|
I just thought I'd make people aware that it seems the list of currently enrolled users is not fully complete/accurate. I have received payment for two months now without issue, but I'm still not shown on the list of enrolled users.
|
|
|
|
First of all, you didn't "invest", you speculated.
Investing entails putting your money (hard-earned or otherwise) into something over which you have some control.
No, FUD-spamming internet forums doesn't count as having some control.
As somebody pointed out earlier, you haven't lost anything at all until you sell for less than you paid. Your coins are worth exactly what you paid for them.
My coins are still only worth an average of $120 each. If I'd sold when the price dipped to $50 last summer, and people were clamoring about the coming capitulation that would take us sub-$30 and "no more triple digits in 2013", then I'd have lost money. but I didn't and the price soared to quadruple digits. If I'd sold then, I'd have made a handsome profit. I didn't so my coins are still only worth $120 per.
You can't assume that history will repeat itself but Bitcoin has never gone 2 years without realizing a massive price increase. The protocol is not broken. Venture capital keeps pouring in and infrastructure keeps being built.
My advice is to be patient and wait at least 2 years before doing anything except perhaps buying more. Don't be like one of those suckers who was talked into selling for less than $100 last summer by those preaching their own book, or those who sold for less than $5 in autumn of 2011.
It's false to say that someone hasn't lost anything if they're holding onto depreciating assets. No, those coins are *not* currently worth the price he paid for them. To see this, simply view your assets in terms of purchasing power. The purchasing power of the coins he bought has decreased, so yes, he has incurred losses. |
|
|
|
So when the price goes back up, they get them to buy back in because things are looking good for Bitcoin again? Genius.  Nope, because that would not be standard investment advice. It would break the portfolio diversification rule. Do you remember your granny telling you "Don't put all of your eggs in the same basket"? That stands whether your investments have gone up, down or sideways. Grandma always said "Math my boy, that's where the moneys at". Never once did she say the things you're saying. She wouldn't believe it for a second, and probably would call you out on your terrible advice and bad portrayal of a financial advisor. Telling your clients to sell after they've had loses? Interesting theory, but terrible advice. Because if you really had a mind, you'd tell them to buy more. It's simple math really. You bought at 8, its now at 5. So when it goes back to 650,you've cut you losses in half. But lets try your way. buy at 8, sell at 5. buy something else at 8 and sell at 5...hmm. Doesn't seem quite right. But I guess you need people like that to keep doing what you're doing. I'm confused. How does "simple" math in any way indicate that you should buy more after falling from $800 to $500? There's nothing about math that will tell you what the price will be in the future. When you say things like "when it goes back to $650..." you're making the assumption that it's guaranteed to go up. It's not. Whether we're talking BTC or some other investment, cutting your losses can save you from losing everything. It sounds that, based on what I just read, there is no good time to ever sell. If the prices goes up, buy or just hold, and if the price drops buy more! Under what circumstance would you, as a hypothetical financial advisor, advise someone to sell their investment? |
|
|
|
goxed 51% pool (easy came easy gone easy return) crackers and governments and shit having 1200k coins(mtgox 200k, Ross Ulbricht 140k, crackers: 850k) no new money governments warning and banning scam IPOs many including Ethereum and others everyone is selling / spending Dell / Expedia / Newegg / House dealer / etc are selling in real time etc.. To be fair, none of that has to do with "cracking" the technology. For example, there must *always* be a mining monopoly (edit: by this I mean a majority, i.e. a monopoly held by 'good' miners), and I'm pretty sure governments seeking greater control over ideas and technologies isn't unique to Bitcoin. Spending and selling are also pretty awesome because this simply translates into liquidity (and every sale has a buyer), though there are bound to be issues if exosystemic input can't match the output, i.e. fiat money going into the crypto market vastly differs from the amount exiting it. The current inflation doesn't help in this regard. Bitcoin is still an infant and it's trying to leverage itself on a global scale and adapt on the fly to the demands and needs of both citizens and governments in like 190 countries. It's pretty hard not to acknowledge some remarkable resiliency and growth. Although, on the other hand its infancy of course makes it prone to instability and -- quite frankly -- death due to being such a small market in a huge playing field. |
|
|
|
It's been an eventful couple of days. But sometimes things get so crazy and volatile that even the charts and graphs we depend on seem to falter under the pressure. This is a thread to honor our coded comrades who hope we don't remember the times that even they had no idea WTF was going on.  |
|
|
|
Sorry for not being clearer. Basically I'm saying it's not a matter of if a casino makes money, but when...or it's already happened (hence buying two Ferraris).
