But most people don't want to live in a cardboard box or under a freeway overpass.
I have the ownership of a house, which I received as inheritance. So I don't have to spend anything extra for rent, or have to live in a cardboard box. Do you pay the bills on the house? My electric, water & sewer, gas and trash is more than $450 a month. That would leave you with $150 a month for food and everything else. You eat lots of beans don't you? lol 150 is very do able. actually my wife is so good at coupons that we could eat like kings on 150 a month if she put her mind to it. sometimes the stores pay us to take food out of the store! one time walmart had this sale where, combined with all of the right coupons, we went in there every day and walked out with a 20 dollar bill until the sale ended.
|
|
|
yea that is my understanding. they were considering him a money transmitter because he was sending bitcoins through the mail. all he has to do is stop funding the public keys and hes not a money transmitter, even by their insane standards.
|
|
|
Who the heck are the illuminati? I've lived long enough on the planet to have heard of most things but the illuminati slipped right past me. Weren't they in the Twilight Saga? well so everyone basically knows at this point that congressmen and presidents aren't really in charge of the state and that there is a shadow government pulling the strings from behind the scenes. normal people recognize that this is just many competing factions that sometimes work together and sometimes fight amongst themselves, constantly churning with new factions rising to power and others falling out of power, you know sopranos/game of thrones style. people who believe in the Illuminati on the other hand posit that these shadow government agents are part of an ancient secret order who have been nudging society in this or that direction for centuries or even millenia, that they have been passing on this power dynasticly, that they are comprised of a set of families that only breed with each-other and that they are highly coordinated and work towards a common purpose rather than fighting amongst each other. see also committee of 300 families. the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but leaning much further towards the former than the latter.
|
|
|
or like rats fleeing a sinking ship they could quietly buy and horde them.
|
|
|
No i think this is wrong. The coin that surpasses bitcoin, if a coin surpasses bitcoin, will be one that discovers a better proof scheme than proof of work.
|
|
|
Is there an ETA on when they'll be back? Suppose it's not a massive deal, but it helps identify yours and others posts quickly and easily.
According to what i have been told, no.
|
|
|
bitcoin is the illuminati attack. The deflation will cause no one to ever spend money ever again meaning everyone will starve to death while huddling together in their living rooms thinking about how rich they are.
|
|
|
Lesson to be learned: 1) Do not post in a thread if it's self moderated 2) Do not engage in discussions with a person with a brown button 3) Winning a battle of arguments with somebody who is just trolling it's impossible
I have this bad habit of trying to see and assume the best in everyone. This naive notion that basically everyone wants the same sorts of things out of life (prosperity, compassion, justice, ect...) and that disagreements are the products of misunderstandings about what sorts of strategies are most effective for achieving our common goals. That if I just approach things the right way, patiently, logically, methodically, and consistently enough than connections can be made even with even the most ideologically polar opposite. I still think thats probably true for the well intentioned, unfortunate none of that applies when you are dealing with a troll. The only solution for dealing with this sort of person is ostracism. I will attempt to learn those lessons.
|
|
|
you are looking for primecoin
|
|
|
Let this thread be a testament to the ages and all who are interested that ElectricMucus is either a troll or such an extreme narcissist as to be unable to admit even minor fallibility. I have been extremely patient with this person but he is beyond persuasion with even the most rudimentary and easily demonstrable arguments involving almost no abstract reasoning what so ever. I would advise anyone who is reading this not to engage with this person. You CAN NOT WIN because while you are trying to play baseball he will be playing calvinball.
|
|
|
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/is-bitcoin-a-viable-currency#axzz2nCzbOTJN Bitcoin has been making headlines for months now. Extreme price fluctuations have sparked a vigorous debate: Is it a currency or a scam? Is bitcoin viable in the long-term, or are we witnessing a bubble waiting to burst?
The answers to these questions are simple: Yes, bitcoin is a currency, but we cannot know if it will remain so in the future. It does, however, have many properties that might make it viable in the long run.
There should be no controversy anymore about calling bitcoin a currency. A currency is simply a good that serves as a medium of exchange, meaning that people trade it for the goods and services they want. In different circumstances, different goods serve this purpose. In prison, cigarettes are used as currency. In the early American colonies, tobacco was a currency. Bitcoins are used online as a medium of exchange for thousands of people around the globe.
Now, whether or not it is a “sound” currency is an entirely different question. In order to make that judgment, we need to understand the properties that make currencies sound or unsound in the first place. Consider gold and silver: They have persisted as a medium of exchange throughout history, and not by chance. They have desirable properties.
A sound currency needs to stay valuable over time, have a limited supply, and be easily divisible and portable. If any one of these properties is missing, it is reasonable to question the long-term viability of such a currency, especially if it is subject to competition. This is why many free-market economists are called “goldbugs”—they see the shortcomings of fiat money in comparison to hard-money alternatives.
Bitcoin, despite being entirely digital, stands up well to scrutiny. Bitcoins are incredibly portable; they can be sent anywhere in the world instantly, at almost no cost. They divide effortlessly down to one hundred-millionth of a bitcoin. Their supply is strictly limited, even more than gold: There will only be 21,000,000 bitcoins ever in existence—it's written into the software. But what about their value? With wild price swings, is it accurate to say that they will remain valuable over time?
