Its ok lets send a car into space
That was a legit good thing. Colonizing space is the next big frontier, and we are one giant leap closer now. Now all we need do is launch a house, a driveway and a family! Edit: maybe two families... It would be weird colonizing with just one. |
|
|
|
|
Dude!!
Do not post personally identifying information on this forum. Are you crazy?!
|
|
|
|
So Whats going on guys? Can someone explain?
UnDerDoG81 just became happy with what he has rather than wait an eternity (a whole year) for the inevitable. |
|
|
|
Question is, sell now and be happy with what you have or just go full risk and wait until end 2018 or 2019 :/
qft I have a hard time believing that quantum field theory is going to help in this instance. It'll just complicate matters further because infinite degrees of freedom can easily lead to divergences of calculated quantities! |
|
|
|
Wonder if he would've managed to withdraw if he didn't go for such absurd sums. It really does sound absurd. Let's look at it - $20,000,000,000,000 worth of Bitcoin (at least that's the story) I know offtopic posts are frowned upon here, and some topics are more off than other, but I'll risk it.
Have you heard about cryptocurrencies? Well there's this nifty thing called bitcoin, it's my favorite.
It's holding 10.5 k-ish.
If we divide the current value into the exchange glitch number we get ~1,904,761,904 Bitcoins? #Helluvaglitch! |
|
|
|
The American right wing conspiratard radio commentator. I don’t know his name but he talks about gay frogs. So he is gay frogs guy.
I believe that would be Alex Jones. Sounds familiar so probably right. Gerald Celente was on Alex Jones yesterday (depending on your time zone) telling people to buy Bitcoin. Do you have a link for that? I feel like I wasted some of my life listening to Alex Jones trying to find it, and then the Gerald Celente crypto currencies part was at 2 hours 23 minutes and 30 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwe_iMi8-fwI did not even believe him to be recommending anything, and he does not really seem to know how to differentiate bitcoin from other cryptos because he said that the "valuable ones" are the ones that offer a kind of product, and I have recently been seeing that kind of bullshit discussion that in order to be valuable cryptocurrencies have to offer a product. Accordingly, cryptocurrency pundits miss the whole fucking idea (or product of bitcoin), and they fail to realize that bitcoin is the actual product because of what it actually offers in terms of liberating folks from traditional money's control over you. Furthermore, Alex Jones is no where to be seen, and what Alex needs is to have someone on his show specifically informing him about the Roger dat bullshit, and maybe even have an ability for both Roger and a regular bitcoin supporter to debate... someone who can hold their own to Roger.. which should be anyone who is fairly knowledgeable about bitcoin, and understands the bullshiterie of Bcash. Also, if Roger were to go on a little rant that he does not want bcash to be called bcash, then perhaps the discussion should end at that point because roger can call his bcash anything that he wants, but if he will not engage with you because you continue to call bcash, bcash, then may as well not discuss the matter with the loonie... That was the show I was listening to (but I was falling asleep during it because it was after a night shift). It starts around the 2hr40min mark. He says follow the money and that's a segue into Switzerland and it becoming the crypto capital of the world. He mentions they don't make specific recommendations, but he says crypto-currencies are "going North". Then he talks about gold and right near the end of it, he says when gold hits 1400 or 1450 "it's gonna be a Bitcoin bounce baby!" - you kind of have to read between the lines but he's saying "Buy Bitcoin". |
|
|
|
|
Your "proof of possession" concept is (also) on a collision course with the "proof of burn" concept. By design, the burned coins cannot be moved - ever.
|
|
|
|
Good morning Bitcoinland.
I see we've had a dip/correction back to where we were the day before yesterday... currently $19463USD/$13250CAD (Bitcoinaverage).
It's certainly not a buyable dip in my estimation, but it does serve as a healthy correction just when things were starting to heat up a little too fast.
We don't need bubbles. We need sustained growth.
