If I agree to send you a RippleBTC
Irrelevant. That said, I believe TradeFortress's original thread said "send you Bitcoins through Ripple".
We can discuss this in another thread (maybe one of the many TradeFortess ones?) but here I'd like to have Theymos respond to the question and not get sidetracked by off-topic discussion because I think the question is a very fundamental one to the way thing are done around here and deserve a clear answer. |
|
|
|
Wasn't Matthew promoting the Bitcoin Police at one point?
Oh no you di'unt! (I've never promoted them in any way shape or form.)LOL - that was a slower response than I expected. I thought you might be asleep. Hey, what was that guys name that started the BP idea. I think he lost money too. I can't remember. I don't know who *started* it, but I know that there were two very active members, both SomeoneWeird and MrTiggr. |
|
|
|
'Cause all he said was that he'd give people ripple bitcoins.
We're not talking about TradeFortress here though, we're asking Theymos for clarification of his response in one of those threads as it carries with it some complicated implications. That said, I believe TradeFortress's original thread said "send you Bitcoins through Ripple". |
|
|
|
It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."
Yet somehow you managed to do so. I read that as "Don't try to give me Ripple. I won't accept." Or more accurately, "I have zero trust in the redeemability of Ripple IOUs." He's an admin, what he says here publicly is reflective of his policies in moderating. This is why I am asking for clarification. It simply struck me an odd thing for an admin to say in relation to whether something was considered a fraud or not. It deserves further clarification, and I am awaiting his response. |
|
|
|
Sorry, you were right.
I'm not often right, but I'm always wright. |
|
|
|
The agreement needs to explicitly say what these IOUs mean.
Do you feel the agreement by TradeFortress explicitly said what the IOUs meant? If so, why did a moderator need to give warnings all over the post at a later date? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206948.0I'm trying to get a better idea of the reasoning behind the actions (and sometimes lack of action in some cases). It will help the rest of the community know what is and what is not acceptable. It is my sincere hope that none of these issues will be explained using double standards (or removed completely by other mods). |
|
|
|
|
Gotta be honest, I didn't even crack a smirk.
|
|
|
|
Max Keiser predicted this a while back.
If each American held bitcoins, each American could only hold approx. 0.06709265175 btc with 313 Million people in the USA
If each citizen worldwide held bitcoins, each citizen could only hold 0.003 btc.
Now if only 1% of the world population adopted bitcoins (70 Million) and held some they could each hold only 0.3 btc.
That tells me bitcoins could reach 1,000,000.00 each some time in our future.
Max could be right.
In a fixed example, that is absolutely true. In the real world full of competitors with deep pockets and governments striving to remain relative and in their people's favor, it is highly unlikely. Most likely, MintChip will happen to every country before bitcoin ever gets a chance to get that big, and that's when the political idealists will be the *only* ones using it, instead of people looking for an interesting, cheap and fascinating technology to use for payments. Mintchip is nothing like Bitcoin. All currencies backed by London and the bank of England, i.e. Canada, Federal Reserve etc. will all fall to inflation due to their criminal complicity. Then, who will want to use that when the fascist governments are tracking everything you do, taxing you for it, and looking for ways to indict you for doing nothing? Bitcoins are nothing like these government issued cyber currencies, in that they are not crypto currencies and they are all regulated and heavily controlled. YOU, are certainly welcome to use them, but I choose not to. Many others choose not to, as well. We'll choose bitcoin anyday. Dude. That's got to be a record or something for proving my point right after a post. and that's when the political idealists will be the *only* ones using it, instead of people looking for an interesting, cheap and fascinating technology to use for payments.
I think that what's happening now in places like Cyprus and in Argentina, potentially Ireland has the potential to create a lot of political idealists, or at the very least, people who don't want to keep all of their wealth in a government or bank backed currency. These likely won't be the only places where that happens. More to the point, it's likely Bitcoin won't be the *only* solution, as the creation of new wealth will eventually be controlled by those with the largest mining rig investments. It's more likely a decentralized system of trade (something like Ripple was *trying* to do but has so far failed at) will be introduced that makes Bitcoin obsolete to anyone who didn't invest heavily into it. I love Bitcoin, but I also love my girlfriend. It doesn't mean I can't imagine ever loving another girl (especially if she dies). |
|
|
|
Max Keiser predicted this a while back.
