I am happy to provide escrow of 0.5% for this, and have provided escrow in the past to other users.
i would suggest escrow for a larger BTC purchase, no matter who from
Fine by me  However, as stated, using escrow for this transaction means these will be priced in terms of USD. escrow has absolutely no bearing on currency type, why would you not price in BTC? Because it absolutely does have bearing on the currency type. Suppose I want to cash out the BTC I receive and ensure that I receive $x when I do. Using escrow casts some uncertainty regarding what the USD value of the BTC will be at the time I receive it. So, payment would be made in BTC, but priced in USD, to mitigate that uncertainty. |
|
|
|
I am happy to provide escrow of 0.5% for this, and have provided escrow in the past to other users.
i would suggest escrow for a larger BTC purchase, no matter who from
Fine by me However, as stated, using escrow for this transaction means these will be priced in terms of USD. |
|
|
|
If you want a fast, smooth transaction, then buy from me. |
|
|
|
No worries the joint.
It's all good
Cheers
Free bump for one of the coolest listings I've seen. |
|
|
|
You would be better off using a trusted escrow.. like TomatoCage.
Lol. TomatoCage was the one that added me to the default trust list. My reputation speaks for itself, and as a past contributor to Bitcoin Magazine, my identity is no secret. I'll do escrow, but buyer pays escrow fees, and I'd prefer not to go through the hassel (as a seller; as a buyer, I always want escrow). Edit: If escrow is used, price will be set in USD rather than BTC. Edit 2: This is Tomatocage's feedback for me: Tomatocage 21: -0 / +22(22) 2013-09-26 0.00000000 Has many successful deals under his belt and is a long time contributor to the forums. Good user right here. |
|
|
|
How would the sale work please?
1) State how many coins you want. 2) I will provide you with a BTC address to send payment to. 3) Send BTC to this address and provide me with a shipping name and address typed exactly the way you would like me to write it on the shipping label. 4) The coins will be mailed next business day, or same day time permitting. 5) I will provide you with a tracking number. 6) We're both happy |
|
|
|
Hello the joint,
I have not heard of this event you speak of. Selling a complete skeleton for $6000.00 to a museum makes me think that the museum was probably compensating this man’s expenses in either digging out the skeleton or downtime of his project in return for donating the skeleton. This is only speculation on my part but as you’ve stated yourself you are “not sure of the details surrounding the sale”.
That very well could be the case, and you're right, I'm not sure about the details of the sale. I would expect that a full skeleton would be worth far more than $6,000, and I do vaguely remember being confused when I had originally heard the selling price. It's possible it was simply a finder's fee for uncovering some part of the skeleton (e.g. a tooth or tusk) which then led to the discovery of the rest of the skeleton. |
|
|
|
The problem with using the word 'manipulation' is that idiots get this confused with actual problems like 'insider trading'. The problem is that he has abused that word to the point that it no longer means anything coming from him. The flip side of that is that if you think that there aren't whales in this market using their buying and selling power to initiate moves at key TA 101 A points, in order to cash in on any stampede that they happen to cause in either direction...... .......then you just haven't been paying attention. But there are tons of other people making moves at key lines of resistance, and the only reason that they aren't called "manipulators" is because they trade a few BTC's rather than hundreds or thousands. That's really about the only difference. Imagine being at an auction house and claiming that the only millionaire in the room who keeps winning item after item is manipulating the auction. |
|
|
|
|
The problem with using the word 'manipulation' is that idiots get this confused with actual problems like 'insider trading'.
The word 'manipulation' is most frequently used on these forums to reference ordinary traders that simply have lots of money, i.e. 'whales'. These people are the exact same as everyone else in that they're just trading and trying to make a profit. Calling this 'manipulation' is stupid because this makes everyone a manipulator. But, erecting huge buy/sell walls or pumping and dumping isn't manipulation -- it's called being wealthy.
Save the term 'manipulation' for devious practice like insider trading and otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
Up for sale are three (3) 2013 1-BTC Casascius Bitcoins.
These are the brass coins. They have never been touched by hands and have been kept in a safe and undisturbed since receiving them from Casascius.
Price: 1.8BTC each, or 5.5BTC 5.3BTC buys all three. Price includes shipping.
*Note: I'm not sure what these are going for nowadays, and I'm aware these are a bit pricey even compared to the premium Casascius originally charged. But, with Casascius out of business and with 2013 behind us, I have little doubt the premium for these will continue to increase over time.
Edit: Taking offers now.
|
|
|
|
I'm not at all knowledgeable about the prices of these things, but I'd appreciate if you can explain how the value of something like this is determined. Near my area, there was an entire mammoth skeleton found by one of the local residents, and the selling price for the *entire* skeleton was $6,000. I'm not sure of the details surrounding the sale, but perhaps you could enlighten me a bit |
|
|
|
Science, like any academic discipline, is a theory about knowledge acquisition.
Creationism is a theory about the origin of the Universe and its contents.
Fairy tales aren't theories. The definition of *anything* is a theory about that thing. A theory doesn't need to be scientific; ones that are are called scientific theories. Scientific theories must meet a certain kind of criteria, but other theories can have other criteria. Again: "they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes." Well, that's stupid. You mean they're proposing that Creationism meets *all* the criteria for a scientific theory? I know that I've heard about it being taught in schools, but I didn't assume that it was being put forth as a scientific theory. |
|
|
|
Science, like any academic discipline, is a theory about knowledge acquisition.
