The IMF today is including the renminbi as a global reserve currency.


It's a little baffling to me how a centrally manipulated currency that pegs its value to other global reserve currencies could itself become a global reserve currency, but there you have it!

Is there no way to defeat a proposal then? All proposals are simply pending until they reach consensus?

The problem isn't the ratio of initial distribution to total float, it's inflation as a whole. The whale digger only accelerated a problem that is inherent to CLAM. Creating faster inflation to make whale digger inflation smaller by comparison doesn't solve any problems.

Nothing fundamental has changed about CLAMs. It's going now the same place it was going before, the rate it was getting there has just been accelerated.

Do you think that if he had announced before he sold a single CLAM that he had 500k CLAMs to dig but would be selling slowly that the price would not have dropped dramatically? I think that whether he announced or whether he was found out, the price drop was inevitable and unavoidable. Thinking that selling slowly wouldn't have crushed the price once we all knew how many extra CLAMs were being dug is not a view that makes a whole lot of sense to me.

You can also imagine the guy who bought bitcoins at $1000 each two years ago, and now they're worth $300 each. Long term didn't turn out so good for him, and he probably feels like an idiot now.

I guess I'm confused by the phrasing of "scamming faucet payouts." Scamming denotes fraud to me, as in malicious intent. Are you claiming that there is some kind of fraud here, or he was just lucky in that something he was doing anyway had the unintended benefit of also being worth a ton of CLAMs later on?

Do you think someone has a crystal ball? How could anyone know when it's going up or down? It's all based on speculation, it doesn't follow rules.

I missed or do not understand this part of the story. What is the allegation as far as cheating faucets goes?

Unless the halving has already driven it higher. The price is up about $100 over what had become a fairly stable equilibrium price around $225, which it had held for an extended period of time this year.

If you're a "trader," 12 months might be a long time to hold a stock. If you're an investor, it's not at all. Businesses don't change fast enough to appreciate in value in any meaningful way in 12 months. If you're looking for the 10-baggers or more, you need to get in on quality companies early and hold them for 5-10 years, and probably longer. People chasing "fast money" are more likely to harm themselves than help.

Google pays well because they have so much information about people browsing. The ad targeting is top notch (compared to anyone else, except maybe Facebook) so they can charge more , and everyone flocks to them because they pay the best.

I think the US spent over a trillion dollars on the Iraq invasion and decade of occupation. I'm not sure how much all the other nations combined spent, but I'd be willing to bet it was not a trillion dollars.

12 months is not a long term horizon. If you're confident about the long term prospects of bitcoin, you should plan to hold for 5-10 years. As a point of comparison, look how much bitcoin has fallen in the last 12 months. People one year ago who were buying with the pipe dream of being rich 12 months later lost 50% of their money in bitcoin. It's only over very long timelines that bitcoin has the potential to make you bring you a nice return, but the risk is not absent. Bitcoin might not be a force in 5-10 years, it could be disrupted itself.

Haha, for a second there I thought you were saying Donald "bankruptcy is my middle name" Trump was who we should turn to solve our financial problems.   

As far as "fairest" goes, it seems relative. What are the options when you're launching a coin, is it essentially pre-mine, pre-seed, or everyone starts with 0 and it's a race to acquire? In a landscape littered with worthless alts, that last option isn't helpful because you can't attract an audience to yet another new coin if you don't stand out, so you need something that grabs attention and widely distributes from the start. Pre-seeding seems like a logical answer because pre-mined coins always carry the stigma of being pumpers for the developers, and pre-seeding at least gives you wide distribution in a more fair fashion. Naturally, the unintended consequences of that have arisen. Whether or not they could have been foreseen isn't very important to me, unless you're making the argument that the whale digger is also a developer, and manipulated the system for his own gain. The goal was wide distribution in as fair as possible a manner to give the coin a running start, and I would say it worked because it got Doog's attention and earned a place at JD, which is the only catalyst so far to give it actual value.

When thousands of individual diggers dug and sold their coins for the free btc, it was a "good thing" because it helped distribution, in spite of the fact that unwanted coins were being thrown into the market, which would suggest to me a flaw in the distribution model. But no one was protesting that then, or worried about coin inflation or the affect on price. But now we are, and it just happens to be because it's one guy who lucked out. Again, if you're making the argument he gamed the system, that's an entirely different issue. But if you're just upset by his dumb luck, that arbitrary double standard bothers me.



