If you want to refute what I say, then refute it. But don't say I am wrong just because you think I am wrong, without any sort of logic or evidence to back it up.
I'm sorry but seeing how it is you who is making these wild claims about how currencies work and what kind of currency Bitcoin is and how it's all going to work out or not, the burden of proof for all these wild claims lies solely with you. I don't have to prove a damn thing. I'm perfectly comfortable pointing out that you're merely making statements without any evidence pretending as if you're teaching us some sort of facts of reality. It's basic economics. Read any economics textbook, and it'll show you the same thing. There you go again..  Matters with regards to economics. If you have too much saving in an economy, you stifle economic growth. And a deflationary currency encourages too much saving. If you want to have a national economy with very little investment in new ideas because of lack of incentive to make investments, then that's fine. All I am saying is, compared to the economy we have today (which is actually over-invested because of inflation), we would see far less innovation and progress if a deflationary currency was used.
SAYS WHO?! HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS?! FKING STOP SPREADING BS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Did you know that there's an entire economic school of thought out there that completely DISAGREES with every single word you just wrote there? Stop making bogus statements and start supporting them with evidence and proof otherwise please, just STFU. You know people, according to SgtSpike savings are BAD! So you better not save, you better not think of using money that has properties which will cause it to appreciate cause you're going to destroy the economy. Unless of course you're saving in a depreciating currency, then by all means, save away! What utter nonsense.Again, it's basic economics. I learned this stuff in Economics 101. Maybe you didn't take such a class. It's like 1+1 = 2. Anyone with common sense would agree that that formula is true, just like anyone with common sense would agree that a smarter investment with regards to a deflationary economy is an investment in the currency itself. But, since you insist on me citing sources... "Moreover: deflation results in gross imbalances in the economy: delayed consumption and capital investment and an increasing debt burden (in real, deflation-adjusted terms) adversely affect manufacturing, services, and employment. Government finances worsen as unemployment rises and business bankruptcies soar. Sovereign debt (government bonds) - another form of highly-liquid, "safe" investment - is thus rendered more default-prone in times of deflation." http://www.globalpolitician.com/print.asp?id=6556"When deflation occurs, the prices of goods and services are decreasing, so the primary goal for investors during deflationary times is to hold cash since its relative value is increasing. One approach to holding cash includes placing money in money market funds or short term treasury bonds." http://www.money-zine.com/Investing/Investing/Inflation-and-Deflation/"3. May decrease investment and lending if cash holdings are seen as preferable (aka hoarding)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation"Here, the risk-adjusted return of assets becomes negative in nature, thereby encouraging the purchasers and investors to gather money, rather than investing it in solid and assured securities. This leads to the formation of a theoretical condition known as Liquidity Trap. Liquidity trap is regarded as a critical condition as it stagnates the economy, where the nominal rate of interest becomes zero or close to zero." http://www.economywatch.com/inflation/deflation/effects.htmlSatisfied now? I'm not just making this stuff up. A deflationary currency WOULD and DOES stifle the economy. |
|
|
|
It's simple logic. Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow? I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people. This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods. We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency. Economically, a reduced demand leads not to higher prices but to lower ones. This pseudo-deflationary-spiral (or QDS, as I like to refer to it as) increases the purchasing power of currency. Yeah, I agree. Perhaps I extrapolated too far on that statement. I was thinking along the lines of a deflationary currency causing lower demand, companies producing fewer goods in response to that lowered demand, companies having poorer economies of scale, and thus, having to charge higher prices for the same goods. But you're right, you also have the effect of lower demand lowering prices, just from a supply/demand curve standpoint. And that effect is probably greater than the effect of lowered economies of scale. |
|
|
|
It's simple logic. Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow? I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people. This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods. We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency. You are right this definitely is a simple and also fallacious logic. The Bitcoin economy has so far shown the complete opposite of your simple logic! Also, leave the personal insults out. It reflects poorly on your character, and doesn't really compel me to respond to your inquiries.
