Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 259 results by akumaburn
No!!! Gambling is a sin only for those who does not know the techniques and tactics of gambling. Gambling is a form of art if you are betting in sports or something technical. In such cases it will be proven as easy money earner.
i think you're wrong about this because we all was know that almost in all religions decide gambling is a sin and they will says just stay away from gambling but the problem is even people already know about that but many people still did a gambling for a hobbies or for fun and even too for make livingFalse religions tend to.. there are many aspects and conditions to do with gambling that can make it a sin.. but gambling itself. Doubtful.
Every step you make, every breath you take, is a gamble.
To gamble is to have faith in an outcome that you cannot prove. It is no different than having faith in testament.
Yes, yes it is. Among the major Abrahamic religions gambling is an insult to God since you are putting your faith in chance rather than God.It is also sometimes considered usury.
Don't worry though, many of the things you do everyday are considered abominations. Things like eating anything from the water without fins. Or failing to shave the head of a woman without a veil. We live in a time when you can do whatever you want and easily find another person who thinks God is fine with that.
Don't worry though, many of the things you do everyday are considered abominations. Things like eating anything from the water without fins. Or failing to shave the head of a woman without a veil. We live in a time when you can do whatever you want and easily find another person who thinks God is fine with that.
Deuteronomy 4:2
Gambling is not even mentioned in the entire bible, it is not a sin.
Leviticus 16:8, And Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat."
1 Chronicles 25:8, "And they cast lots for their duties, all alike, the small as well as the great, the teacher as well as the pupil."
Psalm 22:18, "They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots."
Matthew 27:35, "And when they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments among themselves by casting lots."
Acts 1:26, "And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
In the bible it is called "casting lots". Which is a religious act because the believers do not think randomness is possible. God determines the outcome of a gamble. Not that I believe any of these things.
A lot is a PORTION, not gambling.
Casting lots means granting/determining portions.
Psalm 16:5 "The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot."
Re: Konrad S. Graf finally weighs in on the Bitcoin block size debate
The potential for abuse without a block-size limit is too high, if the block size limit is removed, then it will be the end of all chains that adopted the removal.
Correct. numpties!
even with the 1mb still in place this summer.. segwit allows for upto 1.8mb of data (think about it a hard rule saying 1mb is the limit being abused to actually allow 1.8mb).. then comes confidential payment codes which combined allow over 2.5mb of data whilst the blocksize limit is still set to 1mb..
can anyone see the hypocracy of the blockstreamers yet..
2.5mb of their features (meaning you have to use their software and the different signing algorithm) all for what.. well it definetly wont be 2.5x current capacity. infact its more like 1.8x capacity.
then in 2017 they will finally give in to moving the coded block limit to 2mb.. but with their features it will be REAL data of over 5mb.
so we ask will this 5mb be 5x todays capacity??
nope.
will it be 4x todays capacity..
nope
it will be 3.6x todays capacity..
so next time a block streamer tells you that right now 2mb is bad because the network cannot cope. ask them these questions.
1. ignoring the light, pruned, no witness fluff.. concentrating on a true full relay, full archival node how much REAL data is being pushed when segwit and confidential payment codes is released.
2. is allowing people to be blindly told that running pruned, light, no witness mode is no threat/harm, knowing that they are not true full nodes?
3. knowing the answers to 1 and 2. how can blockstreamers really argue the data propogation debate and the full node count dilution debate, the capacity per mb debate... and still think that blockstreams roadmap is better then other simpler solutions
Right now, the network bandwidth can handle a 5MB block every 10 minutes without cutting off major portions of the world from being able to run full nodes(feasibly- ie: without saturating their pipes). This basically amounts to an ISDN or higher connection. This in itself is reasonable.
The additional problem with increasing the block size to 5MB (or anything substantially large for that matter) is that then some clever exploiters (mining farms mainly), may spam the network with cheap transactions in order to pad the blocks to their maximum size, which would then pose a problem for casual computer's storage, which may centralize the network to those particular farms, which then gives them the ability to dictate the chain's direction.
