|
^
Not worried -- I have no money with you. My interest in this is purely... let's say academic.
With traveling displays of oddities and macabre medical curiosities getting tragically rare, this thread is an oasis of freakishness.
Here, humanity's unabashedly grotesque preen themselves just for us, their admiring public. With neither the audience nor the objects of their fascination feeling looked down upon or judged for their respective ...proclivities.
owait... is *this* it? I'm your "captive audience..." How are you monetizing this thread?!?
Never mind, I don't want you to share your secret and have to close up shop.
Carry on everyone, as you were...
EDIT: Lol, how was I so blind? I finally get it, things finally make sense! I KNOW how you're doing this.
You cater to the sub/maso needs of certain "investors," their cravings for continuous humiliation and surprise buttsecs. *They* are the visitors of the mysterious "site," *this* is the site, *they* would be upset if they learned how the operation works, *they* monetize this thread with their "investings"!!1! Everything falls into place.
...now how do old washing machines figure into this?
|
|
|
|
...(filled with lovers of fluffy ponies, of course)... These cloppers are totally ignorant that someone is making money from pony pr0nz? And these same horsebuckers care that said money is being made? Why? Anyhow, I'm pretty happy with the backstory, not going to drag this out. *What is this, one of those aggregator/redirect/scraper sites? |
|
|
|
I'm still a bit confused. Does one have to sign an NDA before rubbing one off? Or is ABitInterested's clientele fapping too rabidly to think of stealing his unique_and_disruptive_technology?
In other words, what makes us any more likely to steal than teh pr0nz patrons?
*Just curious about the logic behind this, don't particularly care if scamming.
No no, you're misunderstanding. Copy-cats will and should come, but they should come as a natural order of business (eg. someone who uses the site thinks they can do better) not by being invited in (some idiot on btctalk thinks "thats making money, I should totally just do that instead of coming up with an original idea"). Regardless, the validity of his point outweighs mine: the captive audience in question would get all pissy if they find out they're making him money:-P Don't mean to drag this out, but: Are you saying that his site is so unique that thousands of users, over the time span of more than a year, didn't copy the idea a thousand times over if it had merit? And users here don't even care about the name of the guy they send their coin to, or wonder whether the pr0nsite they "invest in" even exists -- forget stealing ideas. If after more than a year on clearnet the site's still a mystery to anyone who cares, I can only assume no one ever visits it. |
|
|
|
...and the reason for not giving the addy of the pr0nz site is?
He's replied with his reason already, which ties back in to the captive audience comment I made, but another one that occurred to me is that it's too easily duplicated from a basic functionality perspective. Just because a copy-cat won't easily be successful doesn't mean they should invite a string of copy-cats. If a string of copy-cats sprung up they'd be swimming up-stream against it, and I respect their decision to stay mum on it. If there ARE copy-cats, they should spring up as a natural part of a business growing, and not because one of the "I want to have my own pr0n sites!" crowd here ripped them off. I'm still a bit confused. Does one have to sign an NDA before rubbing one off? Or is ABitInterested's clientele fapping too rabidly to think of stealing his secrit game-changing_and_disruptive_technology? In other words, what makes us any more likely to steal than teh pr0nz patrons? *Just curious about the logic behind this, don't particularly care if scamming. |
|
|
|
@rdyoung: Sorry about the confusion. I mistakenly assumed Anonymousg64 was talking about $$ mined per GH/s, while he meant the cost of hardware. Realizing my mistake, but not wishing to appear reasonable and just admitting I was pwnt, I replied: Gotcha. In that case ...still no. Hardware costs per GH are whatever the market will bear. If BTC price goes up, the market will pay more for the chips. The dollar cost of producing the chips may remain the same, though -- you're right. Is Peta an ASIC manufacturer?
|
|
|
|
|
...and the reason for not giving the addy of the pr0nz site is?
|
|
|
|
|
Gotcha. In that case ...still no. Hardware costs per GH are whatever the market will bear. If BTC price goes up, the market will pay more for the chips. The dollar cost of producing the chips may remain the same, though -- you're right. Is Peta an ASIC manufacturer?
|
|
|
|
I'm addressing this here: ...
second thing is $/Gh is also on an exponential trend, so technically its ok to make linear projections, exponential projections are usually highly inaccurate.
...
BTC mined with each GH/s *drops* at the same rate as difficulty rises. (Dollars per GH/s) is a function of difficulty, not "second thing." Not sure how this supports the case of linear projections. |
|
|
|
|
Intrepid Stealth Porn Site Investor Diversifies Holdings With Old Washing Machine.
~More at 11.
|
|
|
|
...
second thing is $/Gh is also on an exponential trend, so technically its ok to make linear projections, exponential projections are usually highly inaccurate.
...
wat |
|
|
|
...
Is it unethical to sell something that doesnt exist to someone who believes it exists? ...
Not at all. Done on the securities forum all the time. |
|
|
|
...
You have as much idea of which way the price moves as everyone else simply watching the price on here - that is none.
... Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.  I predict a crash to $300-$350 in 7 days.
... |
|
|
|
The IRS can go fuck them selves...Fuck Right Off...I am Canadian...I am willing to fight a war over this and give my life ...
Good news bro! IRS doesn't tax Canadians.  *and wars are so ...unrainbow. |
|
|
|
|
Don't be absurd. I don't have any preferences as to how you clean up your messes. But I do expect those messes taken care of.
