xcp burned a couple thousand already.
is xcp a person on this forum? I'm confused (perhaps perpetually so  ). |
|
|
|
We have told zackclark whats in store for him. He laughs at it. It's the same fate as a certain well known person on this board, that has just been issued a subpoena.
ZackClark won't be laughing much longer.
ZackClark: Last chance to work it out with us or the other option is going to cost you a shit load of money. Is it really worth it to you?
I do not think you need to worry about the trust rating. Anybody that has been on this forum for more than a week knows you're honest. Thanks for your kind comments. We just rang good old Zack and Sarah. Yes we have all of his details. So i ma sure he now knows we are not just saying things. We are following through with proceedings. lmao you ring my other half's phone at 2.45 AM then wonder why I am not happy about it just so you know the address you have is not my address and sarah is my other half and only domains are registered in her name you could have solved the issues a long time ago if you had talked to me back then lol we tried on numerous occasions to talk to you. You refused. Anyway this has gone to the next level. Just remove it and we all live happy ever after. Given all the saber-rattling here I'm kinda shocked (but happily so) that you guys were able to work it out. Amazing how live person-to-person conversations can put out an internet flame war. Good on both of you for working things out. |
|
|
|
Payments are still coming in nice and strong. Been signed on for 16 weeks now . Took enough BTC to pay for a VPN for 12 months! I hope you didn't choose an insecure one  Private Internet Access. Dont trust them 100% but you can trust any centralized host anyway. I am not too worried anyway, not got that much to hide. You've chosen one of the most insecure ones out there. In the US, there is a law which allows authorities (after a silent court order) to force VPN providers to log every activity without informing the user. Wow, damn the usa courts! Anyway, on the topic of bitmixer.io, my current sig campaign is closing and i'd consider coming back here if the rate went up just a little. I mean, this is the same rate that was being paid when btc was above 600$. Surely bitmixer can show a little love? To Nik1ab: I will take my chances, as I said, not got much to hide. To tspacepilot: I agree, a rate adjustment would be nice to reflect the change in BTC price, hey, I would even be happy with a fiat based rate that is calculated at the time of payment (e.g. $0.02 per activity point) For sure, if they would tie the rate on this campaign to fiat I would join in a moment. I don't like having to post a lot but at the same time getting a little btc from the signature ad gives me my spending allowance---don't want to forgo it altogether. |
|
|
|
|
I might try bitvisitor again if things get straightened out. However, I've experienced some weird location-based stuff from them before. Once I was receiving 10times the usual rewards when I was near the candian border, made me thing that they're offering different rates for different locales. I also tried to use their service once via tor, but it was denied.
|
|
|
|
The prices and actions no longer give ANY accurate picture of the value and price of bitcoin - why SHOULD their pricing be factored into any sort of average?
I don't understand this comment. Who does "their" refer to? If the price of bitcoin doesn't give any picture of its value, then what would? I'm confused. |
|
|
|
Payments are still coming in nice and strong. Been signed on for 16 weeks now . Took enough BTC to pay for a VPN for 12 months! I hope you didn't choose an insecure one Private Internet Access. Dont trust them 100% but you can trust any centralized host anyway. I am not too worried anyway, not got that much to hide. You've chosen one of the most insecure ones out there. In the US, there is a law which allows authorities (after a silent court order) to force VPN providers to log every activity without informing the user. Wow, damn the usa courts! Anyway, on the topic of bitmixer.io, my current sig campaign is closing and i'd consider coming back here if the rate went up just a little. I mean, this is the same rate that was being paid when btc was above 600$. Surely bitmixer can show a little love? |
|
|
|
Human nature is human nature. People will always lose their keys. After 21 million bitcoins, the number will decrease in a LINEAR fashion each year.
Unless somehow we humans become perfect :-)
We all agree that some bitcoins will be lost, but there's already been some pretty solid arguments posted upthread showing that it won't be linear. You should consider those arguments, I think. "human nature is human nature" is a tautology that doesn't do much in the face of actual arguments, IMHO. |
|
|
|
@escrow.pm pm sent.
