Bitcoin Forum
April 24, 2014, 01:10:41 AM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ... 159
1421  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ? on: May 06, 2012, 04:51:26 PM
The three characteristics of money are:

1. Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of account

There have been occasional variations and exceptions throughout history, such as fungibility being an aspect of money, or money lacking a store of value function, which is common among fiat currencies. The earliest money was fiat unit of account money in ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Egypt had gold ingots for units of account and stores of value, but there was no gold medium of exchange. Coins came much, much later, probably in ancient Lydia.

Then oxygen it is.

1.)  Store of value --> without it, you die; oxygen provides energy.
2.)  Medium of exchange -->  yep, inhale/exhale
3.)  Unit of account -->  O2.

Surely, money is more than these 3 things.

Not sure if trolling or.....

Basically, you're confusing an economy with breathing.

I would explain this, but I think it's self-evident.



Hey, if someone can pick up a stick and say it's money, then for damn sure oxygen could be money.

I'm being serious when I say this, but I've thought of starting a bottled-air business. I'm sure there'd be a whole bunch of people that would be interested.  Want a sealed bottle filled with air from Antarctica?  Or maybe a bottled that was opened and sealed on the Moon and flown back to Earth?  Or maybe air from your favorite celebrity's bedroom?

I see no reason to believe that air couldn't become money in the way that you have defined it.

Extend this idea a little further and I would purchase from you. I think you should sell celebrity queefs. I’ll take two bottles of Adriana Lima and a bottle of Megan Fox.

I'll try to get a hold of Adriana, but we tried a few with Megan and she melted the bottles Sad

I'll keep you posted.
1422  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ? on: May 06, 2012, 04:39:13 PM
The three characteristics of money are:

1. Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of account

There have been occasional variations and exceptions throughout history, such as fungibility being an aspect of money, or money lacking a store of value function, which is common among fiat currencies. The earliest money was fiat unit of account money in ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Egypt had gold ingots for units of account and stores of value, but there was no gold medium of exchange. Coins came much, much later, probably in ancient Lydia.

Then oxygen it is.

1.)  Store of value --> without it, you die; oxygen provides energy.
2.)  Medium of exchange -->  yep, inhale/exhale
3.)  Unit of account -->  O2.

Surely, money is more than these 3 things.

Not sure if trolling or.....

Basically, you're confusing an economy with breathing.

I would explain this, but I think it's self-evident.



Hey, if someone can pick up a stick and say it's money, then for damn sure oxygen could be money.

I'm being serious when I say this, but I've thought of starting a bottled-air business. I'm sure there'd be a whole bunch of people that would be interested.  Want a sealed bottle filled with air from Antarctica?  Or maybe a bottled that was opened and sealed on the Moon and flown back to Earth?  Or maybe air from your favorite celebrity's bedroom?

I see no reason to believe that air couldn't become money in the way that you have defined it.
1423  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ? on: May 06, 2012, 01:41:21 AM
The three characteristics of money are:

1. Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of account

There have been occasional variations and exceptions throughout history, such as fungibility being an aspect of money, or money lacking a store of value function, which is common among fiat currencies. The earliest money was fiat unit of account money in ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Egypt had gold ingots for units of account and stores of value, but there was no gold medium of exchange. Coins came much, much later, probably in ancient Lydia.

Then oxygen it is.

1.)  Store of value --> without it, you die; oxygen provides energy.
2.)  Medium of exchange -->  yep, inhale/exhale
3.)  Unit of account -->  O2.

Surely, money is more than these 3 things.
1424  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ? on: May 06, 2012, 01:36:35 AM
The stick example mentioned by a few people is actually close to truth. For hundreds of years, tally sticks were used as money.

Yep.
1425  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A Money/Bitcoin Article - By: Me on: May 06, 2012, 01:33:22 AM
I am fearful that we will never succeed as a species in overcoming a problem that we have created for ourselves, and equally fearful that we will continue to live our lives blindly influenced by the power of money, giving up our guitars and other things that make us grow as individuals for the additional capacity to exert control over others.

Money has no power. Using money is the opposite of using violence. Using money means that there is a negotiation going on. Therefore, if your tool is only your money and you don't have the consent of the other person, there is nothing you can do to control him.

