|
I've sold large lots of miners right here on this board. 25 S5s, and have conducted transactions here with other members in the 20-50BTC range.
Just proceed carefully, verify the buyer, use escrow, etc.
I've never had any problems, but I've always handled trades carefully with clear terms and only with other members I am comfortable doing business with.
Cheers!
Strato
|
|
|
|
I posted a topic here early this morning on the speculation of a rather odd alternative; but nearly zero risk of loss of value; with possible large upside gains. See if you find it interesting; as an alternative to Gold. As Gold will certainly not 5x or 10x your money in the next 10 years. Heres the Topichttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3168091.msg32761894#msg32761894Cheers! Strato |
|
|
|
Galileo Galilei once said, “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” Discovering truth about cryptocurrencies (cryptos) and showing that they are not money but faith based schemes that are bound to collapse, is the goal of this article. The first step toward achieving this goal is to explain why economic relations between people, where transfer of ownership rights is taking place, cannot be based on faith, and how, in that regard, cryptos differ from tangible goods and fiat money. After that, we will know what money actually is, and what it represents. Given this knowledge it will become clear why cryptos never were, nor ever will be money. The rest you can read here: https://cryptofraud.wordpress.com/Fiat Money? Less than 10% of "Money" in terms of what people "think" is there; has actually been printed or minted. Most modern economic systems are based on Fractional Reserve Banking where Money is as Fictitious and Non-Tangible as Bitcoin. You think when you get you're $500,000 mortgage loan from Bank of America, that $500,000 Check actually has the cash to back it? It's the same smoke and mirrors as cryptocurrencies. Cheers! Strato |
|
|
|
|
My highest returns have always been made on position building at the RIGHT time.
And LONG term outlook.
During the 2007 Great Recession. I bought up quite a bit of GE Stock when it bottomed out. I averaged in under $5.00 per share. Figuring - GE is going Nowhere. Light bulbs? Washing Machines? This Crash... will end.
And it did. And when it did, GE re-instated dividends, which they had suspended during the financial meltdown.
I have since my original buy in - auto reinvested ALL Dividends into additional GE Stock Purchases.
Right Now, GE pays out about $0.50 per year per share. So I'm earning 10% interest on my initial investment, and compounding that by buying more GE stock every 1/4 when dividends are paid out. The compounding effect of buying the original shares at $4.00, and now earning dividends based on the current share value; has been huge.
I think roughly the 10 year return has been about 7-8X.
I did the same with BP Oil during the Spill.
I did the same when BTC crashed to $600. And at $300. And was able to scoop up a chunk under $300 on that day it bottomed around $100 for a few seconds.
Then just wait. Hold.
My target price is $100,000 per BTC.
Perhaps I'll get out sooner... but I have no need to at this moment, so I'll wait. The next halving. BTC may hit $25,000, or $50,000.
If it hit $50,000 before 2025, I'd likely just cash out and then... I have no idea. Get an 8 car garage?
I honestly don't have an out figure, but even here, and now, I'd be deep in profit... But I'll wait this one out.
Cheers!
Strato
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone who invests in Altcoins wants to hit the next 5x or 10x coin.
But maybe, just maybe... you have quite a few laying between the seat cusions of your couch at this very moment.
Doing the math, it crossed my mind today that pennies; thats right (1 cent US Pennies), which were minted prior to 1983; may be a decent investment when compared to BTC.
I only bring the penny up; because many often weigh the investment potential of BTC to Gold or Silver.
Some Background:
In 2007; the US Congress Passed a Law banning the melting of in circulation US Coins. So, it's now illegal to destroy pennies...
Pennies minted prior to 1983 were made of a different alloy than 1984 and later minted coins due to fact that copper has been since then, in shorter and shorter supply, and the price of copper has such gone up.
It takes about 129 Pennies to Get 1 LB of Copper based on the 95% Alloy in the Pre 1983 Coins.
Copper is currently trading at roughly $3.19 per LB. It's seen highs above $4.00, but there is no question the world needs copper; and demand is strong, even with Canada discontinuing the CAD Penny in 2013. Copper is primarily used in electronics, wiring, construction, and basically all things electrical.
While the world is going fiber optic; copper will still be the go to choice for running electric lines and building homes and commercial spaces (wiring); for likely the next 100+ years.
You can easilly buy Bulk Penny Pre-1983 Bullion online (Easy to Find lots of 50,000, or 100,000 Penny Lots.) They have 10s or 100s of millions available ready to go.
NOW. I think we've all been asking why does the USA seriously still use the penny. As inflation continues; the penny will likely; within most of our lifetimes hear (and perhaps earlier than we think); discontinue the penny.
