Stux posted:

http://www.miketysonbitcoin.com

Sham bam bamina! posted:

what sum would be fair and what are the chances that the drawing cost it

quote:

Visa Europe's Collab, an arm of the company's digital innovation programme, has begun to look at bitcoin start-ups within the area of digital payments - a space dominated by the big card providers.

quote:

IBT: "What are the blockchain companies like?"

Perry: "Still ideas."

IBT: "What sort of ideas?"

Perry: "We haven't got to that."

IBT: "In the payments space?"

Perry: "Yes, in the payments space – but blockchain extends much further than payments."

IBT: "Are these bitcoin ideas?"

etc...

JamesieAB posted:

IBT: "What are the blockchain companies like?" 

Perry: "Still ideas." 

Soricidus posted:

not far enough if you ask me

Stux posted:

http://www.miketysonbitcoin.com

surebet posted:

In the winter of 2003, when George Bush and Tony Blair were frantically gathering support for their planned invasion, Professor Thomas Römer, an Old Testament expert at the university of Lausanne, was rung up by the Protestant Federation of France. They asked him to supply them with a summary of the legends surrounding Gog and Magog and as the conversation progressed, he realised that this had originally come, from the highest reaches of the French government.

President Jacques Chirac wanted to know what the hell President Bush had been on about in their last conversation. Bush had then said that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw "Gog and Magog at work" and the biblical prophecies unfolding. But who the hell were Gog and Magog? Neither Chirac nor his office had any idea. But they knew Bush was an evangelical Christian, so they asked the French Federation of Protestants, who in turn asked Professor Römer.

click for rest

p much distilled

Palpek posted:

there's already a pre-recorded tyson's speech that will be played when this turns out to be a scam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx66LWV-CCk&t=13s

jony ive aces posted:

will the mike tyson atm sell cosbycoins

indigi posted:

yeah but you get raped on the exchange rate

jony ive aces posted:

hopefully soon some of them will progress to being wikis

JFairfax posted:

Klamka's firm Bitcoin Brands Inc, an over-the-counter (OTC) stock with a market cap of just $6,780 and no visible product offerings.

theflyingorc posted:

lol for one second i was sad for mike tyson but then i remembered he's actually a giant raging and raping punchmonster

jony ive aces posted:

will the mike tyson atm sell cosbycoins

quote:

How to resist private key extortion (self.Bitcoin)

submitted 1 day ago by Mordan

There is some news hitting the wires on my local region that a couple got home jacked and were threatened with theirs lives. They had to give away money and mobile phones. Now imagine everyone is his own bank. It means you are an easy target. "Give me your private key or lose some fingers" says the thug. In the case of the couple above, they are happy to have all their savings safe in a bank account.

quote:

shadowofashadow 3 points 1 day ago

You can always use multiple passwords along with your seed words so that you can give them the one with a few BTC in it while your main stash is safe. This works with the trezor I know for sure.

There's also the fact that if they kill you they lose access to the coins for good. It's not like a physical good where they can kill you and then ransack your house to find it.

quote:

that won't be enough until we have something that makes or transactions more private. An advanced thug could check the blockchain himself to see if it the wallet you've been using recently or not. Mixing your wallets in regular use would be cumbersome, however I do think this idea is the beginnings of a good solution. Lightning Network would also help greatly.

[–]BitcoinReminder_com 1 point 1 day ago

How would Lightning Network help here??

[–]Demotruk 3 points 1 day ago

With Lightning Network, only the settlement at the beginning and end goes directly onto the Bitcoin blockchain. All regular transactions are known only by you, your LN Provider, and whomever you transacted with.

quote:

jmw74 2 points 1 day ago

This is stupid, it doesn't matter what you ACTUALLY did with your keys. It matters what the attacker believes. If he believes people are dumb enough to keep the keys to all their bitcoin savings where he can get them, then he'll beat you until he gets it or you die.

