|
Gambling is a problem. Depression is a problem as well.
For a depression I would suggest a constant care, consulting a doctor for sure. Never neglect that problem.
For gambling, I would suggest - stay away, always. If you can play the game like a sport, without investing and losing sweat only through training then OK, but the moment it starts to overwhelm you - stay out, it is not for you.
Never invest more then you can afford to lose without even looking back at it, and never look tragically at loss of things you didn't have before you started.
I feel really sorry for the family of the poor guy.
|
|
|
|
|
That is maybe a tenth time this fake news went out. China is not blocking exchange sites and ICOs, but they do want to regulate them. Some permanent blocks could be necessary along the way through, nothing to be worried about, only annoyed, and only if you are a Chinese trader.
You must understand that Chinese Government only wants to find the way to make this for their benefit, if not to protect people.
China may block all non-Chinese projects in the future though. That is what they did with search engines, news portals etc. They have their versions of everything, even iPhone. That way all the money is staying in China. It is called a strategy, we can argue it (especially about the intellectual property and patent rights) but it is valid.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you ask me - that news are completely irrelevant for the development of the blockchain. Banning those annoying ads is a good thing in any way. Do you ever click on them? I don't, I am even afraid they might contain some malware. If I want to buy something or be informed about what is going on, I do my own research, and already have some platforms I regularly follow, I don't need some ghosts jumping on me.
In any case - people are reacting to this through sheer FUD, but it is, as usual, totally unnecessary. One of the main problems with cryptos is bad security. Hence some regulations are needed and more than welcome. I sincerely believe that both China and Facebook will remove the inhibitions over adds once the market will be better regulated. They simply don't want people to be lured by phishing. Scam projects can advertise in the same way as projects like Bitcoin, Ethereum or NEO.
|
|
|
|
|
The whole point of Blockchain was to stop the centralization in money creation and distribution. By adopting Ripple you would have the exact opposite of that. But does it have a fair chance? Yes, because financial institutions would like to have it their way.
|
|
|
|
|
If the funds are still there then it's probably not compromised. In any case, consider moving to SegWit address. They have improved security over regular addresses. The only downside is that it is still not possible to withdraw the funds to exchanges, but the technology will be there and if you plan a long-term hold you should be OK with that.
|
|
|
|
Yes, there are such thing as true in phenomena but most of it are not what really happens to our economy. I say it is all assumptions because it can be revised or modified by the new theories. That's why it is call as phenomena, there are certain times that it happens but not at all.
I agreed to you that greediness of the power is the real problem of our economy. The improper distribution of goods and services for the people are the main problems of our society. Every economic model as its own weaknesses and we just need to acquire each of it in order for us to survive.
I think we have a little bit of a clish-clash on economic terms. The economic phenomenon is a proven & observed phenomenon that is based on years of a research in real life situations. The phenomenon of supply and its behaviour is a fantastic example. The name "phenomenon" or "phenomena" is derived from the fact that it is not simple mathematics but is strongly relying on the behaviour of the society. What you are referring to may be the economic theory, or economic intervention, in any case - a trial to use economic phenomenon as part of the strategy, and yes - mostly they don't happen as they are supposed to happen, that is why we had so many failed system over the years, and yes - one of them is capitalism. Who will win at the end may come to an simple and seemingly naive question - are there more good or more bad (and "grey") people in the world. I would say there are more good, I've always been an optimist. At some point in the future, a critical mass of good will simply overrun the bad. |
|
|
|
Yes, economists. You know what the problem is with economists? I studied economy, and it probably isn't the same in every country, but we learned a lot about the common economic phenomenon (inflation, primary emission, money, supply, demand,.... you name it) and what they can provoke. But we never did any serious case studies. We never learned a true picture of how those phenomena all work together in an organic society. I believe that a bachelor of economy should be able to predict an output model based on some input parameters, but guess what - we are not able to do that. Also, there are quite a few things they won't tell you, and also - you learn mostly about old ideas, nothing about new ones, so when you finish your study, you are already a couple of steps behind.
