Bitcoin Forum
July 05, 2015, 05:31:33 PM *
News: ♦♦♦ If you are using any wallet other than Bitcoin Core 0.10.x or 0.9.5, then you should not trust incoming transactions until they have ~30 confirmations. More info.
 
  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 ... 218 »
1421  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Need major help - PLEASE 1600 BTC on: December 08, 2013, 04:21:48 PM
This is some advice that might save you some headache: 

Contact BitPay and see if you can't open a miner's account.  This will allow you to cash out through BitPay, bypassing the exchanges entirely.  Talk to them about the amount of BTC you may cash out at any given time and see if there are any transaction limits.

This will allow you to do several things:
1) You can cash out without worrying about the clusterfuck that occurs on exchanges during massive swings.
2) You can cash out without having to hold your funds indefinitely on an exchange.
3) You can let BitPay credit your bank account via an ACH transfer rather than waiting forever for exchanges to clear a wire transfer.
1422  Economy / Speculation / Re: It's over. Bitcoin is finished. on: December 07, 2013, 11:37:58 PM
He'll be waiting on our table at an expensive restaurant - we'll give him a tip in bitcoin as we leave to get back onto our yachts for another exciting day in the sun

Greed, delusion, combined with an ignorance for both technology and economics gets you the typical bitcoin user.

...While jealousy and passive aggression characterize his antagonists.
1423  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: December 07, 2013, 03:40:40 AM
LSD shows you god.  You'll find the Akashic records, the universe and your soul.

I learned more about life in four trips than all of high school.  Granted, my friends and environment were a big part of that.

It compiles all your previous knowledge and experiences and gives you a global/decentralized perspective of it.

Trust me, it's way cooler when you don't have to sacrifice your motor skills, and when you don't have to pay some guy with smelly dreadlocks 10 bucks to suck on a sugar cube.  LSD imposes certain obvious constraints at the same time it removes others.
1424  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: December 06, 2013, 11:44:29 PM
You learn about the world by forming a series of abstract categorical relationships about it.  This literally defines the way reality appears to you.  There is no wall for you to bump your nonexistent head upon unless categorical relationships exist between concepts such as "head" and "wall" and "you.". Without subjectivity, all that objective information is rendered completely unintelligible and is therefore meaningless.  

This is probably the main point of disagreement for us. I believe that, regardless of what concepts I might have about heads, walls, and me, that that wall will exist there, and will stop all heads from going through it if they attempt to. I.e. objective reality exists regardless of our subjective concepts, and we just make subjective meanings and concepts about the objective reality that exists around us as a way of trying to understand and categorize it. Thus there is a single objective truth, which is that stuff exists in whatever form it exists. We just try our best to interpret and conceptualize it based on our limited perception. To ignore or throw out this truth would mean basically danking the whole world's existence.

EDIT: Reading your stuff in the contexts of just your stuff, I'm realizing I may have been totally danked in the head regarding my views of what you are actually trying to say, conflating your and his claims to be saying something similar. Am I right that you are actually saying two completely different things, and he's just nuts?

1)  I think the problem is that I'm making a fine distinction that you're not picking up on.  We both agree that there is a single objective truth regardless of what we think that truth is.  I think we can also agree that there is objective information out there, and this objective information makes up walls and such.  I won't even necessarily contend that the information that makes up the wall ceases to exist in a Universe with no observers and no subjectivity.  The fine distinction I'm making is this: if information is not being communicated, then that information is utterly unintelligible.  If the information is utterly unintelligible, then we cannot call it a wall because a wall is intelligible...it has 'wall-ness' so-to-speak.  When you remove all observers from the Universe, you remove all entities that are capable of rendering the available information in an intelligible way.  And while this information might somehow continue to be available absent of any observers, we cannot in any way say that there will still be a 'wall' anywhere because the Universe you're describing has no way to communicate or render 'wall-ness'.


2)  As weird as it is, I both think he's nuts and I think he says some accurate things.  Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to make any statement and convincingly argue it to be true in one context or another.  The problem is that when one starts switching the context of their argument, contradictions are bound to arise.

