finally i've migrated my wallet.dat to blockchain.info. thank you very much for this nice service  it was a little bit difficult to get the private keys out of my crypted wallet (i used a fork from pywallet; but this fork did have another dump format - oh well... had to import 50+ private keys by hand) just a small suggestion: i really like the archived address feature. is it possible to set them to auto-sweep? just like mtgox: whenever btc's arrive on an archived address i want to sweep them automatically to my main address. would be fine if this only works when i am logged in. The sweeping is done at the time you click the button. There is no way for him to auto sweep without you having a client open at all times. Blockchain.info doesn't have access to your private keys, remember? He has no way of sending funds without you decrypting the keys on your client. It might be kind of nice for it to auto sweep whenever you are logged in. It can't ever work like Gox though. |
|
|
|
Okay, that's very helpful now that I'd found about this from other posts, but just FYI I registered and browed using a mobile device and it's difficult to spot instructions that way.
Couldn't the software simply redirect new users to the Newbies section or leave the damned "reply" link in all topics but link it to these instructions instead, so people wouldn't leave this site and google for how to post on SMF forums (as your own help section - I'm talking about the part about posting/replying - doesn't mention anything about the newbie rules!)?
Dude. You literally checked a box that says "I understand I can't post in most forums." You have no right to complain. Stop whining and learn about Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I learned something really cool last night, and meant to post it here, but then I forgot it  I guess it was learned yesterday anyways so it doesn't count. |
|
|
|
Well... I do support SILK ROAD and other sites alike. I would not buy drugs there, but there is a lot of other interesting stuff which is hard to get at other places..
And then again, I don't understand this witch hunt of drug users, when alcohol and tobacco are the biggest killers... hundreds of millions(if not billions) of people smoke marijuana or other cannabis products every day without getting ill, hurting other people, die or getting addicted of it..
Problem with this post- "hundreds of millions(if not billions) of people smoke marijuana or other cannabis products every day without getting ill" This isn't true lol if billions of people smoked it then that would be more than like 20% of the world population or more  Yeah. Definite exageration. I think it would be accurate if he said, "hundreds of millions(if not billions) of people have smoked marijuana or other cannabis products every day without getting ill" |
|
|
|
Thanks. I didn't intend to go so far off topic. I just can't stand when someone presents a truck load of evidence and then don't actually read it and a bunch of it ends up supporting the other sides argument. Here in England the police don't even need to carry guns and they still manage to do their jobs.
Of course since we are all armed we don't really need them much. Zimmerman didn't need a cop - he just judged and murdered that boy on his own. Rarity, I thought you said you were in Florida? I guess that must have been someone else. mlawrence, you don't know Zimmerman didn't need a cop! Both sides of this debate need to start using words like "allegedly" Back on Topic: Does anyone know if the money hidden by Zimmerman and/or his wife was the money donated to the defense fund? Did anyone here donate to it? How do you feel about your money being hidden instead of being used to actually defend him in court (if that is in fact the case)? |
|
|
|
It's a waste of money, time, and energy better spent elsewhere.
+1 +1 |
|
|
|
15 whole minutes? Wow... I take it you didn't actually read the site rules when you registered your account. You just blindly checked a box that literally says "I understand that I will initially be unable to post to most forum sections, as explained above." Here they are again since you clearly skipped them Here is some important information about the forum. This is not a rulebook or agreement.
RESTRICTIONS FOR NEW MEMBERS
After registering, you will be unable to post in any section except "newbies" until you have spent some time on the forum and have published a few posts.
If you are registering to ask a question, please ask it in the newbies section. Do not wait to ask it just because you must post it in "newbies": the question is very likely to have already been asked. If you don't end up getting good responses, you can ask it again elsewhere after you are established, or you can move the entire topic.
If you are commenting on Bitcoin, use your newbie wait time to read more about Bitcoin. If you are criticizing Bitcoin, find similar criticism using the search tool to see which points have already been covered. A good use of your newbie wait time is reading Satoshi's old posts.
STAY ON TOPIC
Every reply should contain some comment that is relevant to the topic post. Do not reply *just* to another reply -- include at least some on-topic comment.
If you would like to reply just to an individual reply, you can create a new topic about it.
MOVING TOPICS
All members have the ability to move their own topics. The link is at the bottom of the topic page. Do not ask moderators to do it.