I get furious with people who just spout BS they merely heard being spouted by some other human being having zero evidence and facts to back it up. And it's this kind of irresponsible lack of critical thinking and lack of respect for the scientific method that has the whole world convinced of soo many ridiculous beliefs such as religions, statism and the con that is fiat money and central/fractional reserve banking. The Bitcoin economy is laughable. It has zero correlation with the real world economy. The Bitcoin economy will show growth or shrinkage according to whether more or fewer people use it - it has nothing to do with GDP or monetary velocity, etc. The real effects of a deflationary money supply (which Bitcoin isn't yet, since new coins are still being generated) wouldn't be seen unless Bitcoin saw massive adoption. I am not "spouting BS I merely heard being spouted by some other human being." Seriously, if you don't agree with my ideas, that's fine. But don't say that I am spouting off what I heard from someone else, when I am not. Don't say that I am not critically thinking, when I am critically thinking. Don't say I lack respect for the scientific method, when I do have respect for the scientific method. If you want to refute what I say, then refute it. But don't say I am wrong just because you think I am wrong, without any sort of logic or evidence to back it up. Effective deflation is what matters.
Matters to who? You? In case you're interest, to me it's irrelevant. What actually really matters to me is that my purchasing power isn't being stolen by some third party counterfeiting the currency. Matters with regards to economics. If you have too much saving in an economy, you stifle economic growth. And a deflationary currency encourages too much saving. If you want to have a national economy with very little investment in new ideas because of lack of incentive to make investments, then that's fine. All I am saying is, compared to the economy we have today (which is actually over-invested because of inflation), we would see far less innovation and progress if a deflationary currency was used. |
|
|
|
In the history of this planet we haven't had a deflationary currency. And I'm referring to the currency supply deflation not the aftereffect of price deflation. Even fking gold is inflationary. And you little fart want to pretend and make statements of how the reality really works and what kind of currency would be best??!
A true deflationary currency would be one in which the money supply contracts, so it would have to start at an arbitrary amount and then basically self-destruct (inflation self-destructs by dilution/overabundance). As an example, food would fit this definition because it perishes over time. Yes, gold is inflationary, as is Bitcoin. The distinction is that Bitcoin approaches an absolute limit whereas discovery of a large supply or mining gold on the moon could continue expansion of its unit base indefinitely. I think I see what you're trying to get at: gold and Bitcoin inflate less than overall economic expansion grows. So it isn't the currency deflating, there is simply a divergence between the growth rates. In effect, that simulates a deflationary environment - the presentation is the same, but the reasons are different. This chart illustrates that sequence of events: Think of Altcoin as the translation layer between a consistent measure of value (Bitcoin or gold), and the fluctuating quantity and quality of goods and services in an entire economy. It doesn't matter whether there are 10,000 potatos or 1,000,000 - the price for them will still be the same in Altcoins. The more potatos there are, the cheaper they become in Bitcoins. Assume that potatoes are the only goods in our example economy, a maximum for Bitcoin of 1,000 Satoshis and an initial 10:1 Altcoin/Bitcoin to potato ratio: | Annual Potato Yield | >Total Altcoins | >Value in Altcoins | >Total Bitcoins | >Value in Bitcoins | | 100 | 1,000 | 10 | 1,000 | 10 | | 1,000 | 10,000 | 10 | 1,000 | 1 | | 10,000,000 | 100,000,000 | 10 | 1,000 | 0.0001 |
Can you imagine if potato crop yields fell significantly one year and people saw the US dollar-denominated price of potatoes go from $1/ea to $10,000? Now under a fixed 2% annual rate rise for Altcoins, with the same starting assumptions as above: | Annual Potato Yield | >Total Altcoins | >Value in Altcoins | >Total Bitcoins | >Value in Bitcoins | | 100 | 1,000 | 10 | 1,000 | 10 | | 1,000 | 1,020 | 1.02 | 1,000 | 1 | | 10,000,000 | 1,040 | 0.000104 | 1,000 | 0.0001 |
The same problem arises as that with Bitcoin. A fixed absolute value increase would obviously be even more divergent. You can see from these tables that it is impossible for Bitcoin to serve both purposes alone. A second, more flexible Bitcoin system is necessary in the vein of Altcoin. A significant change occurs when market forces shift the Bitcoin decimal. Let's take another look: | Annual Potato Yield | >Total Bitcoins | >Value in Bitcoins | >Decimal Shift | Value of 1 Bitcoin | | 100 | 1,000 | 10.000 | none to hold 10.0 | 1.0 | | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1.0000 | >1 to hold 10.0 | 1.0 | | 10,000,000 | 1,000 | 0.0001 | >5 to hold 10.0 | 1.0 |
