|
Instead of the "forever" echo in the theme song, it would be "diamonds are forever... (your bitcoins, your bitcoins)". LOL
|
|
|
|
Sorry that I forgot to reply. So you are mostly facing problems because customers don't know what Bitcoin is and how to pay, right?
Mostly. 4/5 orders cancelled due to the fact that people have no clue what they're supposed to do on the site. Wow, that's quite high. I see there is a need for counter measures. yeah... how about you let new users only purchase something if they have the amount in their bitmit wallet? I guess that would be the easiest solution What about a random challenge string, with instructions on how to sign it with a funded key, which then verifies on the blockchain that the user can afford to pay? Quite a bit more difficult, but at least nobody would have to trust BTC to bitmit's wallet, or go the completely opposite direction, bypass bitmit's wallet and escrow completely. |
|
|
|
This topic is locked because of everyone violating the Local rule: do not reply to this topic. If you don't want to pay with BTC, I also accept cash, but absolutely no PayPal or other non-cash scammer payment methods. Please PM, IM (links under my QR code avatar), text 619-393-2253, or IRC me. Don't, if you won't prove that you have enough funds to pay immediately. TAC SHIELD Surefire 6P/G2 light MOLLE pouch, foliage greenClick for full-size:  New. $20/  plus cheapest USPS shipping within the U.S. (including to an international shipping forwarding service of your choice) TBD, or you may pick up in San Diego, CA. |
|
|
|
What is referred to as "friendly fire" is not always just "oops, I hit a friendly", or "fuck yeah, I hit a 'friendly', because I am a traitor who loves betraying/killing people". It is quite possible that some incidents of "friendly fire" are committed by people who felt morally compelled to shoot friendlies to save innocents, but as the victor writes the history books, it is unlikely to learn of any who were justified in using violence when "the U.S. is always right" and anyone who disagrees is a "traitor" - if they even get any exposure at all and not just a rug-shuffling. It's one thing to keep drone striking the fuck out of women, children, non-coms in the middle east, Pakistan, Yemen, but if I were a commander in the U.S., I'd be scared shitless that my subordinates would turn on me if I gave the order to do that in the U.S., because nationalism trumps "foreigners" and the "collateral damage" thereof. But, I guess that's why the CiC is trying to purge the ranks of anyone who would defy genocide orders, starting from the joint chiefs on down. Think of the case of August Landmesser, albeit non-violent: http://twentytwowords.com/2012/02/13/a-lone-dockworker-refuses-to-raise-his-hand-in-the-nazi-salute-1936/ or stateside, KKK members who may have pointed arms against their own brothers in government, after coming to a place where they could not stand idly by the murder of non-whites. |
|
|
|
|
D&T, haven't you already argued people out of your initial interpretation, or was that someone else? LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Bitfloor customers who don't have Internet Archive Federal Credit Union accounts haven't gotten refunds of their Bitfloor account balances, if the lack of reports of such is any indication.
|
|
|
|
Utter tosh fallacy.
1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win. Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument. Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore You are not shooting down an ICBM with small arms. You are not shooting down a cruise missile with small arms. You cannot destroy an M1 Abrams with small arms. In fact, good luck destroying an Abrams with anything but another Abrams. And yes, you could kill the operators... If they open up the door and let you in. Otherwise they'll just laugh at your second amendment and tear you apart. The only heavy weapon you could take would be a rocket launcher. But that's useless against any of the other things listed. Many seem to be implying all military and government and private contractors are traitors who will commit genocide without question, and that you can't get inside things (ETA: like tanks, and also "secure" facilities) from the outside. Wrong, and wrong. |
|
|
|
Utter tosh fallacy.
1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win. Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument. Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore did you get dropped on you`re head when u where a child? If that's the only way you can appreciate sarcasm and irony, sure I was. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see Legal here as noisy (except certain concern trolls).
|
|
|
|
|
+1 ^
With PGP plugins for email, just a matter of entering in your passphrase (if at all).
