Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 267 results by BoardGameCoin
Based on your market predictions, would you be willing to pay $20 today for 21 weekly payments of 0.05BTC?
If the counterparty was someone I trusted, yes.
+1
?Holy crap, I'm about to buy a computer, and the bitcoin gem's most recent buyer spent about as much as my computer will cost???
This will end poorly.
I think it would've been a lot cooler if it was linear growth, then there could have been lots of gem holders over time. This exponential business gives a pyramid structure to this musical chairs game.
-bgc
This will end poorly.
I think it would've been a lot cooler if it was linear growth, then there could have been lots of gem holders over time. This exponential business gives a pyramid structure to this musical chairs game.
-bgc
1) A lack of faith in central banks and their long-term control over government currencies
2) A desire to hold currency that has positive expected value when more efficient means of production are discovered.
That is all.
-bgc
2) A desire to hold currency that has positive expected value when more efficient means of production are discovered.
That is all.
-bgc
whats so special about 17?
Seventeen is the 7th prime number. The next prime is nineteen, with which it forms a twin prime. 17 is the sum of the first four primes. 17 is the sixth Mersenne prime exponent, yielding 131071. 17 is an Eisenstein prime with no imaginary part and real part of the form 3n − 1.
17 is the third Fermat prime, as it is of the form 24 + 1, and it is also a Proth prime. Since 17 is a Fermat prime, regular heptadecagons can be constructed with compass and unmarked ruler. This was proven by Carl Friedrich Gauss. Another consequence of 17 being a Fermat prime is that it is not a Higgs prime for squares or cubes; in fact, it is the smallest prime not to be a Higgs prime for squares, and the smallest not to be a Higgs prime for cubes.
17 is the only positive Genocchi number that is prime, the only negative one being −3. It is also the third Stern prime.
As 17 is the least prime factor of the first twelve terms of the EuclidMullin sequence, it is the thirteenth term.
Seventeen is the aliquot sum of two numbers, the odd discrete semiprimes 39 and 55 is the base of the 17-aliquot tree.
There are exactly seventeen two-dimensional space (plane symmetry) groups. These are sometimes called wallpaper groups, as they represent the seventeen possible symmetry types that can be used for wallpaper.
Like 41, the number 17 is a prime that yields primes in the polynomial n2 + n + p, for all positive n < p − 1.
Epic. This wins my favorite bitcointalk post of the year award
I keep rough tabs on the intake in terms of revenue for bitfloor to guess about how long it'll take to be paid back. I'm still a little surprised they were able to make the payment they did, but certainly grateful for it. I think outside investment might have been or be involved. On a relatively high-volume day like today, they make ~ 5BTC. It would take 13 years of days like today's to provide enough revenue to cover the debt.
My hope is that they can become an exchange to rival Gox. If they split Gox's current market share and there wasn't additional growth, then they could pay their debt with 1.5 years worth or revenue.
We'll see. One thing is certain: they need to continue to communicate and find ways to make deposits quicker/easier. I appreciate their approach, and am probably about a month of stability away from starting to use them again, though this time with a lot less BTC floating on the exchange.
My hope is that they can become an exchange to rival Gox. If they split Gox's current market share and there wasn't additional growth, then they could pay their debt with 1.5 years worth or revenue.
We'll see. One thing is certain: they need to continue to communicate and find ways to make deposits quicker/easier. I appreciate their approach, and am probably about a month of stability away from starting to use them again, though this time with a lot less BTC floating on the exchange.
It's a visual aid for multiplication.
You make a line group for each digit in each number. In your case, the first number's lines are going right and up and the second number's are going right and down. Highest digits start on the left. If you make the diamond shape, evenly, vertical slices of the intersection groups correspond with the 'no-carries' multiplication that goes into the corresponding output digit. First you sum these, then you pull off the lowest digit for each output group starting rightmost, and add any additional numbers to the next group to the left.
Is that enough to get the bounty?
e.g. 12 * 34
If this is good enough, coins go to: 1bgc1FDPgANFsGcNcnmzpYKHrp7SWMgaZ
You make a line group for each digit in each number. In your case, the first number's lines are going right and up and the second number's are going right and down. Highest digits start on the left. If you make the diamond shape, evenly, vertical slices of the intersection groups correspond with the 'no-carries' multiplication that goes into the corresponding output digit. First you sum these, then you pull off the lowest digit for each output group starting rightmost, and add any additional numbers to the next group to the left.
Is that enough to get the bounty?
e.g. 12 * 34
Code:
2*3
1*3 2*4
1*4
=
6
3 8
4
= 3, 10, 8
= (3+1)(0)(8)
= 408
1*3 2*4
1*4
=
6
3 8
4
= 3, 10, 8
= (3+1)(0)(8)
= 408
If this is good enough, coins go to: 1bgc1FDPgANFsGcNcnmzpYKHrp7SWMgaZ
The only point in my opinion would be to try and create panic so he can buy them all back for less later.
Imagine that you sell goods for bitcoins in a dollar-exchange rate linked way, and you have a sizable amount of bitcoins available. You have an income stream in bitcoins already, but if you let the price be too volatile you run the risk of having people wait to purchase for spikes in the market, so the majority of your income would start off with a slight exchange rate loss. If you have a projected growth curve for bitcoin, you'd be incentivized to sell whenever it grew too fast to try to mitigate your exchange rate risk.
I don't think this is what is happening, but its an example of an incentive that could cause this type of behavior.
-bgc
Re: RFC: Updating dust output definition, and default fees
b) Miners who mine with this code will require a fee >= 0.001 to
include TX's with outputs <= COIN_DUST
c) Normal clients will require a fee >= 0.0005 to relay TX's with
outputs <= COIN_DUST
include TX's with outputs <= COIN_DUST
c) Normal clients will require a fee >= 0.0005 to relay TX's with
outputs <= COIN_DUST
Why not make these be
Quote
b) Miners who mine with this code will require a fee >= 0.001COIN_DUST to
include TX's with outputs <= COIN_DUST
c) Normal clients will require a fee >=0.0005COIN_DUST/2 to relay TX's with
outputs <= COIN_DUST
include TX's with outputs <= COIN_DUST
c) Normal clients will require a fee >=
outputs <= COIN_DUST
?