"They" are guessing. but unlike you and me, "they" have a big mouth and like to claim their guesses are predictions.
What is your definition of a "guess"? What about traders that have consistently beaten the market? Are they just "guessing"?  Yes. Even the top tier speculators on Wall st. rarely do better than odds. The so called gurus are those who make outrageous guesses until one hits. The market forgets all their incorrect guesses and exalts their one big score. The most successful speculators make very timid and conservative predictions and are still not really consistent. For example, I predict higher gas prices in 10 years. |
|
|
|
I wish I could be in the same position as you where it wasn't important to me, but the truth is I have things/loans/etc that depend on this score so I need to maintain it.
I had the same concerns. After I gave bank credit the finger my financial situation got better. Now I have offers of private credit from people and even my bank has told me they would loan me money anyway. I told them "no thanks". The hard part is trying to keep my credit "Un-scorable". If they found out how trustworthy I am they would jack my rating up. I don't believe in their scores and don't want to participate in them. When I say that at the bank... they ask me if I want a loan.  |
|
|
|
I have made so much money from fear like this. Keep it up Falllling!  |
|
|
|
oh please, your financial system has been wealth regressive since the 80's. anyone buying now have little gains and much downside. Without fed intervention, property would be less than half current values. Now the fed is stuck. Massive wealth divide, and low GDP growth. Let's see how long the fed can fight the populace.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. I have made money this way. Most of the wealthy people I know made their money buying property for cash. It is as simple as buy low and sell high. Over time property accrues value better than anything; Better than gold, or stocks, anything. Real estate is real wealth. Far better than money, for example. Despite the unholy work that has been done to keep the rich in power and the poor downtrodden, there is still more opportunity in the U.S. than most places. I'm sure your not arguing that it would be better to have watched TV for a year? Work hard, save hard, don't buy shit, don't do credit, don't buy depreciating assets, buy appreciating assets. You will be surprised how quickly it adds up. |
|
|
|
No it's terrible rhetoric. You are taking two extreme opposites while ignoring the mainstream middle. ...
I do understand your position... haha. Like being born pre 1970 and buying property. The point is that today's generation don't have those same opportunities. But they do. There has never been a better opportunity to buy land than the last several years. And back in the 70s people thought $200 per acre was high. It's all relative since no one is making more land the price is highly likely to go up in the future. Look at these: http://www.landwatch.com/default.aspx?ct=r&type=&r.PRIC=%2C35999&sort=PR_AIf you just drop your cable TV service for about a year, you could buy one of those properties for cash. Without financing you then own it outright for the best price you can get. If you watch TV instead, you have nothing to show for it. One need not be rich to own property in America, but you do need to work and sacrifice. |
|
|
|
|
People like me do not get paid in bitcoin, yet. But I accept bitcoin for any transaction from a garage sale to a bar bet. My bitcoins are not useless at all. I just bought a gun this week with bitcoin. I paid about $1.22 after factoring in the growth in value. Useless?
|
|
|
|
Some good news this morning on our efforts. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Bitcoin Foundation Filing with N.Y. Department of Financial Services Wins Promise of More Information about “BitLicense” Proposal
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Aug 6, 2014) -- In response to a Bitcoin Foundationfiling yesterday, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) quickly promised to provide the foundation more information about its controversial “BitLicense” proposal.
Citing New York law that requires a clear statement of “needs and benefits” for proposed regulations, the Bitcoin Foundation’s commentsincluded a request under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for “any risk management and cost-benefit analysis (or any other systematic assessment) that is a part of the ‘extensive research and analysis’” the NYDFS cited when it issued its proposal.
“The community can help you fit regulatory means to public interest ends if they have access to the risks your study of digital currencies identified,” wrote Bitcoin Foundation Global Policy Counsel Jim Harper to New York’s Superintendent of Financial Services. The NYDFS promised hours later to deliver that information to the foundation within 20 days.
