Greyhawk posted:

oh good i'm not the only one. i get a headache staring at it too long

Robawesome posted:

Could we crowd fund a 100% renewable energy bitcoin mining facility? (self.Bitcoin)

submitted 4 minutes ago* by gonzobon

Solar/Wind/Geothermal/etc

Demonstrating as a proof of concept an all in one facility that not only builds, recycles, and develops it's own ASICS.

As small a carbon impact as possible.

I know there's already some geothermal mining facilities going on. But the prospect seems fun to make them as self sustaining as possible.

I have no idea if such a thing is feasible. But the idea is a mostly self-sustaining mining facility that imports only what it needs.

Showing the world that it's not wasteful would be helpful to long term plans. Even though the costs of the mining pales in comparison to our current financial system.

Robawesome posted:

"the compliance officer of Neo and Bee Ltd has stated" Neo announcement about halting of trading as relayed by Havelock (self.neobee)

submitted 42 minutes ago by JuicyGrabs

March 28th, 2014 - March 28, 2014 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Havelock Investments has been formally informed by the Pass-Through Fund Manager of NEOBEE that the compliance officer of Neo and Bee Ltd has stated that due to an increase of abnormal activity on the LMB share platform, there may be a high possibility of questionable trading activity. While Neo and Bee Ltd investigate the issue further they have strongly recommended that we halt trading and transfers. Havelock Investments has halted the NEOBEE fund and is awaiting further instructions from the issuer. https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=NEOBEE

Robawesome posted:

"the compliance officer of Neo and Bee Ltd has stated" Neo announcement about halting of trading as relayed by Havelock (self.neobee)

submitted 42 minutes ago by JuicyGrabs

March 28th, 2014 - March 28, 2014 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Havelock Investments has been formally informed by the Pass-Through Fund Manager of NEOBEE that the compliance officer of Neo and Bee Ltd has stated that due to an increase of abnormal activity on the LMB share platform, there may be a high possibility of questionable trading activity. While Neo and Bee Ltd investigate the issue further they have strongly recommended that we halt trading and transfers. Havelock Investments has halted the NEOBEE fund and is awaiting further instructions from the issuer. https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=NEOBEE

Robawesome posted:

Could we crowd fund a 100% renewable energy bitcoin mining facility? (self.Bitcoin)

submitted 4 minutes ago* by gonzobon

Solar/Wind/Geothermal/etc

Demonstrating as a proof of concept an all in one facility that not only builds, recycles, and develops it's own ASICS.

As small a carbon impact as possible.

I know there's already some geothermal mining facilities going on. But the prospect seems fun to make them as self sustaining as possible.

I have no idea if such a thing is feasible. But the idea is a mostly self-sustaining mining facility that imports only what it needs.

Showing the world that it's not wasteful would be helpful to long term plans. Even though the costs of the mining pales in comparison to our current financial system.

quote:

Help! Forgotten Multi-bit pasword (self.Bitcoin)
submitted 30 minutes ago by 2posh4grillz

Hi, Ive been using Multibit for a while now, and i just attempted to move my coins and my password is coming up as incorrect, i am FREAKING OUT.

Is there any way to reset a password without the original?

Failing that does anybody know the password requirements for multibit, e.g amount of letters/numbers needed?..

Robawesome posted:

The Bitcoin Jar - social game powered by bitcoin TIPS - [Your feedback is appreciated] (self.Bitcoin)

submitted 5 minutes ago by TheBitcoinJar

Hello,

We are working on The Bitcoin Jar's project and we would love to hear the feedback from You! Here is the short description but you will find more at our website [https://www.thebitcoinjar.com] and at BitcoinTalk forum [project development].

Our project is simple: every business in the world will be able to set up a loyalty Jar at our website to collect bitcoin TIPS. The Jar owner chooses the Jar’s capacity and describes amount of goods or services available for free at his place when the Jar breaks. The Jar breaks when the total value of the bitcoin TIPS exceeds the capacity. Free goods are then ready to be received and the Jar owner is allowed to withdraw all the TIPS. First customers who ask for a prize from the Jar will receive one thing for free unless different rules are established by the Jar owner at the Jar’s subpage. After that the fun starts over again!

