Ooh, brainstorm. Why bother scanning everything individually? Give every product an RFID tag, shop by putting things directly into your bag and then have "scan out" stations. These stations would be just putting all your stuff down, it checking what RFIDs were in the scanning area and you tapping your phone for the crypto payment. On exit you'd pass through detectors like most stores have now that would detect RFIDs that haven't been paid for.
Also, the short lag between scanning, tapping, and blockchain verification would be perfect for completing a small in-store survey at the scan station.
Yes, something like this would be fine as long as you don't have to spend any longer than a few seconds in the scanning area. I'm only interested in an in-store model that bypasses anything similar to waiting in line. I would even be turned off if I had to walk out of my way whatsoever to get to the scanning area; if it's on the way out the door, that's fine. |
|
|
|
With BTC, I can give you a few models which remove the need for checkout lines, checkout counters, and even cashiers, and only require a couple security personnel at the doors  I'm listening. (or reading.) Go ahead, tell us about it. I made a thread about it the other day  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827247.0This is one example. I believe the general model works. though specific details need to be fleshed out. Most of the concerns others have listed aren't too convincing, in my opinion. But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. |
|
|
|
Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein. Keep on playing. I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction. I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof'). [This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing (anything). On the other hand, I — equally ignorant — do not believe (that I know anything).] (Emphasis mine.) Entropy within may have one know those state termed "knowledge." (A "knowledge" of that proves "wisdom.") I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was. Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything. I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge: 1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof. To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside. When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm"). In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.' Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way. But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience. Edit: I see you edited your post to something semantically fun. Give me some time on that one. |
|
|
|
Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein. Keep on playing. I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction. I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof'). |
|
|
|
Two things:
Wouldn't every single item in the store need to be connected to the internet to verify the transaction? I know internet of things is getting popular, but that would be one hell of a cost. The follow-up thought I have is well, instead of attaching the internet to the device, put it in a container that only opens once the transaction goes through. And then I realize that I've brainstormed up a vending machine. So my question is: how come vending machines aren't used for more items? The interaction is essentially the same to what you're describing: you walk in, interact with a thing, receive product, and walk off.
Second thing: you wouldn't be able to get rid of cash registers until the vast majority of customers were using bitcoin. Yes, the cost of the system might be offset by not needing cashiers/cash registers, but it wouldn't offset the cost of losing 95% (on the low end) of your customers.
tl;dr Many negative things. Sorry
I'd also like to point out that part of why I structured the OP as I did was to provide my honest feedback as a consumer about what I would like my in-store experience to be. I like to get in, not be bothered or held up by anything, get what I need, and get out. So, saying "many negative things" is irrelevant. It's more a comment about what's seemingly inconvenient about the tech, not about the actual experience (which is what matters to people). Of course, maybe most other people prefer some different type of in-store experience, but no tech will ever succeed if it doesn't do what it should be doing, which is making life easier for people in ways that they want it to be. |
|
|
|
I walk into a store with BTC. Let's say this BTC is secure on a little device. Imagining a Trezor works nicely for the sake of demonstration.
I see an item I want on the shelf. On the item is a QR code, magnetic strip, or something similar corresponding to a unique public BTC address; also on the device is a tiny green LED or some other change indicator. When I hold my BTC device up to the code/strip, payment for the item is automatically and securely deducted from my device. The green LED lights up, I walk out the door with it, bypassing an imaginary checkout line with imaginary cashiers, and instead simply wave my green LED-lit item in front of a security attendant as I walk out the store.
What's the closest we have to this experience now?
In the ideal scenario, u have not considered that it will take at least 10 minutes for a block to accept your transaction. If your Tx is accepted without any confirmation and the item costs more than 1 BTC, then there is a BIG chance of double spend. I did consider it, I just didn't consider it relevant because I figure that some crypto or another *will* be viable for in-store purchase, so I'm focusing on the business end, not the currency end. |
|
|
|
Two things:
Wouldn't every single item in the store need to be connected to the internet to verify the transaction? I know internet of things is getting popular, but that would be one hell of a cost. The follow-up thought I have is well, instead of attaching the internet to the device, put it in a container that only opens once the transaction goes through. And then I realize that I've brainstormed up a vending machine. So my question is: how come vending machines aren't used for more items? The interaction is essentially the same to what you're describing: you walk in, interact with a thing, receive product, and walk off.
