Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2021, 01:58:30 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 98 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [One-of-a-kind game support!] The Real Altcoin [SHA-256] on: July 29, 2014, 01:33:03 PM
New thread on War of Life:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=714917.0
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NEW: WAR OF LIFE GAME!] The Real Altcoin [SHA-256] on: July 11, 2014, 02:07:33 AM
Vote to have ATC open for trading at http://hitbtc.com/vote/
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NEW CASINO! SHA256] Altcoin on: June 25, 2014, 12:57:01 PM
Enrique says:

New Pool Created Altcoins ATC @  http://miningpools .tk payments are sent out every 10 to 20 minutes after confirmation.
 
Point your miner to stratum+tcp://miningpools .tk:8037  and use your ATC coin wallet address as your username, any password will do.
 
0% fees
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NEW CASINO! SHA256] Altcoin on: June 25, 2014, 12:34:35 PM
New groundbreaking betting game uses Altcoin for playing!

https://atc.waroflife.com/
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1,000,000 bits = 1 bitcoin. Future-proofing Bitcoin for common usage? VOTE on: May 02, 2014, 09:28:56 PM
Look, any change, other than a move to satoshis (no decimals), is arbitrary and therefore unnecessary. Call THOSE bits if you like, but moving the decimal around seems silly.

6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1,000,000 bits = 1 bitcoin. Future-proofing Bitcoin for common usage? VOTE on: May 02, 2014, 06:30:57 PM
Why not go all the way down to satoshis?
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NEW CASINO! SHA256] Altcoin on: April 26, 2014, 03:03:17 PM
You can now use Altcoins at an online Casino!

http://www.satoshijack.com/
8  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS) on: April 13, 2014, 07:19:30 PM
I guess Burnside could offer a list with the adresses of the SELLING holders at shutdown of BTC-TC. Everybody who is able to sign his adress would be able to redeem his Cipherbond stake. That would of course only be possible if Ciphermine is willing to dispossess the bonds owned by Deprived...

I'm skeptical these cipherbonds will ever be redeemable again anyway...
9  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] Ukyo.Loan - Paying 0.05% daily. on: April 12, 2014, 02:38:33 PM
Why is the claim site telling me my wallet address is invalid, when I know for a fact it's the right one?
10  Other / Meta / Re: Please remove this user from this forum. on: April 01, 2014, 03:23:41 AM
My account was not sold, that's preposterous. I've never even had anyone offer to buy it!
What happened is I got fed up with the alternate reality this forum has become.

I'd sign a message with my former AM1 holding address, or my current WoT one... if I actually believed it would help anything... and if I actually believed anyone in disbelief could verify a signed message in the first place.


Or maybe I should pretend I did steal/buy this account... but you probably wouldn't ban me for that either.


Oh, I have an idea. How about I accuse Theymos and this forum for supporting and harboring known scammers like Garr255? After being publicly shamed and outed for lying and fluffing his own auctions, he continued to post and solicit people. Why wasn't he banned?

Or how about I accuse Theymos of misleading donors and advertisers into investing into something they were told would improve over time. Instead of improved software, they got a haven for socks and shills. Instead of an investment in the "community", they got a playground for sociopaths and idiots prone to stockholm syndrome.


What say you mods? What say you Theymos? Can a brother get a ban-hammer or what?
11  Other / Meta / Re: Please remove this user from this forum. on: April 01, 2014, 12:53:00 AM
Please ban me. I'm serious.


I'll have no part of this bullshit forum anymore.

You ban the only people giving it a sense of reality, the only people questioning things that deserve to be questioned.

You protect the ignorant, the scammers, and the real trolls.

You've got it all backwards just because people are sensitive, sheltered luddites.


In short: Fuck you, motherfuckers.

Ban me.
12  Economy / Securities / Re: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings on: March 28, 2014, 09:16:00 PM
Signed Announcement: http://dpaste.com/1761928/
13  Economy / Securities / Re: Neo & Bee talk (spam free thread) on: March 28, 2014, 09:15:45 PM
Signed Announcement: http://dpaste.com/1761928/
14  Economy / Securities / Re: Decentralized Securities (Mastercoin, Colored Coins, etc.) - SEC regulation? on: March 21, 2014, 05:35:05 PM
Well, look, the crowd is learning!