Thank you The Bitcoin Jar's Team M.M

Beeftweeter posted:

why do buttcoiners love tips so loving much

goddamn

our new just the tip based economy

Beeftweeter posted:

our new just the tip based economy

RealityApologist posted:

I was digging through the SomethingAwful archives and found my first essay on the attention economy, written on April 5th, 2011. At the time, Bitcoin had yet to experience it's first bubble and was still trading below a dollar, and Occupy Wall Street was still five months in the future. If you don't have access to the archives, the thread which prompted this first write up was titled "No More Bitchin: Let's actually create solutions to society's problems!" Despite my reputation on this forum, I'm not interested in pop speculative futurism or idle technoidealism. I don't think there's an easy technological fix for our many difficult problems. But I do think that our technological circumstances have a dramatic impact on our social, political, and economic organizations, and that we can design technologies to cultivate human communities that are healthy, stable, and cooperative. The political and economic infrastructure we have for managing collective human action was developed at a time when individual rational agency formed the basis of all political theory, and in a networked digital age we can do much better. An attention economy doesn't solve all the problems, but it provides tools for addressing problems that simply aren't available with the infrastructure we have available today. My discussion of the attention economy was aimed at discussing social organization at this level of abstraction, with the hopes that taking this networked perspective on social action would reveal some of the tools necessary for addressing our problems. .

In the three years and multiple threads since that initial post, I've done research into the dynamics and organization of complex systems and taught myself some of the math and theory necessary for making the idea explicit and communicable. And in that time the field of data science has grown astronomically, making a variety of tools and theoretical resources available for modelling and predicting the dynamics of complex networks. In general, the public discourse has become much more comfortable thinking about attention and network dynamics and its implications. Some of that discussion is gross hype and misrepresentation, but some of it is really giving us unprecedented pictures of our collective behavior at large scales. And for this reason, more people have been articulating proposals that look quite a lot like the attention economy I've been describing. I'm not saying this vindicates my theory, but it suggests a possible convergence in in the direction I've been pointing.

In any case, if I was going to make a new thread I didn't want to just vomit out some more impotent rhetoric. Instead, I wanted to give a specific, proposal of limited scope that can be addressed on is own merits independent of whatever reputation I've developed. So I wrote up a proposal for a new digital currency.

quote:

Strangecoin: the nonlinear currency

In this post I sketch a proposal for a digital currency that works unlike other *coins that have recently become available. I'm calling it Strangecoin, both to highlight its uniqueness as a currency and as a reference to the strange attractor, a special kind of nonlinear system.

What's unique about Strangecoin?

Strangecoin transactions can be nonzero sum. A Strangecoin transaction might result in both parties having more Strangecoin.
Strangecoin transactions can be one-sided and can be conducted entirely by only one party to the transaction.
The rate of change of one's Strangecoin balance is a more important indicator of economic influence than the balance itself.
Optimal investment strategy in Strangecoin aims to stabilize one's balance of Strangecoin.
A universal account provides all users a basic Strangecoin income, effectively unlimited wealth, and direct feedback on the overall prosperity of the network.

I've only started thinking through the idea, and implementing it would take more technical expertise than I have alone. For instance, I'm not sure if Strangecoin can be implemented as an extension of the bitcoin protocol, or if some fundamentally new technology is required. If you know something about the technical details, I'd love to hear your thoughts. If you might know how to implement something like this, I'd love to help you try.

But since I don't know of anything else that works like this, this proposal is mostly intended simply to put the idea out there, in the hopes of encouraging others to think in these directions.


