Yes, but it turns out that with bitcoin they are gaining part of the profits they didn't contribute to.
By waiting to purchase, I can get more for the same cost. If I bought a terabyte hard drive 5 years ago, it would cost one amount. If I wait, and buy it today, it costs less. Is that gaining part of the profits that I didn't contribute to? In a sense, yes. You just didn't contribute to technological and scientific advances which allowed to lower the cost of production per terabyte. People that bought a terabyte hard drive 5 years ago paid much more and thus they financed technological progress the results of which you're reaping today. If there weren't those improvements (through financing), you would still have had to pay the same price for the same volume of storage... |
|
|
|
Is stock market investing, for people who don't actually contribute anything to the company but merely buy their shares from someone else, also stealing?
I didn't quite understand your question really. Companies issue shares and get money from investors at IPOs, so they get cheap financing (they aren't giving them away for free). Who is then stealing from whom and in what way? |
|
|
|
What do you mean by people who got their coins without earning them? Like people who stole their bitcoins?
I didn't mean this. I mean that existing coins of those people who don't contribute to production would also gather in purchasing power (in a sense stealing it from the productive forces) due to the expanded production through socializing profits of those who do. The number of coins remains the same, and all of them would be appreciating even only a small group of people made this possible (which is not fair in my opinion)... But for the most part people who have bitcoins did earn them. They did contribute to the growing economy. They may not have contributed directly to Bitcoin, though they did, unless they stole their coins, give something to someone who gave something to someone (etc.) who mined those Bitcoins. That's what socialists would say Yes, but it turns out that with bitcoin they are gaining part of the profits they didn't contribute to. You may say indeed that when they did earn their own coins, somebody had got some share of their profits too and now they have a right to be compensated. This wouldn't be a problem but for human nature (why should I give part of my profits to who's happened to gain some coins in the past?) since it disincentivizes production. Also, once you earned some coins, you could potentially capitalize on them infinitely (provided the economy is expanding). Why should you? In short, this scheme simply wouldn't work... |
|
|
|
Yes, but the difference is that the number of coins remains the same, so even those who didn't earn them, still get their coins appreciating (what that means you should know by now), since the total output has increased through the economy expansion, but the quantity of coins hasn't. Socializing profits (that's what socialism is all about) is one of the harmful consequences of bitcoin's deflationary nature, among many others...
What do you mean by people who got their coins without earning them? Like people who stole their bitcoins? I didn't mean this. I mean that existing coins of those people who don't contribute to production would also gather in purchasing power (in a sense stealing it from the productive forces) due to the expanded production through socializing profits of those who do. The number of coins remains the same, and all of them would be appreciating even only a small group of people made this possible (which is not fair in my opinion)... |
|
|
|
You yourself assumed that bitcoin is the only currency in the entire world with no competition, right?
For the sake of argument. I don't think this is actually a realistic scenario. So everyone will have their part of the loaf which is socialistic.
Not everyone in the world holds the same amount of currency. Not even close. In a capitalistic society the major part goes only to the creators of this new loaf and those who financially supported them through buying corresponding stocks (through the creation of new money to support the expanded economy, which is impossible in the case of bitcoin). I think this is pretty obvious...
Oh well. I don't understand what you're saying. In a capitalistic society money (whether bitcoins or dollars or gold coins or whatever) goes to those who earn it. I don't know of anything about Bitcoin which changes this. Yes, but the difference is that the number of coins remains the same, so even those who didn't earn them, still get their coins appreciating (what that means you should know by now), since the total output has increased through the economy expansion, but the quantity of coins hasn't. Socializing profits (that's what socialism is all about) is one of the harmful consequences of bitcoin's deflationary nature, among many others... |
|
|
|
That said, the economy will likely continue growing even after the population stops. So let's say on average the world GDP grows by 3% a year. Is this a fair estimate?
So, if Bitcoin was the only currency in the entire world, and had absolutely no competition, you could, on average, earn 3% a year by sitting on your bitcoin stash. On the other hand, you could probably on average earn 5% or more by investing in stocks.
What's the problem?
You have two major courses (or sources) of earning through stocks. The first is speculation when you earn at someone's expense, meaning it is a win-lose situation (since it is a zero sum game in the short term). You win, someone loses, as simple as that. The second way of earning (which is what investing is for) is through the economy growth and expansion (some part thereof), so that only you get your slice of the newly baked loaf (i.e. expanding part of the economy). This is a win-win situation, but only for those who made right investment decisions for the right stocks beforehand (as distinct from bitcoin and its socialistic nature in this respect, where the new loaf is shared between all)... Socialistic nature where the new loaf is shared between all? No, the increase in value of Bitcoin is shared pro-rata by people who hold BTC. So I still don't see what the problem is. You yourself assumed that bitcoin is the only currency in the entire world with no competition, right? So everyone will have their part of the loaf which is socialistic. In a capitalistic society the major part goes only to the creators of this new loaf and those who financially supported them through buying corresponding stocks (through the creation of new money to support the expanded economy, which is impossible in the case of bitcoin). I think this is pretty obvious... Regarding the equity premium puzzle, I would love to refrain from discussing it here, since I know the problem but don't have any firm opinion on that. If someone wants to continue, you're welcome |
|
|
|
That said, the economy will likely continue growing even after the population stops. So let's say on average the world GDP grows by 3% a year. Is this a fair estimate?