Dank seems to be saying that because anything can be true in a certain context (e.g. If Bob likes pizza, and if Mike likes pizza, then Bob is Mike...to the extent that they are both pizza-likers).  He also seems to be suggesting that because anything can be true in a certain context, you can discover or even manipulate truth if you just "believe" in your own ideas with enough intensity.  In contrast, I'm asserting that 1) there is a set or context that contains all other sets and contexts, thereby uniting all subsets within a common linguistic or mathematical landscape, and that 2) there is a way to act as though you yourself are reasoning from this greater set about all lower sets, thereby creating a model that remains internally consistent at the highest possible level of generality.

Dank does, however, seems to place an emphasis on learning through direct experiences (which is why he uses LSD and such) to uncover truth in a different way.  I absolutely believe this approach is valid, and I would in no way rule out "tripping" as a valid means of accessing otherwise inaccessible information and/or re-rendering the same information in a new way.  I personally think our minds are more or less 'tuned' to a certain frequency of energy at one time or another and that there are ways of fucking with the dial.  He seems to share a similar belief (he advocates drug consumption while I advocate meditation).
1425  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: December 06, 2013, 09:48:04 PM
Here's one for you, @Rassah, since you assume an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality, or what you consider 'real' and 'unreal' respectively.  If we acknowledge the phenomenon of cognition in general as a "real" event that can lead to the formation of entirely "unreal" concepts, don't we have a huge problem on our hands?  How can something real produce something totally and utterly unreal?

What is actually being produced? If I project an image of a house on a white screen, am I producing a house? Or just a concept that looks like/represents a house?

Quote
You could say that an imagination is like a Universe in that the content of one's imagination obeys certain rules and laws; one of these rules is that imaginative content is binary, and accordingly we can not imagine simultaneous yes/no states (try imagining a shirt that is both red and not red).  

I think imagination isn't following rules and laws, so much as it is following whatever we are capable of imagining based on our limited experience. Ever notice that all aliens in all our fiction are either humanoid, or resemble some other creature found on out planet? Creating something completely new and never before imagines is a difficult skill (we give out PhD's for such a task).
Ironically, while we can't imagine a shirt that is both red and not red, or an element that is there and is not there at the same time, that is, in fact, how the universe works on a quantum level. So, technically, our imagination is even too limited to imagine how the universe actually exists in our objective, observable reality. The funny thing is that people are claiming that our universe is only limited by our imagination, when the trust is that the our imagination is limiting our understanding of the universe.

Quote
@Rassah, when you talk about some objective reality that can exist totally independent of any subjectivity or observation, you make a logical fallacy (actually two) by imposing an assumption that happens to be false upon a hypothetical scenario that has never been observed, and in fact could never be observed.

Think of it this way. I can observe what is in my room right now. You can't. Just because you can't observe what is here, does not mean that this room doesn't exist. Someone else can, and is, observing it. Extending that to the rest of the universe, just because we are not observing it right now, doesn't mean someone else isn't. And, to me, anyway, its easy to come to the conclusion that just because I am not observing something else in the universe, that it doesn't exist. To think otherwise would be to believe that the unviverse doesn't exist where people are not seeing it, and is constantly being spontaneously created and destroyed as we walk through places, or even pan our vision across a landscape. Actually, that is something that humans do believe when they go through child spychological developlent. If you hide a ball away from a 1 year old, he will believe that it simply no longer exists. Object permanence is the term for the thing we learn when we grow up.

Quote
Your assumption is actually your conclusion; you assume that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive.

Aren't they by definition? Otherwise I would have to rethink my political view as an objectivist.

Quote
But, how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation?  This is an inherent contradiction and it could never possibly happen.  I find it really interesting that you're forming conclusions about a totally hypothetical and non-empirical event when you're such a stark advocate of empirical study and the scientific method.