It has to be A WELL KNOWN FACT that everyone uses multisig and keeps the keys in various safe deposit boxes around town. Or else people are going to lose fingers.

quote:

I think anyone threatening anyone of torture should be executed on the spot by the police

quote:

An advanced thug

quote:

== What it really is ==

BitCoin is a digital currency with hidden factors, touted as a payment system, originally housed by England in its Fort Terror complex, for sake of delivering it to the world as a kind of pseudocurrency, or pyramid/ponzi scheme, which would gain in popularity amongst young people who idealize openness in the markets, but then would become ensnared if they invested largely, by virtue of buying into a aristocrat-run crime-syndicate forted institution, insistent on resisting the "work Dollar" the common term for the World Bank "credito," (see the Grateful Dead's "Box of Rain") as designed by the Vatican to be an egalitarian way of assessing work value.

BitCoin became solvent when Barack Obama, as a favor to Joseph Biden, transformed 58,000,000 dollars of BitCoin currency through the Bank of Philadelphia, which then concealed the log of that transaction beneath the bank of PNC, "under China" Bank PNC fault, establishing legitimacy through a kind of orchestrated corruption and fraud at the highest level. Hence the trick of BitCoin was to give the impression that the whole log lived in the cloud in unison, but in fact would be broken into chunks which would effectively make it so that separate secreted accounts could be formed, amounting to over forty billion times the nation budgets of these two states, China (Zhong-guo) and the Netherlands, of Dutch-Spain (read into).

This kind of grouping of aristo- and oligarch elements goes back a hundred years, and has secret milestones in the endings and beginnings of each of the major wars that England under the UK system has been involved in. The Breiviks, Chalmers, and the Odierno groups each represent paramilitary wings of the Euro-forted (Nordic, British, Hispanic), Nihon-Manchu forted militas, who have worked in espionage agains the United States, with planning and involvement in diabolical terror operations abroad, around the world, to gained access and escalated privileges in government.

(Crossposted to my Facebook). God is with me. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]], ed. 2002, Ahanam Ocuana) 23:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

My PIN is 4826 posted:

this just turned up on my wikipedia watchlist where i have bitcoin added for the comedy of edit wars:

My PIN is 4826 posted:

this just turned up on my wikipedia watchlist where i have bitcoin added for the comedy of edit wars:

anthonypants posted:

change those parentheticals into wikipedia citations and approve it, imo

My PIN is 4826 posted:

it was on the talk page and got removed, sadly

anthonypants posted:

you have the bitcoin talk page on your wikipedia watchlist

My PIN is 4826 posted:

you read /r/bitcoin

Boxturret posted:

the advanced thug has 3x the hp of the normal thug and a 10% chance of dropping a rare item

quote:

We Should Consider The Future World As One Of Multi-Species Intelligence
Considering machines that think is a nice step forward in the AI debate as it departs from our own human-based concerns, and accords machines otherness in a productive way. It causes us to consider the other entity's frame of reference. However, even more importantly this questioning suggests a large future possibility space for intelligence. There could be "classic" unenhanced humans, enhanced humans (with nootropics, wearables, brain-computer interfaces), neocortical simulations, uploaded mind files, corporations as digital abstractions, and many forms of generated AI: deep learning meshes, neural networks, machine learning clusters, blockchain-based distributed autonomous organizations, and empathic compassionate machines. We should consider the future world as one of multi-species intelligence.

What we call the human function of "thinking" could be quite different in the variety of possible future implementations of intelligence. The derivation of different species of machine intelligence will necessarily be different than that of humans. In humans, embodiment and emotion as a short-cut heuristic for the fight-or-flight response and beyond have been important elements influencing human thinking. Machines will not have the evolutionary biology legacy of being driven by resource acquisition, status garnering, mate selection, and group acceptance, at least in the same way. Therefore different species of native machine "thinking" could be quite different. Rather than asking if machines can think, it may be more productive to move from the frame of "thinking" that asks "who thinks how" to a world of "digital intelligences" with different backgrounds, modes of thinking, and existence, and different value systems and cultures.