Discontinuing the Penny would thus allow the penny to be destroyed/melted. It would be considered no longer in circulation or used (most likely).
If copper in 10 years hits $7.00 a LB. Each $1.29 of Pennies would return $7.00 on the trade in value at your local county dump where they buy scrap metal by the pound.
It's possible that if the penny is discontinued; that in the next 20 years; we will see some sort of a copper run. Where, just like Gold is doing now; it surges. Perhaps to extreme highs, based on the industrialization of rural areas/countries, technology, etc.
Just an interesting though; or at least it seemed so to me.
If the timing hit right... and you had $25,000 in pennies just piled up in your basement (provided you have the space to store them); and then the US Penny is Discontinued, and sometime in the years after Copper surges, let's say to $10, you'd have $250,000.
The draw of this idea in theory is this: High Return Potential : Low Downside Risk. Worst case scenario. You just get your money back. The penny will only devalue at the rate of inflation; which is very low. It will always be worth a penny.
The upside, is if the timing works, you could 4x, 5x, 10x, or more your investment.
But you'd need the space, and not plan to move; because those penny bags... are heavy.
Cheers!
Strato
|
|
|
|
Some sure will do.
The question is quite the same, as "Do billionaires go to McDonald's?"
No they dont.  Strato |
|
|
|
Billionaires tend to be highly diversified in terms of where and how they hold their money; as economic cycles funnel funds from market sector to market sector over different intervals of time. We see this in real estate bubbles and recessions; stock bubbles and recessions, FOREX and currency exchange rates; commodities as well as futures and options on such. There's no doubt many, many, billionaires have "whatever" minute or even noticeably fr actionable portion of their overall net worth invested in Bitcoin. Billionaires who did not amass their wealth as a direct result of their own investment and financial strategies (such as entertainers; inheritance; single business IPO success) have financial teams; firms; and advisors who handle most of this, because well; a Billion Dollars is a lot to manage. And anyone with a Billion Dollars (I personally only know one who is a client / and another in the mid 9 figures so "almost there"); they are very, very busy with their endeavors. Their time is highly managed. Their money is highly managed. Their life is highly managed. I'd bet that most of the top 1% of the Top 1%; lets assume overall Net Worth $100,000,000 and up; who do have money invested in Bitcoin; don't even know about it. While there's no way to directly prove this assumption; however it is something I believe IS happening; and WILL continue to become a problem (likely problem that is); is that financial institutions(let's for the sake of this example call them Billionaires, which they are); have taken notice. So the Biggest Billionaire Players in Bitcoin are likely Institutional. The Big Banks in no way want to see any form of fully transparent peer to peer electronic payment system "Come To Be". Whether it be Bitcoin; or any other Blockchain based electronic currency where direct person to person payments are made possible. It isn't so much that Bitcoin is the threat to the banking system... it's the concept alone of what Satoshi Nakamoto outlined clearly in his Whitepaper. But the hard truth is that people, civilization, got by for 1000s upon 1000s of years without the use of what Big Banks offer us now in this day and age. The truth is all of their Selling Points: Buyer Protection; Extended Warranty on Purchases Made with your Black Card; Points; Double Points; Fraud Protection; If Someone Uses Your Card - You're Covered; Frequent Flyer Miles; Hotel Points; Cash Back Bonus Awards; --- All of THAT; is designed to make consumers "buy into" their giant Skim. I think in general; most financial transactions would continue to operate just fine; on a peer to peer basis. No middle man, no bank. You buy a car; you go and pay for the car. Any shady car dealer; or a dealer who isn't honest will quickly be out of business for reasons obvious. Good business practices will still prevail. REMOVE now the middle man. The BANK. The CREDIT CARD. FORGO the Points, or the Flyers Miles; or the Purchase Protection - You don't even really need... and that is where a "Bitcoin Type" Technology comes in to play; and plays HARD. The Banks use all these lures as mentioned above to make society believe we need them for "ALL" transactions. But that's hardly the truth. Peer to Peer transactions happen every day; - CASH. The linchpin is no widely adopted payment system has come to be to allow this form of commerce - cash/peer to peer/no "middle man" - via the internet, where most trade has gone to and will continue to do so. With that said; I think that most Billionaires who are buying up Bitcoin are the banks themselves. There are massive hedging opportunities at this point of Blockchain technology's life cycle. We are still at it's genesis. They are, and will continue to buy Bitcoin, because 50 Million, or 100 Million in BTC is nothing to a huge bank. And they can move those funds into an exchange that offers leveraged trading at 2:1 or 5:1 or 10:1, or even 100:1 and create chaos in the market; making Bitcoin seem unstable, dangerous, and unreliable - which it is at this state in time. You could sell something to someone for BTC and see a 20% price drop over night, and that's going to take a long time to work itself out. I personally think Bitcoin is a Buy. I said it was a buy at $300, at $600, at $1000, and I even told a friend I thought it was a Buy at $10,000 before it rose to $20,000. He said I was crazy. Maybe so. But if you have money you don't need to access here and now. Buying Bitcoin at today's price; and forgetting about it. Or setting an out price; like any smart investor would - that price (as long as it's reasonable) will likely be met. But you have to be willing to stomach the ride. Billionaires understand this. They can park 1M in BTC; and just forget about it. That's what you have to do. Because Bitcoin; IS a BUY at $8800. It very well may hit a low of 1/8th that, going under $1000 again. But I think anyone would be foolish to think it wont also see prices much higher. Specifically after the next halving. It will become more and more scarce. Wallets will be lost. Coins burned forever. Every transaction is public. There is zero counterfeiting. If I had a Billion Dollars; which I don't... I'd park a decent stake and just let it ride. It's got no where to go but up. LONG term. Cheers and Happy Saturday Folks! Strato |
|
|
|
|
3 Units Left - Price Drop - $250 Each + Shipping
Ready to Ship (Can Ship as early as Tomorrow - Monday)
Cheers!
