|
laundering bitcoins is a snack.
|
|
|
|
Lol! If that was a joke, it was awesome :-)
Not intended as a joke. Please enlighten me  And I've found that oftentimes the definition of "god" used is so logically incoherent that it would be wrong to say I don't believe in it, as that would imply an actual concept to negate.
He's saying that he doesn't believe X and he doesn't believe NOT X. Because it makes no sense. Like if someone asks you: Do you like poiqjwdi? yes or no? well you can't really answer yes or no because that lends legitimacy to "poiqjwdi". So you are somewhere in between atheist and pantheist?
and then you basically ask "so you don't like poiqjwdi??" I thought you were being a smart ass... |
|
|
|
By that image, do you mean awsome?  I believe the phrase is "rainbows and unicorns" |
|
|
|
I appreciate good satire, but this site really doesn't run as far as it could with the concept. Comedy is hard, I guess.
He also fails to mention the cycle of new ideas/products that end up as world-changing events. They are first told it is impossible, then they are mocked and ridiculed, and finally given reluctant credit as the obvious implications unfold. Short-sighted people always find it easier to deconstruct something than do their own research into the plausible applications of something new.
As others have said, bitcoin as a first attempt may not succeed - but the fundamental idea of a crypto-currency will. I have a hunch it will be the right combination the first time, with successive refinements to the core idea as time goes on.
actually its you who doesnt get the concept of a bubble. You are spouting the classic 'this time its different' line. Everything you said can be perfectly true and still lead to a bubble, actually most bubbles are founded in very real and accurate logic.. 'tech is the future', 'god aint makin' anymore land' etc the problem is when price action accumulates years of "new paradigm" in a matter of a few weeks/months, and the collapse is not necessarily caused by the failure of a technology to live up to the promise, its true cause is PANIC, people simply can not watch millions of dollars go to 0 without selling, and no matter how intelligent a crowd is if a fire starts, they will trample each other to death. This IS a bubble, and there will be a huge crash, but that DOES NOT mean that bitcoins are a failure, it will just take longer for it to happen. I mean tech didnt go away.. eventually amazon.com did live up to the promise of 2001. IT just didnt do it in in 3 weeks while the public was panic buying to get rich. O I assume that bitcoin will grow until the world is using it, how can it crash if it's the only currency? |
|
|
|
they can always try to block bitcoin, but it hardly uses a lot of bandwith so why would an isp piss off customers if they had nothing to gain from blocking? its not like BT where massive volumes of traffic is being used. if they did, you can use a vpn.
That's not the point. The point is if they wanted could they. And the answer is no. They can try, but they already have with torrents and failed. Torrents moved to random ports and traffic got encrypted. With Bitcoin it's even easier because you're dealing with very tiny amount of data. If push comes to shove, Bitcoins can be exchanged by sending Email yeah, that comment was a little off topic, but they could still "try" and i doubt we would ever have to come to that level, atm im trying to find this project i learned about a few weeks ago, it was call ip2p or something, it had a .de domain i think, but i cant find it. It could easily be used for bitcoin if memory serves. |
|
|
|
|
I would be building dedicated bitcoin hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
I can finally buy the kind of drugs I actually want to take. I've been waiting years for this.
I don't apologize for bitcoin, in fact I promote the fact that they can be used to buy drugs online.
What drugs I take is none of the governments fucking business.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you guys think that the universe was created/had a beginning? Seems like a pretty bold assumption....
why?
|
|
|
|
I am basically an atheist, but I put "other" just to avoid semantic traps. I don't believe in anything that I call "god," but it is certainly possible to define "god" in such a way that I would believe in "him" (the universe, natural law, etc.) And I've found that oftentimes the definition of "god" used is so logically incoherent that it would be wrong to say I don't believe in it, as that would imply an actual concept to negate. Rather, they are "not even wrong," and literally speaking nonsense.
So you are somewhere in between atheist and pantheist? Lol! If that was a joke, it was awesome :-) |
|
|
|
If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.
