I'm guessing Sunday will be even more boring? I was amazed that people I knew were casually talking about bitcoins yesterday. Either bitcoin is becoming more popular or they are a bunch of drug dealers.  All the people I know who I told about it at $5 are now talking about it. "How much money did you lose in the bubble popping?" Less than I made in the run-up...  |
|
|
|
I don't download stuff... I am geek lvl 0. Not downloading stuff puts you in the 90th percentile or better already |
|
|
|
This thread is the ultimate litmus test  |
|
|
|
I'll be working with CurbsideProphet on Saturday. After that, there will be 2 sponsored slots left, picked chronologically. The sponsoring will end, but the service will not.
Just finished up our session and was very happy with the 1 hour tutorial. He covered a lot of areas. Anyone interested in OTC but unfamiliar with GPG, I highly suggest his course, also thanks to MPOE-PR for sponsoring the session. Curbside was responsive and a pleasure to work with. Unfortunately I am rather busy in the near future, but I will PM people as I become available. |
|
|
|
I was wondering what you guys thought of the idea of making a legitimate pool for vanity address mining.
I was looking into the code for it, and it seems pretty workable.
There just needs to be a way to do proof of work with vanityminer. It's the same theory as shares with bitcoin though, so not too complex.
If you are talking about actually mining PRE-EXISTING addresses in their full form, not just small patterns, sure, yes. But if you are talking about just patterns like 1MyAddy, then there is already a pool, it's http://vanitypool.appspot.comThat's not a pool, that's a joblist board. It's exactly like solo mining bitcoin. For people with low hash, it's useless. Vanity address mining is significantly more profitable that mining, in theory, but for me any of the addresses listed will take ~30 days for a 50% cdf. I can't mine for 30+ days with no return. The fundamental thing that I'm saying vanitygen is missing is pooled rewards, with pooled mining. I was suggesting a pool that pays that same way a bitcoin pool does, with percentile shares per address. So everyone could be working on the same address simultaneously, and when someone gets it,the rewards are distributed to the miners based on work put in, rather than the current way of a bunch of people going solo, and one person getting the entire reward. How would you structure a proof of work? Mining vanity addresses is almost exactly what Bitcoin mining is. For Bitcoin, you're looking for a vanity hash; it must start with a certain number of zeroes. Addresses are, in essence, hashes. The proof of work, a partial match, is not really much different. |
|
|
|
Quote from an economics textbook 50 years from now: Much of what we know about Bitcoin's early economy, beyond historical price data, comes from a forum thread titled "Wall Observer" which preserved important orderbook states.  |
|
|
|
|
I'll be working with CurbsideProphet on Saturday. After that, there will be 2 sponsored slots left, picked chronologically. The sponsoring will end, but the service will not.
|
|
|
|
|
We did it by going in person to every local business on the books. If you have a JCPenney nearby, hit them up; they have a nationwide policy and you should probably be able to get a few thousand dollars.
|
|
|
|
agree, I prefer to be a skeptic and look at the pros and cons
It's always a good idea to weigh before deciding but in my 20 or so years of following Krugman, he's had the amazing ability of being wrong about every trend in front of him. Maybe your research of him will prove me wrong. A Nobel Prize means nothing. Some of the biggest warmongers of the past 100 years have received Nobel Peace Prizes. A Nobel Prize means even less when it's not in Nobel's will... |
|
|
|
How long until you think it will rebound?
(As in can I get 10k from my bank in time tomorrow?)
it wont be "rebounding"... look around, this is clearly the death of bitcoin.  Ah... the buy signal. |
|
|
|
Oh god, I know I should be hating myself, but it does sound intriguing(even if the pitch sounds like a complete and utter scam). Any other reviewers have anything to say?
Based on his prior posts, I am going to defer judgement to mlawrence until I have obtained legal counsel. You should be able to figure out the main idea of the scheme from this post, especially the final link: - The price you pay for this ebook is not the end. Following the whole ebook will cost $34-$54, and $25 more if you actually want "passive" income (by outsourcing some of the work).
- After following the instructions, you still need to do monthly payments (~$20+) to keep it going.
- I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that the practice outlined in the ebook breaks at least one fraud law in the U.S. Proof to the contrary is welcome.
