As my observations, some of the banks are bankrupt without any valid reason, without making some announcements and they are not trusted. People deposited in a bank in a way that their money is safe there, they think that they are trusted but they actually dont know that they are wrong. Some banks their is like a bubble it disappear and well sorry for your money, it will all gone and never came back. But there are some banks also that are big, famous and trusted one, so choose the best one
I don't know of any country that doesn't charter banks as a means of regulation. And in modern industrialized nations, bank deposits are usually insured by the government so that there is public confidence in the banks. When a bank goes under, deposits that are lost are reimbursed to the public so they do not suffer the loss. But if you're going to some unregulated or unchartered bank, there will obviously be no deposit guarantee because the bank is operating illegally anyway. Depsositor beware? Unfortunately, banks only cover up to a certain amount of what you have in your account as deposit insurance, so if you plan on putting all your money in a bank, better to choose something that has a very stable financial standing. In my country, rural banks are always the ones who are more prone to declare bank holiday because maybe of their client base, which mostly belong from the rural areas, and which doesn't always have the means to payback what they owe to the bank. True, hence you need to make actions to divide your savings. In my country, insurance on deposit per account covers an equivalent of only up to $10,000, thus, we have to limit our deposits per account. If fact, in my case, I have to deposit with different banks just to make sure I'll stay in the safe side. I have worked in a bank before and it was closed by the government due to non compliance of the law, and too bad there are people who deposited more than the maximum amount covered and they only recover up to the insured amount. That's pretty rough. $10,000 isn't that much for the government to insure. In the US prior to 20078, the FDIC guarantee was $25,000 per account. After the financial crisis, the FDIC increased the gaurantee to $100,000 per account to keep confidence with the banks and prevent bank runs. |
|
|
|
Not just capital or skill, but capital AND skill. Also, simply converting USD into btc would not be passive income. There's no income there, it's simply a conversion of value from one medium to another, in this case fiat dollars to bitcoin. Even if the value goes up, that's not an income, because it hasn't returned anything to you, it's simply the appreciated in value. Capital appreciation isn't income. An easy way to tell if something is an income or an appreciation is whether or not you have to sell the asset to realize the gain. For example, you buy bitcoins and the price of bitcoins goes up- you then have to sell your bitcoins in order to realize (lock in) the gain. If you have to sell to realize the gain, it's not an income I tend to disagree with this approach But you may indeed totally discard my disagreement (I don't mind), but you can't possibly discard what most governments think on this. And they basically think along the same lines as I do. That is, they think that capital gains (which you refer to here) are legitimately taxable and consider taxation of these gains as an income tax. Thereby, you have no other choice but to admit that capital gains are income by any means. And what's more, it may well count as a passive income at that since the price of an asset changes without any activity on your part I was imprecise. As I wrote my statement, I would agree with your disagreement. We were talking about passive income, and my statement should have said that if you have to sell the asset to realize the gain, it's not a passive income. Capital gains and capital appreciation are income. Just not passive income since there is no income stream, it's a lump value conditioned upon selling the asset, and appreciation is not guaranteed at the time of sale In fact, I understood that you likely referred to a passive income But I still disagree with your stance on this matter. If you put your money in a bank and the bank pays you interest on this money, will it count as a passive income? I guess it certainly will. But let's assume that you can't spend money online and have to go to the bank office to withdraw your money with interest accrued. Does it change anything? I guess no, though you have to make some steps to get your money and income earned back. It is basically the same with an asset appreciation. The point is that you don't have to do anything for it to appreciate since it appreciates on its own. Indeed, you can claim that it is basically a form of prolonged trading ("buy low, sell high"), but what if you use a trading bot which does all the gory stuff for you and you just withdraw profits? Yes, it would be passive income as you surmised. For the bank example, it is different from capital appreciation because 1) there is a set rate of return that is guaranteed (the interest rate is known beforehand) whereas capital appreciation is not guaranteed, and 2) the gain/payment is recurring and pays on top of the asset, whereas capital appreciation is a one-time gain that only occurs when you dispose of or otherwise re-monetize the asset. For capital appreciation, the