Ich kann noch vermuten, dass jedes Land Langfristig eine eigene Kryptowährung haben wird.
jedes land? du denkst zu statisch, in deutschland vertraut man dem nationalen/regionalen bankenkartel noch, aber in anderen ländern werden sie als machthaber wahrgenommen, die bankenkartelle stehen dort nicht für das land sie stehen für das bankenkartel, es wird weiter mehr währungen geben als "länder" und die "länder" werden versuchen bankenkartelle zu sein. |
|
|
|
AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.
That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.
This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance. So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources. nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect. money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect. I don't think they care about protecting "the established bitcoin sect" - they just have basic standards for objectivity and popularity. If there's very few people actually visiting the Wikipedia article (and the subject of the article doesn't have any significant popularity off-site or offline either) or it's worded as an ad, I see no reason why they're obliged to keep it on the site. Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one. In a perfect world where everyone is objective (or the mods are omnipotent beings operating on a different plane of existence, capable of modding billions of articles at the same time) and physical resources (storage space, bandwidth, CPU power, etc.) can scale to infinity with zero to very little extra cost, that might be possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world. nope they are not because with the surpression of new articles they actively surpress the enterpreneuership of others, empowering the establishement basically the same like the banksters did with their billionaires. bitcoin also was surpressed by the banking cartels, and their definition, shouldnt be a different for new cryptocurrencies then. when someone creates a cryptocurrency its also his right to name it that way, no point privileging someone, especially since this is a decentralisation movement. if wikipedia wants to be neutral than they should rather remove all cryptocurrencies and not support the early established ones. or be corrupted by ripple and the bankster projects that throw around with money. to get their articles listed. would be better to update wikipedias public image then, as a more private, more selfcentric, corrupt community and not an altruistic one. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. As all encyclopedias, it doesn't try to document every single thing about the world - it picks a barrier of entry and documents anything that's above it. Considering that the entire thing is run by mostly regular people (with a relatively small number of actual employees for a website this size), is free to submit to and access, doesn't have ads (runs off of donations) and is the number 5 most visited website in the world (according to https://www.alexa.com/topsites), I'd say that they're completely justified to document only the coins that have gained considerable amount of attention since every article not only takes up space but requires active contributors to maintain and, more importantly, moderate. Wikipedia doesn't own any cryptocurrency the right to free promotion. If it can't take off on it's own, maybe it wasn't really that amazing in the first place. If you want a more traditional comparison, just because Wikipedia has an article on Coca-Cola, doesn't mean it has to have an article on every Coca-Cola inspired drink. They might include come similarly tasting drinks that have gained substantial popularity (like Pepsi), but including "Ivan's Rad Cola" (that's only sold in several towns in Siberia and made by a guy in his shed) just cause "mah entrepreneurship" doesn't make any sense. Also, just cause you dislike Ripple doesn't change the fact that it's the number 3 coin in terms of marketcap (according to https://coinmarketcap.com/) clearly making it popular enough to have an article of it on Wikipedia. wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, everyone is allowed to add a piece of information to it, basically all of the established alts and bitcoin were added into wikipedia by its developers, same should be the case for following cryptocurrencies. open financial market means open, |
|
|
|
Hello BitcoinTalk community,
I am 24 years old and I reside in Greece. As you may all know, recently a huge piece of land was depleted by heavy fires caused by arsonists. Apart from all the damage caused in properties, and unfortunately lost lives, there is already a huge movement which demands that every single tree that was burned, will be immediately re-seeded. Greek goverment and multinational resort companies see that as a perfect change to sell now this land for some pennies in order to build more luxurious hotels, where as this piece of land was the last lung of oxygen for over 5,500,000 people. Yes, more than half of the greek population, lives in Athens.
I am in the crypto world for 1 year now and this is my first post at BTT. My idea is quite simple and follows: To raise whatever crypto capital possible, and buy the necessary equipment and raw material that many NGOs are asking from local people, in order to restore the forest before it is too late. If in 3 months, we manage to plant half of the forest that was burned, then next spring, it will be impossible for anyone to deforest it again by any means.
