The fact that this site even existed baffles me. Why not just sign up for a regular dating site if you want an affair.
Really? Because regular dating and having an affair are very different. Ashley Madison cuts out the bullshit for those that just want to get laid and don't want to bother with a relationship. The geographic map is cool and the patter of use follows the availability of internet, the population across the world, and (mostly) aligns with the borders of deeply muslim countries (i.e., theres NO indication of usage in Saudia Arabia, Iraq, etc.) This later fact could also be linked internet access to the site. The only thing that's surprising to me is how few people in India use the site, given that there's always a story of men in India attacking women for sexual needs. When will the links to people we know become known, haha, probably never. |
|
|
|
Social media users express incredulity that the capital was ranked the country’s best city to live in while disaster-hit Tianjin was ranked the second best
Chinese internet users have mocked a report claiming that Beijing is the country’s most liveable city even as they enjoy unusually blue skies in the lead-up to a major military parade.
China’s capital city ranked 69th out of the world’s 140 most liveable cities in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) semi-annual survey, released this week.
“Best joke of the week” said one user of Weibo, China’s Twitter.
“Did they get extra points for all the smog?” said another wag.
This is terrific news! The more the Chinese people take to social media to vent frustration with their administration the faster the elements of change can infuse themselves within that country and business and political worlds. The freedom of vote will lead to the freedom of information and greater protections for the people and companies conducting business in the country. |
|
|
|
|
Why didn't Ukraine make their own moves for their own reasons? They should consider the US opinion as only that, opinion, they don't have jurisdiction or influence over Ukraine. If you Ukraine took the order as advice and got burned, it's really only Ukraine's fault.
Sounds like the move was for internal US politics. Obama wants peace with Russia, it would be a great boost to his legacy and may provide leverage over China. But how would the American people feel if Obama was trying to broker an agreement while Russia was invading and being fought back by Ukraine...a war certainly would have broken out and that would have stalled all talks between Kerry and Putin.
Just my BTC4.64...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having trouble following your point. Are you sharing your opinion or asking a question or both?
You're upset that Government manipulates currency? You're upset the stock market is down? You think the same can happen to Bitcoin or not?
|
|
|
|
|
The traveling or making transactions equal to or greater than $10,000 is a threshold that banks are held to as well (having to report when a transaction of that size occurs.) But if the TSA is going to start search for that kind of currency on person it'll be a meaningless search. Anyone could just transfer value from a wallet on your phone or USB drive to an online wallet while traveling through checkpoints or transit areas.
|
|
|
|
|
Buy this Forum? Interesting, what are you offering?
We'll need to take your offer to the committee for further discussion.
Note that this forum operates as a Cooperative, meaning that every member has an ownership stake so payment will need to be made to each member, directly and that each payment will need to be agreed upon by each member. We have a fairly simple system for you to conduct the process, which we can discuss once the final price is agreed upon.
Please submit your offer in terms of gross payment to the creator and administrators as well as the additional payments that will be made to each member.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
I think everyone's missing an obvious question here: the PM the OP shared doesn't allude to zombie being built in the OP's likeness nor that said zombie (if it did exist) would be used to conduct bodily harm.
Either the OP needs to explain where the threat is or the rest of us need to ignore the troll.
|
|
|
|
Is it possible ? Or no i found that app on Windows Store
Brilliant idea, but phones don't have enough processing power to do the mining in a timeframe that would ever pay you...it would be a painfully long time (if at all). Do you know anyone with solar power? Set up a system with that person (because of electric is so cheap). Good luck. |
|
|
|
If you want convenient and safe, my recommendations would be Coinbase, Circle, or Xapo. But here's a link that will help you find the right wallet based on your specific needs: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet |
|
|
|
Done! Here's my address: 1Exx48BUTb57hPND67Mt5WwPXiTA9CjoEs  Also, if you want to get a higher response you should post this to other boards on this forum - Bitcoin, Marketplace, Politics & Society...you'll get some decent response from those folks. Or you could increase your payment to something higher than less than $0.03. 1 Dollar, 1 Euro, 1 Pound are all more appropriate. I look forward to seeing your research when you're done, please share it here! Good luck. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Who do I quote the subject of this thread?
There's no point in even reading the OP. If bitcoin ends up mimicking the fiat system it will disappear. A blockchain type system to increase transaction speed, lower fees, and ensure validity can be easily generated by most governments to support their fiat currency. Creating a central bank for Bitcoin defeats a major purpose of Bitcoin.
Now I have to go back and reinforce my current thinking by reading the OP's crazy rationale.
Ok, read the OP. I see a few themes getting woven together, here's my take:
1) Fractional Reserve Lending: It's bad for fiat, it'll be bad for Bitcoin. It'll encourage inflation. Instead of having a central bank owning bitcoin to then lend it out to lenders (and encouraging the lending of money that really doesn't exist), organizations that want to do lending for Bitcoin should do so on their own and let their own reputation and reserves cover it, don't link the lenders to a central system...there MUST be the threat of failure, otherwise organizations will take more risk than is prudent.
2) Confidence in Bitcoin: A central bank doesn't provide confidence in the currency it deals in. Look at the Dollar, look at the Euro, need I continue? People will have confidence in Bitcoin due to the blockchain and the community that supports it.
|
|
|
|
So Mike Hearn?
