|
I haven't taken a look at the source code, going by Pedro Magalhães assessment:
Blockchain's meant to be utilized as a trustless system IMO but all Brazil's done here is centralize the system with this alleged protocol. Under no circumstances should coins be burned from addresses nor should they be frozen. Assume it'll be abused by the government to compel compliance from their constituency and assume they'll try and market this as a cryptocurrency adjacent by throwing around the word "blockchain"
|
|
|
|
Inflation is really biting hard, and nobody is doing anything about it, should we all just go with what Tupac said, "that's just the way it is, things will never be the same".
A lot of person's have ascribed this global inflation to the crisis Rocking Ukraine and Russia, a lot of person's have also said it's as a result of shortage of gas supply across Europe and other countries.
The whole story is not just clear, as to why inflation is biting so hard and IMF AND WORLD BANK are not doing anything about it and the people are just left to face their fate alone.
The prices of goods and services are constantly going astronomical high and there is no hope insight of this ugly situation coming to a halt.
What do you expect them to do? IMF can't control how countries recklessly print their own currency. Ukrainian war is partly responsible, so is the COVID era spending. Don't rely on fiat currency for long term savings. The central banks target inflation to be 2% yearly at best. If you spend fiat immediately, the effects are mitigated. Long term savings over 30-40 years mean your fiat will lose over half its value. Again, that's at 2% -- most currencies inflate at a higher rate. |
|
|
|
Access to education and free/fair markets are what's required to sustain an economy on a fundamental level. Government corruption usually affects the latter. African countries are overpopulated relative to their GDP which accentuates poverty. Given the lack of education, there's no economic activity. India had problems with this too, but they were able to grow their economy to overcome their population growth by educating their population and having a capitalistic economy with emphasis of free enterprise. Population reduction (not overpopulation) is catastrophic: https://apnews.com/article/japan-birth-rate-record-low-population-aging-ade0c8a5bb52442f4365db1597530ee4 Japan will eventually run out of healthy young workers to subsidize the older and retired workers. You need population growth in order for an economy to survive, just not overpopulation of an educated populace. |
|
|
|
People who never experinced nuke war what they should know?
Anyone speaking from experience would be dead. Your basement will do nothing and absent of a self sustainable bunker in the Swiss mountains, your chances of survival will not be high. Even if you're not any where near the blast radius, supply chains will be disrupted, water supplies contaminated, and no food. Nukes would be utterly destabilizing and survival would be luck of the draw with the hope your own country wouldn't be targeted. |
|
|
|
The frogs are indeed turning gay, study: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909519107Testosterone in healthy males is decreasing with each generation. If not for estrogen causing chemicals like atrazine and others, I speculate it's microplastics causing hormonal imbalances. Herbicides in the water supply can be dealt with by agriculture regulations. Microplastics are more difficult to mitigate. It may or may not make you gay, but it will cause infertility. Consider reverse osmosis water filtration systems to remove some of the toxicants. |
|
|
|
|
I only play evolutions table games and haven't had a bad experience. Bad luck is part of the game. Evolution's the gold standard for live dealers IMO. I stay away from side bets, free bet and lighting variations. All of these games raise the house edge. Stick to classic for maximum RTP.
|
|
|
|
Public beef or fights involving billionaires, celebrities, or even top companies often puts them into the spotlight, attracting attention and generating increased traffic, hence, more income. My question arises as to whether you think some or most of these conflicts are genuine or intentionally crafted/orchestrated by the parties involved to maintain their prominence and financial gains.
Also, could this be considered as a strategic element of their business or career strategy? And If so, is this a good strategy?
