Take the people in Japan for example, their currency is very unstable and lost 50% of its value against dollar in 2 years. But in Japan, a hamburger used to cost 100 Yen would not become 150 Yen now, but still cost around 100 Yen (maybe 103 Yen since their central bank said the inflation is less than 2% per year ) Actually, yeah, that's how it would work. If the Yen lost 50% of it's purchasing power, a hamburger that used to cost 100 Yen would be more expensive. That's how you know it lost purchasing power, the price inflation of the things it buys. Similarly, if a burger in bitcoin economy cost 0.01 bitcoin, it does not matter how much bitcoin worth in other currency, as long as everyone only use bitcoin to purchase the burger at a price of 0.01 bitcoin, the bitcoin's value will be stable
People don't only deal in btc, or USD, or Yen, or Euros. And they never will. And even if they did, the value of the currency wouldn't necessarily be stable. Money is only a store of value, not value itself. It's a representation of the value of all the goods and services mankind produces. If bitcoin was the only currency, the value of a bitcoin would rise and fall based on how much stuff it could purchase, which would be dictated by how much stuff is on the market. It will never be practical to "defiatize" btc. |
|
|
|
Are you saying that there should not be English posts in the Romanian section?
I'm just spreading awareness about a double standard This is a non-issue. The owner of this website can tell the mods to structure it anyway he wants. If you don't like it, start your own bitcoin forum and have it absent of double standards. Your complaint is the equivalent of ringing someone's doorbell and complaining about the way he cuts his grass. I'd shut the door in your face. This is exactly what slave owners used to say. "I own slaves, don't like it? Move to Guantanamo. No seriously, we got you a free ticket" Clearly, owning this forum and owning slaves are on the same level. Your hyperbole is a sad, internet cliche. I never made that analogy You exactly made that analogy. Don't write stupid shit if you're not going to own up to it later. |
|
|
|
|
Citizen files a false report, gets charged criminally. Cop does it, three day suspension.
No double standard here!
|
|
|
|
the cashout button doesnt work and thats why i lost some huge coins , fine .... admin you should recover my coins  Surely an accusation about a glitch that's so sparse on details is legit! Seriously, you didn't include a single detail that can be used to help you in any way. You also have a scam accusation against you already, and negative trust. You can see why people aren't going to take this post seriously, right? As far as I know, nobody else has had a problem with the cashout button. |
|
|
|
Are you saying that there should not be English posts in the Romanian section?
I'm just spreading awareness about a double standard This is a non-issue. The owner of this website can tell the mods to structure it anyway he wants. If you don't like it, start your own bitcoin forum and have it absent of double standards. Your complaint is the equivalent of ringing someone's doorbell and complaining about the way he cuts his grass. I'd shut the door in your face. This is exactly what slave owners used to say. "I own slaves, don't like it? Move to Guantanamo. No seriously, we got you a free ticket" Clearly, owning this forum and owning slaves are on the same level. Your hyperbole is a sad, internet cliche. |
|
|
|
I'd like to enroll. There's a lack of open spots in higher paying campaigns now, so I guess I'll have to accept a position here as member, even though I'm above that rank.
Sig and PM are changed.
# of posts: 209
Payment address: 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy
if you want to join write in this pattern Post: Activity: Rank: Bitcoin Addresses : Apparently I may not have used the proper format. Post: 209 Activity: 154 Rank: Full Member (Member) Bitcoin Addresses : 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy I guess there is no confirmation of enrollment here? Can I just assume I am enrolled? you can also check here your names https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19fk7QjLFO54-a-UHdjq4Srw5rjUSRmFhdRbAY5LxwDY/edit#gid=0Ah yeah, I'm not listed there. Maybe he just hasn't been able to update it yet? |
|
|
|
Surely not the self-proclaimed "most transparent administration in history!"  I wonder what Senator Obama would have said about the way President Obama is handling things? Remember when he was young and idealistic? I personally doubt that Obama ever intended to be as transparent as he promised to be. He likely knew that he had a very short political track record so it would be difficult for his opponents and fact checkers to prove that he has a history of not being transparent. Remember that this tagline went away during the 2012 election cycle My perspective is I do believe he intended to be, but reality crashed the ideals he campaigned on. Once elected, a politician's main objective is to get reelected. All other concerns pale in comparison to this prime directive. That forces them to take actions that are anathema to what they campaigned on, but in their warped mind, they believe they are accomplishing the greater good. Dems/Repubs view the other side as evil; their ideas and their actions, while their party is the 'good' party. Therefore, all actions taken to stay in power to prevent the other side from enacting their 'bad ideas' are accomplishing the greater good. I honestly believe all politicians think this way. It's how they justify to themselves the total hypocrites they become once elected. |
|
|
|
I'd like to enroll. There's a lack of open spots in higher paying campaigns now, so I guess I'll have to accept a position here as member, even though I'm above that rank.
