If you answer yes:
1) Do you think there are more or less souls than there are living things on the earth suitable for reincarnation?
2) In other words, would there be a "queue" a soul would have to wait in before getting back in the game?
3) What do you think is the ratio of souls to suitable vehicles for "incarnation"?
I've just never really taken the idea seriously so if these are dumb questions sorry.
Reincarnation is a holdover from Jainism and the Buddha is on record stating that it falls outside the domain of knowable truths. In short there is no way to prove that it is true nor that it is untrue. It's one of those things that doesn't affect our lives no matter what else happens. So I tend not to pay it any heed. |
|
|
|
One of the arguments I've heard to disarm the deflationary nature of Bitcoins is that Bitcoins are divisible to eight places, resulting in 2,100,000,000,000,000 total BTC units in circulation. I read a recent topic on the forum about how Bitcoin prices could be posted in the future, as writing price tags for a price of "0.00000050" would be inefficient.
I'm thinking the easiest way to relate Bitcoin totals in the future will be to remove the decimal from the equation. The total units of BTC would remain the same and prices could be easily written and registered in the minds of consumers. Let's face it: the general population likes things simple, so simple steps such as this idea can go a long way towards improving user adoption by cleaning up confusing aspects of the currency.
Is this an idea that has already been put forth? I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about it, and whether or not the decimal should be removed in the future.
I think it will happen someday but is at least 5 years down the road. It's been mentioned a few times that it is possible to do this and is a likely solution. But a larger looming problem we face is the size of the blockchain. Once we get past that hurdle we can start worrying about lost bitcoins overtaking mining supply and increased velocity of money. |
|
|
|
Oh god, why did you revive this? Now we're going to have usagi going crazy again.
Isn't that what you want? To Trent and others; The relevant posts have (apparently) been undeleted and/or given to BCB. I had a chat with BCB and a few others about it. Beyond that i've already explained why I deleted the posts. As far as I can tell from talking to BCB the complaints come down to I'm a jerk/asshole and I was irresponsible as a manager. So I've decided to pay back investors out of my own pocket by (likely) forfeiting my own stake in my companies (or something to that effect). At the end of the day i'm sorry you don't like me, or if you think I am crazy (like greyhawk), but I'm paying for what I did. I'm doing the honorable thing. If that's not good enough for you then there's nothing else I can say. Good luck with your other investments, |
|
|
|
The carrying capacity of the earth is not static. Technological advancements continually expand it. We aren't living in a glass bottle, but a rubber balloon.
+1 On that one, I'm fully with Myrkul ! Technology can bring the carrying capacity of the earth well beyond we think possible. You had me right up to here. The monetary system and corrupted values that it promotes make the actual "beleived carying capacity" !
Now, when you say "monetary system," do you mean the debt-as-money the world runs on now, or sound money, as well? Capitalism puts breaks on technological advancement, and whitout those outdated-capitalist constraint, we could have 100x more effectiver solar panel, lab grown meat that is exactly the same as the actual meat we eat, cure for cancer... etc..
Capitalism drives progress. Every time capitalism is suppressed, progress is stagnated. Remove $ and we can more than double the carrying capacity of the earth. We are not short on space to live, we are short on food and energy, because of the $ system.
Could you please explain how money limits food and energy artificially? I agree, that technology can increase the carrying capacity of the earth. But that is in fact my point -- technology has (and may continue to) increase the carrying capacity of the earth. But technology requires energy. For example take some supercomplex cryptography algorithm where brute force is written off because solving it would take more energy than exists in the solar system. It's like that. How can we use technology to solve the world's ills when there is not enough energy to apply that technology all over the world? There are going to be serious issues even if we transition to solar right now, because it costs more energy to build a solar panel using today's technology that will be realized by said solar panel in it's lifetime. The reason why it feels cheap now, is because of the reliance on fossil fuels which are a diminishing resource. I don't know how to solve this problem. |
|
|
|
YABMC 30 @ 0.011
ASICMINER 10 @ 0.105
BDK.BND 100 @ 0.00011
BIB.BVPS 33,848 @ 0.00011
Imsaguy debt 300 @ 0.00011
I recant my bid on YABMC until it is clarified if the shares come with the most recend 0.01491560 dividend or not. All the issues which are for auction are not in my possession. So if there are any dividends they will go to whoever gets the shares. On the other hand if there's a transaction number somewhere and I've been paid divs sure, I'll forward them to you. I'm not currently aware of any divs from YABMC though I admit I have not been following it for a couple of days. |
|
|
|
|
Stop me if you've heard this one. There are a bunch of bacteria in a bottle and they double in number every minute. The bacteria are really small of course, but the bottle is expected to fill up after just 24 hours of growth. So one bacteria says to the other, "ahh, there's so much room in this bottle. Why, I look around me and I see that there is so much free and open space! Why, for every manbacteria womanbacteria and childbacteria in our bottle, there is enough land for ten!" and the other bacteria says "yes, that's true. What a wonderful place to live. Oh, I'm late for work, what time is it?" and the first bacteria says, "it's 11:56 pm.. four minutes before midnight".
