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 materialize. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 income. |
|
|
|
For now I don't have a passive income that I do since all involves risk. One of the less risky ways though that I know is via investing on gambling site's bankroll like what moneypot or crypto-games feature but it is still risky since if a player got lucky you lose some of your investment which is like playing a gamble passively. Also there's POS coins but there are big risk too since if it's price falls down, you won't get any roi at all.
Geez, that sounds like one of the most risky things you could be doing. 1) The investment is denominated in a high risk, speculative asset (btc) that is extremely volatile. 2) You're then investing in a business based on a promise by the business owner. You have no recourse if your funds vanish due to fraud or negligence by the site owner. 3) Bitcoin casinos are not regulated, and gambling as an industry is more seedy and disreputable than general businesses, so the risk of fraud is higher than owning stock in a casino company. So what may appear like a "low risk" investment is actually far more risky than investing in most other types of businesses, but because of the type of business and the method of the investment. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
It is not sure that bitcoin will be used by almost everyone in future ,according to my opinion this site is a hidden site from government for income which is govt.tax free so it may not be scattered as we expected.but probably it may be most useful site in future.
Well your opinion is wrong because this site is accessible to anyone. The government can browse this website whenever they want and they probably hired some people to check on this website any now and then for some news. It is not being scattered as we expected because our force right now is still very weak. It's very weak compared to websites like Facebook, and Instagram, which most people on the Internet uses on a daily basis. If only they are using this website instead and start learning about bitcoins, then bitcoins might be used by almost all Internet users in due time. All the internet is controlled by the governments, so don’t be surprised when you hear that the bitcoin is secretly being controlled by it, they say that bitcoin is decentralized and not controlled but that what they want you to think, but that is my idea, but still even if the bitcoin gets popular and everyone knows about it the third word countries still won’t use it, because some of them don’t have access to the internet. You'd have to have almost no understanding of how the system works to hold this belief. There are no centralized servers to control, all the computing power is made up by whoever decides to plug into the network. In order to control bitcoin, you'd have to control a majority (likely, far more than a majority to have reasonably certain control) of all the computing power in the network. Short of the government pointing every supercomputer it owned at the network (and perhaps not even then), that's just not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin, in contrast to the euro or others currencies has no legal price, that it. No one is required to accept it as payment. Today mainly
the sites about online games, sale of computer equipment and Internet services, such as the host of World Press blogs accept it and it is still just a fews.. But it fulfills the three economic functions of money: Unit of account, it allows to measure the values (prices in bitcoins, on). Some e-commerce sites ntermediate trade, it allows to set the transactions; store of value, it can be stored (on a digital portfolio hosted on a computer, a tablet or a smartphone) for a future purchase.
Store of value doesn't mean whether or not the medium can be stored, it means that the medium itself (bitcoin in this case) stores the value assigned to it. This is the test that bitcoin fails. Storing value necessitates price stability. If you look at all failing currencies, none of them were literally worthless, they all had some value, so they were technically a store of value. But they were useless as a currency because there was no price stability. Dead currencies suffered under rapid inflation. Bitcoin doesn't have a one-way only trajectory; it swings in both directions, but the price movements make it just as useless as a currency, because you can't be reasonably certain that the value you put into it today will be the same in a week, let alone for the long periods of time that are required to have financial security. |
|
|
|
I do love me a good chart. Couple questions though: Why does the profit start at a number above zero, but the amount wagered starts at zero? Does this chart reflect the beginning of bustabit operations, or just since you took over from the previous owner?
The chart is a bit confusing, but the red line is profit and it's axis is on the right hand side. So it actually is starting at zero, it's just not at the bottom because for a brief time the site profit was negative. And the blue line is the wagered, and its axis is on the left (so it also starts at zero. Ha. For someone who likes charts so much, I sure didn't spend enough time looking at the axes. I lazily only looked at the left axis and assumed both lines were on the same scale, which of course, doesn't make much sense for the amount of difference between the values. |
|
|
|
That's not the only way. The far better option is continuing to develop renewable energy so that nobody has to give a damn about oil anymore. There's no reason to drill in any protected area. We're not that hard up for oil. And once we're off it, or we've severely reduced our need, we can let the rest of the world wallow in in the misery of having a foreign policy designed around securing oil from the Middle East or elsewhere.
