И каждое сообщение добавляет +1 к Активити? Или есть ещё условия?
Есть условия, видимо При определении активности берётся минимальное из двух чисел. Первое число - это количество сообщений, сделанных пользователем, а второе - это количество двухнедельных периодов с момента его регистрации, умноженное на 14... |
|
|
|
Мне, честно говоря, лень искать ту тему, но вообще народ как-то собирается доказывать. Кто-то даже планировал иск подавать против ФБР (а другие отговаривали, что самих при этом могут привлечь за соучастие). А так да, анонимность биткоина сама по себе - это миф...
Зачем же про эту анонимность в розовых тонах написано в вики? По сути её нет, вернее её есть ровно настолько чтоб быть жирным минусом - ошибся в одной букве в номере кошелька - забудь что у тебя были биткоины, увели кошелек - забудь что он был. Абсолютно согласен. Именно эта "фишка" меня сильнее всего и напрягает в биткоине, а именно то, что "деньги" могут теряться в никуда (сам на этом несильно, но прокололся). В банке, если ты ошибся в платёжке, через неделю-другую деньги возвращаются обратно на счёт... |
|
|
|
With just one telephone existing in the world you can't call anyone (I don't really know if you can call your own number). But with two you evidently can (meaning you can use it as it was designed to be), provided you have something to say or ask your caller indeed...
Only if someone is willing to answer. If everyone refuses to answer their phone, the value of your telephone instantaneously evaporates, right? I don't see where you're going. You can still call even no one answers your calls, and if you assume that it is not your fault (or your phone's), then no, it is not. As I said before, if your assumption can be reduced to one telephone existing in the whole world, then yes, it instantaneously loses its utility... Now tell me if you consider these two premises identical You can still spend your bitcoins even if no one is willing to give you anything for them. What am I missing and how is it applicable to phones? I'm not sure. Are you reading carefully? Noticing that certain phrases are being repeated? So you mean that you can spend your money on the phone calls no one answers, right? I still don't get your point. In these quarters (know nothing about yours) you don't pay for missed calls. In any case, you pay to the phone company which provides you an option of making calls. It doesn't guarantee though that someone will actually pick up the receiver... |
|
|
|
Now to devaluation. The government intervenes to reduce the value of their own money. This means that the producers get less value for their production, prices of the products go lower. Basically the importing country pays less, and the loss is on the producers in the exporting country. The corresponding imports will rise in price, making the imported volume lower. So the workers in the devaluing country gets less for their work and pay more for the imports. This is just bad for the people in the devaluing country. How can it be better? A number on the governments accounting books The whole story is not that simple as you tell it here. It can actually be better as you don't take into account that the exporting country can in fact sell more (since the importing country pays less and thus can pay for more volume), so producing more wealth and profits, providing higher employment and fuller utilization of productive capacities even at lower prices... |
|
|
|
Focus on raising export, reducing import, that is focus on the trade balance, is a fallacy called mercantilism. It is rampant today. Free trade is all about removing it.
The fallacy comes into the clear when it is explained this way:
Imagine first that you have world money, or, which is the same thing, the two countries' money is stable in regard to each other. It does not matter if the units have different value, just that the exchange rate is stable. Now, the people in one country wants the wares of the other country. To get that, they trade their own products. The more they can produce and export, the more they can import. The purpose of producing is to consume, either what they produce themselves, or imported goods traded for their own. The money is just oil in the machinery, the imports are paid with exports. There does not have to be any net inflow or outflow of money. Now if money flows out, the people in the country will want to repair their money loss, because they have a certain preference for holding money in reserve. Therefore they will produce more and export. Thus the balance is restored.
The balance is restored through adjusting the exchange rates of the trading countries as well as increasing national debt (Japan is the second largest holder of U.S. government debt, if I'm not mistaken). Your first assumption is incorrect since currencies are actually floating against each other |
|
|
|
Ага, сейчас... Американцы официально продали фальшивые слитки золота китайцам (по факту золочёный вольфрам, у которого такая же плотность как у золота). Был целый международный скандал несколько лет назад (замяли по-тихому)
Да-да, а еще ФБР в связке с ФРС взорвали ВТЦ - ведь тот бородатый мужик не мог соврать. А еще в фильме "МиБ" сказали что в зоне 51 в пустыне находится межпланетный космопорт - разве по телевизору или в кино будут врать? Вы напрасно ёрничаете. В любом случае при подделке золота с помощью вольфрама лишь весами и мензуркой с водой вы далеко не отделаетесь. Для этого либо сверлят образец слитка золота специальным сверлом (если мне не изменяет память), либо используют спектральный анализ (у кого есть такая возможность)... |
|
|
|
... Если вкратце, эти монеты могут быть истребованы лицами, непричастными к совершённым преступлениям...
Как эти лица докажут свою причастность к монетам? На этих монетах не написано что они принадлежат Джону Доу или Джейн Доу. Или анонимность это всего лишь миф?  Мне, честно говоря, лень искать ту тему, но вообще народ как-то собирается доказывать. Кто-то даже планировал иск подавать против ФБР (а другие отговаривали, что самих при этом могут привлечь за соучастие). А так да, анонимность биткоина сама по себе - это миф... |
|
|
|
Согласен, поэтому и говорят, работает - не трогай. А в таких делах уж совершенно должно быть очевидно для любого финансово грамотного человека, что здравая толика консерватизма в данном вопросе нисколько не помешает...
