Cryptopia needs to give it up. This random new zealand exchange was fine back when altcoin exchanges were almost non-existent, but now there is so much competition they need to do better or exit the business.

Take your business elsewhere to a decentralized exchange or somewhere that has rock solid security.

We've basically hit economic equilibrium. People keep mining as long as there is a profit, and stop when there isn't.

So with electricity costs most people are coming out at roughly zero. But I don't really sell what I mine anyway, so I don't pay too much attention to day to day profits. My thinking is even if mining is marginal, I have the equipment so I should use it.

Great work, is the website link you provided on 'history of bitcoin' a website you host too?

You could make it ongoing with a new thread 2014 to present.

I can second this. Use this motherboard with adapters and have had no problems.

It also seems to be available in most countries. Some of the more crypto specific motherboards have limited stock or require international shipping. The Z270-P is a lot more common.

Ah I see if you are in the USA then yes your wall socket is rated for 110 volts (usually).

In most other countries it is 220 to 240, so your fuse is probably correctly blowing because you're overloading it if you have a nine card rig.

Most people hate bitcoin because they don't understand it, and think it is 'fake digital money'.

I remember reading similar stories when the internet first started. People and the media would ask why is it needed if everyone has a phone? Why send email when you can call or write a letter?

The opportunities of blockchain will probably only be fully appreciated after the fact when adoption, dapps etc are more widely used and more advanced.

Edit: Changed to 'most' people as noted below so I don't lump bitcointalk users in the same bucket

Hmmm I feel like there would need to be a strong reason to do this. Adding crypto to tesla vehicles just cause its cool wouldnt lead anywhere.

Maybe you could hook up charging stations to the blockchain and pay for charging automatically with crypto? Or if you share data with tesla from your vehicle they give you discounts for their other services and this is all automised through blockchain? Few different ideas.

$25 of XLM but you need to give all your details through KYC to be eligible? I'll pass.

Here is a better tip. Download the Brave browser, get an initial grant of about $20 in BAT, and tip your favorite site or that of a friend who is building their online presence. No Kyc needed to get the grant but note it needs to be tipped before it can be sold.

Ha maybe if it was 2017 and you could actually do an ICO.

I unfortunately don't (currently) have the technical know-how to launch my own blockchain, and would rather avoid doing a clone copy-paste coin of something that is already out there. I would want to deliver a blockchain that is unique and solves a specific issue, or a token with real world application. So until I have a good idea and want to see it through, I'll stick to supporting all the other great projects out there

Month 2
Week Number: 1
Spreadsheet Telegram number: 8
Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1115736

Posts:
1. (23/04): https://t.me/WPPEnergy/61192
2. (23/04): https://t.me/jsetelegram/57687
3. (23/04): https://t.me/CoinLion_Official/82235
4. (24/04): https://t.me/arkratos_group/17319
5. (25/04): https://t.me/icowatchdog/72301
6. (26/04): https://t.me/icowatchdog/72322
7. (26/04): https://t.me/icowatchdog/72326

You don't necessarily need to cash out and convert your crypto to fiat.

If the main reason you're cashing out is because you're worried crypto prices could crash then a quality stablecoin (not USDT) can serve the same function.

Many exchanges are now providing their own stablecoins that are fully auditable so you can cash out then back in when prices drop fairly easily.

So.…. we're blaming diversity and immigrants for America's problems?


You're just proving my point. Like I said, there are zero developed countries that have anything like the US health system of private companies running the show on healthcare (and you're suggesting we need more of that). The US is an outlier. My proof that more Government involvement would be better for healthcare is literally EVERY other OECD nation. Yours for less is... what exactly? A feeling that the US health system is bad, and it must be the Government's fault? Some general ideological positions that you're trying to apply to the health system?

If you have any health literature to support your opinion, such as OECD data, studies, anything at all that shows why less Government involvement in the US system would be a net benefit, I'd love to read it.


I'm not sure what OECD health system in the world you are applying this too. Also the US taxpayer is already spending the same amount as other countries. The taxes for healthcare are the same as other countries, but then also get smacked with high private fees.