ILLEGAL SITES/TRADES
Do not post trade offers that are obviously illegal in most of the first-world countries. Do not link to or advertise sites that are built to allow such trades.
|
|
|
|
According to some of the secondary sources that you directly linked to that reference the actual science, marijuana is dangerous. However those people making the claims ARE NOT THE EXPERTS. The scientists who published the articles are the experts. The scientific consensus of the experts is that marijuana poses considerable health risks. You are the one claiming it is safe, not them. You can't cherry pick lines from studies and say that means the experts agree with you when they are clearly saying otherwise. Every time I point to such experts, you claim they don't count, so I'm not sure why I should continue to do so, but here you go: http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%203%20Issue%202/Review%20of%20the%20Research.pdfIn addition to the unknown extent of the potential for harm caused by existence and interaction of over 800 natural chemical
components of marijuana, including 70 cannabinoids, it can be concluded that marijuana does pose some
considerable confirmed risks to users. Some concern over marijuana is merited by findings regarding its
ability to create short-term impairment, specifically on driving ability. Academic performance and social
development appear to be negatively affected by marijuana use, but the causal role that the drug plays in
the lack of future success of young people remains unconfirmed. As expected, smoking the drug
contributes to considerable harm to the lungs and airways. Even though the use of vaporizers removes
the contaminants of combustion and reduces some major respiratory problems, THC exposure to the
lungs appears to be unhealthy. The immune system is also compromised by the use of marijuana,
specifically the ability of the lungs to defend against foreign pathogens. Although cancers, heart
problems, and threats to human reproduction are not common among marijuana users, most experts
contend that further investigation is required, and the potential for risk should not be dismissed. The
development of psychosis and later schizophrenia should also remain a concern for a small proportion of
those who use marijuana. Dependency and regular, long-term use of the drug are also factors that likely
exacerbate the potential for the majority of the harms previously identified in this review. Of course, these
harms are often compounded by the fact the marijuana users have an increased likelihood of continuing
on to other illicit drugs. Looking at all the evidence leads to the conclusion that some of the users will have their lives severely disrupted by the drug. Recreational use is not worth the cost of sacrificing the lives of some of the users and the harm it will do to their families. You will note that what the experts conclude about potential damage to the heart is that more studied is needed because they are not confident it is safe. What you do with a study is cherry pick out a line and say it means marijuana should be legal. Nope, the experts have their concerns because they also look at the parts of the study that you want to ignore. There are just too many potential dangers and no medical benefits to allowing recreational pot use. You haven't been pointing to the experts. You've been pointing to people who are pointing to the experts. You accuse me of cherry picking, and yet you glossed over the abstract. Some consensus over the potential harms needs to be reached before any meaningful discussion can occur on this issue. This article reviews research published between 2000 and 2007 and suggests that there are many risks associated to marijuana use with regards to impairment, academic and social development, general and mental health, and continued drug use. Although some findings highlight very serious concerns for users, the numbers that become adversely affected by marijuana use do not represent the majority of users. I'm not sure how you jump to the conclusion that your opinion is the scientific consensus when the article you are quoting says there is not one (at least as of 2007). There is a lot of contradictory evidence on both sides. I'm not saying that kids should smoke and then go to school. I'm not saying that expecting mothers should smoke a blunt all day every day. I've never said pot has zero negative effects. I'm saying prohibition is stupid. Especially prohibition of something that is requiring a lot of studies to find negative effects that have yet to be conclusive and likely only apply to a small minority of the population. I'd be willing to bet there are far more people with deadly food allergies than people that will violently assault someone when under the effects of marijuana or "marijuana withdrawal." It's pretty clear that tobacco causes lung cancer and alcohol destroys livers, but the studies about pot mostly all say that more investigation is required. It also seems like more of the studies are testing single chemicals on rats rather than looking at the affects of the whole drug on people. Only one of the sourced abstracts mentions anything about aggressive behavior (which is what got us on this tangent in the first place). It is titled "preliminary findings suggest a mechanism for cannabis-induced violence" and is a preliminary study with only five subjects and no control group. |
|
|
|
Not probably not. There is ZERO chance that is being misinterpreted. If you take it to mean that marijuana use is safe, you are definitely misinterpreting it. It was a lie of omission. The reason addiction is a problem is that it short circuits people's ability to moderate their use. If you just smoked a few cigarettes you would be perfectly fine, but they are still rightfully regarded as a deadly product. Marijuana can also lead to poor decision making and paranoia and aggressive tendencies that led to Martin attacking Zimmerman, even one use is dangerous and the only benefit is short term fun that you can find in healthy activities instead. Lie of omission? What? I don't take this one study alone to mean marijuana use is safe. I take it to mean that scientists are trying to figure it out and so far according to all but ONE of the studies linked here (that now both of us have at least read the abstract of), moderate use is not dangerous. According to some of the secondary sources that you directly linked to that reference the actual science, marijuana is dangerous. However those people making the claims ARE NOT THE EXPERTS. The scientists who published the articles are the experts. I still say that one man being potentially killed because of being high when AT LEAST 1/3 of the country has smoked pot is a fringe case at best and not worthy of prohibition. Most of California and the 10 (I think) other states with medicinal marijuana would be full of kids being shot on their walk home from 7/11 otherwise. Not only that, but it has not been proven at all by the courts. It looks to me that the pot is just as likely to have caused this tragedy as the skittles in his hand or the hoodie on his back. You are alleging that Martin attacked Zimmerman. I have yet to see proof of this. This is something that the courts have not said. But Hey! Look at that! Back on topic (kinda)! We did it Rarity! |
|
|
|
I think I'm slowly becoming addicted to migraine pills, does that count? When I get a migraine I take them then take a nap, and I wake up feeling like a million bucks.