The end result is that anyone holding 1 Bitcoin at the beginning would still have 1 Bitcoin, only now smaller fractions of a Bitcoin are needed to conduct everyday transactions. The currency remains functional in regard to price stability while existing units are not devalued, meaning that savers neither harm the system nor are harmed by it. In a fiat system, savers are actually the enemy because stockpiling puts strain on price stability and if the stored fiat is ever disbursed in size, it can cause sizeable price disruption. For an example, imagine that a major foreign holder of US debt (bonds and the like) decided to sell; several billion dollars flooding back into the system without an immediate, commensurate balance of trade reaction would be the same as printing that money into existence. Prices of goods and services would be affected within a year, potentially causing further chain reactions that could destabilize the entire system. What is the universal response to an inflatable money supply that is experiencing excessive demand (i.e. a liquidity crisis)? Inflation is the only answer in the end. By inflating, the decimal point is moved to the left instead of the right. We've seen this with numerous national currencies which introduce a 'new' X fiat currency, just like the old one only several zeros have been lopped off. A 100.00 denomination becomes 1.00 for a left shift of 2 places. That dilutes existing units (savings) in order to maintain price stability. Using a money supply that is essentially fixed, and is indefinitely divisible, completely negates that problem. Gold is the same, but can only do well to certain point because it is physical, offering practical usage down to about a gram denomination. While it is theoretically possible to use gold held in custodianship to lower the limits on practical usage, that returns to issues of trust regarding financial institutions. Bitcoin also virtually eliminates the management concerns involved with trust (there will still be weak points, notably the developers, hashing power concentration and cryptographic security). The only real questions that remain (aside from those mentioned) are of eventual widespread adoption and whether the decimal expansion will be sufficiently smoothed by market forces. Therefore, a complementary inflationary currency might not be necessary. It's hard for those with minimal understanding of their own financial system to grasp these distinctions, and even harder for those that have made it their livelihood and gospel in understanding the existing paradigm. All economic arguments against Bitcoin so far have been bunk. The shift in recognition will be a gradually accelerating process, much like this excellent analysis. Ok, I can agree with you on the technical definition of deflation, and that Bitcoin doesn't fit that technical definition. But, my point is, Bitcoin is (or would be) deflationary according to currency available per capita, or currency available per GDP. Effective deflation is what matters. |
|
|
|
I don't understand. If 50 BTC are produced every 10 minutes, and world GDP growth is 3% per year, bitcoins would, eventually, become deflationary. The first years they'd be inflationary, up until the point where the number of coin generated in a year equals 3% of the current supply. At this point it'd be stagnant because it matches GDP growth. After this, the supply would grow at less than 3% per year (the rate decreasing year by year) and it'd be deflationary. Right?
Yeah, that's true... Bitcoin's decimal expansion is effectively inflationary. That inflation is limited by the number of decimals it can be expanded to, which is currently 8. The system itself does not determine the extent of decimal expansion; that results from market forces. As Bitcoin gains wider adoption its value will rise, prices will fall, and the decimal will periodically be moved to the next point. Precisely, except under this type of an inflationary system ALL the savers benefit, while under a fiat currency central bank's inflation those who get the new money first(government, government contractors, big banks and big crops) benefit and the small savers get punished. This is THE problem humanity has today.But, you forget about lost coins and GDP, which will make Bitcoin deflationary. Technically, it is not inflationary or deflationary, but when you account for lost coins, as well as GDP growth, it will end up acting like a deflationary currency. A deflationary currency encourages too much saving, and an inflationary currency encourages too much debt/spending.
I'm fascinated how people so easily make bullshit bogus statements like this probably merely repeating something they heard or read somewhere from someone else. How the fk do you know what a deflationary currency encourages? Did you do an experiment to confirm your hypothesis? And if not, why the pretense this is a fact of reality. Pisses me off.  In the history of this planet we haven't had a deflationary currency. And I'm referring to the currency supply deflation not the aftereffect of price deflation. Even fking gold is inflationary. And you little fart want to pretend and make statements of how the reality really works and what kind of currency would be best??! It's simple logic. Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow? I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people. This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods. We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency. Also, leave the personal insults out. It reflects poorly on your character, and doesn't really compel me to respond to your inquiries. |
|
|
|
I disagree. If you have a supply with constant rate, that constant rate will eventually meet the rate of lost coins + worldwide GDP growth. At that point, the currency would be neither inflationary or deflationary. It would be stagnate, which is really what the "perfect" currency would look like.