Hmmm, condescend much? Wink

They can perform a level of filtering, of due diligence, of guidance, and of overall service that a protocol simply can't.

Many folks with investment experience out in the fiat world would likely reply that exchanges have no business whatsoever offering either "guidance" or "due diligence" or anything remotely related -- and that they should, instead, make it their business to provide the smoothly functioning underlying mechanics that everyone else needs to be able to count on. Admittedly, exchanges which make that their business will also likely enforce sane listing criteria as part of ensuring the underlying mechanics really can work smoothly. But those criteria have little or nothing to do with trustworthiness or -- more importantly -- with whether something is a good investment or a poor investment. Rather, those criteria centre on accountability.

You can not remove trust from the equation. Decentralized exchanges serve as automation of a protocol, not a magic bullet to protect people.

This is why people should be focusing on a better WoT, and better WoT integration into web-based services, etc.

Nor, however, is trust a magic bullet to protect people: on the contrary, "trust" as reflected by crude mechanisms like the WoT has almost nothing to do with separating good investments from bad. It is only the presence of bona fide and well validated negative trust which reveals anything whatsoever of relevance to the job of separating good investments from bad; the presence or absence of positive trust tells us virtually nothing about the competence of an individual as a manager, entrepreneur or investor, or about the merits of any particular investment associated with them.

(The WoT is better understood as an attempt to solve the problems created by conflating privacy and anonymity than as any direct indicator of investment quality.)

From the perspective of "smart money" investment capital flowing into Bitcoin, the WoT is singularly irrelevant. When VCs and angel investors fund projects, that capital comes into the Bitcoin economy because of the efforts of real, identifiable people, with known identities and real world accountability, people whose levels of competence can be directly assessed by the investors. That capital does not flow into a project because a pseudonymous and ultimately unaccountable would-be entrepreneur has 999 positive ratings on the WoT.

I guess what I'm really asking is, "Is there a way to specifically establish a level of trust for a given
issuer in a decentralized, quantifiable way?" How about a system similar to a consumer credit rating
or a DNB rating for a business? Does WoT really address this completely?

IMHO, not in the least (for the last of those three questions). But even if it could, "trust" as reflected by something like the WoT will never cut it from the perspective of an investor.

Suggesting otherwise might seem neat and tidy at first glance, but it's actually confusing the relatively easier job of ensuring mechanical compliance with a set of requirements -- foremost among them, not running off with someone's coins -- with the ultimately much harder job of separating the wheat from the chaff in a field of investment candidates.

With the relatively rare spectacular exception, the fiat world has the mechanical compliance part down pat. Very few people worry, for example, that the underwriters for this or that latest IPO are going to run off to Bermuda with everybody's money. And yet, people do in fact lose their shirts and their Bermuda shorts every single day as a result of making bad investments. If there were the sort of connection between the "trust" part and the "good investment" part that some might like you to believe in, we'd all be fiat zillionaires by now.


There was a time when I suspected you might have something to contribute here.

There was a time when you attempted to represent something more than a cornered animal.

There was a time when MPOE-PR hadn't broken you yet.

Those times have passed, and the corner you're in is part of an empty room.

Kick and scream all you like, no one is letting you out.
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Interacting with fiat institutions [such as the SEC], a guide on: March 20, 2014, 11:03:18 PM
If MPEx ran anonymously, it wouldn't be MPEx anymore, now would it?

How does nothingness build trust?

How does anonymity get a reputation and maintain it?

How does no one vet listings?

Performance builds trust. The (digitally signed) name remains constant. Knowing who is providing the performance is irrelevant. I don't trust people any way. People are very unreliable, even your wife can be unreliable.

I trust math and code. They are reproducible and deterministic in so far as what has been proved and unit tested.

This is much more forgiving, because people can start again if they screw up one reputation, e.g. AnonyMint can be reborn as a nice guy. Wink

My dream is to make all attorneys unemployed. I have always preferred paradigm shift over never-ending morass (especially the legal variety).

How is anonympex more trustworthy than the current one?
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Interacting with fiat institutions [such as the SEC], a guide on: March 20, 2014, 10:46:22 PM
Why not run MPEX as a completely anonymous service, then the SEC can send their legal communications to the ether.

MPEX is a perfect example, because it can be 100% anonymous as there is no storefront, no shipped goods, and no fiat accounts involved. It is a perfect example of the Knowledge Age economy I am writing about.

