|
Uranium 235 posted:if you read the message that coinbase sends to its users after closing their accounts, they say that the customer still has access to their balance and can transfer it elsewhere
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 18:57 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 15:41 |
|
univbee posted:Yes and there's a process you can go through for dealing with that, not just a support email hole. you're going off of reddit posts that people throw up the instant they get shut down, just lol at that
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 18:57 |
|
There is a formal process to freezing a bank account. It involves being able to get that money back unless it is a freeze activated by law enforcement during an actual criminal investigation. Most attempts to transfer money out of Coinbase after a freeze do not work. (According to Google, so it could be wrong who knows) Also I'm phone posting from work so I don't got my crazy prolix word choices
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 18:59 |
|
Who What Now posted:"im not hacked! im not hacked!!", i continue to insist as my bank account slowly shrinks and transforms into a corn cob *looks at his list of bank deposits (that means money going in) from coinbase and considers the severity of the magnitude in which he has been owned*
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 18:59 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Imagine if you had to substantiate your "8 transactions a second" into a coherent argument that was expanded, like "Scaling issues will doom Cryptocoin adoptions, given that bitcoins can't scale past 8 transactions per second and that's a hard limit, Bitcoin can never reach beyond X point or the transaction volume will be an issue" that is all understood and is why you threw such a screeching shitfit. however again your shrivled, heat-stroke ridden brain has been unable to keep the discussion straight: you asked for a metric by which it could be judged if my analysis of bitcoin's technology blocking its adoption was wrong. that is the metric. you are so infuriated by that because it is a specific, concrete metric you can't blather your way around. now, the question i asked you also has an understood subtext: the reason cryptocurrencies are garbage that will never go anywhere is because there is no way existing actual cryptocurrencies (no theoretical currencies or bitcoin features that are "on the wiki") provide the technical utility that is superior to existing mechanisms. the fact that something is technically inferior in every respect to existing options is why it will fail. however, you lack the knowledge and understanding to give even a curt, short reply to that question, while i do know enough about bitcoin to give a curt, short reply to your attempt at a gotcha question to shut you down what makes you so angry is you don't actually understand how anything works but we do. that's why literally the entirety of your argument is handwaving at nonsense. you know you are our intellectual inferior. you know you can't manage even a simple post on technological details. that knowledge burns. it burns, this is a thing you think you're competent at and the harsh light of reality is burning that away. so painful.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:00 |
|
Blade Runner posted:There is a formal process to freezing a bank account. It involves being able to get that money back unless it is a freeze activated by law enforcement during an actual criminal investigation. Most attempts to transfer money out of Coinbase after a freeze do not work. How do you know this stuff?? Checked your butt.. or?? When was the last time you tried to figure out how many attempts were being made and how successful they are and how rigorous were you about it, for real?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:00 |
|
scott zoloft posted:*looks at his list of bank deposits (that means money going in) from coinbase and considers the severity of the magnitude in which he has been owned* Which are totally real, I'm sure
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:00 |
|
COMRADES posted:And then if you do that you take on the risk of loss on your end through drive failure or forgetting the password to the wallet or whatever. Don't say that never happens either.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:00 |
|
evilweasel posted:that is all understood and is why you threw such a screeching shitfit. however again your shrivled, heat-stroke ridden brain has been unable to keep the discussion straight: you asked for a metric by which it could be judged if my analysis of bitcoin's technology blocking its adoption was wrong. that is the metric. you are so infuriated by that because it is a specific, concrete metric you can't blather your way around. This guy figured out that cross examining others arguments is way more fun than making any of your own, and decided to write 3 paragraphs about how hard he's owning me by not articulating a position and just constantly repeating some dumb claim. Hey if you're claiming Bitcoin will not scale past 8 transactions per second and that's the doom of it, please explain why you think that and how that problem will come to pass. Other than that, I guess nobody is going to stop you from nitpicking other people's arguments while being too chickenshit to explain what you think for fear of being proven wrong (the thing you spend all your time doing to other people).
