White genocide  |
|
|
|
--snip--
The Russians have put everything in to destroy the European Union. I'm sure that immigrant crisis is also the handiwork of Russian. Of course a hasty decision to help the people of Angela Merkel played a crucial role, but the flow of refugees was organized by the Russian.
No it this is not true. Russia has nothing to earn if the immigrants flood the Europe. On the contrary, Erdogan, has a big hate against Europe because she does not want him in the eurozone and in the European Union in general. Furthermore, most of the immigrants are manipulated better from Turkey due to the same religion. Good joke  Macron at 63%. |
|
|
|
|
Alts are pinksheets on steroid....
|
|
|
|
A million newbie accounts shouting to buy a shitcoin. I wonder what the reason is?  Newbies dont lose your hard earned bitcoins. |
|
|
|
It seems to me that they are already hardly breathe. Socialism is a parasite that devours its host. I think that without blood is not a cost. Let the whole world see their example of what happens when winning the elections the populists.
Then we look at the % of money westernized countries spend on healthcare costs and social services. We sort of do have socialism. https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/charts/2015/taxes-desk.pngPlease. In europe we have universal healthcare which cost less then the US american 3rd world healthcare system. Universal healthcare has as much in common with socialism as hitler with ghandi. Edit Btw. And please dont read fake news. The only thing you need to be a doctor is a good memory. A subpar student with good memory can easily finish a medcine degree. True the American system is a bad example it is just the most cited because it fails so much. Cuba is socialist and by comparison has a far better patient to outcome return ratio for the cost it puts into it, they also export doctors in exchange their tuition is free and get revenues from that another focus they have is on preventative healthcare instead of treating the symptoms but not the disease. Eurpoean healthcare depends on the location I would need a bit more specificity on the location you had in mind as a good example of it working. I am sure that even between different states in the EU the standard of healthcare is different with the % of cost that goes to funding it out of tax revenues varying and the patient outcome and wait times changing as well. About your edit: It depends on where you live and also to be douche about it if your degree is recognized and meets the standards to practice healthcare. Entering into a nursing degree, what is the standard is to be considered a doctor in the country etc all determine the final cost. But you got a point that was the higher end it just presumes people would apply to a prestigious medical school not a community college or public school to get it, that was my bad this one is more accurate on the cost. Still fairly high though. https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/student-finance/how-much-does-it-cost-study-usThe taxes thing just picked one that liked to use dollar illustrations more less but you will need to specify a good source I just copied the link from a Business Insider article so it seemed accurate though. http://www.businessinsider.com/where-your-2013-tax-dollars-went-2014-4@heathcare I wasnt precise my bad. But with european i mean west, north and part of south europe (mainly scadinavian nations, germany, austria, switzerland, Luxembourg etc) @education I agree with this. But on the other side people who have a college degree will have it easier to find a better paying job as someone who has no degree. I.e. a master degree takes in avg. 5 years. (I think in germany you have to study 5 years and test work 1 year to get a doctor of medcine) After finishing a m.sc. you easily earn 50+% more the your colleague with no degree. So if you find a job you are usually better off and the money you payed before amortises pretty quick. |
|
|
|
I'm a huge fan of renewables. Basically the technology is hear to go 100% green. What's really missing are big government incentives to speed up the process. That's something that really makes me sad.
There is nothing wrong in supporting the renewables. But you must be ready to pay the price. For example, electricity from the thermal power plants cost around $0.03 per KWh. The same from solar panels cost at least $0.10 to $0.20 per KWh. Are you ready to pay the increased price? Nope not unless it is on the taxpayer dollar and by that I mean subsidized cost an example being subsidizing the cost of changing a lightbulb although most green investments take years to recoup even with some rebates. Installing a new water heater unless your old one is really old is a good example even the solar panels unless you can sell back to the grid at a premium. The energy which is produced by solar panels you can sell only in the daytime. They have very low productivity and so during the night you will take out more energy than the sell day. In the year 2015, First Solar agreed to supply solar power at 3.87 cents/kWh levelised price from its 100 MW Playa Solar 2 project which is far cheaper than the electricity sale price from conventional electricity generation plants.[88] From January 2015 through May 2016, records have continued to fall quickly, and solar electricity prices, which have reached levels below 3 cents/kWh, continue to fall.[89] In August 2016, Chile announced a new record low contract price to provide solar power for $29.10 per megawatt-hour (MWh).[90] In September 2016, Abu Dhabi announced a new record breaking bid price, promising to provide solar power for $24.2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) [91] |
|
|
|
I'm a huge fan of renewables. Basically the technology is hear to go 100% green. What's really missing are big government incentives to speed up the process. That's something that really makes me sad.