We've been trying to develop the renewable energy alternatives for the past many decades and there has been hardly any success. And I don't think that it will happen in the near future as well. So it is important to find other viable resources of crude oil. 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. |
|
|
|
USA is large enough to join OPEC if it wanted. Ideally no import of oil would be required, its possible but some work is required not just more production On the other hand, how good is natural gas for small passenger cars?
Wouldn't it require too much volume for the same distance compared to gasoline? The gas is liquefied. I own a car that works off camping gas, natural gas would burn as cleanly as a kitchen cooker pretty much. The fumes are mostly water. Yes it is less efficient then petrol in pure energy for weight however with technology it can be near equivalent. The reason for this is petrol is an unstable explosive gas as used by car engines but the cooking gas is very stable which allows the engine itself to use greater compression in each cylinder and gain more power. Not enough research has been done but I have no doubt USA should be using natural gas for its cars. Enough energy is available domestically to power every device and car in USA for 50 years with no oil used, every barrel can go abroad. Of course Im talking about alot of technology and conversion required there but if people wanted it could be done. USA would dominate in oil production with no need itself, right now USA is weak with trade deficits in many industries. I believe Saudi Arabia is increasing its use of solar power, which is a correct path for them to develop also https://t.co/uomvIqmDXJThere are some cars and light trucks that run on either CNG or LNG (compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas). They're not that common. First, people don't like to change, and using a natural gas vehicle makes some people uneasy. More importantly, the infrastructure is severely lacking for light vehicle refueling. Natural gas has far more potential for the heavy trucking industry. There is already some pretty significant infrastructure to service heavily trafficked portions of the country. A company called Clean Energy Fuels has been instrumental in building out and supplying what they call America's Natural Gas Highway, which is the corridor in the southeast of the country that is the biggest in commercial shipping. The company was co-founded by T. Boone Pickens, noted oilman who's been making large investments towards converting heavy trucking fleets to run on natural gas by helping build out the infrastructure necessary to support the transition. |
|
|
|
Since everyone loves charts as much as me, here's bustabit's historical wagered/profit chart:  I do love me a good chart. Couple questions though: Why does the profit start at a number above zero, but the amount wagered starts at zero? Does this chart reflect the beginning of bustabit operations, or just since you took over from the previous owner? |
|
|
|
Anyone know some passive income with a little secure?
i dont want lose my money
US Treasury bonds or savings bonds. They are safer than bank accounts (ostensibly), so the risk is as small as you can get while still investing. You can even open a Treasury Direct account and link it to your bank account and buy treasury bonds electronically. An online savings account probably yields better for short term investments, and it's easier to set up, and there's generally higher liquidity. The added risk is so slight that it's clearly a superior option in my mind. If you're looking for low risk, that's the best you can do. Trying to chase yield higher than what those two options offer opens you up to more risk. |
|
|
|
I think the best way to have guaranteed passive income (if we aren't talking specifically Bitcoin) is to invest in bank stocks. In general, they give 3-5% yield per year in dividends, and the value is very steady. Plus, investing in something like a bank provides a lot of security; they'll always be around.
That's more of a low-effort method. If you are willing to spend a lot of time and energy, then looking into something like app-dev is definitely worth it.