If each American held bitcoins, each American could only hold approx. 0.06709265175 btc with 313 Million people in the USA
If each citizen worldwide held bitcoins, each citizen could only hold 0.003 btc.
Now if only 1% of the world population adopted bitcoins (70 Million) and held some they could each hold only 0.3 btc.
That tells me bitcoins could reach 1,000,000.00 each some time in our future.
Max could be right.
In a fixed example, that is absolutely true. In the real world full of competitors with deep pockets and governments striving to remain relative and in their people's favor, it is highly unlikely. Most likely, MintChip will happen to every country before bitcoin ever gets a chance to get that big, and that's when the political idealists will be the *only* ones using it, instead of people looking for an interesting, cheap and fascinating technology to use for payments. Mintchip is nothing like Bitcoin. All currencies backed by London and the bank of England, i.e. Canada, Federal Reserve etc. will all fall to inflation due to their criminal complicity. Then, who will want to use that when the fascist governments are tracking everything you do, taxing you for it, and looking for ways to indict you for doing nothing? Bitcoins are nothing like these government issued cyber currencies, in that they are not crypto currencies and they are all regulated and heavily controlled. YOU, are certainly welcome to use them, but I choose not to. Many others choose not to, as well. We'll choose bitcoin anyday. Dude. That's got to be a record or something for proving my point right after a post. and that's when the political idealists will be the *only* ones using it, instead of people looking for an interesting, cheap and fascinating technology to use for payments.
|
|
|
|
Max Keiser predicted this a while back.
If each American held bitcoins, each American could only hold approx. 0.06709265175 btc with 313 Million people in the USA
If each citizen worldwide held bitcoins, each citizen could only hold 0.003 btc.
Now if only 1% of the world population adopted bitcoins (70 Million) and held some they could each hold only 0.3 btc.
That tells me bitcoins could reach 1,000,000.00 each some time in our future.
Max could be right.
In a fixed example, that is absolutely true. In the real world full of competitors with deep pockets and governments striving to remain relative and in their people's favor, it is highly unlikely. Most likely, MintChip will happen to every country before bitcoin ever gets a chance to get that big, and that's when the political idealists will be the *only* ones using it, instead of people looking for an interesting, cheap and fascinating technology to use for payments. |
|
|
|
Wasn't Matthew promoting the Bitcoin Police at one point?
Oh no you di'unt! (I've never promoted them in any way shape or form.) |
|
|
|
Removing all of them would be a good start.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking me to remove any reference of your name when mentioning companies we worked together and co-founded in? That's a bit extreme. I see from your tone that you're not happy that you had worked with me (I happen to know that numerous individuals in our last company feel the same about you, but I do not care to repeat those opinions nor share them). Since you do not deny having worked in those companies and having been a member of certain groups I was in, I do not need the point of censoring it. Also I suggest to refrain from using any "testimonials" from myself in the future. I would never recommend directly or indirectly having any business with you to anyone. Not sure if you understand it, but it is a form of deception and possibly fraud to post false character references about yourself and it is not nice.
Here is the exact quote for better context as I know it is hard to remember every little line from Skype messages (we have millions of them by now together I'm sure). [2/6/2013 2:40:11 AM] Matthew Wright: I just wanted you to know that you were the first person in Bitcoin that looked up to
[2/6/2013 2:40:21 AM] Matthew Wright: You stood up for me when no one else did, and you gave me far too many chances
[2/6/2013 2:40:29 AM] Matthew Wright: I needed to fall big to learn this lesson, and for that *I'm* sorry.
[2/6/2013 2:40:48 AM] Matthew Wright: Things could have gone differently, much differently, but some people learn the hard way, and I guess this time around it was me.
[2/6/2013 2:41:14 AM] Matthew Wright: I don't hold any harsh feelings against anyone in our team, even the ones who continue to say that I did not provide any value or that I am a "joke" to them (*cough* Vitalik*cough*),
[2/6/2013 2:41:28 AM] Vladimir Marchenko [UK]: Well I have learned a lesson too. No more babysitting for me. LOL
[2/6/2013 2:41:28 AM] Matthew Wright: all I know is that I do not fit the professionalism that I was crammed into, and I need to start smaller.