Still selling accounts.
I think this is not looking so good if you have to resort to the tactics of escrow.pm in order to get noticed. I don't know, I'm not interested in buying or selling accounts, I just find the whole thing a bit creepy. |
|
|
|
Here is the unfinished section for Cryptogenic Bullion in my future publication called Cryptocurrency "The Alt-ernative" Reference Book. Please say if anything is incorrect. If anyone wants to help me complete a certain section, please do. Any donations towards this project are welcome - 5aagzgPLH9J5nR5KWaizLzdQENcmEVaJVZ    Is this going to be a paper publication? Or are you posting it somewhere on the web? |
|
|
|
So where things upto on this signature campaign? Are things going as planned as I haven't really seen much activity from admins on here. I also see weekly payments are due to be sent out for members too. Who has actually been paid here and whos wanting on payments.
Yes, Ritz's offer is closing at the end of the month so I'll be looking for a new sponsor. I'd like to know if there's a status update on this campaign. It looks quite tempting. |
|
|
|
Uh, 256 bit will be secure while you live.. Maybe. But we're all betting that it is secure for a very long time. Maybe not billions or millions of years, but if it actually survives a few hundred years, that's good enough for now.
Practially, I agree with this statement ^^^. Nonetheless, the discussion of how quantum computers relate to breaking sha 256 is pretty interesting. The image above with the solar system sized "perfect-computer" is cute, but it lacks detail. What's the valuation of "least engery possible to record a change of state"? Sorry I'm so dumb. |
|
|
|
sorry, ill try harder.
if the value of bitcoins rise all the bitcoiners will win. but because no wealth is created at any stage in the process, that means that the USD loses an equal amount of value as bitcoin has gained. however because the market cap of bitcoin is so small and the market cap of the USD is so big, it's like pissing in the ocean. there will be no effective devaluation in the USD until bicoin reaches a significant value.
do you undersand that by paying for something with USD that I have saved, I am indecting USD into the economy that was not apparently there before. this is creating a surplus. when I offer labour for USD I am creating a shortage of USD. when I buy a BTC with USD I am creating a permanent surplus (as long as I do not sell it again). the more USD in circulation, the less the value of each USD.
every time the bitcoiners win (bitcoin is in shortage, USD in surplus), the americans holding USD lose an equal amount of value. understand? zero sum.
If I understand your argument correctly, a crucial point is that for every btc someone holds, they released usd in order to get it (putting usd into surplus for a relative amount of btc shortage). Is that correct? If so, I think there's a flaw in the argument which is that not all bitcoins held were obtained by the release of usd. Miners mine, someone purchases btc for euros (not usd), someone trades labor (puts labor into surplus, not usd). Again, am I missing something? Thank you for the discussion. I'm going to chime in on this, if I may. Ultimately, I agree with chessnut. Currency wars are a zero-sum game, as wealth is created through production, not currency creation. But I think to understand this, it's important to view the broad picture of supply and demand for all forms of currency put together. The whole point of currency is to facilitate trade, not create wealth. Within this pool of various currencies, each one has its own levels of both supply and demand. The value of each is then determined from these levels. For simplicity, suppose BTC and USD were the only currencies in existence, and 99% of the world economy currently used USD for trade. This percentage reflects the demand of each currency, and the supply only affects the value of each unit within that percentage. So the overall supply of bitcoins, say 12 million in total, would divide over the 1% used in its part of the economy to determine the value for each coin. If the supply increases due to mining, or decreases due to hoarding, the price would adjust accordingly while staying in that 1%. But if there is a sudden spike in the demand for BTC, say 2% of the world economy, then each coin would double in value. Of course, if more are mined or sold or whatever at the same time, the price may still rise but not as much, as it would reflect the net effect of said changes in supply and demand. So in terms of these aforementioned direct exchanges between USD and BTC, the supply would be affected by how each user would spend or save each currency afterward. But someone who permanently dumps USD in favor of BTC has affected the demand side as well. But regardless of how well BTC does, it can only siphon away percentage points from the overall demand for currency, which will remain relatively constant. The reason many of us here find it superior to USD though is that no one can cheat the system and print their own BTC like they can USD. In other words, BTC is superior not because it creates prosperity, but because it prevents prosperity from being systematically stolen. Thank you for this reply, I think understand more deeply now. You guys are arguing that because bitcoin is a currency, the value of a bitcoin is zero-sum with respect to demand for currencies. Is that right? I think I understand well the point that if demand for bitcoin goes up and we assume that the demand for currencies overall hasn't changed, then the rise in value of a bitcoin is countered by an equivalent loss in value for the collective rest-of-the-currencies. Doesn't this reasoning assume that the demand for currencies (which are created to facilitate trade) is constant over time? Is such an assumption tenable given a changing world population and many other dynamic factors? That is, the more I think about you guys' argument, the more it seems to me that the creation of a more useful currency *can* create wealth, insofar as it does its job (fair faciliation of trade) better than older currencies. I'm probably wrong though. |
|
|
|
Important News:
As from May 31st 2014 we will cease with this signature campaign.
