|
Kiki112, way to go for being the voice of reason here.
The one common thread that runs through ALL wars is that there were humans on both sides of all conflicts, religious and non-religious. THAT'S the story the God deniers desperately want you to miss.
|
|
|
|
Yes, but so is facebook.  twitter. |
|
|
|
|
To prove you're not evil or bad, please post your social security number and full name & address.
|
|
|
|
It's inherently classist. Only those with access to moderately high levels of technology can spend or receive it. Only those with access to exceedingly high levels of technology can "mine" it. Heterosexual, middle class or higher white males are disproportionally represented in the demographics of bitcoin users. Bitcoin only serves to uphold the current kyriarchal socioeconomic structures by making sure the privileged become more privileged.
And it's a terrible idea. You spend more on your parents' electricity bill and replacing burnt out GPUs that your parents buy for christmas and birthdays than you actually theoretically make.
Bitcoins are basically just this weird attempt by lolbertarian children to make their own currency and play stock market and dodge taxes.
Yes, because China, who is currently moving most of the money, are all middle class or higher white males and fit your general stereotype perfectly  This comment doesn't even deserve a proper response. White people are 8% of the world population. White males are about half of that. So either prove less than 4% of bitcoin users are white males or admit you're full of BS. What is your point? There's absolutely nothing stopping any other races from getting involved in bitcoin. You sound like the guy always looking to blame someone else. Look! Bitcoin is owned by white people. Rich whitey always keeping us down! Bitcoins makes sure the rich get richer and the poor stays poor. It's deflationary and rewards hoarders. Those who can afford to hoard them get richer and the poor stays poor. Cry more. There's plenty of opportunity for poor people to make it in the world today. Bitcoin is no different from any other form of wealth. |
|
|
|
|
Destroying bitcoin innovation in the USA would be the only result. Leading to further decline in American relevance on the global stage.
|
|
|
|
still have about $700
PM'd you |
|
|
|
i smell cold war thinkin
Then you probably don't know history, sir. Cold war wasn't an actual war - it was only a propaganda served by the governments at both the sides of the Berlin wall, just to keep people scared thus more subjective. Whilst the Bitcoin blowup is an actual war, where the people are fighting corporations that have been enslaving us for the last century using the weapon of a money creation monopoly. But we have just built our own weapon and we are not giving it up! It has a power of 5PH/s, growing every day, and no WMDs they own are a thread to us anymore. They can assassinate a person, they can genocide a nation - but they cannot break Bitcoin. Flying active nuclear weapons around 24/7 is 'not an actual war'? No, they never set off a nuke in anger (which was a stroke of luck really, and for which we should all be extremely grateful). |
|
|
|
People have tried, and are still trying to bruteforce an address with funds in it. To my knowledge no one has done it yet
Nor is that likely to occur unless and until either the breakers aquire a 150+ qbit quantum computer or a serious flaw is discovered in the address algo. Even if both were to occur, the odds of succes aren't particularly high. Yes, there is a chance. I know. Its a reference to 'dumb & dumber'. Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together? Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really... Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances? Mary: Not good. Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred? Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million. [pause] Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!* |
|
|
|
People have tried, and are still trying to bruteforce an address with funds in it. To my knowledge no one has done it yet
Nor is that likely to occur unless and until either the breakers aquire a 150+ qbit quantum computer or a serious flaw is discovered in the address algo. Even if both were to occur, the odds of succes aren't particularly high.  |
|
|
|
That kinda puts btc in a bad light if people start to consider it ransom money
You're looking at it backwards. If thieves want it, must be good right? |
|
|
|
|
Add litecoin to all bitcoin exchanges. The idea being to encourage arbitrage trading between all exchanges and force the equalization of prices across the board.
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this weekend has had the greatest volatility of any weekend in Bitcoin history. And we're not even quite done yet. We went from $350, to $395, to $290, to $360, to $295, to $320. Now where?
Biggest move percentage wise? Not even close. Your numbers represent a 7% correction. Try $266 to $50 in under 48 hours following the April rally. That's an 81% retrace. Pretty sure the mtgox hack day had more volatility.
Cute, except that there was no market. Just one seller hacker dumping. |
|
|
|
I think lots of BTCs are gone forever, about 15% of what has been mined totally. So thats about 2 million coins.
