blah blah blah boring topic.
the real question is
Is using paypal safe on computers connected from the Internet?
Is using debit/credit cards safe on computers connected from the Internet?
No, actually the real questions are exactly those I asked in the OP. Why? Because it's my thread, and because I don't know much about this technology and was hoping to get reasoned responses from those more knowledgeable than I. Notice that every response prior to yours actually addressed the OP whereas 60% of posts after yours (excluding this one) do not. Hence, to me, your post is boring. But I'm genuinely curious to know why the topic isn't worth your consideration. It seems to imply that you must know something about the topic if you can conclude it's boring or unworthy of consideration as a realistic threat. |
|
|
|
First, there's nothing wrong with being rich. Sure, a lot of wealthy people are born into wealth, but that usually speaks to the successes of their ancestors.
Second, not all rich people are necrssarily bad or selfish, even billionaires. A lot of people don't understand that many wealthy people (e.g. CEO's) spent years and years working ridiculously long hours, sacrificing personal relationships and leisure activities to spur their careers. Most of the time, profits are reinvested back into the pursuit of career growth and development, whether that means additional schooling or perhaps helping a business to grow. If a surgeon can save lives that no one else can, he deserves the ~$300k/yr. he gets. If a CEO creates a business that provides jobs to hundreds of people so they can provide for themselves and their families, he deserves to keep millions.
A lot of people who complain about the rich could very well pursue employment in high-paying fields. If you enter into a low-paying field (like I did while pursuing employment in the social services industry) then you should know what you're getting yourself into. If you want more money, get out your thinking cap and come up with a plan to make it happen.
I agree that successful people deserve to be rich. But the problem is inequality gap gets too big then entire economy suffers because the 1% cant do all the consumption. You want a big middle class to do most of the consumption Since the rich make most of their money from investments, when the gap gets to be too large, profits will suffer, and investments will follow, and as a result the gap will decrease. Maybe it's just late, but, referring to the bolded snippet, why do you think this is the case? If I'm following your train of thought, you're saying implying that the profits of the rich will decrease when increasing wealth disparity forces the middle class to spend less. If this is true, then sure, fewer profits mean that there may be less 'new' money for the rich to spend on 'new' investments... ...but this is because the middle class has less money, too. How does the gap change significantly if both classes lose purchasing power? Moreover, over time, the investments of the rich are more likely to appreciate in value, particularly hard assets like real estate. |
|
|
|
|
It's been the case for a while that stimulus is the only thing propping up the markets. It's not a secret. The question is how long it can continue like this before the inevitable crash happens.
Hold onto your butts.
|
|
|
|
First, there's nothing wrong with being rich. Sure, a lot of wealthy people are born into wealth, but that usually speaks to the successes of their ancestors.
Second, not all rich people are necrssarily bad or selfish, even billionaires. A lot of people don't understand that many wealthy people (e.g. CEO's) spent years and years working ridiculously long hours, sacrificing personal relationships and leisure activities to spur their careers. Most of the time, profits are reinvested back into the pursuit of career growth and development, whether that means additional schooling or perhaps helping a business to grow. If a surgeon can save lives that no one else can, he deserves the ~$300k/yr. he gets. If a CEO creates a business that provides jobs to hundreds of people so they can provide for themselves and their families, he deserves to keep millions.
A lot of people who complain about the rich could very well pursue employment in high-paying fields. If you enter into a low-paying field (like I did while pursuing employment in the social services industry) then you should know what you're getting yourself into. If you want more money, get out your thinking cap and come up with a plan to make it happen.
I agree that successful people deserve to be rich. But the problem is inequality gap gets too big then entire economy suffers because the 1% cant do all the consumption. You want a big middle class to do most of the consumption Yeah, but unfortunately that's more of a political/policy issue. I'm sure rich CEO's wouldn't mind a large, affluent middle class if it means that people will be buying more of their goods and services. |
|
|
|
Try not to panic sell now if it drops.
