If I'm not mistaken, Bawb gots himself some Rhodium. In the form of a limited-edition Neumann U87.
No rhodium for me. Too esoteric. How do you trade it after the zombie apocalypse? (My Neumanns are in traditional nickel and subdued black matte).
Neumann, you are a musician or a sound engineer? Yes. I am a lighting fag... .  Lampy, my brother-in-arms. |
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, Bawb gots himself some Rhodium. In the form of a limited-edition Neumann U87.
No rhodium for me. Too esoteric. How do you trade it after the zombie apocalypse? (My Neumanns are in traditional nickel and subdued black matte).
Neumann, you are a musician or a sound engineer? Yes. Seems to be quite a few of us hereabouts. |
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, Bawb gots himself some Rhodium. In the form of a limited-edition Neumann U87.
No rhodium for me. Too esoteric. How do you trade it after the zombie apocalypse? (My Neumanns are in traditional nickel and subdued black matte).
U67 or GTFO For some uses, yes. Others, not so much. Besides, I don't think the U67 ever shipped in Rhodium Edition. |
|
|
|
Followup: WOgame. Right now. Where am I?  If you don't get it post haste, I'll add pixels. Toxic2040 first on track in less than ten minutes. Unfortunately, does not understand the difference between 'who' and 'where' (I keed, I keeeed). Silver Star. Krubster also on the ball. With sufficient specificity to claim the Gold Star. LFC_Bitcoin went the extra mile, nailing it down to a street address, though later than the sufficiently specific Krubster. Silver Star co-award.  No text (oops), but I did get the Bitcoin Training Conference 2019 logo. Before posting, I should have thought about an actual award (other than the coveted stars, of course). Working from the seat of my pants.... Gold Star: Krubster wins $100 USD worth of crypto. SIlver Star: Toxic2040 and LFC_Bitcoin each win $50 USD worth of crypto. Payable in each winner's choice of BCH (ha!) or BSV (haha!). PM me your addresses, gentlewinners. Good job, all. |
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, Bawb gots himself some Rhodium. In the form of a limited-edition Neumann U87. No rhodium for me. Too esoteric. How do you trade it after the zombie apocalypse? (and anyhow, my Neumanns are in traditional nickel and subdued black matte). |
|
|
|
WOgame. Right now. Where am I? If you don't get it post haste, I'll add pixels. You're at the Hair Club for Men, Las Vegas branch waiting for a consult? If I was sheepish about my hairline, I wouldn't leave the house without my xhomerx10 tm hat. |
|
|
|
WOgame. Right now. Where am I? If you don't get it post haste, I'll add pixels. Toxic2040 beat me to it, but it indeed looks like the forehead of Andreas M. Antonopoulos. Is it #BTC2019 in Denver? Well done, wall. Y'all make me proud. |
|
|
|
Just curious, why silver and not gold?
Gold has been a better investment most of the time.
1) The gold to silver ratio chart highly favors silver 2) Silver is the most artificially downward rigged commodity on the entire planet in the futures market and the goal is to buy low sell high 3) There's something like 1/4th the amount of above ground silver now as during the 1980's metals bull run while there's twice as much above ground gold since then. Hard to quantify the exact supply numbers, but they favor a massive silver spike moreso than gold in any type of 'free market'. 4) To prevent silver from being depleted and disappearing like it's current trajectory, the price will eventually have to go to several hundred dollars an ounce to warrant recycling in things like electronics 5) In any type of monetary metals revaluation, the west has a huge shortfall in gold with probably somewhere between 0 to 2000 tons only, so would likely attempt to buffer the gold shortfall with silver valued at a high ratio like 10-20:1 instead. 6) All other things being equal, silver has better fundamentals than gold due to having more use cases. Commodity money works under the context that if you hoard the entire supply, people somewhere actually need the commodity resource for something and you can ask whatever the market can bear. Conversely, since Bitcoin is not a real commodity or resource, if you hoard all 21 million the entire planet can just laugh at you and you have no power over anyone or anything. Whaddayaknow. r0ach does a quotable. |
|
|
|
WOgame. Right now. Where am I? If you don't get it post haste, I'll add pixels. |
|
|
|
Its good to see that bitcoin is winning over sex in the pool.
Can't believe sex got that many votes. It is overrated. Gets boring pretty quickly imo. u r doing it rong XD I am pretty sure I am pumping the right hole. Where is my mistake? In thinking that finding the 'right hole' is all there is to good sex. And everything that follows from that rookie misconception. |
|
|
|
Its good to see that bitcoin is winning over sex in the pool.