Now, it should be mentioned, each bacteria only lives for one minute. After their minute is up, they shuffle off their mortal coil.
Three minutes and thirty seconds later, the current crop of bacteria are having a meeting. They look around. The bottle is about 75% full. However all the bacteria have started to become nervous because they can see and recognize they are running out of space. A giant effort is launched and the bacteria send out scout ships in the lab and luckily find an entire whole new bottle to populate. Celebrations are made, parties are thrown, and the new bottle is annexed in the name of bacteria-dom. All is good.
Then strangely, in the same generation, the bacteria which were teenagers during the first crisis, now old, see the same crisis repeating only this time it is approaching twice as quickly, and they are at a loss for a solution. It becomes apparent to them that their children will no longer be able to reproduce or the bottles will break and everyone will die. In a panic, having babies is made a crime.
Over the next several minutes, 90% of the population in both bottles dies. Many call the problem resolved, and the ban on babies is removed. But just a few generations later, the grandchildren of all children at the time of the ban being lifted find themselves facing the same problem. This time no one is able to react and there comes a food shortage; and as food is only added to the bottle each minute 99.99% of all the bacteria starve to death. Only a very small fraction is left in the bottle to start civilization anew.
Stop me if you've heard this before. The world population growth rate is just over 1%. Which means that it doubles in the span of one human lifetime. It's been stated that the upper limit on sustainable human population is between 10 and 12 billion. In fact, "According to UN's 2010 revision to its population projections, world population will peak at 10.1bn in 2100 compared to 7bn in 2011." (-wikipedia 'population growth').
So here we are at 7.5 billion people. The bottle is 75% full. But in stark contrast to the bacteria of the bottle most people I talk to have absolutely no idea of the need to find an entirely new planet to inhabit within our generation just so that our children can gnash their teeth at the hell they will have to go through of being forbidden to reproduce. It's either that or we need to put a worldwide ban on population growth now. Failing to do so will cause it to happen naturally (or worse, break the bottle).
I wonder what the UN is planning. A population growth rate of 1% implies a population of 17 or 18 billion in 2100 -- not 10 billion. Their figures do not make sense. The crisis will not come in 2100. It will come in our lifetimes.
|
|
|
|
FY,GM definitely implies a person wasting assets that others need because... well... FY,GM.
Anyone have a link for that study in which people would rather get less and others get nothing than get more and others get something?
I am fascinated by this thread because the central issue is something I have been meditating on for many years. I tend to agree with capn noe here but I'd like to step back and look at the big picture and the modern setting in which FYGM has gained traction. For one, we're living in the age of peak everything. Whether we are at peak oil now, is not my point, only that we are at peak production. Meaning we are at the point (and have been for almost 20 years) where adding more population (i.e. human labor) does not increase world GDP in terms of purchasing power. Which means the average income per capita in terms of purchasing power has been falling steadily for quite some time. In addition to this backdrop we are witnessing in our lives a colossal shift in world wealth and power from the west to the east. I remember back in 2006 or 2007 I hypothesized China would get an aircraft carrier in 2012 and I was laughed off usenet. Lo and behold I was right -- I was right because I lived here (in Asia) and I knew what was going on. I could see it. These are big changes. In general in the 80s the picture was, 10% of the world's wealthy was in America and 10% was in Europe. In another 10 or 20 years it will be, 20% in China/Asia and 10% in Europe and America combined. This is a huge colossal shift. And what I am hypothesizing is that the population is going to go into drastic decline. Maybe through famine or poverty. War isn't working these days, it's not fast enough. So back to FYGM. The negative connotation stems from a notion of fairness and equality among human beings. This is a very tempting viewpoint to have. But it is by nature unsustainable. It is a morality which served us well as a species in our formative history (the last 6,000 years). But it has now become our undoing. The issue is really what we can control and what we cannot control. We can't control energy. Once it's gone it's gone. A massive shift to wind, solar and geothermal might be our last chance, but there are cost and sustainability issues with that too. We can't control food and (for the most part) we can't control weather. Maybe to a degree we can use fertilizers and modern farming methods but my point is that there are limits. There is one thing we can control though -- population. And this is where we are forced to realize that we must cut off our right hand so that the left does not know what it is doing. Look at all of the things we think are helpful and good: - Feeding the poor - Disaster aid/disaster relief - Volunteer work - Housing the homeless - Advanced medicine, elective surgery - insurance of any kind These things have become a serious problem because they are a threat to the human race as a whole. We are approaching a tipping point -- that is undeniable -- where the human race must stop growing in number. Think about it. Somehow, versus today, millions and millions of babies must stop being born. This is not a joke. Maybe not today but definitely within the next 10-30 years we will witness this live.It will require a massive shift in perception, consciousness, morality, an across-the board change. And what is even more likely is that it won't just be babies not getting born, it will be that people as a whole need to start dying. This is shocking and against all known human morality. It is against our nature to think this. This is not what 6,000+ years of evolution of human history have taught us. So I propose a simple test for those family lines who are to survive the coming crisis (or not). It's simple. If you understand that FYGM is pretty much the demarcation line between who is going to live and who is going to die, then you deserve to survive. It's not a happy thought but it's pretty much undeniable at this point. In the future, no matter what we feel is right or wrong, at least half the people on the earth -- right now -- need to die. And there is nothing you or I or anyone can do about it. I hope I'm wrong... |
|
|
|
In 3rd person, BFL_Josh talks about "knowing" a dude named Inaba:
[...]
