|
I recently wrote an article on Ethereum sports betting for a client and in the process learned a bit about sportsbook DApps. I did not try any out as most of them seem to be still in the beta stages or else lack any sort of liquidity, but I was wondering if anybody had any experience successfully using them, whether Ethereum-based or otherwise.
Most I believe are P2P-type betting DApps that were launched in 2018 or 2019... I'm just curious if any of them ever took off or achieved any kind of popularity. It doesn't seem like it.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how people are willing to vote for Biden. Then again I struggle to see why Trump became president.
This is basically American politics in a nutshell. I don't think any of us really understand it. I can't remember the last time we, collectively as a nation, thought "This candidate is really good, I hope they win. Oh but this one is really good too!" It's always a choice of which candidate offends your sensibilities slightly less than the other -- the whole "giant douche vs. turd sandwich" canard.  If Biden wins the nom, I think it will be even worse than 2016.
Hillary Clinton at least had the gimmick that she would be the first woman. One of the few things that made me almost stop supporting Bernie was when he endorsed Hillary. I lost a lot of respect for him, but I see his side too, Trump has been a disaster.
I dunno, having been around at the time, the hatred for Hillary was unlike anything I've ever seen. I would say that it even surpassed the hatred for Donald Trump, but that's not exactly true, as Hillary won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. Bernie did the polite thing by endorsing Hillary. It's a testament to him being a stand-up guy, which is a good quality in a leader. Even if Hillary and her pack continue to trash Bernie, he's not stooping to her level. |
|
|
|
Well, guess we'll all have to find another hobby now. RIP game-protect... He was... a guy, or not, who was very... persistent. His legacy will be... um, memorialized... in the form of a Bitcointalk and BPIP profile. |
|
|
|
Risk is a statistical measure, e.g. the expected loss of a strategy, asset or portfolio.
Not quite. Its the probability that a gain or a loss will differ significantly from what is expected. Look, I hate to be that guy, but I've got a PhD in Mathematical Statistics. This stuff is my bread and butter. If you've got questions I'll be happy to try and answer them. But I'm not going to argue about basic definitions. Oh great, the 'ol "appeal to authority." Out of all the logical fallacies I did not expect that one first. The definition of risk in finance is and always has been the expected loss with regard to some measure, or in other words: the expected value (or integral) of some loss function that is defined by your strategy. This is not a probability, it's a value. A value which can be positive, negative or zero to indicate respectively the average loss, profit or no change over many repetitions of the same strategy.
Let's use a more definitive source: Risk is defined in financial terms as the chance that an outcome or investment's actual gains will differ from an expected outcome or return. Risk includes the possibility of losing some or all of an original investment. Okay, I'm willing to concede that they do not imply one another 100% of the time, but as a general rule of thumb, they do.
No, they do not. Risk exclusively a measure of your proposed strategy. Volatility is a market phenomenon that does not in any way depend on your strategy. Volatility can be used as a measurement of risk, however incomplete it may be. I feel like you didn't even take a look at this link I posted earlier, which provides a good summary of volatility vs. risk: Volatility is a statistical measure of the dispersion of returns for a given security or market index. In most cases, the higher the volatility, the riskier the security. Volatility is often measured as either the standard deviation or variance between returns from that same security or market index.
...
Volatile assets are often considered riskier than less volatile assets because the price is expected to be less predictable.
...
Volatility often refers to the amount of uncertainty or risk related to the size of changes in a security's value.
Yes, you are. The asset doesn't move perfectly fitted to a "constant trajectory," you said so yourself. A rocket moves at a "constant trajectory." Stocks don't - not even fictitious examples of stocks - unless they completely lack volatility. In your example, you can only be talking about the trajectory of a price as being defined by its moving average. If its not, its not "constant."