Actually, I propose the exact opposite. Somewhat. What you describe there is EXACTLY my complaint about subjective universes, imagines realities, gods, and unicorns. As you say, "how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation?" By this universe I mean one in which a god, or some other imagines creature, exists. If you can't, then it has no relevance on us. Such a god would just angrily wave his arms at me, and have them pass through me without ever having an effect on my life. As for the parts of the universe we can't observe, the only assumption I make is that the rest of the universe follows the laws of physics that I have observed the universe following around me (around me includes things we see out in space with our telescopes). I think it's pretty logical to assume that the universe is consistent with the laws of physics, regardless of whether I am paying attention to them. Isn't it?

1)  The fact that a projection of a house isn't actually a house doesn't mean the projection doesn't exist.  Likewise, the fact that a mere concept of a house isn't actually a house doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The difference is that the projection of a house on a screen is empirical while the concept is not, but rather is abstract (i.e. mental...non-physical).  But you treat it as though even the concept doesn't exist which leaves you with an impossible task of explaining how you can experience something which doesn't exist or is totally unreal.

2)  Of course imagination follows rules.   The fact that you can't imagine simultaneous yes/no states (e.g. the both 'red' and 'non-red' shirt) implies a constraint.  Constraints are imposed by rules and laws.  That's where structure comes from...rules and laws.  Without rules or laws, your concepts could have no form...no structure...no definition.  To suggest imagination doesn't adhere to any rules would actually imply that it transcends all rule and law.  I don't think this is what either of us would suggest.

3) For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a pure dichotomy:  Either there is 1) at least one observer in the Universe and 2) there are absolutely no observers in the Universe.

In scenario 1, the Universe exists. Reality exists.  If that person is in your room, your room exists.  But as soon as that person leaves the room, asserting that the room exists (and that it is still the same room) flies out the window.  Why?  Because it's always possible to imagine a case in which you could be deceived.  So, maybe you'll go to the mall and you say your room still exists, but what you don't know is that a termite colony ate the wall between your room and the next room and now the state of that room has changed.  

In scenario 2, the Universe can't be asserted to exist.  The act of observation is an act of measurement.  Without measurement, we cannot define anything.  Without definition, there is no structure to uphold the concept.  Measurement is absolutely required to define an event (e.g. such as calling something "a Universe" to begin with).  You can't even so much as label anything without observation to give you a preliminary measurement.

By the way, you could learn one HELL of a lot from children.  The Biblical quote that says something like "those with minds like children will enter the kingdom of Heaven" or something like that is wise as hell.  I highly suggest you take some time to think about why that is.  Children generally cope with stress better and much more realistically than adults, they aren't quick to judge things according to their personal biases, etc.  And, when they lose something, they don't sulk and bitch about it endlessly.  Object permanence isn't everything its cracked up to be, not to mention that quantum mechanics would have a field day with a such a concept.

4)  Remember, everything is defined not only by what it is, but also by what it is not.  You're simply defining subjectivity and objectivity according to their differences and not their similarities, and while differences exist (of course), differences can only arise out of similarity.  As I've tried to tell you, trying to argue against this is attempting to argue against logical precedents that have been recognized and set millenia ago.  You can refuse to believe it all you want, but it's hard not to just keep saying, "No, you're wrong, I know you're wrong, thousands of philosophers and mathematicians know you're wrong, so you're just wrong."  It's really not even hard to grasp.  If you can't even recognize that everything in existence shares a fundamental similarity of existing and thus a fundamental characteristic of identity, then I don't know what else to tell you.  I can only keep telling you that you're dead wrong.  Seriously, you need to concede this point.  

Edit 5)  Why are you talking about "physical laws" which are abstract and non-physical?  If you're going to acknowledge that physical things abide by non-physical laws, then why don't even attempt to include those laws in your interpretation of reality?  Do you believe something non-physical and abstract is objective?  Or do you think that, perhaps (as I do), that another word for abstract might be...mental?
1426  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: December 06, 2013, 09:05:06 PM
And?  It is better referred to as a belief.

A belief is not a truth, though, since truth is objective. Unless you're just using words to mean whatever you want them to mean (like Big Brother in 1984)
Whatever you believe is true.

