Bitcoin Forum
April 19, 2014, 09:00:19 PM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 ... 159
281  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Bitcoinity.org...Penguin? on: November 10, 2013, 02:47:42 AM
They often put up animations when the price is doing something interesting. I missed this one though.

lmao the penguin 'falling knife.'  I love it.
282  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Scammy business over at mtgox to fool noobs on: November 10, 2013, 02:08:12 AM
I've been using bitcoins for 2 1/2 years, and never once have I made a btc transaction on Gox.

Don't need 'em.  Nobody needs 'em.  They suck.  End of story.

Edit:  I deposited around 25 cents USD in BTC when I first opened an account in 2011.  Never did anything with it.  Later I found out that my account was completely gone (no password retrieval, no record of my email, no record of my account name...nothing) and so were my 25 cents.  To this day, I will adamantly claim that Gox stole 25 cents from me and never notified me about deleting my account.  Password strength was 20+ random alphanumeric characters and other symbols.  I want my quarter back, assholes.
283  Economy / Service Discussion / Bitcoinity.org...Penguin? on: November 10, 2013, 12:05:25 AM
This may be one of my oddest posts in a while, but I'll do my best to describe what I just experienced.

I was simply watching the price movement at Bitcoinity.org on the USD markets when I heard a beep from my speakers.  All of a sudden, a video of a penguin sliding across ice on a green backdrop was displayed just above the chart.  It wasn't advertising anything whatsoever...it was just a penguin sliding around, being a penguin.

Anyone else see this before?  I've used Bitcoinity for months and have never seen this.
284  Economy / Speculation / Re: Still waiting for a correction to buy in? on: November 09, 2013, 06:51:59 PM
The interesting thing to me about this 'bubble' is that the buy side of the order books are virtually stripped.  Nobody wants to be the first to catch a falling knife.  Also, nobody wants to cash out a significant amount of BTC that would significantly drop the price, thereby cutting into their profits.

I think when the buy side of the order book gains depth across the exchanges, then down we go.  But, the price needs to steady itself for this to happen.
285  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 08, 2013, 06:17:45 PM
All you need to do is realize that the scientific method is essentially one of many theories of knowledge that utilizes a certain set of tools and wields certain assumptions.  Then, see that there are other (valid) theories of knowledge that utilize other tools that empirical ones do not, and may even hold fewer initial assumptions (thereby adhering more closely to Occam's Razor).

That is probably the weirdest statement I have read in a while. I didn't think aquiring knowledge could be subjected to the distinction of "theory" "hypothesis" or "fact." It also risks running into the issue of how you define "knowledge" and acquizition thereof. E.g. someone coul be claiming to be acquiring knowledge from reading tea leaves, while someone else might point out that they are only acquiring bs.

Theories can be right, wrong, large or small in scope, consistent or inconsistent, incomplete, etc.  Someone could indeed state that they believe reading tea leaves is a method by which knowledge is acquired.  Whether you think it's bs or not doesn't mean it's not a theory.  A theory is simply a explanatory description of something.

I'm not sure why you think it's weird to that's the scientific method as a theory of knowledge because that's essentially what it is.  It's the idea that one can learn about reality through empirical study.
286  Economy / Speculation / Re: Tired of the $300 mark. on: November 07, 2013, 11:16:22 PM
Getting tired of the $300 mark, anyone else?

It should go to $500... asap. lol

Jet lag?
287  Economy / Speculation / Re: To whomever bought my BTC at 60 cents over Mt. Gox market price... on: November 07, 2013, 11:13:38 PM
I salute you!!   Grin
Ha ha great sale there back in2011!
 Cheesy Cheesy

lmao +1
288  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL calling "loyal" customers (from +1-866-723-3108) on: November 07, 2013, 10:45:35 PM
Why is everyone receiving a call from an 866 number when I received my call from an Oregon number?

Weird.
289  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gox/Bitstamp parity. on: November 07, 2013, 03:13:14 AM
So they crossed, why?

Now the arb opportunities are just getting ridiculous.

Think of the potential consequence if this holds.  Those capable of withdrawing btc but not fiat from Gox now have (a larger) incentive to transfer their btc out and cash out on bitstamp.  This could bring down the volume on Gox (even more) significantly.

Although, I've been seeing complaints about btc withdrawal from Gox, too.
290  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 07, 2013, 02:46:33 AM

One might flip that over and suggest that mathematical laws are derived from observing physical reality.  Newton and the apple, and all that.

