So he went from believing in hundreds of arbitrarily made up gods to one arbitrarily made up god? Wow, must be something in that, right?


How does his being deeply entrenched in the myths and legends of human imagination bear any comparison to, you know, the actual reality that actually exists, for which the ideas of gods, demons, angels and ghosts have never ever ever ever had any evidence of their existence outside of human imagination?

So he believes in made-up-stuff(tm), changes his mind to believe in other made-up-stuff, then asserts something about a fictional character being responsible for bitcoin?

Yeah, he sounds like he's definitely on to something.


How about you start from the premise that you cannot simply make stuff up, and see if you're able to even get to the point of anything paranormal or ooky-spooky able to withstand critical analysis?

Next it'll be shape-shifting interdimensional reptilians who are secretly running this global conspiracy, nah, nobody is that stupid to believe such a laughable notion, right, Right?

Jeez, people, try thinking for yourselves instead of believing every loon who declares themselves privy to 'super special secrets' about our reality.

Learn what logical fallacies are.

Put simply, it was the price that both sides could agree to committing the deal to. It was important for there to be a sustained show of support from superNET given that T3CLtd is to do most of the heavy lifting on the mobile platform and ATM project. With there currently being a very generous interest-earning potential for BITS holders, the idea is that, once a healthy market price is established, buyers will start to think more about staking their Bitstar coins in-wallet to earn that interest and strengthen the network.

I have to confess to being somewhat surprised at their willingness to post the details of the Escrow minimum market-price conditions. I had assumed they would choose not to on the basis that it would pre-load the markets expectations, making it potentially more difficult to maintain a set floor price through supportive trading.

But, then, openness and transparency does appears to be the hallmark of how superNET intends to operate, which can only be a good thing.

As the latest superNET newsletter shows, the top address in the rich list is going to be the Escrow address which holds James' one million BITS straight purchase and the other million temporarily on a conditional 60/40 arrangement.

Proof-of-Stake coins generally work like this:

You deposit coins into your wallet and, in BITS case, 24 hours later they are mature enough to begin earning interest (staking)

But they will not start earning interest (staking) until the wallet is unlocked. You must enter your wallet password (passphrase) and leave it open for the staking process to begin, at which time an amount will be transferred automatically from 'balance' to 'stake', showing the amount that will earn the interest in that particular staking transaction.

This amount of 'stake' is reserved for a period of time, meaning it cannot be sent elsewhere while it is reserved for the interest earning process to complete.

In the 'transactions' section you will see new amounts showing as 'mined', but if they show a '?' it means that, while they were generated they were not accepted by the network, whereas other amounts will show with a red/orange/yellow clock-face icon to show the number of confirmations they are receiving, with the final stage being a green tick symbol to show the amount is fully confirmed and accepted by the network.

Staking begins 24 hours after coins are deposited.

Perhaps this will help clarify things:

https://forum.thesupernet.org/index.php?topic=179.msg1303#msg1303

Feel free to contact any of the Superteam to confirm that the announcement is genuine.

T3CLtd's introduction thread on their forum is here: https://forum.thesupernet.org/index.php?topic=179.0

***************************************************************************************************************

After much deliberation and negotiation, I am pleased to be able to announce that Bitstarcoin has been chosen to be incorporated into a commercially managed and implemented ATM project as well as becoming a core component of superNET.

This double-whammy achievement is proof of the commercial confidence able to be put in both the Bitstarcoin team and the multi-faceted superNET project.

Project details will be posted in this thread shortly by the Cyprus company, using the forum name 'T3CLtd' and confirmation of the validity of this announcement will be made by Superteam.

The Bitstarcoin dev team will continue to enhance the multi-function in-wallet services, in conjunction with the commercial development of the ATM project and related ancillary services being funded and managed by the Cyprus company and their development team, working closely with superNET to present a unified platform that will be able to offer a full-service ATM user interface into cryptocurrency 1.0, 2.0 and beyond.

We truly are living in 'interesting times', let's get to work.

***************************************************************************************************************

Go into coin control under 'send' and select which transactions to send from. You can't exceed 75,000 bytes in size for the inputs total otherwise the transaction fails. This is probably related to the fact many of us are discovering that leaving a PoS wallet staking for a long time will result in exponentially increasing numbers of smaller transactions.

Good housekeeping is needed by regularly sweeping from one address to another until an automatic way to handle it can be incorporated into the wallet.

On that note, an announcement is due to be made soon with regards to the various developments taking place for this coin.

