Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 75 results by mmdough
there is a tor message board that is supposedly a hitman classifieds/work for hire sort of thing....most of the post are obvious jokes, but a few of the people on there claim to be serious.
^^^^^let's burn him for knowing such a shady place!!!!11 
)OMG He said he wants to burn someone!!!!!
You're going to jail; no backsies!
dear angry mob:
This thread started with the words: "Want to get rid of some rat that has robbed you, cheated you or that you just dislike and hate?"
Follow by an offer to get you in contact with a contract killer.
The "rat" was meant literally and the contract killer would have been your local pest patrol. Read my comments again, i never wrote anything about killing humans.
A pity that no one found out, the first one who would have mentioned it would have gotten 1btc
This thread started with the words: "Want to get rid of some rat that has robbed you, cheated you or that you just dislike and hate?"
Follow by an offer to get you in contact with a contract killer.
The "rat" was meant literally and the contract killer would have been your local pest patrol. Read my comments again, i never wrote anything about killing humans.
A pity that no one found out, the first one who would have mentioned it would have gotten 1btc
i still think this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market would work best.
or silkroadHA!
Well played sir. I choose to believe this.
Edit:
What makes this really funny is how willing everyone was to believe this was an actual assassination market.
Creatures that society doesn't need in their neighborhood.
And the number of loaves of bread a bitcoin will get you is exactly as many as the USD you can trade that bitcoin for will get you. I love the idea of bitcoin, but I still don't see how they're more than bonds at this point, and any counterargument seems to involve the economics equivalent of "a wizard did it" followed by fantasy scenarios they view as inevitable (such as major retailers adopting bitcoin).
Here's a hypothetical: a baker accepts USD or BTC. However, given that transactions are more secure, and there are no bank fees, he is willing to offer 3% off the equivalent USD price for paying in BTC. What happens then? Bitcoins will buy you more loaves than the USD do. Is it still a bond?
Let's say there was a global payment system based on the internet that charged 3%. Would it not be worthwhile for a merchant to offer 2.5% off for paying in BTC?
Equivalent prices are not going to last long once merchants realise they can compete on price using bitcoins.
As a baker, I would say that this scenario is unrealistic. Bakers who wish to sell their products via mail, with transactions taking place over the internet, are poor bakers. Bread doesn't ship well.
So, instead, you're talking about a face-to-face transaction. Cash would be inherently simpler than BTC, free from bank fees, anonymous, instantaneous, and I pay my suppliers in it.
BTC would be preferable to credit cards, especially for small transactions, but currently transactions are verified so much more slowly that there might actually be a greater security risk involved. Plus, I can't pay my suppliers with it.
So, if anything, I would probably have to charge a small premium for BTC, although I might waive this if I'm confident that they'll be a more valuable asset long-term. This confidence is going to be based on the speculation marketplace which, hey surprise, is denominated in dollars.
So, as a merchant, my best bet is to peg my BTC transactions to the dollar exchange rate, making them function more or less like secure bonds.
I don't think OP's point was to criticize BTC or the technology underlying them-- nor is this my point-- merely to suggest that the value of that technology is limited by the social systems which accept them.
Kiba wasnt the originator of "the gavinator" term the credit goes to shazow.
http://media.witcoin.com/p/1365/The-GAVINATOR
http://media.witcoin.com/p/1365/The-GAVINATOR
I just wrote the joke. I didn't make the character or the money windmill. Obviously bitsquirrel is an invention of Joey D. Though, I applied a modification of bitsquirrel that make them gliding squirrels.
You are free to reuse them as you like. They're public domain.
I made the money windmill, and I was tickled that you wanted to use it. That said, I don't think it worked well in a comic, and here's why:
Symbols and memes are everywhere on the internet, and they mainly work well because they pack a whole lot of information into an immediately recognizable and portable package. The symbol is already the punchline.
You can make comics which use these symbols, but they're bound to end up seeming weak, because they don't have any particular reason to exist. If we recognize the symbols and smile at them, we don't need a comic to remind us of it-- you can just show us the symbol and we'll smile. If you can show us a very original story, or character, or ironic situation, and incorporate a symbol into that, we'll fall out of our chairs. But if you rely on the symbols to carry the weight, it'll fall flat, even on those who understand what the symbol means.
When you're writing jokes for an in-group, you're bound to come up with a lot of crappy jokes for this reason.
My advice (FWIW) would be to not worry so much about making jokes about bitcoins, and focus on making jokes that people who like bitcoins would find funny. If you can make a few nods to the bitcoin community in the process, all the better-- but bitcoin itself isn't that funny.