If the god is outside the universe, there is no possible interaction with it. Thus, it is not a god as we define it. If the god is able to communicate with us (observing us and/or listenning to prayer), then it has too be part of the universe. Then, it should respect the laws of that universe. (it could be laws that we still don't know). If it is the case, then, its existence could be easily proved. So, if there is a god of any kind, its existence should be proved. Easy, isn't it? No, I disagree entirely. You are making the assumption that a supposed being has to regulate itself in any sensible way. Things that exist don't have to be able to be proven. The alleged god either interacts with the universe in an observable way or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it exists only as an abstraction; it existence or not makes no difference to the universe. If it does, then we are observing that interaction; god is part of the observable universe. Should this be the case, what do we observe that is god? It seems that the universe operates consistently according to some laws (physics). One might say that these laws are the observable interactions of god, then we might as well define god as the universe. Actually, this whole debate stems from the illusion of separation. God is a silly artifact of this illusion. There are no separate "things"; things are only mental objects. Before you think, nothing exists! Tell me what exists that isn't a thought. There is no self and other; all is one. We are not separate from the world, we are the world. When you look into the eyes of another human being, god is looking at god. |
|
|
|
|
The only reason the blockchain exists is to prevent double spending. How does your scheme address this problem?
|
|
|
|
i also respect cordial discourse on any matter.
i'd say market failures are things like deflationary spiral, inflationary spiral, or more loosely; whenever the intended function of the market is not realised because of selfish participants in that market.
When does deflation become a "spiral"? and why should we be concerned about it. I prefer flamewars :-) |
|
|
|
|
People develop a mental model of how the world works and identify with that model. When you tell them about something that contradicts this model, they take it as a personal insult. You're basically telling the ego that it is invalid.
This is why people become so entrenched in their beliefs. The ego is the sum of the mind's beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Another piece of the puzzle, our best friend energy! Since we began producing energy with oil and coal we haven't changed that much. And that was a long time ago. Exponential consumption of a limited resource = fail. And technology does have alternatives but they are not profitable so the problem is unresolved.
They aren't profitable because we have plenty of coal. If/when coal becomes scarce, alternatives will be profitable, as long as there is demand for energy. |
|
|
|
growth of bitcoin is proportional to it's population size = exponential growth.
The more people that know about bitcoin (size), the more people will find out about bitcoin (growth).
This is the nature of a viral entity. Of course, it will reach a saturation point because the population is finite, but for now, at least it's approximately exponential.
Bitcoin growth is so obviously exponential.
No problem. In this case the only parameter we should monitor - total daily volume in BTC, being circuited upon all BTC exchanges. I proof, if this volume is const, bitcoin society will freeze or collapse much before the saturation point you mentioned. I proof, time interval for such a freeze/collapse is controlled by exponential parameter: exp (t/t0), where t0 is the time, for bitcoin society to grow in e=2.71828.. times. So, the faster is society growing, while average daily exchange volume = const, the faster society will freeze/collapse. We observe: average daily exchange volume = const for 2 months.. "total daily volume" - how is this a measure of the population size of the economy? Answer: it's not. Your premise is flawed. The following figures show exponential growth: No. forum users No. downloads. USD exchange rate difficulty google trends transactions per hour Daily volume doesn't mean shit, unless you measure it in USD. |
|
|
|
|
There is HUGE market demand for a currency like bitcoin. This abstract force is beyond any government to stop, without destroying itself in the process.
|
|
|
|
This result is surprising. I thought users are mainly from the USA, isn't that country full of fanatic Christians?
sample bias |
|
|
|
Basically shorting consists in selling something you don't actually own. That's why it does make sense if it is economically quite difficult to do so.
Beautiful logic! Breaking the problem down to it's fundamentals. |
|
|
|
If you see an economy that is not growing, you will probably find a government that is trying to make it grow.
Awesome quote! So true... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
