Seems like we lost our time buddy. I don't know if they're trolls or just completely stupid, but I understand why Reddit closed their thread. Seeing something like that really makes you lose faith in humanity xD |
|
|
|
Looks at those fucking pictures, I just proved that NASA are liars!
Dude you're serious? Nobody can be this dumb surely? You're not real? You call those real photographs of Earth? You're the retard here if you believe that! Ok. You're the first user I ignore but you really deserve it. So much stupidity and bullshit in only one person. That's scary! The problem being that people like you actually vote  |
|
|
|
Looks at those fucking pictures, I just proved that NASA are liars!
Dude you're serious? Nobody can be this dumb surely? You're not real? |
|
|
|
...
So... My chart coming directly from NASA measurements is lying, but the graph coming from a website with more porno adds than actual text, not giving ONE SINGLE SOURCE is telling the truth?
Do you want to talk about denying now?
Yes. You really don't even know what the Met is? First no I don't know what it is, never heard of it. And can't find it on google by typing met so not that famous whatever it is. Second, it doesn't matter, there isn't any source in the article, it's not because i write "Spendulus said blahblah" that it's true. Next time gives directly the MET report whatever it is if that's your argument. I didn't give you a dubious shitty article of the worst French newspapper, I gave you directly the NASA result. I think the MET is the British Meteorological society? Or their weather agency... Well if that's the case sorry if I don't know the name of the weather agency of your country... Can't know all of them xD And met agrees with me as it seems: http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/has-global-warming-stalledSeems like they do measure a fucking huge rise trend. Don't know if you can read a graph though... You are going to quote Trenberth? Here is what he said in private - as shown by the Climategate emails. Kevin Trenberth to Micheal Mann on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 and copied to most of the leading academics...(Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer. )
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. So yes, Trenberth was a liar. Can't we get real about this stuff? There is clearly both a political and a scientific part to it all. Don't know who he is and you're not giving me any proof. I'm not quoting anyone, I just linked you to the met graph as you were saying that met explained that there is no global warming... I'm trying to find YOUR source as you don't give me any proof... Can we just get to the scientific part yeah? Show me ONE report, graph or anything proving your point. Please a real one, not something from the daily mail... |
|
|
|
|
Ok well I understand clearly why reddit closed your thread guys, hard to not want to kill you all xD
So it seems we're done here. You all believe that anyone and any infrastructure, even the most officials ones are lying if they claim climate change is real.
You ARE all deniers. In the sense that if we show you proofs (as I've done) you just say that the NASA is lying.
Well if the NASA is lying, what are we talking about? Where do you find any real data? And how do you know it's real?
You're just all saying things, without any proof arguing that it's the truth. And you just explain any opposing proof by saying that they're lies.
What a marvelous discussion we have here xD
|
|
|
|
My ONE SINGLE SOURCE is reason!  NASA claimed each and every one of these pictures was an actual photograph of Earth. They are obvious fakers, liars and hoaxers stealing your tax money and pushing self serving propaganda. NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything! I always wonder, are you for real or are you just a big troll? NASA lies about everything? So we never landed on the moon that's it? |
|
|
|
Hypocrisy? Let me see... Fees are supposed to replace the block reward, even when blocks stay at 1 MB. So 1 MB of transactions should yield 25 BTC in fees. On average, 1700 tx fit in a full block. So 1 tx requires a fee of 25/1700 = 0.0145 BTC, which is atm $5.58. That's 35x more than $0.16. I won't get upset over $0.16, but more than $5 is quite something else.
Personally I expect that subsidy reduction will mostly be covered by price increase in BTC. BTC can rise as much as it wants, but $5 is still $5 (you can decrease the fees in terms of BTC, but if miners need currently 25*400 = 10 kUSD, that's what they need. If you state that at some point in the future, all miners' revenue should come from fees, then it's ALL revenue. It will only be different if a) blocks can get bigger, or b) blocks can be more efficient (like SegWit). Double the no. of tx, then the fees in today's USD will halve in the long run. It's that simple, really.
As far as fees are concerned, we'll see how it goes. We are somewhat far from the point of replacing the subsidy and by that time a lot will have changed, both in blocksize and scaling solutions.
The decrease is exponential. It goes pretty fast. And by limiting the usage of BTC (to 1700 tx per block, or hardly twice of that), you can wonder how high the price can get. I like your arguments. It's right that a decrease in btc doesn't count, as long as most people will be paid in $ you've got to think in fiat. Whatever btc price, 5$ is still 5$. And I just don't understand why blocks size is not adapted? Is there any reason for that? |
|
|
|
...