With a range of error of + or - 14.5% |
|
|
|
God must first pass through man to reach the believer; without man, God speaks no word, and still to this day has not. Therefore, all that God says is dependent on man being honest. We know that man cannot be honest at all times. Therefore, we cannot prove God's word to be God's word, we can only prove that it is man's word; ergo, God is only as omnipotent as we believe him to be. This is just the logic I'm laying out for the believer  They can take it or discard it if they want. I'm not saying the Bible is true or false; I'm saying it cannot be absolute, so God's word cannot be absolute. We should not burn any books due to men lying for either those books are intentional lies (of which I love), or they are observable truths (such as the writing of many philosophers and scientists, which can be proven to be lies or not.) If the individual cannot discern what is real and what is not on their own, they cannot trust any book asserted as truth, including religious texts, including political texts. The beginning of this distrust, I believe, is by making obvious that books of absolute truth are only as honest as man, which is something any believer can relate with. Suggestion: Look up the word omnipotent in the dictionary. The bolded statement is not logical, its logically broken. Your whole argument is utterly broken because your premise does not follow. If God isn't omnipotent, then God isn't. The grey area you're conjuring does not exist anywhere in reality. Conditional omnipotence. Haha, that is likely the best oxymoron Ive' ever encountered. I thought jumbo shrimp was good.  2nd bolded statement. No scientist seeks the truth on their own. They collaborate. That is the nature of science, it does not rely merely on individual efforts. That's why the bible has so many authors who cohesively agree on truth. I argue it is the strongest argument for truth that this world has ever seen. So to sum up my response, I fully disagree with your explanation of how we as human beings discern truth. |
|
|
|
After reading this topic, I am going to generate 1million address a day... lol, I was thinking about making software to to do this. Generate address and see if one address has any balance This has already been done. Read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=107172.0You can download the program and start searching. You will never find one but if attempting impossible things is something you like to do, have at it. Incorrect! It is certainly possible to run that program and guess a correct key to gain Bitcoins. Its infeasible sure, the likelihood of this working approaches the impossible but never ever touches it. Impossible is defined as never able to be done under any circumstance. Just because the key space is large and searching it may take a trillion trillion years does not make the task impossible. Also do not forget that even if you find a valid address, chances are much more than 99.99 % certain it is a wallet with no coins (generated by another vanitygen). That's a small chance. But,, it can still happen..which kind of scares me. If you're scared of this, then you sure as hell should stop using banks and credit cards. Because the chance of someone guessing your credit card details, AND your online banking credentials (AND winning the Powerball twice in a row) is still much, MUCH larger than someone accidentally generating your bitcoin address. The chance of an asteroid destroying earth or a nuclear war is way higher. Or getting struck by a lightning...twice in a row. There has been at least one person that got hit by lightning a half dozen times. The truth is the odds against address collision are so great we cannot comprehend the vastness. We don't have any way to grasp it. |
|
|
|
Why would you centralize something which essence is being decentralized?
I am seeking a patent for water that isn't wet. |
|
|
|
Once a person has faith that there is God (in the proper sense of the word), why be worried that he would deceive or betray that trust? Isn't he omnipotent, faultless, and ubiquitous?
Job 13:15 “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.”
If you're familiar with the story of Job, that's a man committed to a faith that God has mapped out all things to "work together for my good". That's pretty amazing considering that Job lost everything he had, even his health and his children. Intellectual reasoning is helpless when faced with the idea of the super-power that God is. Its like Hamlet contemplating Shakespeare.
That seems to be the key to the loop; there is absolute faith in God only when unaware that the faith is directly on man, for it is man alone who claims to put forth the word of God; I disagree, God's word states over and over that his word is true and unchanging. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God by his own claim) (Mark 13:31) To believe in God as told by the world's religions is to believe that man is perfect and unable to lie.
I disagree. Men do lie, but they do not lie endlessly, therefore your statement doesn't follow. However, an omnipotent God would be perfect and unable to lie, therefore he would be actively capable of preserving his word as he says he does. if God is necessary, man cannot reliably speak for him, and if God is not necessary, man would not write of him anyway.
I disagree. God is omnipotent, and ensures that those who write of him do so reliably and with truth. There are many religious books written by men's hand; very few make some of the claims the bible does, and NONE make all the claims the bible does. One would expect the one true God to ensure this, as he is faithful to protect his integrity. It would seem, then, this cycle is broken most effectively by making the middle man an obvious and unavoidable element which faith must pass through to get to God, else all religions would divert into flavorless deism for though man can trust God, for God is omnipotent, man cannot trust man, especially if man can write himself legitimate by writing God as having said so.
I disagree. Men make many claims in writing, many of which are true. Should all books should be burned because men sometimes lie? Do you agree that books can usually be trusted, since at the time they are written, they can be peer reviewed and their claims either falsified & cast into ridicule or printed and accepted as legitimate documents? The bible is the most studied, peer-reviewed, and best selling book of all time. That speaks volumes (pun intended). |
|
|
|
Can any Christian explain Jesus Christ's teachings on objective ethics working without trust that an indirect authority can define what is and is not objectively ethical? For example, because we must have faith that the men who wrote the Bible were being completely honest in their writings, objective ethics requires faith that what God said within the Bible, including his mortal figure, is the complete truth, which would then have to assume men with this kind of power can't lie. Because if God speaks to us as to what is or is not ethical today, we would all come to the same conclusions on what is and isn't ethical, and yet we do not, which implies God has kept quiet about this matter since then.
So how could objective ethics function without first trusting that those who speak for the greatest authority weren't lying? And if this cannot be accomplished, how do we compensate for the various other religions whose objective ethics clash with Christianity?--e.g., if ethics are objective, they should not clash any more than 2 + 2.
Furthering this point: is this faith being placed in the lord, or ultimately in the men who wrote of him?
Once a person has faith that there is God (in the proper sense of the word), why be worried that he would deceive or betray that trust? Isn't he omnipotent, faultless, and ubiquitous? Job 13:15 “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.” If you're familiar with the story of Job, that's a man committed to a faith that God has mapped out all things to "work together for my good". That's pretty amazing considering that Job lost everything he had, even his health and his children. It shreds thoroughly the idea that Christianity is for the weak. A weaker man would have given up on God when put in Job's predicament. Charles Darwin did. Intellectual reasoning is helpless when faced with the idea of the super-power that God is. Its like Hamlet contemplating Shakespeare. |
|
|
|
AmazonBucks ™
Amazon is a bug on the windshield of this clown car called bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