3%-5% annual yield is an average rate of return, plus these are usually the rates that government bonds and treasury bills also yield. But to make more from passive investments, it should be able to beat inflation year in and year out. Money loses a bit of purchasing power due to high inflation rates. If your investment are able to beat inflation, you are on your way to greater passive income. Treasury bonds outperform inflation in the long run Otherwise, no one would be buying then. T-bonds come in a few varieties, and some of them (TIPS specifically) aim at outpacing inflation by adjusting their value depending on current inflation rates. I guess the interest paid on these (or the principal change as is the case with the TIPS bonds) may be pretty well considered as passive income. And yet more so if you take into account the longer term bonds such as, say, 30-year maturities That's not a given. (TIPS by definition do, but TIPS are not the majority of the debt issued. They also pay dismal rates. 30 year TIPS recently auction around 1% with inflation tacked on top). The primary objective in buying government debt is not to beat inflation, but protect principle. US Treasuries have not always beaten inflation, but that hasn't affected demand for US debt. Also,more than 2 trillion Euro worth of government bonds trade at negative interest rates in Europe. So beating inflation cannot be the only, or probably even the primary, concern with people buying government bonds. Clearly, bonds with a negative interest rate won't beat inflation, yet demand for them is not small. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, Russia was rumored to have been secretly buying Iranian oil previously and then reselling it as their own to European countries. Why couldn't they do it all over again?
After all, the US has no access to the Caspian Sea to check that trade (unlike the Persian Gulf)
This is the first time I am hearing about it. How can Iran smuggle oil to Russia, when dozens of American military satellites are scanning every square inch of the Russo-Iranian border? Also, I don't think that Russia will take the risk of dishonoring the UN sanctions. I would imagine Iran moves their oil via ships. The largest importers of Iranian oil are China (22%), Japan (14%), India (13%), and the combined EU (18%) with Italy and Spain comprising the largest there, followed by, to a much smaller extent, France, Germany, and the UK. This information was from 2011, though. Plenty could have changed since then, but I would generally expect the ratios to be in the same ballpark. Just because the US slaps sanctions on Iran doesn't mean everyone else is going to follow. Each country is going to pursue its own foreign policy as it sees it to be in its best interest. |
|
|
|
The oil imports of the USA have declined strongly over the last past years because the domestic oil productions increased massively due to fracking. Therefore the States are not longer dependent from oil imports than it was before fracking starts. You can also see this in official figures published on https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_importsThe oil imports may be declining, but you should remember that the US is till getting almost one-fourth of its oil from abroad. And that is a huge amount. The only way for the US to become 100% self-sufficient in oil is to allow drilling in the Gates of the Arctic National Park and the other protected areas. That's not the only way. The far better option is continuing to develop renewable energy so that nobody has to give a damn about oil anymore. There's no reason to drill in any protected area. We're not that hard up for oil. And once we're off it, or we've severely reduced our need, we can let the rest of the world wallow in in the misery of having a foreign policy designed around securing oil from the Middle East or elsewhere. |
|
|
|
 [image snip] could you provide roll verifier link on your number? What do you mean? Isn't the roll verifier something that verifies the casino rolls? I don't think it applies to the free to play section of the website. Hey wetsuit, any chance every once in awhile you could do a special promo for point redemptions where you drop the threshold to convert to btc to like 10,000 points or something? I can't see myself getting to 100,000 points in less than a few years, and I'm not a super casual user either. It could be like a repatriation holiday the US sometimes has, where all the corporations with money overseas get to bring it home with a low tax rate instead of the standard one. I think that'd be a cool gesture for your small users who don't have a ton of referrals to rack up points to give them the ability to cash them out every six months or so. |
|
|
|
Trump should make sure that the sanctions does not result in a decline in the Iranian crude production. Else it will affect the Americans more than anyone, since they are among the top importers of crude oil. It wouldn't have that much of an impact. There is a lot of shale production capability sitting idle in the US, so if Iranian oil was taken out and prices rose, it would put some of that US capacity back to work, and the prices would come down again. I also suspect that Iranian reductions would cause other OPEC producers to seize the opportunity to increase production, since they all only begrudgingly agrees to a superficial cut anyway. Long story short, I wouldn't expect anything Iran does with oil to have a big and lasting effect. |
|
|
|
It's not quite that bad. There's only one natural gas capable car available in the US I'm aware of, the Honda Civic NGV, but the range is 220 miles, which is about 350 km, more than double the range you listed. Natural gas isn't very practical for the US for consumer cars, but does make an excellent alternative for fleet vehicles and heavy duty trucking, where most of the application is currently focused.