Addict! You should definitely go to rehab  |
|
|
|
I don't understand how you can claim my argument is invalid when I am quoting the scientists who did the research while you are quoting random government websites that have hard to find links to the research.
You don't need to be a scientists to understand "Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function."
There is zero chance I am misinterpreting that.
Probably not, but what the unbiased experts do is keep reading instead of snipping out only the parts that support their agenda. Someone who is arguing the opposite point from you might snip out instead: our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavy use and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered. ...which is why it is best to leave interpreting studies to the experts. They also weigh all the available relevant studies instead of only considering the ones that support their views, and the overwhelming weight of the research shows that marijuana is dangerous and addictive which is why the government and drug treatment experts write what they do. Not probably not. There is ZERO chance that is being misinterpreted. Maybe those scientist's data is wrong and so their conculsion is wrong. But I am 100% guaranteed that I am not (even without being called an expert) misinterpreting their conclusion. I literally just copy/pasted the conclusion as written by the original scientists. Heavy use of ANYTHING is dangerous. They use the terms CAUTION and MODERATION, not abstinence. You see that right? EDIT: I wasted my "leet" post on this |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how you can claim my argument is invalid when I am quoting the scientists who did the research while you are quoting random government websites that have hard to find links to the research.
You don't need to be a scientists to understand "Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function."
There is zero chance I am misinterpreting that.
|
|
|
|
Once again, the highly qualified experts who have considered these studies do not agree with your views on them and do not support smoking drugs during pregnancy. I have already linked to such experts explaining this. I trust the views of the experts on these matters far more than your ability to interpret the studies. When the unbiased experts and even pro-marijuana organizations like NORML agree, it's safe to say they aren't wrong. http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuanaThat said, cannabis should not necessarily be viewed as a 'harmless' substance. Its active constituents may produce a variety of physiological and euphoric effects. As a result, there may be some populations that are susceptible to increased risks from the use of cannabis, such as adolescents, pregnant or nursing mothers, and patients who have a family history of mental illness. Patients with hepatitis C, decreased lung function (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or who have a history of heart disease or stroke may also be at a greater risk of experiencing adverse side effects from marijuana I'm way past the pregnancy article, dude. I just wanted to know what you thought about it. I didn't say it was scripture passed down from the almighty father. Please go back and read the abstracts and/or conclusions THAT YOU LINKED and then come back. |
|
|
|
You claim my source is invalid because there is a pot leaf on it, but then you link to a bunch of gov sites that only present tiny pieces of the study to present. The government that has spent billions on the war on the drugs has no bias, right? lol.
No, there is no bias. The government comes to these conclusions by hiring experts to study the drugs in question and the available research, and every country on the planet, even the very few ones with some form of legalization, do not think it is a good idea to expose children to marijuana. You are not an expert on these matters, so I'm not particularly inclined to trust your judgement of what the studies show over theirs. Did you not read all of the studies that YOU linked? You don't have to trust my judgement. Just read the abstracts and you will see that you are wrong. I was just making it easy by bolding all the parts for you that clearly disprove your view. Do you not understand what "treat social dysfunctions" or "only the effect of cocaine" or "not statistically significant" mean? I didn't think those terms required having a doctorate. EDIT: You really didn't read the actual sources of what you linked, did you? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5828/1212 is an abstract that is very academic. However it is referenced by an abstract that is worded less technically and has more real world applications. Given the fact that the pharmacological modulation of the eCB system has recently arisen as a promising strategy in the management of anxiety and mood disorders, the potential efficacy of this pharmacological approach (i.e. blockers of the catabolic pathway) will be discussed, as well as pharmacological alternatives such as modulators of cannabinoid receptors other than the classical CB1 receptor, or administration of other plant-derived compounds (e.g. cannabidiol). "Promising strategy." Now that sounds dangerous... Now http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2499/249928/24992851.pdf does have some information that looks dangerous. However it is only testing "marijuana cigarettes." What about vaporizers? That does not release any of the carcinogens or tar because nothing is burned. Seems silly to outlaw something based on only one way of partaking, especially while tobacco is legal. The conclusion of your last article requires no scientific knowledge to validate and is clearly not on your side. Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.