[2/6/2013 2:41:40 AM] Matthew Wright: Perhaps much smaller.
[2/6/2013 2:41:57 AM] Matthew Wright: I read a post by MPOE the other day (that chick) who said something to the tune of:
[2/6/2013 2:42:12 AM] Matthew Wright: "Before you start a business understand that in doing so you are you are worth instantly less"
[2/6/2013 2:42:18 AM] Matthew Wright: (Speaking on the topic of liabilities)
[2/6/2013 2:42:28 AM] Matthew Wright: I had always understood liabilities and whatnot, but I had never thought of it quite like that.
[2/6/2013 2:42:40 AM] Matthew Wright: It opened my eyes to why people are so "stubborn" to invest and joinin business ventures
[2/6/2013 2:42:47 AM | Edited 2:42:59 AM] Vladimir Marchenko [UK]: [Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:41 AM] Matthew:
<<< I don't hold any harsh feelings against anyone in our team, even the ones who continue to say that I did not provide any value or that I am a "joke" to them (*cough* Vitalik*cough*),well this is ridiculous, you was a heart and soul of the company and it turned out a voice of wisdom that held that idot mihay at bay
Quoting something said about me is not a testimonial. The transparency thread is outlined so that each comment and factoid is based on specific companies/projects etc. I don't think anyone could possibly confuse your misplaced anger towards me as "recommendation". If I remember correctly, you had tried to sabotage a sale of something on these forums just to express your distaste for me personally. I can't help your fears of past association as I cannot change the past. Also, you've clearly voiced your opinion about me (several times) and I don't think it can get much cleared than coming directly from you. Although I'm saddened that you feel so strongly about me personally, I've learned in the past 2 years here that there's really nothing you can do to change people's opinions over the internet. You can only grow, learn and try to make less mistakes in the future. I wish you luck old buddy. Cheers. |
|
|
|
honestly, I'm sick of threads like this.
what's the point of talking about something so ridiculous?
In my two years here, "circle jerking" is the best definition I can come up with. |
|
|
|
are there any more racist gambling websites i should avoid this is very important i do not want to give my money or receive any money from someone who might possibly be a racist. thank you and and keep up the good work.
I don't want to support any website whose owner listens to pop music. Could you please let us know which gambling website owner is guilty of this so I can stay far away from it? |
|
|
|
the cost of swapping out code may be negligable, however you will still meet like resistance with getting bitcoin users holding anything more than insignificant amounts to essentially throw away their BTC and put their support into better-coin. In this case, momentum is gonna be a bitch.
You just described the process in which bitcoins are gaining adoption against other currencies-- slowly. (It takes a while to build trust and get over sunk cost fallacies.) Once again, just because better-coin is smarter, safer doesn't automatically mean everyone will just drop bitcoin and start using it. If you've got billions of value sitting in bitcion...
Then you are left holding the bag, like every other failed investment in history. No single person holds billions of value in bitcoin. It is lots of people holding smaller amounts. The transition from a great concept to a great *flawless* concept is not as difficult as you think when the free market is at work and there are not regulations restricting said progress. So, the question now becomes, if all BTC balances and wallets are already there the moment of better-coin's genisis, is better-coin really better-coin? or is it BTCv2 ?
You're suffering from sunk costs fallacy if you think bitcoin will be the end and not the beginning. A superior currency model to bitcoin would be one that does not share bitcoin's flaws (massive energy consumption, etc). Don't forget, the smartest minds in the world have not even started looking into bitcoin yet. This is just the beginning. |
|
|
|
That's fucking crazy! O.O  http://www.southwest.com/html/customer-service/purchasing-and-refunds/gsf-pol.htmlGovernment Security Fee
Print & Share
Government Imposed Charges
Government-Imposed September 11th Security Fee
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a division of the Department of Transportation, has mandated that all U.S. airlines add a security fee to all tickets sold on or after October 1, 2003. This government-imposed fee, called the "September 11th Security Fee," will be used to pay the government's cost for providing Federal civil aviation security services. This includes training, salaries, and benefits for the Federal security screeners and law enforcement personnel, as well as the Federal Air Marshal program.
