What Are Your Thoughts On Vegans? Or Going Vegan ?
Do you have concerns about animal abuse by eating meat or using animal products?
Do you feel strongly that it is your right to eat meat?
I don't like factory farmed animals that are treated like garbage, given terrible living conditions and pumped with antidepressants and antibiotics. That has come to bother me more and more vs. farms that treat their animals good, or even hunting for your own venison in the wild. The way I see it, it's impossible for a farm to be ethical because it's unnatural. People can talk about "the food chain" all they want, but the reality is that they way animals are being killed is entirely unnatural, whether it's with a gun, a factory farm, or just a regular free range farm. Humans would naturally be lower than, say, lions in the food chain, but if humans want to they can just shoot the lion with a gun. The idea of animal products which are not meat is even more confusing, because cows only produce milk after having a child, much like what humans do. Not only is it stealing the cow's milk which is supposed to be for cows, but cows produce far less milk after it would no longer be needed for their calf. This means that far more cows are produced than the amount that are needed to stay on the farm, so inevitably the calves are taken from their mothers at birth and cows have to be killed to sustain the production of milk.
Clarification: vegetarianism is to not eat meat or fish. If you eat fish, you're called a pescatarian. If you don't eat meat, fish or any animal product, and you refrain from the use of animal products in your life e.g. leather, then you are a vegan. A lot of people are getting confused about this.
I also wish that people would stop saying "I eat what I want to" or statements of that sort. They don't contribute anything to a discussion, because no government is telling you whether you can eat meat or not. |
|
|
|
Hmm.
Tor.
Custodial Bitcoin wallet.
Now, what might be the most likely end game for such a set up?
It's fairly easy to guess.
It's like as soon as people hear about Bitcoin and start using it, they just give up any normal rules of where they put their money, which is strange as hell considering that they should do the exact opposite and be much more careful than they are with fiat. It's like, "hey, people use Bitcoin on Tor, so look at this online wallet that's on Tor! Let's put our coins into that!" No due diligence, no checking if they're a regulated company, no checking for information about the owners, nothing... Same thing happens with investments. Normally none of these people would give their fiat to a company that promises to pay them back >3% daily, but apparently with Bitcoin they feel it's acceptable. Maybe it's a side effect of all the stories of people getting rich with Bitcoin that cause people to lose all of their judgement. |
|
|
|
|
Aren't Bitcoin debit cards basically pointless anyway?
If you want to spend fiat in stores, why not just spend fiat instead of fooling yourself into thinking you're spending bitcoin? It would make it so much easier for people to just spend bitcoin where it's actually accepted instead of relying on even more centralised services in order to let them spend fiat.
Still, I strongly doubt that more trusted services like Xapo or especially Bitpay would be stealing your ID. It's just the same as giving your ID to any other service really.
|
|
|
|
Considering how volatile fiat is against the Bitcoin, it could happen at any time 
Seriously, there's no reason why this would happen. Satoshi's intention was clearly to avoid the publicity of being a major figure. Especially since a decentralised network shouldn't have a definitive leader except for during the early development phase. You can't expect satoshi to reveal themselves, ever. |
|
|
|
-snippity snip snip-
Market still neutral. Price is hugging the 50% Fibonacci retrace level. Volume is moderate, RSI neutral. Boring, but price is still above $2500.
Pretty great time for the Wall Observer thread to fork then. Absolutely no interesting price movements whatsoever, so we don't need to get together. I think it's foreshadowing for August 1st. Trillions of different forks that do slightly different things, but no one actually cares about any of them and nothing interesting happens on them.
IMO potential SegWit activation in July-August is super bullish. The messier it is, the less bullish it is. Before that, we'll be moving kind of sideways because no one really gets what's going on. |
|
|
|
It's as true as that graph is. It was just the first result I got for "DASH transaction volume", because I assumed that would explain why it doesn't matter whether DASH raises the max block size. I can't find another one so that's all the info we've got. I figured Dash would have way more transactions than that throughout the course of a day. Then again, its only real use is as a speculative instrument--no one takes it for goods & services that I know of. The darkweb (which I don't frequent) doesn't even deal with Dash to the best of my knowledge.
I'm pretty sure that Alpha Bay has wallets for Bitcoin, ETH, Monero and Zcash, but obviously the merchants accept what they like and almost all of them just accept BTC. I suspect that's the case for most other dark net markets as well. Some people do gambling with DASH because of the quick confirmations, but other than that I can mainly just think of trading to be honest. I know there are tons of Dash haters here, but I like the coin and I just recently bought a little. Just a little, mind you. I'm hoping at $182 that it's not all downside. lol
Fair enough. But anyway, my point is that when DASH isn't actually sent very much, it does what it likes in terms of max block size. Bitcoin is not the same. Also, Bitcoin is a lot bigger and has a lot more active developers trying different things so consensus is harder. |
|
|
|
About #1, if you don't believe me, try sending out a transaction on a Sunday. I've had transactions be confirmed within the hour at only 40 sat/b which comes out to around $0.20 worth of transaction fees in contrast to sometime like today when the fee is around 300 sat/b. It all depends on the mempool load, which happens to be lower during weekends. That being said, I still think a scaling solution is a must for Bitcoin, but that's outside the scope of this thread.
