Username :  jaysabi
Current Rank: Legendary
Current Post Count: 2147
Bitcoin address: 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy
Want to avail for avatar bonus?: Yes

Please confirm enrollment as soon as practicable.

It's not a democracy, people don't vote on what they want to be a stable currency. It happens because of the economy underlying the currency. The reason the GBP was the world's reserve currency before the USD was because of the might of the British Empire and economy. Same now for the USD. China could have a global reserve currency (in fact, they're trying), but no one trusts them. They're far too eager to cheat to achieve what they want, which zaps credibility from any currency you establish. If people don't trust the currency to have value, it won't.

There has been nothing impressive about the British Pound. It's fallen from a value of $1.46 USD in June to $1.23 now. That's a 15% drop and it's near the bottom, there's been no recovery. A 15% depreciation is massive for a currency. There's nothing there to be thankful for, and it's certainly not "strong."

But do you see there how that's not "passive?" Continually needing to do something to get paid is not passive income.

They can agree in principle to "cut" production, even nominally, but effecting cuts is another thing entirely. No one monitors OPEC production except the countries themselves, and they self-report their production. And in the words of the Saudi oil minister, they tend to cheat.

People are holding it because they're speculators. They think it will be worth more in the future, so they continue to hold. If they're right, then if they would have spent it, they have lost money. That's why some folks might not be keen to spend right now.

It happens to me fairly frequently. Every time though wetsuit fixes it pretty quickly. Send wetsuit a pm letting him know your UID and he will be able to fix it for you. It's Christmas though, so it might take him longer than normal to respond.

Bitcoin is truly free market in that respect. There is nothing propping up the price except people's confidnce in the system. This is different than stocks though in that confidence is only one aspect of the price, since stock represents an ownership of the business, so even if people don't have confidence in the business, it has value if it turns a profit.

Gold was outlawed as currency in the US long ago. The US government did indeed confiscate gold by criminalizing the possession of monetary gold in the 1930s to help combat the Great Depression. US citizens were ordered to deliver their gold to the Federal Reserve for payment of fiat. Gold has been dead as a currency in America ever since.

I wouldn't call gold a good investment. It mostly just protects against inflation, so it only protects wealth you already have. It doesn't build wealth, which is what you want an investment to do. For that, you need to invest in a business that creates profit, and investing in gold doesn't do that.

Not the number of bitcoins, but he ability for the network to handle trillions of dollars worth of transactions daily. You can't have commerce if people can't transfer money effectively, and you can't do that with Bitcoin on a large scale presently. At least, not nearly as large as it needs to be.

I wouldn't trust other coins at the expense of Bitcoin. The vast majority of other alts are garbage coins that don't serve a purpose other than to be derivative. If you look at the coins that have at one time "been the largest market caps" besides Bitcoin, you will see that many of them lose value over time. Remember when Doge used to have.l a market cap of 60 million dollars, or above? Now it's less than half that despite a huge increase in the number of coins, which combined means the coins are worth far, far less than they used to be at that time. You see this pattern replicated with almost all the alts. Diversifying in alts is a sure fire way to lose money.

In the stock market, the index dropping by 10% is a correction. I would consider a 20% drop a major crash. I don't know if that's a technical indicator or not, but it's what I would consider a major crash.

Capital appreciation isn't really "income." If you buy Bitcoin and hold it and then later sell it for more money, that wouldn't fit the definition of passive income. Passive income is a payment made toyoh based on an investment. Interest in a bank account is one example. Dividends are another. These are different from capital appreciation because he payments are made to you without having to dispose of the asset.

Bitcoin doesn't kill the income tax any more than fiat does. If people are being paid their wages in Bitcoin, the same requirements for withholding still apply to the employer and the individual. It's no easier to get around hem with Bitcoin than it would be to pay with cash off the books, so Bitcoin doesn't make income tax less likely than cash does.

Interest rates as well. When the fed is raising rates, it increases the money banks have to pay to the fed, thereby taking money out of circulation. This will also affect the value of the dollar.

Part of the problem, as I have just learned from another post, is that PayPal may not operate as well in other countries as it does in a North America. Especially emerging economy countries like in south east Asia. I guess I had originally just assumed policies would be uniform.

Why would you need to harvest pure hydrogen when it is so easy to create? By electrolizing water, you strip the oxygen out and are left with pure hydrogen. Whether or not it yields as much energy as it takes to create it is really irrelevant since the purpose of using hydrogen as a fuel source is not to have a net gain of energy, but to reduce the amount of carbon and other pollution in the atmosphere created by burning oil for transportation. By using electricity from solar or wind, you further cut down on the atmospheric effects (and cost) of electrolizing the water to create the hydrogen, which again, is the point of using hydrogen as a fuel source for vehicles in the first place.

Technology has improved to the point where previously inaccessible oil is now being harvested. It's not currently the case that oil availability is decreasing (in fact, it is currently increasing), but we know that there will be a point where availability will decrease, because we know it is finite. The key is to transition away from oil before you have to because there is none left.

I figured it was fuel cells because that's the only way I've ever seen hydrogen referenced as a fuel source for vehicles. (It is a natural gas, but not "natural gas," which itself refers to a specific fuel already.) I suppose the range would be dependent on on many fuel cells they can cram into the vehicle, and also, I'm assuming the motors on each wheel also have electric generators that recapture kinetic energy when the vehicle slows down, which further increases range. All current electric and hybrid vehicles already use this technology, I'm assuming it would be the same for fuel cells too.