Yes, I agree that there is negotiation going on...nobody is forcing anyone into a monetary transaction.

But, I do not agree that money has no power.  By this I do not mean that money objectively has power, but that we give it power and that we are unaware of how much.  I'm suggesting that we ironically exercise our control by choosing to relinquish it; we submit to multiplied propagation.  I'm suggesting that the paths most of us take in life are fundamentally altered by money more than most other variables.  We do things that we would not otherwise choose to do for money, even things that cause us an unhealthy level of stress.  We turn down jobs that sound rewarding in favor of a rewarding paycheck.  We buy clothes and devices simply because they ARE more expensive (i.e. name-brand items).  We buy watches instead of guitars when we already have clocks everywhere and when we really like playing guitars.

Actually, in this sense, I am saying money is like a drug.  Surely, everyone chooses to use drugs, but the more you use them, the more they influence you to continue using it by altering your associations.  Drugs alter your associations (my meals are SO much more satisfying if they are followed by a cigarette) and so does money (my watch is SO much more valuable because it's made of gold).

While there may be nothing you can do to literally control a person with money (other than hiring someone to physically control him), there is one hell of a lot you can to do influence him.  And, because people are largely unaware of the effects of money, knowingly influencing a person with it is deceitful.


1426  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ? on: May 06, 2012, 12:32:04 AM
Asdf,

Ironically, I posted this today which correlates very well.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79755.msg884319#msg884319
1427  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ? on: May 05, 2012, 11:18:34 PM

How do you build a house without money?

You produce wool. The brick maker needs a jumper. So you trade. How many bricks can you get for a jumpers worth of wool? 3? 10? not enough to build a house. So what do you do.

The brick maker might need some eggs, but you don't make eggs. You can trade wool for eggs with the egg maker, then trade those eggs for bricks, but then eggs would be MONEY! And that's against the rules.

You could make your own eggs, but the brick maker only needs a few for his lunch. So now you have 20 bricks. long way to go.

You just could make everything the brick maker desires until you have a house worth of bricks. But now you have, by definition, removed specialization from the economy.

You may have food and shelter, but it won't be "ample".


yes, but as soon as I trade that stick for a leaf, that stick is money.

By the way, there's a positive correlation between money and mental illness given that mental illness is more prevalent in industrialized nations. 

That proves it!

I've seen you say some brilliant things, but I must admit I'm pretty astonished to read your argument.

Money is what a GOVERNMENT says it is.  Silver is NOT money in any market and it hasn't been since blue-seal notes were utilized.  It is a commodity.  Legal tender notes and gold are money (gold is money because the government still allows debts to be paid with gold).  Take a silver eagle into a store and try to buy something with it.  You will find that you will receive face value for your coin and not the value of the silver content as suggested by commodity markets.

If you define money as "what the government says it is" then sure, we can have a great economy without money.

It's funny that you are astonished by evoorhees argument, because I'm pretty sure you have no idea what that argument is.

1.)  Regardless of what you consider to be ample shelter, none of what you posted has anything do with the circularity of the  "no money = poverty" argument.

2.)  No, the stick is not money.  Seriously, are you going to go so far as to say that the oxygen you breathe is money because there was an exchange taking place between you and plants?

3.)  The comment about the correlation between mental illness and money doesn't 'prove' anything, nor was it intended to.  Actually, what I said was circular too -- mental illness is defined by industrialized nations and so naturally it is more prevalent in industrialized nations.  This was stated to demonstrate how the "no money = poverty" argument is absurd.

4.)  Money is what the government says it is because we do not have a free market.  The economy is governed.  Where money functions in a centralized economy, it is determined by the centralized authority.  If you want to go around calling sticks and oxygen money, then go for it, they can be money to you -- now go into a store and see what you can buy with them.
1428  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ? on: May 05, 2012, 10:13:04 PM
Roll Eyes

"For the first time, I was seriously realizing I could live totally moneyless."

Um yeah... because you hitch hiked off other people's generosity, and used clothing and tools created by the money-society you are pretending to reject. And then took a flight to Thailand and India, using a plane built by thousands of years of human ingenuity and progress which was enabled by trade and exchange, which was in turn facilitated by money... and then reported about it on a computer.

