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

[Torque]

There is an overwhelming global scientific consensus on this point.  So yes.  

I think you are really not understanding me.

There may be overwhelming scientific consensus that humans "are contributing to climate change".

But please point me to all the studies and data showing that humans can CONTROL climate change. And of course the executable master plan that I'm sure all countries of the world are just chomping at the bit to put into action.

I'll wait...

for another two decades...

to watch nothing change on this.

[Ibian]

There is an overwhelming global scientific consensus on this point.  So yes.  

Science is not a democratic process.

[Elwar]

There is an overwhelming global scientific consensus on this point.  So yes.  

Much of science has so many similarities with religion that it is not all too different.

If someone believed in science as something where people should continue to ask questions and hypothesize on just about anything, then questioning the consensus certainly falls within the nature of science. Had we all agreed, due to consensus, that smoking is good for you then we would all be a lot worse off right now.

Challenge the accepted norms, question everything even if "the majority" believes it to be different. This is science.

But you probably don't believe in such science. Only the religion.

[Derpinheimer2]

You know, that login captcha really tests me sometimes....

...

I also have a hard time solving captchas sometimes. It is reaching ridiculous levels. Soon it will be above human "processing" ability and only a new generation of very specialized bots will be able to solve them. Ironic, isn't it?...
...

I have found blocking the correct IP's and or domains will allow one to bypass many of the google captcha tests. Noscript and peerblock work well together.

...

Salty eth haters never disappoint. What part is it you hate so much? That its stealing bitcoins market cap? That it has a real plan to address scaling on chain? If you want to hate something, make it garbage like btrash, which while having no use, no purpose, no anything - is worth $25 billion. And it doesn't solve or attempt to solve anything.

The vast majority of you seem to be stuck on the ETC fork and now hate it because you didn't invest. Maybe consider diversifying instead of crying.

I have only shorted it and enjoyed it every time as it is not decentralized and now mutable and therefore not cryto currency at all. It was a premine scam and still is no matter how big it gets and I don't hate on it because I am a Bitcoin holder as my stake in BTC is insignificant and when it came out I was running folding at home for those years rather than mining (my mistake).

The hate comes from seeing the idea itself become twisted to a centralized fucking bank, the exact opposite of what this scene exists for. And guess what you can have no use for btrash and also none for eth or etc, why would you think there must be a choice in there are you so myoptic in your thinking?

Hah, boogerboy finally downloaded. Lol

You making money on shorts doesnt really matter. It's performed very well - you could have done much better on other cryptos (or really, any during the crash). So whats your point?

Mining pools do not make it centralized, especially since PoS is coming.
How on earth can you call it a central bank? Because of a single hard fork to undo a hack? Insanity. Head in sand and then buried under a dump truck for good measure.

What do you mean by "you can have no use for eth or etc"? The point is, it (ETH) attempts to solve something. It has its plan. Same with XRP - do I like it? No. But it does have a game plan. ETC, BCH, and many others are simply garbage with absolutely no potential for adoption.

[Derpinheimer2]

There is an overwhelming global scientific consensus on this point.  So yes.  

I think you are really not understanding me.

There may be overwhelming scientific consensus that humans "are contributing to climate change".

But please point me to all the studies and data showing that humans can CONTROL climate change. And of course the executable master plan that I'm sure all countries of the world are just chomping at the bit to put into action.

I'll wait...

for another two decades...

to watch nothing change on this.

Because the best option to being uncertain is to say, "lets do nothing and wait"

"You can't prove this o-ring is going to fail, even if the engineers say so - go on with that launch!" That has worked well historically, hasn't it? It's called preventative measures. Maybe in 20 years we learn the impact was minimal. Its better to be on the safe side, especially considering most of these measures are good for the world anyway - improve air quality, reduce waste, etc. It's not like you're writing a check to the gods (aka climate scientists) saying "please stop the damage "

[Ibian]

There is an overwhelming global scientific consensus on this point.  So yes.  

I think you are really not understanding me.

There may be overwhelming scientific consensus that humans "are contributing to climate change".

But please point me to all the studies and data showing that humans can CONTROL climate change. And of course the executable master plan that I'm sure all countries of the world are just chomping at the bit to put into action.

I'll wait...

for another two decades...

to watch nothing change on this.

Because the best option to being uncertain is to say, "lets do nothing and wait"

"You can't prove this o-ring is going to fail, even if the engineers say so - go on with that launch!" That has worked well historically, hasn't it? It's called preventative measures. Maybe in 20 years we learn the impact was minimal. Its better to be on the safe side, especially considering most of these measures are good for the world anyway - improve air quality, reduce waste, etc. It's not like you're writing a check to the gods (aka climate scientists) saying "please stop the damage "

General reminder that co2 is not a pollutant, comrade.

