|
It often pays off to read the referenced article to get a grasp of the meaning of things that seem off. Few have gone past the post’s heading (similar to the referenced article’s heading), and actually found it misleading enough to dive into the article’s content, only to discover that the subject was not bitcoin’s purchasing power, but rather its carbon footprint compared to 60 petrol based cars.
Not that the statement was backed by any numbers or such, but there we have it, the whole topic is really about something rather different to what it seems.
Note: The goes my post number 6666 (actually, my second attempt, since I deleted my prior post number 6666 for being belittling to the radiant number).
|
|
|
|
En la sección de Project Development he visto alguna petición de financiación para algún proyecto, y algún inversor buscando proyecto donde invertir, pero no es la norma de lo allí publicado. Es más, lo que he visto versan sobre proyectos que no están relacionados con bitcoin, y en teoría, en esa sección no tendrían cabida según reza su objetivo ("Organization of Bitcoin and related projects, bounty campaigns, advertising etc."). En todo caso, cualquier propuesta que busque financiación, debe estar muy bien fundamentada y argumentada, así como el proyecto subyacente. De lo contrario, como es lógico, los miembros del foro darán la señal de alerta y probablemente destripen el proyecto antes de que empiece a andar. Tradicionalmente, la financiación de muchos proyectos se ha llevado a cabo mediante ICOs, pero aquí nuevamente aplica lo mismo: El proyecto ha de ser muy sólido, tener sentido, utilidad y credibilidad. Lo que sucede es que, con la experiencia de estos años, pocos se lanzan como locos sobre estos proyectos ahora mismo. Plataformas externas supongo que habrán, pero las desconozco personalmente. |
|
|
|
This is what the app's pitch looked like on a phone browsing the Apple Store:  See: https://www.reddit.com/r/TREZOR/comments/lun0l8/fake_trezor_ios_app/The ratio of scam apps on Android vs Apple is overwhelming, but the above goes to show that Apple’s controls are not infallible. One should always head-off to the corporate site to check the existence and proper links to the apps they download. Failing that, logic and prudence should be a safeguard for cases such as these. |
|
|
|
<…>
Nice effort there, specially bearing in mind the aims you have which go beyond the survey. I won’t go into the details, but just to point out a few minor things: - Sample size often needs to be larger to be conclusive (i.e. see a rough estimate here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/), but 100 is enough to get notions (not conclusions, as you yourself point). - The more questions with a closed set of answers, the more quantitative numbers you can draw. The more open the question, the more qualitative the approach. - The age groups stats at the end of the post don’t add up to 100. Perhaps there’s a typo or something I’m not getting. - Sometimes, you may need to force certain quotas per age range, in order to make sure they are not misrepresented (that’s for you to consider in any case). One thing I didn’t quite get is how the random participants were chosen. Question number 1 queries about the number of sessions for a certain project, which I do not follow, but that could give a certain bias to the results (i.e. it’s not the same choosing 100 random people at the market, than 100 pupils or potential pupils at an academy). That wouldn’t make the results right or wrong, just fitting to a given context than often needs to be made explicit. |
|
|
|
<…>
It’s really 2,5% of their qualified customer’s net worth, not the client base. The limitation is set , I figure, to reduce their exposure to a very volatile asset (I wonder if they do that for other assets). Basically, they’re playing here to let the rich make the move without it being too much of a fall if things go sideways. Actually, I was trying to see if there was a breakdown report of there customer base by the assets value they hold at the firm, in order to determine how many of their customers would have access to these bitcoin funds, but came back empty handed. |
|
|
|
<…>
The TX is already retrievable from the blockchain address you provided (just scroll down) : https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/3db81ed4e294182c1217bea065b4f2e917016f89bbba4c88be4f63ef433c6104What may be interesting, but probably won't lead us where you want, is to try to get information on the TX you originally sent to make the purchase/pay for the service, and then see if your original sending address takes us anywhere. That is, assuming that the original TX that made the purchase and the TX for the refund involve addresses belonging to you from the same exchange. You could try to see if the refunder can provide you that information. |