I value my reputation and cannot recommend this ebook. I will, however, abstain from discouraging its purchase until the OP addresses point #3. If your query is in regards to forming an LLC to create a new business entity, that is entirely legal. LLC's in USA are seen as separate entities to individuals. You can even create LLCs which are completely private in New Mexico. You can read more about obtaining new private LLC business entities here: http://boldanddetermined.com/2012/09/03/how-own-your-house-car-anonymously/This part of the method is not required though, it is some added knowledge I have thrown in. If your query is regarding advertising sites, you can read Google's policy here: http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1348722 |
|
|
|
Inane bullshit
Didn't I ignore this guy already? |
|
|
|
- The price you pay for this ebook is not the end. Following the whole ebook will cost $34-$54, and $25 more if you actually want "passive" income (by outsourcing some of the work).
- After following the instructions, you still need to do monthly payments (~$20+) to keep it going.
- I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that the practice outlined in the ebook breaks at least one fraud law in the U.S. Proof to the contrary is welcome.
I value my reputation and cannot recommend this ebook. I will, however, abstain from discouraging its purchase until the OP addresses point #3. |
|
|
|
last step
Please send BTC to .
Your account will be updated as soon as we receive the payment. |
|
|
|
|
What we've got here is a language failure.
|
|
|
|
Using the immoral apparatus of the state... legitimizes that system. Can't even make it that far. By "immoral apparatus," you mean voting, and thus we're back at the beginning, begging the question. If you were to swap some words ("Using the apparatus of the immoral state legitimizes the state"), then we'd have a non-sequitur. OK, look at it this way: Yes, it's moral to fight against someone trying to impose their will upon you by force. But by voting, you inherently agree to the rules of the contest - rules set by the agressor. I think you can see why that might be a bad idea. When you vote, you are accepting that the state has the authority to make this decision via this method, and are submitting to the will of the majority - no matter what the outcome. If you voted, you can't complain. Can't we separate these actions (voting and accepting authority)? What is wrong with saying "I don't recognize your moral right to exist, and please stop existing ASAP, but while you do exist, please minimize your use of force?" A bully wants your lunch money. Are you accepting his right to take your money by asking him not to bully you? |
|
|
|
Using the immoral apparatus of the state... legitimizes that system. Can't even make it that far. By "immoral apparatus," you mean voting, and thus we're back at the beginning, begging the question. If you were to swap some words ("Using the apparatus of the immoral state legitimizes the state"), then we'd have a non-sequitur. |
|
|
|
Cut off one head, two more grow in its place. So you attack the heart. And... you lost me. Perhaps Thoreau can explain it better: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Voting down bad laws = hacking at branches Doing away with Gov't altogether = striking the root Still can't make the jump from the above agreeable statement to "all voting is immoral." Someone please give me a nice, formal, logical if-then statement. |
|
|
|
Way I see it, attempting to strive for the peace using a violent system is fruitless.
This statement makes sense. However, the jump from there to "no voting whatsoever" strikes me as odd. If there is a system which incorporates violence, yet allows a nonviolent vote to stop the violence, how can that vote be immoral? With less rhetoric (actually just more words): Consider an area where marijuana is prohibited by force. If the majority of the citizens vote to legalize marijuana (unconditionally), then nothing happens except the force stops. In this case the vote is certainly not immoral, and it might even be moral (though it probably stops short of imperative). You're right; the force stops. However, because the system is still in place, marijuana can just as easily be abolished once again. Laws are never permanent, they are always changed, and they are always at another's expense. This much is true. Again, I agree with your first point, but fail to see what follows from it. Politics center around one thing: rob Peter to pay Paul. So the problem is law. Sure. To participate in such a system is to agree that violence is the answer; even though you may not agree that violence is the best answer, you may even despise violence with all your might, by participating in violence to revoke violence temporarily, you admit that it's an acceptable form of action. See, this is where I'm missing the point. Saying "I want the violence to stop" and having someone listen to you doesn't justify the violence. I don't believe it is. Neither do I. Cut off one head, two more grow in its place. So you attack the heart. And... you lost me. Voting, even against a new law, or to repeal an old one, just makes me feel dirty. It's like you're asking them to "pretty please, stop putting people in a cage for having this plant?" when the proper response to such a law is "Piss off!"
But to each his own, and if it helps stop the violence, I'm for it.
We don't actually disagree on anything meaningful (as far as I can tell). You have every right to "feel dirty," and I have the right to avoid smoking marijuana even though you may enjoy it. To each his own opinions, and it seems we've reduced our conflict to unquantifiable opinions ("red is the best color"). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