Second thing: you wouldn't be able to get rid of cash registers until the vast majority of customers were using bitcoin. Yes, the cost of the system might be offset by not needing cashiers/cash registers, but it wouldn't offset the cost of losing 95% (on the low end) of your customers.
tl;dr Many negative things. Sorry
For a couple pennies I would imagine something like a small radio chip could communicate with the change indicator. When you send BTC to a QR code or something like it, it's the device you're using that's communicating with the network. All that needs to happen with the product is for something to signal to it that it's corresponding address has been sufficiently funded. The extra cost I believe could be covered by money saved by requiring fewer in-store employees, and I wouldn't expect it to be too much different than current in-store security tags. Between salaries, benefits, and the tech, that's a lot of money you can reroute to something else. I disagree vending machines are the same. Walking through the store and being able to pick up or look at the item is important. Online purchasing makes more sense for most people in many ways for many items, but people still go to the store to buy stuff. And need I mention the clothing industry, music industry, etc.? I do agree that few (if any) stores could be currently successful in any location operating under a crypto-only business model. But this really is just one of many chicken-and-egg problems Bitcoin faces in general. It isn't unreasonable or too early to conceptualize something like this, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
I remember some British company having created something like that. A little thing showing a QR code which is attached to an item. You scan, pay, and leave the shop. You'll probably have to give back the QR showing gadget because as I imagine it's not that cheap. If would be even better if the gadget was able to transmit transaction your give it. That way you do not have to carry a device with online capability but rather one a secure offlien gadget that creates transactions offline and gived them to the payment gadget in order to get broadcastet. How does it know which outputs to take? It can be fed SPV data via optical synchronization (Colored Video QR-Codes) from a phone that has a watch only copy of the same deterministic wallet. Something I have thought about for a long time Despite mass-producing inexpensive change-indicators like the green LED example, don't you think the complete removal of cashiers, checkout lines, and associated in-store technology would easily offset the production costs of the BTC security features? As far as the technical and coding aspect goes, I'm simply assuming it's not too difficult. By way, since this idea as a whole really isn't very complicated, I'll loosely toss out the idea that I'd be (potentially) interested in working with someone on this to bring to fruition a working concept model, though my start up experience is limited. |
|
|
|
Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if not outright counter to ideology held by most of today's modern Christians. Instead, it's a set of rules guided by men, often at conferences where they talk about which rules to ignore in the Bible like it's a US attorney general talking about which rules of the Constitution to ignore, whose rules are relayed (either in these conferences or through television/pamphlets/whatever) by pastors/deacons/whatever to members of this voluntary government. This is true of all religions I'm aware of.
-So when they talk about their religious customs or opinions extrapolated from any religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.
-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.
We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.
Christianity isn't Christianity like it was 2000 years ago because, as secularism has spread, politics has become the replacement. and money/power is God. Seriously. The parallels between religious and secular/political dominion, governance, and worship are astonishing. All of the dogma is the same, just wrapped in a different package. It's pretty hard to keep a populous in squalor for 2,000 years by keeping them gleeful by telling them the more poor they are the easier it will be to find salvation. It's much easier to let people spend themselves silly into squalor. Good post. Mine is just a tangential comment. .. especially the part about believing and accepting Him for salvation in the resurrection. Secular Christianity involves all the things that you say. True Christianity involves my previous paragraph. Both can be active in a person, but the more he becomes spiritually involved with true Christianity, the more secular Christianity will fade from his life. I'd pretty much agree with this. To me, *Christ*ianity is about Christ and the New Testament (mostly the book of Matthew). Jesus is A-OK in my book. |
|
|
|
|
There are two types of people in this world: Those who require completion, and you, who gets banned for
|
|
|
|
|
I walk into a store with BTC. Let's say this BTC is secure on a little device. Imagining a Trezor works nicely for the sake of demonstration.
