|
Safe way to double $100,000: buy treasury bonds and wait 30 years. Doing anything else takes risk. In almost every case, the potential return is tied directly to the risk involved. The safest investment always yields the lowest return. There is currently nothing safer than owning treasury securities. It will also return the lowest amount of money on the investment, but at a 3% yield under the long term bonds, you can double your money in approximately 30 years.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is digital currency and also one of the commodity like gold. It cannot be replaced with USD, still major countries are not still not accepting bitcoin as one of their option. It will take lot of time to establish a digital currency into physical one.
yeah bitcoin is digital currency and you are right that bitcoin is still not acceptable in some countries but i hope bitcoin will be sooner acceptable in everywhere in all world in the near future and i am sure bitcoin can be appear in physical shape in few years . I heard that in China already established physical coins Bitcoin. I believe that there is no confrontation between the dollar and the Bitcoins. They are together and complement each other it will be too wonderful if china establish the physical shape of bitcoin , then it will be more get stronger in china and i hope bitcoin will be more survive for always and people more believe in bitcoin . There's no such thing as a physical bitcoin. It is impossible for bitcoin to even take physical form. Remember, there are no such things as "coins" in cryptocurrencies. The use of "coins" is for familiarity. Bitcoin is nothing more than a digital ledger, and all transactions and ownership exists only in the ledger. You cannot have a physical token that represents bitcoin because even if you were to give someone a physical bitcoin, ownership would not transfer in the ledger when you do so, which is required for someone to properly own a bitcoin. It is the ability to transfer bitcoin to someone else which establishes ownership of bitcoin, and owning a physical bitcoin does not give you the ability to transfer ownership in the blockchain. This is why it is technically impossible for physical bitcoin to exist. |
|
|
|
We are living in different world and crypto world is a different world and we cannot merge the real world and the crypto world. Try to think of it, in the real world we have the government which make it centralized but in crypto no government at all and we have all the freedom to do with our bitcoin.
Well isn't the cryptoworld created by the people in the real world? Supposedly there is no difference because of the links between the cryptoworld and real world but the government made it hard for bitcoin to be totally used and show bitcoin potential in the real world. Well we can't blame them, they want it all controlled and bitcoin is hard to control. Never heard that the government is controlling bitcoins. It's 100% decentralized so how are they doing it? I don't think this is true at all. If you talk to your friend about bitcoins, will the government go to your house and arrest you? No. You're free in this world. You can do whatever you want in bitcoins. You can advertise and promote it as long as you want. The government isn't holding you back. They don't have a law against bitcoin. They don't need to control Bitcoin directly. Given that 90% (or even more than that) of all miners reside in China, and miners are the ones who come the closest to whoever might gain control over Bitcoin, the Chinese government has all the necessary tools to control miners, and through them control Bitcoin. Obviously, they can't do it openly since that would cast a shadow on Bitcoin itself while killing it (or trying to kill) would mean losing any control over it altogether. Besides, the level of control they might exert is rather limited per se due to the robust nature of Bitcoin. Moreover, they most likely don't want to control Bitcoin in the way the majority of Bitcoin users think they would... But this doesn't in the least mean that they don't have an agenda Assuming China could control miners (not saying I buy that possibility), is there a way to prevent mining in a specific area? Could the Bitcoin board block Chinese mining traffic to restore integrity to the system? (Is that technically possible?) Or because it's decentralized, they have no way to restrict who can mine? Those are hard questions my friend.  Is there really a way to answer those? I think you would need someone with a good knowledge with the financial industry which is specializing in crypto currencies. Yes, those questions should be fairly answerable, I just don't know the answers offhand because I never thought of them in this context until the quoted conversation. I was hoping deisik knew the answer to them, since it was his post that prompted me to wonder if what he was saying was even technically possible. But he either hasn't seen the post with the questions or doesn't know the answers. |
|
|
|
I have had an issue with Paypal and while I was trying to look for a solution on the internet, I came across this website ( https://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/paypal_02.html) where everybody is complaining about Paypal. Most of the complains were actually similar to the one that I have. I thought Paypal is a credible company but now I have started feeling worried about my funds stuck in the accounts. Yes Bro I Also Think That Paypal Is A Scam Because It Freezes Your Funds For No Reason And Also Not For A Small Period They Freezes Them For 180 Days But If You Had An Issue Its Better To Contact The Support Now Otherwise Leave Using Paypal.... Paypal has never frozen funds for no reason. There is always a reason, even if people disagree with the interpretation of actions that preceded the freezing of the account. Usually, it's usually people using Paypal against the TOS that gets their accounts or funds frozen. People who have funds frozen and claiming it was for "no reason" are not being truthful about the illicit activities they are involved in that got their accounts frozen, or their attempts to use Paypal improperly themselves. |