Strato
|
|
|
|
Here is an earlier discussion similar to this one: Virtual currency, Cryptocurrency, how about "network currency"?Cryptocurrency seems like an appropriate name to me because the currency is based on cryptography. The problem with "digital currency" or "electronic currency" is that every modern currency is digital and electronic. Here is the earliest use of the term cryptocurrency that I could find on bitcointalk, in a post by satoshi, though I expect it was coined by the cypherpunks earlier and not here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.0Here is an earlier discussion similar to this one: Virtual currency, Cryptocurrency, how about "network currency"?Cryptocurrency seems like an appropriate name to me because the currency is based on cryptography. The problem with "digital currency" or "electronic currency" is that every modern currency is digital and electronic. Here is the earliest use of the term cryptocurrency that I could find on bitcointalk, in a post by satoshi, though I expect it was coined by the cypherpunks earlier and not here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.0Good find. I don't disagree that Cryptocurrency doesn't fit per se. I only think it's a bit "unmarketable". Try to think of any highly successful "Crypto" named products that went main stream... it just has dark undertones. But I do agree it is an accurate descriptor, just not advertisable. To add to your find... here is a link to a Wiki Page on the first instance of a digital cash proposal called eCash, - in 1986. 1986... Was the internet even around? Lol.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcashCheers! Strato |
|
|
|
Offtopic: I always thought hurricanes should have more frightening naming conventions standardized to encourage citizens to flee in the event of an emergency. Hurricanes typically have mild sounding names like "Hurricane Katrina" which make them sound like friendly and benevolent natural disasters. Perhaps naming conventions such as naming them "Hurricane Apopthis" or other ominous sounding names would encourage people to take them more seriously.
I agree that the term "crypto currency" is frightening to many. Crypto sounds like a math term which could involve numbers and thinking(scary!). Both are fairly frightening concepts to the general public which could make bitcoin and altcoins like negative sounding phenomenon.
Its too bad socialists and communists constantly use terms such as "the peoples army". It might be cool if bitcoin could be rebranded "the peoples currency" or something similar. Maybe we could call label bitcoin "The Money of Freedom" or a better term because I suck @ coming up with names. A better name might be a good idea. But finding something people can agree on that is intuitive and natural with without diluting the wonderful history of crypto. Its not such an easy think to accomplish I'm thinking.
I Vote we go with Nakamoto's original Naming Convention: An Electronic Payment System. I typically refer to it as a "Digital Currency" which I think is more marketable. Regardless Cryptocurrency is something the entire community I feel should start to shy away from. Perhaps reserving it for coins which are truly obfuscated in terms of their anonimity and tracability - coins like Monero. But Digital Currency, or Digital Coins... or as Nakamoto proposed, Electronic Payments and Electronic Coins; seem far better. I actually found this; which has been posted a few times a few years ago from what I can find.
In 1996; the NSA Published a Document called:"How to Make a Mint : The Cryptography of Anonamous Electronic Cash"I posted the PDF to my Google+ Page and the ABOVE is a direct link.
Interesting document. Cheers! Strato |
|
|
|
|
I realize I am very late to this discussion, and perhaps this has already been addressed...
While adult sites should have no reason not to implement Bitcoin as a payment protocol, I don't think it would boost sales in any way shape or form. People who want to buy an adult subscription can do so easilly with a credit/debit card. Or a pre-paid VISA, or AMEX.
