palani (4th March 2017)
Trump 2016! I support Trump for one reason....because it PISSES PEOPLE OFF!
"Politicians Are Like Diapers, They Should Be Changed Often, And For The Same Reason"
If you're not prepared for what's coming it's already too late!
Mostly I think it reacts to differences in the valuation of the dollar, the litecoin itself is completely stable, like a rock. If you think you have too much excitement in life, buy litecoin, it is more boring than watching paint dry.
madfranks (4th March 2017)
Nothing ever changes hands with fiction alone.
I suspect the 'manor' is never entirely real. True that a manor is the residence of a lord but the title of lord is an office and a manor is a trust. The terms township and manor are synonymous.
mid-14c., "chief residence of a lord," from Old French mansion "stay, permanent abode, house, habitation, home; mansion; state, situation" (13c.), from Latin mansionem (nominative mansio) "a staying, a remaining, night quarters, station," noun of action from past participle stem of manere "to stay, abide," from PIE *men- "to remain, wait for" (source also of Greek menein "to remain," Persian mandan "to remain"). Sense of "any large and stately house" is from 1510s. The word also was used in Middle English as "a stop or stage of a journey," hence probably astrological sense "temporary home" (late 14c.).I find it interesting that there are plantations as well as townships in Maine.manor (n.)
late 13c., "mansion, habitation, country residence, principal house of an estate," from Anglo-French maner, Old French manoir "abode, home, dwelling place; manor" (12c.), noun use of maneir "to dwell," from Latin manere "to stay, abide," from PIE root *men- (3) "to remain" (see mansion). As a unit of territorial division in Britain and some American colonies (usually "land held in demesne by a lord, with tenants") it is attested from 1530s.
Author Richard Walden Hale in The Story of Bar Harbor described the formation of a plantation as follows:
First came the survey, without which no settlement was legal. Land so surveyed was divided into 'townships,' which in New England means areas planned for development into full-fledged towns. Then certain proprietors--who might be a religious congregation, a group of speculators, or a group of would-be settlers--bought the 'township,' 'planted it' with settlers, and saw to it that land was reserved for a church and school. When enough settlers had been planted, limited self government was granted, and the township was raised in status to a 'plantation.' When the population of the 'plantation' should have grown large enough, another step forward was taken, the area received full civil rights, the full town organization came into force, and in those days one representative in the legislature or 'General Court' was automatically allotted to the new town.... Such a system still holds good in Maine.... To this day one can go thirty miles northeast of Bar Harbor and find, still unsettled, Township Number Seven, just back of Gouldsboro and Sullivan, and then go twenty miles southeast--in each case as the crow flies--and find Swan's Island Plantation, where to this day there is not enough population for the full complement of town officials.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
Stick a fork in it. Is BitCoin done?
Should Bitcoin split?
Should an unlimited version of BitCoin be unleashed? Bit Coin Unlimited
BTC and BTU?
Wouldn't that just be creating a new fiat?
Could / Should BTU be backed by BTC?
I'm not really seeing the need.... other than some people have a lot of BTC's and others want them and can't get them. Seems to me it's not possible to either create out of thin air or steal them. Which is exactly the point of the way they were structured IMO.
And if they continue to appreciate, what is the problem with everyone else transacting with smaller and smaller fractions. Because they are not physical, their divide-ability should be "unlimited".
Seems like there is some resentment of people who have persisted with their speculation of them and their reluctance to part with them.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? If the situation persists and BTU's are not realistic would BTC's loose favor with people causing them to move on or simply give up on this kind of digital currency. Ultimately causing current holders "some kind" of loss, real or imagined?
I am just an algorithm in the reality of your matrix.
Anytime I'm in doubt I go outside and give it a little shake.