Or even better, have all non-escrowed deals go PGP bidirectional encrypted comms. (Not sure if you can encrypt to 2 recipients at once, your counterparty + localbitcoins escrow)
|
|
|
|
Utter tosh fallacy.
1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win. Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument. Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore |
|
|
|
I'm reading this thinking, "This is the dumbest ish ever." Then I see Ayn Rand at the bottom and say, "Oh, well that figures." Please join humanity.  If you think quoting Ayn Rand makes someone inhuman, then try this Orwell quote: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever." Our "compromise" on the make and model of the boot does not remove the boot from our faces. Orwell's future is now, as long as we allow it. Just heard this quoted on the latest Penn's Sunday School: There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil. Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 216 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.htmlIs it just me, or is this quote meaningless rubbish providing no benefit because it cannot be applied to the conversation in any functional way. Good and evil? Come on, what is this, the 15th century? We're talking about solutions to modern problems, not witches. "Compromises" was the watch word in the post above mine. The modern problem, that if you give evil tyrants a fraction of an inch, they take googolplex light years away from every single liberty, has been proven ad nauseam et infinitum, beyond any reasonable doubt; in this case, it's economic liberty. Wasn't fucking the system back (with good) that constantly fucks all of us to death (with evil), the very reason bitcoin was created? Compromise is not an option unless you plan to say "stick a fork in it, bitcoin's done", well before all 21 million exist. I certainly hope appeasers will not make this an inevitability. But hey, pretend that Argentina, et al, don't exist, and drinking the poison-pilled kool-aid will make bitcoin immortal. |
|
|
|
If they send you the payment as a gift there is an option to do so), they CANNOT charge you back get a refund. Another way to stop them from charging back is to immediately send the money to another Paypal account, be it a company account, a friend relative's account, or just a spare one that you have. If the money isn't in the account, they can't charge you back
Absolutely wrong. They can and they do on a daily basis. |
|
|
|
I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban? How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA? And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons. And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders : afganistan and russia, then USA)
Ehhh... I think you are missing the point. The right to bear arms was much more paramount to the publics protection from their government when the Bill of Rights was drafted. You know, before the government had nuclear warheads and multi-billion dollar destruction machines. Even if you get your hands on that 50 cal, the captain in the F-16 will just laugh as he shoots a 60 cal at you from the air. If the tyranny gets to you and you want to revolt, you will need a lot more than what you can legally get your hands on. Of course, the only way anything would be succesful is if you could form a coup with some inside help, IE a general or admiral would be of significant strategic advantage. BINGO! I can't believe this is never part of the debate. Guns are not at all a means of protection against an oppressive government in this day and age. Nobody seems to want to point that out. If you really care about the necessity of protecting yourself from oppressive governments, the argument you should be making is that everybody ought to be able to buy nukes, big bombs or at the very least anti-tank rocket launchers! The whole argument about firearms simply is unrelated to the ability to protect one's self from oppression. It honestly doesn't even matter whether or not that was the intention of the 2nd Amendment because very few people think everybody ought to have nukes or rocket launchers, so that point is moot to begin with. Utter tosh fallacy. 1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win. |
|
|
|
Just heard this quoted on the latest Penn's Sunday School: There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil. Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 216 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html |
|
|
|
|
Unless the plan is to use reverse psychology on the Fed to try to trick them into doing good things... nothing good will come out of those scumbags.
|
|
|
|
So we need to follow the advice of the BOT the same as we follow the advice of FinCEN, right?
No. For the last time: FinCEN is part of the govt. BoT is not. How hard is it to understand the difference? He's a concern troll/pathological liar. Just ignore him. |
|
|
|
Anyone else think that Obama has gone pretty insane?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein As a sociopath in government (like most politicians), Obama knows that he can do the same things over and over (evil acts) and get the same results (no punishment whatsoever). |
|
|
|
Funny thing about small guns... they don't particularly work well against tanks and missiles...
They work perfectly well; they're the weapon with which the tank rampager in San Diego, Shawn Nelson, was killed, and are capable of killing missile commanders too. Tanks and missiles don't operate themselves, and F-16 pilots have to land sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