One might, but it doesn't work the same way.  Note that you say 'observing' physical reality, and unless you have a theory of observation then simply observing physical reality to describe it isn't much good.  The key distinction is that "observing" is largely a mental process that cannot be studied empirically.  So, when you then try to form a theory about reality without being able to take into account a real but non-empirical aspect of reality, then that theory will lack external consistency.

Quote
Just saying "the set of all sets, includes itself" is not all that meaningful.  Nor is "fundamental inseparability" without stuff to which such a theory might apply.

You'd be surprised what can be logically inferred from simple statements.   1=1 for example has vast implications.  

Fundamental inseparability touches upon the issue of the nature of identity.  Wouldn't you consider this an important matter given that you're...well...you?

Quote
The notion of what is subservient to which is not all that meaningful.
 

It's not?  There are entire logical fallacies based upon that (fallacies of hasty generalization and slothful induction).  Also, set theory...

Quote
Math serves to describe the physical world, so to then suggest that the physical world "obeys" in "subservience" to mathematics is going to raise some questions that may be difficult to answer with anything other than "well, we just haven't discovered all the mathematics yet".  All that says is that we haven't yet made observations of the physical world to the level where we have the language to describe it.

See what I said above about the distinction between observation (non-empirical) and physical reality (empirical). All you need to do is realize that the scientific method is essentially one of many theories of knowledge that utilizes a certain set of tools and wields certain assumptions.  Then, see that there are other (valid) theories of knowledge that utilize other tools that empirical ones do not, and may even hold fewer initial assumptions (thereby adhering more closely to Occam's Razor).

Quote
LHC, E8, and all the rest are on a path to developing that language, but are "subservient" to the engineering effort to make the observations.  They serve each other.

Carrying off of your last quote snippet, I think that part of what you're alluding to is certain limitations of mathematics.  For example, the 'undecidable' nature of math makes it difficult to discern whether one model is more or less valid than another in describing something (e.g. which is better in describing human interaction:  a behavioral model or a cognitive one?).  Because mathematics also has limitations, forming a purely mathematical model of reality doesn't do any good either.  A good theory of reality not only needs to account for all of reality, both mental and physical, but it also needs to take into account theory making.  In fact, a theory of theories is a requirement given that any description or definition of anything ever is a miniature theory of that thing.  Theories aren't just hypotheses that have been rigorously tested and supported; theories can be logical, illogical, right, wrong, small or large in scope, etc.

Interestingly enough, you touched upon what I believe is the essence of the solution.  A certain type of language is needed in order to talk about reality, theories, and even language itself...a 'metalanguage' (not my term).
291  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL calling "loyal" customers (from +1-866-723-3108) on: November 06, 2013, 08:42:05 PM
Funny, as I was reading this I received the call. Sounded like a woman of India descent.

They offered a 20% discount code with a 7 day expiration. I told her I was not interested due to the treatment by BFL. She then rebuttled by saying she could offer the discount with no expiration. To which I ranted a bit more how I would not order anything unless it was in stock and I don't believe that would ever happen with BFL, but I would accept the code for the heck of it. She seemed to miss the 'for the heck of it' part, or didn't care to give it out anymore at that point and said she understands and ended the call.  Probably for the best, as it will likely just collect dust and disappear like my 'first month 20% discount' and chip credits.  Really pathetic and sad they ran a company with so much potential into the ground.

Indian accent you say?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320996.msg3436735#msg3436735
292  Economy / Speculation / Re: All time high on Gox! Achieved on: November 06, 2013, 05:31:53 AM
293  Economy / Speculation / Re: All time high on Gox! Achieved on: November 06, 2013, 05:26:10 AM
294  Economy / Speculation / Re: On Auto-Pilot to the Moon! on: November 06, 2013, 02:36:39 AM
Imo there might be some resistance in the $260's as people who bought in at the last bubble try to cash out, after the smoke clears, I'm thinking $300 is in the cards very soon. Then??? Who knows?

I thought you were predicting low 100's.  Change of heart?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316854.msg3408110#msg3408110
295  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: 1 hour 20 minutes block on: November 05, 2013, 07:31:02 PM
what's the longest time between blocks ? blockchain now 19.28 (uk) 5/11/2013 says 1 hour 20 minutes...

I remember seeing 4+ and 5+ hour blocks in the past.  It happens.
296  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 05, 2013, 04:40:08 PM
Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Can you explain this...

I can try, but probably not.  The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration.

...


Sorry, I tried, but I still don't quite get it. It sounds like you are trying to apply abstract math to specific physics to show that what is actually completely physically separate in things like chemistry, physics, and quantum particles, is actually not separate because of an abstract mathematical concept. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up physical reality for abstract mathematics yet.

