hashflare.io is pretty safe.
But if you look here, you'll notice that right now the best contract have payback period of 813 days. So it's more than two years just to break even. Most of the contracts (all timed ones) never pay back. For example 1-year ethereum mining at hashflare.io will give you net loss of around 30%.
That's kind of a contradiction. You say they are safe, yet you will lose money. I guess you could consider them to be safe because of the transparency -- they let you know ahead of time that you will lose money. It is odd that people still invest in cloud mining knowing that they will either lose some of their money or all of their money. |
|
|
|
Could you expand more on this?
Personally, I don't quite understand what you mean. If there is no new money entering or being created in the economy (and there are no defaults of the borrowers either), the debt system is not sustainable in the long run. In other words, one day there won't be enough money to pay the interest, and that would eventually cause the system to get reset writing off all or most of the debts
Let's say that you loan me $100 to grow apples and I have to pay you $1 a day until you get $105. Now, suppose you buy an apple for lunch from me each day, and then I use that dollar to pay you for the day. With that single dollar, I can repay my loan completely In other words, it can be said that you just include the interest into the price of your apples In this manner, the interest can be excluded completely from consideration by simply diminishing the profit margins you obtain by selling your merchandise. But the question still persists, namely, where do your profits come from? In this system when someone wins (i.e. earns) someone seemingly loses, at least in monetary terms, right? I mean the profit margins, of course, not the money which apples themselves cost to produce. In this way, profit margins amount to bank interest (though this shouldn't be misconstrued as if I were against producer profits altogether) The profits and the ability to pay interest come from the value created by growing the apples. Ideally, the grower wouldn't spend all of the profits on interest (otherwise there would be no benefit from getting a loan), and both the lender and the borrower are better off than if the loan were never made and the apples were never grown. |
|
|
|
They're physical bitcoins. The ones on the pic are the same as the ones shown here. They are silk road coins?  If you can find them in real gold not those fake ones on Ali express they would be worth millions!  I don't consider them to be "physical bitcoins" because they contain no bitcoin value like real physical bitcoins. They are probably replicas, but without seeing both sides it is hard to tell. There are many companies that make physical bitcoin replicas. Many of these replicas are combinations of different coins. They are certainly not gold. |
|
|
|
|
The problem with comparing the Bitcoin supply to a M1 supply is that M1 includes money created through fractional-reserve banking and the Bitcoin supply does not. A better comparison might be with M0/MB, but it depends on what you are trying to show.
|
|
|
|
Interest rates aka usury implies that the borrower will get more money from the economy than he had put it. If half of the people would borrow someone else money, from where the additional percent of the money would come? From heaven? Or from nowhere because it is impossible.
The flaw in this oft-repeated fallacy is that it ignores the fact that money is a medium-of-exchange. Value is produced and consumed in an economy. As long as borrowers can produce enough value, loans can be repaid. It doesn't matter if there is a finite amount of money -- money is a tool used to exchange value. A loan can potentially be paid back using the same dollar over and over againCould you expand more on this? Personally, I don't quite understand what you mean. If there is no new money entering or being created in the economy (and there are no defaults of the borrowers either), the debt system is not sustainable in the long run. In other words, one day there won't be enough money to pay the interest, and that would eventually cause the system to get reset writing off all or most of the debts Let's say that you loan me $100 to grow apples and I have to pay you $1 a day until you get $105. Now, suppose you buy an apple for lunch from me each day, and then I use that dollar to pay you for the day. With that single dollar, I can repay my loan completely. The fallacy of the not-enough-money-to-pay-interest argument it ignores the fact that money is used to transfer value and it can be used to transfer value over and over again. And the fallacy of the one-dollar can pay all debt scenario is that it requires eternal exponential growth to keep the system going. In this case you have created a hypothetical example with exponential growth an apple orchard capable of growing fast enough to repay a single debt. No, the scenario doesn't require "eternal exponential growth to keep the system going". As long as I can grow and sell at least $105 worth of apples with a $100 loan, the scenario can continue indefinitely. |
|
|
|
Interest rates aka usury implies that the borrower will get more money from the economy than he had put it. If half of the people would borrow someone else money, from where the additional percent of the money would come? From heaven? Or from nowhere because it is impossible.
The flaw in this oft-repeated fallacy is that it ignores the fact that money is a medium-of-exchange. Value is produced and consumed in an economy. As long as borrowers can produce enough value, loans can be repaid. It doesn't matter if there is a finite amount of money -- money is a tool used to exchange value. A loan can potentially be paid back using the same dollar over and over againCould you expand more on this? Personally, I don't quite understand what you mean. If there is no new money entering or being created in the economy (and there are no defaults of the borrowers either), the debt system is not sustainable in the long run. In other words, one day there won't be enough money to pay the interest, and that would eventually cause the system to get reset writing off all or most of the debts Let's say that you loan me $100 to grow apples and I have to pay you $1 a day until you get $105. Now, suppose you buy an apple for lunch from me each day, and then I use that dollar to pay you for the day. With that single dollar, I can repay my loan completely. The fallacy of the not-enough-money-to-pay-interest argument it ignores the fact that money is used to transfer value and it can be used to transfer value over and over again. |
|
|
|
|
A simplified explanation:
When sending bitcoins from addresses A, B, and C to address X, the transaction actually says something more like, "these bitcoins at addresses A, B, and C can now be spent by address X". In this transaction, A, B and C are the inputs and X is the output.