You have your reason for saying that because sometimes too I have made some transactions as well while some confirms faster than the other but I just couldn't linked if its related to less traffic on the network during weekend but I guess I will have to try this as well. I feel there is need for the issue of fees to be sorted so people will be more encourage to use more of chip mixer service. Fees are quite low currently if your wallet lets you set a custom fee. As you can see here, even transactions with fees of <50 satoshi/byte are expected to confirm in about six hours, which is fine if you're sending overnight or online with low priority (e.g. to a friend). I used chipmixer a few days ago and I got tricked, after sending my coins I got 3 small chips with the promise of merging them to get a big chip but the merging button wasn't working then I had to pay fees 3 times with one time of my main deposit, literally I lost 20% of my coins just paying fees. lol
Chipmixer does not have fees - you pay what you want to. You should contact support. |
|
|
|
|
This also applies to all the bullshit telegram groups that only "start pumping" when there's x number of people in the group.
Loads of these groups have been popping up recently due to the crypto bull market and frequent pumps happening.
Friendly reminder: these whales do not announce their pumps in public. Almost all manipulation goes on behind the scenes and I strongly doubt that create these groups without contacting people directly.
|
|
|
|
Just out of interest JJG, where are you from?
Me personally I am British and still live here in the UK.
-snip- You wrote several times that your posts aren't too long. so it seems a bit nonsensical that I have some folks accusing me of being difficult to understand, and suggesting that I am convoluting my points..
it seems to be a bit of a distraction to get caught up on style rather than substance, no?
. either you want to read the writings of a poster and you can relate or you skim them for whatever useful information might be there or you ignore them.
Each of us personally do not need to benefit from each of the posts of others in order that others might benefit from certain styles and or substantive presentations, no?
All saying almost the same thing. Just slightly different phrasing.
You should really trying appreciating the irony here... |
|
|
|
DASH number of unique transactions per day: about four thousand. Bitcoin confirmed transactions per day: about 230 thousand. It's not the block size, it's the maximum block size. DASH is also a younger project with very few transactions, so the blockchain is very small in comparison. Not to mention that in DASH, full node users are rewarded, while in Bitcoin they're just volunteers. I don't think it's a fair comparison. Plus, you don't know that it can't get to 2mb. While they're not actually signalling for the code yet and they might not carry out with the hard fork anyway, it seems like shitloads of pools are supporting SegWitx2 right now. |
|
|
|
|
The vast majority of investors will just move their holdings into fiat. They'd prefer to have something which typically only drops by 2-3%, instead of keeping the risk of something which is likely to have dropped loads when they want to cash out.
You can only expect Bitcoin investors from a bear market if they're diversifying loads into many different assets including gold as well. Generally though, you're right that stock market problems are bullish for Bitcoin IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
>Warren Buffet says that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value
"Yeah, well he's just one rich person. Bitcoin is a grassroots movement for a developing technology. Besides, he just doesn't get it."
>Michael Novogratz says that cryptocurrencies will be worth trillions within a few years
"We're all going to get rich! Buy, buy, buy!"
|
|
|
|
common you guys I am not seeing it with any sort of political intention I was saying that anonymous group hacks for public freedom and internet justice and I believe bitcoin has these same points too. in addition to that bitcoin is said to be hacking proof which means satoshi must know hacking in order to make something to prevent those methods. any hacker knows how easy is cracking any md5 encrypted password and anyone knows how much bitcoin has effected the world.
Anonymous don't do anything. They're a bunch of 15-year-old 4chan users sitting in their rooms who are completely up themselves and think they're saving the world or something. They just wait until someone else does something cool, then claim responsibility for it anonymously and boom look, "ethical hackers". I'd be shocked if they could pull together and develop one line of code, never mind one of the greatest modern technologies in the world. |
|
|
|
Wall Observer forked? There's now 2?!
Can the real Wall Observer please stand up.
This is more than a fork. I was honestly getting confused at some wall observers. What happened to the original thread? It was shut down because it was a strain on the moderators to remove all the off-topic posts, since the OP was no longer active for a long time. Theymos created this poll as to what should happen to it now. For now, it looks like it's just going to be a battle between at least one moderated thread and at least one unmoderated thread, in an attempt to find out the community support more accurately. Personally, I'd prefer this thread but maybe it should be given some kind of special rules allowing certain off-topic posts. Anyway, on the actual thread: The price seems to be wobbling in nowhere's land. The uncertainty is in the air. Everyone is just watching, nobody has no clue what is going to happen. The outcome is anyone's guess. Let's just hope there's no hardfork or anything stupid because the crash could be epic.