You don't have to "give up" physical reality, but it does require that you recognize that physical reality obeys, and is subservient to, mathematical laws.  The idea is to build model that is internally consistent at a greater level of generality than all other models including the scientific model (which doesn't even permit formulating a model of reality based upon the very mathematical principles it depends upon).
297  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 05, 2013, 03:19:06 AM
Pain is in your head.  Stop perceiving it as negative and it will not be painful.

A dying man at peace feels no pain.

Makes sense. Its in my head.
Cut off my head and the pain stops pretty quickly.  Grin

The Buddhists have it as: Life is suffering and Suffering comes from desire/perception.

So did those computer scientists prove the Christian god, or Osirus, or Zeus or Allah or Ahura Mazda, or Krisna or what?

Perception?  Really?  I never read that before. 

Also, "desire/perception" doesn't mean interchangeable, right, but rather both of them cause suffering?
298  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory - Discussion Thread on: November 05, 2013, 03:14:48 AM
For offline transactions, is there any problem with creating and signing a transaction but delaying the broadcast for a while (e.g. months)?

How about creating but not signing?
299  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 05, 2013, 12:52:27 AM
Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Can you explain this, using normal every-day words? Because this never made any sense, and thus never really did anything other than confuse people, and very likely make them ignore whatever you were saying out of fear of sounding stupid, or out of assumptions that you are as weird as dank with his random definitions.

I can try, but probably not.  The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration.   The problem with "normal every-day words" is that they're often not as poignant, and you're looking for proof which requires exquisite poignancy (and my vocabulary isn't very large).  My statement that you quoted is pretty damn precise in that it's rather self-explanatory, but I'm guessing you want me to expound on the sameness-in-difference principle and the boundary proof.

The sameness-in-difference principle is easy to understand.   It's a well-established logical rule that states that any two relational entities 'x' and 'y' must occupy and share some relational medium.  For example, if I am real, and if you are real, then we share a relational medium of "realness" and are to that extent the same.  Even if you try to assert that two things are absolutely different from each other, than those two things still share a relationship of absolute difference, and they are bound by the syntax governing that relational medium.  Therefore, any differences that arise between any two entities must do so because they share a fundamental characteristic of identity with each other (because there is some common law or syntax governing both).

The proof for a boundary of a boundary = 0 extends this concept further, but it's harder to understand its implications, and so I'm not sure how clearly I can convey what I'm saying.  The boundary of a 3-dimensional cube, for example, is marked each of its 2-dimensional. square faces.  This boundary creates a distinction in information between the attributes contained within that boundary (e.g. the attributes that make a cube a cube) and those contained outside of that boundary (e.g. mathematical attributes that aren't cube-like but are complimentary in that they allow the cube to be distinguished as different from everything else).  So, the cube is a cube because it is not a not-cube (it needs something else outside of itself to be defined...like an axiom which is incomplete by itself alone).

When we look at the boundary of this boundary, which is measured by summing both the clockwise and counterclockwise values of the linear boundaries of each face (i.e. the 1-dimensional boundaries of the 2-dimensional faces of the 3-dimensional cube), the result of this sum is zero...each object has a self-cancelling type of symmetry.  Because the value of the boundary that separates the boundary of one entity from another is zero, the sameness-in-difference principle emerges into view.  In physics, this proof helps demonstrate that matter and space are intertwined, and there is a greater syntax governing both in tandem.
300  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists on: November 04, 2013, 01:39:29 PM
I find it ironic that so many fallacies and false assumptions are being made in many of the responses to BitChick's stated beliefs.  A couple are: the assertion of a false dichotomy between free will and determinism, arguing that it is inherently wrong to circularly use the bible to support itself when logic circularly supports itself (and so does the Real Universe as it, too, is, self-contained), misunderstanding the implications of what a monotheistic god is, etc.

You guys need to get your marbles straight first before you criticize her beliefs.  The worst part is that, in general, her beliefs are more accurate than yours (yes, God exists by logical necessity).

Ok fine - let me post an even simpler question.   Undecided

How can your god be a loving one if he purposely creates people he knows he will have to murder later?  Does he whack off to their suffering?

(god does NOT exist by logical necessity, so I challenge you to back up your statement)

Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.

Thus, when we observe the Real Universe, it means that part of the Real Universe is observing itself.  You could say that consciousness is self-referential.

So, when god "creates people," what you get are stratified "pieces" of global consciousness.  This is why we perceive time as linear...we are stratified and localized to particular swaths of spacetime.  In contrast, the mind of god observes everything in perfect superposition where things like freedom and constraint (structure...determinism) are counterbalanced.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 ... 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!