whole point that disqualifies it from being a passive income is that, even if it's appreciating, you cannot realize the gain without disposing of the asset. Passive isn't the determining word in "passive income"; income is more important, because capital appreciation can indeed (perhaps necessarily) be a passive gain as you have pointed out Your points are in fact highly debatable First, the interest being guaranteed is not actually important for a very simple reason, e.g. if you are a public officer you are more or less guaranteed as well to get paid once or twice a month. Does it make it a passive income? Obviously, it doesn't. In this manner, the fact that your payment (or interest) is guaranteed cannot be considered as a sufficient condition for a passive income. On the other hand, if you own some stocks and expect dividends to be paid every year, this without doubt would count as a passive income. But you are in no case guaranteed to be paid a fixed amount or just be paid anything at all at the end of the day. Second, you don't have to sell all your assets that appreciated since you can just sell only a part of them keeping their total nominal value at the same level (i.e. at which you acquired them). As to me, the profits thus booked could well pass as interest If you own a property that you rent out, you earn a passive income on it (the recurring rent payments), but you can also earn a capital gain on it if the value of the property appreciates. But that capital appreciation is not an income because the value gained is trapped in the investment until you monetize it by either mortgaging it to take advantage of the appreciation, or selling it to monetize the gain. Same for a security that pays a dividend: the dividend is a recurring income stream that you earn simply for owning the asset, but any appreciation of the stock is tied to the ownership of the stock and cannot be realized until the stock is sold. I do consider the recurring nature and non-ability to monetize without disposing an investment to be the most important aspect as to whether something is a "passive income" or not.
See the dividend example above What do you mean by a public officer? It sounds like a paid post. It wouldn't be passive income if it's related to a duty. It's also not an investment, so maybe I'm missing how it's relevant. Gauranteed rate is the less important of the aspects anyway. If you have to dispose of the investment to realize the gain, it wasn't an income. A passive income is a stream of payments that does not diminish the investment stake. Dividends are paid in cash or stock. In both cases, they are a payment on top of the investment. The gain doesn't come from disposing of the asset, in this is it markedly different from a capital appreciation gain which is only realized upon diminishing the initial investment. If you are paid dividends in stock, you can sell those shares without diminishing the initial investment stake. You can't do that with a capital gain. The only way to monetize a capital gain is to diminish the initial stake. |
|
|
|
The American frackers don't have the flexibility which Saudi Arabia and Russia enjoys. Their rigs are located in complicated terrain, and it takes some time to either start, or to shut down the pumping of crude oil. Finding the labor force is another hassle. If they pump crude oil at full speed now, then the oil prices will crash and their revenues will take a hit. Yes and no. The US frackers are preparing for trumps US oil independence. Of course they wont be able to compete with the sauds, russia or iran except in the case trump will enact a tariff for importing oil - which he said he will. Slapping an import tax on foreign oil is going to anger a lot of Americans. It isn't going to make American oil more competitive by magically reducing the cost of it. It's going to drive up the cost of oil domestically because we'll be using more domestic oil which costs more to produce. That cost will go straight to consumers. It's not a practical solution, and if he tries t he's going to find it politically untenable. |
|
|
|
Furthermore, the cars are not plug-in hybrids, all electricity generation comes from regenerative braking.
What is regenerative braking? Never heard of this term before. If the electricity is generated while driving itself, then the need for an invertor is eliminated. Also, a cheaper battery will do the trick, instead of an expensive one made out of Lithium and Cobalt. Regenerative braking uses the kinetic energy from the car to charge the battery. When you're not accelerating, the car uses the momentum already established to charge the batteries through a generator that's attached to the wheels (I believe). The end result is the car doesn't need to be plugged in. The result is the car slows down a bit faster when idling to a stop, nothing overly dramatic, but it's a far more efficient use of that energy, which in normal cars is jut wasted. |
|
|
|
>>However, since he's completely free do add any valid transaction to his block, he can also add transactions with lower fees because of "reasons". It might not be wise, since he's missing out on the biggest fees, >>hence, losing money.
i am stuck with a 2btc txn for over 72hours. zero confirmations. 57sat/B fee.
maybe unlucky or the network is simply under too much pressure, but its one of my first spendings and i feel bad as a user.
