this guy should be notified about bitcoin

[crumbs]

What's the most valuable thing to humans, that will always be of value even in a post-apocalyptic world? Farmers. We all need to eat, and always. So what he should do, is buy farms farmers, and freeze them too. Isn't it perfect?

Fixed that for you

[crumbs]

now now...

what if he buys all BTC...

what will happen to us? lol

Price increases and our bitcoins will be worth even more. Is that bad?

If one guy had all the BTC, BTC would be worthless.  Think it through.

[mprep]

now now...

what if he buys all BTC...

what will happen to us? lol

Price increases and our bitcoins will be worth even more. Is that bad?

If one guy had all the BTC, BTC would be worthless.  Think it through.

If by all BTC you mean all of the current BTC and the one that hasn't even been mined yet then yes. If not then then miners would become rich and the rest of my theory comes into action. Then bitcoin pretty slowly goes back to the previous levels.

[crumbs]

now now...

what if he buys all BTC...

what will happen to us? lol

Price increases and our bitcoins will be worth even more. Is that bad?

If one guy had all the BTC, BTC would be worthless.  Think it through.

If by all BTC you mean all of the current BTC and the one that hasn't even been mined yet then yes. If not then then miners would become rich and the rest of my theory comes into action. Then bitcoin pretty slowly goes back to the previous levels.

If only all of the current bitcoin fell into single hands, the value would be ... what?  Bitcoin would revert back to a clever curiosity, it will become no different than a random bitcoin fork, with most of the coin already premined.  If you disagree, tell me how?  
edit: clumsy wording, but i hope you get what i'm trying to say.

[mprep]

now now...

what if he buys all BTC...

what will happen to us? lol

Price increases and our bitcoins will be worth even more. Is that bad?

If one guy had all the BTC, BTC would be worthless.  Think it through.

If by all BTC you mean all of the current BTC and the one that hasn't even been mined yet then yes. If not then then miners would become rich and the rest of my theory comes into action. Then bitcoin pretty slowly goes back to the previous levels.

If only all of the current bitcoin fell into single hands, the value would be ... what?  Bitcoin would revert back to a clever curiosity, it will become no different than a random bitcoin fork, with most of the coin already premined.  If you disagree, tell me how?  
edit: clumsy wording, but i hope you get what i'm trying to say.

It would simply reset the bitcoin to the start postion except with a huge community already there and a huge price of it.

[crumbs]

now now...

what if he buys all BTC...

what will happen to us? lol

Price increases and our bitcoins will be worth even more. Is that bad?

If one guy had all the BTC, BTC would be worthless.  Think it through.

If by all BTC you mean all of the current BTC and the one that hasn't even been mined yet then yes. If not then then miners would become rich and the rest of my theory comes into action. Then bitcoin pretty slowly goes back to the previous levels.

If only all of the current bitcoin fell into single hands, the value would be ... what?  Bitcoin would revert back to a clever curiosity, it will become no different than a random bitcoin fork, with most of the coin already premined.  If you disagree, tell me how?  
edit: clumsy wording, but i hope you get what i'm trying to say.

It would simply reset the bitcoin to the start postion/

With you thus far

except with a huge community already there

You mean the few miners who'll point their hashpower to the next alt?  No one else will be *in any way invested in Bitcoin*.

and a huge price of it.

This is where you lose me.  Why would the price be any higher than any copycoin?  Because people once trusted it?  So what?  The miners will start mining Bitcoin 2.0, where the difficulty will be low, more than half will not be premined & they'll have a chance to get a bunch of coin quick   Am i missing something important?

[mprep]

now now...

what if he buys all BTC...

what will happen to us? lol

Price increases and our bitcoins will be worth even more. Is that bad?

If one guy had all the BTC, BTC would be worthless.  Think it through.

If by all BTC you mean all of the current BTC and the one that hasn't even been mined yet then yes. If not then then miners would become rich and the rest of my theory comes into action. Then bitcoin pretty slowly goes back to the previous levels.

If only all of the current bitcoin fell into single hands, the value would be ... what?  Bitcoin would revert back to a clever curiosity, it will become no different than a random bitcoin fork, with most of the coin already premined.  If you disagree, tell me how?  
edit: clumsy wording, but i hope you get what i'm trying to say.

It would simply reset the bitcoin to the start postion/

With you thus far

except with a huge community already there

You mean the few miners who'll point their hashpower to the next alt?  No one else will be *in any way invested in Bitcoin*.

and a huge price of it.

This is where you lose me.  Why would the price be any higher than any copycoin?  Because people once trusted it?  So what?  The miners will start mining Bitcoin 2.0, where the difficulty will be low, more than half will not be premined & they'll have a chance to get a bunch of coin quick   Am i missing something important?

If there is such alt that is suitable for such position then yes, you are correct. Just out of curiosity, which alt coin would become used the most if bitcoin failed?