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:01 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:This guy figured out that cross examining others arguments is way more fun than making any of your own, and decided to write 3 paragraphs about how hard he's owning me by not articulating a position and just constantly repeating some dumb claim. you've literally posted that you do not have an argument of any sort and you've never said anything of substance that is your defense, that you don't say bitcoin will succeed, you don't say anything, just that other people are wrong
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:02 |
|
See edit before your post. A quick Google search, mostly. As for your bank account balance going up, you got every cent of that money (ten whole dollars, baby) by scamming some idiot into buying a virtual bridge, so your bare sense of ethics are entirely owned yes
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:02 |
|
evilweasel posted:you've literally posted that you do not have an argument of any sort and you've never said anything of substance Your posts are devoid of substance or merit, simply attacking others positions, while offering nothing of your own. it must feel terribly clever, but it's the opposite of discourse.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:02 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Your posts are devoid of substance or merit, simply attacking others positions, while offering nothing of your own. it must feel terribly clever, but it's the opposite of discourse.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:03 |
|
Blade Runner posted:See edit before your post. A quick Google search, mostly. As for your bank account balance going up, you got every cent of that money (ten whole dollars, baby) by scamming some idiot into buying a virtual bridge, so your bare sense of ethics are entirely owned yes Hmm so you might, possibly, be talking out of your rear end? Can you link the search criteria you used? I'd like to see the results and how you interpreted them!
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:03 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Hey if you're claiming Bitcoin will not scale past 8 transactions per second and that's the doom of it, please explain why you think that and how that problem will come to pass. You're dumb enough that you don't think it's possible that 8 or more transactions happen in a single second and yet you wanna call other people idiots?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:04 |
|
Who What Now posted:You're dumb enough that you don't think it's possible that 8 or more transactions happen in a single second and yet you wanna call other people idiots? This is what evilweasel is saying not me!! But he won't explain what he's saying just he keeps repeating 8 transactions per second!!
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:05 |
|
i think the threads hit the 8 posts per minute hard limit
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:05 |
|
i started using bitcoin for microstakes poker just to see what all the fuss was about, and it's pretty great!
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:05 |
|
fbsw posted:i started using bitcoin for microstakes poker just to see what all the fuss was about, and it's pretty great! To the moon! (shoots the moon in Hearts)
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:06 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:I guess nobody is going to stop you from nitpicking other people's arguments while being too chickenshit to explain what you think for fear of being proven wrong (the thing you spend all your time doing to other people). hmm: Ham Sandwiches posted:No dude this is real simple. For the people that have spent years explaining how bitcoins will fail or be legitimate, I want them to explain why they think that. You are literally trying to gotcha me into explaining why I think bitcoins will succeed. I don't. Ham Sandwiches posted:I'm trying to take the position that I disagree with the consensus position that bitcoins are doomed to failure and a scam for a variety of reasons. I find cryptocurrencies interesting and something worth looking into / talking about. There's a bunch of wise SA posters that have already been to the future and they're back (just like the movies) and it's a bad place where Bitcoin failed. So I'm trying to get them to paint that picture, so we can see how close we are moving to this dire timeline. Ham Sandwiches posted:My story is that I'm here to talk to the posters of Something Awful about their stance re: bitcoins and how wrong they are. That's why I'm here, that's what I'm here to do, and that's what I'm doing. Ham Sandwiches posted:Yeah but I didn't say this. I didn't say everyone will make money. The something awful consensus is that *literally everyone* will lose money, which I feel is absolutely false and I challenge regularly. I am not saying *literally everyone* will make money. I disagree with the claim that *literally everyone* will lose money, a claim that has been repeated for years and has been used to mock every single redditor that tried it and bit of turbluence relating to cryptocurrencies, while ignoring scenarios where people made money. there's loads more of course
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:06 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:This is what evilweasel is saying not me!! But he won't explain what he's saying just he keeps repeating 8 transactions per second!! Holy poo poo, you don't even understand what his argument is, but you're so mad about it.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:06 |
|
Anyone want to give me $25 worth of bit coin so I can record myself cashing it out and then getting the money from an atm or having my bank account frozen/losing all my coins so that this argument doesn't have to spiral around ad nauseam?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:07 |
|
Who What Now posted:Holy poo poo, you don't even understand what his argument is, but you're so mad about it. he doesn't even remember it's an answer to a question he asked, multiple times which is pretty impressive
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:07 |
|
evilweasel posted:hmm: Yeah look at all those posts explaining my position, now let's search yours and post nothing but critiques and refusal to substantiate! Isn't it telling? How are you this loving cowardly dude, imagine being so scared to explain your position that you post 50+ times but won't do it. What a loving dipshit.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:07 |
|
I'll admit it, I wish I had the foresight to "invest" in bitcoins when they were cheap. But they would have probably been lost to some exchange or stolen anyways, so I'm out $0. Also, I get to laugh at the inevitable crash.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:08 |
|
evilweasel posted:he doesn't even remember it's an answer to a question he asked, multiple times Oh I remember, it's a non responsive answer to a very simple general question. You are of course, refusing to acknowledge that response, something I explained in detail and get this: you responded with your one line poo poo back. I think you might actually be incapable of anything other than this sort of salty contrarian crap, that seems a most unfortunate existence
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:09 |
|
I have given technical explanations to you before, which you just refused to engage with, likely because you did not understand them. My effort posts were full of them. I am done doing the effort post thing, though, so oh well
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:09 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Yeah look at all those posts explaining my position, now let's search yours and post nothing but critiques and refusal to substantiate! Isn't it telling? your position is you don't have a position, you just criticize other people's imaginary position. thats what those four posts say, in plain english. the post above those four and this post right here is you whining that you think that thing, that you repeatedly admit to doing, is being done by other people
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:09 |
|
Blade Runner posted:I have given technical explanations to you before, which you just refused to engage with, likely because you did not understand them. My effort posts were full of them. I am done doing the effort post thing, though, so oh well Please post the link for your google search dude, and I'm talking to evilweasel about his posts not you about yours, I assume you can follow??