I hope a miner can help. dont know what elese to do. i will never use low fees again, but i doubt that a network design, which allows such big backlog is able to process/scale in future well.
maybe the core developer will try harder to achieve a better transaction/sec processing.
(ps: contacted 2 miner here per personal message, maybe they can)
Don't forget the viabtc txaccelerator  It's not because the network can't handle processing more transactions/second. The reason why there is a backlog is because there is only 1 1Mb block every ~10minutes.A transaction has a physical size (in bytes), so only a limited amount of transactions fit into a single block. If more transactions are broadcasted than there is space in the blocks, there is a backlog... It can also happen that the miners don't fill the blocks completely. There are already a couple of proposed/implemented sollutions, but none of the sollutions has sufficient community support to be used. Isn't it essentially because the the network can't handle more transactions per second though? If the blockchain could could handle block sizes beyond 1 MB, it would increase the amount of transactions per second that are esseially confirmed. This seems like two sides of the same coin to me, (i.e. the block size is the REASON the network can't handle more transactions per second.) |
|
|
|
So a string of questions now because I don't exactly understand how nodes work.
So are nodes or miners responsible for determining what transactions get into a block? Are miners selectively taking tranx from a mempool, or are they randomly taking tranx from a mempool? (And if there is not only one mempool, but a separate mempool by every node, do all miners have access to all nodes to pull from?) What determines what tranx go to which nodes? Will a transaction be in more than one node's mempool at a time?
Lastly, do node operators receive fees for running a node? Otherwise, what does it matter to them to set a certain threshold for fees/byte to include to get into their mempool?
Don't worry, a lot of members are always happy to answer questions... Everybody needs to learn, i learn new things about BTC every day,for example, i try to read the post history of achow101 and DannyHamilton to learn new things. About your questions: A node is basically somebody running a client that downloaded the full blockchain. A node is connected to other nodes and clients. When a miner finds a new block, he sends it to the people he's connected to (the nodes). A node then usually relies the block to his own connections, thus spreading and storing the information over the network. A node usually verifies if block is correct and rejects it if it's not. Blocks are sequential, so every node needs to download the blocks from his peers in a sequential manner. He has to have all the blocks in the correct order, if not he is unable to verify the latest block. About transactions: When you create a transaction, you broadcast it to the people you're connected to. They either accept the transaction or they reject it. When they accept the transaction, they usually send it to their peers. Now, unlike blocks, transactions are not sequential. They do not carry a timestamp. A node is not forced to accept all transactions, he's free to build up his own mempool of transactions any way he wishes. An unconfirmed transaction is just stored in the memory of a subset of the nodes, as long as it's not included in a block, there is no certainty it will ever become part of the blockchain. That's why you should never trust 0-confirmation transactions. A node also has an UTXO set. This is a database containing all unspent outputs. A transaction can only use these outputs to use as an input. If a transaction uses inputs that are not in the UTXO, it is normally rejected, but a node can also reject transactions because the fee is insufficient, because he doesn't like you, because he has a bad hair day,... If a new block is found and verified by a node, this node now removes the outputs that were used as inputs for the transactions in the valid block from his UTXO set. A miner does the same thing: he has a client installed that builds up a mempool of unconfirmed transactions and an UTXO set. Since a miner is allowed to keep the difference between the sum of the values of the inputs, and the sum of the values of the outputs for all transactions in the block he's working as a fee in case he solves the block, it is wise of him to fill the block he's currently working on with transactions with the highest fee (in satoshi's/byte). However, since he's completely free do add any valid transaction to his block, he can also add transactions with lower fees because of "reasons". It might not be wise, since he's missing out on the biggest fees, hence, losing money. The "reasons" for adding transactions with lower fees could be: out of the goodness of his heart, because he got payed to do so, because it was a high priority