Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2024, 06:33:27 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
321  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will Bitcoin survive world war III? on: March 20, 2016, 08:46:56 PM
As long as internet serves keep alive i believe nothing will hit your bitcoins,sure a war would make bitcoins may be one of the main coin on trades,but that would be insane another war.Bitcoins would survive if the holders stay alive dont die on the war.
322  Economy / Lending / Re: ஒ ஒ KNOWHOW♣ ♣LENDING SERVICE ♣ ♣ BITCOINS★★★★★AVAIBLE✪✪✪✪=0,38BTC on: March 10, 2016, 07:26:51 PM
Both messages confirmed kindly send the both details and i will fund this loan instant.
PM-ed.
Thanks!  Smiley
323  Economy / Lending / Re: ஒ ஒ KNOWHOW♣ ♣LENDING SERVICE ♣ ♣ BITCOINS★★★★★AVAIBLE✪✪✪✪=0,38BTC on: March 10, 2016, 07:09:34 PM
Code:
--- BEGIN MESSAGE ---
This is rugrats from bitcointalk.org. Todays is 10-03-2016 and I am asking for loan using this account as collateral.
--- END MESSAGE ---
1HdREAScij9UtSmGmfPxLdsKnrBD37JALj
--- BEGIN SIGNATURE ---
IACw9j3aBjeatgikvlVlJuS22RFsfFRJIm2ux7KOkf/x3WdESJNxFjK6eNdt4gL7PIv/lnFEP6ADsKn08pWYCbk=
--- END SIGNATURE ---

--- BEGIN MESSAGE ---
The DropsofJupiter account is used as a secondary collateral in this transaction (10/2/2016)
--- END MESSAGE ---
14icupczfuV5kCMC7CiUpgKnc3a2fT9waK
--- BEGIN SIGNATURE ---
HCCkxvgqewJTl0n1NjOZuvVTre//lveFNKarHhfUcVRFj05swgbVPweBXBYkUY7SikFrGuENleJp/DxWrZSl1rA=
--- END SIGNATURE ---


Loan amount : 0.0502
Collateral : Bitcointalk Account
Your BTC address : 1PWCQVn8n1hiKxzgRZ8b31KR5EDde5s3fv
Repayment offered : 0.056 (10%)
Date of repayment : 25/03/2016
324  Economy / Economics / Re: 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% on: January 21, 2015, 07:06:50 AM
Quote from: Dr. Gary E. Aylesworth, Eastern Illinois University, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005 link=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#6
Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.
(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy (1988) by A. N. Wilson, p. 146. link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273222
The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is real and begets hyperreality.

Tribe is a genesis of a money and its state; therefore, a money will tend to tribe.
You know, Baudrillard's hyperreality quote bears a resemblance to the metaphysical arguments/explanations of the Vedas and the Jain scriptures.
I'm considering getting his Symbolic Exchange and Death to read over the weekend, but no Kindle version -we'll see.

"DAVOS (The Borowitz Report)—A new Oxfam report indicating that the wealthiest one per cent possesses about half of the world’s wealth has left the richest people in the world “reeling with disappointment,” a leading billionaire said on Tuesday."

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/richest-one-per-cent-disappointed-possess-half-worlds-wealth?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%28144%29&CNDID=32291837&spMailingID=7435981&spUserID=ODc4NDk0NTczMDAS1&spJobID=602473034&spReportId=NjAyNDczMDM0S0

Comedy gold.
325  Other / Meta / Re: As Chief of Police of the Crypto Police Department I Subpoena the forums on: January 21, 2015, 06:56:16 AM
I have given theymos 24 hours to inform me of how he is going to recover the 250 btc from the "deceased" treasurer. I will follow this with several other subpoenas to investigate the actions that are being carried out. Some of these subpoenas will involve the forums money being used for the forum software.


I have given theymos 24 hours to inform me of how he is going to recover the 250 btc from the "deceased" treasurer. I will follow this with several other subpoenas to investigate the actions that are being carried out. Some of these subpoenas will involve the forums money being used for the forum software.
LOL what? I hope you realize that legally speaking all the forum's money is property of theymos. He feels otherwise and wishes to use it to help the community, however if he wanted it for himself he would not even need to "run"
<snip>

I don't think it really matters. IDK how much bitcoin he still has/owns personally (maybe he will publicly say but probably not), but the forum's money is his money.

