A fellow not from Des Moines,
Nor bought or sold pork loins.
Used to troll here a lot,
Then a scammer tag he got:
For crazy betting, owing 100,000+ coins. I will pay BTC100 per week for each winning limerick, provided it's in the same format as above, with the results voted on by Amish Elders from a community in Indiana. I enjoy a good limerick. The bitcoiner known as Gage,
Continuously revealing his age,
Records transactions on papyrus,
Does accounting by abacus,
And uses a flywheel to scroll down this page! |
|
|
|
|
Still available. Still only 6.5 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm willing to participate.
It's not in Finnish, is it?
|
|
|
|
My guess is that they are:
1) various clandestine government entities loading up at taxpayer expense, "just in case".
2) financial sector entities that can somehow write it off their taxes as R&D and electricity expenses.
3) botnets, of course.
4) academia that has unlimited access to really big hardware, and electricity cost is also passed on to the taxpayers and paying students.
5) Google and such corporations, for whom mining costs would be a drop in the sea.
Imagine all the possible permutations of incentives and motivations just these groups have to keep mining.
For 1, 2, 4, and 5, I think it would be easier to just cook the books and buy some, since they'd be doing some creative accounting anyway. |
|
|
|
If I happened to owned bitcoincentral.com, but did nothing with it, and a similarly named entity came along and developed an enterprise around it, I would have offered the domain I had control of to them first, taking the first, and hopefully, best offer from them. This thought process only applies to Bitcoin entities, for in a different world I would press for a prevailing price point.
On a similar note, edd owns the domain bitcoin100.org, and I pay for hosting and provide the content. If Ed was offered some big chuck of change for the domain, I'm sure he would make me known of that fact first, seeing if I can come close to the offer price. If I can't, I would have no problem with letting him move forward with the sale, hopefully having him donate some coins toward the newly branded Bitcoin 100 hosted with a new domain name that I (the organization) would have control of.
With the exception of the above, I'll refrain from taking sides in this dispute, hoping that it'll be formidably resolved in a timely manner.
~Bruno K~
Each situation is unique. I've bought dozens of bitcoin themed domains without developing them myself for different reasons. Almost every one was purchased with the intent to grow it into a site I would control and manage myself but, as time goes on, I've come to realize I may not be able to do that with all of them. Whenever I consider what each is worth, I weigh the time and effort involved to turn it into a viable endeavor against the profit which might be realized from a sale. I wish there was a simple formula I could fall back on to determine what a domain was worth but, unfortunately, there isn't. I jumped on Bitcoin100.org simply because I couldn't believe no one had taken it before Bruno thought of it and I didn't want a squatter to snatch it up first. Now, I consider it an honor to be allowed to pay for its registration fees but would turn it over to Phinnaeus or Rassah at no charge without a second's thought. I've auctioned off domains that I knew I would never be able to devote time to and will probably do it again. I've also bid on domains and made private offers for "valuable" ones. Sometimes the final asking price was within my budget, sometimes it wasn't. In every case, I firmly believed it was the seller's prerogative to ask for whatever price he or she thought was fair. |
|
|
|
|
Even if it isn't profitable at the moment, I can think of at least four reasons.
1) These miners are in the enviable position of having access to electricity at a rate which does make it profitable.
2) They believe their bitcoins will eventually be worth more than enough to compensate for what is spent mining them now.
3) These individuals believe in bitcoin for idealogical reasons and are willing to spend some money to support the network.
4) Botnets.
Or some combination of the above.
|
|
|
|
Hey, I think those 10 coins don't exist guys!
Did he ever say they were Bitcoins? Maybe they're Smoothie-coins. |
|
|
|
|
To everyone criticizing the basic business model: This is not new or unique outside the bitcoin world. It might be very difficult to get it off the ground and/or profitable but, as mentioned several times on this thread, there are already existing companies built around the exact same idea.
Now to my primary, off topic reply. Rockso, will you please fix the title of your thread? I know it's only two juxtaposed letters but it bugs the hell out of me every time I see it.