[Elwar]

If the solution to global warming was "oh shit, looks like we'll need to shut down governments and implement anarcho-capitalism to save the planet"...then I might be more inclined to believe the scientists that are paid by the government.

When the solution to global warming (science funded by governments) is "we need to give more power to governments" makes a fella go...hmmm....

[infofront]

If the solution to global warming was "oh shit, looks like we'll need to shut down governments and implement anarcho-capitalism to save the planet"...then I might be more inclined to believe the scientists that are paid by the government.

When the solution to global warming (science funded by governments) is "we need to give more power to governments" makes a fella go...hmmm....

We need to set up some more bureaucracies to deal with climate change, comrade.

[bones261]

If the solution to global warming was "oh shit, looks like we'll need to shut down governments and implement anarcho-capitalism to save the planet"...then I might be more inclined to believe the scientists that are paid by the government.

When the solution to global warming (science funded by governments) is "we need to give more power to governments" makes a fella go...hmmm....

The governments are just hedging their power. After all, the governments are largely in control of the fossil fuels. Shoot, governments are largely in control of almost all forms of energy.
Nuclear: Government controlled.
Hydroelectric: Government controlled.
If you truly want to have a chance of freeing yourself from government control, your best bet is solar or wind. No matter how hard they try, I do not see governments having any power over the supply of the wind or sunshine. Unfortunately, the governments have funded research in those as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVpMxVn6mk

[Paashaas]

What do we think of the Georgia Guidestones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

Whoever conceived this crap should  put their money where their mouths are and start by ending their own cancerous existence.

What are your specific objections?

This:
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Geting rid of 6.5B people just to keep the balance with nature...

The problem is this fiat debt slave system it effects everything in oure daily life. It serves the 1% ore a few families.

Bitcoin will disrupt the system, the world will be in a much better spot when we take the power away from them.

Making profits is nice but the real war is changing the system.

[Ibian]

What do we think of the Georgia Guidestones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

Whoever conceived this crap should  put their money where their mouths are and start by ending their own cancerous existence.

What are your specific objections?

This:
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Geting rid of 6.5B people just to keep the balance with nature...

The problem is this fiat debt slave system it effects everything in oure daily life. It serves the 1% ore a few families.

Bitcoin will disrupt the system, the world will be in a much better spot when we take the power away from them.

Making profits is nice but the real war is changing the system.

Well, it's a self-correcting problem. We can support 9 billion people, or whatever the number turns out to be. Which means we will go to 10 or 11, then the oceans will be fished dry and we will eat our seed crop, and billions of people will die. Still would be better if we found some less-bad solutions beforehand, but we won't.

[Searing]

If the solution to global warming was "oh shit, looks like we'll need to shut down governments and implement anarcho-capitalism to save the planet"...then I might be more inclined to believe the scientists that are paid by the government.

When the solution to global warming (science funded by governments) is "we need to give more power to governments" makes a fella go...hmmm...

the worst climate change possibilities may be much much worse...if methane as below gets released....much worse than carbon dioxide for climate change

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-methane-release-could-cost-60t/ Arctic melting would really dump methane into the atmosphere...


On any 'public' issue I am always skeptical of the 'we will lose money' argument for NO policy change....or long-term fix..planning..it..leads (to me) the current society 'blinders' of...we can do a 'short-term' fix someday....for any problem..social/economic/finance etc...eventually....kicking the can down the road is gonna hit a wall...just my rule of thumb on common social issues...

no hard choices...to me...means harder choices in the future ...with likely 'less time' and 'resources' to do so...

[Biodom]

General reminder that co2 is not a pollutant, comrade.

Not a pollutant for plants, they love it.
However, increasing Co2 does affect mental functions.
see graphs: 21% decrease in mental functions upon doubling of Co2 from 400ppm (now) to 800
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/co2-on-the-brain-and-the-brain-on-co2

At some threshold yet to be defined but thought to be around a 1000 ppm, human cognition will begin to be negatively impacted. Latest research indicates we could attain this threshold outdoors in the next century, and the dissipation of CO2 in our atmosphere takes centuries.

Regardless on the "politically charged" question of what is causing it (the Co2 increase), if it increases, we will be progressively live in Idiocracy.
Sometimes I already feel it in talking to some people (not here).
Maybe, this is the Great Filter (a concept explaining the absence of visible super-civilizations a.k.a Fermi Paradox).