And the 'middle men' you mention of insurance agencies, banks, and lawyers is the problem I agree. You cut them out of the equation or reduce their role substantially - like other countries already do that have a cheaper and better system.


This thinking is why US gets nowhere on healthcare. You're taking an issue that has common sense answers (based on the experience of, well, the rest of the world) and put some idealistic free market competition dream over the top of it because it feels right deep down inside. Again, no other developed country lets the 'free market' determine if you die from a health issue or if it will make you broke.

Just to bring it down to a practical level of how this free market consumer choice health system actually works in the US -

Pretend you're unexpectedly seriously sick and need surgery. You need to be operated on within 24 hours or your chance of dying within a couple of weeks will go from 10% to 40%.  

In the US after your overpriced insurance (if you have it), your doctor still says you'll need to pay $10k in additional fees, but it could go up to $30k depending on whatever reasons they have.  

Your doctor is the expert, and you have a life or death health emergency. You're stressed and you think you can only just pay the bill.

It's at this point you want the uninformed potentially dying patient (or 'consumer') to start shopping around to see if they can find a cheaper/better life saving procedure at another clinic? Its at this point you want the person to check that they can't get the $30k procedure for $27k a couple cities away? Its at this point you want the person to question their doctor (who has your life in their hands) whether that extra $1k payment on the bill isn't over the top?

This isn't buying a TV trying to get the best deal in the free market. You just want to not die. But no, the 'market is cutthroat' and we can trust the market, doctors and big pharma to be reasonable players in a fair market that acts in your interest? please. Social policy issues should not be bystanders to free markets.

Just for a reference point - you know what happens in my country in the above example? I get treated and pay nothing except my taxes for healthcare (which are the same as what taxes the US pays on healthcare).


Here you are giving up. You are essentially saying that even if the health system would be better served by more Government involvement, it isn't directly permitted in the Constitution, so meh better not go there. I don't think you should see it like that as I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't have a concept of how the world would be today, and weren't thinking about the 21st century health care needs of the country. I would also find it unlikely they would support the current control of private companies over citizens.

You raised a few other points, which were mainly anti-government or establishment. I'm not trying to diminish those views and how they operate in other non-health (or social policy) fields, but for simplicity and to keep the points about healthcare, I'm looking at those as ideology pushing out evidence. Every other country does better than the US on healthcare. If the US wants to take the issue seriously, the bar is so low that they have plenty of nations to turn to for examples of what could work in the US.

Well one thing about stablecoins, you might not make any money - but you'll never lose any money either

Unless its USDT, then maybe you will when the house of cards crumbles...

If you're concerned about Binance becoming too powerful, take your business elsewhere. There are over 200 exchanges (according to CMC) and I'm sure a number of them would love it if people did more trading with them.

Binance is getting too big, but that's because we are letting it happen. Support their competitors with trading volume and create a more competitive marketplace.

What miners have you used and do you think are the best for ravencoin for Nvidia? I see you have t-rex miner, but how do the others perform?

I've tried t-rex but haven't individually tried many others, so interested in what others have seen.

Totally. Any OECD health data shows the same trends and health spending issues with the US, but apparently to many the answer for the US is to do more of the things (ie. privatizing healthcare) that make them an outlier in health spending, instead of doing more of the things that would make them more like the rest of the world!

I used to do policy development work in this space (not in the US though) and was always bemused by the US system, and the language and apparent unwillingness of many in the US to let the Government get more involved in healthcare. From an outsider looking in it always ended up a name calling match with shouts of 'socialist healthcare!' that don't actually mean anything in practice. It's a real shame and people's health outcomes and money keep going to waste.

So let me get this right. You're saying that because the US Government is in the pocket of private interest groups, that the answer is to do what they want by the Government doing even less, as because if they did more they would be so meek and powerless against these groups that their legislation would end up helping them?