Stay tuned.

There's been brief periods of activity within the market during the last few months but definitely nothing to indicate P&D group levels.

Regarding promotion, even if the talks with supernet do not come to anything, there are plans for this project that will result in it getting a lot of attention and it is important to ensure that the wallet and integrated services, along with suitable cross platform support are developed fully and tested sufficiently before then.

It will take time and effort. Whatever the market does in the meantime is rather irrelevant to me.

To be honest it has been more important not to succumb to hyping things and being targeted by a P&D group who would end up ruining the reputation of the coin.

There are interesting developments to be announced in due course and in the meantime work is being done, something often ignored by those who aren't actually doing anything to support a coin but who demand they be fed constant reassuring announcements, a common trait around this technology.

Seriously, some of the abuse being hurled around in other coin projects by self-entitled brats who demand the market be moved for them is absurd.

Again, you cannot demand that someone else present the data, you have to as you are the one asserting something to be true. Rambling subjective tales peppered with pseudo-scientific fallacious statements do not qualify as data.


No, that is not quantitative data, it is misrepresentative and dishonest.
Let me give you an example:


The first half of the first sentence consists of a reference to 'anomalous' voices and images. Well 'anomalous' suggests that which is being experienced by a person is not to be expected, namely, aural and visual halucinations or dreams, which is exactly what is to be expected given that our brains provide us with aural and visual sensory experiences when we are asleep, so unconscious and/or dying brains are just as likely to induce similar.

The second half of the first sentence relies on the dishonest use of the described 'fact' to run on into an assertion that is stated as accepted fact, when it is not. The 'mundane' explanations, that which explains without needing to resort to the 'paranormal', have indeed explained the existence of the aural and visual experiences of the unconscious and/or dying.

The second sentence references images of a 'discarnate' person, well that describes a person without a physical form, otherwise known as, an imagined one.

The third and final sentence is just so epically dishonest that it unintentionally discredits its own argument. There is no evidence for the existence of paranormal 'EVP', none. This means that, considering the sentence ends by stating that this 'EVP' "provides most of the supporting evidence for survival", we can readily disregard any claims towards there being anything like sufficient reasoning or evidence for 'survival'.


Now, as I already said, in that I am not sure if you are genuinely unaware of the intellectually dishonest methods you employ to assert your side of the argument, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Firstly, you are appealing to authority, because you want the assertions made by this 'respected' researcher to be accepted because he is 'respected', not because you are citing a valid methodology employed by him in his research.

Let me give you an example:
Christians and Muslims and Hindus and many other believers in the ooky and the spooky, like to cite the instances of 'respected' scientists, who work in various fields but who possess personal belief systems similar to their own, yet may have achieved great successes in their work, leading to the false argument that, because they are scientists, then their belief systems must, therefore, have some degree of validity.

Wrong.

Personal beliefs are, exactly that, opinions without sufficient data for them to qualify as fact and are often wildly speculative and baseless perceptions arising from psychological conditioning that prevents them from recognising the important difference between the reality they are capable of applying critical thinking to in their work and the 'special pleading' that they require of their beliefs, meaning they demand their personal beliefs not be held to the same standard of analysis as, well, everything we know about reality.

For you to then dishonestly claim that I said he was a 'serial fraudster' and to quickly tack on that I must provide for extraordinary evidence to support this 'elaborate claim', leads me to suspect you are being intentionally deflective and merely resorting to the same tactic you have employed from the beginning, asserting something to be accepted fact and then demanding that your opponent in this debate have to then go off and hunt through a haystack of dubious 'data' and fallacious reasoning in order to debunk each and every piece of it.


I'm not implying there could be unknown methodological flaws in the experiments, I'm saying that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the methodology employed is entirely flawed. I can confidently state this because, if these experiments could actually withstand critical analysis from the actual scientific community, it would be GLOBAL news of staggering proportion.


No, again you ask for me to go through the information in these cases when it is you who needs to be able to prove sufficient controls and methodology for the experiment concerned to be considered of sufficient high standard for the results to be considered objective and reasonable.


Firstly, it's not 'science', it's pseudoscience, relying on erroneous and dishonest presentation of experimental data that is grossly flawed from the start.

Secondly, actually you are wrong, in EVERY field of science, positive experimental results are absolutely criticised through peer-review if the data cannot be considered reliable indications of what is concluded.

One final thing, regarding all these Doctorates bandied about by the proponents of that site, Psychology is not a science any more than Philosophy is.