The American cities are not as crowded as the Chinese and Indian ones. So naturally, the atmospheric pollution is not that bad. And also, a lot of Americans can afford the Tesla Model S or the Chevrolet Bolt. They are even better than the Honda Civic NGV in combating pollution. Most populous American cities are located either on the oceanic coast (e.g. LA, SF, NY) or on the coast of big lakes (e.g. Chicago) while in India and China the most polluted cities (their capitals) are strictly continental. I guess this has much more influence on pollution than the number of cars as such. Further, I don't think that NY is less crowded overall than, say, Delhi, and it certainly has more cars. On the other hand, how many Americans can really afford electric cars? They still seem to be pretty much a toy in the hands of the rich and superrich There are several electric cars in the US market that are aimed at the mass market (as opposed to the super rich). Tesla's Model 3 is the most well-known. Chevy has a the Bolt, which has a longer range than the Model 3, and it even beat them to market. The Model 3 is supposed to start production this month. The Bolt is already available. It has a range around 240 miles and a price tag around $35,000, which puts it in the price range of a good deal of buyers. Nissan also has an all electric offering, though I don't know much about that one other than it exists. |
|
|
|
And what does it change in practice?
Some folks may freak out even if the stock goes down just a few percentages (why they are buying stocks in the first place is another question, though). I guess the very fact of buying trash stocks has already plenty of irrationality in it built in. If you were rational, you would most likely stay away from such stocks altogether (unless you have insider information, of course). People are eager to hope for something out of nothing (just look at ICOs), and when the stocks they have bought in mostly futile hopes of future hefty profits invariably crash, they panic sell them
High risk stocks carry the opportunity for high reward. That's not irrational; it's a question of your appetite for risk. If you're looking to take on a lot of risk in hopes of high gains, that's rational. But I am saying that my definition of panic selling necessitates an element of irrationality of thought. The things you listed, (selling out of a company that was found to be fraudulent, for example) would not be an irrational selling, so it would not be panic selling. For me, fast selling and panic selling are not synonymous. The differentiatior is whether or not there is a degree of rationality. Selling out of ICOs (or IPOs, or any stock holding for that matter) because the price is dropping (and solely without consideration of anything else) would fit my definition of panic selling. But selling out of an ICO (or anything else) because the price is dropping and you have no expectation that the coin or company serves any market function and the economic prospects are therefore impaired, would not be, because it's based on a rational investment thesis This seems to be a moot point But my point is that you can't easily tell the first from the second, while trash stocks (as well as most ICOs, for that matter) generally have more irrationality in them. It is so simply because expecting higher returns for higher risks is not rational itself (unless you are an insider). It is more like gambling, though unlike the latter when you (start to) lose you have a chance of constraining your losses by quickly selling out failing stocks in your portfolio Whether you can tell easily or not whether something is panic selling has no effect on whether it's actually panic selling. Higher reward for higher risk is the cornerstone of capitalism. It's not only rational, it's beyond question. Why do risky borrowers have to pay higher interest rates? Because the higher risk demands a higher potential return on the investment by the lender. Expecting higher returns for higher risk is exactly why people invest in riskier assets. It's the epitome of rationalism. You can sell out of a risky investment to pare losses, and it can be either a panic sell or it could not be a panic sell. The determinant is whether you're doing so emotionally (irrationally) or with a clear head (rationally). Just because something is irrational doesn't make it ultimately wrong. You could save yourself money by acting irrationally and still have the action be irrational because of the motivation that drove it. I suppose that's how my definition of panic selling differs from yours. The sole qualifier is the motivation for the sell, not the degree or risk of the investment. |
|
|
|
we will have digital currencies in before 15 years, in good "modern" countries... BEFORE. Im sure
You don't have to look too far. The major fiat currencies of today already serve as digital currencies. The dollar, Euro, and Yen, not to mention many smaller currencies in major modern economies, already serve many more digital transactions than cash transactions. The only difference between fiat digital transactions and cryptocurrency transactions is the level of anonymity. This is perhaps the only place that bitcoin has an advantage over digital fiat, because is superior in every other category, including the most important one: price stability. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
