 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
There is new mechanism in bitcointalk.org, now before posting you have to answer a very tough question and that tells your IQ level. I see it something as to stop people from commenting too much or you can comment too much if you are willing to answer too many tough questions correctly. Is it something same like merit system  |
|
|
|
Loan amount:- 0.025 BTC Repayment:- Can be discussed by the lender. Time interval:- 2 weeks Collateral:- None (If necessary, my account) BTC address:- 1zkYUaMhJHM1DAkjhQNzNN4uUDPatBSVw Will lock the topic once the loan is filled. Check my previous loans here Loan 1 | Loan 2 | Loan 3 |
|
|
|
|
Loan amount:- 0.015 BTC
Repayment:- Can be discussed by the lender.
Time interval:- 8 days to 12 days (I can probably repay before it)
Collateral:- None
BTC address:- 1zkYUaMhJHM1DAkjhQNzNN4uUDPatBSVw
Will lock the topic once the loan is filled.
|
|
|
|
Recently i got a mail from bitcointalk saying my password was changed. I was surfing facebook and it came on the same time so I managed to change the password again as soon as possible before the hacker changes my email. I want to know that how come someone knows my password? Thankgod i recovered my account quickly. Also is there any way to keep account much safe and away from such scammers? Edit: I can see that the hacker who got into my account also made a post in the auction section about selling merit. (link:- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5037339.msg46140617#msg46140617) Thats against the rules of the forum and i hope the mods can delete this before the topic creates a mess in the community as I can't delete it.  |
|
|
|
|
Hello community.
I would like to ask for 0.005 BTC loan without any collateral.
Repayment amount:- 0.0055 BTC
Repayment date:- 25th september.
I will lock the topic once the loan is filled.
Need this loan to be filled before "September 22, 2018, 8:00 AM UTC"
Bitcoin address(Same as on my profile):- 1zkYUaMhJHM1DAkjhQNzNN4uUDPatBSVw
Edit:- Amount lowered.
|
|
|
|
Freicoin is flawed because it pretends that market participants have no time preference. I don't get this comment. Freicoin has time value of money built into the currency. Where do you come up with your idea that we reject this idea? Freicoin uses the time preference (small negative interest, continously compounding, aka demurrage) to encourage longer term thinking on the part of market participants. The website is very clear on this. |
|
|
|
|
OpenCoin’s decision to go with an 80%/20% distribution, similar to Freicoin except we give our 20% to the miners, and the discussions which have occurred since have caused me to start thinking about the philosophy of this choice. I have come to the conclusion that a pre-mined distribution, as long as it is done fairly, is more decentralized than Bitcoin’s mining subsidy.
Bitcoin’s mining subsidy guarantees that a very small number people will have Bitcoin: those who are technically capable and have a low self-evaluation of the value of their immediate time. I understand that may seem harsh or a difficult opinion to read. This is not to diminish the efforts of Bitcoin miners, because from the Gold Mines of Alaska to the Oil Fields of Texas some of America’s greatest wealth was made by people fitting this description. However, if your goal is to distribute a new currency to a broad cross-section of the world’s population then this is not the way to do it.
Mining subsidy is a design choice and not a moral certainty. There is no scientific principal by which a person can claim the original design for Bitcoin subsidy is superior to a "premined" coin with a fairly administered initial distribution. A choice to award X units of currency to the person who mines a block is completely arbitrary. The block reward should fundamentally be understood, by all Bitcoin users, to be one of the most obvious and common changes made to a new cryptocurrency. Altering this scheme should not be thought to be fraud unless there is direct proof that the scheme declared is unfair by definition.
Subsidy is so important in mining it promotes the creation of large mining pools which increase the centralization of Bitcoin. It turns out, with the subsidy being the reason for Bitcoin’s existence for many, that the culture around Bitcoin has organized itself around collecting the subsidy and nothing more. I am describing the meta-stable arrangement where all of the mining power is concentrated in the hands of just a few web-savvy administrators, or mining pool operators. With the arrival of ASIC miners this situation is expected to become even worse. Miners are encouraged to pool their computing power for no reason but to lower the variance of the subsidy. There isn't any other technically justifiable reason for pools. For example, we do not see mining pools with protein folding computer services. Clearly this is not a possible end state for Bitcoin and services like p2pool are part of the remedy to this problem. A new definition for cryptocurrency is another possible solution.
Just to be completely clear, Freicoin is not anti-miner: Freicoin's strategy is to initially distribute with low mining subsidy, and to reward miners long-term with a demurrage award of 5% of the currency per year.
I hope the discussion in this post has helped to explain why Freicoin, and by extension OpenCoin’s Ripple, has chosen to distribute some of the coins without mining. I believe that Freicoin’s distribution will be done in a fair manner, and believe at the moment that OpenCoin has the same intentions.
|
|
|
|
I decided to make a quick graph of what would happen if Bitcoin used PPCoin's difficulty adjustment. The results are kind of strange, as you can see in the graph below. The results are on a semi-log plot, with the Y axis being difficulty and the X axis being blocks. As you can see, when Bitcoin has a difficulty of 10^6 (one million) PPCoin has a difficulty of 10^10 (10 billion).  I think that's a little high. Do you think Bitcoin would be successful if it had a mining difficulty of 10 billion right now? Is this how SunnyKing will achieve his goals of a coin that nobody wants to mine? |
|
|
|
|
I have a Logitech G25 and the PS3 game Gran Turismo 5 that I will sell for 30,000 Freicoin. This price includes shipping (to the continental US).
If you have a PS3, are mining Freicoin, and have ever thought about Sim Racing this would be an incredibly cheap way to get started.
