The one's I've tried were all home-made by Bulgarians in various villages, so I'm just guessing at the alcohol content. But I'm familiar with the taste of strong spirits 

I suppose you could program your own wallet, which didn't allow sending of bitcoin to wallets not in its database, but I don't know why it would be considered a feature and not a bug haha...

Re: the physical objects thing, I guess the shoes might work, as the manufacturer could embed RFID tags inside them in a way that couldn't be tampered with without destroying the shoes. These could be linked to some sort of database sidechain with records of all the individual shoes, so when you paid, then scanned them it would see your bitcoin payment on the blockchain, then register that you were the new owner.

This idea could have potential for super limited edition stuff (possibly artwork?), but you would still have to trust that the original tags weren't fake, and that the shoes hadn't been physically hacked by skilled Chinese cobblers, amongst other things.

I guess the wine could have a chip buried in the glass of the bottle somewhere?

My girlfriend is Bulgarian, she often brings back bottles of Rakia when she visits her friends there. This shit is seriously strong, I reckon the stuff she gets is around 60% ABV. It's good stuff, not the smoothest spirit in the world but very potent and fruity - It tastes similar to Grappa. I seem to remember a raspberry based one that was especially good.

Good luck with your sales mate, I would buy some off you if I couldn't get it already!!  

Hi dude, I was just about to order 1 of everything you have in stock, which is 5 sauces + the yellow moruga powder, but I noticed that the $20 shipping is only up to 4 sauces (I'm in the UK). I want to try them all, but don't want to pay another $20 just for the one extra sauce. Anything you can do?

Also, are you planning on making more of the 7 Pot Panic? This local farm near me make a really sweet yellow 7 pot sauce with pineapple, it's very tasty. I'd love to try some of yours if you restock!

Cheers

Same, although I didn't think it would hit 10k,more like 2 or 3k.

BUT, I think if there's another bubble soon, it could easily get to those 2-3k levels, simply because a shitload more people know about Bitcoin this time around...

I would probably sell a couple of coins at 1k, a couple more at 2k, maybe a few more at 3k. Then HODL!

RIP 

Re: the articles/people claiming NASA fiddled climate change data, can someone have a look at this Guardian article

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/feb/11/fiddling-with-global-warming-conspiracies-while-rome-burns

and explain exactly what the problem is with this explanation? Because it seems pretty plausible to me (and yes, I know the Guardian is very pro climate change, please excuse the article's opinionated writing style and concentrate on the facts).

This thread is amazing as an exercise into how retarded the media coverage of climate change is (on both sides). Unfortunately it falls short at actually helping people like me who are just looking for the truth. I'm currently leaning towards "It's happening, and it's due to humans", but I've switched sides about 4 times in the last few years.

Thanks, that's cool (bookmarked it), but it seems to be just an online shop that accepts BTC. Really I'm after brick and mortar businesses in ski resorts that accept BTC.

I wanna go snowboarding in Europe, it would be cool to go somewhere where I could use bitcoin. I've had a little search on coinmap but no joy as yet...

I'm not bothered about paying for the flights/hotels/lift pass in BTC (even though that would be sweet), I'm thinking more like bars/shops/clubs/restaurants etc.

cheers!

OK I'll bite... This is a fair comment (even though there are subatomic processes which seem to be totally spontaneous, but that's off-topic)

Right, I think this is where you're getting confused. No-one is claiming that evolution behaves like a pre-programmed machine or anything. Stop thinking of evolution as some sort of entity/intelligent force, and think of it as an abstract process.

Most, if not all cellular mutations are totally random. But, I hear you say, how do the cells know how to become specialized? They must have been programmed to be able to arrange themselves into complex things like human eyes etc!!

Wrong. For all the specialization we see around us, there was an exponentially higher number of "fuck-ups", cells and organisms that mutated in a way which was detrimental to them (considering their environment). These "fuck-ups" were not successful in their respective environments and have disappeared/died out, giving the impression of design (as the ones that survived suit their environment very well).

