A lot of these issues could probably be fixed by making jobs actually seem more attractive to workers they want them to be filled by.

The data used here is also likely based off a lot of estimation work too.

Southern European wages seem very low compared to North Western Europe (I only just rerealised this a few weeks back). It's something else that should be worked on by those countries to ensure they can educate up well enough their current cohort of students and maybe find ways to connect qualified individuals and pair them up with businesses to train them further and bring them up to the same level of skills as should've been taught in school (if it wasn't).

With the chips they normally produce, Intel seem to focus on making faster processing speeds by increasing the sizes of their instruction sets to handle more advanced operations (I think they support more hashing operations being run directly off the cpu in one instruction for example).


They also need their mining to be profitible enough to pay back their investment which might make them not want to invest as much on it because of that.

They might be looking at getting in it also now as technology has stopped improving miner chip wise afaik - there might be new things to come out but it might be easy enough for Intel to already buy patents of current chips and try to improve them (or buy companies already producing them - like they did with GPUs).

That looks like a very fast rollout if it's going to cover the whole of the US within a few weeks.

They opened bitcoin trading/custody in Europe a few months ago too I think so there could be a move to allowing that there too in the next few months.

It'd be interesting to find out if this is being done because crypto is seen as a strong competitor or if it's being done to try to profit off hype (might be both).

Can Intel make efficient chipsets - I don't think that's actually really ever been their focus.

You mention it'll effect small mining operations and newcomers too, it likely won't effect the older chip makers for a while as there's seem to be quite efficient and small too (so it might be hard for the likes of Intel to directly compete with them).

Bitfury stopped selling chips for a few years and nothing much seemed to happen there that made them seem like they were too powerful over other miners (I think they initially had quite. A big % of mining share too - around the size of antpool and f2pool at the time).

This is already being done in a lot of places where crypto prices are displayed. It's done on exchanges and some live price checkers (not sure about cmc and sites like that though).

---

I think time is going to prove itself again as being one of the best price amplifiers (providing crypto remains strong and secure).

I don't think a bot will get you a win overall on most websites. I've seen some be used to rank up accounts, increase rewards (more efficiently than a human might) and to implement different strategies. I think the strategies argument will lose all the time unless it's a strategy game (such as poker - but the house will still have its edge too).

I'm wondering if they mention green electricity in the bill specifically. A lot of domestic power firms in the UK offer you green tarrifs on a £5/month additional cost, if the same thing happens over in the US then that might be a way to get around this. If that's an option, the bill probably won't do much.

I think the fact that Europe, Africa and Asia are three different continents but have bridges between them (and a lot of land for Europe and Asia) is quite strange but Europe likely set the boundaries of each we know themselves (hence why no one really placed Russia in a continent afaik).

Cooperation between other countries only becomes problematic for one if they refuse to join or demand more than they're worth. I could see that happening but I could also see it changing quite a bit too - governments in the west don't hold power for long.

I think the main thing blocking a lot of compliance between Europe and Asia is the uncertainty and lack of democracy in China and a few neighbouring countries. It didn't take long for a lot of economic cooperation to occur between Europe and Japan after ww2 and both had assets/power shared more evenly among the population.

Most do that. Some take out numbers and replace them with a site name (ie refer/bitcointalk4) but I doubt that's a requirement.

It's not unless op is the owner of the site or the post has been agreed with/come from them afaik (this is just how I've seen the policy be enforced in the past).

Sometimes links look like referral links but are used to determine where traffic is coming from by a site owner (which is what this could actually be).

I think you need to be a member now to be able to post URLs.

Otherwise it'll just be:

You will probably invest in both anyway by default as funds must be kept out of investments or in liquid and stable investments (eg savings accounts) to be used in emergencies..

Aside from that, if you diversify your risky assets enough you might be able to make better returns than stabler ones but I'd not advocate for putting a majority into crypto and taking risks for the sake of it also won't pay off (they have to have already grown and become notable - eg there are companies in the S&P500 that haven't grown much or at all in value in quite a while or often wipe out their profits.

