It doesn't look very reliable. Even if it is legitimate, it's a new site so you never know if it will be successful or go out of business, in which case you lose everything.
If you want to use PayPal, VirWoX does transactions using it.
how exactly does virwox work? VirWoX is an exchange for Linden dollars (SLL), the currency in Second Life. You can buy SLL using PayPal, CC (through Skrill/Moneybookers), wire transfer, and some other methods. Because SLL is much easier to track, VirWoX isn't afraid of chargebacks on CC or PayPal. You can't buy the BTC directly; instead you buy SLL and then exchange it for BTC. For your first purchase, it takes 2-3 days for your account to be verified, but after that purchases are instant. Just deposit money, buy SLL, exchange SLL for BTC, and then either send the BTC to another wallet (.01 fee) or keep it on your VirWoX wallet. The only main issue is that you have a daily transaction limit, which is only about 100, although it increases over time. But if you're looking for your first bitcoins, this is the easiest way in my opinion. |
|
|
|
It doesn't look very reliable. Even if it is legitimate, it's a new site so you never know if it will be successful or go out of business, in which case you lose everything. If you want to use PayPal, VirWoX does transactions using it. |
|
|
|
So I'm trying to figure out which exchanges I should join. I've been looking at the exchange list on the wiki and there's so many to choose from.
Does your country of residence make a difference for what exchange you use? Which exchanges do you all use? Anybody have any good horror stories, or any other stories of great customer service or something?
Do most people just use one exchange or a few?
Depends what you mean by "best". I think that Mt. Gox and BTC-e have the best rates, but a lot of BTC-e's funding options don't work in the US. When (if) Bitinstant comes back online you should check that out too. In terms of easiness, I use VirWoX because you can use debit cards. It takes 2-3 days for your first transaction but after that it's instant. The rate is like $.49 plus 3.5% (USD) but it goes down the more you buy. Only thing that sucks is that there's a transaction limit, but you can request to have it removed. I haven't made a request because I haven't had to, but I'm guessing that you have to be a business or otherwise have some good reason. |
|
|
|
|
Can you provide feedback that this site is legitimate? I've been looking for an exchange that offers cash deposits since Bitinstant is down but I haven't been able to. I would certainly use this site, potentially for $1000s if I could get some evidence that it is a trustworthy site.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not really interested in offering a loan, but I would certainly use your website yado.com if you provide proof that it's legit. Also, what is the name of the dispensary?
|
|
|
|
Happens to all of us. Who wants to read a wall of text in a sea of useless data...infact, who reads anymore? A picture is worth a thousand words.
It is the second line of the terms of use. You would have to be looking away from your computer in order to not see it. |
|
|
|
|
VirWoX is the only one I know of that allows CC in the US, but it takes two days for your account to verified if you haven't made a transaction yet.
BTC-E also accepts CC but not in the US it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
Why was this bumped? Clearly OP was wrong...
|
|
|
|
Stuff like this is moronic and offensive to those with brain cells. Do you really believe that school shootings are made up? It's one thing to believe that the moon landings are fake (you're still an idiot if you believe they're fake) or that 9/11 is a hoax (double idiot points) but it's another to believe that stuff like this is fake. Why would anyone bother faking this, and why wouldn't someone who lives in the Sandy Hook area come out and say something if it was fake? Also, that website is hilarious. That guy doesn't wear tinfoil hats, he wears tinfoil suits. If you believe that that shit was real you're industrial strength stupid. If I'm industrial strength stupid, then you're what? Military grade stupid? You still didn't explain why no one in that entire town didn't say something about the school shooting that made national news not actually being real. |
|
|
|
Stuff like this is moronic and offensive to those with brain cells. Do you really believe that school shootings are made up? It's one thing to believe that the moon landings are fake (you're still an idiot if you believe they're fake) or that 9/11 is a hoax (double idiot points) but it's another to believe that stuff like this is fake. Why would anyone bother faking this, and why wouldn't someone who lives in the Sandy Hook area come out and say something if it was fake? Also, that website is hilarious. That guy doesn't wear tinfoil hats, he wears tinfoil suits. |
|
|
|
Here's a good question: Is it morally right for me to steal from you, if you elected me as your chosen thief.
this is a paradox. you cant chose for someone to have the right to steal from you, as soon as you do that it isn't theft any more, its charity or trade. Exactly. How can democratically elected leaders "steal" from you? No matter who you vote for, they will have taxes. So why then, do people think it's unfair to pay taxes when they voted for the members of government that collect the taxes? |
|
|
|
I won't call you greedy, but you may not be cautious or wise. The 50 hungry guys might do more than simply look longingly at your delicious English muffins.