Sig and PM are changed.
# of posts: 209
Payment address: 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy
if you want to join write in this pattern Post: Activity: Rank: Bitcoin Addresses : Apparently I may not have used the proper format. Post: 209 Activity: 154 Rank: Full Member (Member) Bitcoin Addresses : 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy I guess there is no confirmation of enrollment here? Can I just assume I am enrolled? |
|
|
|
It's so good that she waited twelve years to decide.
A victim of the medical system? If her doctors had been honest with her at the beginning, if she was educated and informed what her child's life was going to be like and that there was zero chance for a normal life do you think she would have made the same choices? Maybe she would, but I can tell you that at least in the US these discussion are often never had with parents. Instead parents are told that their child is very sick and needs this life saving "insert operation here" or they will die immediately. I think a little of this is that we hold that life-saving measures prolong life in hopes that treatments can be developed, even if they're not immediately available. However, there are some medical situations where this is never a viable option, but the alternative (death) is always permanent and irreversible. |
|
|
|
|
I agree with you in theory, but people don't know the value of an item even in this purely bitcoin economy because it's not a stable store of value, so they have to consult in terms of USD still to see if the value of btc is falling or rising relative to fiat currency. Because btc is not a stable store of value, I don't see "defiatizing" the unit of value as possible.
|
|
|
|
'The CIA is predicting an economic collapse. The only way to protect yourself is to buy mah book!' -The article you posted*
*Not an exact quote.
In other words the author of the article in the OP is really just trying to sell his book. Sounds like he is making a outrageous claim as a sales tactic That's certainly what it seems like to me. In no event is the source of the article trustworthy, but there are pitches to buy various items in the article. Just driving traffic by making outlandish claims and hope someone buys something. |
|
|
|
|
'The CIA is predicting an economic collapse. The only way to protect yourself is to buy mah book!' -The article you posted*
*Not an exact quote.
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that there should not be English posts in the Romanian section?
I'm just spreading awareness about a double standard This is a non-issue. The owner of this website can tell the mods to structure it anyway he wants. If you don't like it, start your own bitcoin forum and have it absent of double standards. Your complaint is the equivalent of ringing someone's doorbell and complaining about the way he cuts his grass. I'd shut the door in your face. |
|
|
|
|
For the two responses directly above^^: Ok, I think I understand the system now. Thanks for explaining.
|
|
|
|
say you have one investor. He deposits 1000 coins, and so your BR is in theory 1000. But he sets a max loss of .1% or 10 btc. You are thinking you have a BR of 1000, so you've set the max payout per game to be based on a percentage of 1000 coins, when in reality, your BR is going to walk if it falls to 990, or once you lose 10 coins. Allowing max wins to be much higher than the actual BR will tolerate losses for increases the odds of you going bankrupt if you hit variance, doesn't it?
