А если человек на бирже трейдит под стимуляторами вроде декстроамфетамина, то декстроамфетамин - это программное или аппаратное средство?
Тайсон вообще под коксом дрался...  Если кто уже успел написать, извиняйте, всю тему не читал  |
|
|
|
Вы маленько не вьехали - это не теория - это больше вашей шкуры и безопасности касается уже.
То есть ломая SSL банка уже точно знают сколько у вас денег и где они лежат...
(хотя насчет возможности АНБ полного взлома всех SSL я пока не уверен - оказались взломаны
далеко не все сервера, так что не исключено что могли просто поработать с админом старыми добрыми
шпионскими методами, либо просто стырить сертификаты... А может просто другие не нужны им были, хз)
Ага, а может и не Волгу, а Жигули, и не выиграл, а проиграл (у вас всё прямо как в том анекдоте)... Что-то я смотрю, вы, батенька, уж в совсем откровенную демагогию конспирологию ударились! |
|
|
|
И вот ещё Но главная проблема в том что у валют с внешним обеспечением вроде биткойна
(у CRU есть и "внутр." часть которая обеспечена непосредственно)
очень сложно определить сколько там за него продается товара, сколько инвестиций,
а сколько просто краткосрочные спекуляции или вообще казино...
Разве указанное разделение имеет какое-то принципиальное значение?  Если мы говорим о чисто "рыночной" валюте (т.е. курс которой устанавливается исключительно на основе рыночного спроса и предложения, а не в добровольно-принудительном порядке), то, на мой взгляд, подобное разделение (внешнее/внутреннее обеспечение) теряет смысл... И вы уже не сможете, как прежде, сослаться на "мохнатую руку" зловещего паразита в виде ЦБ... |
|
|
|
а вы что, так еще и не поняли в чем разница между обеспечением(наполнением) и пузырем?
Разница конечно мало заметна, но в одном случае вы едите пельмени из свинины и ничем не рискуете
даже если вложитесь и забудете следить за котировками,
а в другом случае вы едите пельмени из человечены и можете сами пойти на мясо!
Есть разница?
Позвольте, а как же квадриллион долларов финансовых деривативов? В чём правда, брат? |
|
|
|
Но банковские аккаунты не смотря на SSL они тока так посмотрят, имейте ввиду!
Судя по всему перехватывается траффик между россией и кипром)
Всё намного проще и SSL здесь совершенно не при чём. Если международные платежи осуществляются в долларах США (посредством SWIFT), то все транзакции проходят через корреспондентские счета, открытые банками в американских банках. Поэтому потенциально США могут отследить практически любой доллар проходящий через банковскую систему даже другой страны... Насчёт евро не в курсе, но думаю, что принципиально всё тоже самое! |
|
|
|
I'd say he's just plain old confused (or dishonest, but I'll apply Hanlon's razor on this one).
Yes, bitcoins are not physical substances. But that's not part of the definition of money or currency.
Strictly speaking, he is not even correct on the units which are defined by some physical metric. If we take his own example ("an inch is not real but it is definable"), it turns out that this very metric of space (length) is not constant but increasing with time through the expansion of the Universe (i.e. the scale of space itself is changed). So his inch is by no means fixed or definable... |
|
|
|
Max win increased to 0.3 BTC and other values increased correspondingly.
Also the bonus has been switched back to 0.0005 BTC!
Much better now! |
|
|
|
What does make it more valid is the intrinsic value of bitCON is not as a currency, but as a speculative ponzi scheme. This is mathematically unarguable.
I didn't get your point, please expand more on this  |
|
|
|
Gold is not a quantity.
"One ounce of gold" is a quantity. "One ounce of gold" is a unit.
So is "one BTC of bitcoin", though.
Maybe he was referring to gold being physical substance, thus being definable not only in abstract units ("one BTC of bitcoin") but also by some real "yardstick" (e.g. in units of weight)? Though this still doesn't make his stance on money more valid... |
|
|
|
What does my post have to do with your answer? Please explain yourself, maybe I'm missing something...  Exactly as it's stated. TheNewAnton asked whether there was news about the new prices. You reacted with 'No news'. But there was news, just above the replies of you both. And that's the part I quoted (I'll sort the remainder out tomorrow and determiner the new rates.), which means that Stunna will determine the new rates tomorrow. Actually, there was no news about new prices (the post you're referring to says nothing about new prices) and this was only part of my answer for one of the questions. In short, you'd better stop spamming... |
|
|
|
Any news about the new prices? If they change after enrolling, do you get the old or new payout?
No news yet. I think we should all be thankful to Stunna for keeping the old prices during the last campaign. Asking him to keep the old payout just because you had enrolled before the new price was announced borders, in my opinion, on impudence... check post #608 its by Stuna hope you understand all Me understand what? |
|
|
|
Any news about the new prices? If they change after enrolling, do you get the old or new payout?
No news yet. I think we should all be thankful to Stunna for keeping the old prices during the last campaign. Asking him to keep the old payout just because you had enrolled before the new price was announced borders, in my opinion, on impudence... It's just a few posts above yours.. Start reading guys. What does my post have to do with your answer? Please explain yourself, maybe I'm missing something... |
|
|
|
Any news about the new prices? If they change after enrolling, do you get the old or new payout?
No news yet. I think we should all be thankful to Stunna for keeping the old prices during the last campaign. Asking him to keep the old payout just because you had enrolled before the new price was announced borders, in my opinion, on impudence... |
|
|
|
It seems that you are on a very slim margin or running out of coins... Better to make changes before I run out than after Reducing the payouts to nothing wouldn't be fun at all! |
|
|
|
No, we shouldn't. Suffice it would be to measure the size of the BTC economy in money terms Money terms? Instead of polling the forum we could easily track the size of the BTC economy (number of coins times BTC exchange rate) for the past few years... |
|
|
|
As for the masses, they're more than welcome to join in, buy and hold for a couple of years.
That's what I'm talking about. The price shouldn't be very high per unit, so your average Joe could ultimately afford it (even if he actually buys only a small portion of a unit), and at the same time it shouldn't be very low, so he could feel the weight of his investment and be happy about it |
|
|
|
Few and far between? Perhaps we should poll the forum.
No, we shouldn't. Suffice it would be to measure the size of the BTC economy in money terms |
|
|
|
A few years? Anyone who has held bitcoins for even 2 years has profited quite well.
Those were few and far in between (in relative terms indeed). I mean Bitcoin for the masses...  |
|
|
|
I agree, the kind of money we are seeing at this point isn't coming from the average joe. Some people are cashing in by dropping in big amounts and buying backs but we saw that a few times in the last few days. This one was just a bigger one.
The good news are overwhelming at this point with bitcoin. The bubble will keep inflating for a while. I am not saying it won't blow at a point, but I don't feel we have reached that point yet.
People need some asset which could be a safe investment/haven for at least a few years like gold was. But now gold is discredited (in price terms), so it's an easy guess that the price might reach around 2000$ (as gold was once heading up to). It's all throughout human psychology |
|
|
|
My pure speculation. Price stays where it is -- at least above or maybe even slightly below yesterday's vwap -- for a day or two, regroups, and then pushes higher. It will be like the one final orgasmic thrust. It will be glorious.  Yeah, balls to the wall! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