I will personally guarantee that I will keep posting pictures under this thread about our actions or furthermore you can Telegram me @Oureilidis for more elaborating information about our mission after the recent tragic news.
I have set up 2 different wallets for this fundraising. Any amount will be useful at these desperate times, where as greek society has to fight even more austerity measures against its own will and goverment.
Thank you all for having the time to read this text.
Waves Address: 3P4RUSZVZVbSF4YbfengTjGSgQn3Jbh3R55
Ethereum Address: 0x81bB74FcB1C88B82be3ad6E9DbA76a25BF764868
what where the arsonists? helping the greece is useless as they have less and less order in their society anything rebuild will put on fire again, greeks will have to solve their core issues in their midsts. themselves first. Ιf you think, that there is some kind of people that need to change their mindset, because another country or majority of people believe so, then congratulations my friend. The first step towards fascism has already begun inside of you! faschism is everywhere, each sect or group is in its own agenda fascist, what i said here was the anarchy i read about in greece and these arsonists look like anarchic movements inside of the greek society regards |
|
|
|
AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.
That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.
This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance. So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources. nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect. money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect. I don't think they care about protecting "the established bitcoin sect" - they just have basic standards for objectivity and popularity. If there's very few people actually visiting the Wikipedia article (and the subject of the article doesn't have any significant popularity off-site or offline either) or it's worded as an ad, I see no reason why they're obliged to keep it on the site. Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one. In a perfect world where everyone is objective (or the mods are omnipotent beings operating on a different plane of existence, capable of modding billions of articles at the same time) and physical resources (storage space, bandwidth, CPU power, etc.) can scale to infinity with zero to very little extra cost, that might be possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world. nope they are not because with the surpression of new articles they actively surpress the enterpreneuership of others, empowering the establishement basically the same like the banksters did with their billionaires. bitcoin also was surpressed by the banking cartels, and their definition, shouldnt be a different for new cryptocurrencies then. when someone creates a cryptocurrency its also his right to name it that way, no point privileging someone, especially since this is a decentralisation movement. if wikipedia wants to be neutral than they should rather remove all cryptocurrencies and not support the early established ones. or be corrupted by ripple and the bankster projects that throw around with money. to get their articles listed. would be better to update wikipedias public image then, as a more private, more selfcentric, corrupt community and not an altruistic one. btw i will give you 2 merit for this topic, i support the creation of an "open" financial market |
|
|
|
Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one.
Precisely. Try to imagine that I start a T-shirts brand and that I pretend to write about the brand in Wikipedia. How stupid can that sound? Now imagine I want not only my T-shirts brand, by my cakes brand, my whatever brand to have its own article in Wkipedia. It shouldn`t be allowed, because wikipedia is not an announcement portal, but a public-created "encyclopedia". So no, your ICO shouldn`t be there, as well as my own T-shirt brand, this is not relevant for humanity, this is just a random product. when someone crafts a table with wood its a table, when someone codes a cryptocurrency with the computer its also a cryptocurrency, what wikipedia and many indexes are doing is basically surpressing new cryptocurrencies while supporting the situation of the earlier established ones, this is as corrupt as the bankster system, and should be ended, wikipedia team has no right to define information for the people, they arent some sort of god. i hope we get movements, like new market movements, so the "money of the people" will be the "money of the people" and not what wikipedia and Co. are defining for others. |
|
|
|
I think it will also be nice if we can follow Paxful's example of how they stepped in to assist people who struggled with Bitcoin, when Backpage.com stopped accepting payment via Visa and MasterCard.