transaction, because he doesn't care,... Now for your last question: there used to be a private initiative to pay node operators, but i was to late to enter  In reality, you get nothing for running a node, exept the feeling that you're supporting the network by verifying the blocks and transactions, and by sharing the information to everybody you're connected to. For business owners, it might also be usefull to run your own node, since the reference client usually used to run a node has a full feature set of coin controll options, statistics,... And you're directly connected to a lot of peers, so it's a fast way to broadcast blocks or transactions. So then nodes are not broadcasting to miners (or miners are not pulling tranx from the nodes directly)? Miners and nodes pull tranx independent of each other? Or is it miner's get to choose which tranx they pull from the node by sorting by largest fee/kb? Also, do all inputs have the same size in bytes? I have to assume this isn't true because I was playing around with my online wallet and I have one address with 29 unspent inputs and one with 21 unspent inputs, and the recommended fee to send the full balance from each address did not compute to the same cost/input, which means either inputs have different sizes in bytes, or the wallet is not consistently calculating the same fee on a sat/byte ratio. So what determines the size of an input in bytes? (I assume it might have something to do with how many inputs each of the inputs had when you trace it up the line, but if this is true, at what point do old inputs stop figuring into your current unspent input? Essentially, how do those old inputs get pruned off?) Thanks for the answers by the way. |
|
|
|
And second, what is the goal of a spam attack? What is gained by the attacker?
My favourite conspiracy theory is that it's some miner(s) who flood the network with transactions, forcing legitimate users to increase their fees in their normal transactions. This works because the miner can just collect his own fees back. (of course only on the blocks they mine) It also explains the hold up on scaling solutions. Scaling solutions break their scam. No proof, just fun speculation. This doesn't seem cost effective unless fees stay elevated way longer than the flooding attack lasts. There's no way to break even on it during the attack unless you mine every block, so the only way for it to make fiscal sense is if the fees stay elevated long enough after the stack for you to recoup your original cost, which is likely in the millions of dollars. Seems like a pretty big gamble. |
|
|
|
21 bitcoin fees shows that the fee for a quick transaction is 180 sats per B, while yours only has a 60 sats per B , fee. Which wallet are you using? Based on the wallet, you could try double-spending it or wait for it to be dropped out the network , effectively 'returning' your BTCs. If you're using an online wallet like blockchain.info, will an unconfirmed transaction that drops out of the mempool show as 'returned' or able to send again, or do online wallets like that just continue to broadcast the original transaction in vain? (And what is the mechanism for being able to tell if the transaction is no longer in the mempool?) As for knowing when a tx is no longer in the mempool: you must understand there is no single mempool. Each node has it's own mempool. A node running bitcoin core with the default settings has a mempool of maximum 300Mb, and has a setting to drop unconfirmed transactions after 3 days. Personally, my node has a maximum size of 600Mb, and it drops unconfirmed transactions after 4 days (i edited my settings because to many tx's were being dropped due to the spam attack, or whatever is happening lately). Also, when a node restarts, their mempool is empty, and a node can, for example, deny a tx in their mempool for any reason they want. There is a configuration parameter to deny tx's that don't have a fee over x satoshi's (0 satoshi's is the default, but i can imagine that some nodes use this parameter to deny low fee tx's) So a string of questions now because I don't exactly understand how nodes work. So are nodes or miners responsible for determining what transactions get into a block? Are miners selectively taking tranx from a mempool, or are they randomly taking tranx from a mempool? (And if there is not only one mempool, but a separate mempool by every node, do all miners have access to all nodes to pull from?) What determines what tranx go to which nodes? Will a transaction be in more than one node's mempool at a time? Lastly, do node operators receive fees for running a node? Otherwise, what does it matter to them to set a certain threshold for fees/byte to include to get into their mempool? |
|
|
|
the only thing you can do is to pay higher fees for the time being until this spam attack on the network is resolved otherwise you are just going to be stuck on thousands of transactions that are paying more than you.