Background and Motivation

If I give you a dollar for a burger, then I've lost a dollar and gained a burger, and you've gained a dollar and lost a burger. Assuming this was a fair trade (that dollars and burgers are of approximately equal value), then as a result of the transaction we've simply rearranged who has which good, and no additional value was created in the process. What I've lost you've gained and vice versa, so that the total value between us has not changed after the exchange is over.

In game theory, an exchange that results in all credits and debits balancing out across all players is called a zero sum game. Recording debits and credits works this way with every existing currency, including Dollars and Euros and all the traditional currencies, but also Bitcoin and other kinds of digital cyptocurrencies. If you want a currency to behave nonlinearly you need additional financial tools like debt and interest, or stocks and dividends, to describe how that money grows or shrinks over time as the result of our economic transactions.

Of course, when I give you a dollar for a burger that's not really a zero sum transaction, because otherwise we wouldn't be motivated to enter into the transaction in the first place. I give you a dollar because I want the burger more than I want the dollar, and if you accept the trade it's because you want the dollar more than you want the burger, so in a fair exchange we both feel like we've come out ahead. In other words, there is some additional value in our fair exchange that is not accounted for in the burgers and the dollars alone. But if our bookkeeping method only counts burgers and dollars, then it's not accounting for the value that accrues in our transactions.

In the proposal below, I'll describe Strangecoin as an method for keeping track of a nonzero sum game, where parties can enter into financial transactions that accrue value just by engaging in that transaction. In this way, Strangecoin is a model of the value that our complex economic relationships generate. The trick is to amplify the exchanged value of Strangecoin transactions relative to the interest of other parties who are not themselves involved in the transaction. If this seems counter-intuitive, a nonfinancial example might help: it's not unusual for two minor celebrities to achieve greater celebrity status upon entering into a romantic relationship. Although strictly speaking the romantic relationship is between the two celebrities, the general public interest in the celebrities results in more overall popularity in their union than either had on their own prior to the relationship.

As the example suggests, the dynamics of Strangecoin might be usefully thought of in terms of a "reputation system" rather than a strictly financial tool, even though the basic mechanics involve the regular method of exchanging currency for goods perceived by both parties to be of equal value. Because of the nonlinear relationships among Strangecoin users, each user effectively draws on a network of support in each economic transaction, coupling its activity to the successes (and failures) of the that network of activity. The result is a model of the complex interdependencies within a community of economic agents, and the dynamics by which those networks develop and decay. For this reason, Strangecoin might have implications for quantifying the role of individual choices and responsibility in the context of corporate action, and for resolving other difficult issues in the management and ethics of collective economic action.

I will say more about implications and consequences of Strangecoin at the end of the document. I turn now to a more detailed discussion of the Strangecoin protocol.

The Strangecoin network

The Strangecoin network is a directed graph with users as nodes and some time-dependent transactions as edges between them. Transactions describes how Strangecoin trade between users at each time step. Let S be our unit of Strangecoin, and let t be our basic unit of time.

A Strangecoin user is:

An account balance B in S
Income I in S/t, the sum of all incoming transactions.
Expenses E in S/t, the sum of all outgoing transactions.
So dB/dt = I - E
An account balance cap C in S that represents the upper limit of Strangecoins in a user's balance.

Balance Penalties:

If B = C, then the user receives a penalty where income is forfeit until expenses reduce the balance below C. Income might gradually decay as B approaches C to postpone hitting the limit. Similarly, if B = 0, then the user receives a penalty where expenses are forfeit until income brings the balance above 0. Expenses might gradually decay as B approaches 0 to postpone hitting the limit. To avoid penalties, users must keep their balance 0 < B < C. In other words, users have an incentive to keep dB/dt near zero, so that total income balances with total expenses.

Transactions:

A transaction indicates some trade in Strangecoin over some duration of time between two Strangecoin users with distinct accounts. Transactions come in five types described below. User X can initiate a transaction with user Y by specifying a transaction type and a duration of time, and then fixing the specific parameters of that transaction. If X can initiate the transaction without the approval of Y, the transaction is one-sided. If the transaction type requires Y's approval for initiation, it is a two-sided transaction. Users cannot engage in transactions with themselves.