The government-imposed September 11th Securityf Fee will apply to all airline tickets, including frequent flyer award travel, and will be calculated at $2.50 per flight number to a maximum of $5 per one-way or $10 per roundtrip. In other words, if you fly from Dallas to New Orleans and change planes in Houston (which means the flight number will also change) - you will be charged $5. However, if you fly through Houston on the same plane, your flight number stays the same and you will be charged $2.50. The fee will be collected from all Customers at the time of reservation.
Attention all Rapid Rewards Members: Government-Imposed September 11th Security Fee Applies to Rapid Rewards Awards and Companion Passes.
The government-imposed September 11th Security Fee will apply to all airline tickets, including Rapid Rewards Awards and Companion Passes, and will be calculated at $2.50 per flight number to a maximum of $5 per one-way or $10 per roundtrip.
To help expedite your checkin, please visit southwest.com or call Reservations at 1-800-248-4377 to make your Award or Companion Pass travel plans and to pay the government-imposed September 11th Security Fee by credit card. Once you complete your reservation, you can elect to receive a receipt, via mail, e-mail or fax, with your confirmed flight information. Customers who have made a reservation and have not paid the security fee will need to go to the ticket counter to pay before entering the secured gate area.
If you are traveling on a Rapid Rewards Award and not checking luggage, before you go to the airport, you will need to print out a security document from the Travel Center at southwest.com in order to proceed through security. You also have the option of obtaining a boarding pass the self-service kiosk in order to proceed through security.
Companions traveling with Companion Pass Members and not checking luggage will need to print out a security document from southwest.com in order to proceed through security. However, Companions and Companion Pass Members will still need to checkin together at the Skycap Podium, Ticket Counter, or at the gate. As always, when checking in, a government-issued photo identification is required along with the Companion Pass card and Rapid Rewards membership card for Companion travelers.
Changes or cancellations for any Award or Companion Pass travel should be made by calling Reservations before you travel. This will assist in smoothly refunding unused September 11th Security Fee funds or applying them toward other travel plans. If you give your Awards to friends or family members, please make sure they are aware of this fee and process.
Please call (800) 248-4377 with any questions. We appreciate your continued support and understanding.
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
Airport/PFC
Akron/Canton (CAK) / $4.f50
Albany (ALB) / $4.50
Albuquerque (ABQ) / $4.50
Amarillo (AMA) / $4.50
Atlanta (ATL) / $4.50
Austin (AUS) / $4.50
Baltimore/Washington (BWI) / $4.50
Birmingham (BHM) / $4.50
Boise (BOI) / $4.50
Boston Logan (BOS) / $4.50
Branson (BKG) / n/a
Buffalo (BUF) / $4.50
Burbank (BUR) / $4.50
Charleston (CHS) / $4.50
Charlotte (CLT) / $3.00
Chicago Midway (MDW) / $4.50
Cleveland (CLE) / $4.50
Columbus (CMH) / $4.50
Corpus Christi (CRP) / $4.50
Dallas (DAL) / $4.50
Dayton (DAY) / $4.50
Denver (DEN) / $4.50
Des Moines (DSM) / $4.50
Detroit (DTW) / $4.50
Flint (FNT) / $4.50
Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood (FLL) / $4.50
Ft. Myers/Naples (RSW) / $4.50
Grand Rapids (GRR) / $4.50
Hartford/Springfield (BDL) / $4.50
Harlingen (HRL) / $4.50
Houston Hobby (HOU) / $3.00
Indianapolis (IND) / $4.50
Jackson (JAN) / $4.50
Jacksonville (JAX) / $4.50
Kansas City (MCI) / $4.50
Key West (EYW) / $4.50
Las Vegas (LAS) / $4.50
Little Rock (LIT) / $4.50
Long Island (ISP) / $4.50
Louisville (SDF) / $4.50
Los Angeles (LAX) / $4.50
Lubbock (LBB) / $4.50
Manchester (MHT) / $4.50
Midland/Odessa (MAF) / $4.50
Milwaukee (MKE) / $4.50
Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) / $4.50
Nashville (BNA) / $3.00
Newark (EWR) / $4.50
New Orleans (MSY) / $4.50
New York (LaGuardia) (LGA) / $4.50
Norfolk (ORF) / $4.50
Oakland (OAK) / $4.50
Oklahoma City (OKC) / $4.50
Ontario (ONT) / $2.00
Orange County, CA (SNA) / $4.50
Orlando (MCO) / $4.50
Panama City Beach (ECP) / $4.50
Pensacola (PNS) / $4.50
