Investors, which make that type of buy/sale works without any intermediaries, and they check the market. BTC market already is too large, BTC price can go up without any specific investor.  Exactly, "Bitcoin price can actually go up without a billionaire investment" the market capitalization of bitcoin is above forty billions dollars and just one billion may not be able to push price from were it is to $3,000. I also do not support price manipulation. All the order books aren't that deep. |
|
|
|
This address generator is great. I used it to print off Bitcoin wallets. I am wondering if anyone can tell me how to print of Litecoin wallets though?
I have no problem using lite address.org, but when I download the zip file, it just gives me Bitaddress that is used for Bitcoin, not Litecoin.
Is there a link somewhere I can download the litecoin address generator so that I can generate offline?
Thanks
https://github.com/litecoin-project/liteaddress.orghttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97867.20 |
|
|
|
Your argument that nothing is private unless you can prove it wasn't perhaps published elsewhere is a fallacious isolated demand for rigor. Except that "nothing is private" strawman isn't my argument, which is actually "there's no way for anyone, other than Satoshi or the original sole recipient, to tell if a block of text already out there with just Satoshi's name attached was intended to be private". If someone received something in private email it was private. Yes, in theory it could have been published elsewhere-- people should feel free to go FIND those published copies. Thank you. So what people will be finding out there RIGHT NOW will be a mix of A) private emails, whether they've had their headers stripped (or modified to appear to have been sent to a listserv) or not, B) stuff Satoshi self-published, and C) words attributed to Satoshi that Satoshi never communicated. And I would posit that the OP will not collect even one single, authentic, private email more than what's already out there. Why would people suddenly decide NOW to break confidence, after more than 8 years? P.S. Were Satoshi's emails DKIM? Out there=on the public internet, cached on who knows how many search engines, archive sites, personal computers, ...? |
|
|
|
|
Once again, is there no way to tell if he self-published, so absolutely nothing Satoshi ever ostensibly said should be catalogued?
"if he published it, it would be out there" is a lazy answer. PLENTY of stuff could be out there that Satoshi might not have self-published, that others published pretending to be Satoshi (but still publishing Satoshi's own words), or even attributing words to Satoshi that Satoshi never communicated.
So if there's a reasonable doubt about absolutely everything "Satoshi" ever said (whether it was meant to be public AND whether it was authentic), then nothing whatsoever should be published. Good luck un-ringing the bell!
|
|
|
|
Linked to this topic in #bitcoin-otc & #bitcoin on Freenode. gmaxwell: TBZ1: I think thats unethical. if he intended it to be public he would have published it.
many people will never publish their correspondance, I've been encouraging people to destroy it.
TBZ1: so what if he published it
still unethical?
or is there no way to tell if he self-published, so absolutely nothing satoshi ever ostensibly said should be catalogued?
gmaxwell: TBZ1: if he published it, it would be out there and no one would need to ask people disclose private emails.
TBZ1: out where?
where's the definitive compendium of all publications?
ghost43: easily available on the net
TBZ1: "just google" includes private email
so try again |
|
|
|
|
Set your crockpots full of tar to Warm.
|
|
|
|
This topic is locked because of everyone violating the Local rule: do not reply to this topic. Please PM, IM (links under my QR code avatar), text 619-393-2253, or IRC me. Don't, if you won't prove that you have enough funds to pay immediately.   , 1 left
  , 1 left
  each or  for both, 2 left
  each or  for both, 2 left |
|
|
|
I haven't been following this thread, but a question for clarification: if UK did permit guns, which they do already, were kids supposed to be open carrying/concealed carrying at a pop concert? Or were they supposed to be strapped while strolling across London Bridge?
Law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adults present were. If UK did have weapons, why would anyone have been armed in these circumstances, in public venues, where you can't even take guns? (Try taking a piece into a Taylor Swift concert. You won't get far). Terror tends to happen in public.
The dystopia of UK did have weapons, only in the hands of violent criminals, and of course police minutes away. Law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adult civilians trusted to keep children safe, did not. It would remain a dystopia if the only place law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober adult civilians could legally possess weapons was at home - where they would be burgled safely when the occupants have left. So, for all our gun laws over here, has any citizen actually been armed during a terror attack, and had a chance to use their firearm to ameliorate the situation? In the terror attacks that haven't been in "gun-free zones" (almost none of them, because very few are insane & want to be shot before or effectively the same instant that they hurt innocents, so they only select soft, defenseless/undefended targets), yes. No. Revisionist history duly noted. Guns are cool, but they don't really solve domestic security problems. And you don't want them to. That's what the cops are for. You don't want enforcement in the hands of citizens. There are people on this forum that I talk to on a daily basis, that I cringe to think might own a firearm. They deter them, & "gun-free zones" guarantee them. The human right to self-defense ≠ "enforcement". I cringe to think you're allowed to vote peoples' human rights be infringed & disserve on a jury. /ignore |
|
|
|
|
BTC can't crash if all the exchanges disallow bids & asks below the ATH.
|
|
|
|
|
I've only been warning against using them for keeping BTC for a few years now... perfectly fine for watch-only addresses though.
|
|
|
|
Fiat anything's reversible with a court order.
A court will only enforce a contract and has a high standard of evidence necessary to issue an order effectively "reversing" a fiat transaction. ... A "mass payment" pp transaction is going to be reversible because the owner of the sending account can claim their account was hacked and/or the funds could originate via fraudulent means. And if PayPal doesn't reverse it after receiving those types of claims, a court will order PayPal to reverse it, after receiving sufficient evidence. The BTC sender loses the fiat they were sent in exchange, as it's reversed back to the original PayPal accountholder, the anonymous BTC receiving scammer gets away scot-free. Technically speaking, a court could reverse a Bitcoin transaction by ordering one party to pay another party the fiat equivalent of a btc transaction and jail someone who doesn't comply.