The people in Venezuela needs someone to help them to protect their current wealth from losing value and one of the ways of doing this is to convert it into a currency like Bitcoin that can be used as a store of value.
lol this forum is so full of idiots who think and speak without understanding and considering the bigger socioeconomic environment. bitcoin will destroy their wealth even more because the socialist oriented infrastructure, workers will stop working, they will stop supplying their country men with elctricity or internet and simply create their own currency, the venzuelans will end up even poorer than before, if they abuse their socialist provided infrastrucutre for bitcoin mining. are you even aware about the amount of labour necessary to upkeep a countries infrastructure to have internet and electricity? -> you mine and support bitcoin in venezuella -> you will run out of infrastructure work in your community, no more socialism, no more electricity, no more internet. venezuelans should instantly switch to stone paper or metal money if they even consider using bitcoin and screw the socialist infrastructure workers. the socialist infrastructure worker in venezuella are not stupid programmed robots or money earning cattle, they are people like me and you, who think, trust and believe in a socialist vision, if they see, the infrastructure they were building being abused and wasted for mining bitcoin, like the russians did in early socialism (1918-1920) when they fed free socialist provided bread to their pigs, its over with socialismget ready for king maduro of venezuella regards Do not give a man a fish, rather teach him how to fish.  mining bitcoin isnt just fishing its also throwing with stones sitting in a house of glass. This forum is full of people, who cannot read and then make political statements that are not even applicable to this discussion. I never even mentioned mining in my reply, so I do not see where you got that from. ^idiot^ I do not care what their political views are, whatever they are doing now, is definitely not working. Some of the poorest countries in the world, have these socialist ideals. ^lol^ I am speaking to the people who can see that this is not working and who wants to protect their wealth. <Like many other countries did, when their stupid politics, destroyed their currencies> Examples : Zimbabwe / Greece / Cyprus their economy wont become better if you add an election via installed computation power. their economy will become worse, because then instead of using their infrastructure for development of values, they will waste it for mining "bitcoin" but there is no way to prevent that i suppose, they might be very selfish and idiotic and short term thinking, venezuelans are in that situation for a reason anyway. You are still stuck on the mining thing for some reason.  Here is an example of what one of those citizens are doing to help those people and it has nothing to do with mining : https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/91r3eg/ama_venezuela/You basically convert your local currency, in this case Bolivar to Bitcoin to protect it's value. You do not have to mine it, because there are enough out there already. <You just have to buy it> Bitcoin can then protect the value more than the hyperinflation that are killing the Bolivar at the moment. So I hope you understand what we are trying to say here. This was done during the economic crisis to protect other currencies too, like Greece and Zimbabwe, when they also battled with similar problems. yes the mining thing is important it makes the popularity of bitcoin in the developing world that suffer in their economy due to electricity shortages, absurd, they need currency that are being created through people solving their problems, not creating new ones or wasting ressources. they dont need bitcoin, they can simply create their own local currencies. |
|
|
|
|
ever heard of Monetery reforms?
thats when the national banking cartels messed up their money printing, and then introduced a new currency (named after the old one) but with a different value.
to continue power police, legislation, army, universities, schools.
imagine the usa does that, under trump, or not trump but the us kongress which is very likely.
then all bitcoin usd trade would have to be reviewed, as the old us dollar would be worthless fraction of the new us dollar
regards
|
|
|
|
Anytime i see some members of this forum asking "Is Bitcoin dead"?, or "Is this the fall of bitcoin" i just become speechless because it is so shocking to hear that within just six months when bitcoin improved the financial status of people last year without any hard sweating people have forgotten about it so soon. I now understand the saying that "Men forgets easily". Well i can't really blame them but I know the few Real Crypto Enthusiasts like myself still believe in BITCOIN and we are going to keep investing in it because we know that the its value will rise with time.
oh get used to it, i read that multiple times today, like did bitcoin have a short time comeback? information war is though, and the times have changed drastically. bitcoin was once supported by many as they had to deal with their national banking cartels, now they are having their own icos. |
|
|
|
AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.
That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.