The anonimity feature of Bitcoin; while not truly anonamous, isn't really a selling point. Anyone who wishes to not have an adult subscription or strange billing name show up on their credit card statement would find it far less of a hassle to pick up a pre-paid VISA the next time they are out, than to jump through all the hoops necessary to learn how; and buy; and spend Bitcoin; if they are not already familiar and a Bitcoin user.
That said; is why I don't think offering it as a payment option would really be a way capitalizing on possible increased revenue from Bitcoin sales.
People who have BTC these days; tend to hoard, or trade.
They do spend; theres no reason not to, especially if you are mining or have easy access to purchasing Bitcoin on spot rate through an exchange; but for the most part; people in general who do have BTC in their hands; would rather keep it; store it; or use it for trading purposes; than to spend it on an adult site.
Just my two cents, and sorry if this has already been mentioned.
Strato
|
|
|
|
It's far too late to drop the cryptocurrency moniker, the thing is even if it sounds nefarious it will either double down on that or make that natural thought disappear. Once something holds enough representation of a word we think of the product as the word or associate it with it. When bitcoin continues to be heard everyday it will slowly but surely change this preconception either for the good or for the bad.
I agree the term is stuck hand in hand with Bitcoin moving forward. I'm curious who coined the term. As the Nakamoto whitepaper never references it; and I don't think it had been used before Bitcoin generated it first block. Wondering if it was in fact the news agencies; who; are as mentioned in my posts, highly biased to the most negative degree, against anything good regarding Bitcoin. Strato |
|
|
|
Because the term "Cryptocurrency" certainly wasn't coined by Satoshi Nakamoto... Personally I was surprised. I had read the Bitcoin whitepaper before, and referred to it a number of times. But after I went back and looked. I was surprised the word "Cryptocurrency" is nowhere to be found in the whitepaper penned by the unknown Satoshi Nakamoto...
Maybe it's just me, but I feel there's a rather pejorative connotation about the term "Cryptocurrency". So much so in fact, that when I tell people about the work I do, my current development work and current coin project, or I bring up my involvement with blockchain technology, the mining operation I built and ran, the coding I do, and so forth; I nearly always refer to it as Blockchain Technology, or Digital Currency Technology.
I may be biased, [/i]coming from a background in marketing, advertising, and media development; but I think part of "Bitcoin's", mass adoption resistance dilemma-- as well as all other "Crypto-currencies", is the fact that the community and it's user base; refer to these coins, or tokens, as: 'Crypto-currencies'; or A 'Crypto-currency'.
To be matter of fact, I think it's easy to assume most of us here would like to see wider adoption of Bitcoin and other digital currencies. Wider adoption would increase demand, of a limited supply of coins. As demand increase, and supply limited, both coins in current circulation and the fact that only a limited and decaying number of coins will be generated moving forward; would cause the value to rise. It would be a simple supply vs demand outcome.
While I've been a believer in Bitcoin since I first got involved in this Wild Crypto West back in 2013; there were times I had my doubts Bitcoin would be able to hold it's ground. It received a tremendous amount of negative press, (and continues to take it's fair share), and the press was and still is nearly entirely biased against it's very existence- rarely reporting on all time highs, or achievements and milestones, rather, how "Crypto-currencies and Bitcoins" are the cause and source of funding for of all of the worlds problems.
Purchasing Drugs, Funding Terrorism, I need not go on never has involved cash of course, at least according to recent media reports. And so I wonder has the media has done any research as far as how much of an economic share of the overall trade volume, or currency exchange for the purchasing of illicit drugs, or engagement in other illegal activities is? This of course compared to say; the use of Cash. Or Bank Wire.
I doubt there are any accurate statistics. But I have a feeling the crypto-currency counterpart of sending money anonymously online to buy drugs or fund terrorism is a rather thin slice of the "purchasing illegal substances" pie. Or even moreso, funding terrorism, Because; let's face it- there aren't a whole lot of Bitcoin ATMs in the hills of Afghanistan where they can easilly convert those tokens to spendable cash.
Years ago the media slammed drugs themselves, and drug users, as supporting terrorist funding. That these radical groups were in fact cultivating drugs to raise money for their causes. And I am sure they were, and still are.
But all that aside. My point is; I believe that the word Crypto, simply has a negative inference that it carries along with it.
It simply sounds... nefarious.
If CryptoKnight was a Marvel Character he would certainly be a Villain would he not? One who hides in the shadows, and can move about undetected planning his next evil attack.
While not linguistically related; Crypto to me also sounds a bit burial... as in an underground cemetery hidden beneath a castle where bodies lie in wait. It sounds grim.