I'm all for a 2-4MB block size for bitcoin though.. At the very least it'd be a stop gap measure for the current transaction volume issues.
Re: Konrad S. Graf finally weighs in on the Bitcoin block size debate
So Bitcoin.com just published an interview with Konrad S. Graf (https://news.bitcoin.com/konrad-graf-bitcoin-block-size-economy/). He's very well respected in this community for his economic/historical work on the origin of Bitcoin's value, so I think his views on the block size are important. Apparently, he views the 1 MB limit as something similar to a government-mandated output ceiling, and that it disrupts a block size 'free market,' so to speak. What do you guys think?
The potential for abuse without a block-size limit is too high, if the block size limit is removed, then it will be the end of all chains that adopted the removal.
...
Did you read the article? He doesn't advocate for removal of the block size limit. He does seem in favor of keeping the limit well above the average block size, whether by a series of hard forks or a dynamically adjusting block size limit, but he doesn't really take a strong position one way or another. He does briefly discuss what he thinks would happen in the absence of a block size limit on the last page, but I certainly wouldn't say he's pushing for it.
If you didn't read, I would recommend checking it out - I think he presents some nuanced and logical arguments about what is happening and could happen under different scenarios.
No, I barely skimmed the title.
My comments are speaking about block size removal in general, as that is the pertinent issue on peoples minds with this whole Craig Wright fiasco.
The issue at hand is that Gavin's BIP101 proposal had an absolutely absurd block size limit of 8MB which doubled every two years to 8GB near the end of its term, and I want people to realize that this is essentially the same as removing the block size limit all together.
I was not making any comments on his specific opinion if that is what you thought.
Re: Konrad S. Graf finally weighs in on the Bitcoin block size debate
Why does everybody keep focusing on the blocksize issue, when the real issue is block generation frequenc?,. Is it just that blocksize is an apparently trivial change that everybody can understand, but they don't appreciate the broader implications such as possible mining centralisation.
Frequency raises the issue of time-warp attacks/network propagation delays. This problem has been solved in GoldCoin (GLD), which can handle 10X Bitcoin's current transaction volume.
See most chains accept blocks that are hours into the future or in the past.. GLD only accepts blocks that are at most 45 seconds into the future and 2 min 45 sec into the past. This makes it very difficult to do a time warp attack on our chain.
It is not a simple change for bitcoin as it would invalidate some miner blocks most likely, and that may cause controversy.
Re: Konrad S. Graf finally weighs in on the Bitcoin block size debate
So Bitcoin.com just published an interview with Konrad S. Graf (https://news.bitcoin.com/konrad-graf-bitcoin-block-size-economy/). He's very well respected in this community for his economic/historical work on the origin of Bitcoin's value, so I think his views on the block size are important. Apparently, he views the 1 MB limit as something similar to a government-mandated output ceiling, and that it disrupts a block size 'free market,' so to speak. What do you guys think?
The potential for abuse without a block-size limit is too high, if the block size limit is removed, then it will be the end of all chains that adopted the removal.
It is possible, in a system whereby there are billions/trillions of clients or more, to remove the block size limits, and simply let non-full node clients connect to whatever is the most popular network out there, and this may have been Satoshi's final intent.
It is however, far too early for this to happen. What is needed right now is a dynamic block size limit, that expands using a predictive model of the same function which models the minimum increase in network bandwidth over time around the world.
I think it takes a different kind of intelligence to be able to see through elaborate scams. You need more than just logic; you need to understand human psychology and the tricks these experts use to scam people.
Either Gavin did as he said and verified valid cryptographic proof, or he didn't. There's no psychology involved in that.
So I think by far the most likely answer is that Gavin was simply tricked.
Seems very unlikely to me unless he's suffered some sort of brain damage, but it is included in my list of possibilities:
- Craig Wright is a better scammer than I can comprehend
As to not having proof that this guy isn't Satoshi, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he's Satoshi, not the other way around.
Only if he actually wants you to know that he is Satoshi. If he doesn't care what you believe, then there's no need for him to provide you proof of anything.
