Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2020, 01:16:34 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Other / Politics & Society / Machine Learning and the Death of Accountability on: September 11, 2020, 07:33:54 AM
Recently in the UK there has been a furore over algorithm-determined school exam results. The pandemic meant that pupils couldn't sit exams, and an algorithm was devised that determined what results each pupil would get. However, many pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, received worse than predicted results, whereas pupils from more affluent backgrounds suffered no ill effects. There were widespread protests at the perceived unfairness, and the algorithm was hauled out into the open and dissected. The formula was quite rudimentary, and the inbuilt bias perfectly clear for anyone with a basic grasp of maths to see. The outcome was  that the protests were upheld, and the unfair results overturned.

The reason this could happen is that the algorithm was devised by people. Their assumptions and their methods could be unpicked and understood. However, the trend, now that we are in the era of big data, is for machine-learning. Computers can devise much more efficient processes than can humans. If the same thing had happened in a few years' time, it is quite likely that the grades would have been determined by machine-learning, with initial data fed in, results coming out, and no human understanding how the processing from input to output works. Indeed, with the computer itself unable to explain (because we have not yet reached that level of AI). This combination of factors, machine-learning on the one hand, and the computer being unable to explain its reasoning on the other, leads to an absolute removal of all accountability for decisions that can have a profound impact on people's lives. Humans can argue convincingly that they have simply input some initial parameters, and had no part in the decision-making. But those machine-learning decisions can't be pulled into the open, can't be dissected, can't be understood. Machine-learning without sentient computers means that all accountability is thrown away. No-one is responsible for anything. Now this may change once AI reaches a sufficient level that a computer can explain its reasoning in terms that humans can understand... but that is years or decades away, and until we reach that point, the possibilities look quite scary. We live in a competitive world, and the advantages of machine-learning are too tempting for countries and companies to pass up. ML is pursued fervently, no matter the implications. Will we really throw away accountability for (and understanding of) a lot of really important decisions?
2  Economy / Economics / Remote Working and Inequality on: August 29, 2020, 11:33:20 AM
Crisis accelerates change. The CV19 lockdown precipitated a shift to remote-working for many people. Now lockdowns are lifting, and governments are keen to get people back into the physical office in order to increase city-centre footfall and ensure that bricks-and-mortar businesses can return to profitability - particularly those small businesses that rely on lunchtime traffic from the office. However, here we hit a problem. Governments want companies (plural) to succeed, and so their focus is on a return to previous ways of working... but individual companies are interested solely in their own (singular) viability and profitability. Individual companies have been hit hard by lockdown, we are seeing a lot of businesses being propped up by short-term government payouts, with the anticipation of large-scale unemployment once those payments inevitably cease. Companies are looking to cut costs, and retaining the current remote-working system offers huge benefits both in the short-term (no requirement to solve the unsolvable problem of getting everyone back into the office whilst still retaining social distancing) and in the longer-term (no need to pay huge city-centre rents and the associated costs of running a large office, insurance, utilities, maintenance, etc).

Many people want to continue to remote-work, companies have noticed that productivity has remained consistent during lockdown, and that continued remote-working offers huge financial savings... perhaps the death knell has been sounded for the culture of presenteeism.

If we can assume that a large amount of the new remote-working due to CV19 will remain remote in the longer-term, then does this help to reduce inequality within societies? The situation applies to many countries, but taking the UK as an example, cost of living in London (and to an extent the wider SE) is considerably higher than in the rest of the country. So with no need for people working for 'London companies' to live within or in close proximity to London, will there be a population shift towards rural and cheaper areas, a sort of reverse brain-drain of people still working 'London jobs' but now living elsewhere in the country? And the other side of this, will it create new job opportunities for people in poorer areas? A young graduate in a poor northern town might previously have been limited in their job opportunities because of a desire to remain in the area (for social or other reasons)... but can now apply for and work a 'city centre' job without leaving the area?