Already not only are AI systems becoming more capable, but we are also starting to get a sense of the properties and features of native machine culture and the machine economy, and what the coexistence of human and machine systems might be like. Some examples of these parallel systems are in law and personal identity. In law, there are technologically-binding contracts and legally-binding contracts. They have different enforcement paradigms; inexorably executing parameters in the case of code ("code is law"), and discretionary compliance in the case of human-partied contracts. Code contracts are good in the sense that they cannot be breached, but on the other hand, will execute monolithically even if later conditions have changed.

Another example is personal identity. The technological construct of identity and the social construct of identity are different and have different implied social contracts. The social construct of identity includes the property of imperfect human memory that allows the possibility of forgiving and forgetting, and redemption and reinvention. Machine memory, however, is perfect and can act as a continuous witnessing agent, never forgiving or forgetting, and always able to re-presence even the smallest detail at any future moment. Technology itself is dual-use in that it can be deployed for "good" or "evil." Perfect machine memory only becomes tyrannizing when reimported to static human societal systems, but it need not be restrictive. Having this new "fourth-person perspective" could be a boon for human self-monitoring and mental performance enhancement.

These examples show that machine culture, values, operation, and modes of existence are already different, and this emphasizes the need for ways to interact that facilitate and extend the existence of both parties. The potential future world of intelligence multiplicity means accommodating plurality and building trust. Blockchain technology, a decentralized, distributed, global, permanent, code-based ledger of interaction transactions and smart contracts is one example of a trust-building system. The system can be used whether between human parties or inter-species parties, exactly because it is not necessary to know, trust, or understand the other entity, just the code (the language of machines).

Over time trust can grow though reputation. Blockchain technology could be used to enforce friendly AI and mutually-beneficial inter-species interaction. This is because it is possible that in the future, important transactions (like identity authentication and resource transfer) would be conducted on smart networks that require confirmation by independent consensus mechanisms such that only bonafide transactions by entities in good reputational standing are executed. While perhaps not a full answer to the problem of enforcing friendly AI, decentralized smart networks like blockchains are a system of checks and balances that starts to provide a more robust solution to situations of future uncertainty.

Trust-building models for inter-species digital intelligence interaction could include both game-theoretic checks-and-balances systems like blockchains, and also at the higher level, frameworks that put entities on the same plane of shared objectives. This is of higher order than smart contracts and treaties that attempt to enforce morality. A mindset shift is required. The problem frame of machine and human intelligence should not be one that characterizes relations as friendly or unfriendly, but rather one that treats all entities equally, putting them on the same grounds and value system for the most important shared parameters, like growth. What is most important about thinking for humans and machines is that thinking leads to ideation, progress, and growth.

What we want is the ability to experience, grow, and contribute more, for both humans and machines, and the two in symbiosis and synthesis. This can be conceived as all entities existing on a spectrum of capacity for individuation (the ability to grow and realize their full and expanding potential). Productive interaction between intelligent species could be fostered by being aligned in the common framework of a capacity spectrum that facilitates their objective of growth and maybe mutual growth.

What we should think about thinking machines is that we want to be in greater interaction with them, both quantitatively or rationally, and qualitatively in sense of our extending our internal experience of ourselves and reality, moving forward together in the vast future possibility space of intelligence.

Gobbeldygook posted:

who thinks how

Gobbeldygook posted:

Blockchain technology could be used to enforce friendly AI and mutually-beneficial inter-species interaction.

Gobbeldygook posted:

Edge asked a bunch of prominent intellectuals what they think about machines that think. there are some good essays, some bad essays, and then this abomination from Melanie Swan.

im triggered by this whole loving thing.

neonbregna posted:

lol if you do not think that first actual ai will not kill itself the first chance it gets

neonbregna posted:

lol if you do not think that first actual ai will not kill itself the first chance it gets

Improbable Lobster posted:

duTrieux. posted:

i really hope this actually happens because the philosophical implications would be loving brutal