Doesn't follow logically. Someone might start, or someone might not. It's not a given, for one, and if the potential undug CLAMs didn't bother you 2 months ago, why do they bother you now? No one cared at all about all the potential undug CLAMs until they had to acknowledge the error in their thinking that no one would ever dig those CLAMs.

I don't think necessarily it's the coming forward, but the other assertions he's made: this is his only wallet, he has no more CLAMs to dig after this, etc. That takes away one tiny unknown and gives us a better understanding of what this specific episode is about. Granted, you have to take him at his word, but that's no different than trusting any other screen name on this forum.


That was a pretty unreasonable price, if you ask me. CLAM was experiencing its own little bubble at the time fueled by the this buying can never backfire mentality that plagued bitcoin in 2013. If you're expecting it to get back to that price, I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

So it's an asset for the bank but not for you? How arbitrary. The bank isn't asking you to list their potential assets, it's asking you to list your current assets, and you put car under assets because it's an asset. Things with value are assets, that's why on every quarterly financial statement filed with the SEC, public companies run down their list of assets and have it approved by an accountant. All of those assets depreciate over time, in fact there's even a specific line item on the income statement called "Depreciation and Amortization" which increases as assets lose value, but they're still assets until they're worth zero. It's really sad how you keep telling me I'm financially illiterate and yet you know so little, as detailed by this next portion of your response, where you say 401ks are a dumb idea, then reveal you know absolutely nothing about how they work.


This is a pretty clueless post. You start by criticizing 401ks as stupid, then say/ask a bunch of things that show you have absolutely no idea how 401ks work, then end by again saying 401ks are stupid.

Since you seem so unfamiliar with 401ks, I guess I'll start with the basics. The government does not tax you when you put money into a 401k. The money going in is pre-tax, and income is tax-deferred until you withdraw it. There are many types of retirement accounts, 401k is just one. There are also IRA, SEP, and others, but the benefit of all of these is that they allow tax-deferred investment growth. If you don't understand what that means, or why it's so beneficial, do one of your handy google searches, as you ironically condescendingly demonstrated previously in this thread.

Second, you have just identified yourself as being concerned about hiding your money from the government so you don't have to pay taxes, which now calls into question every bit of financial "advice" you've given here, and it now makes perfect sense why you don't understand the difference between an asset and a liability. If you're worried about tax evasion, you're right, having bank accounts and retirement accounts are probably a bad idea because it makes it easier for the government to tax you, but they're not a bad idea because it's unsound investment advice.

Third, there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you don't understand that, hoard your money in a mattress and watch it depreciate over time, but that's a risk too, either that it will be stolen or just devalue. You cannot separate risk from money, no matter what you do, you can only seek to manage the risk, and investing is about risk management.

Fourth, try looking up an actual fee schedule for a 401k so you don't sound so damned ignorant about what the fees are. There are many types of retirement account programs run through 401ks or IRAs. You can choose to manage your assets in your 401k on your own and not use a manager to reduce the amount of fees you pay. However, if you do use a manager, there are plenty of high-reputation companies with fees under 1%. So to answer your extremely misguided questions, you keep the proceeds of the investment, the fees are about 80 times less than you posited, and you pay 0 taxes on it until you withdraw, at which point the tax rate is ordinary income if you've reached retirement age.

Last, tax-deferred investment returns crush, and I mean absolutely crushes, depreciation of the dollar due to inflation, so you can stop with that nonsense straight away.

Judging by how clueless you have demonstrated yourself to be, you might consider being less antagonistic in your demeanor. It only invites hostile responses. If you care to have a civil discussion about any of this, I'd be happy to continue. But another post full of idiot-calling or proclaiming the superiority of your knowledge after having just made a fool of yourself will not be answered, because frankly there are far more interesting threads to participate in than arguing with someone who hasn't a clue.

An IOU for an apple is not a negative apple. A negative physical object logically cannot exist. You can owe someone an apple, but that doesn't mean there are negative 1 apples in the world because you cannot have less than zero apples. Furthermore, he said dollars (a specific physical object), not money (an abstract concept which can include negative values).

Aww Doog, that's not an appropriate analogy. In context, his statement was about dismissing the threat of JD being over 70% of all CLAM holders because all the money on JD belongs to investors, not you, which as we both know is not a salient point re: CLAM concentration. To use your analogy, my claim to "ownership" of the car in your example is completely irrelevant to your ability to smash it into the wall after I hand you the keys. No one is disputing the legal/moral claim to ownership of the coins on JD, but the ability to control them is what is in question. If you don't like the term "ownership," substitute it with Custody, which is what it's called in the financial world. That reflects that you don't rightfully own it, but you have full ability to control it.