the faucets are only worth if you got like 50 - 200 active refs or more
when you click on your own they arent worth anything
You shouldn't work on the faucet, but you need to tell everybody the faucet is great and ask them to register using your ref link. How ironic is that lol  hahaha yeah  )) but for some people the faucet is worth if they hit a big jackpot of around 0.3 or 0.03 btc:) yeah if they win the jackpot hard to get jackpot, especially if probability to win it only around <1%  like to hit 10000 in freebitco, no one win it until now  winning the jackpot on freebitco is much less likely then 1%, it is closer to 1 in 10,000 |
|
|
|
The Mother of All Bubbles will be when retail penetration reaches critical mass.
I am not sure why man. Please feel free to explain to me but as a typical economic evaluation goes, The purchasing power is trending up, Transaction costs only has a slight advantage in the international markets, and the aggregate demand curve is not all that. What policy planning will change any of that in a quantifiable way lol. Using bitcoin as a medium of exchange is not why the majority of the buys have been made.. Because if businesses ever decide to trade wholesale to retail purchases or business to business purchases in bitcoin, the demand will become 1000x greater than it currently is. Right now, outside of Overstock, businesses just convert straight into fiat. If they ever hold bitcoin to do commerce between each other, bitcoin will be worth 5-6 figures. Businesses don't generally trade retail purchases between eachother. However once businesses are able to pay suppliers in bitcoin the demand for bitcoin will dramatically increase. Ok I understand increasing the loop and how important it is. Feedback will be much realer when that happens. I myself am putting alot of effort in Potcoin because I see things there as a new industry that doesn't need to change because its better. There simply arn't any solid alternatives. But man I see Bitcoin getting shunned for a while longer because of the way it has been man. the problem with "investing" in any alt coin is that the network is much less secure then bitcoin for every single alt coin out there. This means that when a merchant is deciding if they are willing to accept a certain coin they will be hesitant as it would not be difficult to rob the store |
|
|
|
I think you made a mistake in the title by putting the word 'Results' in there.
Nope! These are the results as relased so far by the government. I guess Monday we'll find out the prices. I'm sure that some people will profit a lot from this. the winning bidders will likely have an initial paper gain but the discount would likely not be large enough so that the buyer could sell all 3k coins on an exchange and still have a profit |
|
|
|
Make it easier to use secure and store
Also to purchase should be as simple as go to exchange skip the verification process purchase and done
Or a direct debit from the account converted to Bitcoins.
Still a way away from that though
This. I believe the future of bitcoin is as a back end system to transfer IOUs of cash. For instance: a customer pays in $ with debit card, but the money transfer is the equivalent amount in bitcoin from the customer's bank to the merchant's. The merchant bank debits the merchant's account with $. Should the bank have liquidity problems, it should have a right to instantly sell those bitcoin to the customer's bank for $ This type of system would ultimately lead to centralization and is really not what bitcoin was designed to do. I think that the reason bitcoin is not more widely used is due to the fact that there are not many places to spend it and that there are semi-high barriers to purchase bitcoin. Bitcoin ATMs are solving this problem, but they are not widespread enough so that a huge difference can be made. (excluding ATMs) In order for a person to buy bitcoin they need to sign up for an account on an exchange, go through the AML process, deposit fiat at the exchange then buy the bitcoin. Alternatively they could go on local bitcoins, find a face to face trader, find a place that is mutually convenient for both of you, find a time that is good for both of you, meet, and trade fiat for bitcoin. And the transaction cost for bitcoin for local trade is rather high. Why do you say that the tx costs for dealing with bitcoin locally are high? They are in fact lower as all you need to pay is the miner's fee (~$.06) and the seller does not have any costs associated with accepting bitcoin that would ultimately be passed on to the buyer |
|
|
|
Facebook is used by pretty much anyone who has internet. Theoretically bitcoin can become just as popular but not more popular unless facebook nosedives. We can't have more users than "pretty much anyone who uses internet", can we?