How do spam attacks work? I'm assuming that a spam attack is a bunch of dust transactions with little or no fee, otherwise trying to contest the network with volume would be prohibitevly expensive. If that is the case, why do spam attacks work, because wouldn't the miners not select any of those transactions from the mr pool because they have a very low or absent transaction fee? (Or have I erred in my assumptions?) And second, what is the goal of a spam attack? What is gained by the attacker? |
|
|
|
21 bitcoin fees shows that the fee for a quick transaction is 180 sats per B, while yours only has a 60 sats per B , fee. Which wallet are you using? Based on the wallet, you could try double-spending it or wait for it to be dropped out the network , effectively 'returning' your BTCs. If you're using an online wallet like blockchain.info, will an unconfirmed transaction that drops out of the mempool show as 'returned' or able to send again, or do online wallets like that just continue to broadcast the original transaction in vain? (And what is the mechanism for being able to tell if the transaction is no longer in the mempool?) |
|
|
|
First rule of causality: if two things happen in close proximity, they MUST be related and there are absolutely no other possible explanations. So Wetsuit, why'd you get him banned?  |
|
|
|
|
A study published yesterday in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology showed that fracking caused 6648 spills over the last ten years in four states alone. Researches found that up to 16% of fracking wells could be leaking hydrocarbons or the chemically saturated water used to frack. Roughly 50% of spills were linked to storage and moving fluids through pipelines.
First, this seems incredibly high. Much higher than I would have anticipated. Second, this has implications where Trump has promised to remove restrictions and regulations on facking. With a track record like this, I wonder if less restrictions and regulations is really a prudent move for the environment.
|
|
|
|
I've had a hybrid car since 2006. The battery system is indeed expensive to replace. Eight years was about how long my car went before the battery system (it is comprised of 100 lithium ion battery cells) was no longer holding a charge for very long and was relying almost solely on the gasoline engine for acceleration. The manufacturer (Honda) replaced the battery cells without charge though since they had determined that the software that controlled the battery system was not configured properly and caused the batteries to be maintained in a sub-optimal way, which cut the battery life short. Because the batteries were under recall due to this, they replaced them all at no charge. So while I got lucky there, it does also suggest that the batteries (in this hybrid at least) are intended to last longer than 8 years. Perhaps with a pure electric cars, they are not projected to last as long because there is so much more charging and discharging of the battery.
I am not sure about this, but I have heard that Tesla is recommending replacement of the battery for Model S, every eight years. But then, Tesla is also subsidizing the replacement. It seems to me that hybrid cars is a dead end. With the price of batteries even for use in the city, these cars will be too expensive. I think that the situation will not change until not come up with a new type of engine which will be cheap to produce electricity. Hybrid cars are the most easily and readily available way to reduce oil consumption related to transportation. Unlike pure electric cars, hybrid cars are not significantly more expensive (e.g. Honda's hybrid models are a couple thousand dollars more than the same model that is not hybrid), and the added cost is easily recouped in saved gasoline expense within 2-3 years of owning the car (less time for heavy driving.) Furthermore, the cars are not plug-in hybrids, all electricity generation comes from regenerative braking. |
|
|
|
It is said that bitcoin will destroy the fiat system but i believe that if this happens the world will change completly because banks and a lot of things will go out of market.