Payment is a two-sided transaction in unit time, or an immediate transfer of S from one balance to another in a single time step. Payment works exactly as you'd expect it to work from other currencies, and in this sense is the simplest of the five transaction types. If X pays Y a quantity p of S, then X subtracts p from their balance and deposits p in Y's balance. Payments are two-sided and requires approval from both sides, so initiate the transaction X specifies Y and p, and Y must approve.

Support is a one-sided transaction over some duration t. If X supports Y over t, then X contributes additional S to Y's income from X's balance, expressed as a proportion s of Y's income over t. X's support effectively amplifies Y's income. To initiate this transaction, X specifies Y, t, and the proportion s of Y's income that X will contribute as support. Since support is a one-sided transaction, Y does not need to approve of the support to receive the additional income.

Endorsement is a one-sided transaction over some duration t. If X endorses Y over t, then X contributes additional S to Y's outgoing expenses, expressed as a proportion e of Y's expenses over t. X's endorsement effectively amplifies the payouts of Y's expenses. To initiate the transaction, X specifies Y, t, and the proportion e of Y's expenses that X will contribute as endorsements. Since support is a one-sided transaction, Y does not need to approve of the endorsement or the additional expense, which is drawn entirely from X's account.

Coupling is a two-sided transaction over some duration t. If X and Y couple over t, then changes in the income and expenses of X over t (apart from this coupling) result in proportional changes to the income and expenses of Y, and vice versa. Coupling "binds the fate" of X and Y over t, so that any change in one results in change for both. To initiate the transaction, both X and Y must agree on a duration t, and may specify distinct proportions cx and cy for coupling which must be approved by the other. With approval, coupling can involve both positive and negative correlations between income and expenses of two users. If X and Y are positively coupled, then increases in X's income and expenses results in some proportional increase in Y's income and expenses. This additional income or expense are drawn from or deposited to The Universal Account, as described below.

Inhibition is a two-sided transaction over some duration t. If X inhibits Y over t, then X reduces the income or expenses of Y over t by some proportion i. By inhibiting Y, X effectively reduces the impact that Y has on the Strangecoin network by i over t by forfeiting that proportion of income and expense. To initiate the transaction, X specifies Y, t, and i, which must be approved by Y.

The Universal Account (TUA):

Although individual transactions may be nonzero sum as described above, the overall Strangecoin network is zerosum, and uses The Universal Account to balance the network. TUA is a universal account that is positively coupled with all other users. TUA approves of transactions only in the scenarios described below. All newly mined Strangecoins are deposited directly into TUA, with a coupling bonus to the miner. All users are positively coupled with TUA with cy = 0 so that all users effectively receive a basic income from TUA in proportion to TUA's balance. Users cannot support, endorse, or inhibit TUA.

X can make a payment to TUA at t only in the following situations:
The have hit their account cap. All forfeit income is automatically deposited into TUA.
X is coupled to Y at t, whose expenses have changed. Additional expenses from X (in proportion c_x to Y's expense change) are automatically deposited into TUA.
X is inhibited at t. All forfeit income at t due to inhibition is automatically deposited into TUA.
TUA can make a payment only in the following situations:
X receives income from coupling with TUA.
X's account balance = 0 at t. Any additional transactions outgoing from X at t are drawn from TUA.
X is coupled at t to Y whose income has changed. Additional income to X at t (in proportion cx to Y's income change) is drawn from TUA.
X has income from an inhibited source Y whose balance is empty. The remaining balance of the transaction is drawn from TUA.

All transactions with TUA are bare in the sense that they are stripped of any of the modifiers that might normally amplify transactions with X. Basic income paid from TUA to all other users is in proportion to the total users on the network, and TUA's balance. In this way, the basic user income is also a measure of the general health of the overall network.

Discussion

The set of transactions described in the Strangecoin protocol motivate an incentive structure that is quite different from that of traditional currencies. I'll discuss some of these incentives and their impact below.

