Chrome, it seems quite fast compared to the other browsers Maybe should use Tor  |
|
|
|
WHAT DA FUK North Korean media is full of shit and lie  it seems they hate japan a lot  N. Korea 7 vs 0 Japan and they crushed S. Korea 3-0 what kind of joke from North Korea media This North K hoax is a hoax right? Germany won it all! Some probably made a lot of money and some lost a lot as well |
|
|
|
Block halving will help for sure...
From the past experience, it seems to me block halving has only a small effect on price. Bitcoin block reward halved from 50 to 25 on Nov 28, 2012 (block 210000), and the price was pretty stable from Nov 12 to Jan 13... Block reward halving has a huge impact on price but sometimes the impact is before or a bit after the halve Less coins coming to exchanges with more buyers push up prices |
|
|
|
Honestly asking, why wouldn't the government be able to move the bitcoins? Who cares that they used to belong to the Silk Road? I mean, they auction off confiscated cars and goods all the time, don't they?
What am I not understanding here?
They are hodling The SR coins u r talking about have already been auctioned off. There is still markets forces to keep the price sub 700$ apparently but eventually we will rise up to thousands of dollars per BTC then more; maybe in a few months but probably in a bit more time |
|
|
|
I would pick BTC!!! It's the best solution for everything!
Soon people will realize how big commissions they pay to banks and will slowly move to BTC! Stay tuned!
They will realise that saving in a currency that will be inflated and is manipulated is less interesting than in a fair currency that is technologically superior as well |
|
|
|
The US government seems a little too keen to pin the blame on the Russians, but under the circumstances I guess I can see why. What are the odds that Malaysia Airlines loses two 777s in the space of six months and both under suspicious circumstances? Probably just an unpleasant coincidence but I wonder if the Malaysian government has stepped on anyone's toes recently. If you want conspiracy theories check out which airlines avoided Ukraine and which ones didn't. I'll save you the suspense. British Airways and Air France did. Germanys Lufthansa didn't. Air France said it was because it is their usual route to avoid Ukraine The Malaysian Airline flight used not to take this route and went further north this time; Russia closed routes that the flight was about to take before the flight entered russian airspace 2 B777 of the same company destroyed for external reasons in a few months is a VERY strange coincidence MH17 the 07/17/2014 (2+1+4=7) cf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYmViPTndxw |
|
|
|
.... I just opened one of my forecasting spreadsheets and noted that I'd arbitrarily picked today as the starting point for the next bull run. No I don't have any proof or logic, just me and my obsession with plotting things in spreadsheets.
Well, too bad you lost. Just for the record, my date is set on august 19th not sooner. If it doesn't happen before 29th, I sell all my crypto for gold. /s That seems extreme, why not keep some BTC and some Gold? |
|
|
|
Yes, but you can understand why then don't want the competition. Their games have a 50% house edge or so...
Pa lottery sales were $3.7 billion last year, of which they gave slightly over $1 billion to programs that benefit Pennsylvania’s elderly population. The kicker is that administration costs were over $40 million. Now you just ran a game where the theoretical house edge was 1%, but in actually ended up 0.356%. Your administrative expenses were 10% of that number. So there administration costs were over 1%, and they have no fear since they don't use a RNG. There should be a government organization to protect citizens from that kind of thievery. Wait a minute .... You compare the administration costs (that you minimised) to the lottery sales so you should compare the amount of BTC played to the JD administration costs to be fair |
|
|
|
Time to roll up my leverage!
How much are you up? |
|
|
|
Hi guys! Anyone got payment already? Just asking cause I am kinda out of money and interested about when I will get some Kind regards! Didn't got it yet but last month got it after 3 or 4days so nothing to worry about you should get it within 48h |
|
|
|
"You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long"
How can it not be good? Where do you think your consumption comes from, if not someone has produced them? How can you get it, without producing something of comparable value and trade? The savings in money and investments from prudent producers is the root of increased productivity, that benefits all.
