Some kind of ETH marketing. BTC bad, ETH good. PoW bad, PoS good.
If you throw out all that stupid references to $ from article, then there will be only question of energy left. But choosing between total PoS fraud and relatively working PoW crypto with some energy needed to support network, I'll definitely choose PoW, until new iteration of crypto experiment will evetually roll out. Fuck energy economy. Who the fuck will care about energy like beggars among crypto users?
What if others suggest energy to represent a quest towards; as to tempt one to ignore that EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power" represents the solution for all within.
What if one represents problem (living) within solution (process of dying); hence the struggle to sustain self by resisting temptation? What if the ongoing natural order (inception towards death) causes temporary chaos (life) within itself?
choosing between
Can choice be situated outside the center of balance? Can choice be tempted to ignore perceivable balance (need/want) for suggested choices (want vs not want)? Is choice already in-between need (perceivable inspiration) or want (suggested information) when considering to want or not want suggestions by the choices of others?
energy needed
If energy represents the source of need; they why use choice to reason between want vs not want; agreement vs disagreement; true vs false; believing vs not-believing; eth vs btc; analogue vs digital; gibs me dis vs gibs me dat and so on?
I'll definitely choose
a) can one not choose within what nature offers or does each choice within perceivable counts as a reaction to the enacting system...even in ignorance thereof?
b) DEFINITE, adjective - "having certain limits"...if perceivable balance represents the limit for choice at its center; then can the suggested choices of others tempt one to limit self further?
until new
Where does that "new" come from if not out of the motion causing the "until". How can something out of an ongoing origin (motion) be "new"? What if you represent the temporary (living) lacking to comprehend the ongoing (process of dying), hence representing the opportunity to grow comprehension of perceivable by adapting to it?
Who the fuck will care about energy
What if everything perceivable exists inside energy? Can you tell me anything that doesn't represent energy (work)? Does a "workless" person stop laboring within perceivable reality or does he keep breathing; does his heart keep pumping; does he still need to resist the temptation of dying as to sustain his life?
Why do you consent to allow others to suggest you definitions for energy, to the point where you suggest to the world at large the question: "who the fuck will care about energy"?
Some kind of ETH marketing. BTC bad, ETH good. PoW bad, PoS good.
If you throw out all that stupid references to $ from article, then there will be only question of energy left. But choosing between total PoS fraud and relatively working PoW crypto with some energy needed to support network, I'll definitely choose PoW, until new iteration of crypto experiment will evetually roll out. Fuck energy economy. Who the fuck will care about energy like beggars among crypto users?
What if others suggest energy to represent a quest towards; as to tempt one to ignore that EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power" represents the solution for all within.
What if one represents problem (living) within solution (process of dying); hence the struggle to sustain self by resisting temptation? What if the ongoing natural order (inception towards death) causes temporary chaos (life) within itself?
Can choice be situated outside the center of balance? Can choice be tempted to ignore perceivable balance (need/want) for suggested choices (want vs not want)? Is choice already in-between need (perceivable inspiration) or want (suggested information) when considering to want or not want suggestions by the choices of others?
If energy represents the source of need; they why use choice to reason between want vs not want; agreement vs disagreement; true vs false; believing vs not-believing; eth vs btc; analogue vs digital; gibs me dis vs gibs me dat and so on?
a) can one not choose within what nature offers or does each choice within perceivable counts as a reaction to the enacting system...even in ignorance thereof?
b) DEFINITE, adjective - "having certain limits"...if perceivable balance represents the limit for choice at its center; then can the suggested choices of others tempt one to limit self further?
Where does that "new" come from if not out of the motion causing the "until". How can something out of an ongoing origin (motion) be "new"? What if you represent the temporary (living) lacking to comprehend the ongoing (process of dying), hence representing the opportunity to grow comprehension of perceivable by adapting to it?
What if everything perceivable exists inside energy? Can you tell me anything that doesn't represent energy (work)? Does a "workless" person stop laboring within perceivable reality or does he keep breathing; does his heart keep pumping; does he still need to resist the temptation of dying as to sustain his life?
Why do you consent to allow others to suggest you definitions for energy, to the point where you suggest to the world at large the question: "who the fuck will care about energy"?