 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
I agree with your first sentence that earnings from bitcoin is more higher than the interest from banks, I also have my money in bitcoin instead of bank for that reason.
And in your second sentence, it is true that some people have lost their money when they bought them at $700 and after a month saw the price at $600 and $580 etc, but if they hold for more longer they can recover their loss and if they know about trade then they can start trade and can recover their loss sooner.
How does this advice help the people who lost bitcoins in wallets of Mt Gox, Mycoin, Bitfinex, or a bunch of other unreliable pseudobanks? Again, unlike genuine banks, wallets don't provide government-funded depositor insurance. Because there are more and more bitcoin companies that are actually started to back people’s losses in these hacks. Trust me these people want their company to succeed just as much as you want to see it fail. There are very smart businessmen trying to get these cryptocurrency banks off the ground because there is so much money to be made for feeding their greediness. We never forget physical banks also had failed many times across globe. Yes, more and more companies claim wallets are safe. Yet one report says that 33% of Bitcoin exchanges have been hacked, and another report says that 48% of Bitcoin exchanges have closed: http://fortune.com/2016/08/29/risk-of-bitcoin-hacking-is-real/The 25% drop of Bitcoin's price since the Bitfinix hack suggests the market is getting tired of the nonstop Bitcoin claims of trust and safety. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin crashes every year, especially when a big hack or law enforcement event occurs. It's already lost about 25% this year after the Bitfinix hack. This time there is no sign of recovery.
Eventually people will figure out that Bitcoin is extremely overpriced. Other cryptocurrencies have the same or better functionality but have a fraction of Bitcoin's price. Bitcoin's bubble is doomed.
|
|
|
|
I agree with your first sentence that earnings from bitcoin is more higher than the interest from banks, I also have my money in bitcoin instead of bank for that reason.
And in your second sentence, it is true that some people have lost their money when they bought them at $700 and after a month saw the price at $600 and $580 etc, but if they hold for more longer they can recover their loss and if they know about trade then they can start trade and can recover their loss sooner.
How does this advice help the people who lost bitcoins in wallets of Mt Gox, Mycoin, Bitfinex, or a bunch of other unreliable pseudobanks? Again, unlike genuine banks, wallets don't provide government-funded depositor insurance. |
|
|
|
there are some banks going bankrupt so i believe there are a lot of people who lose their money though we cannot do anything about it
That might be true in some underdeveloped countries. But American and European governments provide depositor insurance for banks. If banks in those countries go bankrupt, the depositor insurance reimburses depositors up to a certain amount. In the U.S. the insurance is for up to $250,000 per depositor per bank. That means if you have accounts at 10 U.S. banks, you can be insured for up to $2.5 million. Insured U.S. bank accounts can include individual retirement accounts. Those bank accounts allow the depositor to invest in the stock market. Banks also reimburse their customers if their accounts are hacked. Bank cards protect customers who make purchases by allowing chargebacks. By comparison, bitcoin provides no insurance and no chargebacks. Many people lose their bitcoins because of problems with their wallets. The latest big loss was the Bitfinix fiasco. Bitcoin losses happen regularly. In American and European countries, people don't lose money in their bank accounts. It's delusional to think risky bitcoin will replace banks. The extreme majority of people aren't that naive to trust bitcoin instead of banks. |
|
|
|
Banks fear bitcoin about as much as Coca Cola Company fears some kids selling lemonade. In the global financial market bitcoin is the equivalent of a statistical rounding error. Coinmarketcap.com's historical tracking shows that bitcoin's long-term market share of cryptocoins is declining, not increasing. https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#btc-percentage |
|
|
|
I heard some hackers who hack others via ransomeware virus are asking bitcoins in return. So people are a bit worried and maybe that is stopping them, but that is no reason, hackers use USD also so stop using it !
No this is the reason why they are not using it, I even find this the stupidest reason you could thing. I do think people keep away from it due to the bad name the bitcoin has these days, its still a investment right. Yes , I also have saw some people even legendary calling bitcoin as an investment only, and with that a lot of people who are not interested in investment do not adopt bitcoin, if we spread its image as a currency then people will think to learn about it. The price of bitcoin has dropped 20% in the last 3-4 days. It seems that would affect the people who were using it as a currency. If a person only uses bitcoin, should he buy 20% less food? I don't want hungry babies to get 20% less food. |
|
|
|
|
Well, this is awkward. I posted a response but then figured out it doesn't adequately answer your question about the specific version. So, anyway... Those bitcoins are interesting, huh?
|
|
|
|
If it's intended for Latin America then use 'ustedes conocen' instead of 'vosotros conocéis'.