I don't have an opinion on that. But I am quite surprised by your hunch that Satoshi wrote/sent his white paper from the central US. I'd be even more surprised if it turned out Satoshi was American...but, what fact do I have to base my shock on - none.
Nice find.
Mike Hearn is not Google. Nice straw man fallacy. He's ex-Google, however Bitcion is 6 years old, so he could have been working there at the time of it's start, at the release of Satoshi's white paper. No straw man fallacy, just cold hard facts: P.S. Google is not actually a person, it's the people at Google that work their passion projects within the Google think tank machine... |
|
|
|
There are new physical bitcoins?, this could be a problem after the fork of course.
I don't think so! Please check previous comments. The bitcoin will be always kept there. They are the same chain until the fork happen, the chain will be different! Ha, this doesn't answer his questions. There are not any new Casascius physical coins. There are other physical coins that serve as wallets for bitcoin and other alt currencies. XT wants to keep the blockchain so they would work fine, but i think XT is pretty bad considering it contain codes not relevant to block size limit that could cause serious issues down the road.
So far its mostly noise and there isint much adoption for XT but hopefully new users and pools/big farms won't adopt it.
What issues could arise down the road? |
|
|
|
it's so easy to be against something, especially something with a label like "XT," and especially when there seems to only be two people behind it and the rest of the core developers are against it.
It's got a label which suggests it's fundamentally different that Bitcoin! Only Gavin and Hearn are pushing it! The rest of the developers are against it! I'm against it too! It smells fishy! There must be some nefarious intention behind it!
The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.
what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.
This is so dangerous to bitcoin that it requires VERY GOOD REASON AND JUSTIFICATION which I have seen not a single shred of. All I have seen is attacks on gavin's character, attacks on hearn's character, appeals to fear, ridiculous speculations that the CIA and the NSA are behind XT based on pure fabricated fear mongering, what I have not seen is a single LOGICAL ARGUMENT that is in the least convincing which suggests that Bitcoin XT should be opposed...
...What I am saying is that this split is very dangerous, and those who are perpetuating it by threatening to SPLIT BITCOIN IN HALF after 75% agrees that XT is the best solution have some explaining to do! We need LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, not appeals to fear, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and other fallacies. Bring out the evidence, bring out the facts, and lay out an argument dammit! You are threatening to destroy bitcoin without good reason otherwise!
I think what you mean is "it's easy to favor the way it's always been!" Don't turn this around on those that are holding onto "the original"...that's a shitty move, man. This is not the first time technology has evolved. People in the world can still use a tape deck to listen to music, most of the world just doesn't cater to it anymore. So if people want to cling to the original, wait their turn for transactions to process (if that's what happens), what's the harm to those that have moved on? Those that support Core don't need facts to prove it works, because it already works. XT supporters have the burden of convincing everyone else that change is needed and change will be good. And guess what, they're doing it...they ARE convincing people. |
|
|
|
We will find out who Satoshi is after, like, 50 years of Bitcoin. And that day will be amazing.
PS: I think Satoshi is Google, btw.
So Mike Hearn? I don't have an opinion on that. But I am quite surprised by your hunch that Satoshi wrote/sent his white paper from the central US. I'd be even more surprised if it turned out Satoshi was American...but, what fact do I have to base my shock on - none. Nice find. |
|
|
|
|
How does XT influence physical bitcoins (e.g., Casascius)?
I presume that if the bitcoin on the coin were withdrawn from the wallet it would just be compatible with the XT system, but would this remain true 10 or 20 or more years from now?
|
|
|
|
The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.
what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.
What major miners or core developers or wallet exchange firms are against XT? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone! The only people that are potentially against XT are users...and users don't get a vote in this system. |
|
|
|
I think there's probably a better analogy to use. The fork that's going on isn't the same as branches on a tree, it's just a fork in the road. How does a potential fork impact phsyical bitcoins? Dude, are you just copying and pasting your post in multiple threads? This is what I see happening:
1. XT Is out everyone!! Herpa Derp! 75% lets jump on the Gav coin (peace be up on his name)
2. Two chains live on for a while, with core having much less hashing power. (potential for double spends, whatevs.. wait for 20 confirmations for expensive shit)
3. After a little while all the schmuck's who jumped on Shitcoin-xt start to see signs of even more centralization, black/white listing and other types of fuckary
4. Smart ones panic and sell, and dumb ones get stuck holding a bag of Shitcoin-xts
5. True BTC gets the nodes/hashing power back
6. we all live on happily ever after without mike and gavin (peace be up on his name) and they can go hang out with magical tux.
|
|
|
|
Not to fear, it's not the end. As long as people want to use bitcoin for currency, there will be bitcoin. The uproar is because all this change is happening without the majority of users having a say in it, which sounds an a lot like the fiat system we all know. There's also a lot of confusion about what the change means. Some people have been writing that they'll be issued new bitcoins from XT!? That's not the case... Here's a great article from Coindesk that summarizes what's going on pretty well: http://www.coindesk.com/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-debate-and-why-does-it-matter/And this comment... Now the support to Bitcoin XT is going down. So there is no problem for the Bitcoin in near future.
Is completely false. The support for Bitcoin XT is not going down...it's growing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