Echoing and extending community demand for more time to comment, the Bitcoin Foundation also suggested that the NYDFS adopt “an iterative process, in which you issue drafts, take comments for three months, re-draft, and take comments again until the many, many issues raised by the proposed regulation are thoroughly vetted in true collaboration with the community. ”
Citing the NYDFS Superintendent’s willingness to engage with the community on Reddit, the Bitcoin Foundation letter highlighted tools such as News Genius and GitHub that would support a truly collaborative rulemaking process. “[T]he department should resist the constraints of administrative procedures developed in the era of postage stamps,” Harper wrote. “We are confident that the community will meet you wherever you announce you will be engaging with them.”
The Bitcoin Foundation will publish all of the material it receives from the NYDFS for the Bitcoin community to review. If the agency takes the full 20 days to respond, the materials will be available just days before the close of the original comment period on the regulations, which was the minimum 45 days allowed by New York law. The NYDFS has signaled that it will extend the comment period on its sweeping, controversial draft digital currency regulation. |
|
|
|
No it's terrible rhetoric. You are taking two extreme opposites while ignoring the mainstream middle. ...
I do understand your position, and I totally agree that many financial schemes have become rigged or corrupted. The banks job is to get you playing their games. Once in debt you are captured and the milking begins. The solution is to not play the game. It's not because someone is poor. Sadly, kids do not learn anything about money in school anymore. They have no clue about what a good contract looks like, or even that they don't need loans or a 401k. The examples I posted were for comedic effect. But they do have some truth to them. All the "rich dude" lines are things anyone (rich or poor) could do. All the "poor dude" things are examples I see people actually doing. The fact is rich people did not get rich doing nothing. They did a lot of rational things. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, where do you guys live that you never see black people? You make it sound like you met bigfoot. lol
|
|
|
|
|
"They" are guessing. but unlike you and me, "they" have a big mouth and like to claim their guesses are predictions.
|
|
|
|
Yes we need a new bitcoin foundation Badly.
The new foundation could help greatly with organized efforts to get more major retailers to start accepting bitcoin and etc.
The currency foundation does "jack shit".
I guess this is what "jack shit" looks like. https://bitcoinfoundation.org/This week our new website launched. You can go there and read about the efforts you seem to be unaware of. |
|
|
|
Genetic algorithms for bitcoin AI agents could be used. Another thing that would be powerful is to have both competition and cooperation among the agents. A multicellular organism is an example of vast cooperation between trillions of individual cells. Competition alone would probably only give very limited results. If many small AI agents could start to cooperate to form larger communities with emergent properties, then that could lead to Skynet.... oops, I meant lead to a friendly strong AI.
Hey that's interesting Anders. I was thinking of one agent, but an ecosystem of them might be far more powerful. |
|
|
|
|
This may be a spoiler alert, but dog-coin, or whatever it's called, is not going anywhere. Like a lot of alt coins, it fails because it solves a problem that does not exist. Sure it's inflationary, that is why it is steadily going down in value. Why would I want that?
|
|
|
|
There is nothing that prevents you from creating another organization that has the goals that you believe are important. If others believe similarly, they will join your organization. Go for it!
I wholeheartedly agree. There is no reason why we can't have twenty foundations. It could only help, IMO. You might also want to check your facts about the B.F. The controversy about board members was not about people who were "hired". They won popular elections. |
|
|
|
|
I say pay it slow. If you have a way to make more than the 4.4% your paying, then you are better of not paying. I assume your rate is locked in? If it is a balloon mortgage then I would think differently.
|
|
|
|
|
Rich dude: I engage with the government and lobby for changes that help me.
Poor dude: I complain to other internet users about how shitty the government is.
Rich dude: I keep complete control over my money and make it work for me.
Poor dude: I got a payday loan to buy the newest Sony TV.
Rich dude: I manage a diverse and balanced portfolio to maintain my wealth.
Poor dude: I invest in lotto tickets and own many beanie babies.
