|
Another question is whether the Gox withdrawal issues clear up when they can no longer buy the coins on other exchanges for less then they can sell them, by keeping the fiat transfers backed up.
|
|
|
|
I would actually prefer if the price stabilized right around here and consolidated for a couple of weeks before moving on. To much of a hype right now, and the base is way down lower, around 185-200. I am afraid that a failed attempt to break through ATH would be very bad right now.
Yes, but how likely is that? The pumping will start in earnest when the all time high is breached, then the news cycle still has to pick up on it. Then there is the delay before folks take any action. When they see that huge spike in april dwarfed by current activity, there is going to be a whole new inflow. Maybe hit an M1 of US$4B or so. The operative question for traders is whether to sell into it, when, or wait for the bounce after the fall, or just sit tight for the next wave. There are more exchanges now, and less centralization, better arbitraging tools, and more liquidity. All of this helps to smooth the market, but we are still going to have these surges. |
|
|
|
|
I enjoy these group meetings generally more than listening to someone present information that I've already seen at a conference (or could download the video for and watch).
|
|
|
|
You too.
Sleep is fun too. |
|
|
|
After waiting for nearly 4 weeks, I have asked them to cancel my sepa withdrawal, what they almost instantly did. Then I bought some BTC and transferred them to my wallet. Case closed.  See, it works out for everyone, you got your money out, and they used your money to buy the coins back on another exchange. |
|
|
|
Pain is in your head. Stop perceiving it as negative and it will not be painful.
A dying man at peace feels no pain.
Makes sense. Its in my head. Cut off my head and the pain stops pretty quickly.  The Buddhists have it as: Life is suffering and Suffering comes from desire/ perception. So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what? Perception? Really? I never read that before. Also, "desire/perception" doesn't mean interchangeable, right, but rather both of them cause suffering? It was desire/attachment, I must have been having a stroke or something while writing that. Losing attachment to the head fixes that pain issue. |
|
|
|
And, once again, missing the WHY.
Hope and endless repeating does not make it happen.
Oh, I am sorry. Well, my point is litecoin is only 4 times 'worse' than bitcoin (max coin cap) and comparable in other aspects. The only advantage of bitcoin is it being a pioneer of cryptocurrencies and more initial user base, but that can grow for both bitcoin and litecoin with time. This advantage of bitcoin may be somewhat counterbalanced by litecoin's faster confirmations time and human psychology where bitcoin can be priced out of reach by common folks while litecoin can still be affordable for a while. I know that bitcoin is divisible and such, but owning just a fraction of bitcoin and being unable to buy at least 1 full BTC once its price has sky-rocketed makes it less attractive (a person can feel like a loser being able to afford only a 0.1 BTC) and makes alt cryptos more attactive and the first cadidate among them is LTC. And even if LTC can't be 1:4 of LTC per technical design, 1:10 is reachable in the future, where as 75x cheaper to bitcoin is crazy in my very honest and thouroughly thought through opinion, which I am going to stick to until proven by time otherwise. i agree. its only us are able to understand technical differences between altcoins. the masses will only have to google 'alternative to bitcoin' and they will discover litecoin as the second biggest with powerful enough network. so it will be a no brainer for the masses to invest into litecoin suddenly once the signs of usd plummeting will become evident. all we need now is alternative to localbitcoins.com for litecoin and just wait for demand. And a marketplace in which to spend them. |
|
|
|
Pain is in your head. Stop perceiving it as negative and it will not be painful.
A dying man at peace feels no pain.
Makes sense. Its in my head. Cut off my head and the pain stops pretty quickly. The Buddhists have it as: Life is suffering and Suffering comes from desire/perception. So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what? |
|
|
|
|
Most any day you want to lock in for spot at a large quantity, and pay for delivery from California or Utah, or for vaulting...
|
|
|
|
CORRECTION IS CLOSER AND CLOSER
So is 2015 TRUE !!! THE END IS NEAR !!! I was talking about the price, not the year. |
|
|
|
CORRECTION IS CLOSER AND CLOSER
So is 2015 |
|
|
|
It is the 5th at Mt Gox already. |
|
|
|
Agreed, poor taste. Would you show a GIF of the twin towers collapsing a few months after 9/11 to infer that a market crash was incoming? Me thinks not. But moving on...  If you wanted to post something more appropriate (for the day anyway) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9gYhnUKehUTrain and explosions included. |
|
|
|
|
Interested but not investing... yet.