Now, the requirement says that in order to spend the bitcoins at X (in other words, in order to use it as an input), it must must have been an output in a previous transaction, but not already used as an input in any other transaction (i.e. "unspent").
Bitcoin basically works by taking previous outputs and combining them to create new outputs that can be used in subsequent transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
Through purse.io, you can buy stuff from amazon, and you even get a discount. I believe you can buy electronics at newegg using btcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Forget GPUs. I don't know how you expect to earn $1100 per year. Even with multiple GPUs, you will only mine maybe 0.00002 BTC per month.
You need an ASIC miner.
|
|
|
|
|
Please be careful selling BTC for Paypal.
The buyer can dispute the transaction and get the money back, or the buyer can use a stolen account and the actual owner will get the money back, or the buyer can even scam someone else for $25 paypal (sending it to you) and the other person will get the money back (from you).
Escrow doesn't prevent any of these scams unless the escrow holds the BTC for 6 months.
|
|
|
|
|
The sponsor seems confused (or perhaps duplicitous). She claims she is attempting to restrict a black market, but banning virtual currencies leaves cash as the only option.
|
|
|
|
Don't bother reading it. The article just contains a bunch of speculation and innuendo. It contains no facts. Here is the article with all the fluff taken out: If the gossip ...
... rumors were swirling ...
... there is said to be a potential twist to the story relating to an unknown entity ...
[unnamed] Major news outlets are ... said to be ...
|
|
|
|
As the time pass I am seeing more and more people talking about the "off-chain" transactions, but what is it exactly ? Is it doing transactions outside of the Bitcoin network, but still using Bitcoin as the currency, making it not an altcoin ? If it is the case, how is it even possible ? And what advantages does that bring ? If not what it is ?
Typically, in an off-chain transaction, a promise or an un-broadcasted transaction is transferred rather than the actual bitcoins. Also, bitcoins can be sent by transferring the private key holding them. For example, when you buy bitcoins from Coinbase or an exchange, no bitcoins are actually transferred. Coinbase or the exchange simply promises to send you the bitcoins if you ask for them. If you send bitcoins from your Coinbase account to another address at Coinbase, then the transaction is done simply by updating account balances at Coinbase. In these transactions, nothing appears on the block chain (until bitcoinsare sent to an address that is not controlled by Coinbase or the exchange). A Lightning Network works (in simple terms) by trading un-broadcasted transactions. When you send btc through a LN, you give the receiver a transaction that will send your btc to them. They typically don't broadcast the transaction immediately because they expect to you to give them an updated transaction when you send more btc, or when they send btc back to you. Eventually a transaction will be broadcast and appear on the block chain, and that on-chain transaction will represent the result of many of these off-chain transactions. Giving someone a physical bitcoin is an example of an off-chain transaction involving transferring a private key. |
|
|
|
|
Oh look! Another cloud mining Ponzi scheme!
I would normally be surprised that a media outlet is actually promoting this scam, but I'm not because it is newsbtc.com.
|
|
|
|
I registered a new account on btcclicks 5 days ago and I reached 0.1mBtc today, nothing impressive but it's free so not bad imho.
Congratulations!
After 5 days of clicking, you earned $0.09!
At that rate, you can earn $6.50 after a year of clicking.
Currently, the easiest, most convenient, and most effective way to obtain bitcoins is to buy them. |
|
|
|
All three at the exact same time need to have a minimum of a 0.2% rate by noon on Tuesday. I think we'll see a lot less volume from Chinese exchanges starting.... NOW!
That's in 6-1/2 hours. Get your money out now!  Anyway, one of my pet peeves is when a person claims that there is market manipulation without being able to explain exactly how the market is being manipulated. |
|
|
|
It would be interesting to know how closely the Chinese Mining Pools are working with the Chinese Exchanges.
BTCC has its own mining pool. So what? If BTC Price & Volume drop off in the next week or so, you will know that the Chinese have been playing the whole world for fools, by falsely inflating the price, & hoarding the majority of BTC mined.  It is widely believed that the Chinese exchanges pad their volume numbers, but a drop in volume won't prove it. Volume will drop because traders will now have to pay to trade when it used to be free. Ask yourself , how do you run a business and never charge your clients a fee to pay your bills for years. The answer , is you are doing something criminal to steal money from somewhere. Though trading was free, the Chinese exchanges charged fees on money withdrawn from the exchange. |
|
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious that they reached an agreement, maybe motivated by pressure from the PBOC. Whie cartels are anti-competitive, I don't consider such an agreement to be market manipulation.
|
|
|
|
It seems unfair to me. The debt will cross the $20 trillion mark in the next few days. The media will go ballistic and they will dish out headlines such as "US federal debt at $20 trillion under the Trump presidency". No one is going to mention that half of that debt was created by Barack Obama.
Dude Don't blame him for 10 trillion xD I mean he didn't reduce the debt for sure but 10 trillion? Seriously? xDDDD Yes Obama doubled the debt from $10 to $20 trillion, just over the total of every previous president combined. It is Congress that is responsible for this debt. The President has little control over it. |
|
|
|
|
Faucets and HYIP are wastes of time. You can earn only a few pennies worth of bitcoins through faucets, and HYIPs will steal your money.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