I doubt Bill Gates has much to fear from the muffin-hungry masses. After all, he chose to start this fund. No one forced him to, and if they tried I doubt they would have a very easy time. That's why i said that your problem is scaling -- assuming that having $1 Trillion is just like having a dollar, only better  It's not, and that's why i offered the muffin example. The law of diminishing returns applies to money, too. When you have $100k to play with, and you gave away half of it, you can no longer buy the car you want, for instance. When you have billions of dollars, that's no longer the case -- you can no more spend all your money than eat all the muffins before they spoil. Sure, you may not be able to afford as many islands or corporations, but that's like arguing that you may want to gorge yourself on the muffins & throw up at the vomitorium. Things don't scale well  If a woman making minimum wage gives 50% to charity, she and her child starve to death. If Bill gives half of his wealth to charity, only his accountant will know the difference. See? While it's true that Gates could just decide to live a "normal" life, that's some high expectations for anyone. I'm sure that there was a drastic change when he got rid of half of his money, even if to us it seems like he would be incredibly happy either way. If I had billions of dollars I wouldn't want to give it away, at least while I was alive. And also, I make almost minimum wage and I would still be able to live even if I cut my money in half. Even those who live paycheck to paycheck would still be fine, as even if they have one dollar saved up all they have to give is 50 cents. It's all about using your money wisely, and investing in the right things (bitcoins for example). As i said, i'm not an ideal to aspire to, though please understand that ... see the mother example above. You can say that but it isn't much of an excuse. You can't criticize people for doing something that you yourself aren't willing to do. Although maybe you didn't criticize them, because we've gone back and forth for a while and I forgot the original post that was quoted. |
|
|
|
Long quote
It's true that all of those people did have a lot to give away, but if you had billions of dollars, would you want to part with it? Also, if I remember correctly, Bill Gates convinced dozens of the richest people in the world to give away half of their fortunes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_PledgeWould you give away half of your money? No, of course not. Not all of the 1% are greedy money hoarders. 50% is much more than anyone would agree to be taxed... And this was 50% of their total wealth. In all honesty, it's hard for me to think in terms of having or giving away billions -- i never had that much money, and don't personally know anyone worth more than ~45 mil. What's more, i'm not even sure that i'm a nice guy -- certainly not an ideal for others to aspire to So the answer is a definite "maybe." I'm betting that when you say "of course not," you're simply not scaling correctly. To put things into terms plebes like us could comprehend, imagine sitting at a diner with a crate of 100 toasted English muffins next to your cup of coffee when 50 starving people walk in. Would you give up half of those hot buttery English muffins to feed 50 total strangers? I would, though i like English muffins If those English muffins were the only food I had, then no, I would probably not give away half of them. Maybe 25%, and even then that's a stretch if that was the food I had. Maybe they could have my coffee though, since I don't like coffee anyways. But you don't have to think in terms of billions, millions, or muffins. Take whatever you have now, and imagine giving away half of it. Whether you have one thousand or one million dollars you can now only afford half of the things you could before. Your house can only be half as big, you can only buy half as much gas, half as much groceries, etc. You don't have to make up analogies because you can contribute the exact same amount as Gates: he didn't ask for 1 billion dollars, he asked for 50%. If you donate 50% of what you have right now, then you're equal to Gates in terms of charity. Now, for you me and me, this is a big thing to do because I doubt either one of us could "afford" to give away our money. But much like Bill Gates isn't going to go hungry after donating, you and I wouldn't either. There are plenty of people who live on far less than you or I and make it along fine. Technically, we could survive, even if our lives are half as good. I think that it's still very generous of the people mentioned in that fund to give away half of their money, regardless of how much they have. |
|
|
|
If you elected someone to "steal" from you you're voluntarily willing to give up the money. That's not theft. Just like asking someone to "rape" you and willingly going along with it isn't actually rape. Both actions are consensual. If, on the other hand I elected someone else, and told them to steal from you to use the money for my own personal use, THEN it's theft.
Who did you vote for then? And would they really abolish taxes? I doubt it. Infrastructure would crumble. And abstaining from the vote is saying that you would rather let other people decide for you, in which case you deserve whichever leader you get. Complaining about something is morally ambiguous. It's just speech. There's no right or wrong. As for benefiting from things paid for by stolen money, it's morally right, because you did actually pay for those things, whether you wanted to or not. Being forced to pay for those things against your will is morally questionable.
