|
If we kill all of my extended family, who will take care of their dogs?
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see short spots that show off the state of fiat currencies. No need to mention bitcoin directly. There are other organizations that might be willing to contribute. Something like this near the end of the game would be nice. (Switch Euros and other currencies for Dollars in the appropriate regions): Dollars printed by U.S. since kickoff today:
xxx,xxx
Dollars printed by U.S. since 1/1/2014
xx,xxx,xxx,xxx
Total U.S. dollars in circulation:
xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx
Total U.S. dollars backed by gold or silver:
0
(I don't know what the actual numbers would be, so "x" above is obviously a placeholder for what would be researched values.) ugh - I meant to include - The value of $1 you saved since last year's Super Bowl: 0.xx |
|
|
|
I'd like to see short spots that show off the state of fiat currencies. No need to mention bitcoin directly. There are other organizations that might be willing to contribute. Something like this near the end of the game would be nice. (Switch Euros and other currencies for Dollars in the appropriate regions): Dollars printed by U.S. since kickoff today:
xxx,xxx
Dollars printed by U.S. since 1/1/2014
xx,xxx,xxx,xxx
Total U.S. dollars in circulation:
xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx
Total U.S. dollars backed by gold or silver:
0
(I don't know what the actual numbers would be, so "x" above is obviously a placeholder for what would be researched values.) |
|
|
|
This thread was pretty interesting: Bitcoin the enabler - Truly Autonomous Software Agents roaming the netIn a nutshell an autonomous agent, whose purpose in the world could be just about anything, uses various methods to raise bitcoin funds and then uses those funds to spread itself among hosting services. Some of the possibilities that were posted include: - performing useful pay-for services to raise money for itself - having the agent hire programmers to improve its code. |
|
|
|
Whenever he can't even stomach his BS, his right eye blinks just slightly sooner then his left eye, and slightly more pronounced then his left eye. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbIrm42zYTUIf the nation falls for this bullshit then the republic is officially dead! The same type of thing happened to me once. My dentist shot me full of novocaine and the numbness went up into my eye socket. As it wore off, that eyelid lagged behind the other whenever I blinked. Pretty sure they keep Obama sedated when he's not golfing, so that could just be the drugs. |
|
|
|
But you don't get any advantage by using bitcoins.
You can get a free credit card, and under conditions, you can have free benefit like he said about insurance...
It depends on the bank, but it might be totally free of charge if he deposits 1000 usd per month in his bank account for instance.
First, as I noted at the end of my previous post, comparing bitcoin and credit cards doesn't make sense. Bitcoin is a currency like dollars or euros. Credit cards are a combination of a credit and a payment system that facilitate the borrowing and paying of any currency a credit card issuer chooses to work with. So if and when bitcoin is more widely used we will see credit card companies allow for transactions in bitcoin just as they do for dollars, euros, yen, and every other currency. Second, your "free" credit card and all of the other credit card services are not free. The "free" credit cards and the services are paid for by the fees charged to merchants. Every transaction comes with a flat transaction fee (45 cents for example) as well as a "discount" percentage. The discount refers to a percentage that the card issuer is going to take from the transaction. Discount rates that are charged to merchants can range from 2% to 5%. Probably more in some cases. The discount rate is determined in part by the credit worthiness of the card holder, whether the card holder pays an annual fee (it is higher for no-fee cards), whether or not it is a rewards card, and the volume of transactions for the merchant. The merchant has no way of knowing what the discount will be at the time of the transaction. For example, merchants can incur as much as a 4% or 5% "discount" rate for most rewards cards. Historically credit card companies have forbidden merchants from offering different prices to customers that pay with cash versus those that pay with credit cards. So merchants that take credit cards increase their prices to everyone to make up for these fees. Laws have recently changed (at least in the U.S.) that prevent CC companies from using this restriction, but after 4 years very few merchants have changed their pricing to reflect it. The net result of credit card pervasiveness is that we all pay 3% to 4% more for nearly everything we buy [edit]regardless of whether or not we use a credit card[/edit]. That money goes to the credit card processors and companies (which are usually lumped into the category of "banks"). |
|
|
|
I feel like there should be a decentralized virtual world that goes with Bitcoin... what do you guys think...?