No, I'm still not talking about moving averages and you are still completely misrepresenting what I've said. How so? It seems like you are altering the definition of the word "constant" to suit your purposes. A measurement which faces any sort of volatility cannot be constant. It can only be constant on average, not in its actual movement. You can have a perpetually flat asset with high risk, or you can have highly volatile assets without any risk (Bitcoin - which does not mean that you are guaranteed to make money).
No, you can't. "Perpetually flat asset" implies zero volatility and zero risk. How do you lose money on something whose value never changes? Yes, you can. You can have a company that doesn't ever grow, returns the same dividends and keeps the same asset value. Until an asteroid wipes it out of existence and reduces it to zero. Every single asset on the planet faces this exact same risk. There is no chance of losing money in this example (outside of the same meteor event that could wipe out all investments), thus it is zero risk. As I've already said, in finance the risk of a strategy (e.g. "buy Bitcoin") is the expected loss of that strategy. This is a statistical measure. And because Bitcoin's potential returns are so extreme this becomes an example of an asset with negative risk, e.g. expected returns, despite not guaranteeing any profit.
Okay. If that's the case, all I've really learned here is that your definition of risk is useless. |
|
|
|
You're talking about a moving average
I am not talking about any moving averages. Yes, you are. The asset doesn't move perfectly fitted to a "constant trajectory," you said so yourself. A rocket moves at a "constant trajectory." Stocks don't - not even fictitious examples of stocks - unless they completely lack volatility. In your example, you can only be talking about the trajectory of a price as being defined by its moving average. If its not, its not "constant." Your argument was that volatility is equivalent to risk, which is generally wrong. Neither contains much, if any, information about the other.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used an equal sign to imply that the two are strongly correlated (which they are). They are indeed not equivalents of each other and do not possess the same definition. To show to you that this is not the case I've tried to give you examples of assets that directly contradict your assertion.
You gave me an example of an asset that doesn't exist. In the 'basket of all stocks' you have no risk in the long-term, because your expected loss (= risk) is strictly negative and hence your expected return is strictly positive, because the realized total return converges towards 10% p.a. (in the case of the US stock market) over time.
Despite that, the asset itself has been volatile. Hence, volatility does not imply anything about risk nor vice versa. The only thing that matters for risk is your strategy and nothing else.
That's a classic example of an average risk, average volatility asset. Its a benchmark for both risk and volatility. You're proving my point for me. You can have a perpetually flat asset with high risk, or you can have highly volatile assets without any risk (Bitcoin - which does not mean that you are guaranteed to make money).
No, you can't. "Perpetually flat asset" implies zero volatility and zero risk. How do you lose money on something whose value never changes? And saying bitcoin has no risk is absurd. Does anybody else feel like bitcoin is a "risk-free" investment? You can get volatility and risk in any combination and neither implies the other.
Okay, I'm willing to concede that they do not imply one another 100% of the time, but as a general rule of thumb, they do. Risk is a statistical measure, e.g. the expected loss of a strategy, asset or portfolio.
Not quite. Its the probability that a gain or a loss will differ significantly from what is expected. Just like the expected value of a dice roll is 3.5 = 1/6 times sum of all potential results.
Not trying to troll you but this is a horrible example as you can never roll a "3.5" -- that would be a highly unexpected outcome. With risk the results are potential price trajectories in the market and the probabilities are obviously different and depend on all sorts of parameters.
Realized returns on the other hand are what you end up with in reality, and while risk can give you an idea of a region that you'll land in, it'll never tell you what will really happen for individual 'games'.
I don't disagree with this. Here's another attempt to make the point clear.
Assume you have volatility but it's always the same. Basically, your price follows a 100% predictable pattern no matter how many people buy or sell. In that case you have volatility, but 100% insight and hence can generate profits without any risk whatsoever.
Obviously this isn't going to happen in real markets (though it does in many games), but it should be sufficiently illustrative to show that volatility and risk aren't related.