You bring mangy, distempered financiers and captains of industry into this house, one of them [predictably] takes a dump on our Persian rug -- now kindly clean it up.
It wasn't I who played intrepid investor, it wasn't my greed that made you send money to second-rate scammers. I shouldn't have to worry about returning things to normalcy. And yet I do. I sit here and try to explain the rudiments of basic human etiquette -- that when your friends shit in the middle of our rug, good manners dictate that you clean it up.
"Become a delinquent" indeed!
|
|
|
|
Could you allow, as a hypothetical, that the regulations were not put in place by people intent on causing harm? That the regulations were arrived at after an entire human history of trial and error, by people who are no less intelligent or aware than us? Is this at least theoretically possible?
Re. 2nd edit: A good baker is not necessarily a good bakery owner, a good bakery owner is not always capable of running a chain, the guy who knows how to run a chain of bakeries doesn't always know how to bake. See?
I do allow that. Regulations are created with good intentions, the problem is we often fail to properly assess the costs. Then we pretty much agree, I just can't say with any certainty how much bureaucratic overhead and regulation is "too much" without understanding the macrosphere. My first business was run on 3-part forms for accounting. Worked out great, but I doubt it would have scaled well. I'm pretty sure no one wants costly regulation when it comes to regulating them. And I'm also sure that bureaucrats try to increase the amount of regulation to justify their own existence, so that their branch of bureaucracy is fruitful and multiplies. But there are mechanisms in place to keep the system in a dynamic equilibrium. That study about excessive regulation, for instance, was funded by Small Business Administration, a .gov agency. edit: ... right now, we have rules that are similar to putting a $2,000 Sargent & Greenleaf padlock on a $500 bicycle...
Just as an example of having to weigh all the variables, consider that it might take a day of productivity to replace a stolen bike *and* make bicycle theft economically viable, thus attracting thieves to the community, increasing the crime rate, and tanking property values by much more than $2,000. Yeah, this is reductio ad absurdum, so meant to sound ridiculous, but just an illustration of how what seems absurd on its face is actually a fairly complicated problem. |
|
|
|
Most people speed and drive drunk without causing accidents. I have, causing exactly none. I'm a conscientious and capable drunk driver/speeder. I don't want some gubermint busybody regulating me just because statistics show there's a higher chance that I might kill someone. I have caused exactly zero harm, and punishing me for what might happen if I'm not stopped is the very definition of precrime.
Capable drunk driving is impossible. If you consciously and repeatedly drunk drive (while believing you're capable lol) you disregard the safety of others so blatantly and to such an extent that I do not wish to converse with you any further. It is not only possible, there are documented cases of it. I have done it, for one. Just because some gubermint-sponsored studies suggest that it is dangerous shouldn't make it illegal. Dumb people drive -- they're dangerous. Old people drive -- they're dangerous too. Regulate stupidity and age FTW. Bitcoin financial institutions, on the other hand, are a fine example of unregulated finance at work -- straight-across rape. And unregulated securities? Just fail and aids, lol.  |
|
|
|
...
I get the precrime bit. I feel that I should be allowed to drive as drunk and as fast as I wish, through your neighborhood where your kids play. No one should stop me from doing that no matter how likely it is that I'll end up killing someone. Precrime is fundamentally wrong. Let me kill someone, and *then* punish me.
AFTER the fact. Am I getting it?
Drunk driving is obviously putting people in physical harm. In the case of pirateat40 everyone could who chose to do business with them did so on their own choosing. further, it wasn't completely clear people would get harmed. The state just tries to make you think you need protecting with these laws and regulations to make themselves a nice moat and low (or even no) risk income. I don't blame them. I do blame all the retarded people just bending over and taking it. Most people speed and drive drunk without causing accidents. I have, causing exactly none. I'm a conscientious and capable drunk driver/speeder. I don't want some gubermint busybody regulating me just because statistics show there's a higher chance that I might kill someone. I have caused exactly zero harm, and punishing me for what might happen if I'm not stopped is the very definition of precrime. With banks, it's a bit different. Every Bitcoin bank and financial service, from Pirateat40 to TradeFortress to Ukyo to NeoBee Danny, ended in surprise buttsecs for the intrepid marks. So yeah, unregulated banks obviously put people in harm's way. And before one "Bitcoin entrepreneur" is through raping his "investors," these victims are already lined up for the next raping. Allow me to quote you: "I do blame all the retarded people just bending over and taking it." |
|
|
|
...
In areas where those apply they are state run "businesses". Banking is supposed to be publically run. Plus banking done right should not be a danger to anyone (as opposed to your two examples).
But banking done wrong is certainly a danger to everyone involved, at least those who deposit money. See Ukyo's victims. See Pirateat40's victims. That's why hobby banking enthusiasts are discouraged from starting banks. See? No. They committed fraud and should be convicted of that after the fact. I get the precrime bit. I feel that I should be allowed to drive as drunk and as fast as I wish, through your neighborhood where your kids play. No one should stop me from doing that no matter how likely it is that I'll end up killing someone. Precrime is fundamentally wrong. Let me kill someone, and *then* punish me. AFTER the fact. Am I getting it? |
|
|
|
...
In areas where those apply they are state run "businesses". Banking is supposed to be publically run. Plus banking done right should not be a danger to anyone (as opposed to your two examples).
But banking done wrong is certainly a danger to everyone involved, at least those who deposit money. See Ukyo's victims. See Pirateat40's victims. That's why hobby banking enthusiasts are discouraged from starting banks. See? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