There is nothing wrong in supporting the renewables. But you must be ready to pay the price. For example, electricity from the thermal power plants cost around $0.03 per KWh. The same from solar panels cost at least $0.10 to $0.20 per KWh. Are you ready to pay the increased price? The advantage of PV is that it releases up to one order of magnitude less toxic materials (production, while in use and recycling). Additionaly PV cost decreased by several magnitudes (70s: 70$ per kwh; 2015: 0.30$ per kwh) while c.o.p. increased by a factor of 5-8 ( 4-5% to now up to 25%. Special designs go up to 40%). And the development is still ongoing and not finished. We will see much better stuff for less $ in the future. |
|
|
|
As for China, this is a result of the One Child Policy. They are trying to reverse it now because of the aging population but it seems people are not interested in having more children.
The Chinese population is around 1.4 billion, and despite the one-child policy, the population is still growing. Analysts expect the Chinese population to grow until 2030. Without the one-child policy, the situation could have been disastrous. Having a one child policy can kill chinas economy in the future trust me. However that is being irrelevant to the topic. Japan had 2 child policy and been working this for a while so their current population is quite healthy. Yet this idea as well can stress out their child because they can focus o their children with regards to everything The Japanese culture is very different. The mother is expected to remain at home and care for the baby. If she goes to work leaving the baby at some childcare facility, then she is likely to face a lot of harassment from the family and the friends. That is also one of the reasons for the low birth rate. That logic makes zero sense. In a patriarchal society the birthrate is high because woman have the standard role of a mother. Staying home and getting kids on mass. Maybe you are right sithara, most immigrants like you might be just as dumb as shit and should stay outside Maybe there is a connection between level of stupidity and islam? Sithara are you muslim? |
|
|
|
White genocide  The joke is sithara is one of the brownie immigrants |
|
|
|
In real world use case I don't think average users will want to create a new channel for every single time they trade with someone new. It will be a hassle. They will want to just use 'the lightning network'. Hub and spoke will arise naturally as most efficient and fast way of routing through the network.
So there you have: If most people use LN for their small transactions/payments more block space there is for the "important" transactions if you are willing to pay the fee. You can choose which method you use. What's bad about that? It's not that you need to chose one way or another, you will be able to decide for each transaction you decide to make. The bit I don't like is everyone else using 'central' hubs to put their transactions through.
Where do you see the problem of mining centralisation when everyone can just buy their own miner?
Because they don't have an incentive to go through all that trouble.
Yes that illustrates my point LN users wont be incentivised to go to all that trouble either. Thanks, at least you guys are giving me some food for thought. Mainly responses have been trollish before. It's not that users wont be incentivised to go to... Which trouble? Standard BTC transactions will be exactly the same trouble as they are now, nothing changes. But yes, users will be incentivised to use LN for several reasons: - Lower fees - Almost INSTANT transactions <- This is a really important point. No blocksize increase could ever reduce a minimum of 10 mins for the first confirmation. - Real scalability: No more TPS limit. LN networks could process thousands, maybe even millions of transactions per second. The future usage I envision for myself is something like this: - For moving my BTC in non trivial ammounts -> BTC Blockchain - For buying "coffee" or who knows what other smallish stuff -> LN - For things between those two use cases -> LN or BTC Blockchain depending on the circumstances. I am not saying that a Block size increase won't be needed in the future. In fact I am sure it will. But what we need first is Segwit. After that, and if it is possible to achieve an enormous consense (95%) for a hardfork to increase the blocksize, then I am ok with that too... a fixed blocksize increase, not a joke like BU. Best argument yet. And thanks for commenting it. This draws obvious comparison with Dash which already has a lot of that working.
* Stands back waiting for inevitable scam commentsDash scammer  /jk LN isnt that bad. Much better then BU for sure and safer then block size increase to x (x>4mb) (2 mb wont buy us much time). |
|
|
|
Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK "Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries. They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need? Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options. In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter." Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says. Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions. Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO. Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea. This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm "If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain, and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite amount of transactions inside this network. The only transactions that are broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative channel counterparties." Can you please explain me with your own words what LN is and does? How did this get from me asking for links so I could read up about it to me having to explain it in my words?  Earlier today more than once I admitted needing more info, and asking for links, (still non provided). So far I got this. Using LN, bitcoin users can create payment channels to other users, they can pay each other back and forth without any need for commiting to the blockchain. Unless both parties want to close the channel it stays open. A node could have lots of open channels to lots of other nodes. Payments can also be routed through other channels to reach a user who isn't directly connected via their own channel. Thereby a network will be formed. The likely shape of the way the network will evolve will be a hub and spokes model. With certain nodes acting like hubs this becomes a potential centralisation point. These hubs will know a lot of information about all the transactions passing through them. I'm still sketchy on the fees but I assume these hubs will also be incentivised by fees. I envisage hubs could act a bit like banks people create a channel with the bank (I mean hub) in order to get fast routing through LN avoiding slow normal bitcoin. These accounts (I mean channels) will stay open. Dumb masses think they are using bitcoin but they aren't (almost all the time). Where do you see the problem of centralisation when anyone can just create their own private channel? Where do you see the problem of mining centralisation when everyone can just buy their own miner? Because they don't have an incentive to go through all that trouble. Block rewards? Decentralisation itself? In LN it is gonna be privacy and lower transaction fees? Why do you think china doesnt control 100% of the network? The problem is similiar to the mining centralisation question but not that large because you always can decide to open your own channel or transact directly on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Lets remember 2 years back.... Btc was at 200-300 € and people called it expensive hum  Always be prepared to lose your money but if you are just holding you cant do much wrong. |
|
|
|
It comes down to peer pressure and the cost of living, once you get a job you need to constantly keep working and when your a student you have literally 1 year to get recruited before your considered a non-ideal employee. That said it also is hard to have a social life when you have so much that needs to get done and transport eats your cash, work takes up your life and their isn't much chill time.