No, the site can't go bankrupt. If there's only one investor, and he walks after losing 10 BTC, all that would happen is that the bankroll will drop to 0 and the site won't be able to take any more bets. Now suppose there were two investors. One deposited 10 BTC but said he had another 990 BTC offsite, for a total of 1000, and he wants to risk 0.1% each roll (that's 1 BTC per roll) and another deposited his whole roll of 100 BTC and wants to risk 1% per roll. While both investors are in, they each contribute 1 BTC to the max profit per game, for a total max profit of 2 BTC per game. If things go badly for the site suh that the first investor loses the 10 BTC he has on deposit, he will stop contributing to the max profit at all, and the remaining investor will be the only active investor. He's still risking 1% of his remaining 90 BTC per roll, for a max profit of 0.9 BTC per roll. The first investor may not actually have the 990 BTC he claimed to have, but we don't care. It turns out he was taking a huge gamble risking 1 BTC per roll when he only had 10 BTC in total, but that's OK and his own responsibility. Once he's busted (which he may well do) the other, more careful investor will still be just fine, having only lost 10% or so of their investment, and will probably go on to recover fully. Does that make sense now? Yes, I understand this explanation. But what is the benefit of this system now? It's still a system of "don't send more than you're willing to lose if the site turns into a scam." Or is the system not addressing that concern and only addressing the concern of how much you can lose per game even though you're fully "invested?" Maybe I misunderstood which problem you were trying to solve. Here's the problem: At Just-Dice I had a large number of coins invested because I trusted the site's operator. I made a good return. At Moneypot I don't trust the operator as much. I would invest a large number of coins if I did. With the proposed system I can tell them I want to invest a large number of coins, while only actually sending them a small number of coins. So if they turn out to be dice ninjas they don't get to steal too many of my coins. If they turn out to be honest, I get the same return as I would have by sending them all my coins, but without the risk. Also, if a mysterious "whale" turns up and wins huge numbers of coins from the site overnight, my exposure it limited to the number of coins I actually sent. I'm somewhat protected from a "Mateo" style house player. Another benefit is that I can pseudo-invest the same large number of coins in multiple sites at once (supposing there are more sites offering this feature). If the betting volume ends up split 50/50 between the two biggest sites I don't have to decide which site to invest in - I can invest in both of them, and get the same return from each as if I had sent all my coins to both of them. So Investor One tells MP he has 1000 coins to invest and sends in 10. He's only risking 10 to a whale or variance. The other 990 are not on site. Investor Two tells MP he has 100 coins to invest and sends in all 100. Is Investor One paid a share of profits based on his share of the BR as: 10/110, 10/1100, or 1000/1100? |
|
|
|
I'd like to enroll. There's a lack of open spots in higher paying campaigns now, so I guess I'll have to accept a position here as member, even though I'm above that rank.
Sig and PM are changed.
# of posts: 209
Payment address: 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy
if you want to join write in this pattern Post: Activity: Rank: Bitcoin Addresses : Apparently I may not have used the proper format. Post: 209 Activity: 154 Rank: Full Member (Member) Bitcoin Addresses : 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy |
|
|
|
say you have one investor. He deposits 1000 coins, and so your BR is in theory 1000. But he sets a max loss of .1% or 10 btc. You are thinking you have a BR of 1000, so you've set the max payout per game to be based on a percentage of 1000 coins, when in reality, your BR is going to walk if it falls to 990, or once you lose 10 coins. Allowing max wins to be much higher than the actual BR will tolerate losses for increases the odds of you going bankrupt if you hit variance, doesn't it?
No, the site can't go bankrupt. If there's only one investor, and he walks after losing 10 BTC, all that would happen is that the bankroll will drop to 0 and the site won't be able to take any more bets. Now suppose there were two investors. One deposited 10 BTC but said he had another 990 BTC offsite, for a total of 1000, and he wants to risk 0.1% each roll (that's 1 BTC per roll) and another deposited his whole roll of 100 BTC and wants to risk 1% per roll. While both investors are in, they each contribute 1 BTC to the max profit per game, for a total max profit of 2 BTC per game. If things go badly for the site suh that the first investor loses the 10 BTC he has on deposit, he will stop contributing to the max profit at all, and the remaining investor will be the only active investor. He's still risking 1% of his remaining 90 BTC per roll, for a max profit of 0.9 BTC per roll. The first investor may not actually have the 990 BTC he claimed to have, but we don't care. It turns out he was taking a huge gamble risking 1 BTC per roll when he only had 10 BTC in total, but that's OK and his own responsibility. Once he's busted (which he may well do) the other, more careful investor will still be just fine, having only lost 10% or so of their investment, and will probably go on to recover fully. Does that make sense now? Yes, I understand this explanation. But what is the benefit of this system now? It's still a system of "don't send more than you're willing to lose if the site turns into a scam." Or is the system not addressing that concern and only addressing the concern of how much you can lose per game even though you're fully "invested?" Maybe I misunderstood which problem you were trying to solve. |
|
|
|
Surely not the self-proclaimed "most transparent administration in history!" I wonder what Senator Obama would have said about the way President Obama is handling things? Remember when he was young and idealistic? |
|
|
|
I can't believe we have come so far! America, the land of the free!
You know this wasn't in America, right? |
|
|
|
|
Civil forfeiture laws allow cops to do this all the time. Laws like this are a bane to a free people, and increase the likelihood of abuse since there is a lack of due process or oversight.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