The reasons are as follows:
1) It simply isn't viable to continue with these high prices. The ROI is just not there.
2) It doesn't help, when the price of the btc is on the rise.
The Ritz Grand Casino does very well without the need of a signature program. In fact, the return visitors we get are incredible. So we are here to stay.
Everyone will still be paid up until May 31st. You must remain with the program until payout day, (1st june) to be paid. We will still check on the posts
We would like to thank every one who has participated in our signature campaign.
Good luck to you all and thanks for your support.
Ritz Grand Casino
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also sad to see the campaign come to an end. Nevertheless, I *do* have one question, can you clarify that you are still paying for all posts up until payday? That is, posts between now and 1 June still count. Can you confirm this? yeah I see why you ask you are around 60 posts. if you leave and go to up/down today and do 60 posts with them it would be better then staying here and doing a few more posts. I am at 300 plus so i am staying on. Thanks for your comment, still hoping that Ritz will confirm. However, I'm actually around 100 posts, Ritz paid me last month at 610 posts, now I'm somewhere over 710. How did you come up with that 60 posts number? |
|
|
|
sorry, ill try harder.
if the value of bitcoins rise all the bitcoiners will win. but because no wealth is created at any stage in the process, that means that the USD loses an equal amount of value as bitcoin has gained. however because the market cap of bitcoin is so small and the market cap of the USD is so big, it's like pissing in the ocean. there will be no effective devaluation in the USD until bicoin reaches a significant value.
do you undersand that by paying for something with USD that I have saved, I am indecting USD into the economy that was not apparently there before. this is creating a surplus. when I offer labour for USD I am creating a shortage of USD. when I buy a BTC with USD I am creating a permanent surplus (as long as I do not sell it again). the more USD in circulation, the less the value of each USD.
every time the bitcoiners win (bitcoin is in shortage, USD in surplus), the americans holding USD lose an equal amount of value. understand? zero sum.
If I understand your argument correctly, a crucial point is that for every btc someone holds, they released usd in order to get it (putting usd into surplus for a relative amount of btc shortage). Is that correct? If so, I think there's a flaw in the argument which is that not all bitcoins held were obtained by the release of usd. Miners mine, someone purchases btc for euros (not usd), someone trades labor (puts labor into surplus, not usd). Again, am I missing something? Thank you for the discussion. |
|
|
|
- snip -
In enough years, supply could become so limited as to cripple the usage of btc.
- snip -
Keeping in mind that bitcoins can currently be divided into 100,000,000 spendable units (commonly called "Satoshis"), how many bitcoins will we have to lose to cripple the usage? Yes, I understand. In principle there's not bottom to the number of times we can divide a unit into subunits. I think you're right that this is better than adding more coins to the system. However, my knowledge is limited. If we increase the divisibility of bitcoins in the future so that each of those 100,000,000 units can be subdivided into 100,000,000 spendable units, then how many bitcoins will we have to lose to cripple the usage? Also, I suppose this problem is so far off that we needn't worry about it too much now, though.
