/biz/ - Business & Finance

>hol' up
>so u be telling me
>people bought this even though it produces no value
>it's completely useless
>only reason it has value because some retards are buying it because they were tricked
HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA HOW CAN A CURRENCY BE WORTH ANYTHING IF IT'S NOT BACKED BY GOLD OR BY A GOVERNMENT. YOU FUCKING RETARDS.

CAN YOU FUCKING MOVE ALREADY YOU PIECE OF SHIT?!

Give up and crash below 6k.

OH NO NO NO NO

>>9840061
>what this thing actually DOES

All this thing does, only better...

Can you crash faster you piece of shit? I have other things to do.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8q3dqn/ups_and_downs/

I have ran these calculations several times and they all lead to an $100,000 Bitcoin by the end of 2018. First it is necessary to carefully consider the methods for measuring the lengths of resting and moving objects. Here, "object" simply means a distance with endpoints that are always mutually at rest, i.e., that are at rest in the same inertial frame of reference. If the relative velocity between an observer (or his measuring instruments) and the observed object is zero, then the proper length L_{0} of the object can simply be determined by directly superposing a measuring rod. However, if the relative velocity > 0, then one can proceed as follows:

The observer installs a row of clocks that either are synchronized a) by exchanging light signals according to the Poincaré-Einstein synchronization, or b) by "slow clock transport", that is, one clock is transported along the row of clocks in the limit of vanishing transport velocity. Now, when the synchronization process is finished, the object is moved along the clock row and every clock stores the exact time when the left or the right end of the object passes by. After that, the observer only has to look after the position of a clock A that stored the time when the left end of the object was passing by, and a clock B at which the right end of the object was passing by at the same time. It's clear that distance AB is equal to length L of the moving object. Using this method, the definition of simultaneity is crucial for measuring the length of moving objects.

Another method is to use a clock indicating its proper time T_{0}, which is traveling from one endpoint of the rod to the other in time T as measured by clocks in the rod's rest frame. The length of the rod can be computed by multiplying its travel time by its velocity, thus $100,000.

I've double-checked my calculations and we will see $100,000 Bitcoin by end of year 2019. Because the invariant mass includes the mass of any kinetic and potential energies which remain in the center of momentum frame, the invariant mass of a system can be greater than sum of rest masses of its separate constituents. For example, rest mass and invariant mass are zero for individual photons even though they may add mass to the invariant mass of systems. For this reason, invariant mass is in general not an additive quantity (although there are a few rare situations where it may be, as is the case when massive particles in a system without potential or kinetic energy can be added to a total mass).

Consider the simple case of two-body system, where object A is moving towards another object B which is initially at rest (in any particular frame of reference). The magnitude of invariant mass of this two-body system (see definition below) is different from the sum of rest mass (i.e. their respective mass when stationary). Even if we consider the same system from center-of-momentum frame, where net momentum is zero, the magnitude of the system's invariant mass is not equal to the sum of the rest masses of the particles within it.

The invariant mass m0 is equal to the mass in the rest frame of the particle, and can be calculated by the particle's energy E and its momentum p as measured in any frame, by the energy–momentum relation: or in natural units where c = 1

This invariant mass is the same in all frames of reference (see also special relativity). This equation says that the invariant mass is the pseudo-Euclidean length of the four-vector (E,p), calculated using the relativistic version of the Pythagorean theorem which has a different sign for the space and time dimensions.

APOLOGIZE

Poll here:

https://www.strawpoll.me/15294975

*rejects 11k yet again*

Will be $12k by the weekend. Cap this.

RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

10K IS THE NEW FLOOR.

RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

Repeat after me: lower highs, lower lows

http://www.strawpoll.me/15027830
Let's do this

I DEMAND THIS PIECE OF SHIT TO COME BACK DOWN

FUCK YOU BIZ MY COINS ARE GONE I SOLD AT 6 K ALL MY REQUEST NETWORKS ARE FUCKING GONE

I SOLD THEM AT 16 FUCKING CENTS A PIECE

Let's put aside opinion on the tech or legitimacy of each for a second, and purely look at profits in a short term timeframe (6 months).

In the case of a strong rebound in the crypto market, which Bitcoin project would see a greater ROI?
Which would you deem safer?
Which would you say has more room for growth?
Which would you say will net a larger ROI over 6 months?

What do you think Anons?

Let the past die.

crashing again
MAKE IT STOP