I don't understand. What would ensure that some pre-defined rate of growth of a currency will match the rate of lost coins plus world GDP growth? It will EVENTUALLY match that. Say you had a 50 coin block reward, lost coins averaged .5% per year, and GDP averaged 3% per year. The first year, you will have generated 2,628,000 coins, and, on average, 13k of those would be lost. The second year, you would have generated another 2,628,000 coins, and, on average, 26k of those would be lost. Etc, etc, etc. It would take quite a number of years, but eventually, you would reach a point where the number of coins generated would equal the number of coins lost (on average). That point would be when 525,600,000 coins are in circulation. Add in GDP, and you'd actually be deflating if you had that many coins in circulation. So, the GDP-corrected coin count would be 75,085,714 coins in circulation. Although there'd be more coins than that joining the economy, the effective money supply would remain the same, since the velocity would be faster. Hard to explain. But the effective value of currency per GDP would remain the same. It's not perfect by any means, but it would average out to be stagnate, which would mean an ideal amount of investment and debt vs savings. A deflationary currency encourages too much saving, and an inflationary currency encourages too much debt/spending. |
|
|
|
If the fork I choose fades and dies, I'll be done with the Bitcoin project for good. The rules about the supply are one of the reasons I'm here. I suspect many others feel the same way.
I'm not entirely sure a deflationary currency is the correct endgame - I'm worried about hoarding, and the money supply's ability to sanely match pace with the goods and services whose value it must represent. a system with ever steadily rising amount of coins could also work well and will practically slowy cease to inflate, too.
You are obviously correct that an inflationary currency is useful. We all use one every day. The question is though, if a Bitcoin-like, distributed digital currency can ever be "inflationary". I think any Bitcoin-like currency cannot be necessarily inflationary without being too prone to manipulation. If we want bitcoins to decline in value, we need to peg the bitcoin supply to our economies. How would you do that? To some it may sound good in theory, but I don't think it's possible in practice. A distributed digital currency like Bitcoin needs to have a pre-determined, finite supply, or it will not work. So my point is not that bitcoins need to be deflationary for economic reasons, but more so that it needs to be so for technical reasons. Without a central authority to control the supply of a currency, how can we ever ensure that a currency stays inflationary? We can't. And since Bitcoin by definition excludes a central authority, bitcoins can't be an "inflationary currency".Pricing stuff in bitcoins is easy: <price in BTC> = <price in USD> / <USD per BTC exchange rate> I disagree. If you have a supply with constant rate, that constant rate will eventually meet the rate of lost coins + worldwide GDP growth. At that point, the currency would be neither inflationary or deflationary. It would be stagnate, which is really what the "perfect" currency would look like. BUT, the problem with that idea is that it does not offer enough incentive to early adopters. And a lack of early adopters means a lack of adopters, period, as we've seen with Tenebrix and other attempted alternate cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
What I am saying about the volume license and MSDN is that Microsoft will deactivate large list of those license types once they become aware they are being abused. 99% of bootleg Microsoft products from China and the likes that can actually activate are either volume license or MSDN. What I am selling is OEM licenses. The exact same type of license as new egg sells. Yes, the media that transfers the software looks different but same license type.
you DO know that oem keys will fail to activate on non-oem computers, right? If you use a normal disc with this key, then that's true. But if you install Windows from this disc, and use this key, it will work fine. Some of the older dell discs would actually look for a specific motherboard, so you couldn't even install Windows. But newer discs, like the above, should be fine. |
|
|
|
B&N has 717 retail stores, and 637 college bookstores. Based on the preorders we've already seen here, each store would get two copies, at most, and that's if the college bookstores are ignored. If you plan to buy a copy at a local B&N, better do it quick.  |
|
|
|
|
People are selfish, greedy, and tend to fend for themselves. You cannot compel an entire group of people to ignore these rationales in their decision making, because if even just one of them follows that natural instinct, everyone who does not is taken advantage of.
