|
Hello,
I would like to apply for adminship on the Bitcoin wiki. Although my involvement in it has been minimal so far, I am beginning to get irritated at the spam present there, and would volunteer some of my time to help clean it up. Unlike certain people, I have no motivation to use any administrator powers for harm. Due to some wikipedia editing experience, the actions I have done are in general extremely neutral. I also have prior experience with administrating a mediawiki wiki.
My username is "Dree12". Thank you for considering my request.
|
|
|
|
Someone doesn't know the difference between "Bitcoin" and "Bitcoin Foundation" and "Bitcoin Central"  . This is why I think the name "Bitcoin" should never be put into company names. Walmart is not called Dollar Walmart, nor is the Bank of America called the American Bank of Dollar. Let the second wave of confusion and misunderstanding begin. |
|
|
|
Given Stallman's political views he's one of the last people I'd expect to be interested in the monetary freedom Bitcoin represents.
Bitcoin does not represent monetary freedom. Regardless, Stallman is a Green, and would support greater freedom anyways. |
|
|
|
That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer to these perpetual moving machines is simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.
The argument I made explains precisely why these machines can't work. Whatever state they're in, whether resonant or not, can be assigned a number based on the minimum energy required to assemble the machine into that state. And no known law of motion, energy, inertia, or resonance allows a transition to a higher-numbered state or to a state with an equal number while withdrawing energy. It really is that simple. As stated before in an environment that causes no frictions (Vacuum, no gravity, perfect mechanics - which don't exist) it should theoretically be possible to construct such a machine that once set in motion keeps spinning at a constant rate for eternity. But as soon as you start to remove energy from the system (generator) it would start to slow down and eventually stop. The problem is that friction isn't the only cause of energy loss. Radiation occurs in anything with heat, and anything without heat is by definition devoid of energy. |
|
|
|
For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.
Really? What about this one: <snipped image of big bang> There are conflicting theories, but so far as I know, none of them seriously suggests a violation of this principle. Some of the more "out there" theories claim the big bang drew energy from existing source that is limitless for practical purposes and then claim that they can build machines that can tap into this source. Machines that claim to tap into the energy stored in permanent magnets and try to find a technical escape clause by arguing their machines will last for decades or centuries, rather than forever, try this. Others claim their machines tap into a nuclear source. My sole point here is that you can't do this with the known laws of motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity. Yeah, the picture was rather irrelevant. Sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering.
Since one ball is leaving at the top and one ball is entering at the bottom, you need to convert a space at the top of the water (left by the leaving ball) to a space at the bottom of the water (needed by the entering ball). How can you do that without lifting the water up? The energy you get from the air rising comes from the water lowering as the air rises. Since water is denser than water, it takes more energy to lift the water up to make space for the entering ball than you get from the rising of that ball. Imagine a tube with a fixed amount of water in it. Now imagine that same tube with the same amount of water but an air bubble in the bottom. The water level must be higher in the second tube. Thus it takes energy to place an air bubble in the bottom of a tube of water. This applies regardless of what's going on at the top of the tube. Just as much water is lifted up as water that falls down to replace it, meaning no net change. And regardless, the buoyant force is more than strong enough to lift the water as well; this is why a single balloon can pass from bottom of tank to top of tank. The more precise explanation is the water is actually pushing down on the balloon just as much as it is pushing up on the balloons, as I posted here: The water suffers an equal force from the balloons as it places upon them (Newton's third law). This force, because the water has nowhere to go, is transferred to the entering balloon, and prevents it from coming in. The other balloons, which are trying to tug it, are halted as well because the two forces are equal. The two forces balance out and nothing moves.
In a way, this means that the balloons being lifted by water means the water is being suppressed by the balloons, so it takes all the force gained to keep the water up. |
|
|
|
Simple: In order to enter the Water tank, you balloons would have to displace the water at first, thereby raising the Waterlevel. This would require the same energy the water uses later to displace the balloon upward.
For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics. Really? What about this one:  It can't work because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. Generating energie out of nowhere is impossible. It (hypothetically) might be possible to create something thats keeps spinning at a constant speed, in a vacuum and with no friction. That's it period. Fake. Really? Excuse my bad paint skills. Picture (see above) Why do people always assume that things are impossible? Nothing is. Ok, if you just being sarcastic, sorry for not understanding. Do I really have to explain why this wouldn't work? Simple: In order to enter the Water tank, you balloons would have to displace the water at first, thereby raising the Waterlevel. This would require the same energy the water uses later to displace the balloon upward. At next a drawing where you lift yourself up by pulling on your legs please. Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering. Please explain how it would be affected, I'm willing to learn (And that's not sarcastic I'm really willing to learn.) The water suffers an equal force from the balloons as it places upon them (Newton's third law). This force, because the water has nowhere to go, is transferred to the entering balloon, and prevents it from coming in. The other balloons, which are trying to tug it, are halted as well because the two forces are equal. The two forces balance out and nothing moves. |
|
|
|
because i exchanged the received bitcoins to € and give my boss just €.