|
|
|
The house price crash might have been bad for banks but it was a positive for those saving to buy a house. What people see as negative in a market is often a biased view, theres not much reason for a price crash to force wars and major disruption. The reason a market crash is seen so badly is when it becomes disruptive to trade and continues for far longer then it should, we are living in something of that now. From 2009 market low we have recovered in price but not cleared many piles of debt, this is largely due to government actions to subsidise and avoid loss but it has sustained the negative. I assume similar happened in 1929 and how it dragged afterwards.
If the prediction is we repeat previous major negative crashes, its really about the politics trying to force their point of view through. Two trading nations doing honest business are unlikely to choose war, its only when trade is prevented and negoiation is not possible you have these greater factors possible. The crash alone is not going to cause this
The housing crash wasn't just bad for banks. It was bad for everyone. Sure, the pricing crash helped the very small percentage of people who were saving for a house, but it hurt everyone who already owned a house, every bank that made those loans, and every investor who invested in those loans in the secondary market. That rippled out into all other areas of the stock market because of how interconnected everything is. And as for those people who were "helped" by falling prices, they likely weren't in a very good position to take advantage of it because lending dropped, and confidence in the system dropped. It took years for people to start to buy houses in large numbers again, either because they were confident enough to think that their purchase wouldn't drop in price, or liquidity made it possible to buy in large numbers again. |
|
|
|
If that happens, then demand for Bitcoin would go much higher and price of Bitcoin would go much higher than before. People would come to realize Bitcoin is the only future currency and they will start to know its true potential.
During an economic crash and deep recession, people aren't going to trust a speculative vehicle like bitcoin to retain value. It's far too risky. When the economy is faltering, people flee risk to look for far more stable investments. Bitcoin's price will collapse hard in an economic collapse because of this. The only thing that allows bitcoin to have a lofty price now is economic prosperity and the feeling that things are good enough for people to gamble on such a speculative investment. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not as popular as the US Dollar. US Dollar has been there for a long time so people have talked about it ever since. Before most of us were born, people already know about US Dollar and it has more value than most currencies.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, is relatively new. As we approach a more and more digital world, Bitcoin is also arising. People are starting to talk about Bitcoin but I don't think it will come to the point that Bitcoin is more popular than US Dollars any time soon. But it will, eventually.
There are a few important aspects to keep in mind. 1- Bitcoin is still relatively new - This shows how much potential growth we can realize. 2- Bitcoin offers people financial freedom - This is something a lot people are looking for in times where trust in banks is very low. 3- Bitcoin is the best online currency - Sending billions of dollars worth of coins instantly for $0.05 in fees, is of course impressive. I am quite sure that these features will make the average joe more than interested in Bitcoin in the coming years. Let me take the contrarian view on these points, because bitcoin is not a pure benefit with no risks. 1- Bitcoin is relatively new, and has an extremely volatile price history. This makes it a terrible choice for a currency or store of value and nearly unusable for business purposes, which require price stability. 2- Bitcoin offers no more financial freedom than fiat. You don't need to use a bank with fiat if you don't trust the bank. Moreover, banks are far more stable than bitcoin exchanges, which have a long history of losing depositor coins to hacks or insider theft. Deposits in a bank are backed by the FDIC. 3- Digital USD transactions are more stable than bitcoin transactions. In part because of the price instability of bitcoin, also because you can send money through your bank for free if you're a customer. Fees for bitcoin will continue to rise over time as mining income falls. What may look like a temporary advantage now (which you haven't even convinced me of) will become a liability in the future as transaction fees for bitcoin become cost prohibitive. |
|
|
|
Look at what Bitcoin is used primarily for currently: highly speculative day trading and gambling. Outside of these functions, it does not have a high degree of utility. This does not portend well for mass adoption and disruption. It's a niche product appealing to a small number of people currently.