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:10 |
|
evilweasel posted:your position is you don't have a position, you just criticize other people's imaginary position. thats what those four posts say, in plain english. the post above those four and this post right here is you whining that you think that thing, that you repeatedly admit to doing, is being done by other people What's your position re: bitcoin's scaling, how will that 8 transactions per second be an issue?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:10 |
|
A Moron: "Being unable to process more than eight transactions a second is a big problem for scaling upwards." Ham Sandwich, A Genius: "Provide a scenario where eight entire transactions happening every second is even possible. "
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:10 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Oh I remember, it's a non responsive answer to a very simple general question. You are of course, refusing to acknowledge that response, something I explained in detail and get this: you responded with your one line poo poo back. you asked what level of transactions would prove i was wrong about bitcoin's technical capabilities (specifically, its lack of any useful capabilities compared to any alternative) blocking its widespread adoption. eight transactions per second is the precise kind of data point you asked for.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:11 |
|
It's like watching a CHUD hard deflect to Hillary every time someone addresses them, just with bitcoins and non-substance instead
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:11 |
|
a thread's value can be summed by the gayness of its posters' avatars
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:11 |
|
evilweasel posted:you asked what level of transactions would prove i was wrong about bitcoin's technical capabilities (specifically, its lack of any useful capabilities compared to any alternative) blocking its widespread adoption. eight transactions per second is the precise kind of data point you asked for. I was not asking "how many numerical transactions per second" I was asking what level of widescale adoption. That was the question I asked. You selectively interpreted (or are too dumb to understand what I ask) as "pick some retarded gotcha value with no explanation and throw it out smugly" which seems to be an issue on your processing end
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:12 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:What's your position re: bitcoin's scaling, how will that 8 transactions per second be an issue? Well, consider this, and stay with me here cause it's gonna get pretty loving nuts, what if NINE people want to process a transaction?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:12 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:What's your position re: bitcoin's scaling, how will that 8 transactions per second be an issue? no, i answered your irrelevant question, now you answer my specifically relevant question: evilweasel posted:ham sandwich please explain the technical aspects of existing bitcoin and/or existing actual cryptocurrencies (no theoretical currencies or bitcoin features that are "on the wiki") that provide the technical utility that is superior to existing mechanisms, and the manner in which it is superior to those mechanisms (identifying the mechanism) so we can discuss in what specific, tangible, verifiable way cryptocurrencies have value beyond being ugly e-tulips the subtext of my post is "there are none" so you can rationalize your response as you attack my position instead of having one of your own
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:13 |
|
No, I will not do that. You've never posted a single link to anything relevant, and have admitted that you have no technical knowledge in this while just refusing to acknowledge technical points made against the butts. If you feel like saying that I am owned because of this, sure. I'm just here to make fun of you at this point.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:13 |
|
Who What Now posted:Well, consider this, and stay with me here cause it's gonna get pretty loving nuts, what if NINE people want to process a transaction? Ok, I'm following there's 9 people that want to do a transaction
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:13 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 15:41 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:I was not asking "how many numerical transactions per second" I was asking what level of widescale adoption. That was the question I asked. You selectively interpreted (or are too dumb to understand what I ask) as "pick some retarded gotcha value with no explanation and throw it out smugly" which seems to be an issue on your processing end a level of widespread adoption sufficient to cause at least eight transactions per second, holding (as you said) bitcoin's technical capabilities fixed
|
# ? Oct 12, 2017 19:14 |