when it drops. Investing in bitcoin in 2014 is about one of the worst investment decisions anyone could make. You'd be better off investing your life savings in Solyndra. No arguments, no technical analysis, no fundamental analysis, no charts, no graphs. CONCLUSION: MORON OF EPIC PROPORTIONS DETECTEDWasn't it like ~10 months ago that Bank of Amerca estimated the "fair price" of BTC was $1300? Anywho, there's a "lot" of investor money pouring into infrastructure development. While this isn't a direct investment in the currency itself, it speaks volumes about what people believe its potential to be. |
|
|
|
|
Personally, if I have the option of paying with either LTC or BTC, I spend LTC. Psychologically, it feels as though I'm parting with something less valuable an that is easier to recoup. I'll also usually spend fiat before either BTC or LTC for the reasons. So, I would say "yes" to answer the OP's question, but to what degree I don't know. It seems that businesses like Overstock are seeing consistent purchases made with BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
First, there's nothing wrong with being rich. Sure, a lot of wealthy people are born into wealth, but that usually speaks to the successes of their ancestors.
Second, not all rich people are necrssarily bad or selfish, even billionaires. A lot of people don't understand that many wealthy people (e.g. CEO's) spent years and years working ridiculously long hours, sacrificing personal relationships and leisure activities to spur their careers. Most of the time, profits are reinvested back into the pursuit of career growth and development, whether that means additional schooling or perhaps helping a business to grow. If a surgeon can save lives that no one else can, he deserves the ~$300k/yr. he gets. If a CEO creates a business that provides jobs to hundreds of people so they can provide for themselves and their families, he deserves to keep millions.
A lot of people who complain about the rich could very well pursue employment in high-paying fields. If you enter into a low-paying field (like I did while pursuing employment in the social services industry) then you should know what you're getting yourself into. If you want more money, get out your thinking cap and come up with a plan to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/nsa-hacked-100-000-computers-radio-signals-article-1.1580254This is fairly old news, and I'm also not familiar with what kind of threat this might pose. Hopefully someone more knowledgable can share their input. Since it's now no secret that the NSA has the capacity to hack into computers via radio waves (though apparently only on computers constructed with the proper hardware), what does this mean for things like Armory's offline transactions? Do you believe that this poses a viable threat, particularly if companies increasingly integrate backdoor radio transceivers into household computers and mobile devices? Moreover, has this issue been considered by the core devs?
|
|
|
|
|
If the price is right I'm sure you'll find some takers, especially if it beats most generally available cloud mining contracts (which are, for whatever reason, very popular).
I could see the benefit for people looking to diversify and mine a large number of alt coins, hoping that at least one of them will significantly increase in value.
|
|
|
|
Encrypted of course. It can never get lost, stolen or destroyed.
If you want to store bitcoin for someone 6 generations down.
How else would you store bitcoin for 10k years?
Companies, clouds, hardrives will disintegrate but the block chain will always be there.
The Blockchain is the global ledger, not a hard drive. Storing bitcoins on the blockchain is kind of like saying that your money is stored on the bank statements you receive in the mail each month from your banking institution. It doesn't make sense and is a misunderstanding of what the Blockchain actually is. When talking about safely securing bitcoins, you're talking about securing the private keys associated with a particular public bitcoin address. Currently, paper/physical wallets are best for securing your private keys. Assuming you don't have the same private key information stored on your computer or mobile device, paper wallets make your bitcoins impervious to hacks and online theft. |
|
|
|
Stock Market adjustment, then hopefully a return to Gold and Silver.Its gotta reset at some point soon.by the way....good time to invest in bitcoin and Silver.
How do they do that without a job? This idiot is just making a "constructive" post in order to get a little more mBTC on his dicebitco.in monthly shill campaign.. It's sad really when people just spout random nonsense without actually typing anything worth reading. I feel bad for these people. It's a sad time when you lose your job due to circumstances that were not under your control. That being said hopefully a large % of them are able to find work fast. How is *pure opinion*, i.e. your post, any more constructive? "This idiot is...", "It's sad really when...", "I feel bad for...", "It's a sad time when...", "...hopefully..." And your signature advertises a casino, too.  Although, I'm not sure what he was trying to say, either. In any case, basing a career upon gambling (whether you're with or against the house) probably isn't the smartest idea. It's a market that functions vastly different than, say, retail markets. |
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, this is an excellent thread with an even more excellent approach from developers. Please continue to be vocal about this.