<snip>
Can you link the post/thread where theymos claimed legal ownership of the forums funds?
I'm sure Sirius, justmoon and all the donators, and not to mention the IRS, will be interested to see it.
326  Economy / Economics / Re: 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% on: January 19, 2015, 02:56:57 PM
The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."
Bitcoin is on a diminishing inflation curve called the block reward. Spending bitcoins is irrevocable distribution.
I hope you're not going to hijack this thread trying to prove an obviously flawed notion.
Spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.
Payment for asset or service represents transfer of value, tangible or otherwise.
Ergo, the spender can theoretically recoup said expenditure by trading in the value of his purchase at a later date.
An obvious exception here is consumables, but the cyclical nature of value transfer within the BTC ecosystem on a macro scale will even things out.
So, to reiterate, spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.

Congratulations. You just disproved the existence of economies. I can now get everything for free.
So in your mind, spending equals wealth distribution; rejecting that notion means denying the existence of economies. Got it. Enjoy your free everything.


327  Economy / Economics / Re: 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% on: January 19, 2015, 02:33:13 PM
The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."
Bitcoin is on a diminishing inflation curve called the block reward. Spending bitcoins is irrevocable distribution.
I hope you're not going to hijack this thread trying to prove an obviously flawed notion.
Spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.
Payment for asset or service represents transfer of value, tangible or otherwise.
Ergo, the spender can theoretically recoup said expenditure by trading in the value of his purchase at a later date.
An obvious exception here is consumables, but the cyclical nature of value transfer within the BTC ecosystem on a macro scale will even things out.
So, to reiterate, spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.


It's simply disgusting, if you're interested in making a change, investigate the Zeitgeist movement, they offer real solutions, yet I don't see any changes without violence. Mark Twain once said, the earth isn't dying, it's being killed, and the people responsibe have names and adresses.....
Indeed. It is beyond tragic.
Thank for the Zeitgeist rec. Will read later, at the very least.
328  Economy / Economics / Re: 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% on: January 19, 2015, 02:14:03 PM
The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."
329  Economy / Economics / 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% on: January 19, 2015, 12:53:46 PM
Make of this what you will.

• By 2016, the top 1% of the world’s population will have more wealth than the other 99%
• 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion)
• The poorest 80% own just 5.5% of the world's wealth
• The richest 80 doubled their worth in cash terms between 2009 and 2014
• More than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches
• Britain’s 100 richest had the same wealth as 30% of UK households
• The financial sector contributed $571 million to various campaigns during 2012 U.S. presidential elections
• In 2013, financial and insurance lobbies gave $550 million to policymakers in Washington and Brussels

ps: Before anyone blindly starts proselytizing about Bitoin, keep in mind the same pattern has/is emerging in crypto as well.
Less it be forgotten, the top 100 addresses own 20% (2,875,298 BTCs) of all BTCs mined thus far (13,736,250, as of block #339,450).
330  Other / Off-topic / Re: General Football Discussion on: January 16, 2015, 03:05:01 AM
Does anyone believe that Liverpool will catch up 4th place?  Cheesy

Hard but it can happen, this is premier league and anything is possible u sure hope for my kid cuz he is fan of Liverpool.


If Danny Sturridge returns in February and stays fit until the end of the season, they will.

Incredibly, Liverpool screwed up in the transfer market this season by not getting a replacement for Suarez.
Ricky Lambert and Mario Balotelli are target men; Brendan Rodgers' Liverpool do not play with target men.
This is so blatantly obvious, I can't believe the club allowed it to happen.
They play with fast, mobile wide forwards that can swap places. For the first half of the season, Liverpool effectively played without a reliable striker.
Heck, it got so bad, Sterling was converted into a striker.

