|
At what bitcoin price can we refer to them as "the powers that were"?
and confusingly refer to ourselves as "the powers that we're"?
|
|
|
|
|
I helped someone short. We agreed to swap my coins for his dollars and swap back after a month.
|
|
|
|
I'm kind of relieved to see more people agree we do have a problem.
Just to be perfectly clear: I don't think it's a problem. If it ever becomes a problem, client developers will get together and figure out a reasonable block size limit. There is no point in trying to preempt the problem now, because we can predict neither what the hash rate will be, nor what it needs to be. Also note the timescales - the problem will be foreseeable well in advance because the transition from minting to fees is gradual. I agree, but the same applies for difficulty. We don't and can't know what it should be so it self adjusts, would be cool if max block size could do something like that. |
|
|
|
Looking to trade $6.36 on Full Tilt and $21.64 on PokerStars not allowed to play there being based in the U.S. Make an offer.
Have you tried transferring? It wasn't possible last I checked. I'll will be selling a lot if it is movable now, lol |
|
|
|
|
Omg, noisebridge looks awesome. I'm there any day that works for people.
|
|
|
|
|
I win.
It's like the other game, but worse payout right?
You interested in programing more complicated stuff? Like multiplayer games?
|
|
|
|
...Keynes didn't say a single truth.
"In the long run we're all dead"? |
|
|
|
|
I'm looking for quotes on $3 options expiring 3 months from now.
|
|
|
|
|
We already had a lottery (taabl) where you didn't have to trust the operator not to pick the winner. He did it by using the last digits of the hash of a predetermined block as a ticket. Still had to trust him to pay out of course, but we'd know right away if he didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Lol at spending a billion dollars on a computer and "having energy efficiency in mind".
|
|
|
|
If speculators become too powerful/too few they can game the market to their advantage.
Examples are buying up large quantities of a commodity to make a fake scarcity or downright fraud and manipulation with the production chain (Enron)
How could there be "too few" speculators? |
|
|
|
Is it for real or an artifact of some sort must first be established ... maybe it is an anonymising strategy of some sort.
I would think an anonymising strategy would involve blending in and circulating coins in a natural looking manner instead of getting a bunch of geeks to examine your traffic and chat about it. I like to think that it's a potential investor making sure the system can handle more load instead of some idiot spammer doing it for no reason. |
|
|
|
Thank you... I wish this link were more visible on mtgox. More visible than invisible? :-) |
|
|
|
|
It's a test, looks like we can handle tons of tx just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
If people try to pass off older bills at my shop I scowl and ask for a premium. If they get question me I yell "Do you know where those have been?!? I didn't think so. I don't want to be associated with cocaine trade and ladies of impure character!"
|
|
|
|
This sounds good. Maybe the listing price should only be paid if the sell order is fulfilled? That would encourage new users to start using the service, especially when it's just taking off.
Yeah, a lot of people will be shooting in the dark at first so it won't be worth much until you get critical mass. Like MtGox did in the beginning. Offer free service, get user base, charge fee, people keep coming because that's where all the people are. |
|
|
|
Also, I would like to tell that fraud CC's aren't really harming the single person who owns the CC, but rather the CC company as most of them give you back your stolen money. Friend of mine just got stolen 2400€ via his CC and he got it all back pretty easy (sic!)
Greets, M
Lol where does the CC company get the money to reimburse you with? They get it from the fees that their customers pay. In other words, the customers pay for the fraud and as such experience harm. Knowing someone who works for a prominent data forensics firm, I am frequently told this: If the CC companies can figure out how the card numbers got stolen (e.g. in a data breach or something), they will brazenly recoup their losses by tapping the credit card income of the merchant they consider responsible for the breach, until the losses are covered. And they are fairly good at figuring out who to blame, simply by using algorithms that look for common points of purchase among cards that have been stolen. They can usually nail it right down to the specific gas pump, or the specific web site, or the specific terminal that got hacked. A five, six, or seven figure loss is very unwelcome to any small business, and the credit card companies couldn't care less if the business gets wiped out in the process. They use that so-called "PCI DSS Compliance Questionnaire" to seal the deal. Every merchant must certify themselves as PCI Compliant to avoid paying hefty fees, and that self-certification pretty much buries them in the event of a breach. The rationale goes like this: "You certified that you do XYZ to protect CC#'s, clearly you did not, so all losses from this breach are your fault." Someone suggested that CC theft is somehow OK because you're stealing from a bank, not an individual. I would submit that stealing from a bank is still stealing and isn't somehow more justified just because they are a bank. It is one thing to take a position that the war on drugs is a victimless non-crime, an ineffective misallocation of resources, an intrusion upon the freedom of adults. It's yet another to start up a free-for-all that enables things like fraud and theft - things that are unmistakably criminal and detrimental to society - or makes things like weapons available to violent criminals and the mentally ill. Sounds like good reason not to use CC companies as a merchant. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
