Well, that remains to be seen and then probably bought, the conspiracy theory part

I don't know for certain but let me guess, isn't JPMorgan Chase one of the chartered commercial banks that can elect some of the board members of the Federal Reserve regional banks? Couldn't it turn out that the Fed is now so much concerned about preventing a depression specifically because it caters to the business model of JPMorgan and their bros from Wall Street?


As far as I know, the Fed has put on hold the idea of a digital version of the dollar. So it's now your time to guess who may have already won this battle

In light of collapsing economy, JPMorgan plans to lay off several members of Congress


CBDCs have nothing to do with Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency, for that matter

Like another Chinese Ponzi?

A year ago Bitcoin had surged to almost 15k in a matter of a few months while the other market remained still (in dollar terms). As it later became known, this sudden surge, which came out of nowhere, was due to a Chinese Ponzi scheme that accepted bitcoins. No wonder Bitcoin dropped when it imploded within a couple months. It's been a year since then, so we can plausibly expect something like that to occur again. The timing is right


Ether has been on the rise

Viruses are not bacteria

And as I'm inclined to think, they can be killed with ultraviolet and ozone. That's essentially one of the reasons why open places with a lot of sunshine are relatively safe. Regardless, this is a kind of field hospital where everyone is considered infected. They could run tests before admission, and even if some people free of coronavirus get admitted by mistake, this won't make things particularly worse than they would be without these hospitals

That's not always the case

Drugs are strictly illegal and for the right reasons, even if some people are using them anyway. Moreover, if they were not made illegal while their sale wasn't a severe criminal offence, the majority of people would be using them with devastating consequences. In this way, banning something is not always bad for people. Casinos are borderline in this regard, and that's also the reason why they are banned in some countries and only allowed in special zones in other countries

The harsh truth is that it can't be "a thing", even in theory

And while someone may in fact get lured into this stuff, due to negligence or incompetence, and probably on hearing from someone like Nouriel Roubini that CBDCs will obliterate cryptocurrencies, it won't take long till he sees that a particular specimen of CBDC a) won't be able to hurt crypto, and b) will start losing value after the CB in CBDC starts printing it like it ain't no thing. That way, no thing, no matter how you look at it (sorry for double negatives)

To tell the truth, I was speaking generally

WinDice just turned up conveniently as an illustrative example to show that more general idea. It actually has a lot of application well beyond gambling. For example, two countries which trade with each other can produce two products. From a naive point of view, it may seem that each country should only produce one product, i.e. the one with lower cost of production, while buy the other from the second country. In real life, however, it may be economically practical to produce both products in either country, although in different proportions, of course, and buy the rest

I don't know about India (in fact, I'm not even sure there is a health service available to general population in this country), but in European countries, especially the ones most severely affected by Covid-19 (Italy, Spain, England, maybe a couple others), the quarantine has probably served its purpose of providing time for the healthcare system to adapt to the situation. I've posted images from Saint Petersburg in Russia where a huge multi-purpose exhibition complex has been transformed into a field hospital



One such in England (an NHS Nightingale Hospital)

I've read about that too

Moreover, it had been stated by many right at the very beginning that lockdowns and quarantines were there not to prevent the spread of the virus as it was impossible to do (which proved correct, by the way), but only to slow down the virus so that the healthcare system wouldn't collapse. In other words, governments did everything they could, and now we are already past the point where quarantines could actually be useful. To repeat, they were not to prevent or stop the disease but to slow down its spread and win some time

To sum it up, CBDCs are not likely to help simple folks because helping them would come at the expense of regular bankers. But if we take this part away from CBDCs, what is left then? The irony is that central banks will have to make CBDCs useful to the general public if they want more control over the financial activities of the populace. But this is impossible without hurting regular banks, to some degree

Anyway, it will be interesting to find out what CBDCs are going to look like in practice once they arrive

I'm not sure how to understand this part

What evidence are you talking about? Care to explain? Just in case, it was not me who raised the point of cheap labor versus expensive labor. So, in my turn, why do you ask me, exactly? Regardless, for small businesses which can't diversify, the cost of labor (which was exemplified in the example of chocolate) has everything to do with their survival. And if some businesses are to die due to pandemic, it will be the smaller ones which have higher chances of going belly up. Simply because they can't move to countries with cheap workforce

And what can the government do?

