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

[Toxic2040]

Where did you learn to use the verbs pumping and dumping like that? Prices don't pump and dump themselves. A second/third person/people has to pump and dump the price. Who is the subject?

Yay!  Terabull is back.
....thats kinda catchy.  :/  your welcome whoever for the freebee.

[jojo69]

wow...CardaNEOageddon

[Arriemoller]

A well regulated milita does not require full auto weapons.

Who the fuck is arguing for full auto weapons in the civilian population ?! No sane person I know. That's who.

The Gun Owners Of America for starters.  Or are there no sane people in the GOA?
https://gunowners.org/goa-on-bump-stocks.htm
Unless you are going to tell me that an AR15 with a bump stock is not the equivalent of an auto?  Stephen Paddock was doing 9 rounds per second with a perfectly legal weapon.  That’s a full auto as far I am concerned.  He had to keep rotating rifles due to heat sink but the point remains.

Not familiar with The GOA.

I disagree with their stance on bump-stocks, and their article entirely. To your point, I would admit they do seem to have a few loose screws.

But a militia is a military unit, and they would be up against regular military units with full auto or burst settings. It would be a disadvantage for the militia not to have the same. Full auto is sometimes used in combat situations to suppress the enemy.

[mymenace]

[Cassius]

amendments are changes to the constitution

Psst..have to cryptospeak around these parts..

The original Constitution is made up of 7 articles and it is like the genesis block. Amendments are "consensus" based blocks added over time that form the framework that is the United States. This chain can be forked under certain conditions described by Hairy somewhere previously in this thread I believe.

US constitution has been hardforked how many times?
I want US Classic. Not these amended altcoin constitutions.

[Arriemoller]

A well regulated milita does not require full auto weapons.

Who the fuck is arguing for full auto weapons in the civilian population ?! No sane person I know. That's who.

Agreed. No civilian gun owner I know wants or cares about full auto. In fact it is a liability.

Another thing, if that mentally unstable kid had gone into the Parkland school with a handgun instead of an AR-15, the outcome would have been exactly the same. The rifle did him no favors. He would have been shooting from the exact same near point-blank distances, and with a hand gun would have killed just as many former classmates if not more.

But of course, the AR-15 rifle now gets all the blame and calls for ban. I guess if he had gone in with a samurai sword instead they would be wanting to ban those? Or how about a knife?

Or what if he had just mowed down his former classmates with a truck out in the school parking lot? I guess we should ban trucks now?

Whatever we do, let's DON'T address teenage mental health as the real culprit. No no.

Death toll at the Florida school shooting was 17.  

There is no equivalent to school shootings in any other civilised country that bans guns, including countries where trucks are legal. This is an entirely and uniquely American problem.

I only know of one school lockdown in my home city. It happened when a large snake crawled out of the HVAC system.

Edit:  Torque I would say 59 dead and 500+ wounded is pretty effective.  That’s almost 9/11 level shit and it only took one angry old guy to do it.

I don't know what you mean by " civilised country that bans guns", but for instance Finland have had at least three school shootings.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_school_shooting

[mindrust]

[Toxic2040]

US constitution has been hardforked how many times?
I want US Classic. Not these amended altcoin constitutions.

27 times..the first 10 of these being the Bill of Rights..but to keep the analogy going..these are consensus based soft forks that required a majority vote to implement.

[Last of the V8s]

@CobraBitcoin https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/970736614275153926

Increased my holdings of Bitcoin Cash today. There was a long need for a blockchain good for payments, that makes certain tradeoffs to achieve that, and I think from a UX point of view, Bitcoin Cash has much better chances of winning the upcoming payments war than LN.
7:03 PM - 5 Mar 2018

@CobraBitcoin
Bitcoin Cash is a parasite coin that aims to undermine and suck value out of Bitcoin. It’s not like other altcoins. We should be prepared for a BCH pump during fork which could have unpredictable effects on miner incentives and harm the true Bitcoin block chain.
11:53 AM - 8 Nov 2017
@CobraBitcoin
Funny watching the Bitcoin Cash echo chamber @rogerkver has built slowly turn against him and his bullshit.
4:22 PM - 9 Nov 2017

I guess Ver bought his account?

[Arriemoller]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

[Arriemoller]

The problem is adjudicating between different tribal moralities. Cooperation evolved like morality evolved, to solve in-group problems. There doesn't seem to be anything analogous in dealing with out-group problems. America is torn between northern herders and southern herders. What do?

That's the problem that the nation states solved in the 1800s
The nation became the new tribe to witch all belonged.
Now that the left is disassembling the nation states tribalism returns. Woman against men, different ethnicities against each other, different religions against each other, and so on.

[HairyMaclairy]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

As a hard left socialist, Child B is not getting any cake.

[Last of the V8s]

[Arriemoller]

amendments are changes to the constitution

Aren't they ad ons to the constitution?
I realize that they can change the meaning of the constitution, but can the actual wording of the constitution be altered?

[HairyMaclairy]

amendments are changes to the constitution

Aren't they ad ons to the constitution?
I realize that they can change the meaning of the constitution, but can the actual wording of the constitution be altered?

Yes and yes.  An amendment can delete part of the Constitution in an additive way. For example, a Constitutional amendment could be added that repeals the federal Senate and all clauses of the Constitution in relation to the Senate. From that day forward, the Senate would be deleted.

Technically you are adding another layer, but new layers can change old layers.  The most extreme example would be a Constitutional amendment that repeals the Constitution itself, at which point the whole thing disappears in a puff of smoke.

[bitserve]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

In that example, I don't think any sane person would think the second is reasonable, no matter if left or anything.... It would be somewhat arguable if instead of pudding we were talking that A needs some money for medicines but he doesn't get it because he didn't mow the lawn, and dies. Also, it would be good to know the rules beforehand, ie:

No lawn mowning, no pudding or even no lawn mowning no medicines. Then, only not following the pre established rules would be unfair.

[Last of the V8s]

[Arriemoller]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

As a hard left socialist, Child B is not getting any cake.

As a hard left socialist you would take the cake, set up a state agency who's job it is to split the cake fairly, give one piece of the cake to that agency, give some to the party, waste some in the process and then give back a tiny amount to the children after they have applied for a piece at said agency.

[Globb0]

Please help.

I have been mining for bitcoin at home for 2 years now and found nothing.

How deep do I have to go?

200m and now my house has fallen into the hole, the government man says I have to stop immediately.

What should I do?

[HairyMaclairy]

I see the Republicans are trying to start a trade war with Europe.  I guess the right doesn’t believe in free trade anymore.  Free trade has always been more of a socialist thing.