Actually casinos close all the time. Not a guaranteed winner of an industry. A serious question -- Why do you think high rollers receive complimentary transportation, hotel rooms, food, gifts, and other services from casinos? I think you're just stating the contrary to be a contrarian at this point. You think a Bitcoin casino is dumb for paying for advertising on a Bitcoin forum with over 350,000 registered accounts. You think the account holders are dumb for accepting payment to do something they were already doing for free, and by utilizing a space that would otherwise go unfilled. Mutualism is a great thing, you know (not to mention the sig-campaign simply makes good business sense). By the way, in case you're wondering if these signatures work, I used to keep an old BitcoinPyramid ponzi link in my signature that ended up generating close to two dozen *generations* of referrals. The first generation alone had something like 30 referrals. The second generation consists of all the referrals that the original 30 referrals bring, the third consists of all the referrals that the second generation brings, etc. Now repeat that for two dozen generations. In other words, my single referral link led to literally hundreds of new signups. Edit: Forgot to mention that, not only did the referral link lead to hundreds of new signups, but it was actually one of three links I had in my signature at the time, and there was nothing fancy about the font, no images/graphics, etc. It was simply a one-line hyperlinked statement saying something like "Bitcoin Pyramid - No work and EARN." Sounds like a waste, right? |
|
|
|
Maybe he meant multiple accounts in the same signature
campaigns. Many of the other sig campaigns disallow that.
Edit: he beat me to it
It is against Primedice rules to have more than one account, right? That was my understanding but if that's not the case I'd like to know cause I'd gladly buy a Sr account for 1 BTC if one can post using 2 accounts. I just don't see the point in that as it would lead to many more shitty posts which is already a big problem. That's why I assumed it was against Primedice rules. But if it is not can someone clarify? Thanks! I don't understand how Primedice makes any money whatsoever if they have such loose standards on who they give out (huge sums of) BTC to. Just because some idiot buys 5 Hero Accounts and endlessly spams the forum with them, why would you think 1 person would visit the Primedice site based on his comments? I've never clicked on that stupid Primedice banner, btw. Posting it as your sig just means you are intellectually challenged and you immediately lose 10 credibility points with me. Oh, you just opened yourself up for this, didn't you? 1) If I post constructively yet diligently, I make >$9/hr. sitting on my butt relaxing doing something that I was already doing for free, and which you are doing for free right now. If you were a hero member, that post you just made would have netted you >50 cents. And, when you come back with your rebuttal, that'd be another >50 cents. 2) Mindshare. Mindshare. Mindshare. You don't just make money from someone seeing one of your advertisements and thinking, "Wow! That's the best gosh-darn advertisement I've ever seen! I'm clicking!" You make the real money after your name and brand have permeated into the minds of the community such that, even if people aren't using your service now, they see/hear the name and say, "Oh, right. Prime Dice. Never used them, but they've been around a while and I see their name popping up everywhere, so they must be pretty big." Seriously, just take a look at how ButterflyLabs advertises on this forum, shelling out thousands and thousands of dollars in BTC constantly just to have a banner advertisement somewhere up near the top of a forum post. The funny thing about it is that almost EVERYone who had been around this community for more than a weekend knew how god-awful of a company BFL is, and yet, guess what happened -- people bought from them like mad, and people were still buying 600 gh/s miners from them at >$3000 apiece when other manufacturers were selling comparative models at like 1/4 or 1/5 the price. 3) It's a gambling site with a guaranteed mathematical house edge. It's not a question of, "Will we ever recoup our advertising money?" It's either, "When will we recoup our advertising money?" or "Hey, that's a nice Ferrari. I'll take two."4) Why do you sound so...angry?  U have made a very insightful post IMO. Just care to explain the part i have made red ? Only this part I dint understand. Sorry for not being clearer. Basically I'm saying it's not a matter of if a casino makes money, but when...or it's already happened (hence buying two Ferraris). |
|
|
|
Maybe he meant multiple accounts in the same signature
campaigns. Many of the other sig campaigns disallow that.