That is essentially my entire point over the past several months (as well as a few other points such as cpu-only mining to make decentralization work).

But we can't do that today. Bitcoin does not have this capability.

It is trolling to want to make it possible to completely ignore the SEC and never hear from them? Come on seriouscoin, you are not serious.

Please do stop quoting my entire posts, in case I want to delete them all someday.

If MPEx ran anonymously, it wouldn't be MPEx anymore, now would it?

How does nothingness build trust?

How does anonymity get a reputation and maintain it?

How does no one vet listings?
17  Economy / Securities / Re: Decentralized Securities (Mastercoin, Colored Coins, etc.) - SEC regulation? on: March 20, 2014, 09:41:51 PM
Reading MPEx's response to SEC inquiries about SD has got me thinking more about decentralized securities platforms.
Even if all the crypto securities exchanges are eventually shut down or brought into compliance, how will a decentralized
platform for securities issuance and trading give us more liberty to invest what we want, when we want, and with whom
we choose? Won't the SEC just track down and shutdown the issuers themselves?

I mean, before I would want to invest in a crypto security, I'd want to know the details of the offering! This would include
most certainly the identification of the issuing companies' lead personnel. If that is a basic tenet of securities investment,
then how will a decentralized platform help the situation? Won't the governing authorities just go after the security
issuers directly?

I'm just not seeing how a grand decentralization plan for securities is going to make a real difference in my freedom to
invest in crypto securities. Any insights from the professionals around here? Thanks in advance!

Well, look, the crowd is learning!

Decentralized securities will look a lot like Cryptostocks, a haven for scams.

Aside from legalities of an exchange like MPEx or Havelock, or issuing profitshares in bitcoin businesses, the reality of it is that a trustworthy centralized exchange has a lot more to offer than a decentralized one.

They can perform a level of filtering, of due diligence, of guidance, and of overall service that a protocol simply can't.

Remember, the issuer is always centralized anyway.

There may be fringe possibilities of automated derivatives based on mining difficulty and things like that, but even those would need to be programmed and maintained by someone, ultimately giving a centralized source the power and responsibility of controlling them.

You can not remove trust from the equation. Decentralized exchanges serve as automation of a protocol, not a magic bullet to protect people.

This is why people should be focusing on a better WoT, and better WoT integration into web-based services, etc.
18  Economy / Securities / Re: Starting a new FPGA mining farm/contract! Cognitive Resurrected on[Havelock] on: March 20, 2014, 06:23:10 PM
Since there are no motions and no dividends this has pretty much turned into a scam...



I havent posted in this thread for awhile, so I just wanted to go ahead and quote this for posterity and humor.

It was too good to pass up. I would love to add to the chaos, but watching this mayhem unfold has been entertaining enough.

Do the staunch believers realize yet why myself and others kept pushing for answers and accountability? I mean seriously...there isnt even a proper mining center for hardware that was/is 3 months late.

I take it kako's seizures from fervent laughter prevents him from boasting currently. Cmon I know you can't help yourself.

Actually, as I understand it, kakobrekla was banned by what we can only assume are conspirators of crime.

I gave up trying to convince people to beware of Garr255. He has done plenty to exclaim that on his own.

Edit: It's also a fucking joke to have Goat in here pointing fingers. He is a documented pumper of Garret's offerings. So much so that I'm inclined to believe COG might be in his sites again. Dump, FUD, Buy, Pump, Profit.

Just stay out of it people.
19  Economy / Securities / Re: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings on: March 18, 2014, 08:13:57 PM
Best would be to start a new modded thread and link to this one as historic reference, for those who want to check how things progressed.

I agree. The forum mods are either unwilling or unable to kick off the mentalists, so I'd accept a modded thread as a compromise.

Edit: Even better would be a moderated thread on LMB, but I wouldn't want any developer effort beyond 1 hour to be sidetracked from rolling out the business for this.  Cheesy

It's already under serious consideration (moderation).
20  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] Ukyo.Loan - Paying 0.05% daily. on: March 13, 2014, 10:37:40 PM
Whats the amount of bitcoins owed for ukyo loan? Did the loan run under ukyo personally alone or was a company involved? And do you think that the stock-like thing of selling shares will have an impact legally?

I believe it's 2000btc.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 98 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!