BFL_Josh's supposed last name is Josh Zerlan.
I always get a laugh out of people who start complaining about others using handles on a board where everyone uses a handle... including themselves. |
|
|
|
I propose he cannot do the buyback without selling current hardware at major loss and ruin his plans.
The reason for stalling as long as possible is so he can possess asic gear. The income from that, in a short time would allow a buy back or a new terramining crap plan to get fresh btc coming in or simply continue to pay peanuts while he laughs to the bank.
Demand money back before asics arrive. That is how you get even.
That's the point though. He isn't going to give the money back. He's going to make you go through a lawyer. Then I propose that the bond holders create a thread and get 20+ people to all agree on a date for payment and if giga does not agree to a reasonable date.. he should get a scammer tag. naturally the mods should be involved on what they think a reasonable date should be. say 10 more days. he broke the contract, he has had plenty of time to make things right, and all the BS he has created is not fair to the bond holders. a person cannot just hold onto other people's money for weeks and months on end without repercussions no matter what excuse they dream up next. those dividends better be getting interest too. Question: What do you say? Yes - 104 (69.3%) No - 46 (30.7%) Total Voters: 150 |
|
|
|
In cases of share transference where you have already submitted a withdrawal address - is the intention to forward funds or change the address if the shares are purchased by someone other than yourself?
(Apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere or is for whatever reason superfluous; I've been gone from the Bitcoin scene for awhile)
Yes, ownership will be transferred by signing a statement with the deposit address on file. I'll also manually transfer anything I receive from sale or refund if appropriate. |
|
|
|
I propose he cannot do the buyback without selling current hardware at major loss and ruin his plans.
The reason for stalling as long as possible is so he can possess asic gear. The income from that, in a short time would allow a buy back or a new terramining crap plan to get fresh btc coming in or simply continue to pay peanuts while he laughs to the bank.
Demand money back before asics arrive. That is how you get even.
That's the point though. He isn't going to give the money back. He's going to make you go through a lawyer. |
|
|
|
you rarely sale? are not selling off shares currently?
letting the price work itself up over demand to be able to vote with the less than 1000 shares you do not own
no plans to publicly sell and stagger any more shares to the community like s.dice?
only people who pay extreme prices for the ability to vote get to vote?
If not then is that community supportive? rich people get to be voters.
I do have a few shares for sale right now. Looking at my account history I've sold less than 150 shares in the last month and a half, 100 of which was to help jumpstart the BTC-TRADING-PT asset. I haven't seen the details of the s.dice long term plan, so I can't really comment on that. I outlined the BTC-TC long term plan above. Yes, only people willing to invest in the platform are allowed to determine the direction the platform will take. That's the general idea anyway. I'm generally open to good ideas for improvement in the platform, but things are getting to where they're pretty well established now, which makes big changes a bit harder. Cheers. Please consider limiting the top end of the price by offering more shares for sale. Voting demand is pushing it too fast in my opinion. But in any case, what's going to happen when dozens of people have the ability to vote? Won't getting 5 votes be trivial at that point? Will you raise the number of votes required, or raise the number of shares required to vote? |
|
|
|
Giga now seems to be prohibiting transfers between parties despite KYC ("know your customer") guidelines which state that a customer is merely a beneficial owner of whatever it is he's selling, and further state that a customer/beneficial owner can also be the beneficiary of a transfer of ownership.
If I allowed transfer of ownership, I would need to file and register with all sorts of three letter agencies. Before, it was GLBSE's responsibility to do this. Now, it is mine. It is cost prohibitive to allow this due to both legal and federal fees incurred to do so. I'm sorry to say my stance on this is no longer theoretical -- if GigaVPS does not allow me to transfer my GIGAMINING bonds he appears to be breaking the law by removing my right to transfer beneficial ownership.
