Interesting statement, considering you have effectively provided the proof that I am correct.
And with an infinitely divisible currency, people do not need to pay 1 bit coin for a goat. in fact, at some point, people could start calling 0.1 bit coins a bit coin and the goal still costs 1 of the standard unit. There is nothing special about where you choose to put the decimal place.
No shit? Congratulations, you've explained the entire point of having an infinitely divisible currency to someone who was trying to explain it to you. Glad i could enlighten you so well you thought it was your own idea.
My point is that such a thing as beer as a trade good is not a currency unless you have a doubleplusgood newspeak dictionary that does not have very many words in it.
A currency is simply something that is generally accepted in exchange for goods and services. Generally does not mean universally. I don't know why you're hung up on the word. Bitcon is just as good of a currency as, say, BerkShares. Beer would probably not make a very good currency due to the inconvenience, but I was simply making the point that it could be.
I'm wasting my time aren't I? You are fully aware that traded items are not a currency but you are pretending to be far more stupid than you are to try to win points in some sort of debating game aren't you? Which is it - stupid or playing a game? Do tell.
I guess if someone was trying to teach a pig physics people would think they're pretty stupid. So I guess I'm stupid. I'm sorry I tried to teach you something. Feel free to go back to wallowing and grunting.
Not exactly, no. A country has a certain wealth, and that wealth is divided over all the currency they issue. When they print more money, they dilute the value of the existing currency. There is no one deciding to "print more" Bitcoins. Being able to infinitely divide them just means that no matter how much value a Bitcoin holds, they can always be spent in a small enough quantity for any transaction.
A better argument for what? If trading beer for other things works for you and you have enough other people who feel the same way, then by all means continue. The presence of a particular currency does not have to threaten other currencies.
Sigh. "Critical thinking" is something imaginary (not "imaginary") that you are engaging in. Probably due to the cognitive dissonance of new evidence contradicting your preconceived worldview. It's not the same as critical thinking, though you believe that it is.
Do I have to try to explain scare quotes too? I hope not, because we would have to get that out of the way before I even started on cognitive dissonance.
I love it when people point that out in an argument. It completely outs them as a person that takes the statements at face value, and have never learned to think critically on their own.
I already declined to participate in your hallucination. Did you think I would feel anything less than relief that your imaginary version of "critical thinking" does not apply to me?
At first, and then it explains why that's not an accurate statement. In fact, it literally says those exact words later on. Perhaps don't stop reading after the first sentence?
Kind of.
No, not kind of...
Monetary policy decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee
Exactly. Which is majority controlled (7 of 12) by government appointees.
Quoting the Federal Reserve on whether they are subject to audits is not very credible, to say the least.
Considering there are hundreds of GAO reports on the Fed in the past year alone, I reject your version of reality. Perhaps you're unclear on what an audit is and is not, I don't know. The GAO has no power to change any activities of the Fed,
Your sig is surprisingly accurate. Having your own version of reality in the face of contradictory evidence is a sure sign.
A currency does not have to be universally accepted to be useful It's not a Boolean value where it must replace the national currency or it is totally without value. The fact that people are trading BTC for things of tangible value right now means that it certainly has some use to some group of people so I fail to see what point you're making here.
Because it is wholly owned by a consortium of private banks, and not subject to government audits?
No, because none of that is true. No one really "owns" the Fed.. The private banks are more like members than owners, government appointees have all the decision making power. Also, all the Fed banks are subject to audits by the GAO and independent entities.
The study you are talking about was based on returns from between six months and one year after purchase. It does not cover DOA parts. Your theory is mistaken.
Incorrect. Warranties are considered unsecured liabilities. Once the company files for (Chapter 7) bankruptcy they stop honoring warranties just like they stop paying debts. The company's assets are sold and creditors are repaid in a set order. Unsecured debts are absolutely dead last and are generally never paid (after all, if they could have paid them they wouldn't likely be filing bankruptcy. Assets sold in bankruptcy are free from any liens or claims. Toshiba would be under no obligation to warranty any OCZ products, as they would have simply purchased their assets.
For the record, you don't pay to "receive" a call. You pay because you are using airtime. If you think about it, it's just a different tradeoff than the UK. Saying that the person who wants the convenience of a cell phone should be the one paying extra makes at least as much sense as saying you have to pay more to call a cell phone.
It's far more than symbolic. Controlling the islands grants access to the large Economic Exclusion Zone around them and the fishing fields, oil/gas resources and any other natural resources..
No, gold and silver are not money. Money is something that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services. They're far from worthless but having value is not the only criteria for something to be money.
Why is where it originated relevant? It caused a great deal of environmental damage to places like Louisiana and Mississippi. I'm pretty sure those are in the United States. Regardless of where it came from, all that oil washing ashore caused an environmental disaster in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
you are really wrong about math:
Interesting statement, considering you have effectively provided the proof that I am correct.
And with an infinitely divisible currency, people do not need to pay 1 bit coin for a goat. in fact, at some point, people could start calling 0.1 bit coins a bit coin and the goal still costs 1 of the standard unit. There is nothing special about where you choose to put the decimal place.