not only for that, but also for people looking to store money outside the banking system. i do exactly that and i am very happy that bitcoin offers me this opportunity. and yes, i agree that bitcoin right now is very small when it comes to adoption, but this shows how much growth we can realize in the coming years. this makes bitcoin a more than interesting long term investment. Using bitcoin to store value outside of the traditional banking system is not a large component of its use (I don't think). Or at least, I hope it isn't. It's extremely risky to do this. There's nothing backing its value and no system insuring against risk of loss. Bank deposits at least have the FDIC, and brokerage accounts have a similar backstop. |
|
|
|
Poloniex interest rate is under 5% yearly.
Its a small amount of interest its just like local bank interest.. and investing in exchange site right now are risky because some exchange site are collapse so maybe poloniex will be the next even we know poloniex is one f the trusted just lets hope that it will not be collapse just like bitfinex and mt gox.. Poloniex blows a savings account out of the water. A savings account offers 1% if you're lucky, with the top payers not deviating much higher than that. Lending through Poloniex essentially works like a savings account. The flip side is that there is substantially more risk for lending through poloniex as opposed to sticking money in a savings account. If poloniex steals the funds or goes out of business, there is no recourse. At least a savings account is FDIC insured. |
|
|
|
Gold always has been exchanged since ancient times. I think that bitcoin and gold occupy every niche and will be in demand for a long time.
Yes, gold has been since the ancient time but it seems it popularity is going down whereas with the case of bitcoin is gaining popularity for the same period of time and acceptance grows everyday. One very good feature of bitcoin is it simplicity and speed of usage in transaction. After few more years, I fear people may forget gold completely. May I know what gives you the impression of Gold losing popularity? I personally don't see anything that point towards people taking distance from Gold. Even stronger, I think Gold will only see its popularity increase in the coming years. Especially because of the fact that it is a solid store of wealth tool where you don't have to deal with banks and such. It's of course not convenient to have let's say $10,000,000 in physical Gold, but at least it gives you the opportunity to really own something instead of relying on banks to store your money. Physical gold is very expensive to own. If you have a significant amount of it, say $10 million worth as you mentioned, it would take up a lot of room, be very heavy, and require extensive and expensive protection methods. People with substantial wealth in gold don't have physical gold, but paper gold, that is derivatives and contracts that represent gold, or could be redeemed for physical gold. |
|
|
|
the batle is win still property
you same 100,000 dollar, option
1 saving in bank
2 buy property
i think 10 year later, option 2 can grow this asset, option 1 is very low grow or nothing
Yes, option 2 can actually be rewarding in the long run but if you want to make good return on investment in the shortest time, then trading or arbitrage in bitcoin will be the best option to go for because you do not need to spend many years waiting for profit as can be seen with your option 2. only keep in mind trading and arbitrage having even higher risk than buying property which is quite best option so far and will not going to make you lose your money,you can use the property and can sell it whenever you want Property, as in real estate? Real estate isn't the most liquid asset, it's quite cumbersome to sell. Plus, 2008 should have dispelled the notion that real estate always appreciates in value, and the "buyer's market" that persisted for several years after the financial collapse quashes the notion that you can sell whenever you want. Of course, you probably could find a buyer when you drop the price low enough, but finding a buyer at a price you want is not a given at any time. |
|
|
|
We are living in different world and crypto world is a different world and we cannot merge the real world and the crypto world. Try to think of it, in the real world we have the government which make it centralized but in crypto no government at all and we have all the freedom to do with our bitcoin.
