Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Oblodo]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

[1714910218]

1714910218

[1714910218]

1714910218

[1714910218]

1714910218

[Fatman3001]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

I'm pretty sure I live in the same country you're living in. I'm just trying to piss off a drunk canadian. You should try it. It's fun!

[r0ach]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long.  There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

being fully honest, i have simply dont understand what your saying, maybe my view is too high level. to me you either prove you computing power  (POW) or you prove your economic power ( POS)

i think we'd need a face to face discussion with a blackboard to understand your point.

Do you understand that the act of mining itself is technically a decentralized exchange?  Most people don't know Bitcoin has a decentralized exchange, but that's exactly what it is.  It's a permanent decentralized exchange because the block reward is subsidized by transaction fees so you can always go straight to the tree itself to pluck off coins.  If you remove this peg, it becomes a closed entropy system and is no longer decentralized, but only a distributed, permissioned ledger.

Bullshit, an exchange is a place you can buy and sell stuff.  You can't sell bitcoins by mining.
Mining is a way of obtaining bitcoin that doesn't require authentication, but that's about it.....  

[Fatman3001]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long.  There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't.

Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes.

This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia.

So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion.

[Andre#]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long.  There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't.

Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes.

This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin E. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia.

So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion.

 

[nioc]

All good but it's vitamin D not vitamin E,  I know you know that and it's only a typo.

[Fatman3001]

All good but it's vitamin D not vitamin E,  I know you know that and it's only a typo.

Thx, fixed it.

[nioc]

Mammal's unite!!

[Fatman3001]

Mammal's unite!!

THIS IS BITCOIN!!!

[marcus_of_augustus]

Speaking of walls ... looks like some tension building up on the buy side and sellers backing away.

Some big buyers not getting filled off-exchange and coming back to market again?

[chesthing]

Mammal's unite!!

THIS IS BITCOIN!!!

Robert Metcalfe's net worth is 250 million. What's yours?

[USB-S]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX9IRXIF5Ak

[billyjoeallen]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long.  There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't.

Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes.

This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia.

So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion.

I don't get it. You just provided more evidence for your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if there are more differences with dogs than humans. What matters is that there are differences, and these differences aren't just in appearances, but also in behavioral traits and intelligence, because differing traits are advantageous in differing environments. 

What is more interesting to me is that humans everywhere have evolved instincts and behaviors that were useful in their original environments but very maladaptive now in modern times. The most obvious being that we stay hungry far after we have consumed sufficient calories. Some of these maladptive behaviors are sex-specific, such as men's preferences for women with visual fertility cues or women's preference for high status men to the exclusion of far more logically relevant qualities.

We have changed our environment in many ways, some of which are better and some of which are incompatible with our natural behaviors.  Cubical farms and assembly lines are miserable places to work. Mating practices and rituals are elaborate, inefficient, and often produce worse results than random pairings or arranged marriages.  What remains to be seen is whether we can continue to improve our environment or whether we will develop traits more compatible to it. 

[Fatman3001]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long.  There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't.

Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes.

This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia.

So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion.

I don't get it. You just provided more evidence for your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if there are more differences with dogs than humans. What matters is that there are differences, and these differences aren't just in appearances, but also in behavioral traits and intelligence, because differing traits are advantageous in differing environments.  

What is more interesting to me is that humans everywhere have evolved instincts and behaviors that were useful in their original environments but very maladaptive now in modern times. The most obvious being that we stay hungry far after we have consumed sufficient calories. Some of these maladptive behaviors are sex-specific, such as men's preferences for women with visual fertility cues or women's preference for high status men to the exclusion of far more logically relevant qualities.

We have changed our environment in many ways, some of which are better and some of which are incompatible with our natural behaviors.  Cubical farms and assembly lines are miserable places to work. Mating practices and rituals are elaborate, inefficient, and often produce worse results than random pairings or arranged marriages.  What remains to be seen is whether we can continue to improve our environment or whether we will develop traits more compatible to it.  

You've misunderstood

Robert Metcalfe's net worth is 250 million. What's yours?

You've misunderstood

[Andre#]

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.


Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had  experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Good news, someone Bitmain Technologies Ltd. put up some nice graphs to monitor the fullness of blocks (not blockchain.info, but I hope you can give others a chance as well).

https://www.btc.com/en/stats/block-size

Of the past three months it shows

• the median daily blocksize
• the average daily blocksize
• the number of daily transactions
• the sum of daily blocksize

It also shows monthly graphs for all time as well. I think that once the median monthly blocksize hits 1 MB, it can be said that blocks are definitely full. For the first three months of this year it was around 933 kB, or 93%.

I know that the party line stipulates that many if not most of the transactions are spam and shouldn't be counted. But that's a different topic.

[billyjoeallen]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long.  There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't.

Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes.

This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia.

So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion.

I don't get it. You just provided more evidence for your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if there are more differences with dogs than humans. What matters is that there are differences, and these differences aren't just in appearances, but also in behavioral traits and intelligence, because differing traits are advantageous in differing environments.  

What is more interesting to me is that humans everywhere have evolved instincts and behaviors that were useful in their original environments but very maladaptive now in modern times. The most obvious being that we stay hungry far after we have consumed sufficient calories. Some of these maladptive behaviors are sex-specific, such as men's preferences for women with visual fertility cues or women's preference for high status men to the exclusion of far more logically relevant qualities.

We have changed our environment in many ways, some of which are better and some of which are incompatible with our natural behaviors.  Cubical farms and assembly lines are miserable places to work. Mating practices and rituals are elaborate, inefficient, and often produce worse results than random pairings or arranged marriages.  What remains to be seen is whether we can continue to improve our environment or whether we will develop traits more compatible to it.  

You've misunderstood

Robert Metcalfe's net worth is 250 million. What's yours?

You've misunderstood

No, I think I understand very well. You are saying that natural selection is cruel enough without us making it more so. I agree with that, but I also know that there are limits to how much we can ameliorate evolutionary pressures without introducing even worse cruelties. We don't have the luxury of merely virtue signalling how much we care about the unlucky and the ungifted.  Responsible advocacy has to consider costs, benefits, and unintended consequences.

[Fatman3001]

Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.

In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long.  There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't.

Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes.

This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia.

So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion.

I don't get it. You just provided more evidence for your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if there are more differences with dogs than humans. What matters is that there are differences, and these differences aren't just in appearances, but also in behavioral traits and intelligence, because differing traits are advantageous in differing environments.  

What is more interesting to me is that humans everywhere have evolved instincts and behaviors that were useful in their original environments but very maladaptive now in modern times. The most obvious being that we stay hungry far after we have consumed sufficient calories. Some of these maladptive behaviors are sex-specific, such as men's preferences for women with visual fertility cues or women's preference for high status men to the exclusion of far more logically relevant qualities.

We have changed our environment in many ways, some of which are better and some of which are incompatible with our natural behaviors.  Cubical farms and assembly lines are miserable places to work. Mating practices and rituals are elaborate, inefficient, and often produce worse results than random pairings or arranged marriages.  What remains to be seen is whether we can continue to improve our environment or whether we will develop traits more compatible to it.  

You've misunderstood

Robert Metcalfe's net worth is 250 million. What's yours?

You've misunderstood

No, I think I understand very well. You are saying that natural selection is cruel enough without us making it more so. I agree with that, but I also know that there are limits to how much we can ameliorate evolutionary pressures without introducing even worse cruelties. We don't have the luxury of merely virtue signalling how much we care about the unlucky and the ungifted.  Responsible advocacy has to consider costs, benefits, and unintended consequences.

No. Evolution has stopped in humans. It basically stopped with regards to potential intelligence before we left Africa. So the point I am making is that there is no genetic reason for discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or "race". We all know this. There is no reason to feel sorry for Kofi Annan or Ban Ki-Moon (or Freddy Mercury for that matter). They haven't been dealt inferior genes. It's not a thing. They're far "better" humans in their field than anyone on this forum.

[stereotype]

No. Evolution has stopped in humans.....who post on the wall observer thread.

FTFY

Yes i know, double irony!

[Fatman3001]

before we left Africa.

Get your facts straight. The out of Africa paradigm is just an hypothesis.
One of the most influential man behind this theory was professor Yves Coppens. He himself recognized that a multi-regional theory might be much appropriated in regards of the recent discoveries.

The Out of Africa theory have been falling apart of all sides for at least 15 years but is still systematically pushed forward for political and ideological reasons.

Nope, it has largely been confirmed through the study of genetic material.