I see an item I want on the shelf. On the item is a QR code, magnetic strip, or something similar corresponding to a unique public BTC address; also on the device is a tiny green LED or some other change indicator. When I hold my BTC device up to the code/strip, payment for the item is automatically and securely deducted from my device. The green LED lights up, I walk out the door with it, bypassing an imaginary checkout line with imaginary cashiers, and instead simply wave my green LED-lit item in front of a security attendant as I walk out the store.
What's the closest we have to this experience now?
|
|
|
|
Over 30 minutes for a single confirmation does not (and will not ever) work in the real world. (Almost) Every time I start to believe that BTC is "going mainstream", I have a delay waiting for a 30+ minute block....  still fortunately you only 30 minutes, I was almost 1 hour more because my connection is only 20KBps. moreover offline wallet so many blocks That isn't how confirmations work. Confirmations happen through mining (e.g. 1 'solved block' = 1 confirmation). Additionally, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or even an hour is just fine for most online transactions and a majority, if not most, non-micropayments (e.g. paychecks). |
|
|
|
Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if not outright counter to ideology held by most of today's modern Christians. Instead, it's a set of rules guided by men, often at conferences where they talk about which rules to ignore in the Bible like it's a US attorney general talking about which rules of the Constitution to ignore, whose rules are relayed (either in these conferences or through television/pamphlets/whatever) by pastors/deacons/whatever to members of this voluntary government. This is true of all religions I'm aware of.
-So when they talk about their religious customs or opinions extrapolated from any religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.
-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.
We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.
Christianity isn't Christianity like it was 2000 years ago because, as secularism has spread, politics has become the replacement. and money/power is God. Seriously. The parallels between religious and secular/political dominion, governance, and worship are astonishing. All of the dogma is the same, just wrapped in a different package. It's pretty hard to keep a populous in squalor for 2,000 years by keeping them gleeful by telling them the more poor they are the easier it will be to find salvation. It's much easier to let people spend themselves silly into squalor. Good post. Mine is just a tangential comment. |
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks 17 rounds is excessive has clearly been watching too many movies and has no idea of how gunfighting actually works in reality. In a gunfight, you keep shooting until your opponent is dead or unconscious, or they drop their weapon, surrender, or escape, or you run out of ammo. The latter outcome is one of the most common, as people usually do not instantly drop dead when shot. A single gunshot wound is rarely fatal, and even a fatal wound rarely kills quickly. It almost always takes multiple shots to quickly incapacitate someone, often a surprisingly large number to someone who's never seen an actual gunfight. This is one of the main reasons the police switched from revolvers to semiautomatics: revolvers may be simpler to use, but the people who say "6 shots is enough to kill anything" just plain don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
It's interesting you mention this. I saw a video on YouTube just a few days ago showing a black man in (I think?) his 20's get shot in the hip by a police officer at a gas station while (oops) reaching back into his car after he was already out of it. The guy barely looked like he got shot -- even though you can clearly see it happen -- as he walked backwards out of the frame. Then, you literally hear him ask the officer in a calm voice, "Why...why did you shoot me?" Don't forget the kid who "shot himself" while handcuffed in the backseat of a cop car I wasn't implying he deserved it at all, if that's what you thought I did. It was ludicrous, the officer shot like five rounds at him. I didn't see what you're referring to. |
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks 17 rounds is excessive has clearly been watching too many movies and has no idea of how gunfighting actually works in reality. In a gunfight, you keep shooting until your opponent is dead or unconscious, or they drop their weapon, surrender, or escape, or you run out of ammo. The latter outcome is one of the most common, as people usually do not instantly drop dead when shot. A single gunshot wound is rarely fatal, and even a fatal wound rarely kills quickly. It almost always takes multiple shots to quickly incapacitate someone, often a surprisingly large number to someone who's never seen an actual gunfight. This is one of the main reasons the police switched from revolvers to semiautomatics: revolvers may be simpler to use, but the people who say "6 shots is enough to kill anything" just plain don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
It's interesting you mention this. I saw a video on YouTube just a few days ago showing a black man in (I think?) his 20's get shot in the hip by a police officer at a gas station while (oops) reaching back into his car after he was already out of it. The guy barely looked like he got shot -- even though you can clearly see it happen -- as he walked backwards out of the frame. Then, you literally hear him ask the officer in a calm voice, "Why...why did you shoot me?" Edit: ...Which was a fantastic question. |
|
|
|
There is something wrong with your set up. You haven't really given enough information for anyone to figure it out.
