1. Your classification of the universe as a machine would allow anything to be classified as a machine, so it is not meaningful. - You are starting to get it. Even energies lever off other energies.
2. You have not shown that a machine must have a maker and cannot exist without one. You assume it based on your biased observations. Lack of observations of a black swan do not prove that one doesn't exist. - There is no example whatsoever of a machine existing without a maker. Yet there are countless examples of machines where we know who the maker is. Scientifically, when the odds are zero in one direction, and countless in the other direction... science considers that to be proof.
Your "countless examples" consist only of man-made machines. What about machines that are not man-made? Can you show that they also have makers? There are certainly many more examples of machines that are not man-made than there are of man-made machines, so if it were actually true that you could use odds to prove something in this case, you would still be wrong. 3. You say that a god must be the creator of the universe because it is able to create it. That does not preclude something else from creating the universe. Perhaps your god found or inherited or even stole the universe after something else created it?
I didn't really say that. If something else created the universe, then the "something else" is God. Why? The nature of the universe is such that it would take a God by our dictionary and encyclopedia definition of "God" to create it. My god doesn't have anything to do with it. We are talking about God... He who is everybody's God... even the God of those who don't understand that God exists.
You don't know that the universe was created by the entity that you call "God". The fact that "the nature of the universe is such that it would take a God [to create it]" does not imply that God created it. You believe that God created it because you assume that there is and always has been exactly one entity (God) capable of creating the universe. I reject that assumption because there is no good reason to accept it. Furthermore, you are begging the question. Your statement "If something else created the universe, then the 'something else' is God" defines God as that which created the universe, and elsewhere you try to prove that God created the universe. In other words, you are trying to prove that God created the universe by using a definition of God as the creator of the universe. |
|
|
|
Machines have makers. They don't just pop into existence without a maker. The machine-Maker of the universe is God. Why would this Maker have to be God? Because the power and ability that this universe-maker would have to have to make this complexity, fits our definition of the word "God."
Issues with your argument: 1. Your classification of the universe as a machine would allow anything to be classified as a machine, so it is not meaningful. 2. You have not shown that a machine must have a maker and cannot exist without one. You assume it based on your biased observations. Lack of observations of a black swan do not prove that one doesn't exist. 3. You say that a god must be the creator of the universe because it is able to create it. That does not preclude something else from creating the universe. Perhaps your god found or inherited or even stole the universe after something else created it? |
|
|
|
... so in my opinion they should not receive sympathy because they are pathetic and gullible ...
Every person, including you, is pathetic and gullible to some degree. Why do you draw a line that decides who deserves sympathy and who doesn't, and why should anyone care where you draw that line? Everyone deserves some amount of sympathy. Where I'm from, we call someone with no sympathy "asshole". |
|
|
|
|
My favorite novels:
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Nabakov is Russian, but his command of the English language is better than most native speakers.
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
The African-American experience in the U.S. aggregated into the life of a single person.
Deliverance by James Dickey
Better than the movie.
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
A WWII American bomber pilot wants to go home but he can't. Funny and sad at the same time
Also, any short stories by Ray Bradbury, most notably The Martian Chronicles.
|
|
|
|
... If SHA256 hash function is used, 256 bits will be produced, this is called the entropy and will be produced in hexadecimal. An example is the use of SHA256 generator. https://passwordsgenerator.net/sha256-hash-generator/Let us assume this entropy generated using SHA256 hash function is: B1B826D5946769D7985A0059A294CEA2FEB47AEC28B94D0EAB2E08F4357F3A5D Sorry for being pedantic, but SHA-256 doesn't generate entropy. Entropy is generated from a random source. Using a SHA-256 hash of a passphrase as a seed is a very bad idea and there is a good possibility that it will result in the loss of your bitcoins. |
|
|
|
I was having an argument with one guy from the internet. He uses online wallet instead of an offline. I tell him that bitcoin loses its point if you use an online wallet. He's also trying to convince me to use it too because it's more simple than an offline. I doubt. Anyway, I want one, only one reason, that online wallets are better than the offline ones.
The fact that millions of people use blockchain.com pisses me off. I don't know if the majority of users choose online, but they are many for sure.
Different people have different values and different priorities. If someone wants to use a custodial wallet because it is more convenient, then that decision is up to them. You can tell them about all the drawbacks, but maybe convenience is more important to them. BTW, the terms "offline" and "online" are confusing because every wallet that is connected to the internet is "online". Also, I suspect that you don't know how the blockchain.com wallet works, and if you did, you wouldn't be so pissed off at people using it. |
|
|
|
I understand not all private keys 256-bit numbers are usable as private keys as they fall outside of Secp256k1 ...
FTFY According to BIP-32, which is really what you are asking about: In case parse256(IL) ≥ n or ki = 0, the resulting key is invalid, and one should proceed with the next value for i. (Note: this has probability lower than 1 in 2127 .)