There are roughly 1 billion people on facebook, there are many more people who have access to and use the internet |
|
|
|
As long as the terms of the escrow are very clear how the domain will be transferred to the buyer then you will be safe (IMO).
However always be wary of ANY deals over the internet I think this is the reason that escrow is being used. |
|
|
|
I would imagine that the purchase on ebay would be made in terms of USD. At the moment of purchase, the BTC equivalent would be locked in and immediate payment would be required.
ebay's policy currently has some leeway in allowing buyers some time in paying for their winning bid as they would not necessarily be at their computer when the auction is over. If ebay were to allow bitcoin payments for auctions then I agree that the auction would likely be priced in dollars, but the btc/usd price would likely be effective when payment is received. It would also be likely that payment would be made to an ebay escrow address and the buyer will need to confirm receipt of the goods prior to the coins being released to the seller |
|
|
|
The guy from Rowan likely was on that list because he was asking questions about the auctions for academic purposes. Professors are pretty well paid but generally do not have that much money
Well paid but do not have much money? They don't have saving? They are not so well paid that they have 2-3 million that then can invest in a speculative investment |
|
|
|
No, you are wrong, you did not run the numbers. To maximize your overall profit (assuming you can get immediate delivery of the latest miners) is to put 100% of your money into miners and forget the whole wind or solar energy production idea. Any other mix of investing in miners/wind/solar will reduce your overall profit.
This is because wind and solar are the most expensive ways to make electricity whereas burning dirt (coal) is the cheapest.
Is that a theory or a fact? The theoretical 1MW mine above costs $0.88 million at $0.10/kWh per year on electricity cost. The theoretical wind turbine costs $1.3 million. It produces theoretical free power after 1.48 years, when it paid itself back. After that my theoretical mine mines for free. For a while. For every single hardware generation I deploy. Until it breaks down. If I would be in my home country, where electricity costs close to $0.30/kWh, we have very high mountains AND a lot of wind, how long would it take to pay the wind turbine back and mine for free? A few months. There is something fishy about these numbers? Double or triple them, it still takes less than a year. I think that wind turbine will need to receive some kind of maintenance and upkeep every so often. You also forgot to include the fact that you need to put the turbine on land that you own/control. You would (in most countries) need to pay property taxes on both the land and the turbine. You would also have a lost opportunity cost as if you did not have the turbine on your property then you could have rented your land to someone and received some kind of rent. |
|
|
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that. Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service. If you have a monopoly then you do not have incentives to provide "superior service" as you do not have any real competition |
|
|
|
Hey, what happened at march 2014 just check it out!  579 000 000 in one day or month?? Is that mtgox ? That chart is measured by day. It would really be better to use a moving average of that chart to get a good idea as to what the daily TX volume is. Moving a lot of bitcoin internally can signal huge volume spikes that are nothing more then moving coins from one wallet to another |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is only pseudoanonymous (though if you hide your IP and use new addresses every time it is pretty much anonymous).
That being said, I can't wait to see what extra anonymity features that Zerocash will be bringing to the table when it is released!
You can use blockchain's shared coin to get the same effect as zerocash but with shorter TX confirmation times as zerocash has all TXs in a shared coin format and when one party "backs out" of a TX then the TX will fail and all the parties will need to try again by all signing a new TX If your trying to launder coins i would suggest for you not to use sharedcoin as it has been proven not to be so anonymous Link: http://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-sharedcoin-users-can-identified-says-security-expert/Shared coin when used in conjunction with other mixers can mask your identity. |
|
|
|
The researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University CyLab who carried out this work, tempted users into downloading and, in many cases, actually running a Windows application on their computer. After they had agreed to take part, they were told that it was for an academic study but were given very little other information about the application. The application pretended to run a series of computational tasks and paid those who installed it one cent for every hour it was left running.
