If you see a ocean in danger of pollution and you want to protect it, get some friends together, buy some defense, protect it.
See an endangered species? Capture them, nurture them, protect them.
Is your favorite rainforest in trouble? Make a contract with the lumber company and pay them not to wreck it. Pay a local militia to protect it.
Tired of people hunting and camping on a piece of land? Buy it. Protect it.
It's very simple. All the tools you need to promote your cause are in front of you. You just need to organize your labor to make things happen. It's a lot simpler than begging for world government to take everything over and tax everyone into your cause.
Tell me, why does the lumber company have the rights to the rainforest? Do they really create more value than non-destructive groups? Who decides who gets the rights to the rainforest? Fact is, all this is subjective. Lumber companies may produce some value by exploiting the rainforest, but many would argue that more value is produced by leaving it alone. So why, why, should these lumber companies own the rainforest in the first place? Who sells it? |
|
|
|
Is there any website where people organize users of BTC to meet IRL?
Yeah, this one.  Thanks for the reply Garr255 but you may have accidentally linked to this very server we are on right now. I believe Garr255 meant to link here. |
|
|
|
Rainforests were created by man centuries ago.
? Honestly, how is this relevant, even ignoring the fact that it is completely false? If it's true, it means man isn't a complete retard that needs to be put on a tyrant's leash. If it is true, we are effectively destroying a resource that past generations must have toiled to create. Perhaps, we should mine limestone from the Pyramids? Maybe create electric wires from the Statue of Liberty? |
|
|
|
Rainforests were created by man centuries ago.
? Honestly, how is this relevant, even ignoring the fact that it is completely false? |
|
|
|
2135 was missing, so I've included it in this post along with 2136. 
|
|
|
|
|
Please, post a picture and a name. Better yet, post a video including you giving a speech.
|
|
|
|
1KLk5kFHAdo3h9ucVh2GSL1grqD42y9np2 I'll use it to purchase a domain on NameTerrific. |
|
|
|
The freemarket has chosen. Look at the "market cap" (I hate that incorrect term) of LTC vs BTC.
And I'll lay dollars to donuts that at their respective stages of development LTC is worth more than BTC was this far into their time existing. I'm sure you could sell 10,000 LTC right now and buy more than a couple of pizzas... I'm not sure why you think this is a valid argument. Solidcoin was worth around half a dollar each once, but is merely a relic of the past now. IxCoin gained much quicker adoption than Bitcoin when it launched, but is laughable in adoption now. Why wouldn't LiteCoin suffer the same trajectory? |
|
|
|
It would be nice to see an address owned by btclottery that currently own 10'000 btc to pay out the potential max win.
I doubt it, considering if you win, you are classified as someone who produces alcoholic beverages.  Also suspicious: this thread is linked to from their site. |
|
|
|
It's complicated to explain, which is why I omitted it. Effectively, days are classified as Growth if they have % growth above 1,27%, Decline if they have % growth below -0,46%, and unclassified otherwise. The bar represents the difference between Growth days and Decline days (measured in days). If Sunday has -12, for example, that means 12 more Sundays have been Decline days than Growth days. The scale is 5 per grey line, with orange representing zero.
Any chance you could add error bars? From the 6-hour version of the same plot, it seems like they would be significant. Here's a 6-hour with the following error function: ((Days Increased + Days Decreased)^2 / (Average DI + Average DD)^2) * STDDEV(all values)
I'm not sure about the usefulness of this however. The motivation is that the more days recorded that are "boring", the more "stable" the day is (rather than being wild-swingish in nature). The STDDEV is multiplied to allow the error bars to show up. Do you have a better idea for an error function?  |
|
|
|
|
This post corrects an out-of-sync. The next post should describe the number 2124 in images.
|
|
|
|
Please remember that day-trading is negative-sum; that is, excluding the exchange, on average people lose.
If bitcoins are considered a currency, I'm not sure this is true, as the system isn't a closed one. Some people will daytrade while others will exchange only in one direction (compared to trading dividendless shares, where the only thing you can do after buying a share is sell it back). Everyone may win, and everyone may lose (except the exchanges, which always win). If the one-direction traders are included, it is definitely negative-sum. The speculators can only win if the one-direction traders lose. Why? Let's assume I have € and I want to buy something in $ because it is cheaper (quite a common scenario, when hardware vendors tend to sell something at $99.99 in the US and 99.99€ in Europe, when 1€ = $1.3), even when I include the currency exchange fees. In the end, I may be very happy and have made a good deal by having exchanged my € for $, while the person doing the reverse transaction may be happy because he made a good deal in selling his $ for € at a better rate than in bought the $ initially. This is a win-win, both for me and for the speculator. Why is that so? Because the hardware vendor is not included in the loop, he does not explicitely use an exchange. He will use the $ to pay his employees in the US, and the € to pay his employees in Europe. He may convert some $ to € or some € to $, but that would be small fraction of what he earns. Okay, so I guess I failed to include the relative utility of different currencies to different people. In that case, trading may not be negative sum. So effectively, one is trading currency at a premium because one currency is worth more to him than others. In that case, you're right: trading is not necessarily negative-sum. |
|
|
|
From http://pastebin.com/ZqqFEqkcI don't get it... so Bitcoin lets anybody put any data they want into the blockchain, and we have to haul that data around forever? Is this accurate? Are there any plans to mitigate this issue? Thanks! There is not a problem with this. Firstly, legitimate transactions are indistinguishable from arbitrary data. Secondly, to avoid pruning and to send the transactions in the first place, there is a cost. There are no plans to mitigate this issue because little data can be stored for a high cost, and the fact that this really isn't an issue in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