And looking further, will this then, eventually, lead to greater equality of opportunity across the world, if all you need to work a 'London job' or a 'New York job' is an internet connection and the ability to speak the language?
3  Other / Politics & Society / Dulce et Decorum est on: May 17, 2020, 11:18:31 AM


Quote
Stay alert! Lazy British working-class workers. Die at your posts for Dominic Raab. Die in your warehouses for Jacob Rees-Mogg. Die in your care homes for Dominic Cumming. Middle-class workers: Work safely from home at your laptops. Text each other photographs of your Ocado deliveries, and dream of Center Parcs and Forest Holidays. Once I found it funny that the prime ministerís perfect storm of public desperation, manufactured xenophobia and ruthless dishonesty had seen this self-serving turd float to the toilet top. But now itís just frightening.
Quote
You may meet one parent at a distance of two metres while the other parent waits in the car. Or you could employ them both at your small business and see them as much as you want. Stay alert! Donít see your children. But if you are a teacher, see dozens of other peopleís children in narrow corridors.
source

It is no secret that the Conservative government in the UK values money more than people. They are re-opening sections of the economy, they are re-opening schools without employing any track-and-trace policies, without any PPE equipment, without any real guidance on how to implement and enforce the necessary social distancing - the guidance isn't there because it is clearly an impossible task to social distance on the London underground, on buses, in primary schools. The rich and the middle-classes get to continue to work at home, whilst the expendable poor are sent out as the vanguard. Those who have to travel into a city centre and don't have private transport will be at hugely increased risk of catching and spreading the virus - but it's okay, don't worry - they will spread it amongst themselves whilst everyone who can afford to continues to safely self-isolate, away from the unfolding chaos. Only the common people will be sent out to die, only the expendable poor. Fee-paying schools will remain closed. Schools for everyone else will re-open.

Schools are being re-opened because the government sees people as valuable only in terms of their economic contribution. The government wants to free up parents to go back to work, despite the dangers, despite the fact that R is very close to 1 and we are teetering on the edge of a return to exponential growth in new cases. Teachers don't want to return. Teachers' unions don't want them to return. Parents don't want their kids to return. Certain local authorities are refusing to re-open their schools. It is clearly nonsensical to reopen now, clearly unsafe, the R value is too close to the threshold.

Meanwhile the right-wing press continue to act as the government's mouthpiece, casting teachers as valiant heroes who are desperate to serve their country, battling the evil unions who are getting in their way...

... this is the same paper that has a somewhat questionable record when it comes to picking the right side


This post is aimed more at people who vote for right-wing parties than at anyone else. Presumably most Conservative voters would not kill their own family in exchange for money, but they are happy to support a party that wants to increase the national death toll in exchange for a small economic lift. Is this an astonishing level of cognitive dissonance, or simply the utter absence of empathy?
4  Other / Politics & Society / Sports during lockdown on: March 28, 2020, 08:16:07 PM
For those sports fans who are feeling a bit starved of action during the lockdown... don't worry, there is still plenty happening, and plenty to watch:

2020 Crossroad Dash
International 4x4 Pushchair Final
Tooting Dogging Final
Drag a Load of Tat
Dog Racing
Pigeon Dressage
5  Other / Politics & Society / Coronavirus simulators on: March 19, 2020, 05:31:49 PM
For those who haven't seen it, there's a great simulator here that demonstrates how quarantining and social distancing work.

And another one here showing how epidemics spread, the examples covering varieties of R0 values (how many cases an infected person will go on to cause directly) and Re values (similar to R0 but takes into account that some people will be immune). Comparisons are made between COVID-19 and something that is more contagious (measles), and something that is less contagious but has higher fatality percentage (ebola). There are also examples of how various precautionary and preventative measures can have an effect: masks/gloves, and then quarantines.

Have a look. It's not just dry numbers, these are highly visual simulators that can provide some real understanding of how and why viruses spread, and some insight into what can be done to stop them or at least manage them, and why these strategies work. Results will be different every time you run through these, but the overall patterns remain largely consistent.

Finally, a little more involved is this virus trajectory modeller, where you can move sliders to control R0, Re and other variables.






6  Other / Politics & Society / Nationalisation on: March 17, 2020, 12:24:59 PM
The Coronavirus is already hitting major economies hard, and the worst is yet to come. Many businesses are going to get hit really badly. At the moment it is airlines and travel companies bearing the brunt of it, but this will extend throughout society as quarantines and restrictions go on with no end date in sight.

We are seeing the first indications of (re)nationalisation of some companies:
France ready to nationalise virus-stricken companies
Spain has nationalised private hospitals
Italy is renationalising an airline

Is this the start of a wide-ranging renationalisation program? Governments are attempting to inject cash and put other measures in place to prop up stricken companies, but it seems likely this will be difficult. Fundamentally, when there is a crisis such as this, private companies competing against one another are ill-equipped to maintain the day-to-day running of a country. It seems that government control is the only way to do it.