If that is true then your society is just fucked. Go demonstrate for better work conditions. |
|
|
|
Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK "Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries. They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need? Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options. In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter." Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says. Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions. Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO. Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea. This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm "If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain, and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite amount of transactions inside this network. The only transactions that are broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative channel counterparties." Can you please explain me with your own words what LN is and does? How did this get from me asking for links so I could read up about it to me having to explain it in my words? Earlier today more than once I admitted needing more info, and asking for links, (still non provided). So far I got this. Using LN, bitcoin users can create payment channels to other users, they can pay each other back and forth without any need for commiting to the blockchain. Unless both parties want to close the channel it stays open. A node could have lots of open channels to lots of other nodes. Payments can also be routed through other channels to reach a user who isn't directly connected via their own channel. Thereby a network will be formed. The likely shape of the way the network will evolve will be a hub and spokes model. With certain nodes acting like hubs this becomes a potential centralisation point. These hubs will know a lot of information about all the transactions passing through them. I'm still sketchy on the fees but I assume these hubs will also be incentivised by fees. I envisage hubs could act a bit like banks people create a channel with the bank (I mean hub) in order to get fast routing through LN avoiding slow normal bitcoin. These accounts (I mean channels) will stay open. Dumb masses think they are using bitcoin but they aren't (almost all the time). Where do you see the problem of centralisation when anyone can just create their own private channel? |
|
|
|
It seems to me that they are already hardly breathe. Socialism is a parasite that devours its host. I think that without blood is not a cost. Let the whole world see their example of what happens when winning the elections the populists.
Then we look at the % of money westernized countries spend on healthcare costs and social services. We sort of do have socialism. https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/charts/2015/taxes-desk.pngPlease. In europe we have universal healthcare which cost less then the US american 3rd world healthcare system. Universal healthcare has as much in common with socialism as hitler with ghandi. Edit Btw. And please dont read fake news. The only thing you need to be a doctor is a good memory. A subpar student with good memory can easily finish a medcine degree. |
|
|
|
What in the Holy hell is going on with ripple. All of these alt coins are soaring. Not sure how I can be excited with btc when I see all these others succeeding greater.
If you are new: good luck and dont lose all your btc before the rocket ignites. Alts right now are a very good way to increase your btc holdings. The downside is that if you arent smart (TA wise) or have insider infos the probalities of profiting greatly is rather small. |
|
|
|
Quoted from Slack Chat with Craig Wright https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK "Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries. They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need? Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options. In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter." Entirely false information. Your mistake was believing a word that clown says. Please elaborate why its entirely false? In any case to hell with the Craig Wright link. That wasn't my point. My point is my own formed before I read any of Craigs own opinions. Why is LN not going to centralise transactions? What is the protection against this? i assume we all want the common goal of bitcoin remaining decentralised. Links please. I need enlightenment so I can join the Wall Observer flock of sheeples I really dont take a Dash supporter too serious tho. First they pump it, then its stagnates. Then it dissapears. Its good that Btc takes its time to figure things out properly, but the dark side of decentralisation is that innovation takes so damn long. Same with democracy, its the best solution but it takes ages to decide and implementate. Btc is like old greece. Just philosophy while other lower skilled bad equiped no-knowledge countries are closing in. Its really discusting to see so much bad alts growing while they will dissapear. Dash with this maketcap is just a joke a IMO. Thank you for those words of wisdom. Almost as enlightening as your mickey mouse video. Yes I like Dash which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I like bitcoin too, I'm invested in bitcoin. I care about bitcoin, which is why I'm here worrying and fretting that LN is a bad idea. This is from the lighting network paper itself. Near infinite amount of transactions. Off chain. Things that make you go hmm "If we presume a large network of channels on the Bitcoin blockchain, and all Bitcoin users are participating on this graph by having at least one channel open on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is possible to create a near-infinite amount of transactions inside this network. The only transactions that are broadcasted on the Bitcoin blockchain prematurely are with uncooperative channel counterparties." Can you please explain me with your own words what LN is and does? |
|
|
|
|
Cui bono?
1. Le pen
Obviously. She wants to be the first female president of france and the 2nd Jeanne d’Arc.
2. Putin
Le pens publicly stated goal is the destruction of the EU. One of putins wettest dream right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