|
|
|
|
As you said, providing sources doesn't mean you are right. Thank you for providing some. You claim my source is invalid because there is a pot leaf on it, but then you link to a bunch of gov sites that only present tiny pieces of the study to present. The government that has spent billions on the war on the drugs has no bias, right? lol. I want to see the actual studies. Not (solely American) blogs and government sites. At least not all of the studies are American. Luckily, your links do provide enough to find abstracts for most of the actual data. Your first link does not link to any actual studies. The second link contains 2 studies. However I don't see how either study actually proves your point. http://cong35.sifweb.org/congresso_abs_view.php?id=163 is only testing one chemical that is in marijuana and ends with "These data confirm previous findings (Haller et al., 2009) by showing that, in adult rats, FAAH inhibition affects emotional reactivity under high stressful circumstances. Our findings suggest that selective indirect cannabinoid agonists could represent a potential target to treat social dysfunctions in neurodevelopmental diseases and could protect against the anxiogenic effects of stressful stimuli at adulthood." So being high has an affect on reactions? No shit... However their affect could be used to TREAT SOCIAL DYSFUNCTIONS. This means that this chemical works AGAINST anxiety. The exact opposite of increased aggression or anything like that. That is a positive thing, not a negative. The rats were more communicative with eachother. I don't think rat's amount of communication when subjected to one of the myriad of chemicals in pot is a very good basis for understanding the affects of pot on a person. The second study is covered in far better detail in the mothering.com article than in the article you linked. In unadjusted results, all types of drug use were related to birth weight decrements and increased odds of LBW. However, only the effect of cocaine on continuous birth weight remained significant after adjusting for all associated factors (-142 g, p = 0.05). No drug was significantly related to LBW in fully adjusted models. About 70% of the unadjusted effect of cocaine use on continuous birth weight was explained by surrounding psychosocial and behavioral factors, particularly smoking and stress. Most of the unadjusted effects of opiate use were explained by smoking and lack of early prenatal care. Thus, prevention efforts that aim to improve newborn health must also address the surrounding context in which drug use frequently occurs. I fail to see how this study proves your point about marijuana. However, if you are pregnant, it is pretty clear that you shouldn't do heroin or cocaine. I highly recommend you actually read the mothering.com article as it goes through all of these numbers. Your next link has no scientific evidence, but it does say "Studies of marijuana in pregnancy are inconclusive" You must not have actually read this abstract (Thanks for linking directly to an abstract, though). Low birthweight, short gestation, and major malformations occurred more often among offspring of marijuana users. When we used logistic regression to control for demographic characteristics, habits, and medical history data, these relationships were not statistically significant. This one looks to be actually on your side. I already linked to it though, it is mentioned in the mothering.com article. There clearly needs to be more research done as there are contradictory studies. Well I have to go now, but I've gone through half your articles and all but one of them have the scientists on my side, not yours. I'll link to the actual abstracts (if there are any) of the rest of the studies instead of some blogger/government opinions of the study. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5828/1212http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2499/249928/24992851.pdfhttp://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=307&issue=2&page=173And yes. NORML recommends mothers don't smoke. I'm not recommending they do either. I'm just saying that it likely does not have any long term deleterious effects. How am I way out on a limb? But anyways, these tangents are pointless. You think alcohol should be illegal. There is no point in continuing. We clearly disagree on what "freedom" means. Pot clearly destroys lungs:  |
|
|
|
DMT can bring people to a point where they decide whether they want to go insane (stop caring about reality completely) or not, they are unsure of whether they want to cross that line and they have a choice. Perhaps everyone should do it to graduate high school, like a vision quest. Sound like FUD to me... FUD? It was meant as the opposite. the whole post seems to be mixed and sort of cryptic. But reading back at it - I understand what you saying now. Basically your suggesting, It could make a person be classified by society as insane but it's your choice to detach from society and be free. But I didn't understand the graduate high school and vision quest bit. May be SWIM knows? I think vision quests are a good idea. IMO it is good for people to come face to face with their preconceptions and realize how subjective their opinions/perceptions of reality are before they have responsibility bestowed upon them. "Drugs" aren't the only way to accomplish this but it is possible that some people could use them successfully as tools without any harm done to self or others, and they are relatively cheap compared to travel, etc. There is plenty of research about this, LSD was originally used in counseling before it became a party drug. You should watch http://movies.netflix.com/movie/DMT-The-Spirit-Molecule/70209261Some of the people's experiences are pretty bizarre. |
|
|
|
|
Cool idea. I like your small office.
|
|
|
|
Any experience with bitmit?
Tried and true. Works like a charm. I've sold some Steam games and it was really easy. They even provide escrow if you want it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