You have no proof that I'm not Satoshi either. Or that there isn't an invisible unicorn in my pocket.
You are correct. And so I can't state that you are NOT Satoshi, nor can I state that you ARE Satoshi (nor can I state anything about the contents of your pocket). What's the sense in even discussing it unless you're going to provide me proof?
Though I agree with your other points, I must disagree with:
"There's no psychology involved in that."
You must understand that this so called "verification" happened on a "new" laptop that Craig provided.
It could easily be something akin to a magician's trick, except with a "sealed" laptop that has custom software on it that validates whatever he wants.
I'm not saying it is, nor it isn't.. In my personal opinion he isn't Satoshi. His last name fits the bill somewhat for the sort of code used in the past, but his persona doesn't measure up.
Re: People are really doubting Wright's claims about being Satoshi
The real Satoshi could just send a message saying he is not Craig.
This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.
This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.
Which may be the intent of whatever organization that may be trying to make this happen.
Boy, are you Sirs gonna feel foolish when it turns out that Dr. Wright is really Mr. Satoshi.
And if he isn't?
| Is Satoshi | Is NOT Satoshi | |
| You denied Him | Lose infinitely | Win very little |
| You didn't deny | Win very little | Lose nothing |
| Result: | Infinite loss  | Meh, 0. Nothing lost |
I don't lose anything by denying him.
I learn, I grow, it's how I've outpaced the others this long
Let me say this:
1. Craig Wright's personality is directly the opposite of Satoshi. Satoshi hated publicity, Craig Wright seems to adore it by the way he is acting.
2. Craig Wright's blog is full of errors and read's like a pretender's. The signature he provides is a fake, and the script he gives has a very obvious error too.
3. No one other than Gavin has been able to sway us into even considering him as Satoshi to begin with. We are basically debating all this on Gavin's word alone. Which isn't what Bitcoin's philosophy is about.
4. Craig Wright tried something similar to this back in December, and he pops up again now for Consensus 2016? Why?
5.
Is more legit than anything we've seen from him so far pubically.
Re: Question regarding security of public key exposure during signing
Yes.
Even now it is feasible if you have a true quantum computer with enough Qubits.
I hear the military is racing to find Quantum Proof encryption for this very reason.
More reading:
http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/pvsnp.pdf
http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2007/02/on-np-in-bqp.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm
EDIT (more reading ):
https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1018.pdf
Even now it is feasible if you have a true quantum computer with enough Qubits.
I hear the military is racing to find Quantum Proof encryption for this very reason.
More reading:
http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/pvsnp.pdf
http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2007/02/on-np-in-bqp.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm
EDIT (more reading
):https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1018.pdf
Boy, are you Sirs gonna feel foolish when it turns out that Dr. Wright is really Mr. Satoshi.
And if he isn't?
Re: GAVIN: "I believe Craig Steven Wright is the person who invented Bitcoin"
This is ridiculous. If I wanted to write a primer on how NOT to unambiguously prove you are Satoshi, in a way causing maximum confusion, this would be it.
Either Craig is able to publish a digital signature of the Genesis block or Block 9 or whatever for EVERYONE to see, or this is another scam. Asking us to rely on trusting a 3rd party (Gavin, etc.) is PRECISELY what bitcoin was designed not to be.
Never underestimate the ability of scammers to provide seeming "proofs" that are invalid. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for published signatures for all to see, and excuses about "being difficult" (in Wright's blog post) don't cut it.
Either Craig is able to publish a digital signature of the Genesis block or Block 9 or whatever for EVERYONE to see, or this is another scam. Asking us to rely on trusting a 3rd party (Gavin, etc.) is PRECISELY what bitcoin was designed not to be.
Never underestimate the ability of scammers to provide seeming "proofs" that are invalid. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for published signatures for all to see, and excuses about "being difficult" (in Wright's blog post) don't cut it.
Bingo.
Bitcoin was designed from the ground up to be resistant to manipulation from singular sources.
Has anyone compiled the source in Ubuntu 15.04? I'm getting this error:
src/qt/bitcoin.cpp:5:24: fatal error: QApplication: No such file or directory
#include
^
compilation terminated.