I like your optimism Jimbo. Unfortunately the loonie has not appreciated that much against the greenback yet! |
|
|
|
I have a suggestion, and I'd like the community's thoughts.It is well known that many bitcoins are no longer accessible due to loss of private keys, but no one knows how much. While estimates exist, they rely on imprecise methods. Most famously, there is still a large amount of bitcoin in Satoshi's wallet, and it is unclear whether they will ever be spent. This phenomenon causes undesirable uncertainty in the market, undercuts the slogan "there will eventually be ~21 million bitcoins", and in a sense causes deflation. I thought of a way to increase transparency as to how many bitcoins are actually in circulation, and also increase miners' rewards, through a process that somewhat resembles erosion (hence the name). Seems to me it can be implemented as a soft-fork, though I haven't worked out the details to verify this (I'd like to hear what the community thinks about this idea before delving in more deeply, if ever). Onto the idea itself. I'll make up some parameters as an example. Basically, from the moment an address receives funds, a countdown begins. Whatever funds are left in the address after 3 year will start eroding, meaning that every week from then on another 0.1% of the amount in that address may be taken by the miner (technically each block will contain a list of addresses with the funds that were taken). If you have funds sitting in an address and you don't want them to erode, all you have to do is spend them to yourself once every 3 years. Hot wallets can automate this, and cold wallets can warn you to do this manually. Even if you forget, assuming you at least check once in a while that your funds are in place, you would see the erosion that began, and take action before much damage took place. Although I don't think it's technically possible to include these eroded funds in the coinbase transaction itself (as that would make it a hard-fork), they could be implemented to act as if they were, i.e. they must mature 100 blocks before being spendable. So to reiterate, we gain (a) transparency as to how many bitcoins are in circulation, since users are incentivized to prove that they still possess their private key every once in a while, and (b) miners will be able to access lost funds, returning them into circulation and increasing the security of the network. I go into a bit more detail here to those interested: https://gist.github.com/yotamDvir/e7ff52a34460f3c9a6bf3051b0e51414. I can't believe the Bitcoin community is responding so politely. Not even one GTFO?  |
|
|
|
The American right wing conspiratard radio commentator. I don’t know his name but he talks about gay frogs. So he is gay frogs guy.
I believe that would be Alex Jones. Sounds familiar so probably right. Gerald Celente was on Alex Jones yesterday (depending on your time zone) telling people to buy Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
What do you guys think, aren't we going to fast now ?
This is old ground we're covering. Once we get through the ~$12k resitance, you will see too fast. |
|
|
|
Downvoted the vid and closed it just from the way he looks and the first two seconds. What a fucking creep.
That's enlightened. Ignore the message because of the way the messenger looks, and the fact that in the first two seconds, he introduces himself by name? You do realize who this is? You actually can judge a book by its cover, you know? As with anything else, some people are good at it and some are so bad that they refuse to believe it's possible, but I seem to have become pretty good at it of late. You do realize who this is? Other than 'CEO of Bitcoin Cash' - a title obviously created just to tweak idiots. Some semblance of his past accomplishments maybe? Well, it seems like he created a Wikipedia page for himself which could be considered an accomplishment.  ...but it's rather self-serving. One thing I would like to know is if people have stopped calling him dick since he changed his name. Based on the first few seconds of that video, his Wiki page and his BCash CEO letter, ten bucks that says they did not. |
|
|
|
The cost would be $584,402,676 for all possible combinations. How long do you expect it will take to raise that kind of money?
Smaller lotteries will be targeted to build up to the powerball. Please join our telegram group. Do you have a method you believe will improve the odds of winning lotteries? I used to belong to a lottery pool at work - we never won much and certainly not more than we paid for tickets overall. Keep an eye on target lotteries until they build up to a point that makes it profitable to buy all combinations for the lottery for gauranteed win. Losing tickets will be written off the taxes up to the amount won as is permitted by law. Replace all invested funds and pay out excess as part of quarterly dividends. Your pool did not have all combinations purchased as well as a rising coin value backing it to pay out dividends to investors quarterly. This coupled with using the affiliate money given by exchanges from trading fees also split to investors. You will make money. I have wondered if it would be profitable to buy all possible combinations when the Powerball jackpot exceeds the cost for buying every combination but then the jackpot amount is always advertised as a total of 30 years worth of payouts. I guess if you are using a long-term plan with a large amount of capital, it could work. Interesting. |
|
|
|
The cost would be $584,402,676 for all possible combinations. How long do you expect it will take to raise that kind of money?
Smaller lotteries will be targeted to build up to the powerball. Please join our telegram group. Do you have a method you believe will improve the odds of winning lotteries? I used to belong to a lottery pool at work - we never won much and certainly not more than we paid for tickets overall. |
|
|
|
|
The cost would be $584,402,676 for all possible combinations. How long do you expect it will take to raise that kind of money?
