|
BTCjew.com
Jewonthis.com
SacaJewea.com
Jewmanji.com
Igotjewed.com
slewofjews.com
more seriously
scamiam.com
|
|
|
|
So you're saying transaction fees produce new blocks that we can mine? Also what are block rewards?
Whenever a Bitcoin transaction is made, it is broadcast to all nodes in the network. All transactions since the previous block was solved are contained in the next block to be solved, and so all miners compete to be the first provide mathematical proof of work for the current block. Let's say someone mines a block solo. As we know, 50 BTC is generated with each solved block. But let's say there was 1 transaction during that time containing a transaction fee of .005 BTC. Then, that miner will receive 50.005 BTC. Right now, the network is small and there are relatively few transactions, so the amount of transaction fees included in the block is small. After all 21 million BTC have been generated, the 50 BTC will no longer be generated, but miners will still be rewarded with the transaction fees. By this time, assuming that BTC is widely adopted, there will be many many times the number of transactions and thus the amount accumulated in transaction fees per block will be greatly increased. It's possible that by this time, miners who solve a block solo will receive even more than 50 BTC, but they won't be new coins. They will simply be existing coins that were included in the block in the form of transaction fees. |
|
|
|
I just went through this thread again and realized that nobody really answered the question that thoroughly... maybe I should be more specific... once we've mined all 21 million bitcoins, does that mean all mining efforts will be stopped and we all have to fight over the currently existing bitcoins through microtransactions? microbitcoins?
Mining will continue and it will be sustained by transaction fees only. The whole point is that by the time this actually happens, adoption will (theoretically) be sufficient such that the block-rewards from transaction fees will be a worthwhile incentive to mine. |
|
|
|
i'm interested if you're still looking
PMed. |
|
|
|
Anyways, Joint, you're right. This guy has captured my interest.
Me too. It's one of the most provocative things I've read in a long time. |
|
|
|
|
I make music. Will you buy my music? It won't poison you.
|
|
|
|
To live or to die? That is the question.
Let's say you choose to live.
Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?
Will you create or destroy?
These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".
Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions. ar "You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context. The mind just is. Ok, and when "you" recognize and reflect upon those desires such that they become the objects of your perception, what are "you," the subject, then? By the way, the "mind just is" comment is interesting. "You" is just a perception. Beyond that -- there are countless possibilities. I don't think sentience as a whole can be quantified beyond just the choices... Different environments, different biology... What produces one perception and one being is countless. It cannot be quantified it seems. An individual remains divisible from the rest in will but still easily affected by the means of the whole. Can a mind not be an "I"? This is assuming a mind is sentience. Have you ever read Christopher Langan's CTMU theory at www.ctmu.org? I think you'd find it interesting...even though Langan is quite the douche sometimes. |
|
|
|
To live or to die? That is the question.
Let's say you choose to live.
Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?
Will you create or destroy?
These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".
Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions. ar "You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context. The mind just is. Ok, and when "you" recognize and reflect upon those desires such that they become the objects of your perception, what are "you," the subject, then? By the way, the "mind just is" comment is interesting. Edit: Are you equating "mind" with "I"? |
|
|
|
|
I'm looking for someone who:
1) Has a Dwolla account
2) Has a BTC-E account
3) Is reputable, trustworthy, considers me trustworthy, and preferably is someone with whom I've communicated with many times
4) Would like to engage in a joint-trading strategy
5) Would like to make a little extra money when opportunities present themselves
Edit: 6) Has USD funds available on BTC-e and/or moves USD into BTC-e regularly.
Who fits the bill?
|
|
|
|
To live or to die? That is the question.
Let's say you choose to live.
Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?
Will you create or destroy?
These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".
Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions. |
|
|
|
|
If nobody had gotten hurt by the scams (including peripheral effects to the entire Bitcoin economy and all that have vested interests in it), would you have gone to the lengths that you did, conducting your own personal investigation to try to get to the truth of the matter?
From an outside perspective, I think you did it because you don't want to see people get hurt. The question of whether or not allowing virutal-unknowns the potential to scam hundreds of people is worth the possibility that somehow, someday, our small little digital corner will evolve into some variation of the global, decentralized market that we all wish to see is a tough one. The probabilities of this happening are incalculable, but you knew you had an opportunity to directly help people right here, right now.
I think your concern is noble, and the efforts you undertook are also noble. But, only you know what your intentions are. Sometimes, and quite often, doing the right thing can result in some pretty epic backlash. Keep your head on straight and don't be led astray by people who are likely more confused about their own values than you are.
|
|
|
|
.15 BTC and I can advertise anything I like??? sign me up!
Yes, .15 BTC for 1 of my 3 slots below for one week, advertise whatever you want. Only caveats -- Nothing illegal in the USA, and nothing demeaning towards me  What would you like me to put? |
|
|
|
|
New prices. All 3 slots in my signature are available.