The dude is a 'tard. Wanna live off the grid? Fine, that's cool. But unless you're crafting tools from wood and stone and living in a shelter made of logs with clothes made from grasses and deer skins, then you're just fooling yourself.

A moneyless society is a society of starvation and utter poverty, and a world without trade, production, and exchange is a world without the leisure time one might desire for the purposes of reflecting on such fantastical notions as "a world without money."

Idiot, what makes you think a world without money is a world without trade, production and "exchange" ?

Calling someone a 'tard then come off as a completely idiot is priceless - (or should i say moneyless? )



A world without money IS a world without trade, production and exchange. Money is impossible to avoid when people trade with each other, for they begin by bartering, and soon discover that certain goods are most easily bartered for (grain becomes easier to trade than bicycles, even if the other person doesn't want grain for his own consumption). Thus, you quickly discover that certain goods in the barter economy become traded very commonly. And voila, that's called money.

In other words, in order to have an economy WITHOUT money at all, there would need to be a law that you could only trade for things you would personally consume or use, and nothing could be traded twice. If a society actually had those rules, I suggest that trade, production, and exchange would be rare, inefficient, and burdensome.

Thus, I think my point was a fair one. Without allowing for money, an economy is not an economy. Whether the money is grain, cigarettes, seashells, gold, pieces of paper with leaders' faces, or Bitcoins... money ALWAYS emerges when people trade with each other. Money is intrinsic to exchange - they cannot be separated.

Fair, if your definition of fair is utterly stupid.

First of all , "A moneyless society is a society of starvation and utter poverty" is completely false. You are pulling crap out of your ass.

While a moneyless world would make trading inefficient, it doesnt mean its an inferior world in anyway. Trading originally is a way to share resources and transfer wealth. Its now an exploitation of modern slavery. In a moneyless world, trading is not necessary.

Moneyless world is a world without production? really? You're such naive to think its money that gives ppl incentives to work and produce.



Inefficient to the point of starvation and utter poverty. I consider that inferior, but you're welcome to disagree with that judgement.

You did not address the point of my prior post - that money is intrinsic to exchange. If you are opposed to money, you are opposed to exchange, because money is just the name given to that good exchanged most commonly.

And please explain how "trading is an exploitation of modern slavery"?  When I trade my eggs to Bob in return for several loaves of bread, which of us was exploited? Also, was money involved... were the eggs money, or the bread? Has either of us done something wrong by agreeing to the trade? Now... what if instead of eggs I actually traded Bob a small bar of silver for the bread? Has exploitation occurred? Is silver money... or is bread? And one step further, what if the silver is cut into round circles. Is silver money yet? What if... I actually previously traded my bar of silver for a deposit receipt from a man who promised to guard the silver from bandits, and then I trade the receipt for the bread?  Any exploitation occurring yet? Did I use money?

My point is this: money is not anything weird or separate from barter. Money IS barter. It's just the name given to the most commonly bartered item. And again, if you're opposed to money, you must necessarily be opposed to barter, and thus trade, and thus exchange. And if so, you are condemning man to live with only what he is able to produce himself. This is a world of poverty and starvation, and if you don't think that's inferior, then we can disagree on that point.


The 'poverty' argument is circular.  The word poverty can mean different things (impoverished how?) but obviously if you define poverty as a lack of money, then you will always determine that a world without money is an impoverished one.   Would you suggest that it is impossible to not have any money but have ample food and shelter?

Money is NOT barter.  Bartering/exchanging is a process, money is not.  Money is not intrinsic to exchange.  "Hey, here's a stick I found on the ground.  I'll give you this stick if you give me that pebble."

By the way, there's a positive correlation between money and mental illness given that mental illness is more prevalent in industrialized nations. 

I've seen you say some brilliant things, but I must admit I'm pretty astonished to read your argument.

Money is what a GOVERNMENT says it is.  Silver is NOT money in any market and it hasn't been since blue-seal notes were utilized.  It is a commodity.  Legal tender notes and gold are money (gold is money because the government still allows debts to be paid with gold).  Take a silver eagle into a store and try to buy something with it.  You will find that you will receive face value for your coin and not the value of the silver content as suggested by commodity markets.