Dude. Volatility that is always the same is not volatility. That's stability, and thus not risk. As you said, obviously this isn't going to happen in real markets, and it won't, ever. Nobody has 100% insight into any market. If your best real-world example of an asset that has high volatility and "no risk" is bitcoin, I'm going to stick by my original assertion that you are just looking at this from an after-the-fact standpoint. |
|
|
|
Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader.
You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015.
I'm starting to feel like you're trolling me now. What part about "a constant trajectory around which the price oscillates" do you not understand? Not even going to address the rest of the post until we've established why you refuse to understand this and keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over even when it's pointed out to you. "Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory." You're talking about a moving average that could only be established after a bunch of data points had been collected, which is the main thing I have an issue with. In order for something to be a "risk free investment", you're implying that somehow the trajectory could be established prior to it happening. I'm saying it couldn't. Only after the fact could it be demonstrated to be risk free. It just sounds like you ascribe to trend following, which is fine, but that doesn't negate the correlation between volatility and risk. So what am I getting wrong? You don't have to bother addressing the rest of the post if you don't want to. |
|
|
|
Again, a "constant upward trajectory" creates zero volatility. Reading comprehension. I was never talking about "constant upward trajectory", but about "constant upward trajectory with volatility around the trajectory"; or in other words random deviations from the trajectory. Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader. You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015. Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory.
This, again, means that you can have assets of arbitrary volatility that fall into all three categories of: 1.) negative risk 2.) positive risk and 3.) neutral risk.
This all has to do with the span and timing of your trades/investments. Stocks and other assets go up and down and many have several different trajectories within their lifespans. Bitcoin is just one of a countless number of assets and has no relevance to the definition of volatility.
It may serve as an example for an asset with high volatility and negative risk (e.g. an expected long-term return greater zero) that may, despite having a positive expected return, still reduce your capital to ashes; which makes it a rather interesting case.
It makes it risky is what it makes it. Who gets to decide bitcoin has a "positive expected return"? And for what period of time? But that does not imply that all volatile assets are risky.
Everything that is traded under the sun has a certain degree of volatility and a certain degree of risk. The more volatile something is, the greater chance exists for financial ruin. It seems to be a no-brainer. Don't know why you would argue against that. Arguing about hypothetical situations taken advantage of to the maximum degree doesn't negate the correlation between risk and volatility. You should probably give this a read through: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/volatility.asp |
|
|
|
Volatility absolutely equals risk.
No, it most certainly does not. If you had a constant upward trajectory with a slope of p, then any "constant" (e.g. predictable) form of volatility around that trajectory would provide a 100% risk-free and arbitrarily volatile long-term investment with an expected positive annual return of p. In other words, volatility can but need not be a factor in risk. If 'ifs' and 'and' were pots and pans, well, guess what happens next. Again, a "constant upward trajectory" creates zero volatility. You have the same gain being made on a daily basis, which means it has a standard deviation of zero across any given time period, which means it has a complete lack of volatility. Anything that moves up or down to any varying degree is volatile, and therefore subject to risk (I suppose the exception would be if it only ever moved in the up direction to varying degrees, then you could have volatility with zero risk). If you are a long-term trader, then sure, the overall trend of bitcoin has been up, but that does not mean that it completely lacks volatility and risk. |
|
|
|
If you think you are safe behind your PC A letter from a lawyer to Namecheap with all the information I've gathered here and we know the domain owner After that everything goes very quickly, trust me Disclosure of your IP data and email address Internet provider query The same applies to Mallyx This conversation will not be continued here, but will be recorded and followed up in any case.  Nope. You would need a court order issued in the U.S. for this information to be released. As far as I know, theymos has only complied with the most serious of law enforcement requests involving the investigation of major, federal crimes. Exposing a fake DEX for having a shitty backend does not fall into this category. What's far more likely is he would tell your lawyer to go fuck themselves. If you now operate as a DEX should be, I will remove my complaint. Else I will keep showing proof of inegibility.
It's best for you to comply with you own engagements.