Creationism is a theory about the origin of the Universe and its contents.
Fairy tales aren't theories. The definition of *anything* is a theory about that thing. A theory doesn't need to be scientific; ones that are are called scientific theories. Scientific theories must meet a certain kind of criteria, but other theories can have other criteria. |
|
|
|
I'll Give You 3500 For All 5. Pm Me.
Not at this time, thanks. I offer: - three 2013 1-BTC Casascius coins (never touched by hands; kept in a safe) for all of them - an original Bitcoin condom and frisbee as listed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37939.0- a dried Naga Jolokia ghost pepper (with a tiny piece of the tip bitten off) as advertised here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42254.0- an opened copy of Bitcoin Magazine Issue #4 featuring my first article - and a smile |
|
|
|
In any case, the entire thread is almost off-topic since evolution has almost nothing to do with Creationism.
The topic itself is misguided, it's directed to people who believe in Evolution. Science is not a belief system.Science, like any academic discipline, is a theory about knowledge acquisition. Creationism is a theory about the origin of the Universe and its contents. |
|
|
|
Proving that God of the Bible exists wouldn't falsify the assumption of a positivistic Universe specifically because God's omnipotence would preclude any paradoxes that arise (e.g. an omnipotent, monotheistic god would be able to create simultaneous states such as a Universe that is both positivistic and non-positivistic).
And, the point I've been trying to make this entire thread is that the scientific method does just that -- it carries purely philosophical and unfalsifiable (at least empirically) assumptions. But yet, while its assumptions are philosophical and non-empirical, it cannot allow philosophical or other purely abstract ideas or proofs to be incorporated into any theory it produces. For example, a logical tautology or mathematical proof indicating that a positistic universe is impossible could not be used to explain a set of evidence and create a theory about it, even though it's a simple matter of deductive reasoning. Instead, science forces us to use only empirical evidence in building a theory, and only through replicable instances (but NOT logical or mathematical proofs) can these theories be strengthened.
Sure, because that's how the Universe works. But the path you're trying take isn't topic related, the Earth still is billions of years old, a global flood never happened and humans and dinosaurs never coexisted... It's apparent/evident the Earth is billion of years old from our perspective of where we are. If you were near the event horizon of a black hole, you would reach a different conclusion. Here it seems that way; over there, it seems different. I'm not versed in the research supporting or denying a global flood, and I have no comment about the humans/dinosaurs thing because there is no scientific definition of 'species' that perfectly accounts for all living and dead...specimens. In any case, the entire thread is almost off-topic since evolution has almost nothing to do with Creationism. |
|
|
|
Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.
Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!
Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.
The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.
1) Creationism is a theory. Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc. Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria. 2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about. But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies? 3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda). 4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid. Sure, but they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes. I would discard anything that cannot be falsifiable.I was pointing that creationism didn't came from scientific skepticism, it's only purpose is to serve a political and religious agenda. Sorry, didn't wan't to give the impression of ad-populum, just pointing out, those other sects eventually gave out creationism and have accepted reality, only some US sects are still pushing creationism mainly for political purposes. What about one of the unfalsifiable assumptions made my science, i.e. we live in a positivistic Universe? This is unfalsifiable because we could never remove all minds from the Universe and still observe it so as to describe it as positivistic. Would you then discard this assumption, even though it enables the scientific method? It is falsifiable, you just need to prove the god of the bible, for example. But you're trying to enter Metaphysics and Philosophy and there's no need for that when it comes to Evolution or Creationism. Proving that God of the Bible exists wouldn't falsify the assumption of a positivistic Universe specifically because God's omnipotence would preclude any paradoxes that arise (e.g. an omnipotent, monotheistic god would be able to create simultaneous states such as a Universe that is both positivistic and non-positivistic). And, the point I've been trying to make this entire thread is that the scientific method does just that -- it carries purely philosophical and unfalsifiable (at least empirically) assumptions. But yet, while its assumptions are philosophical and non-empirical, it cannot allow philosophical or other purely abstract ideas or proofs to be incorporated into any theory it produces. For example, a logical tautology or mathematical proof indicating that a positistic universe is impossible could not be used to explain a set of evidence and create a theory about it, even though it's a simple matter of deductive reasoning. Instead, science forces us to use only empirical evidence in building a theory, and only through replicable instances (but NOT logical or mathematical proofs) can these theories be strengthened. |
|
|
|
Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.
Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!
Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.
The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.
1) Creationism is a theory. Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc. Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria. 2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about. But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies? 3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda). 4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid. Sure, but they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes. I would discard anything that cannot be falsifiable.I was pointing that creationism didn't came from scientific skepticism, it's only purpose is to serve a political and religious agenda. Sorry, didn't wan't to give the impression of ad-populum, just pointing out, those other sects eventually gave out creationism and have accepted reality, only some US sects are still pushing creationism mainly for political purposes. What about one of the unfalsifiable assumptions made my science, i.e. we live in a positivistic Universe? This is unfalsifiable because we could never remove all minds from the Universe and still observe it so as to describe it as positivistic. Would you then discard this assumption, even though it enables the scientific method? |
|
|
|
Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.
Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!
Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.
The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.
1) Creationism is a theory. Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc. Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria. 2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about. But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies? 3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda). 4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid. |
|
|
|
if we mine on the first week of new coin luch it will be more profitable ?
Let me check my crystal ball... Don't you think if we could predict the future that we'd all be millionaires? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