No shit? Congratulations, you've explained the entire point of having an infinitely divisible currency to someone who was trying to explain it to you. Glad i could enlighten you so well you thought it was your own idea.
My point is that such a thing as beer as a trade good is not a currency unless you have a doubleplusgood newspeak dictionary that does not have very many words in it.
A currency is simply something that is generally accepted in exchange for goods and services. Generally does not mean universally. I don't know why you're hung up on the word. Bitcon is just as good of a currency as, say, BerkShares. Beer would probably not make a very good currency due to the inconvenience, but I was simply making the point that it could be.
I'm wasting my time aren't I? You are fully aware that traded items are not a currency but you are pretending to be far more stupid than you are to try to win points in some sort of debating game aren't you? Which is it - stupid or playing a game? Do tell.
I guess if someone was trying to teach a pig physics people would think they're pretty stupid. So I guess I'm stupid. I'm sorry I tried to teach you something. Feel free to go back to wallowing and grunting.
Not exactly, no. A country has a certain wealth, and that wealth is divided over all the currency they issue. When they print more money, they dilute the value of the existing currency. There is no one deciding to "print more" Bitcoins. Being able to infinitely divide them just means that no matter how much value a Bitcoin holds, they can always be spent in a small enough quantity for any transaction.
A better argument for what? If trading beer for other things works for you and you have enough other people who feel the same way, then by all means continue. The presence of a particular currency does not have to threaten other currencies.
Bitcoins are finite, even if they were infinitely divisible.
This statement defies logic, math and common sense.
Sigh. "Critical thinking" is something imaginary (not "imaginary") that you are engaging in. Probably due to the cognitive dissonance of new evidence contradicting your preconceived worldview. It's not the same as critical thinking, though you believe that it is.
Do I have to try to explain scare quotes too? I hope not, because we would have to get that out of the way before I even started on cognitive dissonance.
I love it when people point that out in an argument. It completely outs them as a person that takes the statements at face value, and have never learned to think critically on their own.
I already declined to participate in your hallucination. Did you think I would feel anything less than relief that your imaginary version of "critical thinking" does not apply to me?
Your link says exactly the opposite, to quote:
At first, and then it explains why that's not an accurate statement. In fact, it literally says those exact words later on. Perhaps don't stop reading after the first sentence?
Kind of.
No, not kind of...
Monetary policy decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee
Exactly. Which is majority controlled (7 of 12) by government appointees.
Quoting the Federal Reserve on whether they are subject to audits is not very credible, to say the least.
Considering there are hundreds of GAO reports on the Fed in the past year alone, I reject your version of reality. Perhaps you're unclear on what an audit is and is not, I don't know. The GAO has no power to change any activities of the Fed,
Your sig is surprisingly accurate. Having your own version of reality in the face of contradictory evidence is a sure sign.
It can be.
A currency does not have to be universally accepted to be useful It's not a Boolean value where it must replace the national currency or it is totally without value. The fact that people are trading BTC for things of tangible value right now means that it certainly has some use to some group of people so I fail to see what point you're making here.
Truly, we are in the realm of satire here, by now, aren't we?
If that's what you're calling your feigned ignorance, I guess so. Better than actually not understanding why Bitcoins are not finite I guess.
Bitcoins are limited in number forever.
Bitcoins are infinitely divisible.
Because it is wholly owned by a consortium of private banks, and not subject to government audits?
No, because none of that is true. No one really "owns" the Fed.. The private banks are more like members than owners, government appointees have all the decision making power. Also, all the Fed banks are subject to audits by the GAO and independent entities.
The FAQ already covers this.
Because no one has any other data they want to back up effectively in perpetuity? This is a totally new concept unique to Bitcoin?
The study you are talking about was based on returns from between six months and one year after purchase. It does not cover DOA parts. Your theory is mistaken.
Incorrect. Warranties are considered unsecured liabilities. Once the company files for (Chapter 7) bankruptcy they stop honoring warranties just like they stop paying debts. The company's assets are sold and creditors are repaid in a set order. Unsecured debts are absolutely dead last and are generally never paid (after all, if they could have paid them they wouldn't likely be filing bankruptcy. Assets sold in bankruptcy are free from any liens or claims. Toshiba would be under no obligation to warranty any OCZ products, as they would have simply purchased their assets.
For the record, you don't pay to "receive" a call. You pay because you are using airtime. If you think about it, it's just a different tradeoff than the UK. Saying that the person who wants the convenience of a cell phone should be the one paying extra makes at least as much sense as saying you have to pay more to call a cell phone.
It's far more than symbolic. Controlling the islands grants access to the large Economic Exclusion Zone around them and the fishing fields, oil/gas resources and any other natural resources..
No VoIP plan that I am aware of charges for incoming calls. It's possible they exist, but definitely not with any of the big providers.
No, gold and silver are not money. Money is something that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services. They're far from worthless but having value is not the only criteria for something to be money.
How do you steal cash that disappears when held too close to a match?
Why is where it originated relevant? It caused a great deal of environmental damage to places like Louisiana and Mississippi. I'm pretty sure those are in the United States. Regardless of where it came from, all that oil washing ashore caused an environmental disaster in the US.
More effective than trying to explain the joke to you, I'm sure.
If by ~2007 you mean 1993, then sure.