Well isn't the cryptoworld created by the people in the real world? Supposedly there is no difference because of the links between the cryptoworld and real world but the government made it hard for bitcoin to be totally used and show bitcoin potential in the real world. Well we can't blame them, they want it all controlled and bitcoin is hard to control. Never heard that the government is controlling bitcoins. It's 100% decentralized so how are they doing it? I don't think this is true at all. If you talk to your friend about bitcoins, will the government go to your house and arrest you? No. You're free in this world. You can do whatever you want in bitcoins. You can advertise and promote it as long as you want. The government isn't holding you back. They don't have a law against bitcoin. They don't need to control Bitcoin directly. Given that 90% (or even more than that) of all miners reside in China, and miners are the ones who come the closest to whoever might gain control over Bitcoin, the Chinese government has all the necessary tools to control miners, and through them control Bitcoin. Obviously, they can't do it openly since that would cast a shadow on Bitcoin itself while killing it (or trying to kill) would mean losing any control over it altogether. Besides, the level of control they might exert is rather limited per se due to the robust nature of Bitcoin. Moreover, they most likely don't want to control Bitcoin in the way the majority of Bitcoin users think they would... But this doesn't in the least mean that they don't have an agenda Assuming China could control miners (not saying I buy that possibility), is there a way to prevent mining in a specific area? Could the Bitcoin board block Chinese mining traffic to restore integrity to the system? (Is that technically possible?) Or because it's decentralized, they have no way to restrict who can mine? |
|
|
|
I don't think anyone will prefer to buy if price falls back to $1 and if it goes that low then it will be surely an end of bitcoin and there would be no point in buying them at that stage.
Going back to $1 means the bad news is really heavy. No way bitcoin price will fall to $1 if there is no major bad news that will happen. Also why it doesn't have established a support when the price reached $400 , $300 or $100 and really goes down to $1? That is the end of bitcoin if that will happened. No way it will gain trust again after the established progress today of bitcoin. Yes if that fall that low in future then it will loose all the trust from the community and it would be almost impossible to bounce back and I think that would be an end of bitcoins. That is true. If the bitcoin stays below $300 for the next few months, then people will select another good coin. No. If bitcoin goes below 300$, i will spend all my available resources on it, again, just like i did in 2015, which was the best year for accumulating! So would a lot of other people, hence the price won't stay below 300$ indefinietly - if you bought at 2015, and sold/hodled through this year May+, you more than doubled your investment, and more importantly, we know the bitcoin price can and will go up again and again. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. So was the housing market prior to 2008 (a self-fulfilling prophecy). That's called a bubble, and when they burst, all that money goes bye-bye. The difference between blind optimism in bitcoin and blind optimism in the housing market was that the case for the sustainability of houses was much less in question than the case for bitcoin, and as a fallback, houses serve a function as a dwelling. Bitcoin is purely a vehicle for speculation. There simply is no asset that is guaranteed to go up in value. |
|
|
|
I had tryed to run a lending service but the people that went at me just dumped their accounts, and took my bitcoins, this is what happens usually, and there is no way to prevent and know who will repay you, being hero or legendary nowadays means nothing.