Thoughts?
7  Other / Politics & Society / Media causing panic-buying and costing lives on: March 14, 2020, 08:38:19 PM
Take a close look at this image from what is normally one of my favourite newpapers, The Guardian. The article is about a supermarket having almost sold out of tinned tomatoes; the image shows a shelf with only a few cans remaining. However they forgot to crop the image. To the left, you can see a huge stock of tins of 'Tesco Chopped Italian Tomatoes'.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/08/coronavirus-stockpiling-supermarkets-toilet-paper-hand-gel

I'm sure that once coronavirus started to escalate, a few people started panic-buying certain items, probably including tinned food. But newpapers and other media outlets are always desperate to get the latest exclusive, throwing out emotive and misleading headlines like anything. Surely it's the case that the panic buying escalated hugely precisely because of feverish reports of panic-buying.

Press freedom is important, but with that comes responsibility. Newpapers, TV news, etc. are right now abdicating that responsibility. They mislead people all the time, but when there is a serious situation such as now, with a global pandemic, their manipulation of the public is outright criminal. Look at what happened with that quarantine in northern Italy, leaked before it could take effect, leading to people fleeing the area in advance of the lockdown, and no doubt spreading the virus and costing lives as a result.

They are not reporting news, it's just the usual sensationalist crap, but right now it is creating panic and causing suffering and death. These people should be prosecuted.
8  Other / Politics & Society / Jeff Bezos saves the World !!! on: February 20, 2020, 10:03:55 AM
Everyone will have seen the announcement by the world's richest man that he is donating $10b to fight climate change.

Whilst it's a welcome gesture, it does smell very strongly of virtue signalling. And why does it have to have his name plastered all over it? The "Bezos Earth Fund". This presumably is what he thinks is the most acceptable wording of "Superman Jeff Bezos saves the World".

Perhaps he should just pay taxes instead. Perhaps he should look at how Amazon is contributing to climate change, rather than attempting to dissociate himself from his own business and rise from it like some (renewables-powered) phoenix from the (coal-fired) flames.

Amazon is one of the world's biggest polluters and has absolutely zero interest in preventing climate change, beyond maintaining a facade of ethical concern and accountability purely for PR purposes..

Okay, here are some facts and links:

More than 350 Amazon employees have spoken out about the company's disregard of and contribution to climate change, and its attempts to silence those employees. Comments are here and well worth a read.

Amazon threatens to fire employees who speak about the climate crisis.

Amazon funds climate-denying think tanks, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Amazon donates to politicians who are climate-change deniers. This includes "68 legislators who have denied climate change ó including those who have voted against environmental legislation 100% of the time" (from poynter.org).

Amazon is happy to sell AWS to the oil and gas industries:
"The energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries. We will continue to provide cloud services to companies in the energy industry" It continues: "to make their legacy businesses less carbon intensive and help them accelerate development of renewable energy businesses", but there are no numbers here, it's just vague ethical hand waving.
https://www.aboutamazon.com/our-company/our-positions

Amazon was scored at an "F" by the Carbon Disclosure Project, and was "the largest U.S. publicly traded company not to participate"

... although they did admit in 2018 that their carbon footprint is 44 million tonnes, which is roughly 85% of the emissions of Switzerland.



9  Other / Politics & Society / Democracy 2020 on: February 02, 2020, 06:28:50 PM
Cambridge University have just published their Global Satisfaction with Democracy report.

I'll start off by saying, this is a huge study: "more than 25 data sources, 3,500 country surveys, and 4 million respondents between 1973 and 2020 asking citizens whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with democracy in their countries." ... so we can't realistically accuse it of being unrepresentative.

The results throw up a number of interesting points. Number one, I think it provides compelling evidence that Satoshi was right. Since the financial crisis, and the aftermath with banks being bailed out by weak/complicit governments and the general public paying the price, dissatisfaction with 'democracy' has soared. Economies are corrupt and failing. The bitcoin solution looks more relevant today than ever before.

... but this is the global trend. Dissatisfaction is not growing at the same rate in every country. Developed 'democracies' fare worst of all: "In the United States, levels of dissatisfaction with democracy have risen by over a third of the population in one generation." Many other big economies - Japan, UK, Brazil, Australia to take a few examples - are at or near all-time highs for dissatisfaction.

I think it is notable that in three of these big economies, we now have aggressively right-wing populist autocrats in charge - Trump, Johnson, Bolsonaro.