That makes no sense. There is a difference between implementation issues and policy issues. What you are describing is an implementation issue whereby Government efforts get railroaded by private interest groups who hold too much influence in the US political system. An implementation issue doesn't mean that a policy idea or funding model is conceptually bad. It doesn't mean the idea of Government having a greater role in how healthcare is provided and funded in the US is a poor model. It is a good model as that is what happens in pretty much every other developed country, which again, have better, more efficient and less costly health systems.

If the US Government is so weak that they can't legislate to put the health needs for their citizens ahead of the profits of private companies, then that says a lot about the country.

I noticed that when I had multiple appliances on (heater, oven, computer, mining rig, tv etc) then the fuse would sometimes trip.

My guess is that your system is overloaded. Does it happen at the same time? For example, in the afternoon when you're home using appliances? That would be a pretty good indicator.

I live in an apartment, so the bad/cheap fuse situation is probably common for your typical inner city apartment. If you rent, you could get your landlord to arrange an electrician to come check it out - that's what I did, they replaced it and now everything is working fine.

I'm enjoying this discussion and I get where your head is at, but in this case more Government power and regulation is the answer.

I know this is bitcointalk and there is a tendency to lean towards being anti-centralization, and to have concerns about Government overreach. But there is virtually no evidence that the health system in the US would be better if there was less Government involvement. I can say that, because every other OECD country doing better than the US on healthcare has much more Government involvement.

If you're suggesting less Government involvement, then by default there would be more private company sway and freedom for doctors to treat and prescribe medicines as they wish, with essentially no Government body of oversight that can represent the consumer/citizen who needs healthcare. This is an issue. The power imbalance and information asymmetry between doctor and patient is massive, and there needs to be protections in place for a consumer to not get ripped off, receive poor treatment, or get given drugs they don't need.

As an example, those big pharma ads in the US about 'ask your doctor about how xyz drug can help you today' are criminal in other countries, because Government made the call that profits do not determine health treatment. Doctors are also not allowed to get kick backs from pharma companies for over prescribing their drugs. If you want health needs to come first, the answer is not less regulation and Government involvement, but more.

To put in perspective - none, and I mean none, of the OECD countries have a model anywhere close to the current US model which clearly suffers from private company profits prioritising consumer needs. The US should look to other OECD countries who are absolutely dominating the US system on providing a more affordable, efficient and a better health system. Many (not all) OECD countries do not even have a private insurance or private treatment component - it is all publicly and centrally funded, so Government can achieve economies of scale, set fair subsidy rates for drugs and work with the medical profession to subsidy treatments based on evidence (not on where doctors get kick backs from big pharma).

IMO this very US idea that 'Government should stay out of my life' just doesn't work when we are talking about healthcare. You want the Government accountable to meeting the health needs of the population, just like you want them accountable for national security, education and public infrastructure.

Even IF you wanted to take the argument of right vs 'commodity', it is still irrelevant to judging how broken the US health system is and its expenditure. You don't need to make a philosophical or political argument to show it.

As an example, if you look here you'll see that the US Government spends the same as most other countries on health (public funding through taxes), but your private expenses (that is, your out-of-pocket costs when you see the doctor) are TRIPLE that of comparable countries.

So the taxes spent by US Government on health are the same as other countries, but you're still charged triple in private expenses. It's pathetic. In reality, even the whole 'oh I don't want to pay more taxes for healthcare' argument doesn't fly. Other countries pay pretty much the same in taxes for health purposes but don't get slugged with excessive private fees.

But reforms still don't happen as the US hyper capitalist mentality apparently even extends to people dying in hospital. I mean, really?

On top that, people jump to assumptions that it can be explained away by a philosophical argument of 'socialist healthcare' (its not socialist, but I'll put that to the side) not being right for the US. And that the US is making a choice of paying less tax = higher private costs vs paying more tax = less private costs. Well, clearly not actually - the amount of US tax revenue going to healthcare is the same as other OECD countries not less - the US health funding model just lets doctors, specialists, hospitals and big pharma get a nice pay day literally at your expense.