I get the point. And it's only accurate for "the majority of ICOs". This will also change once the market matures.

This is the most efficient means of capital allocation that we've ever had. And if you talk to some small businesses I'm sure they'd appreciate not getting told by banks to fuck off due to their credit score regardless of how good their plan is.
ICOs are here to stay, they'll become less scammy in regulated places, much more scammy in unregulated places, and possibly keep changing their names as the space evolves. But they're fundamentally a good thing. Just so happens that anything good is abused by cunts.

As much as I loathe banks, regulators are what stops them from giving out loans without "sufficient security". Whatever that means.

One can only hope. Were CBOE's futures physically settled or just woo-woo instruments?

I've been following this space very closely for the past 2-3 years. And this is most likely horseshit.

The only way to use the Visa network with crypto is to first convert the crypto balance into fiat and then to use the fiat balance to spend via the Visa network. Auto-conversion at point of sale is not allowed.

Every card that tried to allow direct spending of crypto via Visa or MasterCard got cancelled so far. Alas, this is most likely just a quick money grab at the expense of those who haven't seen card after card launch and fail.

Most likely the drugs. Although I've been wondering if there was a way to "tap into the universe" as well, since animals seem to be equipped to detect all kinds of weird shit. Absolutely no idea where to even begin trying to find out if there could be something to it or not though. Too much noise.


Care to elaborate on meta shit?

Fucking lol'd:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/18/cboe-to-stop-listing-bitcoin-futures-as-interest-in-crypto-trading-cools.html

Because volume hasn't been climbing.

Did you smash those titanium plates so hard that you ripped through space-time and somehow got subconscious access to an oracle?

This should be measured in Bitcoin and Ethereum, not in USD. And also be revisited during the next Bitcoin bull run.

I am not even remotely old yet, but this is accurate. People often don't even seem to know what the words they use mean either.

Nice.

So much this.


Also, is this moving forward?

You've just conceded that Micg can't be stupid, given that he repeatedly stated that he is not interested in marriage.

Why do you keep ignoring nuclear power plants? Charge batteries with those fuckers and you've got a substitute for powering cars. And nuclear fusion will without a doubt be a thing within 100 years, as well as much more efficient solar panels.

I never said anything about decentralized currency here. You can use shitty Ripple to facilitate more efficient financial markets than current ones. And if it's more efficient people will use it. With or without trusted ledgers. The decentralization aspect of Bitcoin is a whole different story. Shitcoins are here to stay, period.

Ibian was trying to make an entirely different point. Namely that reality was objective, which it is not. You can invoke objectivity by specifically limiting your scope, but that objectivity is subject to arbitration and hence not objective in absolute terms.

The debate that you however bring up is merely an artifact of human language. Very similar to the point above but different nonetheless. There is no fundamental difference between discovery and creation from the perspective of a conscious observer. You can call your creative process a creation, but it's just as true that you're discovering a moment in time that you were not previously aware of. In a similar way deterministic vs non-deterministic universe is mere arbitration. These debates can only be had from a limited perspective, one of imperfect knowledge. With perfect knowledge of the system the distinction becomes arbitrary, no more than naming rights.

Also, not sure what gave you the idea that Mathematics is deterministic. There are areas of it that are, but a big portion of it is anything but.

This is at least the second time I've seen him go full NPC. Given how much he seems to praise raw reason it strikes me as ironic that he would reason his way into believing that he could know more about Mathematics than a Mathematician. Wouldn't it be an act of reason to at least ask questions rather than boldly proclaiming truth about topics clearly out of one's expertise? But alas, he was the first to state that "he's done", so he clearly "won" something.

I would be surprised if there weren't people making the same remarks about stocks and other forms of equity when they first emerged. Same story with any form of currency. Go try to explain money to some native tribe, pretty sure they'll call it a scam as well if they even have that a word for that.

As far as metals go, you don't have to destroy them to render them worthless. And shitcoin markets are clearly more efficient than stock exchanges, especially with the advent of decentralized p2p exchanges. So pretty obvious what will happen there in the future.

No, I have not described a clock. Clocks don't perform operations.

Context has been given, but you're cherry picking what you want to use to pretend that your reasoning abilities somehow make you superior. They don't. Your reasoning is heavily flawed, much more so than HM's appeal to emotion. He's trying to learn. Toxic and you don't. You're literally equivalent to him (Toxic) and only accepting what you already believe, while running away from arguments you clearly aren't equipped to hold.

Whole point of the finite fields was to demonstrate that objectivity as you seem to understand it is nonsense. No more than a result of evolution simplifying the non-objective reality for the sake of energy conservation.

English describes reality. Extremely poorly.


And again, you've completely ignored the fact that all of Math starts from assumptions. Assumptions which are de facto subjective. You can be "done" and pout all you want, but to use your words, that won't change reality. And if you want to go the "reason" and "objectivity" route, then my experience in Mathematics certainly gives me more authority to speak on this topic than you will ever achieve given my head-start. And the fact remains, Mathematics is a subjective language. Literally a language that is subject to the capacity of human thought. Which is self-evidently limited in scope.

You can't even begin to make an argument with similar rigour to that of a Mathematical proof in English. As such, you have sufficiently demonstrated your complete (current) lack of capacity for understanding the nature of it.

You clearly don't have your emotions in control either, otherwise you would've conceded that your reasoning is insufficient rather than becoming defensive. And here we go full circle to emotion/reasoning being a spectrum that is optimized with equal parts of both. Each to keep the other in check.

Also, given the etymology and definition of the word:


Math is not just an innovation, but is constantly being re-innovated on a second-to-second basis.

That's pretty much the crux of it. We start from axioms, try to derive what we can from them and based on new assumptions we try to use the same axioms to make up new information. But you always come back to the axioms, which are no more than an arbitration based on how some ancient group of people perceived the world. It shouldn't come as any surprise that these axioms will be revisited more thoroughly and reevaluated once we can actually perceive the universe in a more accurate way.

All of our senses are only able to perceive a fraction of what we measure in science. And what we measure in science is barely good enough to approximate 5% of the observable universe. Never mind the infinity beyond the horizon of the CMB.

Anyone who thinks that we have any claim to objectivity when we can only explain 5% of what we can see with state of the art tools is running around willfully blindfolded.