Satoshi, whoever you are, thank you, you really worked hard for everyone. Otsukaresama
Maybe it would be better to spend less time trying to find satoshi, and simply promote his ideals.
If you try to find satoshi, it will only give him troubles and waste his valuable time.
I feel that is something nobody here would like to do.
I agree, but someone made the argument that if the real satoshi comes forward, especially if he/she/they are spectacular in some way, the news would go nuts about it and tons of people would hear about Bitcoin. Imagine the media frenzy it would cause. Like .. hey guys, I'm Satoshi!!!!  |
|
|
|
I completely agree with what you are trying to say, cr1776. But I think the Amorous Cow-Herder is confused by the word "own." What does it actually mean to "own" something?
I think it is more accurate to say:
"If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins."
It is obvious to a 5 year old what it means to have something. It is still confusing to me in my 30s what it means to own something. Ownership has been well defined in legal terms for a long time ... you need to have - knowledge of the existence of the thing - possession of the thing - control of the thing of a thing to legally own it. Without all these three things you do not "own" something. If you have complete control of something, what does possession matter? Well I think in some cases you might imagine having possession but not control .... e.g. not allowed to legally transfer that boat in your backyard because a lien has been slapped on it by your disgruntled ex-wife. Of course, there are probably many cases where the distinctions are subtle but important. If someone else has possession of your gold in a vault that is the classic 3rd party risk scenario ... |
|
|
|
I completely agree with what you are trying to say, cr1776. But I think the Amorous Cow-Herder is confused by the word "own." What does it actually mean to "own" something?
I think it is more accurate to say:
"If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins."
It is obvious to a 5 year old what it means to have something. It is still confusing to me in my 30s what it means to own something. Ownership has been well defined in legal terms for a long time ... you need to have - knowledge of the existence of the thing - possession of the thing - control of the thing of a thing to legally own it. Without all these three things you do not "own" something. |
|
|
|
sweet jesus
this is like over a yr old.
i assumed everyone got there money back and thats why no one made a big deal about ANOTHER forum staff/mod turned scammer ?
no, he just abuses everyone who asks for a fair deal to get their bitcoins back ... and being forum moderator he got away with stealing people's bitcoins by first obfuscating, then yelling harder. That's how it works around here now I guess (I'm looking at you theymos). |
|
|
|
|
Did you consider using a stealth address instead of the public address for the initial connection request (which is in plain text) ?
|
|
|
|
People only consider the distribution unfair because Bitcoin has succeeded (so far).
Would the distribution still be considered unfair if Bitcoin collapsed? What would be said if bitcoin investors demanded a bailout? It certainly couldn't be said that they got what they deserved because that would imply that the distribution is fair.
Yes, this. "Fair" is a subjective variable strongly dependent on price, price is also a subjective value variable. TL;DR life, nor bitcoin, isn't fair. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin cost has never been consistently close to price, only temporarily.
Some insane profits have been made mining ... and I bet some are losing money also.
I don't think you, or anybody, can know how much it "costs" to run the network, the needed broad information is just not observable.
|
|
|
|
Nick is the inventor of bit gold, which in theory is absolutely the same as bitcoin even the name looks like. The bit gold post is from 2008. If he is not Satoshi, they had some connection.
I don't care for the linguistics, the bit gold post is enough.
Conceptually it is not identical e.g, it is missing the automatically adjusting difficulty algorithm that keeps the bitcoin production rate, constant regardless of the advancement in proof-of-work hardware. (Szabo mentions that as a possible flaw in bit gold right at the end.) |
|
|
|
|
Who is Satoshi Nakamato? ==> Who is Nick Szabo? ==> Who is ___ ?
How far are you prepared to go down that rabbit hole? I think a common level of protection is 7 abstraction layers of proxies. Good luck Alice.
|
|
|
|
So, I was wondering, could this be part of the reason why prices have consistently gone down as merchant acceptance has gone up?