Well, taxation is morally ambiguous as well, as we can see as by the presence of two sides. Being forced to pay is immoral in my opinion, but I feel as though there is no way that you haven't taken advantage of at least one utility paid for by taxes. Deal! I invest enough in my IRA to retire without social security, I don't have kids, so don't need schools, and can use private ones if I do need them, I'm fine with sticking to private roads and roll roads, and my water and electricity are provided by companies, not government. In turn, are you ok with not taxing me? That's all a lot of us have been asking for: we won't use your services, you won't tax our income and property. Where I live, the electricity and water companies are both state-owned. The water where I live is too toxic to drink so it has to be treated by a state-owned plant. I may be paying "bills", but they're still payments to the government whether they're called taxes or bills. Maybe I just live in a better place to pay/not pay taxes, but it's very hard to not take advantage of public utilities. And yes, I would never support you being taxed so long as you never set foot on a public road (where do you live where all the roads are "private" yet you can use them freely?). Also, private schools are much more expensive than public, so would you really pay boatloads of money just to spite the people trying to tax you? Who pays for your electricity? Internet? Phone service? Do you get them for "free" after paying taxes? If not, why can't all the other things you use be provided by a private entity? The only difference will be that instead of having a single large tax bill going to one organization, you'll have a couple of smaller bills going to many organizations, paying only for services you need and use (plus whatever you want to donate to charity or needy causes) I guess I could have several smaller bills, but then they would each be more expensive. If every road was privately owned, I would have to pay a toll every time I passed a house as opposed to paying one sum and getting to use any road in the United States as much as I want. If water was privately owned by an independent company, they could charge through the roof. There's no way that the water purification plant near me is cheap. I fail to see how the bills would be smaller, since they would be paying for the same thing but with less people paying. Maybe it's just my location, but paying taxes is much cheaper than paying each individual private company. I respect that you don't want to pay taxes, but I find it hard to believe that you would opt out of all of the public utilities. If you aren't getting use from them, then you are making a poor decision because it's not hard to get your money's worth in tax dollars. |
|
|
|
And how many boys? Got to be more than 30M boys in the US alone?
Men don't have emotions, and thus do not deserve rights or pity. /s Circumsizing males ≠ circumsizing females. |
|
|
|
Is Nigeria even in the US?  No, of course not. He was referring to citizens of Niger, which is located within Texas. |
|
|
|
Freemason / Rothschild family are illuminati.
No they're not! Freemasons require a belief in a higher power. Illuminati are atheists/agnostics and believe science is the higher power. Illuminati, or The Illuminated, believe religion is a darkness that covers the world, and seek to destroy it by opening people's eyes through science and art, and through bringing down theocratic regimes by manipulating business and finance. They are the ones who brought on the Renaissance, ending the centuries long reign of the church. I should know, I'm in the Illuminati. You are below the 33rd degree. When you get above the 33rd degree you will know that it is illuminati in disguise. It's a form of trickery use to lure people into luciferian. The purpose of above 33rd degree is to server Satan. The representation of Satan is the Satanic crown, that's currently being held by Queen Dracula The Eqyptian Pharoah Queen Elizabeth II. That's why the British pound is worth more than all currencies. All other countries' currencies value must be lower than the British Pound (where the crown of Satan is held); It's luciferians way of creating slavery world wide. That's why they abolish slavery in the UK, and the US. And ordered their minions that serve them to create slavery world wide. The luciferians created an illusion that they are the good guys. That's some solid economics right there. |
|
|
|
Well, that survey surely has no bias...  Here's a good question: Is it morally right for me to steal from you, if you elected me as your chosen thief, and if the money that I steal from you goes towards public work projects and utilities that you and I both use? Is it morally right for you to complain about being stolen taxed when you benefit from the taxes that other people pay? If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't use anything that those taxes pay for. No social security, no roads, no school, no water and electricity. Do people realize that these utilities aren't free? How are they supposed to be paid for without taxes? Should roads skip someone's house because the occupant doesn't want to pay taxes? Should kids not go to school because their parents don't want to pay taxes? That's moronic. |
|
|
|
Long quote
It's true that all of those people did have a lot to give away, but if you had billions of dollars, would you want to part with it? Also, if I remember correctly, Bill Gates convinced dozens of the richest people in the world to give away half of their fortunes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_PledgeWould you give away half of your money? No, of course not. Not all of the 1% are greedy money hoarders. 50% is much more than anyone would agree to be taxed... And this was 50% of their total wealth. |
|
|
|
Maybe... if they all do it at once.
I think we're kind of seeing a soft secession with nullification, bitcoin, and general noncompliance.
If every state seceded at once what would the point be? Most would be just be a bunch of weak nation-states, prone to collapse or invasion. California or New York are the only ones that I could see successfully seceding, as they are major players on the world stage already. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