1429  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A Money/Bitcoin Article - By: Me on: May 05, 2012, 09:34:27 PM
Its not often id read an article this long.

My opinion is that you do not write this sort of thing much but I must say I did enjoy it as it somewhat differs from the and wanders from the expected.

I aproove Wink

Thank you!  I'm happy you found it enjoyable Smiley
1430  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: SR $100k+ bitcoin scam on: May 05, 2012, 09:25:32 PM
Eh, big deal.

Drugs +  scam?  Shocking? 

Its like fishing -- when you cast your line out over and over and over again, eventually a fish is going to take it.  Even if you intentionally place your line in a spot where you think there are no fish, it is still only a matter of time before some stray fish comes along and takes the bait.

If you use/buy/sell drugs, it's usually just a matter of time before the hammer drops.
1431  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / A Money/Bitcoin Article - By: Me on: May 05, 2012, 09:03:34 PM
So, a while back, Atlas had paid me a couple BTC to write an article for him which would be posted on some website that he was working on.  He had requested the rights to its usage, but seeing as the website he mentioned is nowhere to be found, I figured I would put it to some other use.  I also sent him messages seeing if he still had any plans for the article, but I never received a response.

So, here it is...my Money/Bitcoin Article:


Money’s Fundamental Flaw:  The Displacement of Value 
‘The Joint’
1CWwXXrcJZk6krbLcQtPQ8ZEvkrb42A3WW


   To those of you who have stumbled across this article, it is likely that you frequent the Bitcoin community online forum at www.Bitcointalk.org.  I have been a Bitcoin- and forum user since the time immediately following the burst of the June bubble.  One of the first posts I made on the community forum referenced an idea I have had about money for quite some time.  Now, keep in mind that I am no economic genius.  In fact, I’ve never taken a class in anything economically related as far as I recall.  However, I have a feeling that what I am about to discuss is completely tangential to anything I or anyone else could ever hope to learn from a class on economics.  After all, there is an a priori assumption that money is here to stay -- economics classes don’t question the value of money, they assume it.

   Over the past few months, I’ve grown to love Bitcoin for a number of reasons.  I’ll admit, many of these reasons are selfish ones.  Speculation readily contributes to a large percentage of these reasons; who wouldn’t be enticed by the possibility of acquiring unfathomable wealth like the first generation of early adopters?  The way I see it, the chances of getting rich from Bitcoin by jumping on-board early far exceed the chances of winning the lottery.  In the meantime, day-trading Bitcoins is the perfect mix between adrenaline-pumping gambling and short-term investing.

   My other reasons for liking Bitcoin are not selfish.  In theory, I favor the idea of decentralized currency over current economic systems.  I like the idea of being able to send money from point A to point B in the same, simple manner without the distance between points A and B becoming an issue.  I like the idea of people being in control of their money and taking personal responsibility for it.  And, I like that Bitcoin is sensitive to the future needs of humanity, especially in a world where instantaneous, international transactions can fuel global commerce and technological developments.

   Now, these unselfish reasons don’t really matter to me.  I suppose they would matter more if Bitcoin was a global reality.  If this was the case, I would be forced to adapt to that reality as I have adapted to my current reality, the one in which fiat currency reigns supreme.  But it’s the selfish reasons that keep me using Bitcoin at present, not the unselfish ones.  Bitcoin is a source of income in the present.  The name of the game is money, and fiat is the referee.  And, even though I don’t like all the calls, I still can’t wait to play every day.  In fact, I want to be an all-star.

   Money is powerful.  With money I can get people to do all sorts of things for me at my beckoning.  Heck, with money, I bet I can get YOU to do all sorts of things for me.  Maybe it’s just me, but I think all of us have drawn an imaginary money-line in our minds and we think, “If only I had x amount of dollars, I could live my life the way that I want to.”  But, until you acquire enough wealth to surpass that imaginary threshold, money will always be at least a slight concern to you.