Well we don't really know if bitcoin can really destroy the Fiat system, But if it does then everyone would surely use it because it is the only money that can be used . You all are thinking too far now if you see till now I think only 3-6% of the world population are actually aware of bitcoins and maybe 1-2% have invested in it. There is a very less probability that everyone in the world is ever going to be aware of bitcoin. And using it as a day to day currency can be a disaster as the price would be stable so it is gonna badly affecr us all. I think the best thing is to let it remain like an investment platform. I think you're estimating way high. 1-2% invested in bitcoin would by 70-140 million people (based on a world population of 7 billion people). If there were actually that many people who were invested in bitcoin, there wouldn't be nearly enough bitcoins to be going around, and the price would therefore be far, far higher than it is currently (sitting around $1000). I also view numbers that high to be pretty unrealistic. Bitcoin is serving quite a niche function currently, and I don't see nearly that many people every finding a use for it. |
|
|
|
for passive income, I prefer to look into trading or investment advice. however, it's all I do if I just needed the money. for the moment, I do not have any passive income, because maybe I was busy with personal affairs in the real world.
Passive income isn't only come from online. if you have a lot of money you can rent some properties such as house or real estate. If you wants passive income in form of bitcoin, just convert fiat ( from renting properties ) into bitcoin. It seems apropriate for you because you didn't have time to do trading. I think to own passive income we need big capital or skill. Not just capital or skill, but capital AND skill. Also, simply converting USD into btc would not be passive income. There's no income there, it's simply a conversion of value from one medium to another, in this case fiat dollars to bitcoin. Even if the value goes up, that's not an income, because it hasn't returned anything to you, it's simply the appreciated in value. Capital appreciation isn't income. An easy way to tell if something is an income or an appreciation is whether or not you have to sell the asset to realize the gain. For example, you buy bitcoins and the price of bitcoins goes up- you then have to sell your bitcoins in order to realize (lock in) the gain. If you have to sell to realize the gain, it's not an incomeI tend to disagree with this approach But you may indeed totally discard my disagreement (I don't mind), but you can't possibly discard what most governments think on this. And they basically think along the same lines as I do. That is, they think that capital gains (which you refer to here) are legitimately taxable and consider taxation of these gains as an income tax. Thereby, you have no other choice but to admit that capital gains are income by any means. And what's more, it may well count as a passive income at that since the price of an asset changes without any activity on your part I was imprecise. As I wrote my statement, I would agree with your disagreement. We were talking about passive income, and my statement should have said that if you have to sell the asset to realize the gain, it's not a passive income. Capital gains and capital appreciation are income. Just not passive income since there is no income stream, it's a lump value conditioned upon selling the asset, and appreciation is not guaranteed at the time of sale In fact, I understood that you likely referred to a passive income But I still disagree with your stance on this matter. If you put your money in a bank and the bank pays you interest on this money, will it count as a passive income? I guess it certainly will. But let's assume that you can't spend money online and have to go to the bank office to withdraw your money with interest accrued. Does it change anything? I guess no, though you have to make some steps to get your money and income earned back. It is basically the same with an asset appreciation. The point is that you don't have to do anything for it to appreciate since it appreciates on its own. Indeed, you can claim that it is basically a form of prolonged trading ("buy low, sell high"), but what if you use a trading bot which does all the gory stuff for you and you just withdraw profits? Yes, it would be passive income as you surmised. For the bank example, it is different from capital appreciation because 1) there is a set rate of return that is guaranteed (the interest rate is known beforehand) whereas capital appreciation is not guaranteed, and 2) the gain/payment is recurring and pays on top of the asset, whereas capital appreciation is a one-time gain that only occurs when you dispose of or otherwise re-monetize the asset. For capital appreciation, the whole point that disqualifies it from being a passive income is that, even if it's appreciating, you cannot realize the gain without disposing of the asset. Passive isn't the determining word in "passive income"; income is more important, because capital appreciation can indeed (perhaps necessarily) be a passive gain as you have pointed out. If you own a property that you rent out, you earn a passive income on it (the recurring rent payments), but you can also earn a capital gain on it if the value of the property appreciates. But that capital appreciation is not an income because the value gained is trapped in the investment until you monetize it by either mortgaging it to take advantage of the appreciation, or selling it to monetize the gain. Same for a security that pays a dividend: the dividend is a recurring income stream that you earn simply for owning the asset, but any appreciation of the stock is tied to the ownership of the stock and cannot be realized until the stock is sold. I do consider the recurring nature and non-ability to monetize without disposing an investment to be the most important aspect as to whether something is a "passive income" or not. |
|
|
|
I agree that for transportation, there is a long way to go before fossil fuels are displaced as the dominant source of energy. But the cars are already affordable, it's just production scale that's lacking. The Tesla Model 3 is beginning production (this week I believe), and Chevy has the Bolt, which is similarly priced in the $35,000 range and has a slightly better range. As for batteries, Tesla has the Giga Factory which is currently only operating at a fraction of capacity. When it is at 100% capacity, that single factory will be producing more lithium ion batteries than the rest of the world combined. They built that factory because they forecast that demand. The question is how quickly the demand will materialize.