Sorry, but I don't understand how what you say is related to what I am talking about. Yes, someone has produced what I consume, so if I decide not to consume (but prefer to save instead), there is overproduction (as simple as that). We are not talking here about producers' investments. There can never be overproduction in the free market. When one individual produces, sells his product and saves money, prices will decrease and others will be able to buy more. Saving is letting others in front of you in the consumption queue. Overproduction and under supply can happen in free market. Planning and mis-allocating capital can go horrible wrong even in the total decentralized system. Over production happens when more is produced then what can reasonably be consumed. A merchant can only sell so many products before there is no demand for the product anymore and merchants often have a time limit to how soon something much sell either because of seasons or because a specific product will "go bad" after a certain time When supply strengthens, and demand softens, the profits of that specific market is eroded, and the capital is taken to a more profitable market space. There is no overproduction. Temporalily, prices can go lower than the producers are happy with, but that is also a temporary advantage for people just on the edge of purchasing that exact stuff. Conversely with the absurd notation of under-supply. On the other hand in a nonfree market, that is someone disturbs the free market using the threat of physical force in violation of human rights, meaning government, prices and volume is always suboptimal. Compared to what consumers and producers want, which is the only important thing. Some random person, voter or not, is not entitled to push his values on to others. This would happen when markets are 100% efficient and have all of the real time information that is relevant to the market Market are still the most efficient and when the State intervenes the prices go up, the service quality and innovation go down |
|
|
|
I'm so surprised to see this website closing down. It was the most successful bitcoin gambling site to ever exist. It feels like a cow producing golden milk is being killed.
dooglus you might not want to answer this question, but why don't you do something to get away from the regulations? Are they really so solid that you feel there is no way to do it? Or you feel it's not worth the time and effort? I was sure you would do anything to keep the website going rather than closing it instantly after the regulations came.
Being indicted, losing everything and going to jail is a risk big enough not to pursue JD nakowa : he wanted to prove you can win against a casino, he proved his point; he pretended he has a method to have a positive expectation so he was delusional |
|
|
|
Stunna really needs to make a FAQ in the OP or at least a link to one. Paying us to answer the same questions: a. How do I raise my activity levels? -- CLICK HEREb. Less than 50 posts in a month? -- post carry over to the next month, don't worry c. Will I get paid at the high or low activity level? -- Stunna is awesome and pays for your highest level d. Am I in the program? This one I am less sure of, link to the spreadsheet? over and over again are costing him a fortune. Haha and he would wonder why there are 421 pages, 20 posts each, just for a campaign lol. But I mean we get paid just to answer there questions, and Stunna is btc-rich, so meh. It is annoying to follow this post when you read questions that have been asked a zillion times then 3 or 4 answers for the same question, about one message out of 30 is interesting Am always deducting posts made in this thread to my post count |
|
|
|
In the states it would be healthier and better for the economy in a long term perspective if consumers were saving more and consuming less
So you are essentially saying that producers should bear losses or withstand profits shrinking (since people would spend less and save more), and that would serve the economy better in the long run, right? Am saying that going into debt to consume is extremely bad for the economy; nations that succeed like the USA before are nations of savers, producers, a stable country with a strong currency; you cannot consume with debt forever, it ends badly so the USA would fair better in long run if consumers were not going into debt to consume like it used to be; you use to save to buy something You might have noticed that I didn't mean consumption financed by debt. Producers would have to take losses or see profits diminishing even if the decreasing consumption is directly financed by household earnings, right? In order to be able to consume you have to produce wealth first and you have to produce Producing come before consuming, no production no consumption; consuming is not hard, everyone can do it, being able to produce is what matters and being able to trade your time and skills for money is what able to you consume Why do you shrink from answering my question? You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long run (as you previously claimed)? The problem is not the demand, the problem is producing; everyone wants iphones, cars, tvs or to travel... Answered your question, consumption made by going into debt is bad for the economy because of the debt; consumption made from savings is not better than savings; if any savings would be better because they are invested and produce a profit You didn't answer my question. Actually, I see that you're trying to avoid answering it as much as possible. I am asking whether saving is better than consumption (I mean consumption financed from household earnings). Yes or no? _______________________________________________________________________________ __________Yes it is better |
|
|
|
Prefer to keep the money spend on college and use the time to work on McDonald. Use the saving to start up bitcoin investment or business.