This really needs to be talked about more. Even though I think people are generally more clever, in a social setting like this forum personal opinions tend to represent extremes and false dichotomies, e.g. Bitcoin is the first/best/safest/most-brilliant/most-awesomest thing ever (as well as a global poor-person eliminator and all around baby-saver), or it's a NSA/CIA/YMCA-run Ponzi-bubble scheme for potheads.
Almost every valid complaint that I can think of -- ease-of-use, volatility, exchange centralization, disproportionate mining and supply share, etc. -- can be plausibly explained by Bitcoin's infancy. Give the code, the network, and the rest of the market some time.
|
|
|
|
I would like to donate 3 fishes and a loaf just to get you started, god only needed 2 fishes but i think you need just a little bit more help than he did my friend. Give me your address and i will donate 0.03 coins as the entertainment is worth it alone dank  and the fact i have a heart and do feel sorry for you even though you got yourself into this situation I would resist from doing that. Coins might go up in value, first thing Dank will do is buy drugs with it. Out of his face on the drugs he could jump on that bike of his, take it for another joyride, smashing into a family car, car spins off road, hits a tree and explodes, kill mums, dad and two kids. You would feel indirectly responsible. Dank walks away with a graze on his knee, and blames everything and everyone else for the accident, apart from himself. In fact his sick mind will twist it around he's done them a favour. You sound like you have some paranoid delusions there, bud. Where is all the love in that dank that you preach of?
He spent all his love on drugs. Wonder if he's worked out yet the drugs will never love him back? You do realize that everything that exists on this planet is a drug, correct? Everything is chemicals. If you're going to judge someone for using a substance less toxic than vitamin C, then you might want to reevaluate your perception on life. Eating other living flesh is okay, but feeding off mind opening drugs, that's bad, mkay? Such a waste, talks about other peoples greed and stupidity to pay taxes and what not but takes from someone to feed his own greed, pays taxes on gas, oil to keep his bike running, pays taxes on that fat mcdonalds hes stuffing into his face and pays over the odds on the drugs he takes. you do realise even though its not called tax but every time that drug is passed down to the next dealer they are putting a tax on it for there part in getting it to the dead beat person on the street. so enjoy your taxed drug my friend. I think this psycho that you see needs a doctor himself if he is backing your world domination. Grow up
Mcdonalds is disgusting, their food is 85% ammonia, cancerous, and contains ingredients from silly putty. Does a portion of the money I spend go towards sales taxes? Yes. But that doesn't mean I have to go and work for a corporation whilst supporting the government beyond the essential extent to survive in this society. Every single commodity being exchanged has some form of 'tax' on it, in those terms, people mark up prices because our greed based society mandates that everyone competes with each other in order to earn income to survive. My philosophy is a little different, instead of competing with one another and retarding progression as a species, we should be working with one another and evolving at an exponential rate. And thank you for donating that bit to squall, I appreciate the thought. Don't you see that you're not following your own philosophy? "Working with one another and evolving" is the opposite of what you're doing. Here, you are surrounded by your peers who *all* are telling you we don't believe you're contributing your fair share, and for you to demand acceptance of your beliefs while simultaneously dismissing ours is the spirit of a contrarian; you aren't working with us, but instead are actively working against us in the society we've created for ourselves, and for you. And unfortunately, despite the many great things that society, corporations, and governments do for us, you focus explicitly on the negative, over-exaggerate it, and as a result create a belief system of extremes that inhibits you from practical decision making. You're not evolving, and in fact you're doing the opposite in your failure to adapt to the demands of your environments, both natural and social. You're paralyzing yourself because the only problem(s) you see are ones that you could never come close to solving on your own. Clever self-handicap -- if anyone ever accuses you of being lazy, just tell them that you're working on saving the whole world! If everyone held your perspective, everyone would quit their jobs, and society would collapse under its own weight within a matter of days-weeks once the food spoils and the gas stations run dry, and when the roads and electric grid crumble. |
|
|
|
Faster confirmation times do have benefits:
Many transactions are never confirmed for one reason or another. If I am selling something, I want to make sure that I will eventually get the bitcoins. If a transaction is confirmed once, then it is extremely likely to be confirmed many times, even if the first is orphaned. So one confirmation is fine for me even if confirmation times are short, and shorter confirmation times are more convenient.