Most immediately, Strangecoin transactions are amplified by the network of economic relations employed by each party to the transaction. For this reason, the impact of a transaction isn't simply a matter of what is being traded and for how much. It also matters who you are trading with and their ongoing economic relations, which may have an important impact on the value of the transaction. This is the case even though Strangecoin are entirely fungible and Strangecoin transactions can be conducted pseudonymously.

Strangecoin is "backwards compatible" with traditional currencies, in that it supports the normal method of exchanging goods and services for some discrete quantity of coin in the form of a one-time payment. However, the other transaction types allow for much deeper forms of economic dependencies over time, and explicit representations of one's contribution to one's economic community. These provide incentives to engage in transactions other than payment, for instance by some duration of support or coupling. Securing large payments in a single time step may have very little impact on one's overall income over time, and therefore may be less desirable to users than securing time-extended transactions of other types. Large payments also threaten to bring users close to their balance penalties, providing more incentive to manage economic relationship through other types of transaction.

The most important incentive in the network is the incentive to balance one's account, so that dB/dt is close to 0, and overall income matches overall expenses. If dB/dt is far from zero, then balance penalties start to become an issue. If X is at the account maximum, any additional income over that balance is forfeit to TUA. In this case, user Y has no incentive to give additional support to X, since that additional support is simply forfeit to TUA. Similarly, if X is at the account minimum, any additional expenses are drawn from TUA free of any modifiers. In this situation, user Y has no incentive to endorse X, since that endorsement is again forfeit. In these cases, the transfer of Strangecoin is below its potential, so users are less likely to engage in these transactions; in other words, balance penalties shrink the amplification of one's support network. Users nearing a penalty cannot acquire or dump their balance through TUA, so must arrange transactions with other users to manage their account. There may be income penalties on large balance transfers to prevent users authorizing large payments in order to avoid balance penalties.

Because of these balance constraints, the optimal strategy for all users (including TUA) is to keep income and expenses near a 1:1 ratio. This might be handled in the traditional ways, through careful budgeting and account management. But this can also be handled by managing one's economic support network through transactions other than payment that will keep one's account balanced. If X has sufficiently large income, they must take on equally sizable expenses to avoid balance penalties. These expenses can come in the form of support and endorsements for other members of the network X wishes to support and endorse, effectively growing the network on the basis of their prosperity. The converse holds for users with large expenses. For this reason, prosperity in Strangecoin is measured by a user's throughput of Strangecoins over time, and not their raw quantity at any given time. Users with large throughput also occupy central hubs in the network, and their role and influence in the economic activity of the network is given quantifiable significance with Strangecoin, which can be used for making high-level policy decisions concerning the management and ethics of collective economic action.

Finally, balancing one's account requires, among other things, a consistent regular income from TUA. This gives all users an interest in the general health of TUA and of each user to maintain a relatively balanced account. In general, Strangecoin users seek out semi-persistent networks of support and coupling-- similar in some ways to investment, but investment in people-- and the overall stability of these networks account for the economic well-being of both users and the network as a whole. The incentive towards cooperative, stable, interdependent economic relationships takes place through an interface that bears an intuitive relation to traditional currencies, especially as it pertains to marketplaces of competition.

There's more work required to put flesh on the bones of this idea. There are many conversations to have about the dynamics of the network and the particular constraints it should operate within, both as a matter of practical operation and as a matter of sensible public policy.

I'd like to have those conversations with you.

I posted this on my blog yesterday, and it's received a fair bit of attention since then, largely driven by a fantastic discussion on Hacker News that gets a lot of the up-front reaction and criticism out of the way. There is also a less active thread on /r/BasicIncome that has a few interesting comments, and several comments on my blog. There's also been at least one scammer attempting to profit off the idea already.