So, the key is Sturridge.
If he can stay fit, he will bring in 8-12 goals, and his goalscoring threat will draw attention away from Sterling, Stevie, Lallana, Coutinho and the rest.
Liverpool need to secure two more wins than Arsenal to secure fourth. Southampton will fade away, as their lack of depth is exposed in the run up.
United might also run into some trouble. Despite the accolades received by LvG, they are actually on level points at the same stage last season. The only reason why they are perched so high up is because of their rivals' form.
331  Other / Meta / Re: Bring back Newbie Jail on: January 16, 2015, 02:48:04 AM

Actually, I created poll relating to this some months back. Like you, I was/remain mystified over the admins' apathy on the subject. Here's what BadBear had to say about it.

I've never seen so many complaints about people having the right to choose. Do you really want some dudes on a forum deciding what you should be able to invest your money in? If you feel their should be controls of some sorts, then do it, and stop expecting someone else to do it for you. Make an Altcoin Business Bureau or whatever you think will help. I had hopes for that scamcoin buster thing a while back, but it seems to have fizzled out.

Restricting accounts will not work. Do you honestly think the scams are just some random newbie that shows up, then leaves? There are rings of scammers operating here. It's the same on any forum revolving around finance, this isn't a phenomenon located just here. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out the majority of them are by the same two or three groups. If we restrict newbies from posting, then we'll just see proxy posts, people paying someone else to post it for them. Then every announcement thread will be prefaced with  *Not my coin, just posting this thread*. Or bought accounts, which will just be considered the cost of doing business by scammers. No matter what restrictions we put on accounts, they'll get around it. Need to be a Junior member to make a thread? If I were a scammer, I'd just make 50 accounts today, 50 accounts tomorrow, 50 more the day after that, etc. After a few weeks I'm back in business, with tons of disposable accounts to cull the suckers who now have a false sense of security. Pay to post? Just look at how many donators/VIP members turned out to be scammers for proof that no amount is high enough to deter scammers. I remember seeing one scammer post in scammer accusations, he said he made 5k+ a month here, and had been for several months. He's probably still here.  

People are too used to having someone else hold their hand. Many people just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, and don't want to admit they're gullible, greedy idiots, so they run here to post about how it's totally everyone else's fault, and the forum should have stopped it somehow.

You have the freedom to choose, make your choices wisely.

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.


I took the liberty of putting the full quote from BadBear in. Now where in the quote does BadBear say "rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all"? Because I don't see it in that quote. I appreciate that your argument is more nuanced. I agree that if there's a reasonable measure that can be taken to actually hinder scammer it should be implemented. And maybe I came off a tad strong. I'm in a crappy mood and the rest of the world be damned! Also I didn't have coffee yet and I sincerely can't see a picture so big that not wanting to hold everyone's hand on a forum means wanting to get rid of laws against murder, kidnapping and theft.

And, of course, I still don't feel newbie jail will do anything to stop malicious people from doing whatever they want on here.
I didn't intend to convey the idea that it was a direct quote. It was essentially the point he was trying to make. And it wasn't a one-off, mind. This hands-off, buyers beware approach has been their mantra, even if they've contradicted themselves on occasions.

I appreciate you backing off, and I'll reciprocate. I understand how shitty some days can be, especially in the absence of coffee.

My point is, we have existing newbie restrictions, and we used to have more - but suddenly the idea of implementing new ones or reinvoking old ones are taboo. There are implications when the barriers and costs of entry are raised or lowered. In this particular instance, the lowering of the barriers has yielded a year-long flood of abusers. Isn't it time to raise the barriers up once again?
332  Other / Meta / Re: Bring back Newbie Jail on: January 16, 2015, 02:09:56 AM
I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.


That's not really a fair comparison. The point he's trying to make is is no amount of restrictions will ever stop spammers or scammers. They're persitent and they'll just wait their time and bypass any restrictions we put in place and all this then does is penalise genuine users who just want to be able to contribute to the community in whatever way and having restrictions and jails is just really annoying and off putting to them.
Don't you see? I am pointing out exactly what you and BadBear are saying, i.e, if a rule cannot be strictly enforced, then such a rule should not be implemented in the first place. That's a flawed reasoning. Unless we're living in Airstrip One, there's always going to be someone who's going to break or ignore a rule/law/legislation; such is human nature.