Waiting to hear your next review. Even if the exchange did fix their problems, I still would not trust it until the smart contract which interacted with Metamask or whatever was thoroughly scrutinized. |
|
|
|
|
I would change the flag. It kind of looks like a math puzzle at the moment. I would change it to a big, badass eagle ripping into the neck of a snake. Maybe have him standing on some cactuses. With a backdrop of three red, white and green vertical stripes -- green replacing blue because I like green better.
|
|
|
|
I explained in other thread
I never took even one bet
Okay hold up. - You skipped the 1 week free trial and paid him $25 for 1 month up front - You never took one bet, so you didn't actually lose any money from his tips - After 1 wrong pick (the 2nd pick you are complaining about was a win, not a loss -- you never mentioned the details of the 1st wrong pick) you decided the guy was a fraud and demanded a refund, without deciding to wait and see how the rest of the month played out. From your trust history, it would appear that you take pleasure in being scammed. You've apparently not learned a single thing in your various investment/gambling adventures over the years. I got scammed one time in 2017 over something that I thought was genuinely legit -- I even encouraged other people to invest in it and felt bad about that. After that, I learned my lesson and have done everything I can to make sure that I would never be scammed again. I guess my question is, why do you keep making yourself a victim? |
|
|
|
In order to "manufacture timelines", one has to present a false order of events.
FTFY. You feel you have some kind of right to not only demand I explain why I included these people, but that it must be done in such a manner commensurate with your demands
Not at all. You have every much a right to include who you want as I do to assume you were fishing for reciprocal inclusions. or else I am "manufacturing timelines".
Again, no. The fact that you were presenting events out of order is why you were manufacturing timelines. Not only that there were private communications as well, there is also the fact that I thought their trust lists were also positive additions. Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list. Okay. You are again changing the story from what you said months earlier: You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.
But since I admittedly can't prove that I know what you were actually thinking or what your actual motivations were, I ask that people look at the body of evidence presented and come to their own conclusions. BTW, I don't necessarily agree with Vod's negative rating for you over this issue. I think you are quite capable of delivering packages and that you aren't a scammer. However, I do think its a reason why you shouldn't be in DT. |
|
|
|
Been thinking about it a bit more. Bitcoin does not produce anything. There is no dependency on any supply chain being functional or not. Dumping your precious bitcoins like a company stock because of a non computer virus makes absolutely no sense. It is an irrational decision unless your purpose is to try an buy them back cheaper, and we all know how that worked out over the last 10+ years for Joe Average.
The problem is that a fair amount of BTC is owned or at least manipulated by Wall Street and large institutions like Bakkt and the CME. Wall Street views bitcoin has an extremely high risk asset, meaning it is the first asset to get sold off whenever there is a panic of sorts. Only after Wall Street has minimized its involvement with BTC and regular folks feel comfortable with their amount of fiat money will BTC's price begin to stabilize. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's what I believe. And that is where sellers of any size are wrong. First volatility != risk. Retail investors often act emotional (the human monkey brain has a hard time dealing with ‘losing’) but institutions/algorithms know better. Bitcoin until today is volatile in only one direction: up. It is therefore more likely institutions involved in Bitcoin are selling to compensate for their recent losses in stocks, which is probably why gold went down as well after its multi year high: profit taking. Second Bitcoin is an uncorrelated asset. It does not care about China, the stock market, covid-19, or even bitebits posting in the WO. Selling bitcoins for any other reason than permanently getting out is stupidity and you will get burnt, whether you are Wall Street or Joe Average. The <=2015 days when Bitcoin actually was a risky investment are long gone. To those who did I salute you. Volatility absolutely equals risk. That's what makes risky asset categories risky. High risk, high reward. If an asset simply rises, that's not volatility -- that's stability. However, bitcoin doesn't do that. Previous to cryptocurrency, Wall Street's highest risk asset category was emerging markets, for the exact same reason: they are highly volatile. Traditionally, there has been zero correlation between BTC in the stock market; however, the stock market has been in a bull run for almost the entirety of bitcoin's existence, and Wall Street only started really getting into bitcoin in the last couple years. We have yet to see how bitcoin will react to a bear stock market. |
|
|
|
So now you decide for me now what is a good reason to add people? This justifies the use of a negative rating how? Also, BTW, I never said those were the exclusive reasons I added them, I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event, but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of "manufacturing" reasons. I think you are "manufacturing" yourself, lots of bullshit to serve your personal vendettas. Also notice you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party, why is that Nutilduuuh? Is it because you can't simply just accuse them of things and pretend as if they are trying to cover something up as your sole form of argument?
