I couldn't agree more.  Especially your last point about the fact that this is living communication system: the right answer will be determined by everyday usage, not a poll

Nice! 828 pages and counting.  That's pretty impressive.  We'll see if anyone can find an older/longer one

The funniest option in the poll is 'bitcoin'.  That would be pretty confusing:

a: This costs 1 bitcoin.
b: I will send you 100 satoshis
a: No I mean the bigger bitcoin.
b: Oh sorry, in that case I will send you 100000 bitcoins.
a: Yes, that will be fine.

I see. I see.  Yes I saw the shitvaccumer guy griping a few posts back and the accusations of collusion.  Out of curiosity, I suppose that there must have been some pretty concrete proof he was cheating if you guys are keeping winnings.

Yah, that one seems like it probably wins for 'off topic'.  I wonder about the forum overall.  I'd be sad if "What song are you listening to?" is the oldest one overall.

Just checked bittrex, volume of trade on cgb is 0.  Is there any exchange with active cgb trading going on?

I have this curiosity:

 * what's the oldest/longest still-active thread on this forum?

Does anyone know how to find it?

I'm going to take a look at this.  I haven't done much trading but maybe that was because I didn't know of a convenient platform.  Thanks for the tip!

One question before I download: can I see source code for this app or is it binary only?  If there's no source available I probably won't install because it's hard to trust a closed-source app with money.

Yikes.

Are you sure it's not just an oversight?  I haven't had any issues withdrawing and I haven't heard of anyone else having issues either.  Sometimes it takes a day or two (max) because they process withdraws by hand.  My guess is that you're jumping the gun here.

You guys are dropping some weird sophistry in this thread.  Those three premises and conclusion seem to me to be as vacuous and dereft of explication as any other tautology you might come up with.

I appreciate you for staying true to the spirit of metric prefixes.  If we ever get to the point of needing to subdivide the satoshi, then I think I will be a rich guy

In _Meditations on First Philosophy_ de Carte considers what he knows about himself, whether he can trust his own senses, etc.  He decides that although he cannot trust his own senses (he cannot know that his senses aren't subject to the trickery of an evil but more powerful being), he annot trust his thoughts (likewise, someone may be fooling him or playing with his thoughts) he *can* know that he exists because even if everything he thinks is wrong or foolish, he is still thinking, and that entails his existence.  Thus his famous line *cogito ergo sum* or "I think therefore I am".  Later he starts trying to rebuild his trust in his various senses but for me, the argumentation becomes weaker after that.

But this is exactly what happens very often, I've seen the trust war go down and it's not pretty for the forum or for the users involved.

Light brings up a very good point about the inherent flaws of a trust system that's moderated, how it boils down to trusting in the moderators rather than the community as whole.  The latter is very much more in line with the spirit of open-source, peer-to-peer, etc.

I personally think that one solution would be to simply make the trust system a little less noticeable on people's accounts.  I mean, in the trading forums, people should be able to easily look up the trust record of another individual, but perhaps if putting negative trust didn't generate the 'red mark' on an account in any area of the forum, it would be less used as a weapon of dislike.

Like I mentioned, I suffered from the red mark one time in the past when tradefortress took an issue with me.  Because he was on default trust at the time, I had to wear a 'trade with extreme caution' scarlet letter for a while.  This was despite the fact that 1) I had never traded with TF or anyone else on this forum 2) I wasn't involved in trading. In a sense, the scarlet letter didn't really hurt me since I wasn't a trader, on the other hand, it was an embarrassment.  In my own case, TF turned out to be one of the biggest scammers known to our community, so in that sense, I was justifed.

Aha, thanks for the clarification and the backstory.  For my own use, I'm happy to just refer to µBTC.  Or, more commonly if I'm speaking of an amount that small, I just refer to Sat or KSat (depending on the amount).  I find the Z/zib thing to be rather irrelevant and while I now understand the story of what you're promoting, I just can't really see the motivation.

Good luck tho.

Thanks, I guess I had missed that in my initial readthrough.  I understand now how you have this btc and why you want to do something with them.  I hope this thread has given you some good ideas.  Which ones are you going to pursue?

Nice, I'm still holding onto my 1.5CGB.  As far as I can tell, no reason to sell now.  I hope that the birthday generates some excitement.

You're right to divide between potentially falsifiable (but currently impossible due to limitations of technology, et cetera) and things which are in principle falsifiable (no technology will help).  However, you're gone a bit overboard when you say that "everythign we know literally is science".  That really depends on a concrete definition of "know", which will get you into metaphysics, and you'll be as vague as the god-talkers next thing you know.

It's important, I think, to recognize the limitations of observation as well as the philosophical connundrum of conciousness and knowledge.  If you are true skeptic, you will not find any proof of your own existence---such proof doesn't exists.  The best you can do is sollipsistic arguments from heuristic but without first principles you have no basis for your heuristics.  You might accept the cartesian proof of your own existance, but that doesn't extend to your senses, your knowledge, etc.  Don't get me wrong, I'm essentially a skeptic, I'm just trying to talk about strict skepticism.

If you think you know what it means to "know" or to "exists" then I think you're a bit ahead of me.  Anyway, I find the claim that all knowledge is science to be ludicrous, and to be clear, I'm a godless atheist scientist.

I know what you mean about the atomic nature of a bit.  But, just to be specific, in information theory we often subdivide a bit because we're speaking about an average amount of information in a given context.

I think you're basically on the right track with this post, the only thing is that once you're talking about Msat or Gsat, the BTC is a better unit.  I mean rather than talk about millions of satoshis (Msat), isn't is simpler to talk about cents on the bitcoin?  Likewise for Gsat.  In my own daily life I do this:

I speak of "sats" when I'm in the 1-999 range of Satoshis.

I speak of "Ksat" when I'm in this 1000-99999 range of Satoshis.

I speak of mBTC or 'bitmils' when I'm in the 100000-99999999 range of Satoshi's, ie, for me I'll usually refer to .1btc as 100mBTC. 

Above that, I speak of bitcoins, or BTC.

So I really only use 4 denominations: SAT, KSAT, mBTC, BTC

However, as long as you stick to standard metric prefixes, I can understand whatever you want to say.

How did you get these?  It's not a totally small amount of money at today's prices.  What you do with it really depends on your interests.