Yes, that's right. Also there was a bubble. Greater merchant acceptance just means that early adopters dust off their paper wallets and bring coins out of cold storage to spend. That increases the supply of bitcoins while demand remains constant because no one is buying bitcoins to spend when other payment methods are more convenient. This is good for what buyers there are. These old coins are now in the hands of newer speculators/investors. The price of a bitcoin has gone down so more people can afford to put their money in. Greater merchant adoption also means that they start mentioning bitcoin in their marketing materials so that creates awareness. That could boost prices. Will it be enough to entice consumers to use bitcoin? Not by itself but it will help. Using bitcoin needs to get easier and safer before we see greater adoption by consumers. Yes, it is a net benefit because of the increased dispersal. It will weigh on the price, temporarily, but the net effect is it makes it easier to get bitcoins into more hands because the current holders have more places to spend them, in easier ways, and willing buyers can get them at a cheaper price ... ... it is just another phase/wave in the adoption curve, nothing to get too excited about. |
|
|
|
We have banks because even though they do naughty things from time to time, they are relatively secure whereas individuals are not. Perhaps recently banks have begun to wear out their welcome by overstepping but we shouldn't forget life is about balance. Perhaps Bitcoin won't replace banks but will find a role in keeping banks from being so overbearing. the banks just ass-raped society for trillions and the best you can up with is "naughty banks" ... "recently worn out their welcome" ... "overbearing" ... ??!! yeah like a thief in your house was naughty and wore out his welcome and was overbearing ... sheeeesh, get some perspective, you got fucked over by the banks, all of you and it is on-going, grow a pair and accept the reality of your abusive sub-ordination. |
|
|
|
1 megabit or 1milibit
millibit, mega is a million. The scale ( based on ISO 2955 metric prefixes) goes like this: nano-bitcoin nBTC (nanobit) (10-9) (1/billion) 0.1 satoshi not currently possible satoshi micro-bitcoin µ BTC (microbit) ( 10-6) (1/million) 100 satoshi milli-bitcoin m BTC (millibit) ( 10-3) (1/thousand) 100,000 satoshi bitcoin 100,000,000 satoshi kilo-bitcoin k BTC (kilobit) ( 103) (thousand) 100,000,000,000 satoshi mega-bitcoin M BTC (megabit) ( 106) (million) 100,000,000,000,000 satoshi anything larger/smaller than that would be unnecessary. ... megasatoshis for all! |
|
|
|
In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government."
Do you really think anything has changed?
Not one red cent of the income tax goes to benefit any American whatsoever. It goes back into the banksters pockets. All by design.
Somehow my roads and bridges are getting repaired, snow is being plowed, my library is open and lending books and videos, my water works, my sewer works, my court systems are functioning, police are responding when needed, fire engines are putting out fires, etc. etc. If none of that is being paid for, then I guess I'm happy everyone is working for free for me.  Roads/bridges are paid for by gas taxes. Sewer & library is paid for by city taxes. Water is paid for by you. Did you miss your water bill? Local police, fire, and courts are all paid for by city/state taxes. Not one red cent of the income tax goes toward any of those things. Another brainwashed lemming! You are well on the way to a Detroit moment ... mostly those taxes go into public pension funds, that have actually been siphonoed off by "financial services". |
|
|
|
. . . To The Grave
This is why this classic thread is classic. Some folks eventually read all the posts from start to end. I did.
I believe this particular meme is better posted during the mania phase of a bubble, in which prices typically double in a week.
I think it has mostly been revived during times of extremis which means it is actually an excellent indicator of turning points ... dyodd. |
|
|
|
It should be clear for everybody with some brain, that just not paying taxes wouldn't change anything, shouldn't it?
Yes, because tax revolts are so un-American and never achieve anything .... The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "No taxation without representation," that is, be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain.