   So, what’s the problem?  Money is needed, isn’t it?  How else can global commerce and industry function?  Well, once upon a time, money hadn’t been invented yet.  Bartering existed prior to the invention of money, but bartering seemingly doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of fulfilling the requirements needed for international trade.  Here’s how I think a typical dialogue between large businesses might unfold in a bartering economy:

Company A:  “Hi, is this Quaker?  Yes, we would like to order 500,000 boxes of Captain Crunch, please.”
Company B:  “Surely!  And what might you be able to offer us in return?”
Company A:  “We have properly amassed 10 million plastic spoons.”
Company B:  “Click.”

   Obviously, some globally-accepted standard of value is needed to execute such large transactions.  Capitalism invokes competition which leads to big business; this is nothing we haven’t heard before.  But, big businesses make big transactions and there is no way that the individuals atop the pyramid have any need for 10 million plastic spoons, cereal boxes, t-shirts, shoes, or even cars and houses.  Without a global standard of value, these transactions are dead before they even get off the ground.

   Allowing a caveat for a radical ideological shift (perhaps ‘true’ communism --  not the kind we have witnessed unfold throughout history that has undoubtedly failed due to greed, corruption, and deviants of the system), it thus seems impossible that international commerce can continue its frenzied pace without money.  But, I would like to take on the ambitious task of raising the following question:  Is the convenience of money and its contributions to global commerce worth it?

   By now, you might be wondering where I am going with all of this.  Enter Bitcoin.  Bitcoin seems to be one man’s/community’s answer to the question, “If centralized currency is no good, what is a better alternative?”  I would instead like to rephrase the question to read, “If centralized currency is no good, what is the best alternative?”  And, having the critical mind that I do, I had to ask if the lack of money might, in fact, be preferable to monetary systems.

   When people trade as in a bartering system, they are left to their own devices to determine if they got a good deal.  Any person, no matter how stupid, can place their own subjective value upon a good they desire.  Then, they can place their own subjective value upon goods they can offer in exchange.  The whole deal turns into a very simple math problem:  If the value I place on the goods I want is equal-to or greater-than the value I place on the goods I am offering, then I’m a happy camper.

   Unfortunately, money doesn’t work like this.  It doesn’t even matter if money is backed by something like gold or not, money does strange things to the human psyche.  Let me give you an example.  I don’t know what you love, but I love my guitars.  One guitar, the first guitar I ever owned, is a beautiful American-made Randy Rhoads Jackson Half-V guitar.  The craftsmanship on the guitar is incredible.  The wood on this guitar, unlike cheaper guitars, sounds better with age, much like how fine wines mature over time.  I also have two other guitars which are not so nice, but I love them all the same.  Playing my guitars is intrinsically beneficial for me, and it makes me happy.  In 100 out of 100 scenarios, I would always prefer to keep any of my guitars over, say, a watch.  Watches don’t make me happy.  They aren’t intrinsically beneficial to me.  I don’t even care if the watch is resistant to nuclear explosions and is submersible to the depth of the Mariana Trench.  But, if that watch is 24k gold, you better believe I’d prefer the watch.  Hell, I’d even buy a brand new guitar and give it to you for the watch (if anyone reading this wants to take me up on this offer, let me know!).

   So, what on Earth is going on here?  Why on earth would I immediately prefer to have some “dumb rock” (i.e. gold) over something that leaves me content, satisfied, and happy time and time again?  If someone offered me an aluminum watch for my guitar, I’d probably start thumbing through the section of psychotic disorders in my DSM-IV so that I’d at least have a conceptual framework to help explain the insanity of his offer.  Well, here is what I believe is going on, and it is the crux of this article:  Money displaces a person’s subjective value of a thing and redistributes it according to a currency’s accepted value.   As a result, I argue that the simple existence of currency completely reframes our interpretation of reality.  And, I don’t think this reframing is a good thing.

   I assume that anyone reading this is already familiar with the pitfalls of fiat currency, but something akin to the gold standard does nothing to address this situation, either.  A long time ago, rocks used to have a purpose.  Rocks that could be shaped yet remain resistant to breakage would have likely been seen as more valuable in terms of utility than gold.  These rocks were common enough that you could find them using your individual capacities.  And, these rocks could be used to kill your dinner, help you cut it up, help to build the fire that would both cook your dinner and emit heat to warm you during the night, and help you to construct a safe, dry shelter.  Actually, they can still do these things.