It would depend on the region of Spain, I think. I also think that "masses" in this context might refer to "misas" and not "masas" (he is talking about a church), or am I wrong? Of course it's "misas." I was wondering how long it would take someone to note that error. I'll bet my first million bitcoins that the paid translator used the word "masas." Regarding "ustedes" v. "vosotros," in some Latin American countries "vosotros" is the normal usage. But every native speaker of Spanish understands either form. We just smirk at people who use the "wrong" form. |
|
|
|
We have a winner. Thank you sir. Or mis?
Apparently my Spanish is good enough.
Timestamp on PM
« Sent to: RodeoX on: Today at 04:02:20 PM »
0.00289176 BTC sent!
Really? I mean it's not half bad. But did he or she point out your errors? Anyway, sorry about your loss. |
|
|
|
Another facet of the system is that, since the elites are constantly issuing money, debt and financial assets to benefit themselves, they need real economic growth to provide demand for these assets, or the system will eventually implode from lack of trust in the assets. So, led by the elites, everyone in the economy is incentivized to pursue profit at all cost, and here you see the roots of pollution, social alienation, addiction and psychological problems. (Now I'm not claiming I or anyone knows or should dictate the proper work/life balance for anyone -- I'm only saying the system creates a real bias away from what people would normally do, in favor of making money.)
I don't understand your infatuation with the notion that so-called elites want to benefit themselves. Everybody wants to benefit himself. Or do you think the so-called elites have a monopoly on the desire for profit? One of the oldest practices in business is to use other people's money to invest and generate profits. Is that a conspiracy? Is that practice limited to so-called elites? You understand that the masses demand that politicians create jobs, right? How would politicians create jobs sooner than later without relying on debt? If it weren't for all that debt fueling demand and stimulating economic growth, billions of people in developing countries would be in even more impoverished conditions. There wouldn't be remotely enough job growth to match population growth. Politicians cooperate with the so-called elites that peddle debt because the masses demand it, one way or another. Debt provides higher standards of living that the masses demand. If there is a conspiracy, the masses are involved enthusiastically in it. |
|
|
|
|
Your ideas about central banks are seriously outdated. Their role has diminished as markets have grown gigantically. Central banks only deal with puny amounts compared to the global markets.
But according to you, the puny amounts that the Fed transacts scare markets that have vastly larger amounts into fulfilling the goals of the Fed. I'm not persuaded.
The facts show the Fed has failed repeatedly, year after year to reach its inflation target. Likewise, the Bank of Japan has failed for the better part of a generation.
The facts show that the Fed's multiple QEs have failed to lift the economy anywhere near 3% growth.
The Fed isn't the god you think it is. But I understand that conspiracy theorists always nitpick anything that contradicts them.
|
|
|
|
|
Now you have me thinking more about the Catiline fiasco. Cicero has been my favorite politician of the ancient world. But I think he mishandled the Catiline conspiracy. After the conspirators were arrested, he had them executed without trials. That caused a huge controversy and the debate continued for decades.
Cicero was a lawyer and he made a fancy legal argument that, as consul, he had authority to execute without trials during an emergency. When the conspirators were arrested, people were afraid that there could be more conspirators, or that the arrested conspirators would be rescued by a mob that would succeed with the coup. But Romans regarded each citizen's right to a trial as fundamental, and the executions caused a lot of blowback.
I think Cicero weakened the Roman constitution with those executions. That added to the slippery slope of the Roman republic.
If we think about it, suspending a constitutional right during an emergency set a dangerous precedent. Now we have prisoners in Guantanamo held indefinitely without trial. Now the US government executes its citizens without trial by blowing them up with drones. Do you see what Cicero started?
Cicero really screwed up another situation years later. Caesar and Pompey invited him to join them in a triumvirate to govern Rome. Cicero declined. If he had accepted, he was the perfect guy to mediate the conflicts between Caesar and Pompey. That's why they wanted him. If he had joined the triumvirate, Cicero could have prevented the civil war, and maybe helped to reform the republic, at least for another while.
