"Gun control" is working in Baltimore, keeping all law-abiding, sober, mentally-sound victims defenseless so rioters are safe.

I trust Hillary Clinton to be/do evil.

I can't find my own ballistic nylon bi-fold double ID wallet for sale anymore, but I don't need it to block RFID, so maybe something like:
www.ebay.com/itm/181471433635

BoxNation doesn't have it on their schedule. Probably the HBO/Showtime PPV channels that have licensed the fight want to exclusively stream it live, so nobody else legally can. If you wait a week, it might be reaired on HBO/Showtime regular channels, streaming, on-demand...

If I was on DT* and had limited time, I would probably subscribe to the RSS feeds or new topic email notifications for most subforums, so I could have a quick reference to new scams being posted for immediate reporting and/or neg trusting... rather than spending my limited time defending myself for even a single second, let alone minutes or hours daily?

*Which I'm not because I can't abide aggressive repeat libelers trying to get away with it by claiming they were joking.

This is what the ref link points to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

From what I've read, the optical recognition stuff I described already exists for counterfeit detection (NEC, et al), so no need to wait until 2057.

I wonder if those guys who coded the AI bot that got "arrested" by Swiss police will be happy to be paid half a billion, or mad that they had to wait until 2057 to be paid when they could have my ideas coded in a year. Unless I'm overestimating their abilities and they're about to have criminal charges filed against them because their bot was barely doing anything itself.

Nope, I still do not understand buying 1000 BTC for $220/$221k and calling it buying BTC for "$1 each" when $220,000/1000=$220/BTC no matter what point in time the numbers and functions are entered into a calculator.


I could because the contract would specify the payment method, date, amount of BTC, price for that amount of BTC, my BTC address, etc. Again:


I can't buy 1000 BTC for $220k now. Someone else could, who actually has $220k.


If this is how you try to "clarify", I can only imagine the hellscape you would paint in art school when directed to express the solution to 2+2=.


Maybe I'll leave them up as a monument for unclarity, after all.

I do not understand paying $221,000 for 1000 BTC at a rate of $221 USD/BTC when that bears zero relation to my OP terms or any conceivable rate of decline in BTC market price between now and May 6 2015. Someone with $221,000 to flush down the toilet could buy that much BTC right now.



Please describe this in more detail, or link to it.

Do you wish to delete your posts or shall I?

This topic was based on the assumption that the rate of decline of BTC market price would continue to be $10 USD per day (it magically stopped hemorrhaging around the time I posted this topic) until May 6 2015, at which point the market price would reach $1 USD/BTC.

I wanted to sign a contract that on May 6 2015 I would pay $1 USD per BTC for a minimum of 1000 BTC, without regard to the market price (there was no "if", nor will there ever be an "if"). I still want to do so.

I do not sign contracts that have numbers or words in them which only my counterparty and competent lawyers (who I cannot afford) understand.

http://btc-priceimg.herokuapp.com/img/20 img tag it:

Again, the bolded.

Too good to be true offers are received by everyone with email on a periodic basis - advance fee fraud. And in postal mail - other types of fraud. And via the phone. And everyone behind a door that strangers can easily get to, who parks their vehicle in public, or who can communicate with any other human being in any fashion whatsoever. If you don't go through life with the mindset of "trust no one, verify everyone", you will get scammed.

Nothing can prevent scams (on bitcointalk) from happening in the first place other than pre-post/pre-edit moderating all contact methods out of posts and eliminating the private message system, links to instant messengers, etc.

The most favorable description of default trust is "the good" - but logically, you cannot simultaneously have "the perfect" you described in bold: the good but flawed system is mutually exclusive of the perfect system.

It seems that those who illogically defend default trust the most, while hypocritically making "the perfect" the enemy of their "good", must be the ones who come up with


that ACTUALLY prevent(s) scams from happening in the first place.

ETA: Let's draw an analogy, though I'm not a master at it: you are stranded on a desert island with a laptop, satellite internet, and a cup, but do not call for rescue. You scoop up seawater with your cup and drink it. You do not drink any other water or liquid. You post on the internet that you're feeling worse by the day, describing your symptoms. People ask "what are you drinking?" - you tell them only unprocessed seawater. People tell you that you can't do that without eventually killing yourself. You tell them "but there's all the water I'd ever need to drink right here from the ocean! Screw you guys!" and throw your laptop into the ocean. Rather than heading inland to search for fresh water, moisture-rich foods, you die of extreme salt intake.

Economic suicide is happening everywhere, irrespective of "good" systems. At least TRY to be perfect, even if it's rarely possible to be.

The bolded bit sounds an awful lot like what your "opponents" have been saying; humans lacking both innate judgement and ability to judge even who should and shouldn't be "trust rangers" - as no human is omnipercipient - still get scammed.

I left off those examples because it would have taken me too long at the time to rough sketch the bot code. However, there a number of virtual mailboxes that operate off http://about.usps.com/forms/ps1583.pdf - a method that could conceivably be used to verify physical item receipt via the bot running a counterfeit check on the scanned bills and object recognition of physical goods shot from the proper perspective. Ultimate disposal of the cash or goods would probably have to be done by the agent in exchange for service credit or conversion to an ACH payment into the bot's account, which I suppose would be used to buy BTC and/or pay for more goods/gigs, or the bot's own hosting fees.

Trust farming could be screened for by having alternate bot usernames or human investigators retest anyone who gets trusted by the default trust bots.

What should the BTC unicode symbol replace on keyboards?

A fine, which paradoxically, can only be paid with BTC, so once women acquire BTC to pay the fine, they are instantly exonerated from having to pay it.