Sorry, dank, that makes no sense.  If what you say is accurate, then everything Rassah believes is true and you shouldn't even be debating him.  It would also mean that there's never such a thing as a false belief. 
1427  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: December 06, 2013, 05:47:42 PM
And?  It is better referred to as a belief.

A belief is not a truth, though, since truth is objective. Unless you're just using words to mean whatever you want them to mean (like Big Brother in 1984)

I'd also like to point out that in attempting to make a truthful, objective statement about the nature of subjectivity you demonstrate why the two can't be mutually exclusive. If they were, then it would be impossible to make any objective statement about the nature of subjectivity.
1428  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: December 06, 2013, 05:42:12 PM
Isn't "subjective truth" called "an opinion?"

The problem is that anything you would call 'objective' is still filtered through a subjective lens.  This is inescapable.  It's impossible to say objectivity exists independent of subjectivity because subjectivity is required to acknowledge that which is objective.  We simply don't have the luxury of asserting what reality would be like if we stripped away its subjective components.  You can't strip away a CPU from a desktop and still call it a working model of a computer.  Similarly, you can't strip away subjectivity and call what remains a working model of reality.  It's a necessary component of reality, and it's a logical impossibility to assert what a reality absent of subjectivity would be like because you have to communicate from a subjective reference point to do so!

If I walk into a wall, I will bump my head on it regardless of what I believe about it. So, agree to disagree. You can't conviince me, and I can't convince you, because we just have two completely different ways of looking at the world.

Though I do think that encouraging the thought that "everything is just a part of our imagination" is rather dangerous.

Exactly.  We have two different ways of looking at and interpreting information.  That is exactly why objective information cannot be absolutely independent of subjectivity.

If you walk into what you believe is a wall and you believe that you bump what you think is your head, then you have subjectively defined some real information.  That's what subjectivity does.  You learn about the world by forming a series of abstract categorical relationships about it.  This literally defines the way reality appears to you.  There is no wall for you to bump your nonexistent head upon unless categorical relationships exist between concepts such as "head" and "wall" and "you.". Without subjectivity, all that objective information is rendered completely unintelligible and is therefore meaningless.  Thus, you can't say what reality would be like without subjectivity because you would need to use meaningful words to describe a reality totally absent of meaning.  You can't say "well there would still be planets and stars and space without any subjectivity" because words like stars and planets and space are meaningful and are defined subjectively.
1429  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: December 06, 2013, 03:45:24 PM
Isn't "subjective truth" called "an opinion?"

The problem is that anything you would call 'objective' is still filtered through a subjective lens.  This is inescapable.  It's impossible to say objectivity exists independent of subjectivity because subjectivity is required to acknowledge that which is objective.  We simply don't have the luxury of asserting what reality would be like if we stripped away its subjective components.  You can't strip away a CPU from a desktop and still call it a working model of a computer.  Similarly, you can't strip away subjectivity and call what remains a working model of reality.  It's a necessary component of reality, and it's a logical impossibility to assert what a reality absent of subjectivity would be like because you have to communicate from a subjective reference point to do so!

1430  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Last year I had 3K litecoins and sold them for $5.. now they are worth $90,000!? on: December 05, 2013, 06:51:45 PM
Don't feel bad.  I had 30k.  Sold most of em at like 15 cents lol.

Win some, lose some Smiley
1431  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Chess.com Accepts Bitcoin! on: November 30, 2013, 05:47:58 PM
Does anybody know place, or will be that place a chess.com, to play for money ( bitcoin )?

Or any alt-coins.

To make a bet, e.g. 5BTC, look for opponent with bet at least 10BTC, who agree to play with me for only my 5BTC, 5 vs 10, i win, profit 10BTC.


This has been discussed before, but as far as I know nothing ever came of it.  The problem is preventing cheating.  Even if your opponent isn't directly using an engine to beat you, he could just imitate your moves against a chess engine on a 2nd computer and move according to the engine's responses.
1432  Economy / Speculation / Re: Noobs, this is your best exit strategy. Read up on: November 27, 2013, 11:14:53 PM
I immediately repurchased the BTC used to purchase the erupters.  Then I mined for several months.  Then the price went up like mad.

