I can't say I know that much about Tether, as I haven't had any interest in it to look into it too deeply.
Having a stablecoin pin its value on a fiat is already a laughably bad idea. But to back a so-called "stablecoin" without being able to prove that it's actually pegged to the fiat dollar, much less able to prove its pegged to anything at all really, nor to be able to verify who holds it or how much, if the collateral backing it (fiat) is there and accessible 1:1, seems actually far worse than backing digital fiat to me.
And beyond just making day trading easier, what purpose does it serve?
https://youtu.be/-whuXHSL1Pg?t=136I watched that entire video, and it told me exactly nothing about Tether beyond what I either knew or could have guessed about it. Which says more about the uselessness and fraud of Tether than my limited knowledge. They are likely running a fractional reserve scheme (scam?), just like every major bank in the world. The only difference is that no one knows if their collateral has any or enough value to cover their debt load in the case of a major wipe out. I'm guessing not. And beyond just making day trading easier, what purpose does it serve?
The video did answer this question: none. Which again, was as I surmised all along. |
|
|
|
I agree that the Tether fud is, in general, fairly silly.
But I do want to say.. I am also not entirely comfortable with some of the trends I see happening with Tether.
There are lot's of two faced "Bitcoin Maxis" not only cozying up with Tether, but are actually using it via Ethereum at the same time of lambasting Vitalic and all the people on twatter with x.eth after their name.
I see a lot of nuance here. For example, I think I like the idea of using Blockstream's tether on their sidechain more than Eth for structural/scaling reasons. But I am still somewhat bothered by the tension between using Tether in place of Bitcoin... by so many people who have preached the "BITCOIN ONLY" gospel from the beginning.
....
But something just seems wrong about these idealists embracing Tether.
It bugs me. But I have not worked through all of it yet, I guess...
I can't say I know that much about Tether, as I haven't had any interest in it to look into it too deeply. Having a stablecoin pin its value on a fiat is already a laughably bad idea. But to back a so-called "stablecoin" without being able to prove that it's actually pegged to the fiat dollar, much less able to prove its pegged to anything at all really, nor to be able to verify who holds it or how much, if the collateral backing it (fiat) is there and accessible 1:1, seems actually far worse than backing digital fiat to me. And beyond just making day trading easier, what purpose does it serve? |
|
|
|
[...] Then he publicly lied (well, or you interpret the facts by publishing unverified information). I mean, coinbase has been focused on working with alternative coins since its inception, not to mention the fact that at the initial stage of development Coinbase was called Bitbank. Just because you say that doesn't make it true. That's a lie. They were not, and they launched with only bitcoin on their broker platform. Some of us that were around then know that, because we were there. Stop spreading misinformation. |
|
|
|
There are an alarming number of industry "insiders" who actually argue FOR centralization. I just saw some video with a coindesk writer making the argument that the VC/shitcoin connection was an anti-bitcoin sort of thing and Naomi Brockwell arguing that she would HOPE that the VCs get paid for their investments in centralized "web3" projects.
The list of people who either completely miss Bitcoin's killer app, or are pretend to so that can enrich themselves if fairly large... and I had thought by now it might have receded.
That was a foolish wide eyed fantasy.
All the VCs see a future world where short-term FOMO, delusion, and hopium of the masses can be capitalized on to make them very rich (with shitcoins, NFTs, and other metaverse garbage). And yes, they also wish to centralize it all. Bitcoin to them is a lost cause. It's a boring commodity now that with growing liquidity is becoming more and more pump-and-dump resistant, even with excessive leverage. And it certainly can't be centralized in the way that the VCs want. They also don't own and control the majority of it, and probably never will. |
|
|
|
I personally think Brian Armstrong and Coinbase have been a net negative for Bitcoin. And most likely will continue to be. Armstrong has worked as hard as he can to build a cantillon type structure in the crypto markets, basically actively working AGAINST one of the key innovations Bitcoin brings to the world.
It's the classic question. Is he evil? Or just dumb?
