Of course, every theory is -well- unfalsifiable, until it's proven otherwise
Not at all. "falsifiable" has specific meaning in science and is a requirement if you're not just babbling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability |
|
|
|
I rewarded myself today with a nice premium porn account payed in bitcoin of course.
 Pretty prudish for a brony, aren't you? Whatever happened to that famous brony tolerance and friendship? Pretty deft observation for an old Socialist there, grampa. *I also use Chinese graphics, ∴ I must be a Chinaman. So, a Blony? |
|
|
|
|
Just got back from two weeks of vacation last night. Have mostly been ignoring Bitcoin. Nice work, guys.
|
|
|
|
I will leave this place soon. Bitcoin is dead, it's only down from here and i sold everything i got quite a while ago so there is nothing for me here anymore.
I tried to help the few delusional bulls who just won't give up but they don't appreciate my warnings very much. Ah well, your money. I don't care really.
I'll come back every 50 dollar drop for some entertainment. So long and thanks for buying my coins at 400. Poor schmucks.
Good luck with your pump and dump coin.
And who said there's been no good news recently? |
|
|
|
Been away for a while, so what was the cause of all this dumping from 380? Sidechain stuff?
Random movement in the face of little new information. |
|
|
|
Well it still exist everywhere, when most have less chances for educations than the elites which result them to work for the rich 1% elites at a minimum wage job to barely survive. what do you call that ? I call it modern slavery.
OK, not quite sure where you are referring to here. This is true in many places, largely due to the types of government but there's not a huge excuse to not have at least a reasonable level of education in a first world country, regardless of what is provided. The closest thing to slavery here is property taxes which require one to have an income to keep the land one supposedly owns. The second closest is debt which is usually a self generated problem (typically encouraged by government policy). and don't tell me it is not possible to have a better system, yes someone has to do that Job, I agree on that, but that one has to be fairly paid, take Switzerland as an example, I love their payment scheme.
Fair is both sides sticking to what is agreed. If it's a necessary job, the payment is there. If you find yourself in a huge pool of unskilled workers such that the offered for a particular job is low, with rare exception, that's on you. |
|
|
|
This has happened before - slavery was a near-universal human institution right up until it was rejected for moral reasons. Then we learned how to live without it.
Arguably, conventional slavery was on its way out anyway, morality or no. Though it still does exist in some places. |
|
|
|
you start with that and you end up with what we have today, because then you keep adding, for example education, health care.... the systems that we have today didnt just appear in one night, they are the outcome of development of centuries.
Yes, there was no education or healthcare before governments took it upon themselves to provide it.  |
|
|
|
Minimal state would do for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchismtheir only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are generally called night-watchman states.USA used to be a minimal state. Quite frankly, I'd be happy if we could just *start* turning things back in the opposite direction. We can discuss what exactly are the appropriate levels of taxation and control but that is by-the-by. The issue is that such discussion is irrelevant. They have been increasing and there is no end in sight. Those driving this just keep acquiring more and more power. |
|
|
|
You think you're kidding but it's true. At that time, being a kind give no power at all. There are no state and no frontiers.Allegiance to the King is only temporarily. Power is extremely decentralized between many European Noble families. Each family divide land between members. Anyone can claim a land at any time.  Sorry, I consider myself pretty hardcore libertarian. Feudalism does not really connote freedom. Sure, if you were a lord or king or whatnot, it was probably a pretty fun time (until your rival ran a sword through your gizzards) but the common man had it pretty rough. It wasn't really until firearms came along and started to level the playing field that that was redressed. However, there were regions and times where freedom was more prevalent and we can see its positive effects within the societies that exist currently. Control? Soviet Russia, North Korea, Communist China. More freedom? South Korea, current hybrid China. Even more freedom? 20th century US and UK. Bit less freedom? Declining 21st century US and UK. |
|
|
|
OK, the difference of empires through history is related to the culture and demographic of that population, try the same model of an empire with the same philosophy but on different demographic and you will simply fail... the problem of libertarians is that you compare the whole population/humanity to one ideal, that if pushed certain ideas upon in a certain way it will work, but at the end of the day you ignore the fact that people differ, from the way they think, to their traditions, to their culture, to their color, to their.... this is why states and borders exist, and some kind of enforced regulation has to exist so people can live with each other.
 |
|
|
|
They did not actually trade on the exchanges. They used the first 4 months of data to adjust the parameters of their method, and then simulated how it would have performed over the last 2 months (Jun-Jul/2014).
This is likely a very risky proposition. Training and comparing on past data. You run into survivor principle and confirmation bias. You can continually reject models until you get the one you want. Even if your model *does* match on the first go around, you can't guarantee that there weren't a hundred other people doing the same thing with slightly different parameters who failed. Being sure your model represents reality, particularly when that reality is a complex, chaotic system is a thorny problem. If they manage to model the price for the next couple of months, I might be willing to agree that they might have something. |
|
|
|
...tock market and the slow but steady rise is really more of a ponzi scheme than anything else right now.
Unlike this ponzi, which is in a steady decline  Protip: If you must "invest" in an illusion, chose the one most people believe in. Be a leader, not a follower. |
|
|
|
Can the madness go on forever ?
No. But nor can they apply the brakes. Arguably we have passed the tipping point. |
|
|
|
Ripple getting in bed with the banks?
Just remember that you sleep in the bed you make.
As long as it's a bed made of money, the ripple people don't care (nor where it came from). |
|
|
|
Bit disappointed by your response there lambchop. Was hoping to learn something. Anyone else care to chime in on whether price leads sentiment or the reverse?
its a paradox, for real, its a fucking paradox! i've been here for years and i can assure you its a paradox It's a feedback loop. They feed off each other. |
|
|
|
I agree, Metcalfe's law for Bitcoin should use (number of customers)x(number of merchants) instead of (number of users)2. Unfortunately we do not have data on the number of customers and how it is evolving.
Perhaps. Though I suspect it might not be quite as simple as that since there will still be some interconnection between the customers themselves and, also,to a lesser degree, the merchant group (Consider the effect of ebay on turning consumers into sellers). Not all nodes in a network have to be interconnected (I am not emailing your mother, for example), the value is *proportional* to the square after all. Presumably this is because the number of interconnections rises with the square but the percentage of those connections that are used is a fairly constant proportion of those available. Having two disparate groupings does introduce an interesting factor. Perhaps there would be a paper for it for a computer researcher... My suspicion is that the main part of the value comes from the users. Whatever their proportional value, as it is the square, it will rise more and more quickly as large numbers are attained. Merchants, on the other hand, will tend to have a much smaller number overall so their contribution will rise more slowly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