Democracy has been in trouble for decades, due primarily to growing levels of inequality. The financial crisis and its aftermath exacerbated the discontent. What we have seen since then is that the trust gap has been ruthlessly exploited by strongmen who have positioned themselves as outsiders who will represent the people against vested interests. Of course they will do no such thing. They are all staunch conservatives who serve the interests of the wealthy elite at the expense of the poor and the disenfranchised. It's the same old lies, with a different face - but the same different face everywhere, the same trick pulled in country after country: Modi, Erdogan, el-Sisi, Duterte, etc... the contempt for the public is so extreme that they feel they can repeat the process endlessly and we will do nothing about it.

The left rose in response, Sanders, Corbyn et al, but the powerful always have the media on their side (as they own it), and obviously money talks on social media as well, with Republicans, UK Conservatives etc ensuring the perpetuation of the status quo. In many countries, they have the military onside, too. So the establishment wins again.

Meanwhile, as the appallingly cynical exploitation of the system continues to develop, faith in democracy becomes ever more eroded. Have we reached a tipping point yet? Will we soon? Personally I don't think this can continue forever. We will hit a point where faith in democracy as represented in developed economies is so low that something will happen to change it. What that something will be is an open question. However, the case for bitcoin grows ever stronger.

Have a read of the report; there's a lot of interesting data in there.






10  Other / Off-topic / Quantum Decoherence on: January 08, 2020, 02:10:35 PM
One of the major obstacles to workable quantum computing is the problem of decoherence. A discovery has been reported that could pave the way for a solution...

A brief overview for those not familiar with QC: the advantage of quantum computers (for solving certain types of problem) is that the information is held in 'qubits' rather than the 'bits' used by classical computers. A bit can be 0 or 1, whereas a qubit employs quantum indeterminacy to be in a superposition of the states, a mix of 0 and 1 simultaneously. This has an important effect on scaling - the processing power of a classical computer scales linearly with the number of bits, whereas the power of a quantum computer scales exponentially (2n) with the number of qubits (1,2,4,8,16,32 etc rather than 1,2,3,4,5,6).

Perhaps the most significant obstacle to achieving a workable quantum computer is the fact that these qubits aren't stable. Their superposed quantum 'part 0 part 1' state tends to collapse extremely easily to the classical 0 or 1 values. Heat, light, sound, vibrations, magnets, any interaction with the external physical environment, can collapse the system and we lose the quantum data.



The problem is exacerbated as the complexity of the system (the number of qubits) increases. This means that it is extremely difficult to hold information in a quantum system for any length of time. The world record (as far as I'm aware) is from Nov 2019 at 75 seconds.

However research by a team from Munich has revealed a possible solution to the problem. They have identified a form of quantum quasiparticle that reforms after it decays, and so essentially can persist forever and retain that quantum data.

The discovery has only recently been made*, so a lot of work needs to be done to exploit this in a working model, but still, there is the tantalising possibility that the decoherence problem may have a solution, and we are moving ever closer to workable quantum computers.

(I wanted to append this post to the main QC thread, but I am the latest contributor there and didn't want to be accused of bumping - hope it's okay as a new thread)

*June, but flew under the radar a bit and is only really making the news this week.
11  Other / Politics & Society / (Lack of) Privacy on: July 07, 2019, 02:38:46 PM
Hi everyone. I've been complaining a lot on here recently about surveillance capitalism, and about Facebook's foray into crypto. I thought it might be worth a quick post for those of you who are outside the EU, and so maybe aren't aware of just how much data all of these websites gather on us, and how much they share it (sell it).

In the EU we are afforded the limited (but welcome) protection of General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR - https://eugdpr.org The aim in theory is to give consumers some measure of control of the data that is held about them, and how that data is used. In practice a lot of companies are sidestepping the 'active consent' element with pre-ticked opt out boxes, or forcing users to either a) one-click to accept data gathering or b) enter a labyrinth of permissions and un-tick every single one, and then visit the website of each named affiliate and repeat the process there, ad infinitum. But at least it is more visible now.

Anyway, if you are outside the EU you may not get even this level of transparency, so I've pasted an example below in case it is of any use. Apologies if everyone is already aware of all this!
I picked a random UK newspaper website "The Sun"...

1) When you enter the site you can either one-click to accept everything, or else edit permissions. There is often no one-tick option to reject everything.


2) Choosing to edit permissions takes you to a page with menu options for other sub-pages, in this case 'strictly necessary' cookies, measurement, content, ads, information storage, personalisation. There is also a wall of text that gives a vague overview to put you at ease... data is "mostly" used to make the site work, information does not "usually" identify you, etc.


3) Choosing to 'view vendor consent' brings up the page below. This is the list of companies with which the website shares your data. Note the scrollbar, this first page only lists up to 'Ab'... there are many many more.