You can never fight against the man, because there is always another man to replace him. It's the way the world works, unless you live in a bush tribe. But Bitcoin is much larger than a bush tribe...
|
|
|
|
I would never loan to a gambler. What if you decided to gamble with my loan money, and then owed 4 people 170 BTC? How are you going to pay that? And how am I going to be sure you will pay it back?
Im going to guess you dont read my threads or posts at all (which is fine). As i said on my post/thread the money i would get a loan on would go to the 3 people I owe, so that only 1 person is owed, i am going to pay by the way i stated on my post/thread. Isnt it a risk to loan anyone? not sure if you are religious but the only person that i think that would always pay back 100% is god. I have read some of your other threads. The fact that you have to get a loan to pay back 3 other people is not comforting to me. What would be comforting to me, is to say, "hey, I paid back these other three lenders out of my own pocket!" As it is, you're just transferring the loan balance, which accomplishes nothing in a practical sense. And for some reason, I have a hard time believing that you want to pay 20% interest just so you can drop your daily payments from 3 down to 1. I'd much rather click the "send" button 3 times and keep that extra $90 in my pocket for the trouble. Especially if I was so poor I couldn't even pay back loans I was making. Sure, every loan is risky. But loaning to a compulsive gambler is one of the more risky loans a person could make. You are a very high-risk person to loan to, based on what you've told me. |
|
|
|
|
I would never loan to a gambler. What if you decided to gamble with my loan money, and then owed 4 people 170 BTC? How are you going to pay that? And how am I going to be sure you will pay it back?
|
|
|
|
[...]
our rate of 0.99% is for merchants who use our automated order processing, and take the bitcoins directly. If we assume all currency risk, exchange, and fiat transfer, we do all that for 2.99%. so there is more padding for us in there, but added costs and risks for us to absorb as well. And we would notice anyone trying to game the system with using our system to buy a 15-minute put option.  Ah, thanks for the clarification. Less than 3% in total fees for sure is still cheap. Plus still risky for you in times of high volatility (like we currently have). Detecting someone is attempting to get a free 15-minute put option is not preventing it, or? At least I did not read anything about being not allowed to cease and repeat the payment process when I paid the subscription to the Bitcoin Mag (to get back on-topic). Anyhow, waiting BTC/USD to tank for 4% within 15 minutes is not promising enough to try getting rich  . As a final note: as a buyer, I think the 15-minute acceptance period is way to long. Even if I had to first power on my wallet keeping computer to make the transaction, I feel like 5 minutes should be enough. In rare cases where it might not be, I as a buyer had to accept a re-calculation of the BTC amount. Cheers As a buyer using bit-pay, your payment is confirmed in seconds. No, I meant: as a buyer I had 15 minutes time to sent my BTCs at a pre-calculated exchange rate to complete the payment. The same time Bit-Pay takes the risk for fluctuating BTC/USD rates. I as a buyer would be fine with this rate being guaranteed for 5 minutes, if I'm really that slow it's ok to get an updated BTC amount every 5 mins. I'd personally feel this quite acceptable, while it reduces Bit-Pay's currency risk significantly. Gotcha. I completely misunderstood where you were going with that. |
|
|
|
Gold standard for the USD was implemented in 1900. Before that there was a bimetallic backing for the dollar. This might sound silly but I'd like to think of this as the various currencies you can cash out for with Bitcoin. As gold and silver prices fluctuated the ratio was always different for how much silver or how much gold you could get. Once they fixed the standard amount of gold a dollar was worth it remained stable (of course, until 1913, when they ran out of gold to back it and it again entered bitcoin-like instability)
If, for example, Mt. Gox promised you could get $6USD for every bitcoin and (no other currency, no arbitrage possible) it would certainly fix the problem of these huge up and downswings. Of course they would have no reason to do this because they make money on volatility as does almost everyone in the market. Bitcoin does not have stability in mind - unlike the US government did when creating the dollar. This is one of the problems with having an international currency with no banks or government to protect it. Sure, there are benefits, but there are also many flaws and there is a reason why most currencies are and will always be safer than bitcoin. They will never be as fun, or as profitable to trade, though.