[jojo69]

I truly hope Jimbo caught these last two games.

Looks like they had a couple barn burners in a row up there.

[Ibian]

General reminder that co2 is not a pollutant, comrade.

Not a pollutant for plants, they love it.
However, increasing Co2 does affect mental functions.
see graphs: 21% decrease in mental functions upon doubling of Co2 from 400ppm (now) to 800
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/co2-on-the-brain-and-the-brain-on-co2

At some threshold yet to be defined but thought to be around a 1000 ppm, human cognition will begin to be negatively impacted. Latest research indicates we could attain this threshold outdoors in the next century, and the dissipation of CO2 in our atmosphere takes centuries.

Regardless on the "politically charged" question of what is causing it (the Co2 increase), if it increases, we will be progressively live in Idiocracy.
Sometimes I already feel it in talking to some people (not here).
Maybe, this is the Great Filter (a concept explaining the absence of visible super-civilizations a.k.a Fermi Paradox).

Now you just need to explain how a doubling could possibly happen.

That's the damn problem with catastrophic predictions, if it is built on one thing that can't happen the whole thing falls apart.

[Elwar]

no hard choices...to me...means harder choices in the future ...with likely 'less time' and 'resources' to do so...

One hard choice would be for the government to pay off their $21 trillion debt.

The future consequences of that will be devastating. Only math deniers don't believe this.

[jojo69]

I have said before; the end of debt money will go a long way toward reigning in this 'grow or die' economy.

Lot of folks gonna' starve though.

[Anon136]

General reminder that co2 is not a pollutant, comrade.

Not a pollutant for plants, they love it.
However, increasing Co2 does affect mental functions.
see graphs: 21% decrease in mental functions upon doubling of Co2 from 400ppm (now) to 800
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/co2-on-the-brain-and-the-brain-on-co2

At some threshold yet to be defined but thought to be around a 1000 ppm, human cognition will begin to be negatively impacted. Latest research indicates we could attain this threshold outdoors in the next century, and the dissipation of CO2 in our atmosphere takes centuries.

Regardless on the "politically charged" question of what is causing it (the Co2 increase), if it increases, we will be progressively live in Idiocracy.
Sometimes I already feel it in talking to some people (not here).
Maybe, this is the Great Filter (a concept explaining the absence of visible super-civilizations a.k.a Fermi Paradox).

Now you just need to explain how a doubling could possibly happen.

That's the damn problem with catastrophic predictions, if it is built on one thing that can't happen the whole thing falls apart.

You guys should ressurect this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=374873.4300 it was a hoot. 200+ pages long too.

[RewFrew]

When you think you are right for 100% about something then your inner feelings about this are in peace and you dont have the needs to argue with opposants.

Arguing is showing you are not 100% sure.

The best you can do is sharing your thoughts for once or not sharing at all, as most ideas arents mathematics results like 1+1=2 .

This thread is 95% Bullshit talks that are out of bitcoin.

[Biodom]

General reminder that co2 is not a pollutant, comrade.

Not a pollutant for plants, they love it.
However, increasing Co2 does affect mental functions.
see graphs: 21% decrease in mental functions upon doubling of Co2 from 400ppm (now) to 800
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/co2-on-the-brain-and-the-brain-on-co2

At some threshold yet to be defined but thought to be around a 1000 ppm, human cognition will begin to be negatively impacted. Latest research indicates we could attain this threshold outdoors in the next century, and the dissipation of CO2 in our atmosphere takes centuries.

Regardless on the "politically charged" question of what is causing it (the Co2 increase), if it increases, we will be progressively live in Idiocracy.
Sometimes I already feel it in talking to some people (not here).
Maybe, this is the Great Filter (a concept explaining the absence of visible super-civilizations a.k.a Fermi Paradox).

Now you just need to explain how a doubling could possibly happen.

That's the damn problem with catastrophic predictions, if it is built on one thing that can't happen the whole thing falls apart.

From the quoted article:

In a reported study, it was found that in a substantial number of poorly ventilated classrooms and workplaces, CO2 levels can average 1000 ppm, a significant proportion of these exceeded 2000 ppm and some even reached 3000 ppm.

Some are already affected, most likely.
Don't believe this, get a whiff of Co2 from the dry ice.
It helps to put things in perspective.

for the accelerated annual Co2 increase, check out the graph here:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/co2-levels-continue-to-increase-at-record-rate

However, even at a steady 2% yearly increase (which is 33% less than in 2015) with no more acceleration, we would reach 800ppm in open air in about 35 years.