The wheel should work just by plugging it into a PS3. It has a USB interface and works with PS3 and PC. It doesn't work with XBOX, for reasons I don't understand. I primarily used it for PC games (GTR2) and it works great.
Please post here or PM me with offers or questions.
Thanks, all!
|
|
|
|
Crowdfunding: Potential Legal Disaster Waiting To Happen 10/22/2012 @ 7:00AM |810 views Guest post written by Bryan Sullivan and Stephen Ma http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/10/22/crowdfunding-potential-legal-disaster-waiting-to-happen/ Bryan Sullivan and Stephen Ma are attorneys with Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, a Los Angeles-based entertainment and business law firm. In theory, crowdfunding appears to be a great way for people with good ideas to take advantage of the Internet. Throw your idea online and a slew of like-minded investors will give you money to bring your idea to fruition. Artists have been doing it successfully for a few years on Kickstarter to fund creative projects, and teachers on Funding4Learning to fund education projects. To bolster this burgeoning concept, in April 2012, the United States Government passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which contains crowdfunding provisions to help these entrepreneurs raise funds. Taking a closer look at crowdfunding reveals a system fraught with peril that will likely lead to an increase in litigation. The JOBS Act allows any Zuckerberg wannabe with an idea to skirt securities laws to attract equity investors. Anyone, be it an entrepreneur or corporate entity, can raise up to $1 million from investors putting in no more than $10,000 each, or no more than 10% of their income, whichever is less. That amount increases to $2 million if the crowdfunding entity supplies the “crowd” investors with audited financial statements. Under this system, a crowdfunder will not have to disclose financial statements until it has more than 1,000 shareholders; traditional, full regulatory SEC disclosure rules kick in at 500 shareholders. Essentially, it allows startups to raise up to $50 million in an IPO without having to comply with the SEC’s full regulatory structure and related fees. Yes, you read that correctly – and we can only guess the disasters and class actions resulting from the future of crowdfunding. William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth for Massachusetts, was so concerned about crowdfunding risks that in August he sent a letter to the SEC identifying crowdfunding’s many pitfalls. The letter is spot on. Mr. Galvin writes: “While this picture of the potential benefits of crowdfunding is undeniably attractive, as regulators we must be vigilant that the exemption will not become a tool for financial fraud and abuse…Unscrupulous penny stock promoters have used misrepresentations to market obscure and low-value stocks to individuals, often through pump and dump schemes. These kinds of fraud operators have not gone away. The risk for fraud is far more real than crowdfunding participants or the SEC want to admit. By its nature, crowdfunding appeals to a less sophisticated investor who will invest in any project they think will be the next Facebook. Typical crowdfunding investors, even with basic disclosure requirements for participation, won’t have the investment savvy to determine whether an investment is real or a fraud. After all, many fraudsters and scam artists are brilliant at presenting their investments on paper to meet the very basic disclosures of crowdfunding. Just look to Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff, both appearing as entirely legitimate businessmen, who were able to dupe sophisticated investors and, in Madoff’s case, the SEC itself. The bottom line is that, while unintentional, crowdfunding is tailor made to assist fraudsters in duping unsophisticated “investors.” Indeed, even if the SEC, in an attempt to avert fraud, increases the amount of disclosures, the individual investment contributions will still be too small for law enforcement authorities to expend resources to investigate or for attorneys to take on a fraud lawsuit, unless of course a contingency business litigator can bring a class action. Galvin likely would agree with this concern since he specifically noted: “ The typical crowdfunding offering will be small (many may be far below $1 million), so there is the great risk that these offerings will fly under the radars of many regulators. ... article continues ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/10/22/crowdfunding-potential-legal-disaster-waiting-to-happen/ |
|
|
|
Here is a PDF of what it takes to do this. Keep in mind this assumes you have free-trading shares in the hands of investors which is an entirely different worm to swallow.
I can cover this subject also if the forum wants. http://www.spartansecurities.com/forms/otcbb.pdf |
|
|
|
McWhortle Enterprises, Inc.
 McWhortle Enterprises is an established and well-known manufacturer of biological defense mechanisms. Fortune 500 companies routinely use McWhortle Defense systems to protect their far-flung executives living in dangerous areas. These discreet, confidential safeguards have for years given employees and their families peace of mind. Now, for the first time, McWhortle Enterprises is offering a product to the general public: the new Bio-Hazard Alert Detector. Running quietly on two double-A batteries, the Bio-Hazard Alert Detector emits an audible beep and flashes when in the presence of all known bio-hazards. The Bio-Hazard Alert Detector, measuring only 3 by 7 inches, is small enough to slip into a man's jacket pocket, a woman's purse or a child's backpack. The Bio-Hazard Alert Detector works by detecting microscopic levels of hazardous bio-organisms and deadly virus organisms. It can detect even the finest-milled, weapons-grade biohazards from 50 feet, long before the risk of inhalation or cutaneous infection, by testing for the distinctive surface leptins. When equipped with a patented McWhortle computer micro-chip, the Alert Detector has a proven effectiveness of just .02 microns per cubic meter of air. The Bio-Hazard Detector gained instant acceptance in all test markets, which were spread throughout the Midwest. Within hours the product sold out of each store, with no advertising and only word-of-mouth endorsement within each community. Stock prices have soared as the markets have recognized the huge potential of the Detector for combating virus-borne illness world-wide. McWhortle Enterprises, Inc. PO Box 50239 Washington DC, 20091 http://www.mcwhortle.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Store Ciphertext to file.
|
|
|
|
|