Economic phenomena is assumptions, it never really happened the way it happens in this world. Yet it is more similar than what we are experiencing, we don't deny that some view point of it is different from reality. There are different economic models that describes how beautiful a country looks like when it follows. But the real is, there is no such thing as best economic model. All of it has its disadvantages and people specially the government and private organizations take advantage in economic system. There is no dynamical system that takes place in our economy, most of it are just for a conspiracies to improve theirselves. We never functions as one, people never united because we have our own perception. In conclusion, The wealthier person benefits all of the sacrifices of poor people and even there is communism that tackles the equal allocation for the people, the end of it will goes in the pocket of administrations. Remember, there is no equality in this world, rights are nullified by power! I would not say that economic phenomena are all assumptions. For example. The phenomenon of demand and supply. They are really powerful and explain how the things happen in the real world. The economic model is a sum of different phenomena and as you noted there is not "the best one". Each of the old models can be applied to a different society and wouldn't necessarily work on the other. However we can study why something worked out and something did not and based on that make new economic models, always having in mind what the current society needs. The power of the greedy is what the problem is in every system. They will always find a way to make things their way. Hence I made an argument that blockchain and smart contracts can help stop it from happening with some in-built interventionism. |
|
|
|
I dont have much background in economy so forgive me if im making dangerous assumptions. I dont think intervention should come as something that would force people to abandon a system to adopt a new. I think intervention should come as policies that would excite competition. Because competition would naturally make people adopt a better system. For instance in the present, we dont want to make people abandon the current traditional banking model, let them realize its shortcomings then maybe they;ll switch to cryptos.
As for socialism and capitalism-- I do like the idea of socialism but no one has ever successfully implemented it. I dont think it will work in the real world because it doesn't give much incentive to innovate, unlike capitalism. But then again, capitalism is the source of centralized power and the uneven distribution of wealth. It's a system where the poor keeps getting poorer and the rich keeps getting richer. I do agree with you, a hybrid model is very much needed. We need capitalism to keep pushing the boundaries of innovation and socialism to give the less fortunate equal opportunities to be a competitor.
I dare say that you cannot make "a dangerous" economic assumption. Because even if you don't understand something, you are still making an argument and the worst that can happen is that you can be proved wrong. You can only make "a dangerous" assumption for someone who doesn't want "a word to spread"..... Your conclusion is great. I've never put it that way although that is more or less what I've been saying. Yes, economists. You know what the problem is with economists? I studied economy, and it probably isn't the same in every country, but we learned a lot about the common economic phenomenon (inflation, primary emission, money, supply, demand,.... you name it) and what they can provoke. But we never did any serious case studies. We never learned a true picture of how those phenomena all work together in an organic society. I believe that a bachelor of economy should be able to predict an output model based on some input parameters, but guess what - we are not able to do that. Also, there are quite a few things they won't tell you, and also - you learn mostly about old ideas, nothing about new ones, so when you finish your study, you are already a couple of steps behind.
That's probably a criticism most long-time students of social and economic science will acknowledge to some extent! They do not yet embark on "serious case studies" using the same lenghty rigours of their more hard science counterparts. Another shortfall of all economists is their predilection for the old, existing economic models which simply do not lead us to correct results because of the mistaken basis of rational theories... and we keep learning the lesson that humans are anything but rational. Well, although individuals are indeed rational, I do believe that you can kind of predict the movements of the masses, hence making a prediction model is not such an SF. Have you ever red "Foundation" seriers by Isaac Asimov? Although it is a pure SF, it does have some valid presumptions. There is also a very current economic debate ongoing which is arguing that you shouldn't use old study cases to evaluate the potential future trends since every society is organic and there is much that is changing over time - society standpoints, economic instruments etc. etc. That being despite politics and media forcing the same things all over again (as you noted in your next comment). Like dado says, there is no black and white, and hybrid or mixed concepts are what is practical and in fact already in use all over the world. We can see outwardly capitalist regimes with strong socialist desires at heart (I point at West Europe and how since mid-200s all have come to embrace universal healthcare, for example). On the other side of the world, we see staunchly socialist goverments practise all out capitalism. One mention of China and everyone in the Speculation thread wrings their hands.