Philadelphia (PHL) / $4.50
Phoenix (PHX) / $4.50
Pittsburgh (PIT) / $4.50
Portland (PWM) / $4.50
Portland (PDX) / $4.50
Providence (PVD) / $4.50
Raleigh/Durham (RDU) / $4.50
Reno/Tahoe (RNO) / $4.50
Richmond (VA) / $4.50
Rochester (ROC) / $4.50
Sacramento (SMF) / $4.50
St. Louis (STL) / $4.50
Salt Lake City (SLC) / $4.50
San Antonio (SAT) / $4.50
San Diego (SAN) / $4.50
San Francisco (SFO) / $4.50
San Jose (SJC) / $4.50
San Juan (SJU) / $4.50
Seattle/Tacoma (SEA) / $4.50
Spokane (GEG) / $4.50
Tampa Bay (TPA) / $4.50
Tucson (TUS) / $4.50
Tulsa (TUL) / $4.50
Washington (Dulles), D.C. (IAD) / $4.50
Washington (Reagan National), D.C. (DCA) / $4.50
West Palm Beach (PBI) / $4.50
Wichita (ICT) / $4.50
They really need to decide which way they want to tax us. They can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
|
Hi Vladimir. I'm not sure why you didn't just ask me your question over Skype. Could you show the place where your name was used out of context and in any non-factual way so I could correct my post accordingly?
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, no one has mentioned technology. Why expect such a big boon to stop at bitcoin's current development team and code? Why wouldn't something better than bitcoin come along by then, fueled by the then common knowledge the developing such a solution would be profitable for the producer and participants?
Take this same argument and think Internet instead of Bitcoin. Or, more specifically, IPv4. Why hasn't someone developed a better protocol than IPv4 and have it take over the Internet? There is tons of money in it, think of all the routers you could sell! It hasn't happened because IPv4 is entrenched. Switching to something else is too much work. A new protocol would have to be better than IPv4, and not a little bit better, but MASSIVELY better to make it worth while. And, and BTW, there IS a newer, better protocol and its called IPv6. And it is being adopted, but very very slowly, because its a bunch of work and IPv4 is working and is "good enough". And that is why Bitcoin is in it for the long haul, its got the head start. In business terms this is called the first mover advantage. Sure, Bitcoin is really small compared to the Internet/IPv4, but in terms of cryptocurrency it is way out in front. For it to be replaced there will either have to be a catastrophic failure of Bitcoin, or the replacement will have to be massively better. Its also why Litecoin will never get much traction. You could argue that it is better than Bitcoin (I wouldn't), but even if it is, its only *slightly* better, and that will never overcome Bitcoins head start. Note: the first mover doesn't always win. In some kinds of business being the first mover is actually a disadvantage. But in terms of technology like this first mover almost always "wins". Unless they had the right idea, but screwed up a fundamental aspect of the technology. I think its pretty clear that Bitcoin is solid technology. Key flaws in your argument: - The internet is mainly hardware infrastructure. Swapping it out for fibre-optic (which is already happening) and upgrading the protocol (IPv6) is already happening, despite the costs. The costs of swapping out open-source bitcoin code with another code however are highly negligible.
- The internet isn't money; its inherent value is in information sharing. The market has decided that Bitcoin has a financial value for the bits and pieces of information it sends back and forth. Thanks to the versatility of technology such as the internet, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from developing a smarter, safer system for value transfer and just releasing it as open source onto the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
Due to an Internal affairs investigation, the Bitcoin Police were found to not be able to protect the bitcoin community (e.g. the internet) from fraud. This investigation ended in the resignation many Bitcoin Police officers, including Pirateat40 and Tom Williams. </sarcasm>
|
|
|
|
Great if all are delivered by end of june!
btw from where this Yifu quote is ...irc?
 Edit: I'll be migrating from Skype soon having learned recently that the government is *admittedly* logging everything without warrants. Buggy Pidgin, here we come. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