True. SegWit activation could be imminent, then we'll see the price moon. |
|
|
|
While it would certainly be better to have everything out in the open, the simple fact is, Core could be producing this code themselves. It's merely that you choose not to because it conflicts with your preferred vision of development. It's easy to sit there and complain about the manner in which they're going about it, but we could avoid all of that if you offered everyone a choice in the code they choose to run. If you were to release another version of Core which supports both SegWit and a 2mb base, then you can have a say on the process used to create it. Plus it would be far more constructive than sniping. What you are arguing seems to make little sense, or possibly I do not sufficiently understand your point? Core is not some kind of centralized entity, but if consensus within that group is to push for segwit without a 2mb increase because as individuals each of them believes that there is no fucking justification for actually adding either a 2mb upgrade or especially attempting to accomplish such in terms of a hardfork, so why would any specific one of them (of course any one of them is free to do what he wants) just concede and write some stupid ass technically unnecessary code? I'm just pointing out the futility of complaining about the quality of any work that you aren't willing to do yourself. It doesn't achieve anything. If you hire a collection of people to build your house, you're going to moan if they start trying to build an extension you didn't want. You'd say, "why didn't you just build the extension I showed you?" Sure, you wouldn't be capable of building it yourself, but you know what you want. Another example: you have a representative democracy. You're not capable of doing everything related to running the country, but you still advocate certain policies and oppose others, which is how people get elected and how they get somewhat influenced by the views of the public. In effect, you forfeit the right to moan about how you would have done it better if you clearly have no intention of doing it to begin with. If anyone would like to see SegWit2x completed to a higher standard, "put up or shut up", basically.
It's not like there are no devs willing to work on Bitcoin or something... it's just saying "you should do x instead of y", and even if one specific group won't do it, it's possible that another will if it has enough public support. If public opinions are regarded as futile, then no one would know what they actually want in the first place. |
|
|
|
Is this man Satoshi Nakamoto?   Firstly, Which man? There are two men in that picture. Secondly, Why have you posted a picture of a random group of people and asking if one of them is Satoshi, would you at least elaborate why you think that man might be Satoshi? The guy at the front looks like Craig Wright. Craig Wright claimed to have great evidence for being Satoshi Nakamoto a while ago, and then after shitloads of publicity he backed out and didn't actually publish any. Wright likes to pretend he had to jump through hoops to prove it, when it would actually have been very easy. |
|
|
|
Your potential for growth is limited, it kind of makes you just want to give up. People assume they know your character because of how you look, it's frustrating to say 'Hello Ma'am' to an older white lady in Walmart, and have her glare at you.
I'm white, and it's hilarious to see some white people assume that they know whether black people experience racism. The only group you can ask about if black people experience racism is black people, and if a large amount of them say yes then they do. That's just basic logic. I thought Greenbits was black. I believe I heard him mention somewhere that he's from Africa. Starts with M, I think it's Mozambique. That was intended to be support for his views, because of all the people trying to discredit what he says about the existence of racism. I can see how it might have been confusing now. If you think of it now, yes, blacks in the US definitely have it better than those in say, Sudan or Sierra Leone. But that is only a fluke. What would have happened if slavery was never abolished? Many European countries has already started abolishing it at the time, but what would have happened if the US lagged, like how some countries in Africa (the irony) still practice it now?
Estimates largely suggest that India has the largest amount of slaves in the present day. See Wikipedia's article on contemporary slavery. Unfortunately capitalist societies result in slavery, because multinational corporations try to find the cheapest labour possible to produce a product with a competitive price, which often involves moving to the third world in order to subvert Western workers' rights and unions. |
|
|
|
|
Seems fairly obvious that inputting any information about your cryptocurrency holdings into a third party service is dumb unless you've read fully through open source code and decided that there's no way for them to access information about your holdings.
Really, if you have >$100,000 of crypto, it would be way better for you not to tell someone else about it at all, considering just how hard some people try to steal others' cryptocurrency holdings.
|
|
|
|
They are homeless for a reason and if we would stop helping them they would die and the problem would be solved. We need to be creating a stronger race and not supporting to broken portions of the race, diluting the gene pool.
P.S being rich is not a stronger race. Kim kardasian, trump, kenye west are not a good/strong gene pool for our future Capitalism encourages greed, which is a negative trait. It's safe to say that the working and middle classes tend to be more morally sound than particularly rich and/or famous people. You can say "the rich donate to charity", but the amount that say, Bill Gates lives on is still dramatically higher than any normal person, so he is not generous. Nor is he responsible for everything that Microsoft has done. Homelessness can be for a variety of reasons and drugs or alcohol can be a contributing factor, but it's futile to suggest that it has to be the reason or that homeless people are incapable of having money. The point is, giving paper wallets to homeless people is dumb. It would be much better to just explain to them ways in which you believe Bitcoin would help them and potentially donate after that to give them an incentive to use it (if that's the aim of giving them a paper wallet anyway). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