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin uses integer math here and operates in satoshis and not fractional bitcoins. While the theoretical limit is exactly 21 million, the actual limit is slightly less due to the effects of truncation. Also, the difference between 33 halvings and 64 halvings is less than 0.01 BTC, though it depends on the implementation (which would be incorrect anyway because the actual difference is 0). There will be 33 halvings, and not 34 as stated by some. The result of the 33rd halving is a subsidy of 0 satoshis. Fun fact, the actual Bitcoin will not go into the full 20.9 million that people estimate What? why? The subsidy value is the maximum number of bitcoins that can be created in a block. Some blocks have created less than the maximum, so the total will be less than expected. Also the reward from the genesis block cannot be spent. halving | block | year | reward |coins in circulation
---------|---------|------|-------------|--------------------
...
32 | 6720000 | 2136 | 0.00000001 | 20999999.995799996
33 | 6930000 | 2140 | 0.00000001 | 20999999.997899994
...
Your table has precision errors and also the 33rd halving does not halve the subsidy. The actual supply in the end should be 20999999.97690000 BTC. Edit: Wrote "reward", meant "subsidy". |
|
|
|
Hello, I'm trying to make an address from my custom private key, but I need some help.
This is my 64 length private key in hex: c89856dd1b8f867fedfbefaa95c340a086aaaf1b086ffa3772b37540b45912f9
What exactly happens next? Cause I think, I'm not doing it correctly. I want to reach that private key to a p2pkh address.
This page shows all of the steps. though is a out of date: http://gobittest.appspot.com/Address |
|
|
|
Obviously if you’re making transactions you need a wallet, but if you’re just hodling, do people just write it down on a piece of paper and put that somewhere safe and call it a day? Would a bitcoin millionaire trust his funds to a scrap of paper and put it in a safety deposit box? I’m just trying to understand options safe storage. Thanks!
None of the replies thus far have answered your questions. The answer to your question is yes. The key to holding bitcoins is the private key, or more generally, the seed that generates the private key. You don't need software to receive or store bitcoins. You only need the address that comes from the private key. When you create a wallet, you are given a recovery phrase (also called a "seed"). That is what the wallet uses to generate your private keys (and their addresses). You must store the recovery phrase in a secure place so that when your computer dies or the wallet is corrupted, you can still access your bitcoins. You must protect the recovery phrase because it is all that is needed to take your bitcoins, and in your case it is the only way to access your bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
It's a scam. No need to check any further.
|
|
|
|
As I see it, the only people that are threatened by this virus are those with weakened immune systems. ie. the vaccinated, the sugar drink consumers, those eating ultra-processed foods, smokers, and recreational and pharmaceutical drug users. Age doesn't really have anything to do with it, provided the person has a healthy diet, gets exercised, stays hydrated, and keeps off the pharmaceuticals that the pharma salesmen ( known as doctors) try to force on them without checking heath histories or lifestyle habits.
Are your statements based on your expertise in immunology, or the peer-reviewed papers that you have read and that you can cite, or just your own speculation and biases? |
|
|
|
The title is wrong - it was trademarked, not patented.
At least in the US, you have to specify the area where the trademark applies. E.g. I could trademark "Apple lawn care" without impacting Apple Inc's trademark for electronics. I presume it is similar in Spain.
(translated) Advertising; Business management; Business administration; Clerical services
|
|
|
|
There's no denying that the petitioners have money to pay to settled their tax liabilities. But they can't withdraw it in a timely manner, maybe they are waiting for the price to go up and make profit to at least lessen the damage. What are your thoughts on this?
Are you willing to sell your crypto to pay our debts or just go on settle it in months or years?
It seems pretty clear to me that this has little to do with cryptocurrency. They simply are doing whatever they can to avoid paying $1 million dollars to the government. Wouldn't you? They won't win, but at least they tried. |
|
|
|
|
I believe they are the same person. Similar features: eye shape and color, lips, cheekbones, general shape of face, nose, and jaw.
|
|
|
|
Okay thank you, I just don't get why difficulty exists since target already exists. Aren't they similar? Very similar?
difficulty = 0x00000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 / target |
|
|
|
I would devote 1 TB to the block chain. That should last for a few years and 1 TB is not all that much any more. If you run out of space on your node, then it will stop working. |
|
|
|
I have sold a source code, and he ask me to create a account there.
That's why I'm checking here before do anything.
If I understand this correctly, you sold software to someone for 16 BTC, and they are telling you to open an account at that site so they can send you the BTC. The person or the site requires you to deposit 0.02 BTC before you can get your money. If that is correct, then it is almost certainly a scam, including the 16 BTC payment. What to do: 1. Create an account at a reputable and well-known site or exchange, such as Coinbase, or install a recommended wallet on your computer or mobile. 2. Give the person sending you the BTC a receive address from your wallet or a receive/deposit address from the site. 3. If they object to that or require you to send them money first, or ask you for a private key or seed or login information, then it is all a scam. 4. If they send you the money, then everything is fine. |
|
|
|
|
Everything you wrote is directly contradicted by historical fact: Gold, which is scarce like Bitcoin, was successfully used as a currency for centuries. The switch from gold to fiat was due not to shortcomings in the currency, but instead the inability of governments to control their spending.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