P.S. - AMAZIN'!
TL;DR "I got caught manipulating the trust system and then lying about it, so let me shift the argument to a personal one." I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event Where? From what I can see you had zero public interaction with them before Sept 6th. But I could be mistaken, so please feel free to point out what I missed. but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of "manufacturing" reasons I didn't accuse you of manufacturing "reasons," I accused you of manufacturing a timeline, which you did. you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party While I don't consider their tone to be "neutral," I did address their request in my following post. |
|
|
|
There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.
Again, you are manufacturing a false timeline. We've been over this before. You were adding (and removing) these users months before the whole Timelord fake flag bonanza. This is the 3rd time I am bringing it up in this thread, let's see if you ignore it yet again: You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community: That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me. Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza. The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT. Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September. I am not manufacturing anything. You did though. You clearly lied about the timing of your intervention with the Turkish community flags issue, making up a story about how it preceded your adding them to your trust list. It did not. Let's spell it out again. Your first involvement with the flag issue was on September 6th. You started adding Turkish members over a month prior to this event.  You had included Turkish users bobita Matthias9515 PHI1618 by rallier (later excluded) weeks prior to September 6th. Sometime between August 31st and September 7th, you addedVispilio Kalemder* Let's say you added these 2 members on September 7th, moments/hours after they withdrew their support for the flag against Timelord, and moments/hours before Loyce uploaded that week's trust list. Is that a good reason to include these members in your trust list? All because they withdrew support for a bullshit, retaliatory flag, created by them? Not exactly a great reason to change your trust list IMO. What's far more likely is you stepped in briefly to help out your newfound friends from incorrectly using the new flag system, which admittedly was a good thing to do, regardless of the circumstances. And thanks to them and a few Russians which you included because people you disagree with have them excluded, you are currently back on DT1, so congratulations, enjoy it while it lasts. *Edit: Vispilio was the only Turkish member you added after Loyce's update on 9/7: Let's take a look at his include/exclude history according to BPIP: 7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2) 7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier 7/23/2019 9:45:04 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts PHI1618 (1) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE 8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2) 8/4/2019 10:00:19 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts bobita (2) 8/5/2019 10:07:57 AM bobita (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) 9/4/2019 4:43:55 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)9/6/2019 5:32:09 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts Kalemder (1) 9/6/2019 5:24:47 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1) 9/7/2019 2:29:57 AM Kalemder (1) trusts TECSHARE (0) 9/7/2019 3:50:44 AM TECSHARE (0) trusts mhanbostanci (2) 9/7/2019 10:13:59 AM mhanbostanci (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) *became DT1 at this time As you can see, Matthias9515 was the only member to trust TECSHARE first, and TS didn't get a reciprocal trust from by rallier or PHI1618. He also added Vispilio to his list, who recently fell off DT1 for not having the minimum requirements. He also did the same thing with WhiteManWhite: (sometime between 3/31 and 4/6) TECSHARE trusts WhiteManWhite 5/30/2019 2:39:17 PM WhiteManWhite (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) Would you trust somebody who goes around adding new DT1s to his trust list despite having no previous interaction with them whatsoever, and who doesn't speak their native tongue? I wouldn't. I can forgive the new DTs for not really having a respect for or knowledge of how the trust system works, but as TECSHARE is one of the more veteran members of the forum, he should really know better than this by now. You are supposed to be adding members to your trust list who you _trust_, and who you think do a good job of leaving feedback, not out of hopes that they will reciprocate by adding you to their lists. Allowing this kind of thing to happen without calling it out sets a dangerous precedent going forward. **2nd edit. In TECSHARE's own words: You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.