So, if Bitcoin was the only currency in the entire world, and had absolutely no competition, you could, on average, earn 3% a year by sitting on your bitcoin stash. On the other hand, you could probably on average earn 5% or more by investing in stocks.
What's the problem?
You have two major courses (or sources) of earning through stocks. The first is speculation when you earn at someone's expense, meaning it is a win-lose situation (since it is a zero sum game in the short term). You win, someone loses, as simple as that. The second way of earning (which is what investing is for) is through the economy growth and expansion (some part thereof), so that only you get your slice of the newly baked loaf (i.e. expanding part of the economy). This is a win-win situation, but only for those who made right investment decisions for the right stocks beforehand (as distinct from bitcoin and its socialistic nature in this respect, where the new loaf is shared between all)... |
|
|
|
zababander О, спасибо, это многое проясняет.
UltroDMA О хороших вещах принято умалчивать: не встречал я о нем отрицательных отзывов, кроме пары положительных. Зато про 50btc все знают)
Начал работать с этим пулом подскажите что вы имеете ввиду что про них все знают? они читят?) Все знают, что 50btc якобы были "взломаны", а по-факту как обычно просто сбежали с деньгами "дольщиков"... |
|
|
|
I personally hate the idea and wouldn't have anything to do with it but I don't see why these people who hate Bitcoin and deflationary currencies can't organise an altcoin of their own like this that they like more rather than trying to usurp the currency and wreck everything. The code is open source and there for you to use and download, even if you don't have any programming experience you could always hire like minded people with Bitcoins to develop it for you and fix things.
For the proposed system to work, they would have to have behind them a state with its power to coerce the new system on everyone. It seems a bit paradoxical to me, that is, people, if given such choice, willingly cling to a monetary system that would ultimately ruin their lives in the end, and at the same time have to be coerced to a system which would profit them in the long run (corruption and all that shit aside)... |
|
|
|
You've got a very valid point but if they can get into The Pentagon's systems (arguably one of the most secure in the world) and steal hundreds of billions worth of top secret info which they're using to develop their own knock-off versions, a serious attack on Bitcoin isn't out of the realm of possibilities.
China could easily drop millions upon millions into developing and building ASIC supercomputers purely to try their hand at a 51% attack. If 51% fails, they could probably utilise thousands of their devs to go around hacking stuff. These are simple possibilities and no doubt there are many more they know of, which we don't.
I'm not a conspiracy theory nut or here to start arguments; I just believe that China are dead against crypto currencies for fiscal and political reasons and they're making it quite clear they won't tolerate crypto as a financial medium. China is still communist, still repressive and it will stop at nothing to ensure its fiat currency stays where they want it to.
They could actually try, but if they build ASIC supercomputers, then difficulty will grow exponentially and they will still ultimately fail to try a 51% attack. I think the majority of China successes at breaking into the Pentagon's systems and whatnot is primarily due to human factors and long tongues, the factors which bitcoin technology by its very nature is very well protected from... |
|
|
|
Со своей стороны обещаю всяческую поддержку и могу замолвить словечко, если напрямую не получается к автору обратиться, сам он из Англии, а соответствующая тема на форуме здесь |
|
|
|
теоретически шанс выиграть уже достаточно приличные по размеру вознаграждения
шансы такие чтобы развести тех кто получил немного btc бесплатно на то чтобы они все быстро спустили обратно в общий котелок впрочем, как в любом другом казино Ну здесь уже каждый сам за себя. Лично у меня таких желаний не возникает, хотя постоянно сайт открыт (больше рассчитываю на большой бесплатный выигрышъ). Но так да, в соответствующей англоязычной ветке народ по-честному признавался, что сначала поднимал денег на бесплатной игре, а затем всё спускал на лохотроне на рулетке... |
|
|
|
При борьбе с торрентами лоббируются интресы копирастов, а тут чьи интересы?
защитить доллар, не дать экономике уйти в тень Ок..защитить доллар... Как именно биткоин угрожает доллару? Инфляцией прежде всего... Один биткоин в обороте делает лишним количество долларов, равное курсу обмена биткоина на доллар. Происходит сжатие товарной массы, номинированной в долларах, а их количество остаётся при этом неизменным. Таким образом, на каждый доллар приходится меньшее количество товара, в качестве итога имеем инфляцию цен в долларах на выходе. Примерно так... |
|
|
|
Важно понимать, что данные цифры не означают то, что 123 миллионов биткоинов сменили своего владельца.