A lot of newcomers to Bitcoin don't know this, and a lot of the past gets memory holed and forgotten. In the first year or two when Brian A. was getting Coinbase up and running, he was interviewed on a few occasions. I remember one interview very clearly where the interviewer asked him point blank if he had any interest in altcoins (this was even before the term "shitcoin" became a thing), and Brian flat out, without hesitation said "No, because I don't think that they have any value beyond what Bitcoin offers." He then went on to say that Coinbase would be exclusively focused on Bitcoin and nothing else. So he was either lying then, or he his lying now. Perhaps the plan all along was an eventual bait-and-switch of the public. Or perhaps he has never been in control of his platform, and it was always the VCs calling the shots behind the scenes (my bet is on this). No matter what he might now say publicly, I don't believe that deep down inside he thinks that shitcoins have any real value at all. Either way, I agree with you that offering and promoting shitcoins has definitely hurt the Bitcoin movement, and is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's long-term mission. His platform of promoting and selling shitcoins will continue to distract and lead the dumb, get-rich-quick mass public away from Bitcoin, and they will continue to get scammed and lose their wealth. An analogy is that it's like a website that supposedly promotes health and fitness, but also selling heroin and donuts on their platform. It's also why you can't place trust in any celebrity or personality who's a backer of Bitcoin; you can only place trust in the asset itself. |
|
|
|
For those wondering why shitcoins are NGMI forever, read this: https://startupsandecon.substack.com/p/you-dont-own-web3-a-coinbase-curseThe VCs are literally using the same playbook as the WS scammers that run worthless penny stocks. The stupid public end up holding worthless shitcoin bags, while the VCs divest on launch and get rich, over and over again. Bitcoin is so outside of that entire "crypto scam ecosystem" atp that it's not even funny. It's in another universe entirely, and should not be associated with "crypto". |
|
|
|
OT: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/14/retail-sales-december-2021.htmlSo TPTB did lockdowns in December again, hoping that it would push consumers to buy more online instead of at local brick-and-mortar stores. In-store purchases: -1.9% Online purchases: -8.7%  Wholesale prices: +9.7%  Online retailers got seriously fucked for Xmas. Serves them right. |
|
|
|
19nt gene sequences found in CV-19, patented by Moderna in 2015. Chances of natural occurrence in the virus: P=1 in 4*19, or roughly 1 in 274,877,906,944.  |
|
|
|
I know that BTC is directly responsible for the install ion of 2 solars arrays we use 45kwatts 115kwatts and is responsible for the 280kwatt array we are installing today. Worthless real estate ie rooftops are now creating power. So BTC actually creates new real estate and new power. much like a hammer it is a tool that if use properly helps people. Philipma, are you using battery storage or grid-tied? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Still about equal ratio sample sizes vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.
Not sure why you still think the sample size is similar. It's not. Vaccination rate in England is significantly higher than 50%. Maybe now, but it wasn't then. The chart data runs from 2/2021 to 9/2021. Vaccination rate is not a static number. If we take UK population at 56.191M. According to the UK govt's data, by 2/2021 only 8,362,868 vaccinations had been administered (14.8% of the population). By 6/2021, only 33,085,145 had been administered (58.8% of the population). By end of 9/2021, they had administered 40,979,175 vaccines (72% of the population). So you do the math on what the average "percentage vaxxed vs. unvaxxed" was at the time the data was gathered. I'm guessing it's not 90%. Also, we know that vaccine efficacy (if you can even call it that) wanes quickly over time, in just a few months. How many got their first shot early on and never got another? |
|
|
|
In the chart, the number of vaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (278,212 - 47%) was roughly equal to the number of unvaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (257,357 - 43%). But the vaxxed had 70% of the total # of patient deaths, 1779 out of 2,542 that died).
Shouldn't the vaxxed have far less deaths than the unvaxxed, not the other way around?
The chart says "positive tests", not hospitalizations. Those positive tests were done at the ER or hospital. But yes you are right, let's don't use those numbers. Let's look at the overnight hospitalization admission numbers. Still about equal ratio sample sizes vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.   |
|
|
|
The number you posted is not a hospitalization/death rate among vaccinated but you seem to be interpreting it as such. It's a comparison of absolute numbers from two samples of vastly different size. It's statistically meaningless without additional information (e.g. sample size).
In the chart, the number of vaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (278,212 - 47%) was roughly equal to the number of unvaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (257,357 - 43%). But the vaxxed had 70% of the total # of patient deaths, 1779 out of 2,542 that died). In that scenario shouldn't the vaxxed have far less % of deaths than the unvaxxed, not the other way around? |
|
|
|
But...bbut...the vaccines are supposed to protect from serious illness and death, right? Right?
I don't know if you're seriously misinformed or just trolling, but I'll try anyway. All other things being equal, 90% of population vaccinated with an 80%-effective vaccine would mean that roughly two thirds of hospitalizations and deaths would be among vaccinated and one third among vaccinated. I.e. in a perfect sample of 100 people, 90 vaccinated, vaccine not effective for 20 percent of them (18 people) so they have the same chance of getting hospitalized and/or die as the 10 unvaccinated, 18/28 ~ 64%. 80% of population vaccinated: ~45% of hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated. 95% of population vaccinated: ~80% of hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated. And so on. IOTW a higher vaccination rate means a higher percentage of total deaths is among vaccinated but results in a much lower number of said total deaths. AFAIK vaccination rate in England is ~90% so 63% doesn't seem out of line, it probably indicates vaccine effectiveness of about 80% as per above. #math So you are saying that a higher hospitalization and death rate for vaccinated individuals is completely normal, just because there are more of them? Your math may be correct, but your mental gymnastics that completely discounts the (negligible) efficacy of the vaccines is off the charts. This so-called "vaccine" was supposed to COMPLETELY PREVENT serious illness and death, not just a mild "protection" from. "Breakthrough" infections weren't even supposed to exist within the vaccinated, much less hospitalization and/or death. I guess that when England gets to a 100% vaccination rate, then those that get hospitalized and die (of? with?) Covid and all are 100% vaccinated, and the hospitals still overrun, will all make perfect sense.  Who's trolling who? #stupidmathisstupid |
|
|
|
"But...bbut...the vaccines are supposed to protect from serious illness and death, right? Right?"  |
|
|
|
FiRE UnVaXXed nurSEs BecAusE ItS aBoUT HeALtH  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