[Lethn]

now now...

what if he buys all BTC...

what will happen to us? lol

Price increases and our bitcoins will be worth even more. Is that bad?

If one guy had all the BTC, BTC would be worthless.  Think it through.

The problem with this logic is it fails to account for every other limited resource in the universe as well, do I need to point out gold and silver?

[crumbs]

now now...

what if he buys all BTC...

what will happen to us? lol

Price increases and our bitcoins will be worth even more. Is that bad?

If one guy had all the BTC, BTC would be worthless.  Think it through.

The problem with this logic is it fails to account for every other limited resource in the universe as well, do I need to point out gold and silver?

Well, just look at the posts directly above yours, and tell me how that scenario fails to take anything into account.
As far as gold & silver go, they're a bit different than Bitcoin in the sense that they have *some* (i think they call it "intrinsic value" in commerce).  You can use them for "stuff" -- both are pretty useful in electronics & other specialized fields, and some people like the look & feel.  Bitcoin's value is purely instrumental:  if it's not used as a currency/store of value, it's nothing.  And nothing that needs a good hashrate to maintain.  But i don't think gold & silver are anywhere as valuable as the price suggests:  They're just another misinterpretation of rarity = worth, people trust that noble metals are worth money, and thus they are.  A bit like people's faith in fiat.  People make mistakes all the time. 

[cr1776]

Others can't seem to be able to accept life.     Or at least the possibility of extending it.

Some people can't seem to be able to accept death.

No, not really. It's just kind of absurd when people try to become immortal as God.

The counter argument then is, do you take antibiotics?  Vaccines?  Chemo?  Radiation?  CPR?  Bypass surgery?  Other surgery?  Try to save a premature baby?  Why not just "live your natural lifespan" without any external intervention? 

There is nothing wrong with trying to extend one's life, people do it all the time and all of us benefit from it. 

This is just a different kind that may allow him to be cured of whatever disease he had in the future.  If he died from cancer and someone in the future developed a cure for it, should it be denied to people alive then?  What about him?  What is the difference?

[mprep]

Others can't seem to be able to accept life.     Or at least the possibility of extending it.

Some people can't seem to be able to accept death.

No, not really. It's just kind of absurd when people try to become immortal as God.

The counter argument then is, do you take antibiotics?  Vaccines?  Chemo?  Radiation?  CPR?  Bypass surgery?  Other surgery?  Try to save a premature baby?  Why not just "live your natural lifespan" without any external intervention? 

There is nothing wrong with trying to extend one's life, people do it all the time and all of us benefit from it. 

This is just a different kind that may allow him to be cured of whatever disease he had in the future.  If he died from cancer and someone in the future developed a cure for it, should it be denied to people alive then?  What about him?  What is the difference?

There's a limit until a person has to live. Trying to revive yourself from death is passing the limit, it's trying to become god. Antibiotics and other means are used to save people who are still able to move rather then sit like a vegetable rather than a human being. It's used to save people from death not to revive an already dead person.

[crumbs]

Others can't seem to be able to accept life.     Or at least the possibility of extending it.

Some people can't seem to be able to accept death.

No, not really. It's just kind of absurd when people try to become immortal as God.

The counter argument then is, do you take antibiotics?  Vaccines?  Chemo?  Radiation?  CPR?  Bypass surgery?  Other surgery?  Try to save a premature baby?  Why not just "live your natural lifespan" without any external intervention? 

There is nothing wrong with trying to extend one's life, people do it all the time and all of us benefit from it. 

This is just a different kind that may allow him to be cured of whatever disease he had in the future.  If he died from cancer and someone in the future developed a cure for it, should it be denied to people alive then?  What about him?  What is the difference?

The difference is you hit reductio ad absurdum.  There's nothing fundamentally wrong or evil in trying to live forever, most people simply think it's sort-a silly.  With the population growing being what it is, some even think it selfish.

[lsparrish]

The difference is you hit reductio ad absurdum.  There's nothing fundamentally wrong or evil in trying to live forever, most people simply think it's sort-a silly.  With the population growing being what it is, some even think it selfish.

People don't think it through... With the population growing too fast, the best thing we can do is start putting people in cryostorage until we can start uploading them or moving them off-planet. It is incredibly energy-efficient to store cold things in bulk.

I have 5.5 bitcoins saved up at 1Jdn36JUwvJdr3Qiie4aAseFdcoTsND9Qo -- I plan to use them to fund cryonics research and/or buy free cryonics storage in bulk for people who can't afford it. Whatever turns out to be most useful.

I wonder if a brainwallet would be a good idea for a cryo patient? You could make payment be contingent on thawing the person in good enough condition that they can remember their passphrase. But if you get woken by someone with no ethics they could revive you, scan your brain for the passphrase / torture it out of you, then kill you. (Or maybe scan your brain for the info and not bother reviving you at all.)

Anyway yeah there definitely ought to be more cross-pollenation between the two groups (it's basically the same demographic).