Thanks for the info... as for a MtGox peg, eventually the market would run them out of funds on one side, then the market would move past them and they'd be on the losing side. You can't peg, even the US government "ran out of gold to back it". ...unless they had $21M and said they'd back it at $1. Backed at $1 != pegged at $1 Yes, this is true. I kind of misread that part of the conversation. |
|
|
|
Gold standard for the USD was implemented in 1900. Before that there was a bimetallic backing for the dollar. This might sound silly but I'd like to think of this as the various currencies you can cash out for with Bitcoin. As gold and silver prices fluctuated the ratio was always different for how much silver or how much gold you could get. Once they fixed the standard amount of gold a dollar was worth it remained stable (of course, until 1913, when they ran out of gold to back it and it again entered bitcoin-like instability)
If, for example, Mt. Gox promised you could get $6USD for every bitcoin and (no other currency, no arbitrage possible) it would certainly fix the problem of these huge up and downswings. Of course they would have no reason to do this because they make money on volatility as does almost everyone in the market. Bitcoin does not have stability in mind - unlike the US government did when creating the dollar. This is one of the problems with having an international currency with no banks or government to protect it. Sure, there are benefits, but there are also many flaws and there is a reason why most currencies are and will always be safer than bitcoin. They will never be as fun, or as profitable to trade, though.
Thanks for the info... as for a MtGox peg, eventually the market would run them out of funds on one side, then the market would move past them and they'd be on the losing side. You can't peg, even the US government "ran out of gold to back it". ...unless they had $21M and said they'd back it at $1. |
|
|
|
[...]
our rate of 0.99% is for merchants who use our automated order processing, and take the bitcoins directly. If we assume all currency risk, exchange, and fiat transfer, we do all that for 2.99%. so there is more padding for us in there, but added costs and risks for us to absorb as well. And we would notice anyone trying to game the system with using our system to buy a 15-minute put option. Ah, thanks for the clarification. Less than 3% in total fees for sure is still cheap. Plus still risky for you in times of high volatility (like we currently have). Detecting someone is attempting to get a free 15-minute put option is not preventing it, or? At least I did not read anything about being not allowed to cease and repeat the payment process when I paid the subscription to the Bitcoin Mag (to get back on-topic). Anyhow, waiting BTC/USD to tank for 4% within 15 minutes is not promising enough to try getting rich . As a final note: as a buyer, I think the 15-minute acceptance period is way to long. Even if I had to first power on my wallet keeping computer to make the transaction, I feel like 5 minutes should be enough. In rare cases where it might not be, I as a buyer had to accept a re-calculation of the BTC amount. Cheers As a buyer using bit-pay, your payment is confirmed in seconds. |
|
|
|
|
I mine on deepbit because it's the only pool where I haven't had a bad experience.
Tried BTCGuild, but I had to wait 120 confirmations before I had access to my funds, the interface was unclear as to how many coins I was making, it had no MH/s estimator, and it didn't tell me how many BTC I had generated in the last 24 hours. Also, stale rates were higher that deepbit, and they weren't reimbursed like they are at deepbit.
Tried BTCMine (which I think is now defunct), and I had tons of stales.
Went back to deepbit, and everything's been fine ever since.
IMO, I am fine with a 1% or so average actual fee for the benefit of mining at a pool that hardly ever goes down. It's a "I don't ever have to mess with it" proposition. When I was younger, and had more time, I loved to mess with things and eek out every last drop of performance I could. I did that in overclocking, Windows optimizations, etc. Now, all I want it to do is "just work", without me having to mess with it any further. I guess that's what happens when you hardly have any free time.
|
|
|
|
Can someone please make a meme with the dialog at the end starting with the "I bought a bitcoin" line? TIA
If not, I'll do it tomorrow when I have time.
I didn't understand what you meant, and I'm horrible at making funny memes, so I made one anyway.  Here's the source image:  |
|
|
|
I was confused by the second citation that referred to it as a "round". Still... if this lightbulb had been taught firearm safety by his father, as reported, chances are he would not randomly drop the hammer on a full charge of powder. Nor would the trained veteran father keep a fully charged weapon where it might fall into the hands of inattentive video game players.
This sounds like anti-gun agit-prop to me, with a fawning media looking for a cause celebre to call for more gun control.
When what we really need is better stupid control.
No, we need to accept that children are stupid, and accidents happen. You can only prevent so many fatal accidents before we are all living in protective bubbles and stop learning about life. |
|
|
|
|
Lol, I short @ 5.30, then it shoots up to 5.50.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