 
12  Other / Meta / Bitcointalk - first 4 threads on: June 26, 2019, 07:23:19 AM
Hi all

I've been looking at the history of the forum, but I can't get back any further than the 5th thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5

topic=4, 3, 2 and 1 either don't exist or are inaccessible to me. I assume the latter.
Does anyone know the answer? Are these threads visible only to higher ranked members, or do they no longer exist? Or are they visible and I'm just typing the wrong URL? Or were they just test threads that were then deleted?

Sorry - it's a stupid question and probably has a boring and mundane answer, but it's niggling me and I'd like to know.
13  Other / Politics & Society / Universal Basic Income on: June 23, 2019, 04:44:02 PM
What does everyone think about the idea of a Universal Basic Income?

It is gaining popularity on both sides of the political spectrum, and there are increasing numbers of live trials of the system.

The concern is that the next wave of automation will create a new class of effectively unemployable people, and that as this continues some system will need to be in place to support citizens. Waves of automation in the past have simply created new jobs in different spheres. The industrial revolution cut agricultural jobs but created factory jobs. The development of computers over the last few decades has hit manufacturing jobs but replaced them with new opportunities in the service sector. The problem is that as AI starts to take hold, many of these jobs will go as well. It used to be the case that there were always jobs that computers couldn't do, but in the future this will rarely be the case.

Universal Basic Income also removes some disincentives to work, and what is called the 'welfare trap', whereby the resulting cuts to benefits due to new part-time work can make it economically preferable to not take part-time jobs.

So as we are generally a technically minded set of people on here, with one eye always on the future, what do people think? Is UBI inevitable? Is it desirable? Personally I think probably both. It is at least worth trying. It is a step towards reducing inequality, and will provide an element of empowerment to the disenfranchised, and so perhaps alleviate some social tensions. It will also drastically simplify existing complex and expensive welfare programmes. UBI needn't be hugely expensive either, an overhaul of the taxation system to make it more genuinely progressive could free up huge quantities of money.

14  Other / Politics & Society / "Disruption" as forced technological determinism on: June 09, 2019, 10:39:24 AM
I've been troubled by the recent announcement of Facebook's coin, the purpose of which I believe is to gather data on our purchasing habits to then use as yet another source for behavioural analytics and the lucrative behavioural futures market (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147740). This has led me on to thoughts about how society and value systems are being modified by the big tech firms.

Take Mark Z***erburg's infamous "move fast and break things" motto. The point here is to move fast not just to stay ahead of competitors, but to stay ahead of legislation. Google Earth is another example. No-one gave Google permission to effectively create a worldwide CCTV system, but crucially there was nothing to stop them from doing so. Google, FB et al are deliberately moving into virgin territory and claiming it for themselves. With no-one else there, no governments or regulatory bodies to stop them, they look around at these vast new landscapes, and plant their own flag. These companies, in moving ahead of the law, get to define the new normal. And then they try to deny they are doing this by saying it is inevitable anyway - the march of technology, which no-one can stop or should want to stop. It goes far beyond data harvesting; these companies are now the driving force in determining what the society of the future will look like, and how we will be encouraged to think (privacy=bad, sharing=good, etc.).

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I correct or am I just being paranoid?
15  Economy / Economics / Surveillance Capitalism, Facebook coin, KYC, crypto on: May 27, 2019, 09:07:55 AM
Tin foil hats on, people, I'm going in...

Big news recently has been Facebook's announcement that it will be launching its own cryptocurrency, 'GlobalCoin'. I think this has implications for the direction of travel of crypto as a whole.

Facebook, along with other major internet companies such as Google, offers its services 'for free'. Obviously 'free' is not really free, as these companies harvest all of the personal data that you provide and use increasingly sophisticated behavioural analytics programs to predict your future behaviour, and sell this on for big profit.

So the Facebook coin - they can harvest data on your personality, age, gender, politics and preferences, but the ultimate aim is to acquire everything, all data, including the most valuable one, which is what you buy and when (and under what circumstances) you buy it. This is surely the real purpose of Facebook's move into crypto. All of your purchase activity with this Facebook coin will be tracked and incorporated into the 'digital you' that Facebook sell on.

Is the rest of crypto heading the same way? I know there are privacy coins, but the overall trend is towards KYC - including on exchanges, and this will doubtless increase as mainstream adoption draws closer and governments become more hands-on in devising legislation. And then couple this with the privacy trade-offs that we are likely to concede in order to make use of the convenience of IoT and connected devices.

