How much does it cost to purchase a seal of approval?
In other words, how can we make this incorruptible?
A committee? Let's play the price is right.
It should be forbidden to accept any funding from the businesses being rated. That would be the primary difference from the regular BBB that I alluded to. Of course, but what mechanism do you propose to prevent this kind of activity? Yeah that's gonna be pretty hard to enforce, particularly since you are talking about people that you will probably never actually meet in person. Also you can search for UABB to find some previous discussions about problems with trust. Not to say it wouldn't work, but it'd be difficult to do. |
|
|
|
The best I've ever seen....  Boobies uptop is 2nd...  |
|
|
|
|
Not many people use ellipses in place of commas or periods...Bruce was one of them...guess he's saying you're bruce...we'll never know...
Edit:...
|
|
|
|
|
Works fine for me, I'm guessing you're having issues with flash, not those particular websites.
|
|
|
|
Then perhaps there needs to be a deposits subforum. While deposits/loans can be considered the same thing, I'd argue the loans are typically given by the more trusted to the less trusted, whereas the deposits are given by the less trusted to the more trusted and as such, represent two different market segments. The people stickied in the deposits subform, while not officially endorsed, would be your long term, seemingly highly reliable people.
Absolutely not. The sooner you realize that loans and deposits are ABSOLUTELY the same thing, the sooner you'll wise up and realize that the risk profile is no different. We will not separate deposits from regular loans other than through the "Who Pays What?" sticky, no exceptions. So then why aren't we arguing that bonds are the same thing? After all, there's nothing to verify that those people have actually bought anything or done anything, yet we have a securities board. It seems John (johnthedong) and matthewh3 seem to agree with me, at least in principle, so surely I'm not being that unreasonable. I have to wonder if it'd be more acceptable had someone else proposed it first, since it seems you oppose most anything I have to say the last few weeks. I don't know which way I'm leaning in this one, but you should make a separate thread about it, and make your case there so theymos can read it. |
|
|
|
|
There is an option to save outgoing pms in your profile. It doesn't save them by default though.
The PM system does kind of blow though, should be threaded.
|
|
|
|
Hi, I am here at bitcointalk because I have started to dig a bit deeper in some companies running spam and scam operations. One of your forums ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96774.0) was popping up in that context. That discussion referred to a likely fraud originating from an address I have also located. Therefore I would like to post a related (and likely highly relevant) answer to that discussion for others to see. Kind regards poohbear Ok |
|
|
|
I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.
I agree, having them sticky looks like the forum supports them and makes them seem more legit than they are. Doesn't look good for anyone. Glad to see you're taking steps to rectify the situation, was gonna do it myself eventually  . |
|
|
|
There is still time to get back in before we get to $20...  And if we don't? If you don't get in before 20? Well I suppose there's always time to get in before we get to $30. |
|
|
|
No, the point is, tax-funded research is a gamble that I don't have a say in. It's one thing if I gamble with my money. it's another thing entirely if you're gambling with my money (that you took from me by force).
You can always move if you don't like the laws in the country you choose to live in. I'm kinda arguing against myself here, but sometimes that's not a realistic option. Particularly for Myrkul, since an AnCap alternative is not yet available. There are initial moving costs, employment opportunity costs, and travel costs for visiting family too. Sure I'm being extreme, but so is saying "Taxation is theft". Sure it's true if it's his belief system, but taxes are just a side effect of government. That's the root of the problem, so arguing one of the consequences is kind of moot, since it's inevitably going to turn into another ancap thread (already did). Or even degrees of taxation, what should be taxed, and what they should pay for since taxes are more or less a given. Like the old saying, death and taxes. |
|
|
|
No, the point is, tax-funded research is a gamble that I don't have a say in. It's one thing if I gamble with my money. it's another thing entirely if you're gambling with my money (that you took from me by force).
You can always move if you don't like the laws in the country you choose to live in. |
|
|
|
Right, but the point is If the end result is that the research would help more than spending on his own crops, any rational farmer would fund the research. If the end result is the research would help less than spending on his own crops, no rational farmer would. There's no way to quantify what research is worth beforehand, because this isn't a video game where you can choose to tech up to level two crops and increase yields by 20%. |
|
|
|
Sorry looks like I was wrong wasting everybody's time. Pointing out that access to and trading of THE anonymous cryptocurrency is limited because the biggest entry point is regulated like PayPal is hardly a waste of time IMHO... Agreed, it's a good thing to point out that while bitcoins may be fairly anonymous, when you use services that interact with banks you are giving that up for convenience. |
|
|
|
For a long time now I've used some of the smaller exchanges anonymously. MTGOX is were the volume is and I've wanted to access that volume for a long time. I'm wanting to be able to trade volumes of 1000's of BTC per day which is not yet possible on any of the smaller exchanges. I've avoided MTGOX because of their ID requirements, but I'm currently reading more and more threads where MTGOX has made comments about being able to use their site without submitting ID to them. What I'm wanting is clear information to avoid any traps, triggers, or pitfalls of having any chance of having my account frozen or providing ID. It seemed clear to me that other's on this forum are wanting the same thing which is why I posted here. MTGOX hasn't yet replied. Sorry looks like I was wrong wasting everybody's time.
They won't tell you that, people would use it to their advantage to get around the rules. |
|
|
|
For counterexample, the tomato state could sell some tomatoes and spend the proceeds on public tomato farming research, thus increasing the total tomato supply even more.
It could. That funding could just as easily (and more efficiently) have come directly from the farmers themselves, however. If you give a rational tomato farmer the choice between A. Spending on his own crops (which helps him a lot) B. Spending it on tomato research (which helps him little) He will choose A, even though B helps the average tomato farmer more. It's a prisoner's dilemma. If each person spends on his own crops, then, would not all the farmers be better off by a lot, rather than the little the research would produce? Your example doesn't make much sense. If the end result is that the research would help more than spending on his own crops, any rational farmer would fund the research. If the end result is the research would help less than spending on his own crops, no rational farmer would. Let's say spending on his own crops nets an increased yield of 3 tomatoes, and that research would result in an increased yield of 2 tomatoes for everyone. It would then be in everyone's best interest to spend on their own crops. But if the research would yield 5 more tomatoes for everyone, it's now in everyone's best interest to fund the research, and it would get funded. And how are you going to know what the increased yields from research will be? You don't. |
|
|
|
It would help to know if you are talking about Burt Wagner or Bruce Wagner. Based on what you write it looks like you are talking about Bruce.
Same, I assumed it was Bruce too. Bruce is a dirtbag, Burt is a good guy. |
|
|
|
|
Why would he trust you and send you any money when you've already shown yourself to be dishonest?
|
|
|
|
|
I think I got this in my email the other day. Send me money my inheritance is coming anytime!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