You may not realize this, but these rules (or rather, the absence of them), are an expression of the political beliefs of theymos and the old guards of the forum. Unfortunately, time and experience has demonstrated this anarchist approach does not work in a lucrative forum environment populated by anonymous, unscrupulous character. Victim blaming can only go so far before the spotlight turns toward the stewards. Digging ones' heels too deep in might just eventually turn one into the elite dinosaur-like monoliths so many here proclaim to detest.

For the record, 'genuine users', as you termed it, do not create accounts out of the blue just to launch new coins, announce new ponzis, make loan requests or engage in character assassinations. You and I know this, and even BadBear alluded to as much. We have restrictions for newbies now, so we're not exactly selling our souls if we introduce new, much needed ones. Drawing arbitrary invisible lines that cannot be crossed just doesn't make sense.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother getting into these exchanges. It's not as if theymos or BadBear actually gives a damn to what we're saying. They should though, because this forum's reputation is gradually deteriorating by the day. They're both young men entrusted with awesome powers. I just hope they realize making decisions from ivory towers have never worked out well, and relying only on affirmations from sycophants can be misleading.


So you're saying
1) Current newbie account restrictions (limiting post time) doesn't work
2) Restricting newbie accounts to a single subforum is going to work

Am I getting that right? If so, could you convince me that 2 will work where it has failed in the past and 1 is not working either?

And where did theymos or any staff say that rules that cannot be 100% enforced should not be enacted at all? That sounds silly. Saying, "I guess this person thinks the world is flat" and then start arguing with that person that the world is round doesn't make sense either. But I'll play that game too then. What I guess is more likely on their mind is that some rules will have too much costs (effort to be practically enforced, reduction in genuine new users joining) to warrant the benefit (scammers will need to grow new accounts for 2 weeks, no biggie!). Let's see which one of us is the better mind reader.

And if you want to discuss the morality/politics behind laws and their enforcement feel free to open another thread, because it seems way off topic for the newbie jail poll.
You're saying those things - not me. My argument is more nuanced than that.
As to whether its silly or not, perhaps you should ask Badbear, since he said it, as I quoted earlier.
As for your displeasure over the rest of my comment, frankly, I don't give a damn. This is meta, and the subject relates to the topic at hand. I can't help it if you can't see the big picture.
333  Other / Politics & Society / Re: SEVEN SHODDY EXCUSES LEFTIES USE TO JUSTIFY THE MASSACRES IN PARIS on: January 16, 2015, 01:22:07 AM
I am as biased as you are. I always will be. You always will be (although, I don't pay attention to names on any forum, so I don't know what you stand for on anything exactly.)

There always will be something new to discuss, yes.

Unless changing my wordings, no need to say you are sorry. Too many pictures in this case.

Although, thanks to my deeply held belief in my supreme faith of my bias, those images were ULTRA relevant to all. I understand you do not agree. If you are my polar opposite in Bizarro World, then it was imperative you'd found these images irrelevant to your own bias...

If you believe what the author of the article said is wrong, then provide the links and prove the author wrong. To me the article was clear, concise and fabulous.

One could almost read it as effortlessly as playing Chopin on a Bösendorfer.........

 Smiley
Man, let's not run in circles.
You're supposed to provide me with the links supporting the article.
The article contained nothing to support its rhetoric. I've also demonstrated two lies by the author.

For the record though, I am biased in favor of the truth, and I hate political labels.
So please don't worry about my stance. I am an equal opportunity dick to the right, left and center.
334  Other / Meta / Re: Bring back Newbie Jail on: January 16, 2015, 01:08:08 AM
I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.


That's not really a fair comparison. The point he's trying to make is is no amount of restrictions will ever stop spammers or scammers. They're persitent and they'll just wait their time and bypass any restrictions we put in place and all this then does is penalise genuine users who just want to be able to contribute to the community in whatever way and having restrictions and jails is just really annoying and off putting to them.
Don't you see? I am pointing out exactly what you and BadBear are saying, i.e, if a rule cannot be strictly enforced, then such a rule should not be implemented in the first place. That's flawed reasoning. Unless we're living in Airstrip One, there's always going to be someone who's going to break or ignore a rule/law/legislation; such is human nature.