Edit: he beat me to it
It is against Primedice rules to have more than one account, right? That was my understanding but if that's not the case I'd like to know cause I'd gladly buy a Sr account for 1 BTC if one can post using 2 accounts. I just don't see the point in that as it would lead to many more shitty posts which is already a big problem. That's why I assumed it was against Primedice rules. But if it is not can someone clarify? Thanks! I don't understand how Primedice makes any money whatsoever if they have such loose standards on who they give out (huge sums of) BTC to. Just because some idiot buys 5 Hero Accounts and endlessly spams the forum with them, why would you think 1 person would visit the Primedice site based on his comments? I've never clicked on that stupid Primedice banner, btw. Posting it as your sig just means you are intellectually challenged and you immediately lose 10 credibility points with me. Oh, you just opened yourself up for this, didn't you? 1) If I post constructively yet diligently, I make >$9/hr. sitting on my butt relaxing doing something that I was already doing for free, and which you are doing for free right now. If you were a hero member, that post you just made would have netted you >50 cents. And, when you come back with your rebuttal, that'd be another >50 cents. 2) Mindshare. Mindshare. Mindshare. You don't just make money from someone seeing one of your advertisements and thinking, "Wow! That's the best gosh-darn advertisement I've ever seen! I'm clicking!" You make the real money after your name and brand have permeated into the minds of the community such that, even if people aren't using your service now, they see/hear the name and say, "Oh, right. Prime Dice. Never used them, but they've been around a while and I see their name popping up everywhere, so they must be pretty big." Seriously, just take a look at how ButterflyLabs advertises on this forum, shelling out thousands and thousands of dollars in BTC constantly just to have a banner advertisement somewhere up near the top of a forum post. The funny thing about it is that almost EVERYone who had been around this community for more than a weekend knew how god-awful of a company BFL is, and yet, guess what happened -- people bought from them like mad, and people were still buying 600 gh/s miners from them at >$3000 apiece when other manufacturers were selling comparative models at like 1/4 or 1/5 the price. 3) It's a gambling site with a guaranteed mathematical house edge. It's not a question of, "Will we ever recoup our advertising money?" It's either, "When will we recoup our advertising money?" or "Hey, that's a nice Ferrari. I'll take two." 4) Why do you sound so...angry? |
|
|
|
guys i shorted @ $462
that means within the next 48h ~$500 will be breached...
and I will literally lose my shorts or eat them.
Just a word of friendly advice, *never* post your position! Anyone else remember that one dude who posted his leveraged position on Bitcoinica to brag about the ~$24k profit he made, only to be forced out of his position 10 minutes later? |
|
|
|
Did you get your asking price?
Yes, 1.8 BTC shipped. |
|
|
|
Can I see pictures of the coin ? I'll make an offer after I see some pictures.
I'm sorry, I actually just sold the thing. I updated the thread title to reflect this. The buyer may post details of the transaction if he wishes. |
|
|
|
Interested in trades?
Unfortunately, no, not at this time. I need to liquidate to cover some necessary expenses, so I'm just looking for BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I'm looking to sell one (1) 2012 1-BTC brass Casascius physical bitcoin.