This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance. So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources. nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect. money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect. |
|
|
|
|
we' will have to build an urban planetary civilisation
|
|
|
|
this forum is changing over time, are there here still new members that want to join building something?
i would be interested adding people to a project i am developing.
regards
Yes, there are many people who would be willing to invest in something new. People are always interested in new things as they were at the time of Bitcoin. The point is that the project should have the potential to attract the people. Bitcoin was totally a new concept and you know what the result was. And this is not the way to look for investors. You should completely tell the details. No one can invest in anything just because it’s new. I agree. Projects that are new attracts investors because they are curious, sometimes even when they do not fully understand it. Let's take the concept of Bitcoin for instance just when there was hype over it last 2017. Many investors flocked because it's high rising price has attracted people to buy it even though they do not understand what Bitcoin really is nor do they realize the technology behind it. But having a new factor is not the only thing that make people invest. Investors take into account the feasibility of a project first. nevertheless bitcoin is lossing substance, future coins that will be successfull will be similar like founding islam, trapping people into a prison as money earning cattle with violence |
|
|
|
Update:
We have telegram group for discussion this idea:
please join if you have something to say and want to talk:
https://t.me/bitsure
hello, I want to talk about an idea that I have, the idea involves Bitcoin, Insurance and new token named "fortulatoken". the fortulatoken already exists. the story of the fortulatoken is a very strange story. I was in a bitcoin discussion group in facebook when I crossed a post of a guy that tells "whoever will give me his ethereum wallet address I will send him a random number of my own tokens". people ignored his post and nobody answered him. But I asked him "wait a second I give you my wallet address and you put inside it tokens?" here is my wallet address. and I wrote the address. a few minutes later I found the tokens and then we keep talking and became friends so he gave me a lot of fortulatokens. to be presise he gave me 50,000,000,000 tokens. The only problem is that nobody knows about fortulatokens so my 50 miliard tokens basicaly worth 0 USD or 0 Ethereum or 0 of everything. so what we want to do is to give value to those tokens. And the idea we have is to open an insurance company that will insure a bitcoin fall of over 50%. That means whoever buy a defense from such falling will receive an amount of ethereum or fortulacoin that will be worth an amount that we will set. for example the amount can be 500$. if the bitcoin falls 50% or bigger fall we pay whoever be signed up in our system 500$ in ethereum (or fortulatoken). of course this service will cost a price just like buying an insurance. or if you want to call it "a put option on the bitcoin" but less complicated. the amount we pay per customer will be constant. so this is the idea. and with this idea we want to start our fortulatoken movement. we already have a few people that told us they will agree to pay 2$ per year for a 500$ defence if bitcoin falls more then 50%. Think for yourself will you pay 2$ per year for such a defence? of course that if we have too many customers and the bitcoin will fall a 2$ will not cover our lost. so we have to think more accurately about this model and at first the number of customers will be limited so even if there is a falling in the bitcoin we will not go bankrupcy. if you like this idea and you have questions or comments please write them here. I would love to hear thoughts about this. if you want to invest please invest but not too big amounts please invest only what you can lose. because this idea might still have some problems and also because in general the statistics of new companies are 1 out of 10 success and the other 9 fails. and we are very new. A little about ourselfs: I can tell that we are very honest people. currently we are two and we might grow in the future. we will need to consult people that understand insuurance better then us and this cost money. we hope to start making a movement to our coin which is tradeble in a bourse names "Etherdelta" in this link: https://etherdelta.com/#0x0309a014757361bdd5807fb11710542cc815bd8b-ETHwe have a bonus plan for the first 100 investors that will invest 10$ worth of ethereum in our project. the bonus will be a percentage of the amount of fortulatokens you bought and we will also have to decide what that percentage will be set to. we have a roadmap it is here: http://cryptorotate.com/roadmap.phpSo thats it. Hope to hear your opinions. Yair you can buy bitcoin futures to ensure yourselves no use for your insurrance. |
|
|
|
Hello BitcoinTalk community,
I am 24 years old and I reside in Greece. As you may all know, recently a huge piece of land was depleted by heavy fires caused by arsonists. Apart from all the damage caused in properties, and unfortunately lost lives, there is already a huge movement which demands that every single tree that was burned, will be immediately re-seeded. Greek goverment and multinational resort companies see that as a perfect change to sell now this land for some pennies in order to build more luxurious hotels, where as this piece of land was the last lung of oxygen for over 5,500,000 people. Yes, more than half of the greek population, lives in Athens.