   Whereas rocks that are capable of performing these tasks are quite common, gold is quite rare.  It’s an interesting paradox that gold, though also capable of performing these same tasks, is regarded as so valuable, but the things that seem truly valuable are the “rocks” and other common elements that we depend on for survival on a daily basis.  Do we have it backwards?  Why does gold’s rarity contribute so highly to its value when far more common elements can help achieve many of the same tasks?  While I understand that some valuable metals or stones have properties that make them suitable for specialized jobs (diamond’s extreme density comes to mind), one’s survival does not usually depend on these specialized jobs.  Instead, we depend on tools that allow us to eat and sleep in comfort.  We do not depend on diamond-etching.

   Now, I’m sure there are plenty of specialized jobs in fields such as medicine or engineering that are enhanced by the properties of these rare metals or stones that do, in fact, cater to man’s survival and comfort.  But, if these jobs promote healing, growth, and comfort, why is the price for these materials so high?  Especially if life or happiness is at stake, why aren’t we giving them away?  Is there not a way to make these materials available for jobs that aid people that doesn’t come with a ludicrous price tag?  While this price tag may prevent the general population from hoarding these rare materials for themselves (thus preventing well-to-do companies from acquiring and implementing them for humanity‘s benefit), the problem of money creeps up again:  If the value of these materials wasn’t determined by money, would people want to hoard them so badly?

   In this way, money shapes our reality before our eyes continually and unrelentingly.   Ironically, even those with large sums of wealth are controlled by its power, for it is the power of money that drives their desire to acquire it.  Because we live in an age where basic needs are not typically a day-to-day concern, money gains additional power over us.  It diverts our attention away from that which is intrinsically beneficial to us toward a realm of imaginative speculation fortified by the beliefs of billions of individuals.  And these beliefs are very, very strong.  These beliefs lead many of us (and, through law, direct us) to delve into nearly two decades of bureaucratic education just so we have a competitive edge in our quest for money.  Our contributions to society are often measured in terms of economic output, and while this output may be indirectly related to a person’s well-being, it is in no way directly responsible for it.  Contributions are not defined in terms of smiles or anything that remotely represents an operational measure for happiness.  Isn’t happiness what we all want, anyway?  By definition, wouldn’t a happy life be the most satisfying?

   Now, I wouldn’t dare say that money has complete control over us, nor does its power completely influence our decisions.  The closer we find ourselves to human tragedy, the more likely we are to make sacrifices to remedy it -- deep down, we know what is truly important, and money isn‘t it.  Perhaps it is from this sequestered realm of human intuition that Bitcoin has sprung forth in all of it’s digital glory.  Bitcoin is thoughtful, and while it does not address the problem of money as I have identified it, it proposes a bright alternative to traditional economic systems.  Perhaps Bitcoin can, over time, dampen the power of money over people through decentralization, but this has yet to be seen, and the number of Bitcoin-related scams, alternative crypto-currencies, and phishing attempts allude to the idea that we are a long way off from securing a corruption-ridden economic future for mankind.  I am fearful that we will never succeed as a species in overcoming a problem that we have created for ourselves, and equally fearful that we will continue to live our lives blindly influenced by the power of money, giving up our guitars and other things that make us grow as individuals for the additional capacity to exert control over others.  Balance is needed to halt greed and corruption while simultaneously allowing for avenues to both economic growth and growth of the human spirit.  And, while I remain skeptical, I hope that Bitcoin is the solution that proves me wrong.
1432  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Second amendment ftw or gtfo? on: May 05, 2012, 08:31:07 PM
When naughty little Americans do bad things with their guns, Mommy and Daddy have to teach them a lesson by taking their privileges away.

And if you ask why, they will respond, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!"

1433  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: (30GH/s) Mining at TripleMining, wanting to switch to Deepbit - Should I? on: May 05, 2012, 08:14:26 PM
The OP sounds so ridiculous  Huh
10Gh/s already, has no clue about simple math (still has questions about pool fees)
Got a sheep mentality - "Deepbit must better, after all everybody is on it !"
Planning to expand to 30Gh/s, has no idea about remote access, walks around with a monitor (CRT ?) in hand instead Cheesy
Don't care for monitoring the machines - can't be bothered, but still drops in the room occasionally, to check if the rigs did not ran away  Grin

Zakcy, let me ask you - where did you get the money ? You mom's purse ?
I hope you are 15 and all this is just a wet dream of yours.