Aside from being more uncommon than the 2013s:
- Coin is in uncirculated, excellent condition
- Coin has been stored in a a safe since its delivery date
- Minted January 2012
- I am the first owner
Rules
- PM or post in this thread an offer I can't refuse; make sure your offer includes shipping.
- Once a deal is reached, I will provide you with a BTC address for payment. You will provide me with a name and shipping address.
- Once payment is received, the coin will ship ASAP and I will provide you with tracking.
- No escrow. You can trust me.
Just to get things started, I'm looking in the ballpark of 1.8 BTC, but let's see where this goes.
|
|
|
|
Sellers!
People i know that some of you are behind this wild selling. But I would like to point to you that we still have a lot of ways to go with bitcoin. And selling at this point would only make the road tardier. We have a goal, to jump 1,000 dollars and beyond. This is my dreams and yours, we have a dream people. If you sell now at these prices you would be giving up on that dream.
Surely this selling has got to stop, it's confusion. I know it's everyone on it's own, and that it's a free market full of competition, but let's unite for a common goal. This common goal which is of us all. No is a powerful word, say NO to selling at these prices, refuse. If we all unanimously refuse, if we all stand resolute at this hour of adversity we'll bring value back into bitcoin.
To buyers
You have to protest, protest against this market, set your buy orders high, high into the sky, up at 2,000 and above, refuse to buy any lower, show the market that bitcoin has more value than this and that you are ready to pay great sums, take one for the community. This attitude of cannibalizing on others fears and feeding on others angsts hinders bitcoin's growth.
Thank You from the bottom of my heart.
This will never work. Ever. If everyone cumulatively refused to buy and/or sell at sub-$2000, you will still get at least one guy who sets his bid/ask at $1999. Then you get someone in at $1998, then $1997, etc. This would continually happen until we get to the price we're at now. |
|
|
|
As far as I know, that is correct, and it is what I assumed. Japan also (I suspect) have a ton of enriched Plutonium, acquired from its many nuclear power plants. Also, if we can get enough Uranium for Reactors, wouldn't it be a lot more than enough for bombs too?
There are two huge problem with Plutonium acquired from energy nuclear reactors, one is that it is bound to other elements, and two you'll have not only Pu 239 but also 238 240 and 241, and that Pu-240 is highly fissile and would simply cause a bomb to pre-detonate and fizzle. Also Japans Nuclear waste and circuit is controlled by the IAEA like in any other country, that doesn't mean that Japan cannot built a nuclear bomb within a couple of year, but that would against the non proliferation agreement and also the peace treaty they signed with the US. It's almost impossible for any country to acquire nuclear weapons, unless the country is willing to pay the price as North Korea Getting the plutonium necessary to construct a nuke is *much* easier to get than uranium. Building the nuke, however, is insanely complicated. Access to uranium = very hard; construction = very easy Access to plutonium = fairly easy; construction = insanely hard |
|
|
|
This means that in 2017 people who have registered on here just today have a potential of being "Legendary"? I'm not really a fan of emotes, but I gotta use this one... That's what I'm saying. It only takes about 2 years and 4 months for a brand new account to possibly become "Legendary". Now if you think of the meaning of the word, someone can become a legend after ~2 years? Really?? You could just do forum rank according to standard deviations and set legendary rank for accounts with activity above 3 standard deviations. This would ensure that the highest rank is always highly exclusive. Bell curve distribution with no skew has its merits, too. that is... beautiful... 3 SD above: legendary 2 SD above: hero 1 SD above: senior average: member 1 SD below: candidate 2 SD below: junior 3 SD below: newbie Do it and see the number of automated registration skyrocket only to lower the requisites to reach member status. Add other requisites(minimum post or activity to count into the statistics, etc), and you will see bot accounts all around trying o manipulate the system. It is a nice idea, but I dobt it would work, and I'm sure it would be a pain for the mods. The standard deviation idea is incomplete in and of itself, but there are a variety of fairly simple ways that you can mitigate this issue. For example, a very simple idea would be to set an invariable range for newbie status with an activity threshold set high enough to effectively rule out all irrelevant accounts from the data. In other words, newbies wouldn't even factor into the mean. I'd expect a fairly normal distribution to emerge if you were to exclude all accounts with an activity level below, say 50-100. |