So... My chart coming directly from NASA measurements is lying, but the graph coming from a website with more porno adds than actual text, not giving ONE SINGLE SOURCE is telling the truth?
Do you want to talk about denying now?
Yes. You really don't even know what the Met is? First no I don't know what it is, never heard of it. And can't find it on google by typing met so not that famous whatever it is. Second, it doesn't matter, there isn't any source in the article, it's not because i write "Spendulus said blahblah" that it's true. Next time gives directly the MET report whatever it is if that's your argument. I didn't give you a dubious shitty article of the worst French newspapper, I gave you directly the NASA result. I think the MET is the British Meteorological society? Or their weather agency... Well if that's the case sorry if I don't know the name of the weather agency of your country... Can't know all of them xD And met agrees with me as it seems: http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/has-global-warming-stalledSeems like they do measure a fucking huge rise trend. Don't know if you can read a graph though... |
|
|
|
...
So... My chart coming directly from NASA measurements is lying, but the graph coming from a website with more porno adds than actual text, not giving ONE SINGLE SOURCE is telling the truth?
Do you want to talk about denying now?
Yes. You really don't even know what the Met is? First no I don't know what it is, never heard of it. And can't find it on google by typing met so not that famous whatever it is. Second, it doesn't matter, there isn't any source in the article, it's not because i write "Spendulus said blahblah" that it's true. Next time gives directly the MET report whatever it is if that's your argument. I didn't give you a dubious shitty article of the worst French newspapper, I gave you directly the NASA result. |
|
|
|
I dont think he knows about the daily mail...
they are a joke. It does not matter, though. They accurately report the statements of the Met. Arguing that "Since 1880 it's warmed 0.75 degrees" is not inconsistent with "The last two decades there has been no significant warming." The last two decades are very important though - because they contradict the predictions of the scientists whom, m0glie argues, we should rely. It is not little me "a Denier" against the great number of scientists, but mother earth herself... She just isn't going along with their schemes, now, is she? I didn't know about the daily mail, thought you were serious. But do you know how to actually read a graph? Look again and you'll see a 0.2° increase since 2000, a 0.4° increase in the last two decades. You call that "no warming"? Are you dumb AND blind? |
|
|
|
Get your skeptics started young! Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed!
Dude, being skeptical and not just believing what you're told without question is the antithesis of the brainwashed mind. noobs and junior members coming around playing tough et al.  Oh yeah, lets all be skeptical of what all the non-crackpot scientists have concluded. The opposition to climate science is lead by people like Hannity et all... Who do you believe? Mr bias and his right-wing media mates or the vast majority of scientists everywhere? That being said, i'm not against skepticism, but nothing new has come to the table here, all these denials we have heard before and none have stood up. Otherwise we wouldnt be talking about this now. I'm just not against skepticism, but nothing new has come to the table here. Just deny the decline. Just deny the 19 years of no warming. Just deny it. Because that's what deniers do. Hello, Denier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6Lyg3GC9419 years of no warming? http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/So NASA is lying? That makes a lot of people lying... But yeah, it's probably all the scientists of the world who are lying. Not you who is mistaken. I think your chart is lying. Interesting that the Met office agrees, but also states the same overall warming number since 1880 - 0.75. Explain that. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.htmlSo... My chart coming directly from NASA measurements is lying, but the graph coming from a website with more porno adds than actual text, not giving ONE SINGLE SOURCE is telling the truth? Do you want to talk about denying now? |
|
|
|
Do you have to be a millionaire to have shelter and food?
you have to be paid at least enough money to be able to afford them, which many workers in menial jobs are not, which is why government "theft" on behalf of poor workers exists Considering over 2 billion people in the world survive on less than $3 per day, most people can afford food and shelter. Taking a job where you feel you are "exploited" is not a requirement for not going hungry. Oh, wonderful dumb comment. "afford food and shelter" means nothing. Which kind of food and shelter? Yes most people can afford rotten food and eating the exact same cereal day after day. Which leads to malnutrition and early death. Yes most people have a "shelter". It mostly consists in just a bunch of garbages assembled into a house shape but it doesn't rain on their head if it's what you mean. Well that doesn't mean they won't die of cold cause there is nothing to protect them from that but still. People can afford "food and shelter" as you say. For sure. Just eat the dirt and live under a bridge. Won't cost you 1$! Or be like this guy who has no job who is richer than all of us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF9TNM9R-iwOh yeah? And where do you find the 20k$ needed for the boat he has? With his incredible 1200$ camera he sure never had money... You're one of those dumbass saying that "it's perfectly normal if 1% of the world has more than 99%, cause it means everyone can go to the top" no? |
|
|
|
Do you have to be a millionaire to have shelter and food?
