pay to view articles, even if it is a tiny amount. I think most people feel the same way, which is why ads, not micropayments, became the dominant method of revenue on content-publishing sites. |
|
|
|
Let me translate it to you = CoinURL can charge up to 100% commission fee without notice to any user in its sole discretion.
Suggest your variant how to write this clause in ToS... P.S. I just don't understand why some people in this thread are so angry on this commission! I can set it to zero, but next month CoinURL will be offline due to unpaid hosting bill. Do you want this? Or do you think all is free? I don't think anyone wants this, but it's the fact that you were being so secretive about these fees that made everyone angry. - By the sound of it, you didn't notify current users of the service that you were now charging a commission fee on withdrawals. - You didn't have the commission fee displayed anywhere that would be accessible to someone who had not yet signed up. - You had text/advertising up that stated it was a fee-free service, and that the users would receive 100% of the funds, which wasn't true. If you had been more up-front about the fees, I think people would have been much more understanding. |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is why you did this without talking to the owner first though.
Yeah, that's the part that seems fishy. There is more likely more to this story than he's sharing, IMHO. No I was just lazy. "Dear Boss i want to accept bitcoins as payment in your taxi". What would my boss say? " what is bitcoins? explain it but i dont have more then 2 minutes" he wouldn understand what the hell bitcoins is. And there are no national laws about "bitcoins" so it would be impossible for his accounting to manage the bitcoin in/output. So I did it by myself. Let's do a mind trick. Replace bitcoins with dollars. Would your boss still fire you if you accepted dollar bills in your taxi as payment? No, but he might if you start an impromptu currency exchange whereby you sell other people dollar bills. Which is essentially the reason he was fired. He was not fired for accepting Bitcoins. He was fired for selling them. |
|
|
|
|
I just noticed also that they now call the firstbits "Short Links". Trying to disassociate with the original name?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