|
|
|
This means that in 2017 people who have registered on here just today have a potential of being "Legendary"? I'm not really a fan of emotes, but I gotta use this one... That's what I'm saying. It only takes about 2 years and 4 months for a brand new account to possibly become "Legendary". Now if you think of the meaning of the word, someone can become a legend after ~2 years? Really?? You could just do forum rank according to standard deviations and set legendary rank for accounts with activity above 3 standard deviations. This would ensure that the highest rank is always highly exclusive. Bell curve distribution with no skew has its merits, too. that is... beautiful... 3 SD above: legendary 2 SD above: hero 1 SD above: senior average: member 1 SD below: candidate 2 SD below: junior 3 SD below: newbie I think you'll find that the mean is much lower than you think due to the vast number of new accounts. Anything below the mean would likely be Newbie. Not sure about that. Not anymore, at least. Looks to me like user registration numbers go through "growth spurts", similar to (and probably highly related with) price. Other than during those growth spurts, registrations seem to stagnate. Lately, I'm under the impression that except for a few newbie troll accounts, I'm only having conversations with seniors and above. Then again, I can only speak for the speculation sub, and I don't have any hard numbers on this, only a feeling. The solution is to look at a site-wide average of activity over time, no? If it keeps falling, you're right. According to the stats page, there are 350419 members and 8293716 posts, meaning an average post count of 24. Since activity is always lower than post count, that means the mean user is a Newbie-level. There are many reasonable ways you can account for the skewed numerical distribution. |
|
|
|
I find this article very interesting. What is the difference between empathy and sympathy? Both empathy and sympathy are feelings concerning other people. Sympathy is literally 'feeling with' - compassion for or commiseration with another person. Empathy, by contrast, is literally 'feeling into' - the ability to project one's personality into another person and more fully understand that person. Sympathy derives from Latin and Greek words meaning 'having a fellow feeling'. The term empathy originated in psychology (translation of a German term, c. 1903) and has now come to mean the ability to imagine or project oneself into another person's position and experience all the sensations involved in that position. You feel empathy when you've "been there", and sympathy when you haven't. Examples: We felt sympathy for the team members who tried hard but were not appreciated. / We felt empathy for children with asthma because their parents won't remove pets from the household. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/d23.htmlI think the article is slightly inaccurate. To me, based on the etymology the difference between sympathy and empathy is *very* subtle, with the key difference being that, in addition to sharing similar emotional states, empathy is conveyed with an intention to help alleviate the other person from suffering. This intention is not conveyed through sympathy. |
|
|
|
The root is closer to the word pathos, meaning appeal to emotions.
I think it's basically the same thing, it's just a specific derivative. Think "pathology." Emotions are not a type of illness; they are one of the best guides we have. No, but the 'pathy' in sympathy and empathy is referring to a more specific derivation of a more general concept of feeling, I.e. some form of suffering or disease. http://i.word.com/idictionary/-pathy |
|
|
|
This means that in 2017 people who have registered on here just today have a potential of being "Legendary"? I'm not really a fan of emotes, but I gotta use this one... That's what I'm saying. It only takes about 2 years and 4 months for a brand new account to possibly become "Legendary". Now if you think of the meaning of the word, someone can become a legend after ~2 years? Really?? You could just do forum rank according to standard deviations and set legendary rank for accounts with activity above 3 standard deviations. This would ensure that the highest rank is always highly exclusive. Bell curve distribution with no skew has its merits, too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
Listen to him, OP!