The risks when using software wallets are risks to your device. If you're careful and not many people use your network or you have good security settings (eg on your router) then you should be safe running electrum - hardware and airgapped wallets are still safer though.

Electrum is fairly safe though if you're not handling large amounts and you're also not downloading anything that could be potentially malicious (espefialkt from places like ads).

The target tries to maintain there being anew block every 10 minutes. People who've actually done the maths say its between 8 or 9 minutes.

There are a few things faced here:
1. Block finding is based off random numbers and the target can be easy or hard to get (essentially, a miner that mins a block in 1-2 minutes just got lucky with their random number generator for the nonce).
2. Hash rate mostly increases as doesn't decrease much, every block mined when the previous target was set was set on an average of that - this will add to that as well as miners might also time when to turn new devices on to be nearer the time the target gets reset so they can get a higher reward/more blocks.

The "nonce" is the random number stored in the coinbase transaction to change the block hash. If you mean the block hash (the thing that's targeted to be below a certain number) then that'll change: when a new transaction is added; when a transaction is removed; or when transactions are moved inside the block.

The mining software takes transactions from the mempool of the node running and organises them (they normally prioritise higher fees but could also prioritise their own transactions too ahead of that). Transactions are immediately minable once they're sent to the node and some mining software may shuffle round transactions anyway for finding the solution for the next block.

Antivirus is generally good for spotting old threats. Stuff that's been well reported and around for a while is picked up quite well by antivirus. They also have simplistic models of ai for detecting new threats (such as using heuristics to try to work out what a program does/functions to see if it's malicious).

They'll likely either take a while to spot innovative threats or they'll overclean your pc (and they'll also find ways to do both of those things too at once).

If you're doing something you don't trust, it'd be better practice to use a VM as a secure VM won't be able to interact with your main system unless you allow it to.

No it isn't.

If you're buying from an ICO, you're probably guaranteed to lose money (there's times when you might not but its the most likely thing to happen - a dev team normally doesn't want to advertise and bring more people in after the ico unless they're really behind the project (and this'll be hard to determine) because they don't need it to rise anymore, they've made some money of it already and often want that to be the most they could make.

---

You can check liquidity and volumes on a lot of dexes for tokens on ethereum (uniswap will have data and there are also token tracking websites). Coinmarketcap and similar sites also should show you the tokens volume (but it might not be as trustworthy unless from a major exchange).

Most of the exchanges have to deal with centralised payment organisations (such as visa, mastercard and banks) if you accept cash and don't kyc (wherever you are) you're at a higher risk of being scammed by a chargeback or by something being counterfeited/faked.

There are peer to peer and decentralised options for loading and unloading funds but they're not as trusted because of the higher risks involved (eg bisq only allowing small cash conversions to attempt to mitigate scams).

Even though they're backed by centralised exchanges, stablecoins might be the best alternative to trying to buy crypto without kyc (after mixing funds bought on a kyc exchange in some way or using a proxy).

I'd have found it more interesting if you listed which users are still active here (but since you did it all by hand I'm not sure that's as worthwhile).

No one could've become a legendary member in that time afaik (unless they were a newbie for a while and then suddenly got merits).

100 and 500 merits are actually a lot, those 3 users since then would've had to average 1 merit a day to get to hero already.


A lot of people interested in the technology probably linger here as a guest too (and maybe make a thread when they find something interesting - and potentially a new account with it) so I think that'd be hard to track.

It'd have to be done on a by case basis. You might be better off using fiat for everything (especially repayments - because what if they become unaffordable - that's a disincentive to pay back)



Like every other lease:
The lender/leaser needs to be able to own the asset and confirm their ownership.
The borrower/renter needs to be able to have almost full control of the asset throughout the lease (eg do everything but sell it).


I think most of these could apply to both centralised systems and decentralised smart contracts. In both cases there may be ways to amend what was previously agreed upon if a new agreement is made.

Trust and reputation for a lot of places can be gamed. Someone could take out small leases and constantly make them bigger (while filling them themselves) and waiting for a time they can make a larger one attractive to someone else to try to scam them out of the asset/time (eg social engineering).