The thing with these early adopters is we shouldn't try and convince them to adopt Bitcoin because of what it does but why they should care about Bitcoin in general. The early adopter probably will not see an immediate benefit to offering this payment option, hell it might even be an extra cost they absolutely can't afford right now.. But they might want to adopt it because they believe in the reasons for why one should use Bitcoin and maybe in time, with enough early adopters they'll start seeing some benefits of extra customers ect.. So I guess what I'm trying to get a cross is don't focus on the financial benefit for these early adopter businesses but rather on the value of innovating their business to themselves with a potential of a benefit far off in the future.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp0HIF3SfI4
|
|
|
The US government forced all Swiss banks to conform to their rules about how private they want to be. Please. There is no country or bank on this planet that isn't controlled by the status quo. What makes you think a legal team can change that.
They can and are doing what they want and we will either overcome their roadblocks or get defeated by them.
|
|
|
i hear the pessimism loud and clear. i just think we can change things. y'all wouldn't be here if you didn't think so too.
When we have technology in every home that can stop bullets and other weapons the state is more than willing to use to impose it's will on the people I'll believe you. Until then, you, my friend, are living in a fantasy world.
|
|
|
the price chart says it all. Riiiiiiiiight, just like the price charts in housing before 07/08 pop said it all huh? ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Please. You're clueless if you're thinking the price charts say it all.
|
|
|
I'm sensing the OP misunderstands what Bitcoin is and how it works..
To be clear. If a business has billions in cash sitting around and were willing to buy 7.5 milliom bitcoins, how much would each bitcoin be worth to you? Let's just say that the would require ID and a contract to sell. The contract would be null and void if they did not receive 90% of the outstanding bitcoin. This is an excercise to find what people feel bitcoin is worth. The remaining 12.5 M bitcoin are still still up for grabs by miners. Oh ok, $50000 a pop would be enough in my case then. And I'd make sure to keep a few BTC cents.
|
|
|
I'm sensing the OP misunderstands what Bitcoin is and how it works..
|
|
|
What bugs me the most in this thread is that he didn't even address my suggestions about transparency but he just ignored it..
If I was running a legit operation, I know I wouldn't do that.
|
|
|
Unbelievable. Anyway you're too deep under so I'm going to stop wasting my time in this thread. I suggest you show Stef's argument and my points about it's flaws to an impartial 3rd party who hasn't yet been exposed to the argument and listen to their opinion which might perhaps wake you up and perhaps you can also report back to me what they tell you ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
May be you are confusing "prefered" with "preferable".
Maybe you should learn that they mean one and the same but are not synonymous with required. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) pre·fer (pr-fûr) tr.v. pre·ferred, pre·fer·ring, pre·fers 1. To choose or be in the habit of choosing as more desirable or as having more value: prefers coffee to tea. 2. Law a. To give priority or precedence to (a creditor). b. To file, prosecute, or offer for consideration or resolution before a magistrate, court, or other legal authority: preferred the suit in a higher court. 3. Archaic To recommend for advancement or appointment; promote. pref·er·a·ble (prfr--bl, prfr-) adj. More desirable or worthy than another; preferred: Coffee is preferable to tea, I think. Like I said, the spell Stef keeps you under is truly astonishing.
|
|
|
Oh and I'd like you to address the bold bit: It doesn't matter if you have two oranges, or two apples, or two dogs: the number two is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible 2 things). It doesn't matter if you have a green chair, and a blue chair, and an old chair: the concept "chair" is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible chair).
Get it now?
It doesn't matter if you hold "truth" to be objective and universally preferable in a debate, or if you have a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints in a debate or if you have a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers in a debate or if you have a deliberation/consideration in a debate: the concept of "debate" is valid in all of those cases(it fits every possible debate).Yep I get it. p.s.: there is no such thing as universally preferable, since preference is always subjective it can't possibly be universal, what is universal is a requirement, but a requirement != preference and this is something you wont even address..
|
|
|
Last attempt: Nobody said preference = requirement. You have to clarify what preference, and for what purpose. Example: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required) to head to the west.
