Bitcoin - Part 2

[jhunter1163]

Right. Specificity requires knowledge.

Had I said "a hack of any BTC exchange", rather than limiting the wager to a hack of Coinbase, Octavo would be sporting a Hello Kitty avatar now (see posts 383 and 391). Those are the breaks of the game, though.

 

[EGarrett]

Had I said "a hack of any BTC exchange", rather than limiting the wager to a hack of Coinbase, Octavo would be sporting a Hello Kitty avatar now (see posts 383 and 391). Those are the breaks of the game, though.

I think the lesson to draw from this (and your other failed predictions) is not that you should be more vague, but that you should gain more knowledge and humility in regards to Bitcoin.

 

[jhunter1163]

I think the lesson to draw from this (and your other failed predictions) is not that you should be more vague, but that you should gain more knowledge and humility in regards to Bitcoin.

Believe me, I am fully versed in BTC's flaws and foibles. And the loss of an avatar bet is hardly cause for sackcloth and ashes.

 

[EGarrett]

Believe me, I am fully versed in BTC's flaws and foibles. And the loss of an avatar bet is hardly cause for sackcloth and ashes.

You act like this is the first failed prediction you've made.

 

[Octavo]

Believe me, I am fully versed in BTC's flaws and foibles. And the loss of an avatar bet is hardly cause for sackcloth and ashes.

Damnit! I should have posted a sackcloth and ashes avatar. I KNEW IT!

 

[LashL]

A gentleman always honors his obligations. Never let it be said that I am not a gentleman.

[OT]
For the record, in my opinion, jhunter1163 is very much a gentleman. Even when subjected to the Incentivizer™ and that's a real test.
[/OT]

 

[jhunter1163]

You act like this is the first failed prediction you've made.

I stand by everything I've said about Bitcoin. Its failure may take longer than I predicted, but it will fail, because it is unsafe, unsecure and ultimately unnecessary with the rise of Apple Pay and similar payment services. BTC will at best be a niche product used by those who a) need anonymity (tax evaders, drug dealers and child-porn purveyors) and b) are dumb enough to believe that BTC is actually anonymous and untraceable.

 

[jhunter1163]

[OT]
For the record, in my opinion, jhunter1163 is very much a gentleman. Even when subjected to the Incentivizer™ and that's a real test.
[/OT]

Hey! That was supposed to be our secret!

 

[Belz...]

Right. Specificity requires knowledge.

Right, because we all know how secure those exchanges are, and BTC hasn't lost 75% of its value in about a year.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Right, because we all know how secure those exchanges are, and BTC hasn't lost 75% of its value in about a year.

It is still the worlds best investment and the greatest invention ever. Or some such thing.

I think it will stay around for a long time, to many people are invested to heavily monetarily and philosophically to let it die. Gold buggery is always around I expect this to be the same.

 

[jhunter1163]

It is still the worlds best investment and the greatest invention ever. Or some such thing.

I think it will stay around for a long time, to many people are invested to heavily monetarily and philosophically to let it die. Gold buggery is always around I expect this to be the same.

Bitcoin investors are the ones who've gotten buggered, to the tune of about 75% in the last year.

 

[Brian-M]

b) are dumb enough to believe that BTC is actually anonymous and untraceable.

But Bitcoin is anonymous.

(It's not untraceable, and was never intended to be, it's an open-ledger system. So if you use methods to acquire Bitcoins or to sell/trade Bitcoins that aren't anonymous, they can be traced back to you.)

 

[Aepervius]

Talk about illogical!

The statements p &&q == TRUE and !p && q == TRUE may be valid possibilities but your conditional statements if q, then .... are FALSE for the reason you gave.

You could have written
if q, then p && q == TRUE || !p && q == TRUE
but by the law of absorption, that reduces to the trivial case of
if q, then q == TRUE.

You know about as much about logic as you know about what I have posted. I have never questioned that bitcoin prices have fallen. I have only said that calling bitcoin a currency was ironic (and ironic doesn't mean anything other than ironic).

If you would just acknowledge this irony instead of "playing silly buggers" you could end this exchange and stop making yourself look foolish.

Sorry but from an external reader, you are looking foolish.

