I don't know much about it but have you tried https://search.disconnect.me/

I was looking at some sort of hybrid between BIP100 and BIP106, so that the increase or decrease would take both the miner vote and the network traffic into account.  The change would only go ahead if the two were in alignment.  Also, the doubling/halving part might prove excessive, so felt that needed curtailing:

If you want to know what may happen you should study previous halving in 2012, it will give you idea about the situation.
On first glance price of BTC should rise. But Bitcoin volatility is not something you could explain by logic, so I am not so sure anymore.

Somewhere some odd hundreds of pages ago in the Garza thread, Jason Sponaugle asked me to meme him because he "wanted to be famous on Bitcointalk" sic and that is where that Jason/WOWdude meme came from. Took a while, but he is getting a little more famous now.

If you are a programmer you can earn huge otherwise some residual income marketing companies can make people big bucks online if they have a huge list and many referrals. I see tons of peeps on the net daily making thousands every week, wish i could become one of them, but it takes hard work..

So you,re saying that, "China" is actually in control of all the China pool, private mine and subcontractor, including Bitmain? Because even though that there is at least 40%~ of the hashrate pointed in the hand of people in China, the control of that hashrate is segregated.

You make it sound like they're setup for a 51% attack while its absolutely not the case.

gambling is not bad until you dont start loosing money you need for a living gambling just for fun with small amounts is ok its like playing any other games

this is exactly what I have been doing recently .
since I have lost some money to these gambling sites and don't have much bitcoin at the moment I have been trying to find some promotional giveaways and high faucet payments to give me a starting money and I gamble with that amount.
so if I lose now I only lose time and nothing else.

I'll address your two main points.

First, the scarcity (deflationary nature) of something does not determine its monetary value. It is desire and need vs. ability to access that creates monetary value. If scarcity created value then an old pair of your shoes would increase in value over time as there is only one pair of your old shoes.

The value of bitcoins are determined by desire and need along with the ease it is to acquire them. If borrowing bitcoin was easy, the monetary value of bitcoin would go down if you just look at the scarcity component. However, if the ability to borrow bitcoin caused the desire for it to go up, that could cancel out the negative monetary affect of the increased ease of access. It is not a single factor that causes monetary value.

Second, your comments about banks is not true. Banks do have collateral for loans, that is correct.

However, many, many times, that collateral does not make up for the value lost when a loan goes bad. There are millions of examples of this. Credit card debt is an easy one to understand. Everyone has likely known people who racked up too much credit card debt and then went bankrupt. The banks lost the money they lent in that case.

When credit card debt goes bad, banks usually sell the bad debt to a collection agency at a loss so they don't have to deal with it. You can buy collection agency debt yourself if you want and try to make money off it. There are many collection agencies. Some do decent business, some don't. Similar to banks you can simply type "collection agency for sale" in a search engine to find one if you want to buy one. Buy up the debt and hire a bunch of people to start calling people to try and collect. The banks certainly do not make a profit selling their bad debt to these agencies. The really bad debt can be bought for pennies on the dollar.

The reason the financial crisis in 2008 was so bad is because banks were making 90% or 100% loans (or more) on homes at their then market value. Housing prices dropped 50% so people didn't pay back their loans and the banks ended up with huge portfolios full of crappy homes that they couldn't manage and needed to sell. The government had to step in and loaned money to the banks so they didn't go under. And the government purchased many of the banks crappy loan portfolios. And they merged together banks with terrible loan portfolios with stronger banks. And the work done did keep the system from failing. The banks lost real money and many are still today digging out of that hole. It is the main reason the Fed has been keeping interest rate low.

So, no, banks don't always have a way of recouping the money they lose. f it was that easy, we'd all own banks and the richest people in the US would be bank owners. If you look at the rich list, they aren't the owners of banks. They are tech company founders, Walmart heirs, hedge fund traders and the like.

It's sheep like you that are part of the "usefull idiots" of the world (read it), happily turning over all of their information, habits, and data to whomever wants it. Some of us value our privacy for the simple sake of "If you aren't ME, you don't have any right to know what I DO until it affects OTHERS."


Very poor thinking Edric. If you're not the customer, you're the PRODUCT.








Another one here. If I don't have a bank account and I still want to invest in Gold because I think it'll go up in value or I think Russia and the US will finally get tired of slapping each other and go to full out war then I'm suspicious? You're thinking like a 13 year old girl. Long term is the only game to play.