The idea isn't complete and there are obvious problems that need to be worked out. But given the reaction I've been seeing, the idea seems to be genuinely novel (something that surprised me, given the insane activity in the bitcoin world), and seems to be stimulating people's thinking in some interesting directions. The proposal is already more successful than I would have anticipated. So I'm pretty interested to see what this thread might do with it.

...! posted:

You didn't answer my question. Have you ever owned or used any btc? If not then how can you speak so authoritatively?

quote:

Legal Question - Can I legally sell BITCOIN as a business? (self.Bitcoin)
submitted 8 minutes ago by SkynetCrypto

Can I stand in one spot and sell BTC to people in person? What is the legality of this?

Just looking for answers to the best of reddit's ability.

quote:

Josh/Inaba of BFL has now resorted to paying shills to boost his own trust rating and defaming critics by leave false negative trust. (forums.butterflylabs.com)

submitted 3 minutes ago by WildFireca

BFL_Josh posted:

Win a Butterfly Labs Imperial Monarch!

In an effort to demonstrate and consequently improve and repair the trust rating system on Bitcointalk, I am holding a contest that will provide concrete examples of how the trust system is broken on Bitcointalk.

I have spoken with Theymos, the operator of Bitcointalk, about this and I have his full knowledge and permission to perform this experiment, with the prize being an Imperial Monarch to one lucky winner!

Starting now and running until we start shipping the 28nm Monarch based products, anyone may enter into the contest by posting to the trust feedback system on Bitcointalk. Each entrant must make 6 separate trust entries. There will be 3 positive entries that must be made and 3 negative entries that must be made. You must make all 6 entries each day to be eligible for the drawing on the day we ship the products. On the day we officially start shipping, the contest entries will be closed. The next block to be found on or after midnight UTC of the following day will be the winning block. We will use Bitcoin Blockchain raffle ticket picker to decide the winning number. Entry numbers will be taken in order they are posted each day and numbering of each day after the first will continue where the previous day left off. The winning number will be chosen at random via the blockchain.

Entrants may make one entry per day. Multiple entries per day will be ignored and only one valid entry will be allowed per day.

Summary of the rules:

1. One entry per person, per day.
2. Entries will consist of 3 positive and 3 negative Trust entries on Bitcointalk.org to the accounts specified. (Listed below)
3. Entries will close the day we ship our first Monarch product to a paying customer. Entries will be accepted up to 23:59 UTC of that day.
4. The winner will be chosen at random via the next block on or after 00:00 (midnight) UTC the day after we begin shipping.
5. The winning list will be compiled through taking each set of 6 entries by a single individual per day and entering their name in the list, in order of posting as displayed by the Bitcointalk.org website. Each subsequent day after the first will start where the previous days list left off.
6. Trust entries must not be cut and pasted from previous days and must be unique each day. Entries must not be gibberish or otherwise unintelligible entries. (Sorry, but you will have to put some thought into it!)
7. DO NOT SPAM MULTIPLE ENTRIES! THERE IS ONLY ONE ENTRY ALLOWED PER DAY. Multiple entries per day are useless and likely to be removed. Anyone found spamming the system will be disqualified.
8. Only valid Bitcointalk accounts registered prior to the 28th of March, 2014 are allowed to enter. Accounts registered after this date are ineligible to participate.
9. Incorrect feedback type will disqualify an entry. (For example, leaving a negative feedback on one of the positive accounts or a positive feedback on a negative account will be disqualified.)
10. Shipping of the winning entry will be at the end of the current pre-order queue. Although I will try to slip in the shipment of the entry earlier than that if we have a gap in the queue based on anyone electing to take a refund, but I can not guarantee that at the moment, as I don't know if we'll have enough refunds to allow that without compromising paying customers shipping schedule.
11. If the operator(s) of Bitcointalk or other entities decide to discontinue this demonstration/experiment early or disallow the feedback for any reason, this contest becomes null and void. I will design a new contest to replace this one in just such an occurrence with the same prize available.