Very good buwaytress, it is indeed true, we can already see that hybrid approach in practice all around the world. Haven't the Japanese already showed us the power of hybrid thinking by becoming the second strongest economic force in the world in a relatively short period of time just by using it? |
|
|
|
|
Etherdelta is working much better if you use Metamask. Without it is almost unusable. Try it out.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a really weird question. Could you elaborate more? All of those are various parts of crypto world.
It's like asking - how are VW Golf, credit, clutch & Mercedes connected.
|
|
|
|
|
It happened by chance that I was actually tracking the state of top tokens before the crash so I can tell you which ones right away - Neo, Stellar, Ox, Tron.
Best discount came on Cardano, Litecoin, and IOTA.
|
|
|
|
The demand decreased for whatever reason (some sort of panic selling probably) and therefor the price fell.
First to say that you explained it nicely. The reason for the fall was primarily fake news from India about crypto ban (actually just an announcement of anti-cybercriminal policy) and news about Facebook banning crypto adds. These news are relatively unimportant, but the market is reacting very sensitively because it was bound for correction for a very long time already (it rose a lot in a short period of time so a period of slow decrease with some support testing has been expected). |
|
|
|
|
The market is too sensitive. It is reacting badly to very unimportant news - like totally fake news about ban of crypto in India (actually there were just some regulations announced - which is a good thing) and totally unimportant news about Facebook banning crypto ads (are there really people that are looking at and using those ads existing??) and finally.
Although the market is traditionally very sensitive to news and announcements, which is showing its immaturity, the news and announcements are only an inducement. A real cause is of a deep technical nature - the market rose significantly over last months and it was due for a correction. Since experienced investors are expecting it, they are reacting to signals, while inexperienced investors are bound to panic easily and it is all driving the market down.
However, this only means that coins/tokens are becoming cheap. Experienced investors will by again at the proper signals of stabilization, and when they drive the market upwards again, new investors will start joining again.
|
|
|
|
I won't pretend to understand much of the deeper academic disciplines (even if am familiar with at least Keynes) but I guess this is the reason why some economists can't see blockchain as a mere disruptive tech but a foundational one, a building block (no pun intended) upon which emerging industries will establish themselves. Bitcoin was very ideological, but perhaps deliberately left out certain economic aspects of serious consideration. But I think decentralisation allows or in fact encourages diverse reactions to the free market - so even intervention and attempts to influence is a natural product of that, simply that anyone is free to do so and none represent a central authority. We can see this happening within Bitcoin itself, even though it is barely ten years old. We've got people like the Bitcoin Foundation advocating their views, we've got the Global Blockchain Council exerting their influence right now even within the EU parliament, we had the miners backing the NYA last year, and eventually abandoing it. All are interventions, but none of these actually representing a still very much decentralised network.
P.S. I'd guess I have a leaning towards socialist tendencies. Like Keynes, I think the survival of the fittest cannot be applied to our society because that simplistic nature does not extend to intelligent species, even if it governs basic sentience.