I thought that's what bitcointalk.org was for.  |
|
|
|
(bold added by me)Actually whenever my credit card information was stolen or hacked or whatever, i don't want to know, it happened couple times, bank gladly deleted those transactions from my balance (it takes me couple minutes to call) and I got new card on second day for free. Now try to do this with your wallet.
Also I would like anybody to find a deal for me: I want to buy new TV and have free additional one year warranty as credit cards gives me.
Namecoin identity systems will remove the most attractive feature of bitcoin - inability find the owner. The "free additional one year warranty" isn't free at all, but rather a service that is paid for through fees. Would a mature bitcoin infrastructure have similar offerings? It is difficult to say. But would you want it to? Consider that the market value for an extended warranty on a TV is probably anywhere from $40 to $80. (These numbers are just for illustration) And the credit card company is offering you a "free" warranty. Now consider that they are paying for this through transaction and discount fees to merchants and that the merchants have in turn raised their prices accordingly. Some people buy several TVs in a year. So all of your credit card purchases for gas, groceries, clothes, and anything else that doesn't come with a perk are helping to buy those warranties for other people. Wouldn't you rather just have lower prices on all of your purchases and then decide when you want to spend the money for an extended warranty? But that's really commentary on the credit card infrastructure. After all MasterCard is not a currency, but rather it is a highbred credit and payment mechanism. And although electronic currency can replace credit card use for some transactions, it's surely not going to kill them. Were bitcoin to become widely accepted, there is no reason credit card companies wouldn't allow transactions in bitcoin. People will still need short term credit. Other people will still like paying with a credit card for all of the reasons stated earlier in this thread. And all of the purchase assurances and "free" services would work pretty much the same way. In short, saying that bitcoin cannot replace credit cards is a red herring. (As is saying that bitcoin is better than credit cards)
|
|
|
|
Obama Has An Easy To Spot Tell Whenever He lies I thought you were going to say "his lips are moving." |
|
|
|
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The road to heaven is paved with bad intentions. I had every intention of posting a wise, yet smart ass reply.[EDIT]How did I get dragged into this?[/EDIT] |
|
|
|
bump
If you feel the need to bump this thread every day (that it doesn't gain an organic post) then maybe you should edit the OP to remove your affiliate link from the URL. My apologies if that isn't an affiliate link, but it sure looks like one. |
|
|
|
Dividends still "processing" after 10 hours, btct doesn't seem to be in a haste...
I have a dividend deposit into my btct wallet 10+ hours ago (at 8:25 udt). So I think the dividends have been distributed, something's just not closed out on their process. Or that status just hasn't been updated. |
|
|
|
Starting a bid war. I'll pay $1 more than Kais, and any volume. Again - pay in USD from the past - $10, $20, or $50 gold coins from before 1933 - and you have a deal. |
|
|
|
|
I can sell you a few. But you'll need to pay me in USD from the past. Specifically, the gold coin variety.
|
|
|
|
|
"We won't sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety."
1) Where is the selling of chocolate eggs banned?
2) Is this poster from Germany?
|
|
|
|
what if half of your income were tax free income. so half of your money is all yours and isnt taxed at all but the other half will be taxed.
would this benefit spending in the economy and reduce tax evasion?