I just yesterday synced Armory 0.92.3 from scratch on a clean install of Ubuntu 14.04.1. It took less than 20 hours start to finish.
This was on an ancient (5+ years old) laptop with a Core2Duo running at 1.8Ghz and 3Gb of RAM. I did, however, replace the HDD with a cheap SSD.
Guess it's not designed to run on low end laptops, like mine: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3317U CPU @ 1.70GHz 4 GB RAM I should upgrade for armory Again, are you running an up-to-date version? You said this problem has been going on for a year  |
|
|
|
I don't particularly like the question because it's sort of irrelevant.
When I say "sort of irrelevant," I don't mean that individual opinion doesn't matter, but this is an auction market in which trading occurs across vastly different mediums. In this thread we've already seen personal valuations at ~200% current market rate, but this means nothing. The posters don't even believe in their personal valuations because nobody's partaking in the 50% off sale going on all day every day. There's money up for grabs at half-off and nobody's buying.
I just don't think it's the best interpretation to visualize the market as requiring some Universal price anchor or pricing mechanism, but rather value will be determined by localized factors as it has been. For example, certain factors make valuation on Bitstamp different from BTC-e, and certain factors also affect valuation of BTC traded on the chain vs. off the chain. The price of BTC on BTC-e is always lower because it's simply near impossible to directly fund your account with fiat. The price on Local Bitcoins is simply misleading because the spreads are ridiculous and the depth isn't there. The prices asserted in this thread are, at best, hearsay because nobody is trading at these prices.
I also don't love the question, but for a slightly different reason. Markets are forward-looking, so basing a price on today's value doesn't really tell the story. My valuation model for BTC involves looking at it as a percentage of M2 money supply. I know what I believe it will be worth in or around 2020 (probably less than many forumites think at around $2300-$2500) and I am buying now because, even at that price, a 6x return in less than 6 years is amazing. But it's worth noting that, as with stock purchases, future earnings are "baked" into the price quite a bit. I'm not buying now because I believe the intrinsic value (based on M2) is all that high, but rather because I'm buying the equivalent to future earnings. Based on M2 calculations, I'd suspect the snapshot value TODAY using the model is more likely in the range of $20-50. The other thing to remember is that price and value are different. Over time they converge, but there can be many divergences to the high side and to the low side. It's quite possible that if adoption is strong and use-cases are strong that the value in 2020 will be $2300, but foward-looking markets will set the price much higher. Or lower. I really like your distinction about factoring future developments into the price. Out of curiosity, could you provide any more explanation as to how you arrived specifically at a $20-50 range? The model I'm using is based on M2 money supply, which is cash, checking deposits (basically M1) and also savings deposits and money market funds. It does NOT include things like institutional money markets. I think M2 suits BTC the best because it accounts for use of BTC as a currency and also as a store of value. Modeling out to 2020, I'm trying to calculate growth rates of non-mining-related transactions (this is not easy data to find) and I'm estimating what percentage of M2-type transactions will be done in BTC. Also trying to account for velocity increases, which decrease the required M2 money supply. I believe that BTC velocity is actually very low right now, but that it will increase. This view of current velocity is not popular, as most BTCers seem to think it is high, but I feel they are including mining. So basically, BTC will constitute some percentage of the money supply by virtue of transactions and store of value, and whatever percentage of M2 is constituted by BTC, the capitalized value of BTC should equal that percentage of global M2. As for right now, it is a wild ass guess based on what I THINK is happening. It's easier to project the data going forward than it is to root around in data stores right now, so I haven't been all that vigilant about doing it. Sorry...I don't think I explained that very well. The short story is that I'm guessing about current value because. I think I have a better idea about where we are GOING (usage, velocity) than where we are. I think your method of analysis is interesting, and I was particularly pleased to read the bolded selection because I think I would reach a similar, vague conclusion with that method What's interesting, and I think clever, is setting M2 analogous to BTC. I wouldn't have thought of that particularly because I'm fairly clueless as to which types of BTC transactions are the most frequent. How confident are you in your data? You're analyzing and estimating several variables here, and allowing a moderate margin for error on each variable might result in either a decent average among all variables and a sensible conclusion, or you could be way, way off. A few other questions: 1) Did you sample off-chain transactions somehow, or take them into account? 