Hmmm, that might be a good tagline, "The NSFW Cleaning Service!"
|
|
|
|
|
Still available for any last minute shopping. Still only 6.5 BTC!
|
|
|
|
The site operator(s)... I know that it's something hard, but was hopping that it was possible without a direct control from someone else "out circle / betting environment". Anyway, even if it's needed a remote house, the main target of my idea is giving the possibility to bet everywhere without any direct contact between the participants.No one should know who is participating to the bet neither who opened it. It isn't probably a good idea to open a bet if there are only 2/3 people around  (and they aren't your friends) No matter what, some agreed upon authority needs to verify the outcome. Either, A) the house does it, or B) a bettor does it. If the house decides which side won and which side lost, it renders local, small events impractical. This might as well be an app for Bets of Bitcoin. If the bet creator verifies the outcome, it would make it possible to use this solely as an app, without any third party intervention necessary. I could bet on anything from a coin toss to a street hockey game. The only issue would be trusting the bet creator to enter the correct outcome. I can't imagine anyone willing to impart that much trust unless the bet creator had built up some kind of reputation as an honest individual. |
|
|
|
4) Business Regulatory Codes
In addition to the aforementioned consumer safe-guards, members of the Bitcoin community should work together to create sets of regulatory code for Bitcoin businesses. Since it is a free market we cannot force people to follow these so-called "regulations" and "codes". But what we CAN do is reward the companies who DO. The carrot > the stick... If we provide incentive for ethical business practices and good conduct we make the Bit-conomy safer and more stable. One very basic way of doing this is by providing community-based "seals of approval" or "licenses" for businesses and individuals who stick to "the code" and do things right. Consumers will take notice and opt for businesses who are doing the right thing, and those businesses will be rewarded with more profit.
It might be more desirable to simply publish a "Bitcoin Business Code of Ethics" consisting of a generalized checklist of what to look for in an honest business. Companies can post the checklist on their sites and indicate and demonstrate what portions they comply with. |
|
|
|
This is an interesting concept. The "house" should require a fee to become a member with bet creating abilities. This way the house makes money and the bet creator's history and reputation can be viewed by potential participants.
If I had more time, I'd try to flesh out this idea further. I just wanted to point out that I suspect this is possible for the purposes of the operator of the particular event to assist with bets being placed, without having to actually get a license to operate a gambling operation. Maybe that's wishful thinking. Also, due to multi-signature transactions, credit and reputation would be irrelevant. Both bettors would be committing actual bitcoins to the transaction ... the only way to release them is using the released secret. No trust would have to be involved. It wouldn't surprise me if this was possible, but I haven't thought through the details yet. This would create a lot of work for the house. The site operator(s) would have to verify the winner of every bet. Let's take the OP's example: if the winners weren't instantly published online, how long might it take for the winner to receive their BTC and how much could one expect from the site operator in tracking down any relevant info? |
|
|
|
|
This is an interesting concept. The "house" should require a fee to become a member with bet creating abilities. This way the house makes money and the bet creator's history and reputation can be viewed by potential participants.
|
|
|
|
We seem to be experiencing some minor server issues but will hopefully be back at optimal performance very soon. |
|
|
|
anyone has compile a list of all the website and or retailer that accept BTC?  Working on it: The Bitcoin List |
|
|
|
I'll buy it for really cheap if you don't get any other takers and just want to be rid of it... like 2-3 BTC.
It doesn't expire so I'll use it eventually (or, more likely, my wife will). |
|
|
|
|
I have a Macy's electronic gift card good only for online purchases worth $91.98 that I'm looking to exchange for 6.5 BTC. Escrow okay and I'm willing to send first to members I've met/dealt with before.
Edit: new asking price is 5.75 BTC.
|
|
|
|
Uncurlhalo: I can explain that really easily: People who are in lack of a sexual personality whank a lot and statistically use the word "troll" way more often than normal people do. So anyone who calls me a troll - without having a reason to - better turns off his computer, and starts meeting real physical ladies instead of being an unpleasant full time wanker.
Statistically? Please provide a link; I'd like to see that study. |
|
|
|
Why should I (or my heirs) have to choose between moving coins or forfeiting them? Is this really the only way to combat this? It seems very inelegant to me.
It's not quite as elegant as people might like it to be, but it's the only realistic and workable solution I can see to ensure lost coins are eventually recovered which has a remote chance of ever being adopted. Personally, its inelegance is what dissuades me from considering it a "realistic and workable solution." It's as if my doctor said, "The only way to be certain you won't break your arm is to amputate it." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