I wish you every success.
|
|
|
|
|
The anonymity prevents characterisation and individualisation.
Notice how the media will focus on the persona of Snowden to the exclusion of what was revealed. (the girlfriend, the running, the adventure, the activities, the location, etc)
By coming forward, such treatment is guaranteed.
Satoshi would be able to handle it better than most, but it would not be good for Bitcoin in any case. Celebrity is more of a cost than a benefit unless you are trying to make celebrity your career. It would take the focus away from Bitcoin and put the spotlight on the persona.
|
|
|
|
Based on the premise that Gödel's axioms(the stuff proves rely on) is true the conclusions(god exists) is also true. But it's still up to oneself to decide if the axioms are true or not.
Gödel is indeed mind-bending, confusing, and very scary stuff.
So faith in Gödel may replace faith in Göd? Because if you have the first, then you have a proof of the second, and need no more faith for that? No, faith in what gödel wrote/said implies faith in god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proofOn the other hand, gödel also proved that a system of axioms strong enough to represent the natural numbers are either incomplete(there exists true statements that can not be proven) or inconsistent(there exists a statement that can both be proven and dis-proven). Yes, I recall my Gödel fondly from undergraduate studies, and I grew up with Games magazine, so lots of Hofstreider I have Gödel Escher Bach on the reading list for my 13yr old for this year. Though I may start him out with Raymond Smullyan first. The kid took a practice LSAT test last week and knocked it out of the park, I need stuff like this to keep him humble and distracted from his career of playing and crafting video games so his computer has downtime to mine him some litecoins so he can pay his own academic expenses. |
|
|
|
Based on the premise that Gödel's axioms(the stuff proves rely on) is true the conclusions(god exists) is also true. But it's still up to oneself to decide if the axioms are true or not.
Gödel is indeed mind-bending, confusing, and very scary stuff.
So faith in Gödel may replace faith in Göd? Because if you have the first, then you have a proof of the second, and need no more faith for that? |
|
|
|
|
I've also dealt with 2weiX, and dozers, and others here.
Reputable, efficient, and know their stuff.
|
|
|
|
Well you can refine then that "in imagination land everything that is logical is possible", then what you will arrive at is that your model of the universe is illogical. Isn't that sufficient enough?
Is this how you would like to refine your premise? That all gods are bound by a greater god "logic" and thus not all-powerful? We can start over with that if you like. |
|
|
|
It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it. If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does. We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to. If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.
What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings? Who's imagining (creating) it? ?? He, and now you, and now I, and now the reader of this...all did imagine/contemplate a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings. According to your formulations. So you just demonstated how you and I and others exist prior to any Universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of God. Congratulations!  Therefore God is a collective of all of us Do we get a group discount at Tautologies 'R' Us? There is no tautology here. Simple logic. Assume that in imagination land everything is possible. Then it is very easy to demonstrate, that you cannot imagine the universe guided by physical laws alone, which would give birth to you (it is important point, not just any abstract universe, but the one which has you in it), because you are already the one imagining it in the first place. Do you follow? You can't have both - yourself sporadically emerging as product of physical laws and yourself designing those laws to begin with, it leads to contradiction. In your imagination land, why do you imagine that I can not imagine a physical law governing my ability to design a universe with only physical laws including one which allows me to do just that? Or even to imagine new logical rules, everything is possible, yes? Even contradictions could be imagined if I needed one, which I never would, as I could simply imagine that it wasn't one. (see what my imagination did there?) This is trivially easy since in the logic of this world, we have the principle of explosion, a logical rule that from a false premise one can deduce anything, and we started from "Assume that in imagination land everything is possible." From such a start, the only thing which can be false are limits on truth, as it can be infinitely stretched. We are traipsing into Voltaire's Candide, the best of all possible worlds. Your formulation is consistent. It is not false so much as circular. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