2) How confident are you in likening BTC to M2? 3) Do you actually have a calculated margin of error for any variable as well as the conclusion? 4) At the very end, you stated an assumption that seems to have influenced your conclusion independent of your data. You mention that you're "guessing about the current value because...[you] have a better idea about where we are going." When I read this, this says to me that you're imagining some arbitrary ceiling based upon the idea that velocity will increase. This means that, to reach a specific conclusion, you would need to have some idea of what max velocity could be and where we are relative to that max. But, since that is all independent of what the price is right now, why couldn't your price be $2000-5000 rather than $20-50? Does your data *really* narrow it down that much? 5) Any particularly interesting statistics you came across? Edit: I have more questions if you don't get sick of these. |
|
|
|
|
Banned for leaving me to be the one to cast racial aspersions at the blackie with poor grammar (please don't be black, and I'm super sorry).
|
|
|
|
All that money that could be in bitcoin, is in it RIGHT NOW...
Right, you think that someone with hundreds of millions at their dispose is in BTC? You think they would not want to be? These types are waiting for some kind of regulation you blubbering idiot. Too much at stake without regulation to just toss in right now. I can bet you my house that when the times comes and they start putting regulations in place and more or a white/black guidance to what you can and can not do with cryptos, the sky is the limit for it. God, I thought people could not be so stupid, but you prove it daily fewcoins... you really do. I think that traditional investors *are* funneling money into BTC, but are investing in businesses and infrastructure development rather than the currency. Funneling a ton of money into BTC directly might raise the price, but it doesn't necessary raise utility/value. If I went all into fiat and stuff it into my mattress, how much value am I creating in the fiat market? Zero. Be serious here please. Everyone is in this game to get more fiat. The venture capitalist are investing in bitcoin business start ups to make serious money back. They aren't using this money to invest in BTC... The want more fiat. Traditional investors, retail investors, gambling investors, "speculators" are all in this game to try to make fiat. If someone is getting paid in bitcoin they make it fiat, if someone spends bitcoin they make it fiat. Exchanges exchange these coins for fiat. This entire game is revolving around fiat and becoming more centralized at every turn. I'm serious. Your point falls by the wayside because, well, duh! -- Why else do you invest but to try to make money? All you did was reinforce what I said right off the bat when you say, "The venture capitalists are investing in Bitcoin business start ups..." Edit: Additionally, the point behind infrastructure and business support is that this strengthens the resiliency of the currency and extends the duration of its potential for value growth. Edit 2: Something tells me that you don't recognize the *hugely* significant distinction between Bitcoin as a network and bitcoins as currency. |
|
|
|
All that money that could be in bitcoin, is in it RIGHT NOW...
Right, you think that someone with hundreds of millions at their dispose is in BTC? You think they would not want to be? These types are waiting for some kind of regulation you blubbering idiot. Too much at stake without regulation to just toss in right now. I can bet you my house that when the times comes and they start putting regulations in place and more or a white/black guidance to what you can and can not do with cryptos, the sky is the limit for it. God, I thought people could not be so stupid, but you prove it daily fewcoins... you really do. I think that traditional investors *are* funneling money into BTC, but are investing in businesses and infrastructure development rather than the currency. Funneling a ton of money into BTC directly might raise the price, but it doesn't necessary raise utility/value. If I went all into fiat and stuff it into my mattress, how much value am I creating in the fiat market? Zero. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