It would have no impact on government lust for spending. So they would just double the tax rate on the half that is taxed. Probably double plus a little extra just for being insolent. |
|
|
|
Who's winning Android or iPhone? What do you mean by "winning?" As long as Apple insists on controlling the entire market (hardware, software, music, movies, etc.) they will never catch Android in market share. But that is probably okay with Apple. The development of this "rivalry" is interesting in that the setup parallels the early competition between Mac's and PC's. Apple insisted on controlling all of the hardware and software market for the Mac. IBM, on the other hand, opened up its architecture and allowed anyone to make hardware or software for their machines. Apple had a great head start in this market but the PC market evolved into something that Apple couldn't match. And once the Intel/Microsoft machine started rolling it was all over as far as significant market share is concerned. Apple continued to survive, but just barely. Apple appears to have learned from the PC battles. They have a greater head start with the iPhone than they did with the Mac. And they opened up the software market to make it easier for independent developers to bring products along. However they are still one company trying to match technological innovations of many other companies. The volatility of the market is extreme. I highly doubt that the phone market will remain clearly defined like the PC market was for 20 years. Apple cannot catch Android in this environment, but they can certainly lose tremendous ground under the right circumstances. Will Samsung/Google be the iPhone's Intel/Microsoft? The iPod brought Apple back as a major player in consumer devices and positioned them very well for the iPhone. The phone as we know it (I mean smart phone) however is likely to transition to something else in a relatively short number of years. The iWatch and Google Glass are two possible routes. I don't see Apple being able to match all of the possibilities that other companies are bringing to market. Of course Android probably isn't the answer for all of them either. So, what do you mean by "winning?" You seem to fail to understand some concepts that Apple clearly states every time they can. Apple products in Jobs era were designed for people who would appreciate the quality and the design not just hardware but software. Their design process is extremely refined and they were focused on those people who would embrace those concepts. With Tim Cook, the company is trying to captivate a bigger market now, although I'm not sure is the right approach. Google glass is a piece of crap, but it's a prototype that will serve it's purpose as new wearable technologies develop. Tim Cook already said it, who would wear glasses willingly? On the other hand, a Watch makes much more sense.That being said, Google Glass is necessary for the evolution of the technologies, but at $1,500 I find hard to believe people will be running to the stores to get one, and Inaba will most likely try to type with it and will discard it right away. In short, Apple doesn't need to catch up with other companies, it's the other companies that played catch up with Apple (iPod...? iPhone?, iPad) or, in other words, the MP3 player which Apple made so popular... the smartphone that Apple pretty much revolutionized the way phones work, and the Tablet... Was Apple the first one in any of those fields? certainly not, but it was the first one to get it right and that's undeniable! The same will happen in the future, with companies releasing crappy things (NFC anyone) and Apple waiting until the technology and infrastructure is mature and ready to deploy a correct implementation. The gist of your remarks is why I asked the OP what they meant by "winning." I didn't say anything about the quality of Apple products (past or present) nor about the wisdom of their decisions. I said that Apple will not surpass Android (Google) in market share. I also said that Apple probably doesn't care. Do you dispute that? The quality of Google glass, iWatch, or any other probing technology device is not germane to my statement. Google glass and iWatch were just examples of new devices that are being experimented with. My point is that the smart phone won't be a massive force for nearly as long as PCs were because technology is evolving much more rapidly now. Some company will hit a home run with some device. It may be Apple and it may be someone else. However Apple is again pitting itself against the world. They will not be able to match all of the technological innovations that come from everywhere. They will need to pick one or two paths and commit immense resources to those paths. Other companies will need to do the same thing. However if one of the Android companies make bad decisions and go bankrupt, it doesn't bring down Android. Where as iPhone is anchored to just one company. If Apple makes a few bad moves they are done. So, as you pointed out, since they can't afford to jump on risky technology they wait on it. |
|
|
|
Who's winning Android or iPhone? What do you mean by "winning?" As long as Apple insists on controlling the entire market (hardware, software, music, movies, etc.) they will never catch Android in market share. But that is probably okay with Apple. The development of this "rivalry" is interesting in that the setup parallels the early competition between Mac's and PC's. Apple insisted on controlling all of the hardware and software market for the Mac. IBM, on the other hand, opened up its architecture and allowed anyone to make hardware or software for their machines. Apple had a great head start in this market but the PC market evolved into something that Apple couldn't match. And once the Intel/Microsoft machine started rolling it was all over as far as significant market share is concerned. Apple continued to survive, but just barely. Apple appears to have learned from the PC battles. They have a greater head start with the iPhone than they did with the Mac. And they opened up the software market to make it easier for independent developers to bring products along. However they are still one company trying to match technological innovations of many other companies. The volatility of the market is extreme. I highly doubt that the phone market will remain clearly defined like the PC market was for 20 years. Apple cannot catch Android in this environment, but they can certainly lose tremendous ground under the right circumstances. Will Samsung/Google be the iPhone's Intel/Microsoft? The iPod brought Apple back as a major player in consumer devices and positioned them very well for the iPhone. The phone as we know it (I mean smart phone) however is likely to transition to something else in a relatively short number of years. The iWatch and Google Glass are two possible routes. I don't see Apple being able to match all of the possibilities that other companies are bringing to market. Of course Android probably isn't the answer for all of them either. So, what do you mean by "winning?" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