You may not realize this, but these rules (or rather, the absence of them), are an expression of the political beliefs of theymos and the old guards of the forum. Unfortunately, time and experience has demonstrated this anarchist approach does not work in a lucrative forum environment populated by anonymous, unscrupulous characters. Victim blaming can only go so far before the spotlight turns toward the stewards. Digging ones' heels too deep in might just eventually turn one into the elite dinosaur-like monoliths so many here proclaim to detest.

For the record, 'genuine users', as you termed it, do not create accounts out of the blue just to launch new coins, announce new ponzis, make loan requests or engage in character assassinations. You and I know this, and even BadBear alluded to as much. We already have restrictions for newbies now, so we're not exactly selling our souls if we introduce new, much needed ones. Drawing arbitrary invisible lines that cannot be crossed just doesn't make sense.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother getting into these exchanges. It's not as if theymos or BadBear actually gives a damn to what we're saying. They should though, because this forum's reputation is gradually deteriorating by the day. They're both young men entrusted with awesome powers. I just hope they realize making decisions from ivory towers have never worked out well, and relying only on affirmations from sycophants can be misleading.
335  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: THE BYTECENT DISASTER on: January 15, 2015, 03:53:14 AM
I'm sorry you were doxxed by IE.
Somehow, in his twisted mind, he probably thought it would silence you, when all it did is reinforce people's opinion that he is a thieving, dishonest scumbag.
336  Other / Politics & Society / Re: SEVEN SHODDY EXCUSES LEFTIES USE TO JUSTIFY THE MASSACRES IN PARIS on: January 15, 2015, 03:45:58 AM

Could you please provide links showing 'lefties' 'justifying' the massacre?
Not trying to be rude, but please ensure you understand what I am requesting. If you are uncertain, kindly let me know.

Of course I can. Send an email to the author of that article I posted and I am sure he will provide you with what you are requesting, without me wasting your time with my bias choices  Smiley


Oh, don't worry. He's just as biased as you are (though not as much (!) as other more prominent Breitbart writers, incredibly).  Wink
Unfortunately, none of the links in his piece support his headline. I'm doubt he would've kept any more convincing links up his sleeve, just in case someone emails him for one.
In fact, Delingpole blatantly lied about the Telegraph op-ed. He started by misrepresenting the 'offensive' comment before proclaiming that the article "seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming." I'll quote you the first and last paragraph in case you did not read it.

Quote
"There could have been no more powerful reproof to the despicable actions – and warped values – of the Islamist thugs whose actions traumatised France last week than yesterday’s march through the centre of Paris."
Quote
"But the march in Paris reminds us, at the very least, that the men of violence are not just a minority, but a fragment of a fragment. And it may be that it also acts as a turning point."

So, I am asking you again if you can provide any links to support the accusation. Justifying the murders is abhorrent, so I am very curious whether there is any basis to Delingpole and your claim.



Not showing the cover of Charlie Hebdo is the definition of submission. If you agree with this submission the terrorists have won. If you don't then good for you.

The concept of believing everything you read or trust is not biased toward your (normal?) values is not strange.
A cow has a bias toward eating grass, a lion has a bias toward eating fresh meat still barely alive.

My bias is as natural as yours. Why waste my time looking for links you could find yourself proving me wrong?

You have already made up your mind regarding my bias. I always put my bias front and center by posting links I find interesting. What else there is to add regarding my bias? Smiley

Wilikon is biased toward a conservative view and definitely not a fan of liberals and the gauche caviar, never ready to change their lives by following their own agenda. Wilikon loves to make fun of them, but he does not mind being called a fool too and be put in his place; as in 'a place' defined by the progressive mind Smiley
 
For that I need to keep my mind open and read and listen to what the liberals are saying. That is why I find it funny people rejecting foxnews while most conservative minds love learning about liberals and their alice in wonderland (always turning into a nightmare) views.