$35,000 for the Model 3 is still a bit high for me. But I have heard that there are additional expenses as well. For the Model S, the battery needs to be replaced every seven or eight years, and this is going to cost you a fortune. Eight years is not a very short duration. But when your Tesla Model S 70 costs around $80,000, you may be expecting it to last at least ten years. I've had a hybrid car since 2006. The battery system is indeed expensive to replace. Eight years was about how long my car went before the battery system (it is comprised of 100 lithium ion battery cells) was no longer holding a charge for very long and was relying almost solely on the gasoline engine for acceleration. The manufacturer (Honda) replaced the battery cells without charge though since they had determined that the software that controlled the battery system was not configured properly and caused the batteries to be maintained in a sub-optimal way, which cut the battery life short. Because the batteries were under recall due to this, they replaced them all at no charge. So while I got lucky there, it does also suggest that the batteries (in this hybrid at least) are intended to last longer than 8 years. Perhaps with a pure electric cars, they are not projected to last as long because there is so much more charging and discharging of the battery. |
|
|
|
Congratulations to LosDeXibalbaMC for joining the exclusive club of getting 200+ BTC in profit!  Is it accurate that this graph is showing a 7ish btc gain on a single game? If so, what was the stake that game, and what multiplier did he cash out at? No way I have the nerves to ride the timer for however long that took to earn, whether it was a long timer or a huge bet. I felt like a wild man the few times I let the timer get past 2.5x (but I'm also really risk averse). Bets like this intrigue me. Damn man. Basically a $1000 bet and letting it ride that long. Can't really imagine the nerves that would have taken. Told perhaps if he's used to betting that much at a time, you get desensitized to it after awhile, so maybe it's not quite what I imagine it to be. But when you're up that high on the multiplayer, you're basically sitting with a $1000 bet and looking at odds of about, what, 12ish percent success? The thing that always gets me is the opportunity cost of not cashing out. It's one thing to roll dice and say "I know going into this bet that I have a 10% chance of winning but the payout will be 10x if I hit. It's an immediate calculation. With this, you can have he same mindset going in, but then you watch the multiplayer pass 6x, 7x, 8x... and you're already in rare territory, and every second you choose not to cash out, you're re-risking what you could have already locked in as a gain. It's why I rarely make it past 2.5x. I just over think it. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you're unaware of how quickly renewable energy is growing in the United States. Renewable energy in 2015 already accounted for 13% of energy generation in the US. In addition, renewable energy capacity is now growing faster than all non-renewable capacity combined. In 2016, 63% of all generation capacity gains were from renewable resources, while 32% came from natural gas and 5% from nuclear. It'll take awhile for it to reach the tipping point where renewable accounts for more overall generation than all other sources, but this is a snowball rolling downhill. It will only continue to build momentum. There's already more than enough crude to get us to the finish line.