Another benefit is a better distribution of block rewards. If there are more block rewards, then the chances of getting a block reward is higher. That reduces the need for mining pools.
Yes, the largest benefit to short confirmation times is that 1 confirmation is infinitely better than 0 confirmations. As a result, very short confirmation times are hands-down better for convenience-store-like transactions (assuming that the time isn't so short that you end up with intolerably high rates of orphans, etc.). Really, anything beyond 15-30 seconds becomes a legitimate issue for these transaction types. One confirmation is not better then 0/unconfirmed necessarily. If the confirmation time is too short then it would be very easy to attack the network and people would have a false sense of security when they see that a TX has n confirmations. When the block confirmation time is longer you will know that it will take more resources to double spend the TX (assuming there is a sufficient TX fee and the TX is well propagated) I think this is nitpicking a little bit. You're talking about a false sense of security from someone who assumes that 1 confirmation at an average of (for example) 30-second confirmation times provides the same level of security as 1 confirmation at an average of 10-minute confirmation times. But, regardless of psychology, if you *had* to chose between 0 confirmations at n-second confirmation times or 1 confirmation at n-minus-m-second confirmation times, which would you pick? The point is that one confirmation at any confirmation rate is preferable to 0 confirmations, and therefore *is* necessarily better. I would disagree. My point is that 1 confirmation on a ten minute block chain is more secure then 10 confirmations are on a 1 minute block chain. The reason for this is because of the higher number of orphans that will occur on a 1 minute block chain. In order to successfully double spend a TX that is well propagated throughout the network and contains an appropriate TX fee you generally need to find the next block after the TX is sent (you could also find enough consecutive blocks after the TX is sent but this would be more expensive). If you have a 1 minute block time then it will take less resources to find the next block (it will also take less resources to find enough consecutive blocks to overcome the chain that confirmed your TX). But it's a completely different issue to talk about 1 confirmation on a ten-minute avg. block time vs. 10 confirmations on a one-minute avg. block time than it is to talk about 0 confirmations on a ten-minute avg. block time vs. 1 confirmation on a one-minute avg. block time. Again, the point I'm getting at is simply about the importance of the very first confirmation. No matter how you spin it, 1 confirmation regardless of the avg. block time is infinitely better than 0 confirmations at any avg. block time. There's a huge difference between the two scenarios, and while you can debate (and be correct) about the false sense of security provided by confirmations with rapid avg. block times, it's undeniable that 1 confirmation is always better than 0. Always. |
|
|
|
How much equity do you own in your property? What is the value of your car?
And most importantly could you get people (parents for example) to act as legal guarantors with their equity if you were to default?
I've got BTC to lend.
Forgot to address the last part here. No, I'm not even willing to try to get people in my family to act as legal guarantors. This is my responsibility, though I'm guessing you're asking primarily in case of a "...and if you die?" scenario. Totally understandable. |
|
|
|
How much equity do you own in your property? What is the value of your car?
And most importantly could you get people (parents for example) to act as legal guarantors with their equity if you were to default?
I've got BTC to lend.
First, let me make it clear that, although I would accept BTC, all terms would be made in USD. I'm not risking taking out a BTC loan that I would likely never be able to repay if BTC goes up significantly. Second, I'll send you a PM with some general, rounded figures. I'm not keen on sharing very specific details in this thread for everyone to read. I just wanted to share enough to make it known that I'm serious about this. |
|
|
|
|
I'm creating this thread to do a preliminary exploration of what loan options might be available to me from the lenders here.
I was prompted to make this thread after reading a thread posted by another member here several weeks ago. He/she was looking to take out a large loan to effectively reconsolidate his/her existing debt.
My goals are:
- Take out a large enough loan to cover all, or a significant portion of, my debts.
- Set an interest rate that is lower than the average rate for my existing debts.
- Make one monthly payment to a new creditor rather than making multiple payments on varying dates each month.
- Raise my credit score which took a huge hit do to multiple recent credit inquiries (mortgage; having multiple open credit and checking accounts; using the majority of my existing credit lines for home remodeling, etc.).