Please start reading whats been written on the issue. The most important parts are provided at the link below. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127437.0I could be wrong
On this point, you are 100% correct. It just seems like a very convenient excuse. You apply the law when it suits you, and not in the best interests of your bondholders. You said it yourself above; When GLBSE had the responsibility everything was easy peasy. Fine then, go list on BTCT-CO. I suppose there is some legal reason that you cannot do this of course, akin to not allowing anyone to transfer beneficial ownership despite KYC guidelines. I'm not going to hire a solicitor to write a transfer letter so I suppose you just got 10 GIGAMINING bonds richer. That feels like a scam. The technical term is "bait and switch" I believe. Wow, can you imagine what would happen if I pulled a stunt like demanding KYC for my own shareholders? That wouldn't go over so well. |
|
|
|
ASICMINER 10 @ 1.103
OH NO TYPO ASICMINER 10 * 0.103 Confirmed |
|
|
|
This whole, "I broke the law issuing the bonds, but I'm abiding by the law repaying them" stance is a scam.
Of course. If I were way more bastard than I am I would pull the same trick here (not IRL or someone would shoot me in the knees). I could just walk away from my own obligations too, like this. But this isn't my point. My point here is new evidence. Giga now seems to be prohibiting transfers between parties despite KYC ("know your customer") guidelines which state that a customer is merely a beneficial owner of whatever it is he's selling, and further state that a customer/beneficial owner can also be the beneficiary of a transfer of ownership. I'm sorry to say my stance on this is no longer theoretical -- if GigaVPS does not allow me to transfer my GIGAMINING bonds he appears to be breaking the law by removing my right to transfer beneficial ownership. I could be wrong (IANAL) but my issue has become I have no intention of dragging a lawyer into this, so I feel that GigaVPS is pretending it's against the law when it's really not. |
|
|
|
Well you're an asset issuer so I guess it's okay, but OTOH why not make a deposit? I mean, if you can't afford the deposit how could I trust you to come up with the money after the auction?
It's OK usagi. It's your auction, so you can set the rules how you see fit. But, I don't agree with the "post count" rule. So I won't be participating. It's not like I've been a member on this forum longer than you or Deprived or gigavps etc.  This is why I had the rules up for 3 days before posting them on the auction forum, and why I state in the auction I can change the rules for up to 72 hours after the auction starts. With all due respect why didn't you say something three days ago? :p Anyways i've already green-flagged you but you still seem unwilling to participate. My loss I guess. |
|
|
|
Was going to bid... If you have less than 500 forum posts you must pay a 10% deposit Nope. Well you're an asset issuer so I guess it's okay, but OTOH why not make a deposit? I mean, if you can't afford the deposit how could I trust you to come up with the money after the auction? |
|
|
|
Unless of course there's a legal reason why not -- but there isn't, as far as I know you said it yourself, your lawyer is just requiring AML documents as a precautionary measure. Not to satisfy some sort of existing legal requirement to do so.
You could not be further from the truth. KYC is a US government requirement, hence why I am doing it. If you submit your information, you will receive all back payments and will be able to upgrade to Teramining. Please get your facts straight before posting incorrect information. I didn't say KYC wasn't a US government requirement, I said my recollection -- "as far as I know" -- is that you were doing this as a 'precautionary measure' and not because you had an order to do so. Try to keep in mind I am not a lawyer. But as far as I can tell, KYC guidelines state a "customer" is merely the beneficial owner. Specifically they state that a beneficial owner can be the beneficiary of a transaction conducted by a professional intermediary. So I don't see a reason why I can't transfer my ownership to someone else, who can then identify to you. It wouldn't be my problem at that point. If you're just telling me that's what your lawyer said, that's fine, but I have no intention of dragging lawyers into it. I'll let someone else make that judgement. |
|
|
|
Few quick questions:
1. ASICMINER - Has friedcat confirmed you had 10 shares of this yet? (I know he confirmed some but not all - my own haven't been confirmed).
2. BDK.BND - Did you receive an email from Kluge confirming you held the bonds you're selling?
3. You say "- I reserve the right to bid on any shares here with my personal money." Can you confirm that you WON'T bid yourself on lots then immediately end auction (one of the reasons I absolutely hate auctions with no transparency on end time) - allows issuer to snipe (either on own account or through a proxy)?
Will likely have questions on a few more - will look over list nearer 20th when it gets towards time to start bidding.
As stated in the rules, bidding starts now and can't end until at least the 20th, and the status of all assets will be updated as I get information, on the asset status page.I'll look into those concerns now, but it appears as if you already have that information as listed on the page. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