To answer that question, we first need to understand that there is no such thing as “intrinsic value.” No good in the universe is intrinsically valuable, any more than any particular food is intrinsically tasty. Value is entirely subjective, by its very definition. It is an evaluation of a good's ability to satisfy our ends, and only subjective individuals can make such evaluations. Gold and silver have consistently been valued for their ability to satisfy our ends, but not because they contain value in their molecular makeup.
What people usually mean when they speak of the “intrinsic value” of a currency is something like this: It has a non-monetary use. If people did not accept gold as a medium of exchange, for example, they could wear it as jewelry or melt it down and use it in electronics. This is why critics have claimed that bitcoin is destined to fail. You can't “do” anything with a bitcoin other than send it to somebody else.
There are two issues with this critique: First, it is not a logical necessity for currencies to have non-monetary use; second, even if this were the case, bitcoins do indeed have a non-monetary use. It helps to make a distinction here between “bitcoins” as currency units, and “bitcoin” as software that runs on a decentralized network of computers.
Imagine that there was a payment system that allowed you to instantly move money anywhere on the globe, between any currencies, securely, at virtually no cost—and without reliance on intermediaries, like banks. Now imagine that system only accepted one currency to mediate these transactions. Surely, that currency would have value, and, in turn, each unit of that currency would have value. Well, that payment system is the bitcoin network, running the bitcoin software, and the currency unit is bitcoins. Because bitcoin (the software, payment system, and network) has value, bitcoins (the currency units) have value.
That being said, we don't know what the nominal price of each bitcoin should be in relation to other currencies. And unquestionably, bitcoin’s value has fluctuated wildly. Should one bitcoin be worth $10? $1,000? $100,000? We don't know, and the market is trying to figure it out. We can't even be sure how many U.S. dollars are in existence, so determining an appropriate exchange rate between them is no easy task. Speculators have also rushed into the market, which has caused a series of booms and busts. But that should not surprise anyone, and it does not change any of the fundamental properties of bitcoin.
We can't know what the market will choose as a currency in the future, because it is entirely dependent on peoples' values. We don't even know if people will continue valuing U.S. dollars, much less bitcoins. But we do know that bitcoin possesses some of the fundamental properties that have made gold and silver successful currencies, and it even outperforms its competition in some categories.
It is no longer a question of whether or not people will accept bitcoins as a currency: They already do, and the community is growing. The question is: Will bitcoins continue to be valued in the future? Bitcoins certainly won't rot, nor will the supply suffer from hyperinflation, but will these properties continue to be valued? I suppose the only appropriate answer is: We'll see.
|
|
|
avatars are presently disabled due to an exploit being found to be utilizing them. atleast that is what i was told when i asked this same question about an hour ago.
|
|
|
I'm sorry but it is unclear to me what bearing this picture has on any of the premises or conclusions pertaining to my argument. Perhaps you can find a way to be a little more clear about what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps one way to do this would be to use words rather than pictures to advance your position.
|
|
|
i dont get it. what do you mean avatars dont work? i have an avatar.
You can't change it and newbs can't even upload or choose one. They were apparently disabled due to a security breach via them. oh wow, now i wish i had put more thought into it i just threw that one up there cuz it made me chuckle when i saw it.
|
|
|
i dont get it. what do you mean avatars dont work? i have an avatar.
|
|
|
protip: trying to troll somebody in his own self-moderated thread doesn't work. (Especially if it's somebody who is accused of trolling on a regular basis anyway)
It was never my intention to troll anyone. If its alright with you i would like to get back to our discussion. I would like to move on to discussing whether libertarians justifications for the authority that comes from property ownership are or are not legitimate justifications. Unfortunately before we can do that i need you to acknowledge that, be those justifications legitimate or otherwise, libertarians do infact believe that property ownership, and the authority that flows from it, must be justified. Furthermore i need you acknowledge that this previous acknowledgement demonstrates that the following statement, It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle. made by you, is false.
|
|
|
Is the price going up? Probably but higher volume shows higher conviction in the movement. If it was moving up under high volume I would be more suprised with it flash tanking back to $600 or something like that. If it moves up rapidly on low volume it really shows no conviction in the price movement. It means a few trades and potentially a wide spread it all it takes to move the price up. It doesn't mean a massive number of players are "betting" massive sums on their conviction that the trend is sustainable.
Easy up = (potentially) easy down.
For the record before I get flamed I am not saying dump it all, it is going to crash, you should short it, or some magical line told me we are going to $671.38 within 48 hours. I don't try to day trade the market. Just pointing out that a lack of volume indicates a lack of conviction, a lack of support or base and like before if it reverses it is going to free fall.
did you happen to see my argument up there? does it make any sense to you?
|
|
|
Reduction of barriers to entry. More atms. Brick and mortars in every town selling bitcoin.
|
|
|
I'm curious about this profession; what does day trading provide to society?
like other professions and other markets it all depends on whether the entrepreneur profits. if he profits than it helps society if he takes loses than it harms society. If he profits than he reduces volatility, if he takes losses than he increases volatility. this is because if he profits than he succeeds in buying the tops, thus reducing the exaggeration of the top and if he sells the bottom than he reduces the exaggeration of the bottom. if you have a mind for seeing abstract connections between seemingly disparate ideas, than in this video bob murphy explains the same idea in abstract except with a different example. see if you can make the connections http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKk3vCbnigc
|
|
|
|