you have to be paid at least enough money to be able to afford them, which many workers in menial jobs are not, which is why government "theft" on behalf of poor workers exists Considering over 2 billion people in the world survive on less than $3 per day, most people can afford food and shelter. Taking a job where you feel you are "exploited" is not a requirement for not going hungry. Oh, wonderful dumb comment. "afford food and shelter" means nothing. Which kind of food and shelter? Yes most people can afford rotten food and eating the exact same cereal day after day. Which leads to malnutrition and early death. Yes most people have a "shelter". It mostly consists in just a bunch of garbages assembled into a house shape but it doesn't rain on their head if it's what you mean. Well that doesn't mean they won't die of cold cause there is nothing to protect them from that but still. People can afford "food and shelter" as you say. For sure. Just eat the dirt and live under a bridge. Won't cost you 1$! |
|
|
|
Gambling is high risky.
Lending, is good but now in little time.
Forex seems the only way (less risky than gambing)
Less risky? I'm not sure of that. In gambling you have on average around 48% chance to win. On forex you have average 100% to get screwed xD |
|
|
|
I know that's not easy and not possible in just one day. I just thought if maybe someone has some good method for investing or something that brought him nice profit. I know it's always a risk, just courious to see what are the experiences.
One good way is investment in lending procedures. Lending your money is the best way to gain profitability from it in my opinion. It's rather safe and the usual percentage you earn is around 20% everytime you lend. That makes rather quickly a lot of money, but no way you more than double your btc in "a short period of time" ^^ What kind of lending do you mean? To other forum members? BTCJam? If someone's willing to pay 20% on short-term loan, he's probably a scammer or gambling degenerate. Not on short term loan of course! Nobody would pay 20% for a loan of few days. But the rates can reach 20% at a maximum, so if you lend on a rather long period you can earn rather a lot. But no of course you won't make 20% every month xD |
|
|
|
It's like Elvis, people insist on saying he died, but everybody knows he didn't.
lol I think it's different, you can not equate bitcoin with living things, bitcoin will always live even if the price will fall $ 1 Actually no. If btc price falls to 1$, no one will mine btc because it would cost them lots of money to do so. If nobody mines btc, no transaction can be done. If no transactions can be done, it's hard to call btc "alive", cause it doesn't do anything. |
|
|
|
Hi! I'd take anyone fine for me, though I of course have a preference for Brazzers  Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
We're at a decision point here. Time to bet on the next trend. I'd bet for a small down, like 20$ then slowly going up until we pass the 400 again. Of course, that's only if nothing else happen, if we see another dev quitting the btc adventure it'll be another story xD |
|
|
|
I know that's not easy and not possible in just one day. I just thought if maybe someone has some good method for investing or something that brought him nice profit. I know it's always a risk, just courious to see what are the experiences.
One good way is investment in lending procedures. Lending your money is the best way to gain profitability from it in my opinion. It's rather safe and the usual percentage you earn is around 20% everytime you lend. That makes rather quickly a lot of money, but no way you more than double your btc in "a short period of time" ^^ |
|
|
|
Get your skeptics started young! Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed!
Dude, being skeptical and not just believing what you're told without question is the antithesis of the brainwashed mind. noobs and junior members coming around playing tough et al. Oh yeah, lets all be skeptical of what all the non-crackpot scientists have concluded. The opposition to climate science is lead by people like Hannity et all... Who do you believe? Mr bias and his right-wing media mates or the vast majority of scientists everywhere? That being said, i'm not against skepticism, but nothing new has come to the table here, all these denials we have heard before and none have stood up. Otherwise we wouldnt be talking about this now. I'm just not against skepticism, but nothing new has come to the table here. Just deny the decline. Just deny the 19 years of no warming. Just deny it. Because that's what deniers do. Hello, Denier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6Lyg3GC9419 years of no warming? http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/So NASA is lying? That makes a lot of people lying... But yeah, it's probably all the scientists of the world who are lying. Not you who is mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