Short answer is yes. All PR is good PR, and PR firms will manufacture certain narratives. I'd also note that this applies to Bitcoin as well. In my opinion, the politically motivated groups and perhaps others specifically manufactured false narratives against Bitcoin starting some number of years ago in order to spread propaganda when Bitcoin was on the cusp of becoming mainstream. Perhaps they paid some media groups to feud with crypto for sake of creating uncertainty but I don't believe it was organic. Think of how easy and cheap it is to manipulate the conversation just by using social media bots alone. |
|
|
|
Ray Epps, famous for telling people to charge into the Capitol building is claiming that he was notified by the DoJ he'll be charged: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/12/fox-news-sued-by-trump-supporter-ray-epps-over-jan-6-claims.htmlHe's suing Fox News for suggesting that he was a federal agent. The lawsuit is nonsense, they never suggested he was a federal agent, only that it was suspect a man telling people to storm the capitol was immune from persecution by the DoJ. If it's true that Epps is being charged now, why would the DoJ wait so long? Congrats Tucker Carlson on pressuring the DoJ to charge Ray Epps  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is never going to become the world's currency. Even if that was possible, governments wouldn't allow it for a variety of reasons that have been previously discussed at the forum. I'm generally against such bold statements, especially those that concern the extremely distant future, like the OP is mentioning, the years 2048 and 2109 respectively. Even the so-called prediction is so far off, with a range of over 50 years inbetween. Bitcoin isn't capable of solving worldwide issues, it doesn't grow on trees, you cannot create it from scratch, unless you're mining it, which requires expensive equipment and expertise that the average person doesn't have. Thus, it's unlikely, not to mention impossible, that an asset like Bitcoin can solve worldwide issues such as poverty, hunger, or the financial crisis.
Without getting into the philosophical debate about Bitcoin having inherent value or not, Bitcoin adoption was never supposed to be government endorsed nor was it ever suppose to solve the world's problems. Poverty, hunger, financial crises, etc. are all caused by government mismanagement, debatably. Currency isn't meant to solve these issues directly, it's medium for exchange. A country with access to open markets and education can spur up economic activity from nothing. Given that some degree of education can be obtained online, the portion that's missing is access to open markets. Bitcoin provides aide in that regard -- it allows for easy P2P commerce. |
|
|
|
39 billion is inconsequential to the U.S. economy considering how recklessly the U.S. government will spend trillions of dollars without thought, and subject them to exponential debt growth. Besides, they've sent Ukraine more than that in aid over the past year.
This is nothing more than a campaign tactic for Biden seeing as it's election time. The Supreme Court struck down his insane proposal of forgiving nearly 500B USD in student loans which would have allowed him to spend an unforeseen amount of money and circumvent Congressional oversight simultaneously. Not clear how he has the authority to forgive 39 billion -- assuming it's through executive action, all he did was essentially print 39 billion USD into the economy. Consider it an expensive campaign expenditure.
You do understand that money most likely stays in US and acting as a stimulus package and those people have now more to spend in US products, and that's indirectly driving economy up. And US has insanely big budget anyway and this is like fraction of a drop in a sea. From outside looking in their taxation doesn't make any sense. They really should tax the rich more for the system to be sustainable. I understand. As I mentioned, 39 billion isn't a lot of money. But if the U.S. President has the authority by executive action to cancel 39 billion in student debt, how does this conflict at all with SCOTUS striking down the 500 billion Biden tried to cancel earlier? The legal framework seems convoluted so I raise this as an issue because even if it's for a social/economic stimulus, the executive branch should not be in the business of printing money out of thin air. And by the way, I don't think stimulus packages are a good idea either. The entire idea involves the federal government issuing a loan out to itself on behalf of their constituency. The federal government can never default on their loan so it comes money creation without consequences. Under an economic system where new currency couldn't be minted, then stimulus packages might work. |
|
|
|
See Gov. Ron DeSantis speak about CBDC's: https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1679977084817661952I've seen that the public is largely ignorant about the threats CBDC's pose. DeSantis in his answer specifically points out that the U.S. congress can easily be circumvented through executive orders to develop framework surrounding CBDC's. You may think the matter must be adjudicated in the U.S. Congress, which is what the constitutional would generally call for, but there are ways the central banks can avoid this. Biden is explicitly for CBDC's, his administration has funded research into their development. He's explicitly anti-crypto, and his administration has worked diligently to ensure that crypto growth is curtailed through regulations, lawsuits, and taxes. Trump on the other hand is utterly lost when it comes to Bitcoin, referring to it as a "scam" because it competes against USD- https://decrypt.co/72939/bitcoin-seems-like-scam-former-us-president-donald-trump. If Trump were truly a conservative and a capitalist, he would have invited competition between currencies because it usually breeds the best products for the consumer. Unfortunately Trump was too cowardly to show up to today's summit. Had he shown up, we might have had a bit more insight onto his views of CBDC's. Anyways, I'm pleased with DeSantis's performance today, especially from a crypto perspective. He's down by a lot in polling and betting market. One can hope the tides will turn. |
|
|
|
The gambler priority was only to avenge his losses earlier, afterall he recorded gigantic losses, in my opinion the betting agent has no idea although he made faults because he knows the risks involved in gambling and still supports someone to gamble after witnessing the gambler losing steadily. They're both at fault, before gambling, atleast know the amount of losses you can take in and never to be too desperate to bet on games, do take time and mapped our good strategy, and if it doesn't go as plan, leave it, tomorrow is another opportunity to try again.
