Why not? Henri de Castries is the chairman of AXA. AXA is one of the main investors in Blockstream. Henri de Castries is also the immediate past char of the Bilderberg group. This is all a matter of public record. What is not 'to buy'? The AXA is one of many investors over a VC fund. They have many stakes in tech startups w/o much agenda except of make money. The world is too complex to be controlled by single groups, even Bilderberg. You give em too much power, but ok there is a small probability - is it that high? A good thing is to uncover as much as possible from these groups but w/o any good investigative journalism I cannot believe much here. Ppl should not pre-judge, we have already too much fud here. I guess I don't understand. By 'I don't buy the Bilderberg FuD', it seems that you believe that the Bilderberg angle is a central tenet of the thesis in the video. FWIW, I can find several non-scary reasons that an organization directed by the same party that directs the Bilderberg group might invest in a company working on new monetary technology. (Of course, I can think of some scary ones as well). But the info in the video does not hinge upon the assumption that Bilderbergs hired Blockstream as their lackeys to destroy the viability of cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
So has anyone here actually treated themselves to anything after passing an arbitrary milestone?
Not yet. OTOH, my daughter asked me to walk her through my 'laddered day trading' strategy for monetizing the volatility. She's been sitting on her BTC for just shy of four years now. I guess she's ready. Well, you going to share some kind of outline of that overall strategy with us (in it's current iteration and how it might vary for your daughter, who likely has a smaller BTC/fiat stash), or is your overall strategy a secret to pass only on to family members? Oh hell, JJG. It's not secret. In fact, I've divulged it here before*. And indeed, to the extent that you have revealed yours, I think it is largely the same strategy. *I've couched it in terms of 'taking value in fiat', in a means that plays off the volatility, that sometimes nets you even more BTC than before starting to pull out fiat value. Either way, maximizes your possible net. Maybe a month or two ago. Let me know if you need me to drag it out again. Though I distinctly remember you commenting upon at at the time. The important point is daughter is now interested enough to try to absorb it. I find this an excellent development, as dinner table discussion between the Mrs. and me has transitioned from 'what do you want to do now that we have all this money'? to 'what is the most responsible way to handle dynastic wealth'? Really the only variable for a smaller owner is using smaller amounts. Everything scales to holdings. I'll simplify to BTC only, and only on GDAX (where makers pay 0%). At least at first. The strategy -- such as it is -- is applicable to other scenarios, perhaps with additional complications. We're divided by a 45 minute drive and infrequent emails & phone. She really needs a full intro. I figure it'll be a written manual, plus live demo when we can get together. First installment written and sent, but that is really an overview of available data that a trader might need. I'll post it if you want, but it is likely remedial for Bitcoin wall watchers, and only covers background info. Next installment will be an exchange overview, then third likely the method itself. |
|
|
|
the only ones that benefit financially will be the LN hubs and this will be under 1 cent
per transaction
Forward-looking statements based upon assumptions that my not come to pass. Not valid in all jurisdictions. Your mileage may vary. LN will be a fee market where the transaction will take the cheapest/quickest route so any LN node operators trying to charge more will not get any business as there will be cheaper routes so it will be a competition for the lowest fee
Kind of a problem, as nobody yet has invented an algorithm for trustless, anonymous, decentralized route discovery. Let alone one weighted by price at each edge of the graph. But by all means, keep smoking the hopium. |
|
|
|
Why not? Henri de Castries is the chairman of AXA. AXA is one of the main investors in Blockstream. Henri de Castries is also the immediate past char of the Bilderberg group. This is all a matter of public record. What is not 'to buy'? |
|
|
|
In the interview that made Roger Ver angry, he said he has no problem with centralization.
I was distracted with work while i was watching the 'interview'. I must have missed where Ver said he "has no problem with centralization". Do you have a time into the timeline where he says that? It costs you the same amount of effort as me to rewatch it. I understand that. I don't remember him saying that. I think you are mistaken. IOW, I have openly challenged your claim as likely being false. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Niiice. Didn't know you were a singer. Or musician of other stripe (U87 seems one of the most versatile LDCs available) I've sang through a U87 on several occasions. Oddly, the best my voice has sounded was through a TLM103. About one-third the cost of the standard nickel plated U87 Set Z. It was through the same Avalon tho. |
|
|
|
I personally think John Macafee's dick is safe.
I'm not certain he will even make it to the deadline. He's 72 years old and all those drugs must have been taking a toll on his body. Perhaps he has an iron constitution. Better living through chemistry? |
|
|
|
So has anyone here actually treated themselves to anything after passing an arbitrary milestone?
Not yet. OTOH, my daughter asked me to walk her through my 'laddered day trading' strategy for monetizing the volatility. She's been sitting on her BTC for just shy of four years now. I guess she's ready. |
|
|
|
Peter Todd dumped his bitcoins in protest.