|
|
|
There isn’t really that much unveiled at all. The articles exploits just a few minutes of the podcast (hear: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/will-bitcoin-disrupt-visas-business/id1501891506?i=1000513214346). Namely, what is said between 6:19 and 9:23. The interviewer asks Visa CEO, Al Kelly, what Bitcoin and cryptocurrency means to their business. The part about " enabling the purchase of bitcoin on visa credentials" is nothing new, and constitutes a simple depiction of what they currently do (and have been doing for some time). Working with wallets to enable bitcoin to be translated into fiat sounds like the prior, but the other way around. It does not really depict any big plans, but rather what’s already on the board. Perhaps what is being expanded is the number of partnerships being made to this effect, but it is not showing any new plans apparently. They also verse on what seems to be stablecoins, but I’d say under the same prism as the prior. |
|
|
|
What I find strange about the article is that it uses as a heading a conclusion that seems to be draws from early March 2020 (see https://medium.com/glassnode-insights/breaking-up-on-chain-metrics-for-short-and-long-term-96337cc0cf6d). Assuming the conclusions are from data that is at least 2 weeks old, bitcoin was around 10K at the time, and with the current price, things are bound to have changed. Furthermore, the heading is derived from this quote: Around 37% (~7 million) of the existing Bitcoin supply hasn’t moved since the last ATH in December 2017. Similarly, more than half of circulating bitcoins (55%) have not moved since the market bottom in late 2018 more than a year ago. Clearly, these numbers illustrate that there is a substantial amount of investors committed to hodl over long periods of time, i.e. Long Term Holders (LTH).
The bolded statement confirms what I said time wise, and points to the conclusion being from around early 2020. The article does juggle some 2021 data in certain places, and honestly, I don’t follow it all, but the opening heading seems stuck in time, and does not account for recent events. |
|
|
|
<...>
Probably the easiest way to get a sense and slight understanding of all this, is to simply take a sneak peek at those posts that are being merited. More specifically, the recent merit list is a good starting point, showing those posts that have been merited over the last few day. No need to mimic anything, but just to grasp a common denominator through example. |
|
|
|
Besides the number of awarded Merits, there are two other metrics that are interesting to focus on: SentNetworkSize: Number of distinct merited profiles nTX: Number of meriting TXs The former shows how many people have been merited by a given profile, which gives us an insight to the extent that they consider posts all around when meriting. The nTX metric goes to show how many distinct posts have been merited, which also gives a sense of broadness. A derivate interesting ratio is the average merit/tx, which gives a sense as to how generous the profiles is per meriting TX. https://public.tableau.com/views/BitcointalkMeritDashboard/PotentialMeritSources?:language=en&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_linkNote: Not taking into account the generosity factor here, just the merit awarding metrics.
Note2: It’s interesting to play around with the "Tx Date Range" slider, in order to see how the metrics and rankings change in different timeframes.
|
|
|
|
|
No había visto ningún video de @Max hasta que miré hace unos días un video enlazado por @ sitwac en nuestro foro local.
Concuerdo en que el debate que genera sobre bitcoin es bueno, aunque en ese (único) video en el cual le he visto intervenir, le vi maximalista y un tanto flojo en los argumentos fundado y respaldado en algo tangible. Realmente, faltó un contrapunto que defendiese posturas contrarias. No sé si ésta es la tónica de sus videos, pero a mí me gusta ver las posturas enfrentadas debatidas (en general).
|
|
|
|
Parece que el texto aprobado es el siguiente: Disposición final segunda. Modificación del Real Decreto Legislativo 4/2015, de 23 de octubre, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley del Mercado de Valores.