If the court knows who received the BTC. Non-dumbest PayPal scammers wouldn't use accounts with their own identity tied to them in any way. |
|
|
|
The UK cops are a joke. They are patrolling streets with just plastic batons in their hands. And remember that most of the street gangs in London are armed with sub-machine guns and body armor. No wonder that it took them a lot of time to take down the perpetrators of this attack.
Many police in London are armed, and there are also special units to be used for emergency situations. Furthermore, extremely few people in the UK have died from guns, so your thoughts about street gangs having machine guns are unfounded. If a gang member's machine gun was shoved in your face, would you surrender & fear even reporting the incident to police, or would you encourage them to kill you? The assumptions you've made in your question: 1. That gangs have machine guns which they use to kill civilians (it's clearly extremely rare considering how much we're discussing this one attack, and this one attack didn't even involve a gun). 2. That "bad guys" find it much easier to find guns than "good guys". 3. That "good guys", if holding a gun, would actually be capable of fighting back if a machine gun was pointed at their face (they wouldn't in many cases as the gang would be extremely wary of any movement. 4. That you wouldn't be able to report the incident to the police at any point. 5. That a person dying from gun violence at the hands of a gang makes the dangers of ordinary citizens having guns at all times irrelevant. A loaded question is seldom actually loaded with a cohesive argument. If you're willing to make a question which has an answer other than answers supporting you, I'll willingly answer it. ^ Ah, the tired "absence of evidence is definitely evidence of absence" argument. ^ 1. Most guns do not need to be fired to achieve surrender to whatever the wielder wills. Very few are insane and lack the instinct of self-preservation. 2. Bad guys make their own guns, even in prisons. "Good" guys don't because they follow the law against it. 3. Bad guys don't like taking fire whatsoever, especially fire from people who have already been shot, so their self-preservation instinct & common sense says: select only soft, defenseless targets, who have no choice but to surrender, without any noise to signal authorities or fellow civilians at the highest decibel level short of explosives (when it's already too late). On an effective prison island where all innocents are effectively defenseless, a common murderer as opposed to a terrorist who works with other terrorists to improvise explosive devices that don't prematurely detonate, or someone who wishes to uses their weapon to achieve compliance, will use the quietest lethal weapon so the most noise generated is the victim's scream, which carries far shorter distances than what would be their defensive gunshots, if human rights weren't infringed. 4. You could report to police, but the gang would find you and punish you, as the police cannot instantly roll up the whole gang at once. 5. Ah, the tired "gun violence" trope, as if all unfired gun violence by the violent criminals being the sole beneficiaries of laws, as if they had enacted all the laws themselves, doesn't matter. https://pastebin.com/raw/r1qpzbpS/ignore |
|
|
|
|
Fiat anything's reversible with a court order.
|
|
|
|
The UK cops are a joke. They are patrolling streets with just plastic batons in their hands. And remember that most of the street gangs in London are armed with sub-machine guns and body armor. No wonder that it took them a lot of time to take down the perpetrators of this attack.
Many police in London are armed, and there are also special units to be used for emergency situations. Furthermore, extremely few people in the UK have died from guns, so your thoughts about street gangs having machine guns are unfounded. If a gang member's machine gun was shoved in your face, would you surrender & fear even reporting the incident to police, or would you encourage them to kill you? |
|
|
|
Since the London attack, which killed 8 people as I recall, hundreds of people have died in the US from guns.
... mostly from exercises of the human rights of self-determination & self-defense, regardless of whether the lawful defender reasonably felt* they have no choice but to plead guilty (as if they were the "murderer" of who was in reality, a criminal aggressor), because they wouldn't get a fair trial due to "guilt by skin color" or "guilt by association", etc. *as public defenders and the ACLU are loathe to perfectly defend self-defense with firearm cases in a country where that's the quintessential self-defense weapon. |
|
|
|
Since the max order was 1 GB with 0.2% deposit fee, I threw .998 GB on the "Byte-BTC exchange" bot orderbook at 1.5 BTC/GB. If that trade completes & BTC goes over $2939 USD/ BTC ( ATH as of now), then I'll be donating the equivalent value in my inventory to charity. ETA: USD/ BTC condition met, with the ATH moving up to $2942 today, 6/10/17. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile people like butterzone go around every day leaving trust for people who don't even have any direct involvement with them, but my use of trust to defend myself from harassment was wrong.  When the neutral trust option bubble was added a few days ago, I downgraded almost all my negs to neutrals as appropriate. I think all the negs I've left are now for the "I am a victim of this person, so nemo me impune lacessit" circumstances. I'm not sure about the whole menstrual deal, but he gave me negative feedback too. Only after my 2nd post with no warning. I have never even dealed with him. I'm trying to run an honest business but with people like this my noob reputation now became untrusted noob. Sorry, how long am I supposed to wait for PayPal to start reversing all the PayPal Friends and Family payments you send to your customers after you bold-faced lied about those payments being irreversible? I offer paying with Paypal (send money as a friend) which is not reversable just like bitcoin.
 Even if we assume for the sake of argument that you don't personally reverse your payments to your customers... as soon as any of your customers have PayPal reverse payment on YOU (or PayPal does it on their own volition, or there's a court order or other legal action), there begins a domino effect well-known to veteran BTC traders, where anyone you paid with those funds (even if you used one account to receive from customers, sent to another separate pay-to-customers account, then paid them from that one), has your payment reversed out of their account, through all accounts back to the original payer/reverser. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