Peter Todd rage-quitted-ed? Say it isn't so! <half-sarc>No wonder he seems to care so little for the outcome of Bitcoin.</half-sarc> |
|
|
|
That only tells me that 45% of the hash power is by a mystery other. Who is the mystery other and why aren’t they identifying themselves? Bitcoin.com 15.28%- Owned by Roger Ver BTC.TOP 13.89% -Ally of Bitmain ViaBTC 11.81%- Partially owned by Bitmain BTC.com 6.94% - Owned by Bitmain Antpool 5.56% - Owned by Bitmain Suprnova .695% - OCMINER (Not affiliated with Bitmain in any way) "Other Mining Pools" 45.83% - controlled by two mining farms mining to address 13DMgTu721eoYFoxHVE1wZ7k5yixmfRiPQ & 17Wk4GPKw9nZ9PbspzaxN3fv1L2m9NA9dg. Other addresses used in the past. Have about 500 Phash between the two of them. Likely Bitmain. Bravo. Compare and contrast: https://coin.dance/blocks/today |
|
|
|
No one even bothers to spam them with 0 fee transactions? Save your breath. Jbreher isn't looking for the truth, and he doesn't give a toss about decentralization. Incorrect on both counts. I value the truth very highly, and I find your definition of centralization (well, your _apparent_ definition of centralization, as you refuse to define it) as useless. As evidence, see the following:
As long as nobody who desires to mine is forcibly barred from mining, then the mining is by definition decentralized. At least as far as can be said for voluntary action.
|
|
|
|
Yesterday I spoke about the unconfirmed transactions in the "wall observer" forum, many commented that they were spam transactions in the network to discredit it.
After several exchanges nobody could show me a bitcon transaction with really low rate.
This morning all my posts have been deleted. wtf? I thought there was only censorship in reddit.
Has someone else happened to you?
Feel free to repost it in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2402558.msg24578737#msg24578737 |
|
|
|
mempool spam and shitcash pump, there we go again.
Fk them. Last time I checked, the CME Group and the NASDAQ were not going to be trading BCash futures. Or any other shitcoin futures for that matter. CBOE. It's a thing. Cheers! |
|
|
|
So in the long run, what is the point of having BTC and Bcash? Surely one will absorb the other eventually?
It's hard to follow everything especially when you don't understand the technology that well (like me). Meh. The technology of Bitcoin Segwit and of Bitcoin Cash both 'work'. However, they implement very different economic principles. That's where the rubber meets the road, and that defines the set of use cases that each can fulfill. |
|
|
|
"I also did a lot of research into the nitty gritty on the strengths and weaknesses of both implementations, things like the blocksize debate, scaling, rising transaction fees, network congestion, and more, but I am afraid that would take up too much time and turn this piece into a boring technical discussion. Instead, I will focus on the development team behind both, the main public proponents of each side, and touch on the network’s miners and nodes." ... and then demonstrates that his understanding of Bitcoin is so woefully wrong, that he confuses Bitcoin Cash (the blockchain) with the totality of client implementations. For starters. |
|
|
|
Jeebus. Again with this article full of lies, distortions, misunderstandings, and other garbage? The article is bullshit. Earlier upthread -- in response to your post -- I posted several such falsehoods found in a single paragraph. Did you have the courage to reply with a rebuttal? No. That make you a liar as well. Just stop. |
|
|
|
To be honest , any coin run by ASICS will be centralized due to economic's forces.
(Only the Rich can afford the costs of maintaining ASICS.)
All PoW coins will eventually uses ASICS or be centralized to mining farms, it is a design flaw in PoW that can not be fixed.
You have to move to a new algo to stop centralization, if that is your main concern.
True. That's why there should be a POS Bitcoin. That one will be the winner. Moreover, it will not use as much energy as the POW Bitcoin which is better for the environment. If I would be working on Blockchains than I would have made a Bitcoin POS split. That would be a good idea, but here are the things stopping it. 1. PoW Miners refuse to give up the control 2. PoS requires at least 1 billion coins to be secure, anything lower and 51% attacks become a greater concern. 3. Many PoS implementations has excessive inflation rates that cause a downward price pressure that never relents for long. Those are the main obstacles. When Eth does convert to PoS, watch and see where if the money stay with ETH or switches to ETC , Miners still dominate the majority of trading, and their interests are still PoW. Naaah. The obstacle facing a potential PoS version of Bitcoin is for somebody to expend the effort to code it up and fork it off. Other than this, there are exactly zero barriers to accomplishing such a thing. What are ya waiting for? Hop to it! |
|
|
|
In the interview that made Roger Ver angry, he said he has no problem with centralization.
I was distracted with work while i was watching the 'interview'. I must have missed where Ver said he "has no problem with centralization". Do you have a time into the timeline where he says that? |
|
|
|
Airplanes. Thinking about a nice little Beech Sierra.
Cirrus SR22T for me. Because I need more experience before the SF50. Like, seriously.  That the one with the little parachute? Cute idea but I'd rather land unpowered. Well, that remains an option. Glide ratio better than your beech, or equivalent Cessna or piper. Otoh, it's certificate this century... Rather than the fifties like those old school airframes. Did you take a gander at the SF50? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