Of course I profited.  I just didn't profit as much as if I had bought more BTC.  But it was better than sitting on my hands doing nothing.  If  the price of BTC had gone down it's possible I would have been able to dump my hardware and be left better off than if I had bought BTC outright.
Yes, you profited by buying more btc before the price went up. Unless you generated more btc then it cost, you did not profit from mining.

No.

Let's say I spend 10 BTC at $200 apiece ($2000) for mining hardware.  BTC balance = -10; USD balance = $0

Then I rebuy those 10 BTC at $200 apiece.  BTC balance = +0; USD balance = -$2000

Notice that I'm now in the same BTC position as I was when I started, but I'm down USD.  But, I have the mining hardware.

All this means is that from now on, profits are measured in USD.  If the balance is -$2000, I now need to mine $2000 worth of BTC to reach 100% ROI.

Let's say I mine and hold 5 BTC.  During the time I'm mining, the price goes from $200 to $1000.  Those 5 BTC are now worth $5000.  So, in that scenario I profit $3000.
1433  Economy / Speculation / Re: Noobs, this is your best exit strategy. Read up on: November 27, 2013, 09:24:17 PM
FYI block erupters have no ROI even at current prices.

My block erupters reached ROI four times over.  They're working on a fifth.
duh
when they came out pre-ordering them worked out. That's how it works, and guess what, that's nothing compared to the profit margin of batch #1 Avalons.

It seemed like you were referencing all block erupters and that you were saying block erupters 'back then' were expensive as hell and had no chance of ROI.
1434  Economy / Speculation / Re: Noobs, this is your best exit strategy. Read up on: November 27, 2013, 08:43:29 PM
My block erupters reached ROI four times over.  They're working on a fifth.

I find this hard to believe. How much did you pay and how much have they mined?

I'm sure he meant in fiat.

Probably, making money on the exchange rate doesn't mean the miners profited.

I immediately repurchased the BTC used to purchase the erupters.  Then I mined for several months.  Then the price went up like mad.

Of course I profited.  I just didn't profit as much as if I had bought more BTC.  But it was better than sitting on my hands doing nothing.  If  the price of BTC had gone down it's possible I would have been able to dump my hardware and be left better off than if I had bought BTC outright.
1435  Economy / Speculation / Re: Noobs, this is your best exit strategy. Read up on: November 27, 2013, 08:06:48 PM
FYI block erupters have no ROI even at current prices.

My block erupters reached ROI four times over.  They're working on a fifth.
1436  Economy / Goods / Re: SEALED PS4 Day One Bundle 500gb on: November 27, 2013, 12:33:00 AM
how do you sell stuff for Bitcoin without being swindled?

Use escrow.
1437  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Chess.com Accepts Bitcoin! on: November 27, 2013, 12:07:14 AM
Awesome! I contacted them quite a while ago about this. And I guess so did many others. Perhaps your inquiry was the last straw. Good job! Grin

Now, let's consider which yearly plan I'll take. Looking forward to play my first Bitcoin-funded game of chess.

No, I'm sure we all contributed.  I was just excited when they emailed me to tell me about it Cheesy

By the way, PM me your chess.com handle if you want to play a match.  But take it easy on me, I'm learning Smiley
1438  Economy / Services / Re: [WTB] I need a native english speaker with a nice voice on: November 26, 2013, 11:50:05 PM
This is a voice recording I did for a friend who was auditioning for a voice-over role for an instructional video:

https://soundcloud.com/musicmelody123/adam-voice

I could refer you to him.
1439  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Chess.com Accepts Bitcoin! on: November 26, 2013, 11:18:25 PM
I don't see it on the website yet?
Good job anyhow, solid user base!

http://support.chess.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/226/0/can-i-purchase-a-membership-through-bitcoin
1440  Economy / Service Announcements / Chess.com Accepts Bitcoin! on: November 26, 2013, 10:54:34 PM
I scored a win.  I emailed Chess.com through my account and convinced them to accept Bitcoin as payment.

Enjoy! Cheesy
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 ... 218 »
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!