The fact that the betting agent have fucked up by allowing the gamblers to bet and play games on credit make it look as if the agent already have a forhand understanding with the gambler before that incidence for him to have allow the gambler to acumulate such debts trying to cash up with his loses which landed him into a bigger debt. So in a clear term of the are at fault aince one can not blame one and leaving out the other since it takes two to commit such crrime, but only the business owner will determine what becomes the ountcome6of both of them.since the agent already know that it will be hard for him to recover from such mistake of allowing the player to gamble on credit which is against the business policy of not credit no play or bets. Why is it the responsibility of the agent to manage a gambler's finances? If a bet is made on credit, who's to say that gambler doesn't have future capabilities of paying back the bet if he loses even if he doesn't have the funds to cover the wager immediately? Gamblers are responsible for their own wagers, period. I'm rather shocked at how many people think it's the agent's fault. You could argue it's immoral/unethical for agent/casinos to offer credit lines, fine. That doesn't make them at fault for issuing credit to a gambler who accepted credits on their own accord. |
|
|
|
Twitter starts to issue out payments to verified creators in ad revenue sharing model: https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-offer-ad-revenue-share-select-content-creators-2023-07-13/This is a big mistake IMO. Creates incentive by content creators to heighten interactions. Every verified content creator essentially becomes a paid actor/Twitter shill and decreases the quality of speech because the income correlates directly to the amount of impressions/engagement. Looking at the payments, looks like creators got some tens of thousands of dollars for their tweets. I've seen paid propaganda accounts that spread political disinformation get upwards of 25k for their garbage posting. Note this is different than pay-to-promote tweets. I don't have an issue with that. An ad sharing model on social media decreases quality across the board as every tweet essentially becomes an ad. |
|
|
|
|
39 billion is inconsequential to the U.S. economy considering how recklessly the U.S. government will spend trillions of dollars without thought, and subject them to exponential debt growth. Besides, they've sent Ukraine more than that in aid over the past year.
This is nothing more than a campaign tactic for Biden seeing as it's election time. The Supreme Court struck down his insane proposal of forgiving nearly 500B USD in student loans which would have allowed him to spend an unforeseen amount of money and circumvent Congressional oversight simultaneously. Not clear how he has the authority to forgive 39 billion -- assuming it's through executive action, all he did was essentially print 39 billion USD into the economy. Consider it an expensive campaign expenditure.
|
|
|
|
|
House and senate elections aren't too consequential because nearly every piece of legislation that makes its way through the U.S. congress is along party lines. And both political parties aren't too friendly to crypto anyways, so he'd be stifled by his own party. The executive branch has a lot of power appointing people to lead the government agencies and influence the central banks which have a greater impact on crypto, and the executive branch has only gotten more powerful over the last 20 years. Presidential elections are the only significant elections.
That being said, I would rather he win. Better than nothing.
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with the mBTC and BTC confusion in the beginning.
But I will echo the sentiments of the posters here as the OP has given Coinbase as an example. We all know that it is centralized exchange, so it could ask for KYC if you decided to buy on their platform or at least your info going to be exposed to them.
There could be other ways, like P2P that might be good for gamblers, in my opinion.