The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, or Intolerable Acts, which, among other provisions, ended local self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's commerce. Colonists up and down the Thirteen Colonies in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_PartyIt is ALWAYS about the money you fools, taxes are at the root of the evil of a coercive state. Only criminals steal under the colour of threat of violence. |
|
|
|
This is a total joke. Also been watching from the sidelines and not buying into this. China is destroying bitcoin.
No they are not ... they are innoculating it against manipulation and rumour mongering ... that last little "ban" is at most good for a pullback to test the break-out. Diminishing returns. The next country that talks incessantly about "banning bitcoin" will just be shrugged off or laughed at. China is after all the largest authoritarian govt. in the world, if they can't stop bitcoin then no-one can. |
|
|
|
I like what that one dude said about buying bitcoin being akin to buying options with no expiry date. It changed my way of looking at things.
This is exactly what I thought when I started buying. I traded gold and silver options back in the day to gear up my physical positions and I always hated rolling over (or not) on expiry. With BTC I loved the idea of (amongst other things) taking a hedge against the shaky-looking financial system (Chancellor on the brink...) without value time decay and in fact a good chance, by design, of appreciation over time. It amazes me that anyone with an interest in economics or PMs or trading of any kind wouldn't take a position in BTC, even a small one. The downside limit is just your stake, but the upside possibility is immense. People talk about diversifying, usually into a less risky asset when another has done well, but diversifying is also about having a little something from the wild side, just for the chance of a moon shot. That's how you beat the averages, that's how you break out. In those terms BTC is a no-brainer. When I first started buying in summer '12, there was still a real risk of complete collapse - that's why it was cheap. In the 22 months since the protocol has withstood a hacking/stealing technical onslaught and the tech odds are very much more in favour of survival, so the risk/reward has changed. Now the price is weighed down by regulatory uncertainty and is cheap because of the PTB onslaught. It may successfully come out the other side in which case the price would obviously go nuts, but even it doesn't there will be some market for a proven, robust, near-anonymous, trans-national, transferrable store of value. Why on earth wouldn't you hold a least a few as a portfolio outlier? No need to trade, no need to guzzle the kool-aid or even hang around here, it's simply the easiest bet of trading lifetime. This is an excellent and profound insight that I have also harboured for some time ... and one that most people get to at some point. The cost of holding a few bitcoins as percentage of total holdings is minimal, and dropping as services get better. Ever since it started trading for fiat the middle-of-the-road position has been "why not hold a few?". There is an interesting exercise in statistics that backs up this reasoning in the case surrounding buying lottery tickets. Just living in the city, state or country where a lottery is taking place puts you minimally in the game, whether you like it or not, because there may be a very, very slim chance that someone, a friend or relative, will gift you a lottery ticket as present or you find one on the street. Now the odds that you will win the lottery from a gift/found ticket are clearly astronomically less than winning the lottery with a ticket that you brought for yourself so as risk/reward the first dollar you spend on buying the lottery ticket is improving your odds by a greater margin than than buying more and more tickets. In this sense, buying a lottery ticket makes more sense economically than not buying just by the fact that you are in the proximity of a lottery taking place. The cost of reducing those first odds is much less than decreasing them further after the first ticket. The same is true now for the whole globe, by buying a few bitcoin you are much more likely to gain from them than by not buying but by being gifted or finding some e.g. It is somewhat scary, especially for people like Jorge Stolfi, that you are already in the bitcoin game now, whether you like it or not!!! ... unless you are an undiscovered Amazonian tribe member. TL;DR .... you can NOT afford to be out of bitcoin as an economic risk/reward proposition by mere fact of you being on the Internet. |
|
|
|
Now, show me a post by a hero member saying he is shorting. Find someone? No one. The ones who did in the past ( Moonshadow and his shorting during 2011 comes to mind) admitted they faced such losses they will never short BTC again. ... yeah. Bitcoin has ended the trading days of many, it is market like none other. I just can't fathom how people can expect to master this beast enough to short ... I guess there's always some foolhardy cowboys ready to saddle up the wildest of animals. Just buy as cheap as possible and be thankful you got in when you did. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