So I'm mad at Cicero. But he spent his life trying to preserve the republic.
|
|
|
|
There is a topic related to Imperial Rome that I still puzzle
over. Now, within the US Presidential campaigns, I may have found
a new perspective on the outcomes. The two quotes below are
enlightening:
Trump "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Clinton "Like with a cloth or something?"
Short on policy, long on Entertainment. Imperial Rome was famous
for its "Bread and Circuses" - just the sort of nebulous concept
that defies the ability to attach numbers. This made the true
importance and impact of this policy difficult to grasp, and
allowed it to escape its proper inspection.
Bread and Circuses flows from context: With the defeat of Antony
and Cleopatra, Rome's wealth and survival were assured. Uncertainty
was reduced to storms and floods and to political infighting. One
form of instability leads, I suggest, to a form of stability.
Thus Rome moved from a Republic to an Empire. But with Wars, and
Rumours of Wars gone as a topic of conversation, and little new
in the way of weather, and even political and religious structures
set in stone, what were the plebs, the Roman Mob, to do for
Entertainment?
The last thing an Emperor wanted was his policies on taxation and
welfare debated on the streets of Rome by a knowledgeable population.
Thus was born a social contract - "Bread and Circuses" - the plebs
were provided with sufficient bread and entertainment and would
leave the running of the Empire to the Elite. For the bulk of the
population, the marginal economic utility of education fell to zero.
With these thoughts in mind, I can again ask myself these questions:
What was the real story behind Caligula?
Who was Catiline?
Whoever wrote that opinion about ancient Rome had a lot of anti-Roman biases. Bread and circuses weren't the trivial things he suggests. Those things began with the Roman republic, not Imperial Rome. Bread refers to wheat. It's important to understand that food was expensive for the masses. The Roman government sold discount wheat to the poor, and provided a free ration of corn to a lot of people too. They could make cereals and bread out of wheat, and use corn for different meals and even to feed livestock. Think of all of that as the first food stamps program. Circuses refers to different forms of entertainment that some Roman politicians provided for the public. There was no internet or video games. Races, sports, gladiator fights, public executions of criminals by lions all provided entertainment. But those were also civic events to stimulate pride and harmony. Whoever wrote that quote seems to think erroneously that during Imperial Rome society was dumbed down. That's unbelievable rubbish. The wealth allowed the arts and poetry to flourish. "Education fell to zero"? Really? Then how did they develop a civil service to run a growing empire? Caligula was a psycho emperor. Catiline was a politician who organized a failed coup while Cicero was consul. Cicero spent the rest of his life bragging to everyone who would listen that he suppressed the Catiline conspiracy. Good times. |
|
|
|
|
I prefer the dollar because it has almost universal acceptance, and it doesn't have its price crash once per year. Plus I can't find a wallet or hard drive that I can trust as much as my bank, which has been in business for 100+ years, is regulated and audited, provides government-funded depositor insurance, lets me do chargebacks, and provides reimbursement for any deposit lost due to hacking or bank card fraud or check fraud.
|
|
|
|
The problem with a lot of critics is they don't understand republics. Republics are messy. It's been that way since the ancient Roman republic. Republics have a bunch of decision-makers responding to different interests. That's messy.
The above quote regards this messyness as "distortions." Distortions from what? Distortions from how an utopian society would be if one genius were in charge of defining a free market? Do we need someone to decide the proper amount of florists and sales clerks, and the appropriate set of skills for society? No thanks.
A free market is whatever a republic decides it is, even it's messy.