Perhaps he just needs to buy coins that will not be used for gambling on Coinbase and then send them to another wallet that provides exchange within the wallet, like Trust Wallet or some other multi-coin wallet. He can exchange the coins he buys from Coinbase once they arrive in the wallet for other coins he will use for gambling. After that, he can send it to his gambling account. Indeed, this method is a little confusing for beginners, but it can avoid suspicion from centralized exchanges if they find us sending coins that we buy from their exchange and send them to the casino. Cashapp does the same thing. They will ban accounts that send directly to crypto casinos. I haven't used any of these platforms in ages, but they won't just KYC you. They'll lock your account and give you a short time frame to withdraw any funds. If you're gambling using an exchange, always send to an intermediate wallet and then deposit. It may take a while, but eventually your accounts on these exchanges will get shutdown if not. Plus, sending out of exchanges might incur some delays in the transaction being created. The deposit address might expire creating unnecessary complications. |
|
|
|
If Elon Musk wants to regain the trust of the users then he will have to convince the users that Twitter is still the old Twitter and the ones who will be using the platform wont be affected in any way due to the recent announcements. Or he may directly declare that he has changed his plans related to changing of Twitter, and even with a simple statement like this the stock price of Twitter will gain a pump within days. But, if Elon continues to stick with his announcements and ideas then in future the stock price of Twitter will fall further down to unexpected levels.
In what way has Elon failed? By uncovering collusion with the U.S. government and Twitter executives to influence elections and allowing free speech on the platform? Elon hurt his own wallet by purchasing Twitter. Right now it isn't profitable. There's more trust by Twitter users than there ever was before because of the transparency that was nonexistent when partisan hacks ran the company. I've already seen Threads censors users. Assume that Zuckerberg and government bureaucrats will use the platform to data mine its users and breach user privacy. and even with a simple statement like this the stock price of Twitter will gain a pump within days. But, if Elon continues to stick with his announcements and ideas then in future the stock price of Twitter will fall further down to unexpected levels. Are you at all aware that Twitter is a private company now? |
|
|
|
I wouldn't put it past them. The only country to worry about in "BRICS" would be China. India's economy is not yet large enough and they're more democratized than the CCP. China's looking to form dependence on Yuan by other countries -- does it seem so wildly speculative that China predicts Bitcoin to be a future threat? Do not think short term -- think 10-20 years down the line. Could there reasonably be a world in which countries use decentralized currencies to conduct bilateral trades/transactions that would cause China some concern if their long term goal is Yuan dependence onto other countries?
I feel like whatever nations can do, they are allowed to it, not like anyone forces them to do anything. Lets assume that China is spending money and time on making other nations depend on them, if other nations don't fall for it, they can avoid it, but if other nations end up accepting that, then there is nothing we can do about it. For example, China is spending tens of billions of dollars to build amazing infrastructures, literally making the nation from scratch, its airports, roads, hospitals and so much more and in return they only want one thing; trade them using yuan and nothing else. They don't even meddle with us spending dollar in trading with others, they only want us to trade using yuan with them, if more then that's great but the only requirement is them. Is that a trick to make us depend on them? Surely, but they are at least giving something in return too, so far we have used dollars with everyone and USA offered absolutely nothing for it, so this is at least better. I'm not suggesting countries don't have a right to conduct business with other countries. Take Africa for example. African countries have been effected by imperialisms for ages so it's perfectly within their right for these to countries open up their markets to outside countries, and most recently they've formed partnerships with Chinese state run enterprises which is modernizing their infrastructure. It's also creating a dependency on China. African countries can determine whether the business partnerships and new infrastructure are worth it. I did read a story that suggested BRICS might try out gold back decentralized currencies to conduct transactions. In such case, it'd be better to use that instead of trading in USD given how unstable it's gotten. |
|
|
|
Chris Christie, Nikki Hailey, Vivek Ramaswamy are all playing the game that Joe Biden himself has played in the past. Run a campaign, never break out of 1-2% in the polls, and then endorse the "winning" candidate and in exchange for a cabinet position. This is how Joe Biden was able to get his Vice President spot in the 2008 election with Obama. So none of these people are serious. The democratic party, with Trump as their opponent, will not need to nominate someone else. That time has past. If the DNC was adamant about someone else, they would have made that clear earlier. I saw some platforms float around Gavin Newsom or Michelle Obama in the betting markets with astronomically slim odds. If the DNC wanted someone else, Newsom would've been their pick IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