У палки есть и третий конец - с http://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.8.6: This is a maintenance release to fix a critical bug; we urge all users to upgrade. Я, например, английского языка не знаю, посему мне трудно разобраться, какая именно критическая ошибка была исправлена - может быть, не обновившись до этой версии я рискую потерять свои деньги ? Надпись-то давит... Ну так можно почитать форум, например. Лично я пользуюсь кошельком Coinbase, в силу этого меня данная проблема не трогает и не интересует совершенно (ну почти), лол |
|
|
|
различные нововведения (внедрённые втихую или в открытую), "портящие" биткоин, просто не приживутся, большинство элементарно продолжит пользоваться старой версией клиента/протокола
С другой стороны - теоретически любители новизны или те, кто всерьез опасается нахождения серьезных ошибок в существующих версиях могут и пострадать - поставив клиент сразу же после его выхода, если разработчики таки вздумают воткнуть туда что-нибудь нехорошее... Согласен, поэтому и говорят, работает - не трогай. А в таких делах уж совершенно должно быть очевидно для любого финансово грамотного человека, что здравая толика консерватизма в данном вопросе нисколько не помешает... |
|
|
|
Now to the point (let's forget about you being a douchebag)
Your country exports 1000 units of goods (in money terms) and imports 500 (typical export oriented economy). Due to depreciation of its currency it can now export twice as many, i.e. 2000 units, and given initial conditions, import twice as less, i.e 250 units. But since it has got the net surplus of 1000 units through exports, it can now easily buy missing 250 units and still have a surplus of 750 units
I can think of not a single case when such an oversimplification could be useful. You have disregarded almost every variable and initial condition possibility. There are more countries, timescales are involved, natural resources. This is so absurd I will not bother to go on. Please just stop. I didn't expect anything different from you (but I was ready). You can't prove me wrong mathematically here (that is what you were bragging about). I gave you arithmetics you required. In reality, there are a myriad of things that complicate matters and can change everything dramatically, but you can't beat the principle which is still there. You can overwhelm it but simply can't get rid of it... These are the basics of macroeconomics |
|
|
|
|
Now to the point (let's forget about you being a douchebag)
Your country exports 1000 units of goods (in money terms) and imports 500 (typical export oriented economy). Due to depreciation of its currency it can now export twice as many, i.e. 2000 units, and import twice as less, i.e 250 units. But since it has got the net surplus of 1000 units through exports, it can now easily buy missing 250 units and still have a surplus of 750 units
|
|
|
|
To properly model economics and include the element of human behavior, some brilliant fellows laid the groundwork for game theory, thus allowing it all to still be math. This is the calculus of economic modeling. Not using this is akin to trying to work out quantum field theory with an abacus. No wonder you're lost
Lol, the deepest insights into the most important economic matters (such as subjective valuation of things which makes exchange ever possible) can be formulated with primitive mathematics (or even without it) and are based entirely on human psychology... |
|
|
|
No problem really. Just you admit at first that you were wrong with arithmetics. I think now I may claim such a privilege...
Ignore the plural / singular shit. In my anger I committed a logical fallacy; let's not continue that bad habit. Your use of arithmetics, right or wrong (or regional, which is more likely) has little bearing on your point. Likewise, my qualifications are not as a linguist, so we can safely disregard it I reckon. raised that shit and it remains on you Are you absolutely dense? I just admitted that I brought up the pluralization of arithmetic foolishly, illogically, and emotionally. Move on with your end. Stop sidetracking the issue. No one hear cares to allow you to belabor the fact that I made a poor debate choice 6 posts ago. I admit it, now on with the math, please. How can I be sure that you won't go on like that, lol? You discredited yourself, period. Hope this will serve you a lesson, though scarcely... |
|
|
|
But if you believe that economics is not mathematics, we may have to part ways now, because you might as well predict and model it with astrology if you aren't using math.
I don't believe, I know this for sure. Economics is about human psychology, first and before all. I never said anything about economics being based on astrology. And yes, astrology also uses some math (should we discredit mathematics on account of that?). Your assumption is wrong again... Should we go on? |
|
|
|
No problem really. Just you admit at first that you were wrong with arithmetics. I think now I may claim such a privilege...
Ignore the plural / singular shit. In my anger I committed a logical fallacy; let's not continue that bad habit. Your use of arithmetics, right or wrong (or regional, which is more likely) has little bearing on your point. Likewise, my qualifications are not as a linguist, so we can safely disregard it I reckon. raised that shit and it remains on you |
|
|
|
Lol, I can always back off that English is not my mother language, but this is irrelevant to the point I made about economics (which is not about mathematics) as well as your notion about arithmetics. Now it is your time to explain where I am wrong (besides sheer nitpicking and unrelated semantics)...