If you start working early you can build work experience and you have time to innovate and be recognised in your field; some positions are only filled with college graduates though I think this totally depends on you. In my case I think I will hardly earn money and would not be accepted to my current job If haven't went to College.
You would have done something else and you would not be in debt or have more money |
|
|
|
I say 1-0 Brasil win tonight.
Am routing for Brazil on this one and my money is on Brazil as well; most comments are giving a win for Germany because they over estimated Germany and underestimate Brazil without Neymar; Brazil is fresh, at home and have an excellent team and excellent game, it will show tonight; the winner will be the team that is lucky enough to score anyway |
|
|
|
In the states it would be healthier and better for the economy in a long term perspective if consumers were saving more and consuming less
So you are essentially saying that producers should bear losses or withstand profits shrinking (since people would spend less and save more), and that would serve the economy better in the long run, right? Am saying that going into debt to consume is extremely bad for the economy; nations that succeed like the USA before are nations of savers, producers, a stable country with a strong currency; you cannot consume with debt forever, it ends badly so the USA would fair better in long run if consumers were not going into debt to consume like it used to be; you use to save to buy something You might have noticed that I didn't mean consumption financed by debt. Producers would have to take losses or see profits diminishing even if the decreasing consumption is directly financed by household earnings, right? In order to be able to consume you have to produce wealth first and you have to produce Producing come before consuming, no production no consumption; consuming is not hard, everyone can do it, being able to produce is what matters and being able to trade your time and skills for money is what able to you consume Why do you shrink from answering my question? You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long run (as you previously claimed)? _______________________________________________________________________________ __________The problem is not the demand, the problem is producing; everyone wants iphones, cars, tvs or to travel... Answered your question, consumption made by going into debt is bad for the economy because of the debt; consumption made from savings is not better than savings; if any savings would be better because they are invested and produce a profit |
|
|
|
In the states it would be healthier and better for the economy in a long term perspective if consumers were saving more and consuming less
So you are essentially saying that producers should bear losses or withstand profits shrinking (since people would spend less and save more), and that would serve the economy better in the long run, right? Am saying that going into debt to consume is extremely bad for the economy; nations that succeed like the USA before are nations of savers, producers, a stable country with a strong currency; you cannot consume with debt forever, it ends badly so the USA would fair better in long run if consumers were not going into debt to consume like it used to be; you use to save to buy something You might have noticed that I didn't mean consumption financed by debt. Producers would have to take losses or see profits diminishing even if the decreasing consumption is directly financed by household earnings, right? _______________________________________________________________________________ __________In order to be able to consume you have to produce wealth first and you have to produce Producing come before consuming, no production no consumption; consuming is not hard, everyone can do it, being able to produce is what matters and being able to trade your time and skills for money is what able to you consume |
|
|
|
What the government should do is get tuition back under control, for publicly funded universities anyhow. Probably private schools will follow the example of public schools when students who are already pretty smart about how much college costs start shopping for the best education they can find for the money. And if students get their loans from the government, they should NOT have to pay interest on top of income tax when they land a job.
If you want to become a certified IT professional, you could probably get the appropriate certifications just from watching Youtube videos. If you want to become a programmer, you could probably create a few good Android apps just so you'll have a portfolio and then go freelance. There have been times when I thought a college education was overrated. Think about it.
With internet and the possibility to watch classes from the best professors of every discipline you shouldn't need so much time and spend so much money to get an often useless diploma; when you see what is taught in economics degrees you are thinking that you end up being worse in economics than if you didn't pursue the studies in the first place |
|
|
|
I spend on average 12-14 hrs online 7 days a week. If there were no internet I'd be playing/walking/daydreaming in the woods all day long  I love the internet and everything but I wouldn't miss it at all if it were to suddenly disappear You wouldn't miss it even if you spent 12-14hours online everyday 7days a week? Have noticed you miss some real social connections when you spend too much time online and connections face to face should be prioritized |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
we must have missed the final game 