To impose a total curfew and move army into the streets (snipers on roofs and that kind of thing)? Okay, and what's next? You can't put the whole country on quarantine for a couple of years. And since we have already been on quarantine for two months, and it didn't help, there's not much that the government, in fact any government, can do. It seems that their only option is to sit and pray that most people will pull through on their own and the infection will subside eventually. People shouldn't call on government but rather care for themselves by themselves

And where am I wrong here?

You basically confirm what I'm saying, i.e. that a decent chocolate bar costs 2 euro and a shitty one a quarter of that. If you would have to pay the same price for good stuff and trash, you would be right. And you would be right too if you paid different prices for essentially the same stuff, like 2 euro for a European chocolate bar and 0.5 euro for the same quality out of some backward country where the labor is cheap. But this is not the case as you say yourself

Fair prices go along with quality

In other words, you can't compare prices without reference to the quality provided. And something tells me that prices are more or less the same across the globe for the same work standards. It simply doesn't make sense to ask below the market rates as you will be selling yourself cheap to cheap employers below your notch. And this has nothing to do with the lowest possible standard of living which you implicitly set as a reference point. You may live in the depths of Africa and still ask the highest price as long as you are up to snuff

There was a similar discussion around here some time ago

I'm not sure if it was about Jetwin or similar fraud, but you could easily "win" a few thousand dollars but you wouldn't be able to withdraw your winnings, indeed. I tried and it became evident that it was a blatant scam. It is strange that people still fall for this type of fraud. The best way to react is simply forget about your "winnings" as they are not

A CBDC is only another form of fiat

So how did fiat survive without blockchain for a few dozens of years if we start counting from the end the gold standard in 1920's (with America going off it in 1934)? Moreover, what's in it for central banks? They are the source of trust and truth (well, as far as money is concerned), so why should they rely on blockchain, and for what purpose exactly?


But seriously, how come that you don't doubt that CBDCs will be centralized and at the same time claim that CBDCs won't survive without the use of blockchain? I for one see no connection here

I've always been saying that patience is overrated (as well as confidence)

The point is, if you lack knowledge and understanding of the market and the situation, then no amount of patience is going to help you. On the other hand, armed with true knowledge and genuine understanding, you don't need patience at all for the simple reason you would know exactly when to trade and when to stay away from trading. Psychologically, impatience is a result of feeling lost, i.e. not knowing what to do and when to do it

They will not offer the most important thing

Which is predictable and controlled supply (read, hard-capped). And this also happens to be the first part of Bitcoin's value proposition, the other part being its decentralized nature (which CBDCs also lack). All the advantages of CBDCs (whatever those might be) will become instantly irrelevant once central banks start printing these "new" currencies like there's no tomorrow. That's a doornail into the coffin of any CBDC out there. Put simply, a CBDC is just fiat on juice

Despite all odds, it makes plenty of sense, however

Indeed, all things considered and equal, you wouldn't spend most of your time on something which pays less (that I certainly agree with). But it still does make sense to put at least some effort into something which pays less even if your total income will suffer. The point is, it is never "all things considered and equal" in real life, and you don't know how it is going to play out in the long run. It may turn out that spending (wasting in your speak) some time and effort on a seemingly less profitable activity will pay back manifold in due course. Especially when they finally ban you from WinDice

Окей, можно подробности в студию?

Без указания имен, времен и так далее. Как записывал и, что самое главное, как потом выписывал из договора купли-продажи. Или по принципу "обещать - не значит жениться"? Ну то есть сначала думал оформить жену как покупателя, а потом вдруг передумал? Если так, тогда почему передумал - уже не вдаваясь в юридические подробности? Интересен сам ход мыслей, и, думаю, что не мне одному. Может жена увидела какой меркантильный муж попался ("обещал - и не женился") и решила сыграть в ящик (зачеркнуто) в ту же игру? Типа живи один в своей халупе

Пора немного освежить память

Напомню, что не так давно, а именно в марте месяце этого года (этого, Карл) биток одномоментно сходил к 4к (а на Bitmex ушел и того ниже). И это был никакой не крах и не апокалипсис, а всего лонг-сквиз. Но самое главное не это, а то, что такие прострелы могут и, скорее всего, будут происходит и дальше -- как только наберется достаточно длинных маржинальных позиций