If something is for "academic" use people are generally more trusting then they otherwise should be. The same goes for noble causes like the SETI project that lets people use their computer to look for possible signals from outer space. I think that the acceptance rate would be much lower if participants were told that the application was for "for-profit research" without a specific cause. What makes you think a criminal won't do the same thing? I can say I'm doing an academic study when I ask people to send me 5 BTC. I can bloody say I'm from NASA doing something. But am I? Nope. This what what people don't seem to get. Why in the world can a few words change everything. If it asks for something high-security, screw it! I won't touch that. I can dress up as a cop and tell people "I'm a cop" and be a criminal. Could you tell the difference between a guy in a seemingly authentic polic uniform with all the gear I bought down at the surplus store, and me being a hardened criminal posing as a polic officer? I'm going to leave it at that. EDIT: I'm not a criminal. I don't maliciously break laws, and I live a "normal" life. The scenario is an theoretical example. I am not saying that anything would stop a criminal from simply saying that they are doing the study for academic use. I am saying that the promise (real or not) of academic use is enough to convince a lot of people. I am not saying this is a good idea or not, but just explaining human behavior. |
|
|
|
|
As long as the terms of the escrow are very clear how the domain will be transferred to the buyer then you will be safe (IMO).
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on your definition of "participate"
If you are saying that a person would participate simply by investing their own funds and nothing else then no that is not unethical. You are doing nothing more then gambling your money in the ponzi. With that being said it would still be a very bad idea as without inside information you will have no idea when the ponzi will fail/collapse so you would be taking a huge risk in participating.
If you are saying that a person would participate by investing their own funds and talking up/endorsing the ponzi then that is very unethical. In this case you are encouraging others to take risks that they are unaware of.
|
|
|
|
|
Political parties are not necessary but it would be wrong to outright ban them. Parties are essentially a (large) group of people who share the same kinds of political beliefs. If you agree with two or three crazy liberal views then you likely agree with Democrats on most political issues. The same is true with conservative issues and Republicans.
|
|
|
|
So the war on drugs is to blame how? Newsflash, drugs are dangerous and can kill you. That's the risk you take, that's why they are illegal in the first place. I used to do cocaine from time to time, I knew the risk I was taking. Now they are apparently cutting it with fentanyl. No more cocaine for me, not worth the risk. Even if legalized and regulated, there is no way to know how it would affect her. I don't see how the war on drugs is to blame on this one. Sounds like the same type of people that blame McDonald's for making them fat. I agree, I think the mother is placing the blame on the wrong person. The article says that her daughter was researching the drug online prior to buying, so she should have been well informed that the more pure the drug was the stronger and more dangerous it is. If we stopped the war on drugs then many more people would die from overdosing and even more people's lives would be ruined by drugs |
|
|
|
Anyone know what is the government's justification for not invading north korea seeing as north korea breach humans rights ?
When a country is not a threat to another one, nobody gives a shit (besides the people who generally care about humans of course). Do we think if north korea had a bunch of oil or some other resource the government would all of a sudden start to find threat potential from north korea? The US has not done more to deal with North Korea because China is NK's ally and China does not want "the west" controlling the entire korean peninsula as they think it is an strategically significant place. For some reason China doesn't have any issues with how NK is being run. If it was not for China the NK would have been dealt with (aka invaded) a long time ago. |
|
|
|
We are anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive and we do not forget.
Expect us.
We will still Occupy.
We will sit unshowered in parks. We will get high on illicit drugs. We will chant pointless slogans. We will rape and steal from other people in our "movement." We will accomplish nothing but wasting time and money belonging to an all ready over taxed group of people with jobs. This is a lot of what the liberals in the occupy movement were doing when they were "occupying" several cities. It was really mostly them just draining society. For the OP I don't think that video is really from Anonymous, I don't think they would post to youtube like that |
|
|
|
They will end very bad if they commited the error of bombing Russia, thats like suicide.
Russia is a military superpower, it isn't as strong as it was 30 years ago, but still very strong. Any country that tries to attack Russia (or any other superpower) is making a mistake |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