Now consider this; Bitcoin, along with it's unknown creator, or creators; Satoshi Nakamoto; never once uses the word "crypto-currency" in his Bitcoin Whitepaper, instead he details out this new payment method as a "Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System".
References to other Works at the end of the Document aside; the use of the term "crypto" appears only once; in the last paragraph of the first page:
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers
from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.
That single instance is the only time Nakamoto uses the word in an unrelated form.
Nakamoto reinforces that Bitcoin is an "Electronic Payment System". The Bitcoin itself is defined as an "Electronic Coin". Repeatedly he uses terms like "Electronic Payments", with payments being "Digitally Signed".
Even in Section 10: Privacy: Nakamoto never once uses the word term crypto in conjunction with another term or noun. He rather outlines his model for privacy in terms of Public Keys, Private Keys, a person's Identity, and Trusted Third Parties.
I think any marketing expert would likely agree that an "Electronic Payment System" or a "Digital Currency" is far more marketable, and likely would be more widely accepted. And more importantly the use of a less "secretive" term; would likely lead to an increased and faster adoption rate.
To the neophyte who knows nothing about blockchain technologies and what they could potentially offer the global economic system, or in fact reshape it for the better of society; 'Crypto' may sound a bit untrustworthy. As if it in and of itself, has something to hide.
And that is something most people don't want to admit to. That they have skeletons in the closet.
That they need to adopt, have, and utilize a payment system that offers anonymity. That they support it... because they need their activities, where they spend their money, and what they spend it on, to be forever hidden in the shadows of the crypto-graphic world. It would raise eyebrows... no doubt.
Perhaps it's time we start to think about how the word 'Crypto-currency' sounds, from a marketing and mass adoption standpoint; in comparison to what Nakamoto had himself originally proposed:
An Electronic Cash System.
Or perhaps A Digital Currency System.
Strato
3/1/2018
NOTE: I originally posted this in Economics (Sorry for the cross-post Mod's can remove it if need be). Really the wrong forum for this discussion, hopefully it sparks some discussion here.
|
|
|
|
|
It really depends on what type of trading you want to do.
Bittrex is a well established exchange that has a fairly large number of the highest traded Altcoin pairs. They require higher levels of verification than other offshore based exchanges, specifically for things like large BTC withdrawls and Margin Trading.
BitMex.com is probably the best exchange if you are looking to do highly leverage trades (or even modest ones); as they offer up to 100:1 Margin on BTC to USD trading. You can both long and short positions.
The others, Poloniex, Cryptopia, YoBit, they all serve a purpose in the market place. I have never had any issues with any of them. They also offer a larger selection of the lower volume or recently launched altcoins; which you won't find on Bittrex.
Strato
|
|
|
|
IQ is by no means a measure of talent and neither is wealth.
It is quite common in business and in science to use as measure things that are easy to measure. IQ accounts only for a little set of human abilities that are particularly easy to measure and that is where the trap lies.
One of the classics of the last decades, the book Emotional Intelligence by D. Goleman, shows that success in life and happiness are related to a wide variety of personal, interpersonal and social skills much more than with the IQ. We are simply measuring the wrong things.
This brings also another possibility: people with high IQ are not necessarily attracted to accumulate wealth, but find other ways of being happier in life.
Not sure that high IQ necessarily plays that big of a factor into the overall "chances" of becoming very wealthy. And IQ certainly has little to do with specific talents; as a person can be a virtuoso on the guitar but have perhaps only a normal (100-110) IQ, or even under. There's also which type of IQ test we're talking about; one that measures crystallized intelligence, or one that measures fluid intelligence. Some people may rate extremely high on a test which measures fluid intelligence, which deals more with problem solving and logic, but fail miserably on crystallized tests which deal more directly with vocabulary, mathematics, and so on. I would agree Emotional Intelligence plays a HUGE role in ones over all chance at simply being sucessful- as people with high emotional IQ's have a much greater ability to relate, influence, motivate, and attract other people. A sign of high Emotional IQ is how much time and effort and thought one puts into "crafting" their own image. People with high Emotional IQs; they worry very little about these types of things- and simply "are who they are". They have high levels of confidence of being themselves. A sign of low Emotional IQ would be a person who carefully crafts online social profiles, is highly selective over how they appear to other people, spends too much time trying to appear a certain way. Basically high levels of insecurity. Emotional IQ I'd say plays a larger role than most would think in terms of a person being able to "position" themselves where they can achieve their best. |
|
|
|
The problem is we usually tend to alienate these wealthy people, something like thinking they might be very talented, they might be very lucky. The truth is they are also human. They have struggles, they have their own coping strategy, etc. They might even react to certain situations like we usually did. They are indifferent from us. So, in other words, it's fair to say that luck plays a big role with their achievement. Now, since there's proof, I'm quite sure with my thoughts now. This is from the wealth perspective though. What about sense of fulfillment, happiness, success (no matter how you define it)? I think I will stick to my opinion that these can be achieved with right living, not just by luck.