Then I do not see any legal reasons your boss might have for firing you over accepting bitcoins. Basically what you did never showed up in his/her administration and accounting. I've paid cab fares in the wrong currency a few times (I'm a frequent traveller). I'm quite sure those drivers weren't fired, and happily accepted the bonus I paid on the exchange rate. Sorry for losing your job, but I suspect there's more to the story. You don't seem to understand. He lost his job by putting a "Bitcoin accepted sticker" on the taxi, which was not his property. |
|
|
|
because BTC is a unit. You don't say USD50, you say 50 USD.
nah, BTC is a symbol, just like $ is a symbol. you don't say 50 $ 50 $ is seen in some places around where I live, though $50 is far more common. Even more common is the omission of the $ completely. The reason for that is because $ is the peso sign, used to indicate that "the following number represents a currency" just like 'No.' represents "the following number represents an order" or "-" represents "the following number represents a negative quantity". The peso sign itself, when it proceeds a quantity, is not a unit; while 50 USD is unambiguous, $50 can refer to many different national currencies based on a peso or a dollar. BTC does not connote any of those meanings, rather, BTC is a unit. For example, 50 kg, 50 €, 50 °C are all written with quantity preceding unit. BTC50 looks bad and implies ambiguity. |
|
|
|
|
I always use 50 BTC. This is most clear. 50BTC looks bad, and BTC50 isn't even understandable, because BTC is a unit. You don't say USD50, you say 50 USD.
|
|
|
|
1. Bitcoin use SHA.
2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
US Gov't property released to the public is always in the public domain. Incorporating something in the public domain does not transfer copyright. |
|
|
|
Honestly, this "classification" nonsense is getting old. Bitcoin is a currency, period. Why? It serves two purposes: - It is a medium of exchange.
- It is a store of value.
"Commodities" and "antiquities" may be stores of value, but definitely not media of exchange. Claiming it is such will never pass in front of a jury. The "but gold" argument doesn't work because when used as a medium of exchange, gold is a currency. I find it ridiculous how people try to avoid taxation or foreign exchange laws by claiming Bitcoin isn't a currency. |
|
|
|
Please overread my sentences and give me a pn with a correction.
Till today I was working as a taxi driver in germany. I put some stickers up on the car windows that iam accepting bitcoins. So am i. But my boss didnt know anything about bitcoin and that iam accepting them.
Today a customer called my company and asked for the taxi that is accepting bitcoins. So everybody knows and I got fired because i did it without his permission.
I told all my customers about bitcoin and sold some of them my coins. But now iam workless because of bitcoins. that suxs.
Sue your boss for wrongful dismissal. I presume he or she did not give you a lawful notice of dismissal, and did not retain you to the end of your term. |
|
|
|
That was my view as well, but I'm beginning to think of it as hypocritical. After all, I have a google account and those are tracked on virtually any site with adsense. Facebook can't be anywhere near as bad, right? |
|
|
|
|
I find it ironic how irony is not made of element 26.
|
|
|
|
Nobody under 40 should use FB. Wait until you already have no life.
The irony here is that it was originally a college thing... To OP: No. Not just no, but Hell No. Apparently FB is really addictive, but none of my friends actually use it all that much. I don't think it's as addictive as people say. |
|
|
|
|
Here's what my position of Facebook used to be: giving all this information to one company is unethical and I should never do it. But as time passes, it becomes increasingly evident how hypocritical my position is. After all, I have a Google account, and that is even more information in one place, and I have a Microsoft account which is pretty hefty too. Although I support decentralization, this position is becoming increasingly difficult to defend. My personal friends have urged me to sign up for Facebook numerous times, and I think it is time to reconsider my position. But I remain indecisive.
So I ask: should I do it?
(P.S.: Obviously, this isn't the most important thing going on right now. I don't expect Facebook to be around in a few years, and even if I decide to join I probably will not use it to much extent either. I know that it can be extremely damaging to employment chances, but on the other hand it can also help things. So either way, my life isn't going to change.)
|
|
|
|
A crapload of blocks just happened..
Troll? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