Four Ways the Associated Press Is Avoiding Showing the Muhammad Cartoon on New Charlie Hebdo Issue

<snipped ~ 8 big images and other irrelevant stuff>


Sorry to trim your post Wilikon, but they're irrelevant to your original contention and my request for corroboration. Do you actually have any links to support the accusation?
I think we've already established that Delingpole was not being honest and is just blowing hot air (and no, I'm not making a sexual pun involving Allahpundit or Ed Morrissey  Smiley).
As for you being biased, you and I both agree that you are, so there's really nothing to discuss, yes?
337  Other / Meta / Re: I think trust system default should be set at 3 on: January 15, 2015, 03:13:37 AM
I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.



And it creates a more-equal-than-the-rest hierarchical superclass, followed by all the usual social byproducts (cronyism, nepotism, abuse, grovelling, outcasts).
338  Other / Meta / Re: Bring back Newbie Jail on: January 15, 2015, 02:43:13 AM
Well this certainly wouldn't be the first time that we have asked for its return. However this might be the first thread that has a poll (unsure).
Despite of the obvious request by the community, the staff isn't doing anything about it. The question is why?


Note: I've obviously voted yes.

Actually, I created poll relating to this some months back. Like you, I was/remain mystified over the admins' apathy on the subject. Here's what BadBear had to say about it.


<snip>

Restricting accounts will not work. Do you honestly think the scams are just some random newbie that shows up, then leaves? There are rings of scammers operating here. It's the same on any forum revolving around finance, this isn't a phenomenon located just here. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out the majority of them are by the same two or three groups. If we restrict newbies from posting, then we'll just see proxy posts, people paying someone else to post it for them. Then every announcement thread will be prefaced with  *Not my coin, just posting this thread*. Or bought accounts, which will just be considered the cost of doing business by scammers. No matter what restrictions we put on accounts, they'll get around it.

<snip>

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.
339  Other / Politics & Society / Re: SEVEN SHODDY EXCUSES LEFTIES USE TO JUSTIFY THE MASSACRES IN PARIS on: January 15, 2015, 01:55:58 AM

Could you please provide links showing 'lefties' 'justifying' the massacre?
Not trying to be rude, but please ensure you understand what I am requesting. If you are uncertain, kindly let me know.

Of course I can. Send an email to the author of that article I posted and I am sure he will provide you with what you are requesting, without me wasting your time with my bias choices  Smiley


Oh, don't worry. He's just as biased as you are (though not as much (!) as other more prominent Breitbart writers, incredibly).  Wink
Unfortunately, none of the links in his piece support his headline. I'm doubt he would've kept any more convincing links up his sleeve, just in case someone emails him for one.
In fact, Delingpole blatantly lied about the Telegraph op-ed. He started by misrepresenting the 'offensive' comment before proclaiming that the article "seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming." I'll quote you the first and last paragraph in case you did not read it.

Quote
"There could have been no more powerful reproof to the despicable actions – and warped values – of the Islamist thugs whose actions traumatised France last week than yesterday’s march through the centre of Paris."
Quote
"But the march in Paris reminds us, at the very least, that the men of violence are not just a minority, but a fragment of a fragment. And it may be that it also acts as a turning point."

So, I am asking you again if you can provide any links to support the accusation. Justifying the murders is abhorrent, so I am very curious whether there is any basis to Delingpole and your claim.
340  Economy / Speculation / Re: BTC AT $178 - $145 under $100 ? on: January 14, 2015, 08:01:40 AM
whatyou think about this price ?

i think it will touch $145 or below $100.
I'm sure bitcoin price will rise down under $100
That's why i sell now & buy again if it reach the bottom
I say it hit around 50-80 dolllars as a low

What are you guys basing the prices on? Just pure guesswork, or something more substantial?
The price is being manipulated - that's for certain, IMO. I just saw the price shifting from $168.5 to $190 in about six minutes.

Some speculate that new giant mining farms in China and Mongolia are just dumping coins as soon as they're confirmed. The timing of the dumps supports this theory, considering the absence of buying support from North America (night to midnight) and Western Europe (dawn to early morning).

Others, meanwhile, believes whales are manipulating the market as part of their accumulation strategy, mainly owing to Bitcoin's inevitable mainstream commercial adoption.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!