Makefile:1138: recipe for target 'build/bitcoin.o' failed
make: *** [build/bitcoin.o] Error 1
Thanks in advance for any help.
src/qt/bitcoin.cpp:5:24: fatal error: QApplication: No such file or directory
#include
^
compilation terminated.
Makefile:1138: recipe for target 'build/bitcoin.o' failed
make: *** [build/bitcoin.o] Error 1
Thanks in advance for any help.
Do you have QT installed? (qapplication.h) in http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/amd64/qtbase5-dev/filelist
I do, and it seems that the problem is that I have installed "libqt5core5a" instead of "libqt5core5", which I think is not available to Ubuntu 15.04, am I right?
Package libqt5core5 is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source
However the following packages replace it:
libqt5core5a:i386 libqt5core5a
E: Package 'libqt5core5' has no installation candidate
Dunno I use debian not ubuntu..
You can always just tag it on to your sources.list file.. most ubuntu/debian versions are cross-compatible.. it won't matter anyways..
Has anyone compiled the source in Ubuntu 15.04? I'm getting this error:
src/qt/bitcoin.cpp:5:24: fatal error: QApplication: No such file or directory
#include
^
compilation terminated.
Makefile:1138: recipe for target 'build/bitcoin.o' failed
make: *** [build/bitcoin.o] Error 1
Thanks in advance for any help.
src/qt/bitcoin.cpp:5:24: fatal error: QApplication: No such file or directory
#include
^
compilation terminated.
Makefile:1138: recipe for target 'build/bitcoin.o' failed
make: *** [build/bitcoin.o] Error 1
Thanks in advance for any help.
Do you have QT installed? (qapplication.h) in http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/amd64/qtbase5-dev/filelist
buying at 0.00010000 satoshi's pm me
GL,
Currently there are 391 blocks mined..
First block was posted, of 550,000 FRN
but blocks between 1-249 had ZERO subsidy other than transaction fees!
Which means of the mined blocks (other than first block) there's only 2840 FRN out there!
burn....hahaha
I wasn't the one who did LOL.. I started mining around block 360... I managed to get about 90FRN while i was mining. I'm not even mining anymore.. the ones who are renting rigs to mine this coin right now are doing it at a loss.. This coin isn't like other coins, the distribution is linear, there are no super blocks at the start, so basically they are wasting their time with the rigs.
buying at 0.00010000 satoshi's pm me
GL,
Currently there are 391 blocks mined..
First block was posted, of 550,000 FRN
but blocks between 1-249 had ZERO subsidy other than transaction fees!
Which means of the mined blocks (other than first block) there's only 2840 FRN out there!
Code:
int64 nSubsidy = 20 * COIN;
// 5%
if (nHeight == 1)
return 0.05 * 11000000 * COIN;
// Low reward until difficulty adjusts
if (nHeight < 100)
return nFees;
if (nHeight > 150 && nHeight < 249)
return nFees;
// Subsidy halving every ~2 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 261350);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
// 5%
if (nHeight == 1)
return 0.05 * 11000000 * COIN;
// Low reward until difficulty adjusts
if (nHeight < 100)
return nFees;
if (nHeight > 150 && nHeight < 249)
return nFees;
// Subsidy halving every ~2 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 261350);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
Ah I see, no advantage to jumping in order to mine this. Block reward is constant for the next 2 years folks..
LOL, no exchange is going to touch this.
You'dve made a lot more with maybe 500mh to start with on a local stratum.
You'dve made a lot more with maybe 500mh to start with on a local stratum.
I tried that, it didn't work because someone had put 20Gh and was ramping the difficulty.
To be fair from what i can tell the distribution isn't pyramid scheme style, so its not like early blocks are 1000 coins or something.. it should level off soon.
no - as in exchange wasnt contacted prior to launch, they have no reserve of this coin themselves.
they're not going to list it just so 2-3 people can dump.
you've wasted yer btc rentals!
I understand market fundamentals pretty well.
This coin is Ooozing quality presentation, should hit $1USD with breeze.