Yes, economists. You know what the problem is with economists? I studied economy, and it probably isn't the same in every country, but we learned a lot about the common economic phenomenon (inflation, primary emission, money, supply, demand,.... you name it) and what they can provoke. But we never did any serious case studies. We never learned a true picture of how those phenomena all work together in an organic society. I believe that a bachelor of economy should be able to predict an output model based on some input parameters, but guess what - we are not able to do that. Also, there are quite a few things they won't tell you, and also - you learn mostly about old ideas, nothing about new ones, so when you finish your study, you are already a couple of steps behind. I like how you noticed this non-centralistic interventionism (oh my gosh, what an oxymoron, but I think it is indeed true) as something new. Yes, blockchain, liquid democracy, equal money, basic income - those are all instruments towards the better future. All of us that want a better world have leanings toward socialist tendencies. It's pity that humans spoilt the term socialism for everyone as it is nowadays mostly seen in a negative light. I am not against capitalism neither. It was Bill Gates that said - capitalism is a great thing because without it he would never be able to start from the garage and become a billionaire. We need a hybrid, much like Keynes proposed, but the Keynes based his idea on old economic theories and we need new ones. |
|
|
|
Od 2013.! Čovječe imaš moj maksimalni respekt. Što se tiče ove rasprave, ne kaže se uzalud da pravi investitor u svemu vidi priliku, a ne nesretnu okolnost, te uvijek radi suprotno od gomile, a da su svi ostali samo "ribe". Ipak, moram zericu stati na stranu čovjeka. Dosta pretjeruje, ali kriptovalute jesu debelo precijenjene u odnosu na ono što trenutno nude. Mislim da nikada nisam vidio toliko novaca uloženo u čisti potencijal. Druga stvar je što ja taj potencijal vidim kao latentnu kinetičku energiju koja će pomesti svijet. |
|
|
|
To je dobra ideja, ali kako ćemo dobiti Merit sourcera kad nemamo niti moderatora?
Trebaju nam moderator, merit source, babica i egzorcist  |
|
|
|
|
I like the design and amount of information on your web page.
About the project itself, you choose a tricky path - you have to earn a lot of trusts before people start using your platform to keep their private data safe. But we really do need solutions like this so I will support you.
|
|
|
|
If you're suggesting intervention in the sense of creating strict rules about how people should be limited in how they keep their funds, then surely that itself is an erosion of decentralization?
Hm, yes, you are indeed right. However, I have to say that by my economic beliefs I am, besides being rather eclectic, more prone to support the theories of John Maynard Keynes then those of Milton Friedman. If you are not familiar with those guys, the main difference is that Keynes is supporting the interventionism (by governments that is), while Friedman is supporting non-interventionism - laissez-faire, or self-regulating economy. While I believe that full interventionism is not sustainable (fast decision making is the best thing about it, but the human nature is the worst), I also believe that self-regulating economy is not sustainable either. Slight interventions are always needed. That is what Keynes was arguing about too. It's just that the supply-demand rule solely cannot be beneficial for the whole society (it is like letting everything to nature - but is the nature really fair with it's "the strongest survive" policy? Maybe it is, I don't know, I don't have the capability to understand such things) - technically the idea behind free market is de-centralisation, but the survival of the fittest will always lean everything towards centralism. Also, those greedy on power will always find a way to influence things on some level. Hence the interventionism of some sort is needed. However, that is how the society works nowadays. Blockchain with smart contracts can help the idea of laissez-faire really live, it can help the market and society to self-regulate and become fairer. I do believe that some kind of "interventionism" has to be built in the technology though. Adams Smith's "invisible hand" could be redefined just a little for the benefit of us all. |
|
|
|
Meni je funny kako je tržište sada potonulo u crveno, i btw izgleda da ste imali pravo kada najavljujete mogućnost pada i do 6-7.000 USD za Bitcoin....., a moram reći da ovo najavljuje i mogućnost Flippeninga za ovu godinu (zbilja sam mislio da je Bitcoin previše pobjegao da bi se to dogodilo u skoroj budućnosti)..... Uglavnom zabavno mi je kako tržište reagira na prilično zapravo nevažne vijesti iz Indije i sa Facebooka. Ima jedna životinjica, obično bijele boje, izrađuje se odjeća od njenog runa, koja opisuje ovakav tip reakcije Uglavnom - ja kažem freeeeee discouuuuuunttttttt!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Uobičajeni strah od zadiranja u privatnost. Što se mene tiče, ja bih samo volio da se država brine o svojem dijelu posla kako treba, to uključuje i regulaciju, a privatnost mi može uzeti koliko god hoće - ne vidim čega bih se posebno trebao bojati ako nemam što skrivati. OK, ne moraju mi baš surfati po kompjuteru i krasti slike kao celebritijima , ali sve ostalo, kako bi susjedi rekli - ma zabole me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
