...Mainstream use of phone started like that yes.... phone technology did not. There was lots of work in infrastructure first, what we now see in bitcoinland. I'm sure with bitcoin it won't take many decades, don"t you think?
Allright, Bitcoin is more useful than the telephone. And the people who got the first phones, the early adopter visionaries, all got filthy rich. Hey Mr. notSockpuppet - just out of curiosity, are you Jeffrey Robinson IRL? A lot of the stuff you say about bitcoin sounds like him. Maybe just a case of great minds thinking alike tho  Tim Swanson said almost the same things months ago in The Anatomy of a Money-like Informational Commodity. The ideas aren't new I surely was not accusing anyone of original thought... Just asking a question. |
|
|
|
...Mainstream use of phone started like that yes.... phone technology did not. There was lots of work in infrastructure first, what we now see in bitcoinland. I'm sure with bitcoin it won't take many decades, don"t you think?
Allright, Bitcoin is more useful than the telephone. And the people who got the first phones, the early adopter visionaries, all got filthy rich. Hey Mr. notSockpuppet - just out of curiosity, are you Jeffrey Robinson IRL? A lot of the stuff you say about bitcoin sounds like him. Maybe just a case of great minds thinking alike tho |
|
|
|
...
I posted a link to a video that points out that maybe one should think twice before making such an accusation.
... So, tell me where I lose you: 1. You claim that I have accused someone in this thread of lunacy. 2. You suggest that I "should think twice before making such an accusation," 3. punctuating your point with a video link. 4. The people in the vid. are in no way analogous to the people in this thread, as you readily concede. 5. Begging the question: WTF is the point of the vid? I am curious what YOU think the purpose of the video is... What do you think was the point that the filmmaker was trying to get across? HINT: I have already stated it at least twice. HINT 2: It does not require any analogy between any individual you deem to be crazy and anyone appearing in the video. It is a generalization. |
|
|
|
^Lunatic, from Latin "luna" [moon]. 1. mentally ill (not in technical use). extremely foolish, eccentric, or absurd. "he would be asked to acquiesce in some lunatic scheme" Yeah, just a coincidence  Most brilliant people are crazy. Most crazy people aren't brilliant. Because not biconditional. I think the point of that promo is that brilliance is often seen as madness early on. I didn't see any suggestion that there was a bijective mapping between the set of madmen and the set of geniuses, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. My point is much simpler than the promo's: Comparing the insanity of the inspired to the greed-driven lunacy of the money changers is silly. Did I make that comparison? You lost me... Unless you were trying your hand at non-sequiturs when you posted that link, yes. I don't think so. You accused someone of lunacy (apparently because they profess a different view than you). I posted a link to a short film whose thesis is that sometimes people who seem to be crazy may actually turn out to be just taking a path not familiar to you - may even be brilliant, who knows. I don't see any non-sequitur there. You're comparing the exceptional, inspired people in the iPromo to petty money speculators--minds fouled by by untempered greed. And now you're suggesting I can't tell muddled stupidity from brilliance. Gimme a break, bro. Again, I made no such comparison. Again, either you tried for parallels between the people in this thread and the iPromo people, or the link was a non-sequitur. I didn't say anything about 'the people in this thread'. AGAIN: You made a statement based on the posting of an individual stating basically that that person was a lunatic, apparently because you disagreed with the viewpoint that person was expressing. I posted a link to a video that points out that maybe one should think twice before making such an accusation. It's ok that you misunderstood. I forgive you. Please do stop telling me what I meant, though, and just read what I have written. |
|
|
|
^Lunatic, from Latin "luna" [moon]. 1. mentally ill (not in technical use). extremely foolish, eccentric, or absurd. "he would be asked to acquiesce in some lunatic scheme" Yeah, just a coincidence Most brilliant people are crazy. Most crazy people aren't brilliant. Because not biconditional. I think the point of that promo is that brilliance is often seen as madness early on. I didn't see any suggestion that there was a bijective mapping between the set of madmen and the set of geniuses, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. My point is much simpler than the promo's: Comparing the insanity of the inspired to the greed-driven lunacy of the money changers is silly. Did I make that comparison? You lost me... Unless you were trying your hand at non-sequiturs when you posted that link, yes. I don't think so. You accused someone of lunacy (apparently because they profess a different view than you). I posted a link to a short film whose thesis is that sometimes people who seem to be crazy may actually turn out to be just taking a path not familiar to you - may even be brilliant, who knows. I don't see any non-sequitur there. You're comparing the exceptional, inspired people in the iPromo to petty money speculators--minds fouled by by untempered greed. And now you're suggesting I can't tell muddled stupidity from brilliance. Gimme a break, bro. Again, I made no such comparison. |
|
|
|