Consider this: If there was a serious nuclear apocalypse tomorrow and you studied the Earth a few weeks later, very few animals would look as though they had been designed for the environment. You return a few years later, and everything has died except single-celled organisms and cockroaches. Now, it looks as though the animals have been designed to suit the environment (because you can't see all the species that have died out).


OK, what on earth do you mean by this? Evolutionary theory doesn't claim that changes happen with no cause. Greekbitcoin's post has a nice list of some of the things that cause mutations. Over time, the useful mutations stick around, and the pointless and detrimental ones disappear. The mutations themselves are totally random.


Cause and effect doesn't suggest this, you're joining dots that don't exist (much like your claims about "the machine-like nature of the universe" and how "machines must have makers, and nature has better machines than man, so they must have been made by a more advanced maker than man...") - stop jumping to conclusions. Just because nature has better machines, doesn't mean that they must have appeared by magic.

You're basically saying Evolution theory is bunk because it doesn't include programming or a God. Come on, you can do better than this.

Also, another thing. Just because you don't believe in something, that's no excuse to not understanding the concept of it. For example, I don't believe in ghosts but I have no trouble understanding the basic concept of a ghost. Same goes for intelligent design/creation. So if you are skeptical about evolution, surely the best way of proving your point of view is to understand the concept, to the point that you can disprove it?

OK, you give the impression in this thread that you're purposefully being difficult, but I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you want to learn some new shit.

First off, you're confusing evolution with the spontaneous emergence of life. The theory of evolution cannot explain this, and doesn't pretend to. Some people refer to this emergence of life as abiogenesis. What evolution explains is what happened from there, and how a single (or small number of) simple single-celled organism(s) evolved into the huge diversity of life we see today. It's like how the big bang theory explains what happened since the big bang, but doesn't say anything about why/how it happened.

The sperm and the egg you speak of were both alive before they combined, and no, that wasn't evolution, and no, science books are not claiming such a thing.

It has been shown in laboratories that certain organisms do in fact evolve according to their environment. Things like bacteria reproduce so rapidly that it is possible to see changes, over multiple generations, that give the bacteria an advantage in their environment (such as evolving more efficient flagella). You admit that evolution can happen in a lab, yet you say it is impossible in the wild? Why? (also it's not "caused by a lot of difficult, heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers". Lol, the recording of the data may be heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers, but the actual evolution happens due to random DNA mutations on a molecular level, nothing to do with the lab workers.)

Yeah I get this quite often, though it used to happen very regularly (once or twice a week at least), now it's more like once every few months.

It's fucking weird, and really scary when it first happens, but now I'm so used to it that it doesn't bother me anymore. At first, I would often have the "evil heavy presence" at the bottom of the bed and it feels like the presence is crawling up over you and suffocating you, you try and move your eyes as fast as you can to get someones attention (to try and wake you up) but the thing just keeps suffocating you more and more, it's not the nicest feeling in the world...

Nowadays it rarely has any dreamlike elements (evil presence etc.), it's just bog standard sleep paralysis where I know what's going on and I can normally wake up from it voluntarily - like the guy above me said, you just have to concentrate really hard on moving a finger/limb and then you can wake up. It feels like an inhuman amount of effort though, and sometimes it's just impossible.

Like the OP said, sleep paralysis is caused when a certain brain process malfunctions - basically your brain purposefully paralyses your body when you sleep (scientists think this may be to stop people injuring themselves by acting out their dreams). What's happening here is that the brain is paralyzing the body when it's not properly asleep - you may be half dreaming (explaining the ghostly presence/colour-changing rooms) or simply not asleep at all.

I think a lot of situations where people say they saw a ghost/felt a presence etc. can be explained by sleep disorders like this.

mixed with

GODDAMN FRUITY I TELLS YA!!

Just because you consider both a single organism maturing, and a whole species changing as "miraculous", doesn't mean they are the same thing. That's why evolutionary scientists have made a different word for the latter. It's just semantics, whether you believe in it or not.