You ever heard of the 'Appeal to authority' fallacy?

It's when someone claims a position to be reasonable on the basis that a person supporting said position is highly qualified in some degree.

Just because someone has a PhD is does not render all they claim to be valid or reasonable.



Present actual data. Present a position. You cannot simply defer to a website consisting of unreliable data and questionable anecdotal tales.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd be happy to claim that your assertions are on equal footing with objectively reasoned positions.

Let me make this real simple for you. When debating, you cannot simply point to a raft of stories claiming evidence of the ooky and the spooky and demand that we debunk them for you.

Your role in this debate is to present a well reasoned position that consists of objective data able to withstand critical analysis.

Links to shonky anecdotal tales does not qualify. That isn't 'presenting your case', that is putting the burden on us to disprove something that is not reliable data in the first place.

Post data that is not subjective or anecdotal and then it can be properly considered. We aren't the ones making a claim for something, you are, so you have to describe a reasonable hypothesis that is grounded in objectivity, not fantasy and wishful thinking from a website that is devoted to the desperate act of pretending it has evidence that we still exist as a sentient consciousness after total brain death.

I'm wondering at this point whether your dishonest argument is the result of intentional deception or that you are so conditioned that you actually cannot see the dishonesty in your fallacious 'reasoning'.

Not here, although if you go into the console and 'repairwallet' that often helps to resolve problems.

Do check how many transactions you have for your addresses, we're reaching the point now where people who didn't realise that a staking wallet would exponentially create more and smaller transactions are finding themselves needing to consolidate them into a new address.

I'm betting plenty of people with PoS wallets in other coins that were released earlier in the year are also going to be finding the same problem exists for them.

Still, I guess it's a good way to understand what aspects of the PoS system need fine tuning in general.

I've had to get my wife to spend a few hours at a time clicking through a few hundred transactions in coin control in order to consolidate addresses that had been quietly staking for long enough to count into many thousands. With PayPal introducing bitcoin payments, I see a large Ebay bill on the horizon in return!

Typical desperate attempt to ignore the objectively reasoned position being presented and, instead, simply throw multiple stories of the ooky and the spooky in our direction, demanding we consider each and every case.

James Randi has a million dollar prize that nobody has ever successfully claimed.

No 'psychic' has ever been able to demonstrate a 'paranormal' ability under properly controlled conditions. Not one.

On the other hand, there are vast numbers of cases proving them to be narcissistic attention-seeking frauds. Or just greedy money grubbing frauds. Or . . .

Well, you get the idea, they are all frauds. Each and every one of them. Throwing a shit-ton of 'well what about this . . .' links at us isn't a reasonable way to present an argument, you are, instead, completely avoiding the reasoned positions being presented to you and reposting the same deflection/diversion statements that are generally meaningless.

The burden of proof for your claims lies with you. You cannot dishonestly ignore that fact by responding with questions and demands we debunk each and every one of your shonky stories that, were they to have any reasonable degree of evidential quality, would not dwell solely in the domain of the 'spiritual' community.

Typical dualism-believing behaviour, whether it be religion or it's shape-shifting twin 'spiritualism', you respond to requests for a valid objectively-reasoned argument to be presented, with that which is barely a degree above Bill O'Reilly "Tide goes in, tide goes out . . .you can't explain that" assertion.

Even if talking about something in nature we don't yet fully understand, science says, "we do not fully understand yet". You don't get to simply make crap up and claim it to be worth equal consideration as an explanation, which is what theists and 'spiritualists' do.

Learn to present an intellectually honest argument, absent fallacious reasoning or outright dishonest deflection or diversion.

You can disable all the notifications from the wallet by way of right-clicking on that area bottom right of your windows taskbar and selecting 'customize notification icons'.

*although, yes, it would be good to be able to disable just the staking transaction notifications.

Remember this?
(emphasis added by original author, Mubasher Akram)

Just in case you weren't sure about what they were asserting to be a sure thing, solid fact, the following words were in the same announcement:
(emphasis added by me)

So, in terms of the 'qualifying' status for this offer, they cite,
Now would this be the balance payment they originally said would be called for somewhere about a month prior to them shipping, because I don't recall them actually providing evidence of there being anything that even equates to a functional product, plus the fact that their inability to provide a credit-card payment processor for the balance payment to be made, resulted in:
I haz confused.

Are the people who were told they could wait to make the final payment, now classed as non-entitled to this spangly new offer?