It's hard to respond to the above. I characterized today's world as being distorted by elite manipulation of markets that pushed the economy on a path totally different from the free-market path. You argue that the truly free-market path is politically impossible -- I can respect that (though I have different thoughts about it.) On the other hand, you imply that I want the state to control the economy even worse than it is controlled today. I want no such thing. Plus, this seems to contradict your own other point. I can't respond properly to an improperly formulated set of arguments. Your word salad is much more confusing than anything I said. Let me make my point super simple for you. The gist of your argument is that there is currently no free market, right? I responded to that by saying: A free market is whatever a republic decides it is, even it's messy. Is that so confusing? Apparently you're confused, because then you say: You argue that the truly free-market path is politically impossible... But I never said that. Are you drinking? Let's roll the videotape again to see what I said: A free market is whatever a republic decides it is, even it's messy. Do you see how you misquoted me? A free market is not only politically possible, it's a byproduct of a republic. But you seem to define a free market differently. Maybe you think a free market is whatever Wikipedia says it is, or whatever Zero Hedge says it is. It seems our major difference is the definition of 'free market.' I still like mine better as it's truly 'free!' 'Crony capitalism' might be a better term to describe your condition. I'll take crony capitalism. I don't advocate limitless cronyism. But I also don't trust utopian theories. Crony capitalism is what happens when there is freedom of association. There will always be people associating for profit. But the more modern Western republics do a decent job of encouraging competition and restraining anti-competitive practices. Again, it's a messy market. But it's very functional for the overwhelming majority of people. |
|
|
|
|
Have you seen the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve? It's only a few trillion dollars. The Fed literally has less than what Fidelity manages. The global bond market is $100 trillion+. The derivatives market is so big and unregulated that it's unmeasurable but is estimated at $1 quadrillion+. You vastly overestimate the importance of central banks.
The only rates central banks set are on their own deposits and interbank lending. They don't set rates of return on other investments. That's what the vast market does.
The commodities markets have a bigger say on inflation than central banks do. The Bank of Japan is the best example. It's been expanding the money supply for, how long, 15 years? But inflation there has stayed abnormally low.
Is your ideology to force "elites" to acquire precious metals to back the unknown $quadrillion+ in liabilities?
|
|
|
|
|
Who are the elites everybody talks about? Rich people?
Most rich people weren't born rich. That's the part that all these theories about an oligarchy leave out. Some rich people were born rich. But most rich were born non-rich, and are overachievers who became rich.
Overachievers are more likely to be greedy. Overachievers are also more likely to hustle their way into power. That's just human nature. Some people always rise to the top. There isn't some big conspiracy.
So is society supposed to repress overachievers? Is society suppose to limit wealth, or limit the communication overachievers have? How exactly can an elite be prohibited?
|
|
|
|
The problem with a lot of critics is they don't understand republics. Republics are messy. It's been that way since the ancient Roman republic. Republics have a bunch of decision-makers responding to different interests. That's messy.
The above quote regards this messyness as "distortions." Distortions from what? Distortions from how an utopian society would be if one genius were in charge of defining a free market? Do we need someone to decide the proper amount of florists and sales clerks, and the appropriate set of skills for society? No thanks.
A free market is whatever a republic decides it is, even it's messy.
It's hard to respond to the above. I characterized today's world as being distorted by elite manipulation of markets that pushed the economy on a path totally different from the free-market path. You argue that the truly free-market path is politically impossible -- I can respect that (though I have different thoughts about it.) On the other hand, you imply that I want the state to control the economy even worse than it is controlled today. I want no such thing. Plus, this seems to contradict your own other point. I can't respond properly to an improperly formulated set of arguments. Your word salad is much more confusing than anything I said. Let me make my point super simple for you. The gist of your argument is that there is currently no free market, right? I responded to that by saying: A free market is whatever a republic decides it is, even it's messy. Is that so confusing? Apparently you're confused, because then you say: You argue that the truly free-market path is politically impossible... But I never said that. Are you drinking? Let's roll the videotape again to see what I said: A free market is whatever a republic decides it is, even it's messy. Do you see how you misquoted me? A free market is not only politically possible, it's a byproduct of a republic. But you seem to define a free market differently. Maybe you think a free market is whatever Wikipedia says it is, or whatever Zero Hedge says it is. |
|
|
|
The only true way to profit from 'house' gambling is to be the house. It is already arranged that the house will always profit in the end.
If you gamble against people, like poker, then you need to learn the people and avoid online gaming some. I have seen some real crazy people online and many do not follow a logical approach which makes it hard to work against them
Somehow that is true but only if you have enough balance to let them to win first because to attract people you need people to have a big win or there will no one to play on your site. There will not be that easy to get some profit on gambling though I agree that the easiest way to make money from gambling is to be the house. But that doesn't mean offering the same games everybody else offers. A newcomer offering the same old games would have massive competition. It's better to develop a unique gambling idea and advertise it. Make it fun in order to attract gamblers. I suspect many gamblers are bored of the same old games and would welcome something original. Then win their bitcoins! That's what bitcoins are for. |
|
|
|
|
