|
How do you feel about them now refusing refunds, given how much emphasis you placed on the ability to order by CC, and the extra security that gave customers?
|
|
|
|
and the most important things is that if the price will drop, C.A.T. will Wait.
... for the price to rise again. Which assumes that it does. Which is only true in a generally rising market. I'm not attacking the general premise, and I'm perfectly prepared to believe that, in practice, it does make a profit. But the 'guarantee' of gain is just wrong. At the instant you open any trade by buying, you cannot 'guarantee' that there will ever be a willing buyer at a higher price than you paid. You just can't. At any moment someone could come along and dump a couple of Bitcoin into any altcoin market and trash it. At the volumes for most alt-coins are so low that they might never recover. It is the wording I have an issue with, not the actual execution. |
|
|
|
if C.A.T. create and finish a Ping-Pong Transaction, Gain is guaranteed because the value of ping orders is lower than value of pong orders. This is Math. And what if it can't finish the ping-pong? Prices are orders are moving all the time, and if that movement continues to be downwards, it won't be possible to complete the trade at a gain. Of course if prices continue to move upwards (or to bounce in a defined range), you'll make a profit. |
|
|
|
Your govt doesn't issue money. Your central bank does which is a private cartel of banks who has been given a monopoly on issuing currency. When they issue currency they and only they benefit. They benefit because more issuance means more inflation but inflation is a lagging effect and so the money they issue today won't have its purchasing power degraded until after they spend it. You on the other hand well you get your money slowly after it has filtered through many layers from the banks on downward so the prices have already adjusted. Ever notice that you get a 3% raise (not a promotion but an annual raise) but by the time you get the raise prices have already increase 3% (or more). You never catch up.
Governments build schools and roads and healthcare (and bombs, and engage in terrorism, and build police states, and incarecerate people) using TAX REVENUE which has absolutely nothing to do with the issuance of currency. There are many countries which don't issue their own currency. Belize for example defacto uses the US dollar as their national currency. How does belize build roads? Simple people pay taxes (often in US dollars) and the government spends those to build roads. If governments did all those things only with tax revenue, they wouldn't have debts, would they? When the government needs more money, it issues more bonds (debt). At the moment, there isn't a large enough existing open market to buy all the debt that needs to be issued, so it is sold directly to the central bank, which issues more currency to match the value of the bonds it has bought. And my central bank, the Bank of England, is not a cartel of private banks. |
|
|
|
Yes, Gain is guaranteed by the Algorithm i've written. BUT don't forget that price of alternative currency may change and your gain will be lost Another way of saying that would be that gain is not guaranteed! Gain is measured in money, ie Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Well, if the bot does that then that is your own fault. You setup the bot and it will trade like you told him too.
You cannot held the bot responsible for price fluctuations. And I have no problem with that, the problem is with the ridiculous claim that it is guaranteed to produce gains. No trading method is guaranteed to produce gains, measured against the base currency. |
|
|
|
Not really if you ask me. Because the bot does exactly what it should do, get you more coins. Surely the aim is to make money (measured here as number of Bitcoins). A bot that accumulates increasing amounts of worthless altcoins isn't making you money. |
|
|
|
Gain is guaranteed?
Yes, Gain is guaranteed by the Algorithm i've written How can you possibly guarantee a gain? If the currency value continues to drop after you buy, you can never sell for a gain. He means gain in amount, not gain in value. That is pretty meaningless then, no? |
|
|
|
Gain is guaranteed?
