Topic: Bir Tawil nation - page 4. (Read 6380 times)

we should ask them

I don't know, but the space authority I got it from probably (hopefully) knows!

how come it's 3-21 minutes

what makes it differ from 3 to 21 lol

if it was 3 minutes it could work but 21 damn

Yes, exactly. We'd solve it first, then we'd claim it. But since the rest of the network is on the earth it would take quite some time to send the transmission that proves we found it first. During the time it takes an earth based pool would be able to claim it.
Not to mention we'd also receive the new blocks 3-21 minutes after the earth based miners to, so we'd have less time to solve them.

This would not be a problem on Antarctica though!

interesting but how would that actually work

when we solve algorythims then they are transmitted back to earth or what?

I'm not really into mining so I don't really understand the concept

If we find the block about 21 minutes before any others, yes. But we'd have to have our own pool on mars, since mining in a earth based pool would not work. Would be to much delay.

so I post a new thread on bitcointalk and it gets posted after 20 minutes?

damn

could we mine normally?

There would be a delay on about 3 - 21 minutes one way. So double it to get the actual time.

we would get media attention for building an island too

but colonising Mars, that's a whole new level of media coverage!

we would be on the news for years not days

another thing, one of the most imporant ones regarding Mars

what about the internet?

We'd get massive media coverage from Antarctica as well. But we'd probably get more negative attention comparing to the Mars mission which would probably almost exclusively generate positive attention.

It still gets very cold on Mars during nights, even on the equator. A normal greenhouse (built above the ground) would become cold quite fast.
Of course it has a lot to do with the atmosphere to do.
Thick atmosphere - good at keeping temperatures.
Thin atmosphere - not so good at keeping temperatures.

Sure the lack of oceans is also a factor, but don't forget how important the atmosphere is.
The Antarctica idea would be to become self-sufficient. Food can be grown and raised underground, there are lot of fish in the oceans around, so that would not be a major problem.

The plan, also, which you seem to have missed, is to build the colony at the coast. Isolation won't be a that big problem either, since most building will be built underground, but their roofs on surface level. The soil itself is quite good isolation, and add some thick layers of isolating material, and there won't be much of a problem there either.

My polar base would not cost billions. It would cost a few millions to build, but not billions. It would not need to be resupplied either, at least not with the essentials, since we'd be self-sufficient. Food can be grown and raised underground, there are lot of fish in the oceans around, so that would not be a major problem.

Yes, the USA spends trillions on defense each year, sure, but do you have access to that money? It would not be realistic to fund your plan with donations and stuff either. So that's very unrealistic. I'm not saying getting the money to fund my project would be easy either, but it would sure as hell be much easier.
And of course we'd build the base along the coast! Why would we want to build it in the middle of nowhere? And as stated in this post and earlier ones as well, we would build it on (under) soil. Not on ice.

When it comes to the gravity part, of course I'm not talking about when you're outside exploring Mars, but when you're inside the base. We don't know how the martian gravity affects humans. We don't know if it will even be possible to breed children or anything. Neither if it's possible to grow larger plants.

Solar power would not work during these dust storms and wind power would probably not be a very good idea either during them (= damage).

A big advantage on the Antarctica plan would also be that it would not be a one way trip, which it would be to Mars. The trip would not take up to a few years either.

As I stated earlier in this post Antarctica would not cost billions. Mars would.
Of course it would be possible to build a colony on mars as well, but it would take a lot more work to get it up and running. Much of the easy accessible water on mars is on its poles, and in the atmosphere. Since your plan would to be place the base on the equator the atmosphere would be the best option, correct? To obtain enough water to support a large population would become very expensive as well.

To summarize; Antarctica would be simpler and cheaper, even though it would cause more diplomatic problems.

The thing about an island is that you want have a independent country which is the whole point of this thread I think ^^

as the conversation goes on, purchasing an islands seems getting better and better

We aren't getting to Mars, or building a permanent base on Artactica anytime soon

For such plan, you need to built a floating Island somewhere, and then pull it international Seas and plant it there, like we do with Oil platforms (this is something we already have the know how to

that is true and a good location for tourists while Antarctica not so far
or Mars lol

that's way I said a place like near the Moroccan shore a strategic place between America, EU and Africa where there is almost no storms, and you have everything near by, including continental internet Fiber optics

daaamnn

how do ships shipping stuff handle these waves?
if they can, how couldn't we?

other then that, couldn't we just drill the ice downwards and use the ice as isolation from the wind and place ourselves there?