We don't alienate them. They alienate or rather highly insulate themselves from ordinary people. They have no tolerance in general for the public, or every day individuals. If it's not for PR it is a waste of time. As someone who has done well for myself, I'm by no means "Rich" in terms of 100s of Millions of Dollars. But some of my clients are. Mid 9 Figures Levels. I can say after having spent a lot of time working with them one on one; traveling with them; spending days/nights with them in locations and working on projects; they are generally have little tolerance for wasting time dealing with ordinary people. This isn't to say that celebrities, high level executives, and high level government officials don't seem extremely friendly when they are in the situation where shaking hands, putting their other hand on your elbow or shoulder, leaning in, acting engaged, isn't something they do very well. But it is for the most part a role they play, and trust me they would rather be anywhere else. Like back on their yacht or on their horse farm with their family and other rich friends. They also don't so much alienate themselves; rather insulate themselves. I've been in the unique position because of the type of work I do where they can't hire my firm/me without really being directly engaged, because of the disconnect that would occur and how that would lead to me providing them with a compromised product/level of service. They understand that. But for most people they have to deal with; the truly wealthy insulate themselves with layers of management and assistance. I do this to some degree as well. I prefer to deal directly with my executive assistant on pretty much all matters both personal and business. And only get on the phone for the critical calls, attend meetings where my presence is necessary or with a client, because my time is better spent doing what I do.... such as posting to this forum But just to note, it's you, not them. (No insult or pun intended). You aren't alienating the super rich and talented people in the world; they just want nothing to do with common people (again not saying that's you); just in general. Cheers! Strato |
|
|
|
|
I think timing and place play a large part of the "chance" of success of any person or endeavor.
Take any rags to riches story; and displace that person's birth by even 10 years, and the rise to riches would have never been realized.
I launched a start up back in 2005. I launched in a city which had service providers which offered the "service industry" I was entering into; but not with the "angle or approach" which I took.
There was a lot of media and video content companies; but a huge void of creativity. The true creatives went west to Los Angeles or North to NYC.
So there was basically a lot of "terrible content" being produced here at that time.
I launched in with a very sleek new concept, solid branding, promoting our firm as the the leader in "Creative content that captures and inspires the imaginations of our customer's audiences". That sort of thing.
All my competitors offered "Video and Multimedia Services Since 1992". So it really was a "Blue Ocean", where I made my own market and took ownership of it.
Now in the years to follow; we put a lot of firms out of business, as we grew into a multi-million dollar firm with a full time staff of 20 and 10k sq feet of space.
By this point our competitors who were still in business were rapidly re-branding, following suit to what we were offering. And our competition, ended up getting tougher as more and more people simply advertised themselves the way we did.
- So regardless if you're talking about someone like Bill Gates, or Zuckerberg being displaced by 10 years; had I come to this city 10 years earlier (born earlier) or later; the opportunity likely would not have presented itself due to the market changes that happened between 2005 and 2015 (such as moving from SD to HD).
Sort of a microcosm example; but if you've got the talent; you have to do your absolute best; everything you can, to be ready, for when, and if the time comes- for your chance... and do everything you can to make that chance happen.
Cheers!
Strato
|
|
|
|
I may be biased, coming from a background in marketing, advertising, and media development; but I think part of "Bitcoin's", mass adoption resistance dilemma-- as well as all other "Crypto-currencies", is the fact that the community and it's user base; refer to these coins, or tokens, as: 'Crypto-currencies'; or A 'Crypto-currency'.
Even in Section 10: Privacy: Nakamoto never once uses the word term crypto in conjunction with another term or noun. He rather outlines his model for privacy in terms of Public Keys, Private Keys, a person's Identity, and Trusted Third Parties.
I think any marketing expert would likely agree that an "Electronic Payment System" or a "Digital Currency" is far more marketable, and likely would be more widely accepted. And more importantly the use of a less "secretive" term; would likely lead to an increased and faster adoption rate.
To the neophyte who knows nothing about blockchain technologies and what they could potentially offer the global economic system, or in fact reshape it for the better of society; 'Crypto' may sound a bit untrustworthy. As if it in and of itself, has something to hide.