Leave Positive feedback for these three accounts:
Inaba: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198
BFL_Josh: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=63314
BFL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=44366

Leave Negative feedback for these three accounts:
Theymos: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35
Dogie: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=87869
Bicknellski:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=76550


Background information on the reasons behind this contest:

Many people believe that the trust system on Bitcointalk is not only useless, but actually counter productive to a fair and balanced system for evaluating the viability of conducting trade on Bitcointalk. There are countless examples of the system being gamed, and false ratings being applied to individuals, unrelated to any sort of actual trust scenarios. Many scammers use this as a method to instill trust in their victims, allowing them to continue scamming with impunity. Other use the trust system as a way to air grievances, which is not a valid use of the system and also contributes to false rating levels for numerous individuals. The operators of Bitcointalk do not believe the system is broken and further more do not believe it can be gamed. With the small time gaming that has happened in the past, it is hard to differentiate legitimate feedback from illegitimate feedback. This contest, I believe, will conclusively prove that the system can easily be gamed in one direction or the other with minimal effort. Per the rules of the contest, there will be an equal number of positively gamed trust accounts as negatively gamed trust accounts, which will definitively prove that either direction is possible.

I have spoken to Theymos at length over this issue and informed him that I will be conducting this demonstration, so he is aware of the impending demonstration and the likely results. It is possible that I am in fact incorrect about my understanding of how the system actually functions behind the scenes, but I do not believe this to be the case. Hopefully, upon the conclusion of this demonstration, Theymos will be convinced of the lack of viability of the system and replace it with a more viable system or remove it entirely. While this certainly won't solve all of the problems Bitcointalk faces, at least we can try little steps to try and rehabilitate Bitcointalk as a place people can have civil discourse and believe what they read there instead of being forced to ignore the vast majority of the site.

Damiya posted:

I love the "HAVE YOU EVER OWNED BITCOIN" because lol I owned way more bitcoin than any of the dudes currently posting in /r/bitcoin.

These dudes crow about their 1btc or whatever and its' like "Yea dude my old wallet had like 2k coins, thanks for playing".

Late adopters thinking they're king shits is the best.

Damiya posted:

I love the "HAVE YOU EVER OWNED BITCOIN" because lol I owned way more bitcoin than any of the dudes currently posting in /r/bitcoin.

These dudes crow about their 1btc or whatever and its' like "Yea dude my old wallet had like 2k coins, thanks for playing".

Late adopters thinking they're king shits is the best.

fermun posted:

Robawesome posted:

pointsofdata posted:

did you manage to cash out

Damiya posted:

I love the "HAVE YOU EVER OWNED BITCOIN" because lol I owned way more bitcoin than any of the dudes currently posting in /r/bitcoin.

These dudes crow about their 1btc or whatever and its' like "Yea dude my old wallet had like 2k coins, thanks for playing".

Late adopters thinking they're king shits is the best.

Greyhawk posted:

^^^ that's a nice wall of text, what does it say?

ayn rand hand job posted:

he's quoting eripsa, who is bearly coherent when he's on his meds

Greyhawk posted:

oh god

i remember trying to read that thread and stopping midway in the first paragraph of the op too

RealityApologist posted:

My tools are as much a part of my identity as my gender and sexual orientation.

What's incredible about this?

edit: I'm not arguing that glassholes experience the same discrimination as gay people. I'm saying that there are identity politics at play that will only build in tension as wearable computers become more and more popular, and that this culminates in a culture war over the rights of cyborgs to their tools, and moreover that the identity politics mirrors the same political battles for gay rights and other civil rights over these same basic issues of identity.

There's nothing wrong with talking about cyborg rights in light of the lessons in the gay rights (or civil rights) movement. Both were extended studies in political advocacy in the face of overwhelming odds. Cyborgs have plenty to learn from this history.

ayn rand hand job posted:

plus this

ayn rand hand job posted:

hes made the thread multiple times, and it bears laughs

plus this

Greyhawk posted:

Home owner w/free elec. seeking Miner loan mod (self.Bitcoin)