Inplain english, despite it not being my first language:
he was LISTING the TWO possibilities with q and P, sort of a truth table as we call them, related to q.

And he showed that changing p to not-p still leave the article valid , as they are independent of the value of q.

Nowhere was he saying that both statement are valid.

 

[psionl0]

Sorry but from an external reader, you are looking foolish.

[ ....... ]

Nowhere was he saying that both statement are valid.

You clearly have no idea of the logical meaning of a "conditional statement". Otherwise, what you quoted would have made it clear to you why both of remirol's conditional statements were logically FALSE.

If you want to say that p and q are independent statements (and they are) then fine. But don't then try to link them together with faulty logic. You won't appear clever if you do.

 

[psionl0]

No, you probably couldn't do that with Apple Pay ...

(bitcoin) is [ ... ] ultimately unnecessary with the rise of Apple Pay and similar payment services.

These statements can not both be true. One of them must be a LIE.

BTC will at best be a niche product used by those who a) need anonymity (tax evaders, drug dealers and child-porn purveyors) ...

Give me a wallet address and I could transfer bitcoins to you within minutes without knowing your name, sex or the continent you reside in.

I happen to think that this is a good thing. Obviously I must be a criminal. Which of the categories that you listed do you think I belong to?

 

[jhunter1163]

These statements can not both be true. One of them must be a LIE.

Did you really think that I would not notice your dishonesty in quote-mining? I didn't say that creating an anonymous Apple Pay account is impossible. I said it would entail going to some trouble. If you fall into one of the three categories I mentioned, it might be trouble worth going to. So no, neither of the statements I made is a lie.

I happen to think that this is a good thing. Obviously I must be a criminal. Which of the categories that you listed do you think I belong to?

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I think that you're wrong about Bitcoin, but that does not mean that I think you're a criminal.

 

[psionl0]

I didn't say that creating an anonymous Apple Pay account is impossible. I said it would entail going to some trouble.

So let's examine how much "trouble" setting up an anonymous Apple Pay account would entail:

You can start using Apple Pay as soon as you add a credit or debit card to Passbook. Here's what you need to get started:

• iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus (Apple Pay in stores and within apps)
• iPad Air 2 or iPad mini 3 (Apple Pay within apps)
• iOS 8.1 or later
• United States as your selected region
• Touch ID or passcode on your device
• iCloud account
• Supported card from a participating bank

http://support.apple.com/en-au/HT201239

Apart from the iCloud account, you need to link a bank account that is in your name to the iCloud account. I don't know about the US but in Australia, to get a bank account you need to provide the same sort of identification that is needed to get a passport. So to get an anonymous bank account, you are talking about some serious fraud (identity theft at the very least).

You don't need to provide fraudulent information to get a bitcoin wallet because you don't have to provide any information. Once again, apples and oranges.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I think that you're wrong about Bitcoin, but that does not mean that I think you're a criminal.

No, those are your words. I only left out the "Its failure may take longer than I predicted, but it will fail, because it is unsafe, unsecure ..." because in spite of you ignoring the rebuttals, that has already been dealt with.

 

[jhunter1163]

I only left out the "Its failure may take longer than I predicted, but it will fail, because it is unsafe, unsecure ..." because in spite of you ignoring the rebuttals, that has already been dealt with.

I have not ignored your "rebuttals"; I have dismissed them because events (Mt. Gox, Bitstamp, Sheep Exchange, and countless others) have demonstrated that Bitcoin as presently constituted is not safe and not secure. While the fundamental security tech is sound, the weak point in the system is the exchanges and there is at present no practical way to get BTC without going through an exchange.

 

[Almo]

I have not ignored your "rebuttals"; I have dismissed them because events (Mt. Gox, Bistamp, Sheep Exchange, and countless others) have demonstrated that Bitcoin as presently constituted is not safe and not secure. While the fundamental security tech is sound, the weak point in the system is the exchanges and there is at present no practical way to get BTC without going through an exchange.

But that makes sense. Can't have any of that around here.

 

[Prometheus]

...I happen to think that this is a good thing....

Why? Perhaps I'm just being dense, but I am at a loss to think of a legitimate reason why I would want to send money to someone, somewhere, without knowing where or to whom my money is going.