^Lunatic, from Latin "luna" [moon]. 1. mentally ill (not in technical use). extremely foolish, eccentric, or absurd. "he would be asked to acquiesce in some lunatic scheme" Yeah, just a coincidence Most brilliant people are crazy. Most crazy people aren't brilliant. Because not biconditional. I think the point of that promo is that brilliance is often seen as madness early on. I didn't see any suggestion that there was a bijective mapping between the set of madmen and the set of geniuses, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. My point is much simpler than the promo's: Comparing the insanity of the inspired to the greed-driven lunacy of the money changers is silly. Did I make that comparison? You lost me... Unless you were trying your hand at non-sequiturs when you posted that link, yes. I don't think so. You accused someone of lunacy (apparently because they profess a different view than you). I posted a link to a short film whose thesis is that sometimes people who seem to be crazy may actually turn out to be just taking a path not familiar to you - may even be brilliant, who knows. I don't see any non-sequitur there. |
|
|
|
^Lunatic, from Latin "luna" [moon]. 1. mentally ill (not in technical use). extremely foolish, eccentric, or absurd. "he would be asked to acquiesce in some lunatic scheme" Yeah, just a coincidence Most brilliant people are crazy. Most crazy people aren't brilliant. Because not biconditional. I think the point of that promo is that brilliance is often seen as madness early on. I didn't see any suggestion that there was a bijective mapping between the set of madmen and the set of geniuses, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. My point is much simpler than the promo's: Comparing the insanity of the inspired to the greed-driven lunacy of the money changers is silly. Did I make that comparison? You lost me... |
|
|
|
^Lunatic, from Latin "luna" [moon]. 1. mentally ill (not in technical use). extremely foolish, eccentric, or absurd. "he would be asked to acquiesce in some lunatic scheme" Yeah, just a coincidence Most brilliant people are crazy. Most crazy people aren't brilliant. Because not biconditional. I think the point of that promo is that brilliance is often seen as madness early on. I didn't see any suggestion that there was a bijective mapping between the set of madmen and the set of geniuses, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. |
|
|
|
^Lunatic, from Latin "luna" [moon]. 1. mentally ill (not in technical use). extremely foolish, eccentric, or absurd. "he would be asked to acquiesce in some lunatic scheme" Yeah, just a coincidence |
|
|
|
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
Laughing at them is much better. Agreed and agreed... Never argue with an idiot Try to laugh at them often. I think you guys are using the wrong tactics here. You need to realize that NLC is cyberbullying you. This will obligate our current nanny state to send gentlemen out to have a word with him/her.  |
|
|
|
Is that dear NotPorkChops? I don't know what to believe any more...  ROFL!!! |
|
|
|
Right now Bitcoin needs more standards not code before it can be integrated as a global standard.
A formal protocol standard is not always better than an implicit standard. Formal protocol standards are first and foremost an interoperability aid. The interoperability challenges of bitcoin are distinct from systems which are not blockchain systems, and it is not at all clear or given that a formal spec in the style of an IETF RFC would provide superior interoperability, without creating much more serious risks. An RFC for the RPC interface would be sensible and has little potential to do harm. That would probably be a relatively non-controversial interoperability aid, and quite sufficient and appropriate to the w3c's interests. Maybe you guys should start a thread in the "Development & Technical Discussion" section about this stuff, so that people actually doing the implementation may join in the discussion. |
|
|
|
Prediction: W3C web payments group meeting in Santa Clara 27-31 October will take up integration of bitcoin payments into W3C global standards.
November is going to be a very good month for crypto.
Wow, I hope this is true. That would be epic. |
|
|
|
i'll send you a email now !
people come on ! lets sue this assholes
I would advise caution sending personal/financial information to random people on the internet, even ones who claim to be Swedish lawyers... thank you for worrying for me i think it's legit http://www.godfinans.nu/en-GByw, good luck. |
|
|
|
i'll send you a email now !
people come on ! lets sue this assholes
I would advise caution sending personal/financial information to random people on the internet, even ones who claim to be Swedish lawyers... |
|
|
|
It's funny when a disruptive technology strives to conform to standards of which it's supposedly disruptive. Which standard do you think this technology should be disruptive of - the bitcoin symbols, or the bitcoin subunits? That's pretty much all this press release mentions. |
|
|
|
With a name like "QuestionAuthority," I sorta assumed that you tried for a moral highground. Justifications along the lines of "if it's OK for selling used cars, it's fine for selling Bitcoin" are absurd. Even from purely pragmatic standpoint. When there's so much ideology and politics in the mix, lying backfires.
Just like your bluff 500BTC bet backfired--you were called on it, and had to do a lulzy backpeddle. Not a win.
*I do not love Andreas or any shills, for that matter. We're not selling timeshares. We're trying to change the world.
Do you really think Andreas is just a shill? I haven't read everything he's written about bitcoin, but my past impression of him was that he was earnestly trying to educate people about Bitcoin technology. I never got the impression that he was trying to mislead anyone. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with the thesis of your posts above. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