Rich dude: I follow economic trends and study any relevant developments.
Poor dude: I heard on infowars that secret societies can read your mind.
|
|
|
|
Why you say farewell to bitcoin?
Shouldn't you say farewell to gambling?
...
Ha, that's a good point. |
|
|
|
I have zero interest in an open ended production system. These would be worthless to me. It is precisely the scarcity of bitcoin that keeps the price high. As far as the "fairness" of bitcoin, it is totally fair to reward hard work and risk. If you were willing to take on the high risk of buying bitcoins in 2012 then you saw huge gains in profit. If you waited until today to see that it is working and that there is much less risk, you will see less upside. That is the way it works.
I have seen the fairness argument for years now. I remember when BTC reached $1. The forum filled up with talk of how unfair it is that some people made a bunch of money because they bought at $.50.
I think it's perfectly fine that those who have invested in bitcoins can make huge gains. That's a part of the game. It's when bitcoin is meant to become mainstream that it will become a problem. I don't think bitcoin can become mainstream because of the massive increase in value that it would result in. The constant change in price is very different than other money and can be confusing. I try thinking of BTC like a big pie. A few years ago if you had said "Cut me a $5 slice of pie please", you would have received a nice juicy slice. Today you would only have a thin line of crumbs. But so what. You still have $5 in pie and can buy a $5 toy or whatever. The size of the slice is completely irrelevant. For example, we could just start counting Satoshis instead of bitcoins. That would make the current rate something like $0.0000058 ; far less than one penny a piece. Would that make it seem affordable? This is a lot like how the gold market works. If there is an increase in demand, then the price goes up because you can't just make more gold. At that point people start trading in grams of gold instead of ounces. It is also why hotdogs make a terrible currency. As more people make hotdogs to spend the price of hotdogs would drop lower and lower, destroying any value you are trying to store. The mainstream are just going to have to re-learn money. The debt-based fiat dollars that the banks issue now have lost some 96% of their value and are on seriously shaky ground. I want money that can't be tampered with by anyone. Money that is influenced only by supply and demand. Money that anyone, rich or poor, can use. |
|
|
|
There is never a need to change the total. 21 million is an arbitrary number and the system would work if there were 16 Billion or only 33 bitcoins. If you understand bitcoin then you will understand why is is utter foolishness to change this number. It would gain nothing and severely hurt the price of bitcoin. I, for example, would divest at least 70% of my position.
I was suggesting that the miners would earn a fixed amount of bitcoins for every block. This means that there would be no upper limit. More and more bitcoins would be created over time without any upper limit. It would be inflationary but I think the value could remain fairly stable. It would be a deterministic and slow inflation. And the inflation would actually slow down year by year! Because percentage-wise there would be less added each year. It's just a thought experiment. Too risky to try for real probably because the bitcoin value could collapse if doing a radical change like that. But what would be the advantage of that? Distribution will happen as the price rises anyway, no need to have unlimited inflation. The inflation would actually become less and less every year. That would make the price stable. Not any of this to the moon craziness which would make a tiny percentage of the world's population super rich. I have zero interest in an open ended production system. These would be worthless to me. It is precisely the scarcity of bitcoin that keeps the price high. As far as the "fairness" of bitcoin, it is totally fair to reward hard work and risk. If you were willing to take on the high risk of buying bitcoins in 2012 then you saw huge gains in profit. If you waited until today to see that it is working and that there is much less risk, you will see less upside. That is the way it works. I have seen the fairness argument for years now. I remember when BTC reached $1. The forum filled up with talk of how unfair it is that some people made a bunch of money because they bought at $.50. |
|
|
|
|
There is never a need to change the total. 21 million is an arbitrary number and the system would work if there were 16 Billion or only 33 bitcoins. If you understand bitcoin then you will understand why is is utter foolishness to change this number. It would gain nothing and severely hurt the price of bitcoin. I, for example, would divest at least 70% of my position.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