Other notes:
- Ideally, this loan would range from $50k-$150k, though smaller loans would still be okay so long as it reduces my overall average interest rate.
- Time to repayment would need to be sufficiently long enough for me to afford monthly payments.
- Interested lenders can PM me to learn more about my employment history, credit history (I can provide documentation of all open and existing accounts which reflect my flawless payment history), available collateral, etc.
- Yes, there will be legal contracts, and preferentially face-to-face meetings. I'm hoping that someone near the Chicago area would be interested in this.
- I am employed full-time and am looking to pick up a part-time job as an Uber car driver. I have an MSW degree and within the next year will be taking a license examination to receive my LCSW license (licensed clinical social worker) which will enable me to open a private practice. Currently, I am a transition coordinator for a Federal financial assistance program run through the county health department; I was and may still be ranked #1 in the United States for my position in terms of both productivity and positive client outcomes. I also have a small mining operation and write occasionally for Bitcoin Magazine.
- The home remodeling I am doing should also result in a significant increase of the appraisal value and therefore my equity. I also own a car outright (fully-paid for) and have some other assets of value.
Basically, I'm looking to see if someone is willing to invest in me while earning some passive income and letting his money work for him.
Post or PM if you would like to know more.
|
|
|
|
I would like to donate 3 fishes and a loaf just to get you started, god only needed 2 fishes but i think you need just a little bit more help than he did my friend. Give me your address and i will donate 0.03 coins as the entertainment is worth it alone dank and the fact i have a heart and do feel sorry for you even though you got yourself into this situation That .03 BTC would be better off going to people Dank owes money to. Send it to Squall. |
|
|
|
I think earlier a lot of people started investing in bitcoin by mining. Currently, usually you have to be complete fool or very bad in math to purchase mining equipment. So, I guess, now if you want to invest in bitcoin, you have only one way...by buying.
Ugh... This is *not* always the case, and I find it's usually the ones that are bad at math who make blanket assumptions like this. Buying a miner is the only way you stand a chance at profiting even if the price of BTC goes down pending that you're not shorting BTC (which is not the same as buying BTC anyway). It's not guaranteed, but at least it's not the same 0% probability of profiting -- or, conversely, the 100% probability of losing money -- if you buy BTC and then it tanks. Furthermore, if mining conditions are favorable but the average price of BTC remains stable for a relatively long period of time, you will ROI with your miners before you ever see a profit from buying BTC, even if BTC goes up in the future. This is exactly what happened with my Antminers. If I had bought BTC instead of my Antminers, I'd still almost be at break-even. Instead, they've ROI'd almost twice over now. Edit: ROI is now a verb :\ |
|
|
|
It's built into the fundamentals of Bitcoin that once it attains a value, that value can only go up.
You'll need to define what you mean by "value" here, because Bitcoin has attained a value in the past that is much higher than its current value. The fundamentals regard the technical aspects of the coin, not the human element, which is responsible for the price action. Of course there are and always will be external elements. Market manipulation, hysteria and mania, technical glitches, trading bots etc. But the law of mathematics backing Bitcoin is that, when something has a value and is deflationary, that value cannot but go up. So as long as Bitcoin is used, it will have a value and that value, fundamentally speaking, can only increase in time. As like the value of fiat money that is inflationary, fundamentally speaking, can only decrease in time No, this is wrong on so many levels. There is *nothing* about a deflationary currency that says anything about what its value will be or how it is determined. Instead, people ascribe value to things. When you talk about the value of something, you need to ask the question, "To whom is it valuable?" Bitcoins are traded in an auction-style market. Bitcoins are only valuable to its users and indirectly to non-users who are impacted financially by BTC users, or more simply put, bitcoins are valuable to those who believe they are valuable. All it takes is for people to believe they aren't valuable or to stop buying and using them altogether for them to become worthless. You can have inflation in a deflationary-currency market (like we have right now with BTC). You can also have deflation in an inflated fiat currency market. In neither scenario is there any information that tells us how to calculate or predict the value of a currency. It's axiomatic that if you take away the people that ascribe value to BTC then BTC would have no value. Value comes from those who subjectively ascribe it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