This is why anonymous lending doesn't work. There's no way to identify scammers or thieves. I haven't seen a compelling way to even do collateral with bitcoin, so there's no leverage for anyone who loans money to recoup losses on default. Lending is going to stay the purview of the traditional banking system. Bitcoin won't be disrupting it any time soon, and ever is in question as well. |
|
|
|
what a crazy bet from gohard. now his profit at 246 btc wow he almost up 100 btc in 24 hours
He seem really lucky guy, i have never got such luck in bustabit even when i tried different strategy on autobetting for really long time betting 24 hour for few days. Looking at his betting pattern https://bustabit.com/user/gohardhe is increasing bet on every loss (+10% around) and cashing out on 19x multiplier quite risky to try with small bankroll.  Strategy works until it doesn't and then he will lose hard. Someone who is up 249 btc suggests he has something working for him. At this point, he has a large enough bankroll that he can survive large stretches of variance against him. The only real risk to him is the max win ceiling during a particularly bad stretch of variance limiting his profit on a martingale stretch. |
|
|
|
I don't have passive income right now except sig campaign and i earn here approximately of 0.175 bitcoin monthly and that's good rate for me as a student and i don't really know what's next i trade sometimes and i do gambling also but all in all i just holding my coins waiting for the bitcoin increase.
Sig campaign s not really a passive income cause you have to be active and contribute daily in order to get paid. Passive income means running on autopilot and it s really hard to find something like that these days. Yes, find passive income heavier. We need a lot of money initially to then receive a good passive income. I have a passive income - deposit in the bank. But there is very little interest The interest poloniex pays is far higher than interest any bank deposits pay. It's free market concept though. The more lenders, the lower the rate because they are all competing with each other for a limited base of borrowers. Similarly, the more borrowers there are, the higher the rate. Bank deposits are much safer because they are backed by the government against risk of loss. Poloniex is a higher rate of return, but the risk is much higher. |
|
|
|
I have a question that the maximum post count for two weeks in 70 because we are going to get paid for two weeks together but for a week 35 is the maximum post count.
But suppose i have made 25 posts previous week and make 45 posts this week,so my posts in this week will be counted and paid for 45 posts or only 35 posts.
You get 70 total for this period, since the last payout. It does not matter if you make 25 posts one week and 45 posts the second, the total will be 70 for the two-week period. The 35 post limit is only between weekly payments. |
|
|
|
Those who are still claiming this faucet as scam please stop doing so because I had rolled 10k today on the Freerolls and won 0.3BTC from the site. Read the topic wetsuit posted here - and take a look at my big win. This site has been paying well since ages and continues to do so even in the era where most faucets run dry. Thanks for the 200$ on first claim this morning admin! Wow, that's fantastic. I've never seen anyone claim to have won it. I'm always wondering about the odds of hitting it, because it seems certain that they are not 1/10,001 as you would think. None of the math geniuses who can convert the hash into numerals has ever ventured to help solve the problem, but I digress. Thanks for posting your win. Now we all know it is possible. Yes, I find it very strange that I have highlighted here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320959.new#new that NOBODY has ever won the $200 hourly faucet payout, and BANG it just happens within the same week. The timing for that was impeccable to say the least. ^Rofl^ Well, What more can I say now that we have our FIRST supposed $200 hourly winner.  ^fishy smell^ One of these days, we might see our first Lottery winner too, because nobody has ever reported that they have won that. ^LoL^ Congratulations to the winner, your timing was perfect. ^hahahaha^ People have been wondering about the $200 winners far longer than your post about the $200 winners. There's nothing suspicious about the coincidental timing of your post and the winner. As far as you know, there is one winner, however since a micro-fraction of the site's over one million users actually post about their claims, it's highly unlikely this is the only $200 winner. Assuming that he faked a winner to answer your trolling is placing a lot more importance on yourself than anyone else would venture to grant you. OK, prove me wrong then, and post any link to a post where a user of Freebitco.in reported that they have won $200 from the faucet payouts. You will not find anything, because I did a thorough search. I even searched with Google and used Google translate to translate discussions in other languages on other forums, not related to Bitcointalk. I could not find one post or mention being made, that someone have won the maximum amount in the FREE PLAY. I have also used every aspect of this site, from the Ad's to the multiplier and Lotto and charity and still feel that this site is one of the best faucets we have ever had, but I have my doubts about the system being 100% above board. You see this as trolling, I see this as open