And that is something most people don't want to admit to. That they have skeletons in the closet. Interesting and thought provoking post, merited.  The cute, lovable, huggable Linux penguin could provide contrast in terms of how crypto currencies could be rebranded and marketed differently to have a more friendly mascot and public image. The example of linux could also be evidence that even if everything about bitcoin were defined by a cute penguin mascot it wouldn't gain much marketshare or penetrate further into the public consciousness. Any move bitcoin or crypto currencies made could easily be drowned out by the media's claims of it being a safe haven for drug users, criminals, money launderers and terrorists. There may not be a high enough signal to noise ratio for bitcoin or crypto to have a voice of its own, or even an image of its own. Virtually everything people hear about them will be determined by the media and it will represent a lion's share of influence in terms of what public opinion on bitcoin and crypto currencies are. I completely agree. And the sad truth is that the media's negative bias is in large part influenced by the advertising dollars the major news networks generate from the Advertising Slots and Inserts which, just so happen to be be, in large part- financial institutions. Banks make up a huge portion of their overall advertising revenue. Specifically on the networks which cater to financial news, such as MSNBC, Bloomberg, and so on. The News are not about to alienate themselves from a revenue stream which likely pays for their entire operating costs alone- all other advertisers aside. The entire banking system is understandably 100% against Bitcoin; as the very intent of Bitcoin is to remove the man in the middle "Trusted Party" to offer people the "choice" for a Peer to Peer Electronic Payment System. PayPal, which handles enormous volume for Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover, along with all of the major Banks, which all offer Visa/MC Debit/Credit Card Options see no place for that in the marketplace. Which is why rather the news reporting agencies bias; which is highly negative; in many ways compromises the editorial integrity of the news networks themselves. The Integrity of their stories, is something they push heavily as a main component of their branding. Fair and Balanced, News You Can Trust, CNN, The Worlds Most Trusted News Network. Which is why; I can't recall ever seeing any real stories on Bitcoin's rise. The news completely ignored the surge, but covered the crash. They report on the fact that the Darknet Marketplaces; which likely constitute a minuscule amount of the overall global drug trade; is a haven for criminals using this new "CryptoCurrency". I'm curious... Who Even Coined the Term "CRYPTOCURRENCY". The Nakamoto Whitepaper doesn't use that term. He mentions only once that a cryptographic proof would be used in place of the trusted third party (to prevent double spending/counterfeiting). But somewhere along the line someone must have coined that term; as I doubt it was used prior to the Nakamoto Whitepaper; which clearly called the proof an "Electronic Payment System". |
|
|
|
Where did the word "Cryptocurrency" even come from? I may be biased, coming from a background in marketing, advertising, and media development; but I think part of "Bitcoin's", mass adoption resistance dilemma-- as well as all other "Crypto-currencies", is the fact that the community and it's user base; refer to these coins, or tokens, as: 'Crypto-currencies'; or A 'Crypto-currency'.
To be matter of fact, I think it's easy to assume most of us here would like to see wider adoption of Bitcoin and other digital currencies. Wider adoption would increase demand, of a limited supply of coins. As demand increase, and supply limited, both coins in current circulation and the fact that only a limited and decaying number of coins will be generated moving forward; would cause the value to rise. It would be a simple supply vs demand outcome.
While I've been a believer in Bitcoin since I first got involved in this Wild Crypto West back in 2013; there were times I had my doubts Bitcoin would be able to hold it's ground. It received a tremendous amount of negative press, (and continues to take it's fair share), and the press was and still is nearly entirely biased against it's very existence- rarely reporting on all time highs, or achievements and milestones, rather, how "Crypto-currencies and Bitcoins" are the cause and source of funding for of all of the worlds problems.
Purchasing Drugs, Funding Terrorism, I need not go on never has involved cash of course, at least according to recent media reports. And so I wonder has the media has done any research as far as how much of an economic share of the overall trade volume, or currency exchange for the purchasing of illicit drugs, or engagement in other illegal activities is? This of course compared to say; the use of Cash. Or Bank Wire.
I doubt there are any accurate statistics. But I have a feeling the crypto-currency counterpart of sending money anonymously online to buy drugs or fund terrorism is a rather thin slice of the "purchasing illegal substances" pie. Or even moreso, funding terrorism, Because; let's face it- there aren't a whole lot of Bitcoin ATMs in the hills of Afghanistan where they can easilly convert those tokens to spendable cash.
Years ago the media slammed drugs themselves, and drug users, as supporting terrorist funding. That these radical groups were in fact cultivating drugs to raise money for their causes. And I am sure they were, and still are.
But all that aside. My point is; I believe that the word Crypto, simply has a negative inference that it carries along with it.
It simply sounds... nefarious.