None of these are great reasons for someone to be including members into their trust list, but admittedly that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
 Salud! Both better choices over Corona. I'd say Pacifico is as well, but I draw the line at Modelo... I'd drink Corona with a lime, though. Makes it a bit smoother. People should have stopped drinking Corona already, but they had excellent marketing.   But I don't think anything is going to help them overcome their current problems, not even this...  |
|
|
|
There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.
Again, you are manufacturing a false timeline. We've been over this before. You were adding (and removing) these users months before the whole Timelord fake flag bonanza. This is the 3rd time I am bringing it up in this thread, let's see if you ignore it yet again: You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community: That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me. Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza. The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT. Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September. |
|
|
|
“If you support Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries,” he said. “That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries.”
His plan is to mobilize his followers to pressure the government to implement these things. He said as much in a Joe Rogen interview and his followers have said as much as well. We can certainly discuss whether or not it could actually happen, but that's what his plan is. Perhaps you don't get that they view this as a "revolution".
"Ending the use of private health insurance" is certainly an overstatement, as it can't be done and won't be done. Regardless, its still not the same thing as a government-mandated closure of private health insurance companies. That can't happen, and he knows it can't happen. It was never on the table. |
|
|
|
Been thinking about it a bit more. Bitcoin does not produce anything. There is no dependency on any supply chain being functional or not. Dumping your precious bitcoins like a company stock because of a non computer virus makes absolutely no sense. It is an irrational decision unless your purpose is to try an buy them back cheaper, and we all know how that worked out over the last 10+ years for Joe Average.
The problem is that a fair amount of BTC is owned or at least manipulated by Wall Street and large institutions like Bakkt and the CME. Wall Street views bitcoin has an extremely high risk asset, meaning it is the first asset to get sold off whenever there is a panic of sorts. Only after Wall Street has minimized its involvement with BTC and regular folks feel comfortable with their amount of fiat money will BTC's price begin to stabilize. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's what I believe. |
|
|
|
I wasn't even thinking about higher education, I was thinking about grades K-12, which is not only a fundamental right but mandatory...
Still don't agree that even that is a "right". There are lots of reasons to justify it or even make it mandatory but can't see how it's a right in any way. Though not explicitly mentioned by the U.S. constitution, the right to education has been recognized by several major international conventions, many of which the U.S. is regular participant. The U.S. also signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which right to education is an article. You can say that this is not legally-binding, but to think that the U.S. government is interested in denying any citizen of education would be mistaken, as this protection is routinely upheld by supreme courts around the country. My point was simply that it's not a right but I see so many claiming it is and they can never make a good argument for it other than say "I think it is".
Again, legally speaking, you are correct. Its not a "right." However, I believe that it should be (along with education) as its just common sense if you care at all about the prosperity of your nation. You can disagree with my previously stated rationale as to why I think it should be a right, and we can agree to disagree. Bernie will do away with virtually ALL private insurance (effectively killing off a lot of companies). That's the plan and what I thought we were talking about in general.
This is just nonsense. First of all, the president doesn't have that kind of power. Second of all, when did Bernie say he wants to "do away" with ALL private insurance, virtually or otherwise? Third of all, to think that Bernie's vision of universal healthcare will come to full fruition is naive. Of course it would ultimately be just some watered-down compromise where the jobs of those possessing the most well-funded health insurance and hospital corporation lobbyists will remain protected, and likely Bernie won't even affect any real change in the industry, similar to what happened with Obama. However, its still a step in the right direction - that we're at least willing to look at solutions to a massive problem - as the current healthcare system is heavily flawed and entirely unsustainable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
