I did misinterpret what you meant by "initialize seeds". But "restoring seeds" definitely satisfies the concerns I raised, I would not promote the restoring of seeds with any online device.

It is an NLC alt.

Yes Erdogan those fiat/statist sites and one scam-infused 'coin' site obviously spout nonsense.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.

Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.

are you on crack? sane people occasionally pop in here, but mostly it's a troll thread for self-deluding old scatterbrains

Soon?

To further elucidate the points made in the video, nominalization (a.k.a. reification, or what Mises called hypostatization, the tendency toward which he named "the worst enemy of clear thinking") is when you convert an abstract concept or action/process into a noun, and then end up treating that noun as a sort of "thing in itself" and allow it take on some properties of a physical object. As a loose figure of speech it is innocent enough, but - as is always the case - when we try to take loose phrasing from everyday talk into more rigorous contexts without cleaning it up, the result is mass confusion leading to all sorts of fallacious reasoning. As the speaker said, politicians love to make use of this confusion.

Another way to talk about this is to call any conversion of an abstract concept or action/process into a noun "nominalization," since that what it literally is, but then to call the fallacious taking-seriously of this "reification" or "hypostatization." My preferred term is reification to refer to the error.

Some classic nominalizations and corresponding reifications:



As may be evident from the examples, when you start off with a loose nominalization (using nouns because they're convenient in English) you can end up committing the fallacy of reification. How exactly does the slip happen? There is actually another semantic error at work here: equivocation, where a word is used in two different meanings at the speaker's convenience, or inadvertently.

In other words, what happens in each case is that the noun form of the word being the same as the verb form makes it especially easy to switch back and forth between them, and pretty soon the people forget that the noun they are talking about is not an entity, but actually some process that itself involves physical objects or entities: water molecules that wave, people that value gold bars, mileposts that are spaced out. It's incoherent to speak of a wave without something doing the waving, or to speak of gold having value without someone doing the valuing, or to speak of space curving if we are maintaining that space=nothingness. It becomes an implied equivocation because the meaning of "wave," "value," and "space" has subtly been allowed to change in the course of the argument. Whereas we started off taking it as obvious that some objects were waving, some people were valuing something, and some objects were spaced, we ended up silently shifting the meaning to exclude those objects and people.

Now the term "intrinsic value" might have been useful if not for this reification trap. We could use it to refer to the direct use value people place on something, as opposed to its exchange value in the market, as even Mises himself did. Unfortunately, all experience hath shewn that the word intrinsic overwhelmingly tends to lead people into the reification error described above, because this is a basic human tendency baked into the social pressure of language (things that "sound right" tend to carry a weight that feels like social authority). Intrinsic sounds like "in and of itself," with no reference to a valuator. This tendency makes using this word just asking for trouble. It invites misunderstanding time and again.

To be clearer, then, I strongly recommend avoiding the term "intrinsic value" and instead using "direct use value" or similar to distinguish from exchange value.

I don't think so we now have the long Easter weekend, when it is expected and and quite obvious to see no price movement at all. I think that more than 70% of BTC trade is in China right now. They don't have an Easter there, so it is just as I expect bitcoin is brice is stagnant.

I did just yesterday for the first time, bought a USB OTG cable plugged it into my Nexus 6 and it just worked. Did not make a payment yet however...

The blockchain (assuming my terminology above) was not a technological breakthrough by any means. You are right, the blockchain is just a simple tree based data structure and there is nothing special about that, at least to anyone with a CS background.

What is special about Bitcoin is the distributed security mechanism. Creating a SHA256 based lottery that rewards a scarce token in order to facilitate a distributed P2P security mechanism, was a wholly unique idea. Satoshi was the first to create that, and since Bitcoin was the first implementation it is Bitcoin that will win (if any do). It was the distributed security mechanism that Satoshi invented in creating Bitcoin.

Yeah I'm beginning to wonder if it's intentional or if they really don't grasp the connection. If the latter, then it truly shows how early days we are and when the undeniable realization does hit, well, hyperbitcoinization here we come.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2015/04/02/how-bitcoin-will-end-world-poverty/

Posted by Steve Forbes himself.