If CryptoKnight was a Marvel Character he would certainly be a Villain would he not? One who hides in the shadows, and can move about undetected planning his next evil attack.
While not linguistically related; Crypto to me also sounds a bit burial... as in an underground cemetery hidden beneath a castle where bodies lie in wait. It sounds grim.
Now consider this; Bitcoin, along with it's unknown creator, or creators; Satoshi Nakamoto; never once uses the word "crypto-currency" in his Bitcoin Whitepaper, instead he details out this new payment method as a "Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System".
References to other Works at the end of the Document aside; the use of the term "crypto" appears only once; in the last paragraph of the first page:
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers
from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.
That single instance is the only time Nakamoto uses the word in an unrelated form.
Nakamoto reinforces that Bitcoin is an "Electronic Payment System". The Bitcoin itself is defined as an "Electronic Coin". Repeatedly he uses terms like "Electronic Payments", with payments being "Digitally Signed".
Even in Section 10: Privacy: Nakamoto never once uses the word term crypto in conjunction with another term or noun. He rather outlines his model for privacy in terms of Public Keys, Private Keys, a person's Identity, and Trusted Third Parties.
I think any marketing expert would likely agree that an "Electronic Payment System" or a "Digital Currency" is far more marketable, and likely would be more widely accepted. And more importantly the use of a less "secretive" term; would likely lead to an increased and faster adoption rate.
To the neophyte who knows nothing about blockchain technologies and what they could potentially offer the global economic system, or in fact reshape it for the better of society; 'Crypto' may sound a bit untrustworthy. As if it in and of itself, has something to hide.
And that is something most people don't want to admit to. That they have skeletons in the closet.
That they need to adopt, have, and utilize a payment system that offers anonymity. That they support it... because they need their activities, where they spend their money, and what they spend it on, to be forever hidden in the shadows of the crypto-graphic world. It would raise eyebrows... no doubt.
Perhaps it's time we start to think about how the word 'Crypto-currency' sounds, from a marketing and mass adoption standpoint; in comparison to what Nakamoto had himself originally proposed:
An Electronic Cash System.
Or perhaps A Digital Currency System.
Strato
3/1/2018
|
|
|
|
Up for sale is my Cartier Roadster XL - Men's Watch. I am selling it because I'm simply downsizing "all the stuff I own", and watches are one of them.
It's a beautiful timepiece in excellent condition. I just had it fully polished at the Cartier Store here in my area. The watch is automatic (self winding) but I had the "reserve" battery replaced by Cartier about 3 years ago. This was a watch I have worn for years, both in suit's to galas and for an every day watch. It's a sharp looking timepiece, and I've gotten comments many times when out at parties or events on it.
VIEW ALL OF THE IMAGES IN HIGH RESOLUTION HERE ON MY FLICKR ALBUM: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmbwHdE9
Or see smaller versions below!
ITEM FEATURES
- Movement is perfect.
- Case is in excellent condition. Was just polished and the shine is almost like new.
- The crystal is perfect. Clean, no fogging, no scratches.
- Dial is perfect, as are hands. This watch has two timezones; see Photos for the 3rd Timezone Hand.
- Crown is in excellent condition; which sets the time for both zones as well as the Date.
- The reverse underside cap is slightly pitted. But it's the part that goes against your wrist/not seen.
- The seal is perfect. I have worn this watch in the Ocean on vacation. I wore it scuba diving in the Greek Isles. It's good to 100M however we only went down about 12-14M (40-50 Feet Down).
- This is a fantastic Every Day watch. It can be worn with a suit or tux, or with jeans and a T-Shirt (my style lol).
- I am including IN ADDITION to what is pictured (forgot to include it when I took them); a 2nd Wristband. It's Black Leather. It's in fantastic shape, less one minor scrape on the edge of one side. Hardly noticable. It's a modern leather band, with an almost "molded" look. Very clean and modern.
I will ship the item via USPS Priority Mail with Insurance and Signature Confirmation.
RETAIL on this exact model is roughly $5700.
Asking $2950 which after looking at used prices/ebay I feel is a very fair price for both selller and buyer.
For that price I will cover USA shipping insured via 2 Day.
Guaranteed you will love it. If you aren't 100% Satisfied you can return it for a refund.
Lastly, I don't have the extra links to the band - however I am 6'3, any my wrist is I'd say medium. I banded/sized it for a loose fit (so I can spin it all the way around) for a more casual look. I don't think it will be an issue unless you have a HUGE wrist. Likely, you will want to have a link or two taken out if you are skinny. Or want a more snug fit.
PM any questions and Cheers!
Strato
IMAGES - PLEASE WAIT FOR THEM TO LOAD    
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