Se modifica el Real Decreto Legislativo 4/2015, de 23 de octubre, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley del Mercado de Valores, en los siguientes términos:
Uno. Se añade un nuevo artículo 240 bis, con la siguiente redacción:
«Artículo 240 bis.
La CNMV podrá someter a autorización u otras modalidades de control administrativo, incluida la introducción de advertencias sobre riesgos y características, la publicidad de criptoactivos u otros activos e instrumentos presentados como objeto de inversión, con una difusión publicitaria comparable, aunque no se trate de actividades o productos previstos en esta Ley. La CNMV desarrollará mediante circular, entre otras cuestiones, el ámbito subjetivo y objetivo y las modalidades concretas de control a las que quedarán sujetas dichas actividades publicitarias.
A estos efectos resultará de aplicación lo dispuesto en el segundo párrafo del artículo 240 de esta Ley.»
Dos. Se modifica el apartado cuarto del artículo 292, con la siguiente redacción:
«4. La realización de publicidad con infracción del artículo 240 y 240 bis o de sus normas de desarrollo.»
Vamos, introducido queda, pero en términos laxos y genéricos, a expensas de que la CNMV emita las circulares que considere al respecto. Aquí meramente se anuncia la capacidad controladora de la CNMV, pero no entra en el fondo, las formas ni el alcance en la publicidad. Edit:Hoy he visto ésto en relación a la circular que se creará: La idea es producir un borrador inicial de la Circular en los próximos días, que después será sometido a consulta pública, tanto al consejo de estado como al comité consultivo de la propia CNMV. A partir de ahí, se decidirán las normas que marcarán la actuación del organismo en este ámbito. En este sentido, Buenaventura no ha querido detallar si podrán, por ejemplo, suspender campañas publicitarias puestas ya en marcha.
El texto aprobado sí abre la puerta a que la CNMV añada a los anuncios correspondientes advertencias sobre posibles riesgos de la inversión en esta clase de activos. Unas advertencias en las que el organismo ha puesto especial énfasis junto con el Banco de España en los últimos meses, llegando a advertir incluso de que la volatilidad que lleva aparejada la inversión en estos activos responde patrones propios de momentos de burbuja financiera.
La circular que prepara la CNMV se desarrollará, en este sentido, dentro de sus planes para incentivar la educación financiera. Es decir, no podrán decidir sobre las operaciones con criptodivisas, sino solo tomar medidas sobre su publicidad en su objetivo de protección al inversor frente a la complejidad y el componente especulativo que se pueda detectar en la formación de precios.
ver: https://www.elcorreo.com/economia/mercados/cnmv-reactiva-alarmas-20210317131844-ntrc.html |
|
|
|
|
I’d take these surveys with a pinch of salt. The Mizuho Securities survey was participated by only 235 individuals, which is pretty low.
I haven’t been able to find the complete survey, nor the depiction of the methodology, but one very important key factor would be to choose the population in a very disperse and non-clustered manner. The fact that Mizuho Securities conducted the survey could suggest a bias as to the type of person answering the survey. Since there is currently no mention to how the population was chosen, that would be something to ponder when viewing the survey’s results.
I find it hard to believe that 35% - 40% of stimulus check receivers are going to invest in Stock & Bitcoin. That seems like an awfully large segment of population being capable of managing these types of financial product.
|
|
|
|
Este es el caso de mayor valor que he visto hasta ahora, y que ha picado en uno de esos giveaways falsos tipo envíame x BTC y te retorno 2x BTCs. Un hombre alemán cayó en la trampa de enviar 10 BTCs a un giveaway, supuestamente hospedado por Elon Musk. De hecho, la "oferta" se publicó en un hilo del propio Musk, como respuesta, y aunque si te fijas bien en la imagen se ve que el perfil es falso, mucha gente no tiene la menor idea al respecto. Me parece que alguien que tiene 10 BTCs ya debería dominar más el tema, pero los bitcoins no te convierten en sabio de por sí … Ver: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56402378 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