Does your main argument against evolution consist of claiming that a single organism maturing is exactly the same as a group of organisms changing over generations (due to mutations and environmental changes)? If so then you need to first understand the concept of evolution before saying it's wrong.

I think you don't understand evolution, what you described is not evolution - rather it is the change of a single organism throughout its life, based on the information present in its DNA (and environmental factors). While its DNA may have mutated slightly over its life, it has not evolved in the accepted sense of the word.

However, small mutations in the DNA could drastically change the species/type of organism over multiple generations. Environmental changes could accelerate this process. This is what people mean when they talk about evolution.

I had an idea the other day - would it be possible to use public-key cryptography (eg, running in the background as a client-side browser plugin), to make something like facebook more private?

So, If I want to post something, it's automatically encrypted using all my friends' public keys (separately). That means they can only see what I have posted if I know their public key. If they wanted to reply, I can only see what they post if I have shared my public key with them previously.

Of course this system has flaws and wouldn't work well as it stands, keys could be compromised easily, and the more people that share public keys means the more easily the private data could be made public. You would need to trust your online friends not to repost things unencrypted etc... basically the more I think about it the worse it sounds, but the concept could be a starting point for something.

You're more likely to crash a car than to crash a house?

I think this is very clever if you look at it as a conceptual art project, not so much as a cryptocurrency.

It prompts some interesting questions on the value of money, especially seeing as the photographs themselves (which back the coins) are, by definition, reproducible.

Funny thing is, she's bypassed the main point of crypto, which is to enable trustless transfer of value. Because the mining is centralized on a single machine, we have to trust her, therefore she could have just sold shares in herself in a traditional way.

I'm tempted to buy some, just because I really like the concept, but I do think there are serious flaws (I accept that some of the flaws actually make the project more thought-provoking as an art-piece)



I have some questions:

Does the artist develop prints using old-school analogue technology (darkrooms, manual dodging and burning etc.) or digital? I would be less keen on buying shares in a digital artist as there is nothing stopping them from filling up the vault with identical prints, call it photo-QE if you like. At least with analogue no prints will be 100% identical.

Is there any plan on allowing the coin to be mined by the public? Although this would be dangerous (BitchCoin could easily be 51% attacked), the fact that the mining is centralized means there is a single point of failure, and the risk of fraud.

How soon after the launch will it be possible to trade BitchCoin, and on what platform/exchange?

Does the artist normally produce similar sized pieces as the one in the launch party?

-----------------------------------------------------

If I had done this project, I would have changed some things to help with the trust issues. I would have used a Bitcoin sidechain (are they a thing yet?) instead of a whole new coin, to utilise the strength of the network. Also set up a 24/7 webcam in the vault where the photos go, to make sure there is a reasonable record of what goes in and out. Of course it could be faked, but it's better than just taking someone's word for it.

I won this beautiful waterpipe in the raffle a few weeks ago, sorry for the late review WoodCollector, been on holiday.

Unfortunately the pipe was damaged in transit from the States to the UK - It looked as though it had been removed and handled roughly by customs, the packaging seemed good but had apparently been torn open at the top to remove the item.

I'm confident that this was no fault of WoodCollector, and he kindly offered for me to send the item back for repair. However as it was a fairly simple repair, I decided to do it myself. He gave some helpful advice on how to go about the repair, which went well. The pipe now looks great, and just needs a quick polish to finish the job.

The pipe itself is lovely to look at, the 2 types of wood and the different grains really compliment each other. The glass bowl is also very pretty and sets the whole thing off nicely. After much deliberation I did try smoking through it, with mixed results. It works OK as a pipe, however due to the wooden design there is a small amount of leakage through the lid (apparent when the bowl is tightly packed). If I decide to smoke through it again I will make the small addition of a rubber seal on the lid, to make it more airtight.

For now Claire is sitting on my mantlepiece, and looks awesome - I've already had a few people ask about it and remark on how nice it looks.

I would definitely be happy to deal with WoodCollector again, he is a talented craftsman showing real creativity with his work. He was also more than happy to help when I explained the problem with the delivery - great customer service, cheers WoodCollector!!