I'm just scared to think how many other like him are out there...



I'm scared to think how many others are like you out there.  

I honestly think the biggest threat to Bitcoin is the Bitcoin community and their pompous, arrogant attitudes.
1434  Economy / Currency exchange / Re: WTS: 2x 10BTC Casascius Bitcoins on: May 05, 2012, 07:21:58 PM
I'd pay 32 BTC for both with codes intact.
1435  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: (30GH/s) Mining at TripleMining, wanting to switch to Deepbit - Should I? on: May 05, 2012, 07:16:59 PM
Hey OP, that's why I penned this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77545.msg861949#msg861949

My guess is that you'll be losing out on an additional $8-$12 per day by using Deepbit.
1436  Economy / Services / Re: [ PAYING 33-53 BTC ] Create a Graphical Introduction to Bitcoin Thread on: May 05, 2012, 01:44:01 AM
I'm 16 years old, and got into Bitcoin when I was 15 years old. Granted I've been programming, doing server administration, and the likes for years and years, but I was able to understand the technical aspect of it.

That said, it isn't necessary to understand the technical side of it, and is in fact a turn-off to a lot of people. It makes Bitcoin seem "geeky" and only for tech guys. If the person is really interested in the technical side of it, they can learn that after the fact.

Just introduce them to Bitcoin, I say. But then, this isn't my bounty.

+1, you nailed it.

Unfortunately, computer geeks typically aren't too great at psychology which is the basis for effective marketing.

People like to feel safe, secure, loved, cool, sexy, excited, etc.

Nobody gives a shit about C++ or linux or FPGAs or cryptography.

But, if you can convince someone that using Bitcoin makes them cooler and sexier, then you have a winner.  When you have an unbelievably awesome product and you market it inappropriately, you end up where TiVo is.
1437  Economy / Goods / Re: [WTB] Gold and Silver -- Gauging Supply on: May 03, 2012, 08:00:51 PM
I (NCKRAZZE) agree to send (1) 2007 American Eagle Silver Dollar to (the joint) for a total of 6.44 BTC. Payment shall be made with 24 hours of when tracking says that the item has arrived, or there will be an interest rate of (.1%) added per 24 hours of late payment.
6.44 does not include the shipping cost, the joint will send the amount of bitcoins for shipping on top of the 6.44btc.

It will be shipped with insurance as requested, and with a tracking number.

the joint, if this is all correct, please reply with an ok for me to ship.

Confirmed and PMed.
1438  Economy / Goods / Re: [WTB] Gold and Silver -- Gauging Supply on: May 03, 2012, 07:27:09 AM
If you are interested in anything larger, I have 2 100oz bars I am willing to part with for market value. Shipping would be apart from that price and would go USPS Flat rate anywhere in the USA. Escrow will be used.

Too steep for me at the moment.  Thanks though!
1439  Economy / Goods / Re: [WTB] Gold and Silver -- Gauging Supply on: May 03, 2012, 07:25:41 AM
Just curious if "market value" includes the premium associated with bullion coins.

For example, look at http://www.monex.com/liveprices - the spot price of a Vienna Philharmonic is $1653 or $1717?


Yes, it includes the premiums, but I'd prefer they're uncirculated and/or graded.
1440  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: GambleCoin - Alt Currency Idea on: May 02, 2012, 11:35:48 PM
It seems like this would create an incentive to keep your coins in an huge number of wallets, so when you get randomly picked you only lose a small fraction of your value. 

I don't think having users spread coins between hundreds of wallets is your intention.

You could do that, but in the long run it wouldn't make much difference.  All it would do is decrease the chances that you would lose all of your coins at once.

One downside would be that if this occurred on a mass level, the whole idea might become pointless.  Let's say someone had 100 wallets.  At a 5% decay rate per month, you could expect that, on average, 5 wallets would be selected for decay.  In this case, the "gamble" becomes predictable.

In other words, it would likely turn into a coin where people simply lose 5% of their current holdings every month.

Almost sounds like the Occcu  Cheesy

Occcu = GambleCoin?
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ... 159
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!