Bwahahahaha you can't be serious.. Do you not see you just contradicted yourself while pretended that preference = requirement when you said it is universally preferable(required) to head west? It's not preferable, it's required! Period. Look, I see Stef confused you about the meaning of both words so I'll explain them to you. Pay attention! A preference expresses your desire to pick something from either group A over something in group B (from options: west AND east) but INCLUDES both groups. A requirement expresses the only choice available between group A or group B and excludes the one over the other(from options: west OR east). For example if you say you prefer going west over east, you are saying you'd like to go west most of the time but not necessarily always. Sometimes you might reluctantly go east. But if you say you are required to go west, then you are saying you don't have a choice but must always go west. East isn't an option. And this is a simple logical operation of AND and OR. What Stef and you are doing is pretending AND = OR, 2+2=5 5=4, preference = requirement. As soon as you do that anything else you utter is invalid. Therefor saying "In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required) to head to the west." IS COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE. The correct example would be "In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is required to head to the west." Or you could say "In order to get by car anywhere from New York, it is preferable to head to the west as opposed to south or north even though you still might go those directions. It's truly astonishing over how many people Stef manages to hold this spell where he convinced them that somehow, because he pretended it's true, preference = requirement. p.s.: So I want get accused of dodging anything: A) Yes I have a preference for truth, but it's my own subjective preference.. just because I have it, it doesn't mean every single human being has it, ask any liar. B) No, in order to find the truth(a subjective goal) using logic and evidence is REQUIRED behavior, just as in order to stay alive as a human being, eating is a REQUIRED behavior. C) Just because anyone wouldn't take me seriously, doesn't mean I'd never prefer a lie over the truth, I mean come on, this is kindergarten stuff
|
|
|
BTW it's so hilarious how religiously you'll defend an invalid argument just because it came from a person who you clearly look up to. Why can't you put your objective hat on for a moment and truly examine his argument instead of blindly making illogical excuses for it.
One final time. Preference != requirement, do you understand this? Cause I'll explain it to you if you don't understand how preference isn't the same as requirement. Understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the flaw in Stef's argument.. As long as you think preference = requirement his argument will appear valid and that's where you're still making the mistake.
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if you have two oranges, or two apples, or two dogs: the number two is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible 2 things). It doesn't matter if you have a green chair, and a blue chair, and an old chair: the concept "chair" is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible chair).
Get it now?
It doesn't matter if you hold "truth" to be objective and universally preferable in a debate, or if you have a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints in a debate or if you have a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers in a debate or if you have a deliberation/consideration in a debate: the concept of "debate" is valid in all of those cases(it fits every possible debate). Yep I get it. p.s.: there is no such thing as universally preferable, since preference is always subjective it can't possibly be universal, what is universal is a requirement, but a requirement != preference and this is something you wont even address..
|
|
|
Ok I guess you're too involved with your own subjective definition of the concept of a debate to see my point so I'll stop here..
Just remember preference != requirement, just like 2+2 != 5 and 5 != 4.
|
|
|
Ehehehehehehe ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove: Debate: The process of arguing about propositions. Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another. Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.
Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions." That is a consistent definition. Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person." If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object. 1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion 2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be: de·bate [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing. noun 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports. 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. 3. deliberation; consideration. 4. Archaic . strife; contention. Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it. I mean, can't you see that the following statements...: - The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s - Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable .. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is. But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact. I hope you get it now. I understand the need to agree on the definition, but once we agree on that definition ("the process of arguing about propositions") we're admitting that the tools for finding the truth are logic and evidence - Do you know other tools that work for that? If in the middle of the debate (so defined) I hold a proposition simply because I have great faith in it, I would be contradicting myself. But what if we don't agree on that definition? Well, that means at least one of us is not interested in finding the truth. And there you go, by your own admission what constitutes to a debate depends on agreement. Does what is gravity depend on agreement? No. Btw yes you are right, if I don't agree to your definition I'm not interested in finding the truth, however that doesn't mean we aren't having a debate. Being interested in finding the truth and calling it a debate is your thing, for me and lots of other people it could be something else. Exhibit A: The presidential debates on TV. You can ask a 100 million Americans if their candidates are having a debate and I guarantee most will say yes. Now according to you, they're not but according to them they are. Btw 2: I think what confuses you and what you're forgetting is that a debate is just a concept in our minds, that doesn't really exists that people agreed has certain meanings.. Like the concept of a chair that also comes in a lot of shapes, sizes, colors, ect. Got it now? ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove: Debate: The process of arguing about propositions. Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another. Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.
Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions." That is a consistent definition. Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person." If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object. 1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion 2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be: de·bate [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing. noun 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports. 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. 3. deliberation; consideration. 4. Archaic . strife; contention. Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it. I mean, can't you see that the following statements...: - The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s - Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable .. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is. But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact. I hope you get it now.
|
|
|
Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove: Debate: The process of arguing about propositions. Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another. Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.
Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."
|
|
|
Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate. In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong. Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact? Debate: The process of arguing about propositions. Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another. Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate. I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact. Again: Are they basing their arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then they are having a debate. What's your point? You see that's your problem, you keep making statements without any proof.. I'm not asking for your opinion what you think constitutes to a debate, I'm asking you whether you can prove as a matter of fact, much like how you'd attempt to prove gravity by throwing a rock as a matter of fact, that a debate is what you say it is. (btw I wouldn't try too hard, cause it's just your opinion and there is no proof..)
|
|
|
|