Considering that newly minted units will continue to be created until approximately the year 2140, I'd agree. I can also image a kind of solution where some percentage of bitcoins is assumed to be lost each year and mining starts creating new coins again. The idea would not be to make the currency an inflationary one, just to stabilize it a bit if it ever overall lossage ever actually became a problem.
No. This will almost certainly never happen, and since we can just keep sub-dividing the units that we have, there really isn't any reason to either. You know, another thing that might happen is that computing power goes through the roof and in 10 years all new bitcoins and all old bitcoins that anyone actually cares about need to be regenerated with a larger keypair. Then, you might have a bitcoin "salvage" business where all of those old coins with only 256 size keys can be 'dug up' by someone interested in finding them.
Unless some mathematician finds weaknesses in the algorithms, computers will never be fast enough (and there will never be eough power available in the solar system) to brute force a 256 bit key. You haven't supported your last point as well as your earlier ones. How can you show that "there will never be enough power in the solar system" to brute force a 256 bit key? Again, I'm not an expert but I think that quantum computers may be relevant to the discussion. However, I'm just waiting to hear your argument on this last point. I think it's interesting, but even more so if you can prove it. |
|
|
|
SOmeone was posting in another thread about putting one in Boston. I'd really be interested in that! I'd def use it. Anyone have any data about the usage stats for ATMs already installed?
Just insert your bills into the sewer grate, you'll get the same thing back from a bitcoin ATM. Weird to troll bitcoin in a bitcoin forum. Is there something specific about atms that you don't like or are you just trying to insult bitcoin users? FWIW, I was interested in the bitcoin atm idea until i heard that the us implemented ones require photo ids and fingerprints. Does the canadian one have the same strict measures to id the user? Are you serious? Where did you get that from? Do you have a source? Well sure, this was discussed in re the bitcoin atm that was installed in Austin. Here's a blogger talking about it: http://grantammons.me/bitcoin/my-experience-using-a-bitcoin-atm/I have no idea if other machines work the same way. That's sorta what I'd like to know more about. Thanks for the link. Jesus! The Unites States has no gravity - it just sucks so much it keeps everybody down. I know this is an international forum so here's a plea for help. Will someone please attack the USA and replace the government with one that doesn't have its head up its ass. Where's WW3 when you need it? Can I please request a bloodless coup rather than WW3. Or at least give us a warning and a week to run to Canada? Did I mention that I love Canada? Canada will you take me plz? |
|
|
|
...
We will once we have sold out the rest of this design...the next design is quite sexy too!
Is the next design viewable somewhere? I don't think I can afford to buy one of these but I'm very curious and find them intriguing and beautiful. |
|
|
|
|
Subud, looks like you've already got some reputation issues. What's with all the negative feedback?
|
|
|
|
I don't pay much attention to chat but I think it should be pretty free.
The one thing that I think should deserve a chat ban is berating fish at a cash table, especially after beating them in a hand.
I'm sure everyone already knows this but maybe some people just need to be reminded:
If a fish complains that you got lucky, don't point out the strategy of why you did what you did. Just say, "yeah sorry, I'm pretty hot today".
Some people seem to care more about proving how much they know than actually winning money.
Laughing at a guy for making a bad call or being too loose hurts everyone. The fish either quits, becomes self conscious and tightens up, or decides to work at getting better.
Even if a bad player beats you, just let it go. I know it's frustrating but your goal should be to keep the losing player at the table for as long as possible.
Losing players are your customer. You should be friendly with them. Take their money but leave them feeling like they had a good time and just got unlucky.
Tell them "nh" when they beat you. Tell them you got lucky when you beat them. Reassure them that you would have played it the same way they did.
This is a pretty cute. If only the internet was always nice enough to say "thank you" in a kind voice whenever it took my money. Shit, I might let it do that even *more* often. |
|
|
|
|
Since Ritz is closing at the end of the month, I'm definitely going to be looking for a new sponsor. This thread is an amazing resource for that decision. Thanks a lot guys!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