I agree that 13% is not a small share. But then, to replace the fossil fuels, we need to manufacture electric cars at affordable prices. Right now, they are out of reach for the vast majority of the Americans. And the future supply of Lithium and Cobalt is not that assured. I agree that for transportation, there is a long way to go before fossil fuels are displaced as the dominant source of energy. But the cars are already affordable, it's just production scale that's lacking. The Tesla Model 3 is beginning production (this week I believe), and Chevy has the Bolt, which is similarly priced in the $35,000 range and has a slightly better range. As for batteries, Tesla has the Giga Factory which is currently only operating at a fraction of capacity. When it is at 100% capacity, that single factory will be producing more lithium ion batteries than the rest of the world combined. They built that factory because they forecast that demand. The question is how quickly the demand will materializeSo the Tesla guys (Elon Musk, I guess) seem to be interested in oil prices surging If the prices hit the mark of 100 dollars per barrel again, the gas prices are certainly going to rise as well, and that might make electric cars (Tesla included) more competitive. Though I don't know about how much affordable they will become overall since folks may just choose to drive their regular cars less. On the other hand, electric cars are still pretty expensive, and those who buy them most likely don't care about either gasoline or electricity prices I have no doubt Musk would like high oil prices. It would definitely help demand for not only electric cars, but the other services and products Tesla offers. Gasoline usage is pretty inelastic. You can cut out discretionary usage but you can't cut out the need to drive to work, and required driving (at least in this country) far surpasses what Annie reduced. The cheapest electric car is more expensive than the cheapest gasoline powered car, but a not exactly insignificant amount, roughly 12-15 thousand dollars. I expect that gap will fall in the future, but never close fully. |
|
|
|
for passive income, I prefer to look into trading or investment advice. however, it's all I do if I just needed the money. for the moment, I do not have any passive income, because maybe I was busy with personal affairs in the real world.
Passive income isn't only come from online. if you have a lot of money you can rent some properties such as house or real estate. If you wants passive income in form of bitcoin, just convert fiat ( from renting properties ) into bitcoin. It seems apropriate for you because you didn't have time to do trading. I think to own passive income we need big capital or skill. Not just capital or skill, but capital AND skill. Also, simply converting USD into btc would not be passive income. There's no income there, it's simply a conversion of value from one medium to another, in this case fiat dollars to bitcoin. Even if the value goes up, that's not an income, because it hasn't returned anything to you, it's simply the appreciated in value. Capital appreciation isn't income. An easy way to tell if something is an income or an appreciation is whether or not you have to sell the asset to realize the gain. For example, you buy bitcoins and the price of bitcoins goes up- you then have to sell your bitcoins in order to realize (lock in) the gain. If you have to sell to realize the gain, it's not an incomeI tend to disagree with this approach But you may indeed totally discard my disagreement (I don't mind), but you can't possibly discard what most governments think on this. And they basically think along the same lines as I do. That is, they think that capital gains (which you refer to here) are legitimately taxable and consider taxation of these gains as an income tax. Thereby, you have no other choice but to admit that capital gains are income by any means. And what's more, it may well count as a passive income at that since the price of an asset changes without any activity on your part I was imprecise. As I wrote my statement, I would agree with your disagreement. We were talking about passive income, and my statement should have said that if you have to sell the asset to realize the gain, it's not a passive income. Capital gains and capital appreciation are income. Just not passive income since there is no income stream, it's a lump value conditioned upon selling the asset, and appreciation is not guaranteed at the time of sale. |
|
|
|
Nobody will pay 180$ for a barrel. Electric cars from Tesla and hybrid cars from the other companies are already being used by the masses. Soon, only the 3rd world countries will be using oil consuming cars.
The price is around 55$ because it's a sensible price. For now. It will go back to 20$ in a few years.
I don't see it getting back to being that low. It's still a phenomenally cheap energy source for the amount of energy it produces, and there are plenty of developing economies that will be looking to build their wealth by using oil just like the western world did since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Western wealth is built off oil. So even if demand drops in major industrialized nations, including the US, there will be ample demand from third world and other emerging economies, especially in Asia. I don't think it's in any oil producers interest to have oil as cheap as $20, so they're incentivized to cut production to support price. It's a wonder it took them so long to do it this time, but there are a lot of foreign policy implications at play, and they needed to feel the pain for awhile to bring them to their senses. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