Are we heading inevitably into a future where crypto is used as a means for big companies to harvest your data for profit?
16  Economy / Trading Discussion / Is TA a self-fulfilling prophecy? on: April 23, 2019, 02:18:05 PM
I've long been of the opinion that technical analysis shouldn't really work with crypto markets, which are generally very thin - and for smaller coins quite easily manipulated.
However a lot of people do have faith in TA, and use it to influence their trading decisions. Since it is common knowledge that some people use TA, does this then become self-fulfilling, and so lead to increased market manipulation because if for example TA says a rise is coming, bears can wait for the inevitable fomo from TA traders and then dump en masse to short the coin and force prices back lower again... and then wait for the next TA 'signal' and repeat.
What does everyone else think? Is TA in crypto self-fulfilling in this way, and does that in turn lead some traders to exploit it in a sort of meta-TA? Or is everything I've said complete nonsense? Smiley
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / 5G, IoT, alts and crypto on: October 23, 2018, 09:32:48 AM
Many of us (all of us?) think that cryptocurrencies are the future, and that they will transform society.  But for that to happen, society must be ready, the groundwork must be done and the necessary frameworks must be in place in order for crypto to flourish and to reach its true potential.

The rollout of the next-gen 5G network is I think a crucial part of this. It should set the scene for huge advances in IoT development and adoption, and this in turn should lead to huge increases in crypto adoption - smart contracts for example, to manage the IoT system.

What does everyone else think?
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / The path to mainstream adoption is rocky on: February 07, 2018, 05:56:05 PM
It's been a very volatile couple of months, even by the standards of crypto. Looking at the entire market cap, there was a huge rise in December and a similarly huge dip in Jan. Obviously a big dip is to be expected following a sudden rise, but I think there is a reason that this one stands out.

The slew of media articles was I think the principal driver for the rise, and the mainstream nature of the coverage caused new 'mainstream' people to invest in bitcoin and alts. Crypto is headed inexorably towards the mainstream, and with each step that it takes it will attract a greater percentage of people who know nothing about the tech and maybe have not even heard of the word 'blockchain'. This absence of belief in the underlying tech and the transformative nature of blockchains and decentralisation causes them to be more skittish, and sell up at the first sign of a bear market. Essentially they are not buying into the ethos, but merely into a new asset class. This I think is why both the rise and the dip were so severe.

What I'm saying is that I think we could have more of the same. The closer we get to the mainstream, the more 'mainstream' the new people who buy in, and so the more volatile the markets. Yes, traders will exacerbate any situation by shorting, but this is a symptom not the cause.

Just an opinion, feel free to shoot me down - but I do believe that the path to the mainstream will become increasingly rocky. There is also the ongoing threat of new legislation, but agian I think this is symptom not cause. The cause is the new class of people entering the market.

(Apologies if this thread is in the wrong section, I wasn't sure where to put it.)
19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Don't panic! on: February 02, 2018, 09:27:24 AM
For anyone who is panicking at the market-wide price drops, please don't! There is no reason to panic. Look long-term, don't look at price charts over the last week or month, look at them over the last year and see the pattern of rises followed by pullbacks... but the course is always upwards.

If you're new and bought in during December and now see huge losses... the worst thing you can do is sell now. Prices will increase in the long term. The current dip is just a correction to the wild excesses of last month. Don't panic!
If the prices you can see now are lower than the prices that you bought in at, then the best thing you can do is buy more. Why? This will lower your average entry price.
If you bought bitcoin at $16000 and see it now at $8000, the course of action is clear: buy the same amount at $8000, and your average entry point is no longer $16000, it's (16000+8000)/2=$12000.

Don't sell, buy!
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Difference between putting money in and taking money out? on: January 30, 2018, 12:45:41 PM
I have a hypothetical question, triggered by the thread quoted below.

Would your answer to the question 'If you had $1 million, how much would you put into crypto?' be the same as your answer to the question 'If you had made $1 million from crypto, how much would you keep in crypto rather than cashing out?'. For simplicity disregarding any existing crypto holdings, and any existing 'real world' bank balances and assets. We are assuming that this $1 million is everything that you have. Also disregarding taxes and other complications.

If your answers are different, then why are they different? Logically they should be the same (shouldn't they?).
For me, I think the amount I would put in (the first question) is less than the amount I would keep in (the second question). I think I know why, but would like to hear other people's thoughts. Smiley


Where and how would you invest 1m dollars? What coins will you buy? Or will Huh you just put them in Bank? Huh Wink
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!