Also, PS, Synaptic: you're a huge douche. Fuck you bloody with a sharp stick.
Thanks to Ryan for help with my withdrawl; it's all cleared up now.
I would never have been half as enthusiastic about this service if it weren't for the great CS I've gotten from the team since its inception. Kudos.
I would never have been half as enthusiastic about this service if it weren't for the great CS I've gotten from the team since its inception. Kudos.
Re: Bounty: 0.25 BTC. Find the Bitcoins hidden in plain sight.
lol.. well there goes my theory that casascius was throwing out this little puzzle to demonstrate how easy and convenient it is to import the keys from paper wallets!
That's what I figured, too. I did a google search for "Plain Sight Bitcoin" and found http://sprucecodes.com/ who cross-promotes the paper wallets heavily. SO SURE I was on the right track!
Ah well, kept me from cleaning the house for a few hours :-P.
Congrats to the skillful winner!
Re: Bounty: 0.25 BTC. Find the Bitcoins hidden in plain sight.
And follow the instructions on bitbills to import.
THAT'S what I was trying to figure out.
To bad it doesn't seem to work
Re: Bounty: 0.25 BTC. Find the Bitcoins hidden in plain sight.
How does one import a private key anyway? Do I need a new version of the client? I have an old one, I believe.
It's as easy as...{code}
Bitchin, thanks
edit: Looking at it now, it doesn't do what I wanted... actually at all. But thanks anyway, it's neat.
Re: Bounty: 0.25 BTC. Find the Bitcoins hidden in plain sight.
If you find it you will be able to send it to yourself.
Implies that unless you can get at that address, you haven't found 'em yet.
When they are "found" in the proper sense of the word, you should see them spent on the block explorer into the winner's wallet. This spend will have been done by the winner, not by me.
It's not a riddle in the sense that he wants you to answer-- it's a race to grab the coins.
BUT HOW
Re: Bounty: 0.25 BTC. Find the Bitcoins hidden in plain sight.
"This string contains 0.25 BTC hiding in plain sight."
Which string?
That's implied but not stated.
That's my MO. I start with the liar's paradox as an axiom and go from there.
It makes politics more interesting, I'll tell you that.
Re: Bounty: 0.25 BTC. Find the Bitcoins hidden in plain sight.
"This string contains 0.25 BTC hiding in plain sight."
Which string?
That's implied but not stated.
Re: Bounty: 0.25 BTC. Find the Bitcoins hidden in plain sight.
"This string contains 0.25 BTC hiding in plain sight."
Which string?
I think it is a fallacy to assume that every step towards "liberty" is a step in the right direction, when it greatly matters what order things are done and how they are done. Repealing social safety net type programs without dismantling the state/corporate imperial power apparatus is incredibly fucked up. For instance -- look at the way both Reagan and Thatcher used Libertarian rhetoric to dismantle safety net type programs (while of course increasing the power of monopolists, increase the police state, increase the military-industrial complex, etc).
This is just the sweatshop thread in another guise.
When it comes to dismantling state capitalism, abolishing the minimum wage (and other safety net type programs) is pretty fucking low on my priority list (though I think that in practice maximum wage laws that limit the ability of any person at a corporation to earn more than say 15X more than anyone else employed by the corporation would work far better than minimum wage laws) -- I'd rather start from the other side and eliminate present forms of state intervention that weaken the bargaining power of labor, and which thereby coerce workers to sell their labor under incredibly warped conditions of unequal exchange --- I agree that the current labor market is incredibly warped, but it is warped towards the employing class, not against it.
This is just the sweatshop thread in another guise.
When it comes to dismantling state capitalism, abolishing the minimum wage (and other safety net type programs) is pretty fucking low on my priority list (though I think that in practice maximum wage laws that limit the ability of any person at a corporation to earn more than say 15X more than anyone else employed by the corporation would work far better than minimum wage laws) -- I'd rather start from the other side and eliminate present forms of state intervention that weaken the bargaining power of labor, and which thereby coerce workers to sell their labor under incredibly warped conditions of unequal exchange --- I agree that the current labor market is incredibly warped, but it is warped towards the employing class, not against it.
Right on.
That's where collective bargaining comes in. supergreedymegacorp inc only has the massive bargaining power because of its size. with collective bargaining, you take away that size advantage. Without the distortions placed on the market by state regulations, the two groups could come to an amicable arrangement, that benefited both parties.
Yes, but currently there are laws (like Taft-Hartley and even the Wagner Act) as well as other laws like "right to work" agreements etc that greatly limit collective bargaining power.
Even worse are the laws that give unions too much power, resulting in.. well, in GM.
Uh, which laws are these exactly?