I am in the crypto world for 1 year now and this is my first post at BTT. My idea is quite simple and follows: To raise whatever crypto capital possible, and buy the necessary equipment and raw material that many NGOs are asking from local people, in order to restore the forest before it is too late. If in 3 months, we manage to plant half of the forest that was burned, then next spring, it will be impossible for anyone to deforest it again by any means.
I will personally guarantee that I will keep posting pictures under this thread about our actions or furthermore you can Telegram me @Oureilidis for more elaborating information about our mission after the recent tragic news.
I have set up 2 different wallets for this fundraising. Any amount will be useful at these desperate times, where as greek society has to fight even more austerity measures against its own will and goverment.
Thank you all for having the time to read this text.
Waves Address: 3P4RUSZVZVbSF4YbfengTjGSgQn3Jbh3R55
Ethereum Address: 0x81bB74FcB1C88B82be3ad6E9DbA76a25BF764868
what where the arsonists? helping the greece is useless as they have less and less order in their society anything rebuild will put on fire again, greeks will have to solve their core issues in their midsts. themselves first. |
|
|
|
|
traditional financial system is just scam the banksters lend to the established rich scamming the rest of the population as their money earning cattle.
|
|
|
|
There is no reason for the US dollar to lose, and it's not even a problem to use it to benchmark Bitcoin value.
The main problem is that people think Bitcoin will replace the traditional system, but that's not going to happen and doesn't even need to happen. It's about the freedom to choose which currency you are comfortable using.
For one person that may be the US dollar, where the other prefers to use Bitcoin. They can even choose to switch from currency based on the use and need at a specific time. Coexistence of currencies isn't harmful.
so pathetic, with bitcoin you ultimately layed the foundation for the us dollar to lose power and to dissappear, and you are still so stupid blind and arrogant to think it wont have any consequences, people are now instead of writing businesplans applying at the central banks for business loans are now doing their icos looking for money earning cattle (this is the reason you are not seeing) just like the bitcoin cult started doing. the us dollar will die it will be gone same with euro and the other fiats. why ask the greedy gambling banksters and their billionaires behind them for money when you can just make your own ico. then bitcoin will be evaluated as a bitcoin not as a value in us dollar. it will be a token standing for a cryptocult that runs a minercartel, thats all. POS coins will be the future the people will beg for those. this time will be called "coins of style" the national banksters will die. |
|
|
|
Crypto is legendary innovation. And I am proud to be a witness of these. Block chain itseld is a wonderful tech. Most secure and transparent and totally free from centralized authority means no One can control it , alone. Faster Tx speed, more secure protocol, cheaper and convenient, does not depends on weekdays and working hour. no one can print money as much as one's need. No one can submerge/destroy others asset.
Crypto will be main stream but will not replace fiat. But Crypto is the crown-less King. No doubt
nah you are naive, you dont sense the negative side effects that will come for all those that work for money or are supposed to do that. regards |
|
|
|
In our time, a huge number of people who own a crypto currency are not interested in the level of protection and legality of the exchange. This applies to many bounty hunters and novice traders. Only 5-10% of traders will be interested in these issues. As for decentralized exchanges, here the issue of legality of actions and dependence on the state does not seem to me at all.
Is it irrelevant whether they are interested in the legality of the exchange when Uncle Sam comes knocking at your door. The legality of a exchange will protect you in the future against the government. government will collapse with its banks, question will be there who will make the laws gays? criminal thugs? warlords? |
|
|
|
Assuming my crypto exchange wont get hacked or will do any shady stuff is there any problem if i dont have a legal company ?
That doesn't make sense - not having a legal company is shady... lawyers are nowadays highly corrupt individuals, it would be better to find a way somehow arround. in each reagions the local exchanges might manipulate and use the fear of the people to create themselves a strong basis. preventing the other ones from becoming legal |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