debate. ^hmmmm^ Again, you're under the false assumption that anyone who wins is going to go and post it somewhere. You're also assuming your inability to find a post, if it exists, is indicative of an event never happening. Neither assumption logically proves anything you're claiming, and furthermore, since you're the one making wild accusations, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. The "trolling" was the tone you took in your post in which you assumed that your logical leaps equated to indisputable facts, and proceeded to talk down for a position of claimed superiority that was not warranted. I am not under any false assumption of anything, I am making a observation based on the reaction of people receiving rewards on this forum and many other forums I have been part of. It is just natural for people to seek some method to thank someone, when they have received huge rewards and also for other reasons, for example Bragging / sharing joy / confirmation etc. The fact that Wetsuit gives them the information in a email to do this, make this even more strange. We are dealing with mostly poor people here, and when they win $200 or even 1 or 2 bitcoins from a lottery, and they are given a link in a email to this thread to report it, makes me even more suspicious. Have a look at the Giveaway section, and see what happens when services or companies give away $1 or $2 prizes, and what kind of response you get there. < Yes, it's in the same thread, but remember Wetsuit gives them the direct link to the thread, where they should report > I am not making wild accusations or claiming a position of superiority. I make logical observations based on facts. You obviously have a lot of loyalty towards this site, so we will not agree on this matter, and most people's judgement are clouded, because they get free money on a hourly basis from this site, so it is natural for them to defend the cow that provide the free milk. I on the other hand, wants this site to continue what they are doing in a truly provably fair environment, that would be without any grey areas, because I support the concept of helping the poor with free handouts like this. It helps with adoption of Bitcoin and it distributes wealth. Question what is right in front of your eyes. Do not be blinded by the promise of free money, when the odds are greatly stacked against you. ^hmmmmmm^ You're assuming people who win will post about it. That is the basis of your entire point. That is an assumption. And you're using the fact that you can't find any people posting about it to conclude that nobody wins the $200 prize. Do you really not understand the definition of an assumption? When you show how the site is not provably fair, you can request that they run the site differently. As it is, the site is provably fair, and you've not demonstrated how it isn't, but continue to say it isn't. We're all waiting for your brilliant mathematical proof. As it is, I doubt you understand how the site actually functions, as just a few posts ago you were talking about how the numbers lock into place in a funny way (demonstrating non-knowledge that what you see is just an animation and your roll is mathematically figured before that animation even begins). It's not a slot machine, the way the numbers lock in in the animation has no function on your roll. |
|
|
|
signature campaign provides a good passive income, but at the moment I'm not following any of the signature campaign. Well, it made my income be reduced, but I'll keep trying to get a passive income. sometimes I also play trading to get it, even though sometimes the results are not what I expected
Signature campaigns are not a passive income because you have to do something in order to receive payment. Passive income doesn't require an action in order to be paid for it. For example, if you by a stock that pays a dividend, the dividend income is passive income, because you get paid just for holding the stock. You don't have to do anything extra to receive the payments. Passive income almost exclusively applies to investments, which a signature campaign is not. Not all can afford to invest their money to get passive income from that and for them signature campaign is the only source to earn passive income as they have to invest only time and efforts in earning it. I'm not saying everyone can afford to invest and have a passive income. I'm saying that signature campaigns are not passive income. It doesn't fit the definition. Passive income, by definition, precludes having to continuously do anything in order to get paid. Signature campaigns are not passive income, they are active income. They require you to do something to get paid. |
|
|
|
signature campaign provides a good passive income, but at the moment I'm not following any of the signature campaign. Well, it made my income be reduced, but I'll keep trying to get a passive income. sometimes I also play trading to get it, even though sometimes the results are not what I expected
Signature campaigns are not a passive income because you have to do something in order to receive payment. Passive income doesn't require an action in order to be paid for it. For example, if you by a stock that pays a dividend, the dividend income is passive income, because you get paid just for holding the stock. You don't have to do anything extra to receive the payments. Passive income almost exclusively applies to investments, which a signature campaign is not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