Pretty sure you said you had arithmetic to show me wrong. Prove it already. Break out the Cambridge equation, move some numbers, account for variables, and show me your mastery of the interactions of myriad semi-isolated economies in the context of the global economy. Don't leave out any currencies or subeconomies where value can be transferred and stored. The burden is absolutely on you. Not only has it not worked anywhere else its been tried, not even here; and, not only was John M. Keynes himself utterly against it, though the so-called Keynesians would be shocked to find this out I'm sure; but we have multiple clear examples where wealth has been absolutely stolen from populations who have spent their lifetimes maintaining and acquiring it responsibly, under the murky guise of some economic doomsday that could not have been solved any other way! Show me. Give me a sliver of mathematical proof that hints that your theory is right. No problem really. Just you admit at first that you were wrong with arithmetics. I think now I may claim such a privilege... |
|
|
|
The only thing that's different now that they've done their own QE, for 99.999% of Japanese is the JPY/USD rate went from $1 = 73¥ to 100¥ in mere months. It's at like 105¥ now. And the USD is depreciating against other assets (like the CNY) so that's not even the whole story. So for a Japanese, that just means one thing: Your wages are the same, your savings are the SAME, but unless it's bread and rice bought IN JAPAN, it costs 130% what it did. There goes your retirement trip to Guam, or Hawaii. Trips to NYC to buy American fashions.
Just taking this part of your post For an export oriented country (which is Japan) this is good on the economy level. If you don't get what it means or just can't fathom how this can ever be possible, I may try to explain this to you in simple terms. It means that when your currency is depreciating against the currencies of your trade partners, the life of population on average becomes better, because you (your country) begin earning more abroad from your exports than you spend on your imports (simple arithmetics), whereas domestic goods (bread and rice) stay the same as you correctly noted... Kid, just don't. I'm far more qualified to discuss any form of mathematics you care to invoke. You can begin by recognizing that the plural of arithmetic is arithmetic. I'm not going to bother listing qualifications; they're floating around here in places, and this is a forum so who gives a shit if I claim to be the Prince of Wales, but I will not be party to any "if you don't get..." condescension. I know more about this than you can possibly imagine. My qualifications are, let's say, very related and strongly math-based. And yes, I am fucking pissed, because this just reminds me of how goddamned heartbreaking it is for her parents and millions of others in the same situation. They aren't getting anything out of this. There are other ways of fixing it. Put simply: QE is not incentives-compatible with repairing economic mismanagement in a global economy. Go nuts, show me how it is, with your "arithmetics". Lol, I can always back off that English is not my mother language, but this is irrelevant to the point I made about economics (and which is not about mathematics) as well as your notion about arithmetics (and you are wrong actually about even this, so your qualifications are strongly doubted). Now it is your time to explain where I am wrong (besides sheer nitpicking and unrelated semantics)... You may use either arithmetic or arithmetics, I don't care as long as you're concise and your ideas are clear |
|
|
|
The only thing that's different now that they've done their own QE, for 99.999% of Japanese is the JPY/USD rate went from $1 = 73¥ to 100¥ in mere months. It's at like 105¥ now. And the USD is depreciating against other assets (like the CNY) so that's not even the whole story. So for a Japanese, that just means one thing: Your wages are the same, your savings are the SAME, but unless it's bread and rice bought IN JAPAN, it costs 130% what it did. There goes your retirement trip to Guam, or Hawaii. Trips to NYC to buy American fashions.
Just taking this part of your post For an export oriented country (which is Japan) this is good on the economy level. If you don't get what it means or just can't fathom how this can ever be possible, I may try to explain this to you in simple terms. It means that when your currency is depreciating against the currencies of your trade partners, the life of population on average becomes better, because you (your country) begin earning more abroad from your exports than you spend on your imports (simple arithmetics), whereas domestic goods (bread and rice) stay the same as you correctly noted... |
|
|
|
Ну в силу того, что существует несколько актуальных клиентов с разной кодовой базой, то ответ очевиден - занимаются, да по-взрослому. В основе ведь лежит протокол и изменения нужно вносить прежде всего в него...
Ну, в общем, аргумент... Немного успокоили, спасибо . На здоровье! Как говорится, сон разума рождает чудовищ... А вообще именно данный конкретный вопрос уже где-то здесь детально обсуждался с подробными выкладками. Итог обсуждения вполне очевиден и предсказуем, различные нововведения (внедрённые втихую или в открытую), "портящие" биткоин, просто не приживутся, большинство элементарно продолжит пользоваться старой версией клиента/протокола |
|
|
|
I mean, thats economics 101! It is going down at some point! (hell, it is even outperforming bitcoin's super exponantial hypothesis!)
And they claim that bitcoin is actually more volatile/dangerous.. i mean.. seriously???
How can they misguide 7Bn of human being like foolish sheeps into the depth of their incompetence without an ounce of remorse?
Are they all corrupted or do some of them actually buy this? ('they' = medias, governments, central banks and so on...)
The FED is EVIL (and surely not Bitcoin)
As long as they can constrain inflation in reasonable limits as they do, it doesn't matter. In fact, the FED is fighting with deflation which is more dangerous for the economy (the Japan example is pretty evident, since they lagged with their QEs)... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