Yes, Gain is guaranteed by the Algorithm i've written How can you possibly guarantee a gain? If the currency value continues to drop after you buy, you can never sell for a gain. |
|
|
|
Well, I wouldn't have access to it. Only the service would, just like with paypal today. But you (or whoever was using the service) would have the money in Bitcoin, which couldn't be reversed, and the service provider would be out of pocket when all the fraudulent credit card transactions were reversed. Why would a service provider take that level of risk? |
|
|
|
I think for the next gen of chips, manufacturers would be wiser to work totally in secret and have a consumer grade product ON HAND before opening their order books, even if it's just a small batch. It's a safer model for all involved. But there is danger there, as well, due to the time sensitive nature of this race. Safer for everybody except the manufacturer. With the current model, they get your money up front, and get to keep it, almost regardless of how poorly they perform. |
|
|
|
Personally, i blame the people who were in such a hurry, that they screamed bloody murder when things were a day or two late. As I've said before, there is always time to do it right the second time. You all wanted them so bad that you were willing to forego proper testing. So now you are seeing the results. I blame the people who presold equipment with a given delivery date, and couldn't make working equipment by that date. |
|
|
|
I didn't think she sounded nuts at all, although I can understand how people who don't know what's really going on might jump to that assessment. As a thought experiment, imagine that the main thrust of her interview had been that virtual currencies like Bitcoin have no chance of worldside success, and she had also make the comments about Hawaiin gold, Detroit taxes going to the Vatican and the Jesuit hold over China. You don't think the thread would have been full of people picking out all the more extreme statements from the interview, and thinking that they were good reasons to mistrust her opinion on Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
But I'm not going to say she's nuts just because it sounds unbelievable to me. How can you? To be clear, I haven't said she is nuts, I've said that in that interview, she sounded nutty. Because, well, she did, didn't she? Maybe she was just having a bad day, who knows? |
|
|
|
For the things that I can't prove I still prefer believe someone that worked at the World Bank and that has a lot to lose saying those things than a nobody like you trolling anonymously on a public forum. How exactly am I trolling? Or does that simply mean not agreeing with you? What does she have to lose now, she's already been fired. If she was saying these things while still employed there, then she would have a lot to lose. It is entirely up to you who you choose to believe, but there are lot of red flags in her interview. |
|
|
|
Maybe, but what she said in this video is factually correct and most of it fairly easy provable. So these thing are factually correct? they have taken an entire city, Detroit, and declared it bankrupt. When what’s actually happening is their tax dollars are not even staying in the society, their tax dollars are going by treaty to the United Kingdom, and then they are being transferred to the Vatican, to the bank of the Vatican the Jesuits have a very strong stranglehold on China as well the amount of gold in the deposit in the Bank of Hawaii is 170 000 tonnes If I would quote all the nutty things you have said, with your logic, your are not a reliable source of information for us. I'm not holding myself out as one. I'm not giving TV interviews, am I? |
|
|
|
So maybe you can explain us how the world's corruption is actually going on instead of just bashing everything?
That will be way more constructive for us. No, why should I try to rework her words into something comprehensible? The questions was whether she was a reliable source or not. IMHO, given some of the nutty things she has said, not. |
|
|
|
I suppose you can prove this wrong? If I said that nuclear power stations were actually running on leprechaun juice, and someone said I was wrong, would you ask them to prove it? She said something nutty, let her prove it. I can't prove that there aren't tiny pink unicorns at the bottom of your garden, but you know what, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there aren't anyway. |
|
|
|
I don't know about tons of gold being stored somewhere, it could be true but maybe not. But a lot of what she's saying is absolutely true, not just the corruption going on at the highest level. Don't discredit her just because of a few things that may seem unbelievable to you. Someone who comes out with things like this: They are not given the basic information about what is really going on and who is benefiting from the economies that they are being told… they are being told that they have no money, they have taken an entire city, Detroit, and declared it bankrupt. When what’s actually happening is their tax dollars are not even staying in the society, their tax dollars are going by treaty to the United Kingdom, and then they are being transferred to the Vatican, to the bank of the Vatican. This is not a society that is going to be sustainable on any basis, for any reason. Just sounds plain nuts, so why should I pay any attention to anything else she says? |
|
|
|
wait wait wait... I don't understood (I'm not english)
-temp increase: performance low
-temp low: performance the same (but should increase)
Because the firmware is not reenabling the extra cores that should be ok at the low temperatures. The theory is that by restarting the miner, the extra cores will be used again, and performance at low temperature will be better than at high temperature. Hypothesis: The firmware is able to disable cores when the temperature rises, but is not able to reenable them when it falls. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
