INDIA JUST BANNED GOLD...
No. India did not ban gold. Quit spamming this nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
Subject title is bullshit. India did not outlaw gold. As always was the case, gold can be purchased with after-tax money.
The new thing is that the gov is now demanding that all gold be shown to be purchased with after-tax money. And, apparently, resorting to draconian measures to determine if each person's gold above some threshold has been purchased accordingly.
But it has not made gold illegal.
|
|
|
|
(well spite towards me, specifically)
Well, no - I don't spite you specifically, JJG. I just tire of your non-stop toeing (towing?) of the core narrative, sans any critical review of the issues at hand. But I don't spite *you*, per se. I wish you well. |
|
|
|
I would be tempted to quit at 1/150th of that using the 4% rule from the Trinity study.
1/150th would not be enough. What is the 4% rule? For that matter, what is the Trinity study? Does it involve Carrie-Anne Moss in leather? |
|
|
|
Ooh! ooh! Guess me next!
O.k.... Give me some details, you bear troll.  Oh c'mon - you've guessed before... |
|
|
|
I am responding from my regular account now... since my locked out matter has been fixed (finally, after nearly a month)
Congrats. somewhere between .1BTC and 1 million...
Well, that's hardly playing along... |
|
|
|
you have 150000 btc give or take. and you all get 140 btc every two weeks from the block reward as an early signing bonus.
If only 't'were true... I'd be somewhat tempted to quit my day gig. |
|
|
|
You registered during the "gamer mining hype" (summer 2011).
Haha! Fun! I don't know what the 'gamer mining hype' is, despite having lurked for nearly a year before registering.  But even more fun, as I distinctly remember one of my first thoughts when hearing about Bitcoin was 'hmm... like Linden dollars, but free from the inflation pressure of a single issuer'. You probably own 50-200 BTC.
I'm not gonna say whether or not that is a good guess. I will say that I lost on the order of the high side of your estimate in the GLBSE implosion (that was my 'fool me twice, shame on me' moment)*. *that might imply I had a 'fool me once, shame on me moment' Yes, shamefully, I did.** ** yes, I had a 'fool me thrice, fool.... won't get fooled again' moment. Somewhat less embarrassing. |
|
|
|
I assumed naming it BUTT was sufficient to let everyone know it was a joke. But... but... BUTT is a useful tool: https://sourceforge.net/projects/butt/Blockstream isn't really paying me enough to actually be funny. (That's another joke, BTW!)
zing! |
|
|
|
Based on this post, and your earlier posts about your average cost per coin, here is my approximate estimate regarding the number of coins that you own.
Approximate amount invested: 4.53 x $750 = $3,400
Based on my foggy memory - estimated average cost per coin: $150
Approximate current number of coins held: $3400 / $150 = 22.67 ( 1/one millionth of the total BTC supply)
Ooh! ooh! Guess me next! |
|
|
|
We're gonna need a bigger chart. - Captain Quint.
Shouldn't that be Captain Quant? XD (feel free to chew on it a bit before answering...) |
|
|
|
Holliday, I lurves ya, man. But reducito al absurdium is unbecoming.
Look at some of the responses in this thread. You are calling me out as unbecoming because I made a joke? Naah. My mistake. I thought you were stating that you thought such was a real risk. |
|
|
|
A lot of confusion on this issue. Perhaps instead of propagating false 'information', you may wish to check the FAQ: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/faqBU is merely an alternative client. All BU coins are coins on the main Bitcoin blockchain. BU does not mine alt coins - it mines Bitcoins. The central innovation of BU is to allow the maxblocksize to be set by emergent consensus of the network, rather than by decree of a handful of developers. |
|
|
|
I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Type Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...
Unlikely. The BU community approved a motion to implement a user-settable maxblocksize at the initiation of the BU project. As of yet, there has not even been a proposal -- BUIP or otherwise -- for variable block reward. Holliday, I lurves ya, man. But reducito al absurdium is unbecoming. |
|
|
|
Just 'cause you incessantly do this to others... Once we get passed the mid $800's, the most likely price range would end up in the $3k to $5k territory
^^^ show your work. You seem like you are trolling, Not at all. I am just pointing out your hypocrisy in always demanding that others who throw out a figure explain how they derived that figure, while you provide absolutely no reasoning behind your quote above. |
|
|
|
-snip-
that i can read more about unbiased arguments for and against segwit and LN?
You should look for those separately. While one may have plenty more reasons to dislike LN, there is much less to do so with Segwit. There's actually a big page covering the problems/downsides of Segwit on the Bitcoin Core website: Segregated Witness Costs and Risks, and here is the page covering the benefits Segregated Witness Benefits. I think it's at least fairly unbiased considering how openly they addresses many of the potential problems. Some might consider the creators of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset to be a ... umm ... questionable source for a bias free discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. |
|
|
|
so the original purpose of Segwit was to fix transaction malleability and to fit more transactions into a block reducing the transaction time, right?
Basically. It increases transaction capacity so more transactions can be included in a block, not really reducing transaction time. Well, not quite. Segregated witness itself just segregates the witness data from the remainder of the transaction data. This allows making the remainder of the transaction data determinate, which fixes the malleability issue. However, it does not fit more transactions into a block. Indeed, as each transaction must be correlated with the corresponding witness, the data needed to maintain this correlation actually decreases the amount of complete transactions including witness that will fit in a given number of bytes (e.g., a 1MB block). The so-called 'block size increase' enabled by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is really accounting legerdemain. The data occupied by the witness is given a 'discount' in size calculation, when determining block size. This discount is yet another magic number invented for this purpose. In this manner, a '1MB' block can contain more transactions , but that '1MB' block may actually be up to 4MB in actual size, as measured by the amount of data required to flow over the wire and/or be stored by a fully-validating node. Make no mistake, while part of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, this accounting trickery is not part of segregated witness itself, nor is it required for the resolution of the malleability issue. |
|
|
|
So what's your point really?
You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion. So how does that support your claim that everything will be tip-top in the future, when huge block sizes will be possible thanks to the expansion in network bandwidth, storage capacities, processing power, etc? Well, it obviously will not be, if we do not allow it. I'd like to at least remove the artificial barriers that currently prevent this. Why is that so hard to understand? While minor problems, which don't even require the tiniest part of the future technological improvements, still cannot be solved for longer than a year, today?
This is not a technological problem, but rather a self-imposed management problem. And while we are at it, it is still not proven that this transaction jam was not deliberately caused by miners themselves
I struggle with trying to discern any relevance to this. |
|
|
|
at the moment seg wit is on the table, and those who are working towards [other solutions] don't have feasible code that has gone through the vetting process.
Well, no. BU has been running on the main chain several times longer than has The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. |
|
|
|
Just 'cause you incessantly do this to others... Once we get passed the mid $800's, the most likely price range would end up in the $3k to $5k territory
^^^ show your work. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