.15 BTC per week for 1 slot
.25 BTC per week for 2 slots (best deal)
.5 BTC per week for the entire signature (worst deal, but you get my whole sig to divy-up as you please.
|
|
|
|
Talking about time...time is another dimension.
The first dimension is a line. You need 1 coordinate to fix yourself in it -- think of a number line. If I tell you "1" it can only be that point.
The second dimension is a flat surface. You need 2 coordinates (x, y) to fix yourself. This is your standard Cartesian plane.
Three dimensions is what we experience the most of. You need 3 coordinates (x,y,z) to fix yourself. This is why, as far as we are concerned in daily life, triangles and tripods are the most stable geometry.
Four dimensions we experience a sliver of every moment. You need 4 coordinates to fix yourself -- not only do you need to anchor your location in 3d space, but at a specific location in time. Like in a computer simulation -- you need to specify where, and at what point in time.
Sure we only experience an infinitesimally small piece of "time" at any moment, but mathematically it's there. Now, ala Slaughterhouse Five, you could have "creatures" that lived in the 4th dimension, and moved through it just like we move through our world. But that's getting a little out there.
Well, actually every dimension would appear "time-like" to the one preceding it. |
|
|
|
The concept of "evidence" requires some kind of continuity between past-future and different points in space. If you do not see any connection between past events and your current experiences (or events that occur across the room from you and those that occur nearby)... then I don't really know what to tell you. You would not survive long if you let this determine your behavior.
Evident means "that which is apparent." When you interpret some real-world event or thing as "evidence," you then refocus your present awareness on your abstract representation of it. But, extrapolating meaning from that evidence is what requires a comparison of past and future states. What determines one's abstract representation of an object? Past experience? What past experience? You mean the 'memories' you have that you observe in the present? |
|
|
|
The concept of "evidence" requires some kind of continuity between past-future and different points in space. If you do not see any connection between past events and your current experiences (or events that occur across the room from you and those that occur nearby)... then I don't really know what to tell you. You would not survive long if you let this determine your behavior.
Evident means "that which is apparent." When you interpret some real-world event or thing as "evidence," you then refocus your present awareness on your abstract representation of it. But, extrapolating meaning from that evidence is what requires a comparison of past and future states. |
|
|
|
Faith is essential to both religion and science.
Explain please Faith is a belief in something without evidence for it. Science takes evidence observed in a continual present and uses it to try to make future predictions without any actual evidence of a future whatsoever. Will you see the sunrise tomorrow (assuming you're an early-bird and also assuming I don't receive any complaints about the fact that the sun doesn't 'rise')? Do you have any evidence to suggest that it will, or only evidence that suggests it has in the past? More than being essential to both religion and science, I think faith is essential to survival. See...the science that I know says "it's likely the sun will rise tomorrow, but we can't answer for sure, because of the possibility that there will be an anomalous event, like an alien abducting the sun. Or it might just go out. But given what we've experienced in the past, and from the data we've managed to collect, our money's on the sun rising." Does science rule out a more powerful, conscious being? No. In fact it says that somewhere, one should (but doesn't have to) exist. Based on the science I know, I do have to have faith that Math is absolute. But that seems to be it. Math, and faith in accurate and/or comprehensive interpretation of real-world objects and events. Consider this -- a definition of a thing is essentially a theory of it. When researchers operationalize their variables, they are creating or reusing miniature theories of these variables. Not only that, but the variables themselves are miniature theories of the real-world things or events they explain. The whole process by which we cognitively know anything depends upon a whole chain of assumptions that could only be proven to be true if we could compare their past and future states. I just don't see, nor have I ever seen, concrete proof of a past and future. Actually, you could argue that there's evidence that suggests past and future states do not exist because the present is the current evidence we have. Even the theory of relativity seems to imply that individuals are only stratified temporally and that we basically all live in a relative present. But on the whole, I agree with you. I just think religion and science have a lot more in common than people generally think. Edit: I always found the following semantic musing interesting, though I admit its a stretch: When I doubt, I don't know. (e.g. I doubt the Cubs will win the World Series, but hey, who really knows?) If doubt is related to a lack of knowledge, does faith relate to knowledge? |
|
|
|
Faith is essential to both religion and science.
Explain please Faith is a belief in something without evidence for it. Science takes evidence observed in a continual present and uses it to try to make future predictions without any actual evidence of a future whatsoever. Will you see the sunrise tomorrow (assuming you're an early-bird and also assuming I don't receive any complaints about the fact that the sun doesn't 'rise')? Do you have any evidence to suggest that it will, or only evidence that suggests it has in the past? More than being essential to both religion and science, I think faith is essential to survival. |
|
|
|
|
Faith is essential to both religion and science.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