|
|
|
|
Out of three as if it makes any difference. These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle. Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time? I believe this falls under caveat emptor. You are calling women objects there. Might want to check your male privilege. Hey. Hey don't run off. This is serious. If a feminist saw what you just posted, they would dox you and get you fired. You better disavow yourself while you still have the chance. (i'm not a feminist. don't worry, i wouldn't even dox you mate. just do the right thing.) We never like to think that marriage and family as contractual yet we probably all know someone paying child support and/or alimony. Marriage is a contract and it comes with certain legal rights and obligations. So I would say that the term Caveat Emptor applies to either party - male or female. Dude you are digging your own grave here. Nobody cares if you call men objects or even dismiss them outright, but you just called women objects AGAIN! Don't you care about yourself? Yes and I would need to be drinking to continue this discussion but I am not. Maybe another time? |
|
|
|
Out of three as if it makes any difference. These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle. Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time? I believe this falls under caveat emptor. You are calling women objects there. Might want to check your male privilege. Hey. Hey don't run off. This is serious. If a feminist saw what you just posted, they would dox you and get you fired. You better disavow yourself while you still have the chance. (i'm not a feminist. don't worry, i wouldn't even dox you mate. just do the right thing.) We never like to think that marriage and family as contractual yet we probably all know someone paying child support and/or alimony. Marriage is a contract and it comes with certain legal rights and obligations. So I would say that the term Caveat Emptor applies to either party - male or female. |
|
|
|
Out of three as if it makes any difference. These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle. Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time? I believe this falls under caveat emptor. |
|
|
|
lines on graphs.
Ahem. I remember those. Me too and they are looking very nice going forward.  |
|
|
|
...that's assuming that the one in ten figure is correct in the first place (which I wouldn't be surprised by because most people are impulsive twats that don't have zero self-control).
The one in ten figure was for middle class people. They found it could be as high as one in three for working class people, but I can't remember who gathered the statistics. My brother's wife's sitster's boyfriend knows a guy in university who claims to be doing a study indicating that NOBODY can be fathered by other than the real FATHER and that number is actually FIVE TIMES greater in Iceland. Come on guys at least post some sources for your bullshit. I did somw googling and other studies dispute this, but ... https://canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.aspxIn the early 1970s, a schoolteacher in southern England assigned a class science project in which his students were to find out the blood types of their parents. The students were then to use this information to deduce their own blood types (because a gene from each parent determines your blood type, in most instances only a certain number of combinations are possible). Instead, 30 per cent of the students discovered their dads were not their biologically fathers.
"The classroom was, of course, not the ideal place to find out this information," said Prof. Dickens, who is often consulted on ethical issues by geneticists at the Hospital for Sick Children. Also there's the strange, but true story of twins with different biological fathers. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/09/twins-with-different-fathers_n_9416074.html Thanks. I read the first link and this guys takes the cake. In March, 1999, the results arrived by mail -- a creased piece of paper telling him that not one of the three boys was his.
"I felt anger toward [my first wife] and sadness, and I felt so sorry for my kids," Mr. Wise recalled. "I told my boys, 'I love you all, you'll always be my sons, the only difference is now I'm not your birth father.' "
Despite this revelation, a district court judge ruled that Mr. Wise had to continue paying child support for the three boys. Based on a 500-year-old common law, most states operate on the presumption that a husband is the father of any child born to his wife during a marriage.
Mr. Wise took his case to the media, hoping to generate political support and contact other men in a similar situation. Instead, he angered the judge, who revoked his visitation rights to the children but left him responsible for $1,100 (U.S.) in monthly support.
"This," Mr. Wise warned, "could happen to anyone."
Over a 13 year marriage they had three boys and one girl... I think that guy was working way too much overtime. If that happened to me, I would just quit the whole family. The kids are not at fault but also not mine, the woman is a whore and a liar and deserves nothing, and jail time is better than continuing to pay her. Take out all the money you can from the bank as soon as possible and hide it somewhere, maybe even throw it away, whatever it takes for her and the state to not get it. All I know for sure is that I would be in a state of shock and disbelief for the rest of my life. It's a sick world we live in.  No, not even. It's completely natural for women to act the way they do. It's called hypergamy, and it's caused by men dying like flies in the past. Simple evolutionary adaptation. The sick part is the way our laws are structured. If they took basic human nature into account, none of this shit would be a problem. ...and then there's this: http://nationalpost.com/health/a-washington-couple-took-a-paternity-test-for-their-child-the-man-of-the-pair-wasnt-the-father-his-unborn-twin-was... According to Starr’s research into the matter, the baby’s mysterious origins are a product of the genetic phenomenon of “chimerism,” in which one fetus that dies early in pregnancy is subsequently “absorbed” by the remaining sibling. This process, called “vanishing twin phenomenon,” is believed to be much more common than people think: a 1998 study found that one out of every eight single births begins as a twin or other multiple at conception.
The vanishing twin effect occurs when, instead of producing twins, two zygotes fuse into one. Starr believes that this is what happened to the Washington man, who ostensibly absorbed some of his fraternal twin’s cells while in the womb, becoming a “chimera” — a spectral blend — of himself and his unborn brother.
One in eight!? Maybe those 3 boys were his sons? ...or at least his absorbed chimeric unborn brother's sons. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