Can't believe sex got that many votes. It is overrated. Gets boring pretty quickly imo. u r doing it rong XD |
|
|
|
This is what I'm seeing on BTC dominance graph:  Seriously, IF this breaks down, go get some alts to further increase your BTC stash. Hahahahahaha It would not be very smart to be trading based on that kind of information or even deciding whether or not to play around with shitcoins based on that kind of information. Hmmmm...mmmm....mmmmm... Not even with 10% of your BTC stash? Certainly not if the current trend is due to the death of alts, which is a distinct possibility. |
|
|
|
apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB
Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight. Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points. And I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating the fact that v0.1 had not a 1MB block limit, and thusly the insertion of the 1MB block limit was therefore a direct contradiction of your claim of immutability. |
|
|
|
apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB
Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight. |
|
|
|
PR is not a country and as Jbreher said not tax free for Crypto,
While true, if you enter into contract with PR gov under Act 20 or 22, there are huge tax advantages - crypto or not. |
|
|
|
There are many countries you could move your residence adress to. We gave you a list of alternative countries with no tax and many commented about their country tax situation. So if you have 1 million, there shouldn't be a big problem for you. There is no escaping the US with a big chunk of untaxed capital gains. |
|
|
|
I had explained that BSV’s theory (of miner’s converging on an adaptive block size) is nonsense. Not BSV's theory. Bitcoin's. There was no block size cap in the original bitcoin protocol, and one was only added to mitigate an attack vector which is no longer economically viable. Incorrect. This was already discussed upthread. You refuse to read the thread and then pop in at the end of the thread to make statements which are incongruent with all the prior discussion. The following linked post is where I had (upthread) quoted Satoshi and explained precisely why you are incorrect: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51390187#msg51390187And here follows a link to the post where I replied in great detail on the subject in a response to @jbreher: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51440603#msg51440603For the record, the following is what I believe forms the core of Shelby's argument about the block size and immutability from the above quoted post: See, here's the kicker, Shelby. Let's set aside the issue that -- given enough time and incentive -- the difference between hard and soft forks are merely academic. Set aside the issue that further increases to the max block size are impossible due to immutability. The fact is that the original protocol (i.e., satoshi's 0.1 protocol) -- which you refer to as immutable -- had no 1 MB max block size cap.
At 0.1 there was no block size limit in the protocol. The code (not the protocol) was limited in that no provision had yet been coded to allow a block to span multiple TCP segments. But even that limitation was well in excess of 1MB.
Satoshi was very, very, very clever. Which is to be expected because he is/was (a think tank of) the global elite. He made it appear that he added the 1 MB later as an after thought, but of course he planned it from the beginning. He knew that Bitcoin would start out centralized and grow more decentralized. He knew that eventually the centralized block size limits as a default in the reference client would eventually be insufficient to contain the forces of profit motive. I believe he absolutely never intended to raise the 1 MB. And that he absolutely intended for there to be a 1 MB limit from the inception when he launched Bitcoin. You are free to believe whatever you want. Nevertheless the fact is that there was a de facto centralized limit on the block size even before he added the 1 MB hard cap to the code. It was the default in the client. So what you claim to be an "immutable" protocol has already undergone a change in the exact dimension you claim it cannot.
Nope. When Satoshi wrote “v0.1” he was implicitly referring to what he was in centralized control over. The 1 MB cap was there from the start, in his head. He had the default which was lower than 1 MB and he was watching and waiting until he had to make his move. He made it. Then he disappeared. Simple as that. Now I am not arguing against your claim of centralization pressure. But as pointed out above, the exact same pressures are being felt on all public PoW blockchains. Not only BSV, but BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, whatever.
Nope. Not on real, immutable Bitcoin. Which, if I am not mistaken, essentially boils down to 'Satoshi always had a 1MB limit - it was in his head from the start, so it was operative from the start. Just trust me on this'. I ain't buying it. Insufficient evidence presented to support such a conclusion. Although I'm sure this point will result in another interminable time sink of a sidebar. If it ends up -- as I expect -- seeming tangential, I'll just demur in advance. |
|
|
|
Yeah, but sad to see Hal make such a logic error. If the currency equalled the value of worldwide wealth, that would make all wealth the currency, leaving real wealth -- houses, cars, industrial equipment, agricultural stocks ... everything -- completely worthless. |
|
|
|
Countries without tax on crypto ... Puerto Rico ... Puerto Rico is not a country, it is a US territory. And while it has some interesting tax benefits, crypto profits are indeed taxable in Puerto Rico. Ok, it's a state with some different laws. In Puerto Rico, if you qualify for Act 22 you don't pay tax for crypto. Unless they changed the law. link http://premieroffshore.com/changes-puerto-ricos-act-20-act-22/No, Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a US territory. And it is false that crypto profits are not taxed in Puerto Rico. Even under Act 20 and Act 22. Quote from your linked article: "They pay only Puerto Rico tax on these profits and capital gains." True, it is much lower than US mainland taxation, iff you enter into contract under Act 20 and/or 22. But not zero. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