Важно понимать, что Биткоинов всего то 21млн из которых немного больше половины намайнены. О каких 123млн идет речь  ? Скорее всего, имеется в виду скорость оборота, когда один и тот же биткоин может, скажем, за год сменить десять владельцев. Таким образом мы получим, что у нас скорость оборота 10 биткоинов в год, хотя оборачивался всего лишь один и тот же биткоин. Как-то так, думаю... |
|
|
|
Should we be worried if we roll a lot in a day ? I have a job where it's often not uncommon to sit there for 8 hours without much to do so it's quite easy to just sit on my phone rolling constantly. That's not including times where I'm stuck on a subway or taxi so rolling is a great way to kill the time. Are people like that at risk of getting banned because it could look like a bot ?
I ended up losing it all but at one point I was up to 0.04 BTC and I think it's reasonable that i was doing 2 to 3 thousand rolls a day. I've often wondered if my account would get banned, I'm in the top 10 list of winners and it's all 100% manual.
Not really, I am keeping a record of all accounts that are being deleted by the bot detector and reinstating an account will only take a couple of minutes. You will just need to let me know that you are not using a bot. Also I am constantly modifying the bot-detector as and when it makes a mistake. I've recently been wildly advertising your service in the Local subsection of the forum, lol, and now I have around 30 referrals working for me. If someone of them tries to abuse the service (don't know how exactly but nevertheless), will I have any negative effects save for you banning that referral from playing, and will my total referral commissions be somehow affected? Also, you said that you were going to translate your site into some popular languages, how are things going now? |
|
|
|
The OP has some pretty wild ideas but some of it is definitely worth thinking about.
Bitcoin is a thorn in the side to the Chinese government and they're pretty hell-bent on removing it from the Chinese currency market. Look back to what they did to the Chinese Bitcoin exchanges last week. Their government doesn't like Bitcoin because it kind of alleviates the cap on the amount of money people can send out of the country, plus it's anonymous.
I believe the single biggest threat to the future of Bitcoin is the potential for Chinese government-sponsored sabotage of the Bitcoin network. They are believed to have stolen the top secret plans for America's stealth fighter planes and aircraft carriers, so I doubt Bitcoin is going to be too difficult for them to break, if they really wanted it to.
No, this doesn't work this way and that's probably why China is so harsh towards bitcoin. If you know some encryption algorithm, this doesn't automatically mean that you can decipher everything encrypted with it (we are well past those good ol' times). That's how the matters stand with bitcoin... Welcome asymmetric cryptography |
|
|
|
But moreover, the problem with a gold-backed dollar is the dollar part, not the gold part. More specifically, the fractional-reserve central banking system, and especially the Federal Reserve and its mismanagement of that system. And in terms of the period of US history preceding World War II, don't forget the policies of FDR, which "prolonged and deepened" the Great Depression. ( https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258) I can give you a bunch of other problems, but here are relevant only those pertaining to deflationary nature of bitcoin and possible economic outcomes and consequences thereby... Well, I guess in order for me to understand you I first need to understand what you mean by "deflationary nature of bitcoin". Something about going up in value? Yes, getting more purchasing power per unit (i.e. appreciation of a money unit, which you should have learned by now) due to the discrepancy of money supply (ultimately the same or even diminishing number of coins) and the expansion of economy and growth of population, provided all other things being equal... |
|
|
|
You win 0.0000028 BTC!
А они на кошелек-то приходят вообще? )
Каждый понедельник отправляются, если стоит галочка напротив Auto-Withdraw ENABLED (автоматический вывод) и набирается минимальная сумма для вывода. Я сейчас не помню точно, сколько конкретно, но сумма небольшая, раз за двадцать должна вроде набираться... Был инцидент, когда дважды одна и таже сумма многим отправилась... |
|
|
|
No matter what the new payment is: I applied for the 17th of December payment with 50 posts and got nothing. Not even a reply. So it pretty much doesn't matter how moch one would 'eventually' get. I got nothing. I read some people received payments but somehow I doubt that the 'just apply and get paid' thing really works... sorry.
Yes, I see your point. If Stunna actually got your application and didn't pay you, it might be something wrong with your posts. I submitted 1212 posts (some 12 posts above the highest tier) and still got paid in full, which makes a much bigger sum than for 50 posts (so no sense for just withholding the bonus). So, if there is nothing wrong with you contacting Stunna, you should probably look through your posts for an answer... |
|
|
|
И вот мне интересно, есть ли люди, которые вывели оттуда хоть что то?
Выводил несколько раз, 3-4, один раз пришло с опозданием в несколько дней. Перестал туда ходить когда сильно снизились размеры халявы по сравнению с другими сайтами. А где размеры халявы не слишком снизились, если не секрет, конечно? hotswap больше платит, даже учитывая тот факт что недавно снизили сколько выдают за раз это если хватит терпения накликать минимальную сумму которую можно снять в любом случае faucets - это нудно, уныло и неокупаемо, разве что служит дополнительным стимулом для поиска других возможностей заработать больше hotswap посмотрю, но здесь всё-таки прикольнее (насчёт остальных faucets согласен) сделано, плюс теоретически шанс выиграть уже достаточно приличные по размеру вознаграждения. Кроме того, есть возможность играть за деньги, ставки соответственно становятся больше и выигрыш потенциально тоже увеличивается... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
