its ok. double bottoms are not uncommon. the blockchain marches on.
RISK ON! LOL |
|
|
|
As I've said in past threads, apparently "the manipulator" = anyone with a substantially large sum of money.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Calling this guy (or group of guys) a manipulator is absolutely retarded because the goal of "making money" far outweighs any other incentive to manipulate the market. If anyone else traded with the same large sums of money that were observed yesterday, they, too, would be called "manipulators." Large sums of money move the market? No shit?
Edit: I'll allow a caveat for Gox manipulation.
Sounds like something a manipulator would say. You can't fool me!  |
|
|
|
I give gifts because the repayment is inherent; the value of the person I'm giving to. I see where you're coming from, and I'm with you. But what I'm saying is, repayment for a gift is different from that of a favor. When you are doing someone a favor, equal(ish) value is expected to be returned at some point (calling in a favor). Which is putting them in your debt (a matter of dignity for those who don't like owing others). A gift has no such stigma associated with it, regardless of what is received. |
|
|
|
As always, context is king. You are all capable of creating tremendous value!
versus A positive EVA momentum reading means a company has created more value by increasing its EVA while a negative EVA momentum reading means EVA has decreased, signaling less value creation... There is a reason most of those links were to dry business documents  |
|
|
|
|
Well gift is something given with no expectation of repayment. A favor is generally something given with expectation of it being paid back, as in repay the favor.
Unilateral decision means one of two or more sides, you are speaking about people in general in the sentence you used it in, there is no other side. A better word would be unanimous, which means in complete agreement, which fits the context of what you were trying to say much better.
Additionally, your talk of "creating value" is odd, you don't create value. You create or do things that are valued, or have value, you don't create value.
Also your writing style in general is odd, the many sentence fragments really break up the rhythm of what you are trying to say. I also saw what you said about not agreeing with the definition of the words, but that just doesn't make sense. It's the definition whether you agree or not, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really know who you are, but is English your second language? If it is that's cool, I can't imagine talking in your primary language, but you should cut out the big words, most of them don't mean what you seem to think they mean.
|
|
|
|
Nice, good job with it.  |
|
|
|
domain: okpay.com owner: - - organization: OKPAY Inc. email: kosmorus@gmail.comaddress: Mill Mall Tower, 2nd Floor, Wickhams Cay city: Road postal-code: VG1110 country: VG phone: +49.11111111 Searching the address comes up with nothing but scams and scam warnings, with no way to contact/find the owner. I'll pass, thanks. |
|
|
|
That isn't a bank you dork. A quick google turned up this regarding okpay, so buyer beware. Whois Private - Hidden ownership. Registered through godaddy. "For safety reasons and because of Moneybookers chargebacks your payments are put on hold while being checked. The process may take up two months depending on the period you are using OKPAY. Approximate time of us getting chargebacks is a month. " |
|
|
|
|
The cost of electricity is pretty irrelevant to the price, especially since a lot of miners aren't paying their electricity bills. Also, look at the FPGA miners people are working on, would mean electricity cost would be way lower than it is now, thus forcing non FPGA miners out of the market, and driving the prices even lower. I wish I could be as optimistic as some of you, but everywhere I look things are not looking good.
|
|
|
|
Shorting bitcoin has been a good way to go for the past 5 months. 5 months from now I'm confident we'll be even lower (< $1), so even shorting now will probably turn out profitable.
im into bitcoins for about one and a half month or so,.. i can't share your pessimistic point of view, i think it will once drop lower than 2, or maybe even then 1, but then we see a big trend reversal, as suggested by the elliot-wave stuff beeing around here in the forum. serious: who of you would NOT be tempted to buy maaaany bitcoins when they hit $0,999? you proudhon? Well gosh, I just don't know how to counter this intelligent discussion about "elliot-wave stuff". You must be right. BUY BUY BUY! |
|
|
|
not really because the btc economy will have 'ups and downs' like a normal economy but will rebound faster because its smaller, anyways if people just start selling that will drive the price down and then people will start to buy because they will be so cheap ... I think
Problem is, what happens when the price goes back down again, and everyone who would buy them just because they are cheap, have already bought them? No interested buyers left and the price stagnates and continues to drop. You'll see a few rallies, which will be sold into hard and killed by people who bought too early/miners who want to sell before the price drops again. |
|
|
|
mjcmurphy- great response point by point. I second almost all of that. Theymos - I tried to be polite in my first post about this, but it's clear that you've moved beyond considering this policy and are simply going to implement it. You're now in the stage of finding justifications for a policy that is unpopular in aggregate and especially among many Hero Members here. You said... Yes, users can block images in their browsers. But it seems to me most correct to assume that users don't want something possibly unwanted than to assume they do want it. Posts are categorized so that readers have a choice in what they read. Fine. Fair point. So make sig images turned off by default, but let people turn them on if they choose! What you are proposing removes all choice entirely from the user. You are doing the very opposite of providing "freedom and choice" which you ironically use as justification for limiting those very things. And I didn't even realize that embedded images were going to be removed also?!?! Are you mad?!? That is even worse than sig images and would just totally make me blow my lid... and my lid is on very tight by default. I'm on this forum all the time. I love it - it's been hugely educational, entertaining, and wonderful for nurturing the many facets of the Bitcoin community. Now, I can deal with annoying images. I can deal with off-topic posts. I can deal with trolls and idiots and haters and the ignorant hordes. I can even deal with Nagle. But this diktat you propose is so misguided and detrimental that there's a reasonable likelihood it would compel me to start frequenting other forums, and may just leave this one entirely. Images are a fundamental part of the information that is conveyed between users. The fact that much of the information is garbage is only reflective of the fact that most of all information is garbage - written or visual. But even if 90% of images were, as you say, "worthless," it would still be a very bad decision to remove all images entirely. What we see that is garbage is known - but what we don't see that is valuable is unknown. If you remove images there is a great "unknown" cost... all the good information that otherwise would've been conveyed, yet nobody will ever know about it or account for it. You are deciding on an issue which is highly contentious - and on a subject which is not even a crucial problem! You're trying to fix something that isn't broken, and are very likely to break it by doing so. Your justifications, generally, boil down to personal preferences of your own but are being veiled behind "concern for the community." That's a foolish and disrespectful mistake to make. I hope you're making that mistake accidentally and that you will realize the folly of this. Again, please reconsider. For seriously.  |
|
|
|
So the thief finally cashes out... at $3 instead of $15 or $20 xD
I like how it's assumed to be a thief. Cause anyone with a significant amount must be someone who scammed or swindled.  |
|
|
|
|
I'm almost positive you guys are SA trolls, just trying to make the rest of bitcoin users look bad by being extremists to a fault.
|
|
|
|
Yeah one of the downsides of bitcoin, having to use linux. I kid, but in all seriousness, look at his OP again. i come back home today, and find my computer in sore shape.
its tell me some files where accesed remotely and asks me to block this attact
it would seem i have a w32.Blaster worm. and was unable to start any programs.
after running the virus scan everything seems back to normal... ish
it would seem the attacker did NOT steal my bitcoin wallet!
He got hit with a 8 year old worm, and is probably still using XP (a decade old at this point). Nothing will help people like this. |
|
|
|
|
Why the shit would he want to use Ubuntu?
|
|
|
|
|
So, tired of being wrong yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
