It was part of our culture and we also have that "perya" since I was a kid in our barangay and town yearly but sometimes there's a year that it was prohibited, sometimes there's a year that they allow it. The "perya" near us has been raided by CIDG few nights ago and destroy a bit of there things but the owner fixed it again and now they continue operating. It was kind of illegal but it's really part of our culture that can't be easily vanish.

i have 0.5 btc on my hand
but the problem is btc is falling day by day
its hits me in my heart like a spike
cs i buy this btc on 12000$
 now im in loss of 5000$
it has fall onto 7000$
what shoud i do?
should i keep it???

Bitcoin is a free currency, and no one is in charge of you, but there is no one to protect you, and everyone needs to arm themselves by studying the principles of bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a kind of network currency, which needs the support of the network to run normally.

How to find a promising ICO?

For now , bitcoin price still descending, reaching about 7k , different reactions arise regarding this , some people wants to go down deeper so that they will instantly buy for investment , but most of crypto holders wants bitcoin to maintain price inclination because I believed it is one of the barometer for global adoption of bitcoin.

The global adoption of bitcoin is very possible, since a lot of countries already are accepting it as a form of their payments. Talking about heading its price to $4500 is also possible, its a chance for us to invest. No need to worry about the decrease because its a chance for investment and some time come it will rise again for sure.

I think the market will comeback soon to normal , if we sell our bitcoins now we will feel in our future for selling bitcoin earlier nothing will happen wait for sometimes it will not leave our hands soon ,so please wait .

how will people adapt change from FIAT CURRENCY to DIGITAL CURRENCY like BITCOIN?

You have a point man. Actually I have been hearing this sort of argument even when I was still a child. My father will always tell us to work smart, and make money out of money. And when I grow up, I did work hard, but I later realized that I don't want to be worker that long. I need something to help me became financial stable in the future. So I decided to quit my job, put my offline business. Although I still need to wake up early and oversee everything, I did enjoy what I'm doing and the best thing, I'm the boss. LOL. But there's some kind of element in luck as well. I don't know but I felt that I'm just lucky because suddenly I gain financial freedom and then when I discovered bitcoin, it give me another leeway, more funds for me to channel to my business. So I say that you have to make the right decision + element of luck = success in your life. You have to be in the right place at the right time.

Even when we have heard several talks about working smart, but a lot of people are still work hard thinking that someone will have to teach them to work smart or they are thinking they are working smart. Quite a number of times, I am always taken aback when I begin to imagine what people spend their time on to earn money, struggle, use their strength but nothing to show for it while they are left with no other option than to believe in miracles in other to come out of penury. However, working smart is not something that falls on you or easy to come by, rather its a conscious effort to break away from the shackles of poverty with constant research and education, you are sure to work smart and be financially independent.

I will try to explain the difference between working hard and working smart using an example from software development. Let's assume you have a large set of data which you should sort (arrange elements of the dataset in a certain order). You can take a naive approach and use a bubble sort algorithm which is devastatingly slow. Or you can use something like the quicksort algo which is extremely fast. In the end you will get the same result but times spent will be strikingly different. Now you can try to apply this example to real life.

I see your point and I don't particularly disagree with it. But I didn't mean you should rely on or hope for luck alone. You can continue to work hard for your boss as always and still be looking for an opportunity or chance to change your life dramatically to the better. Let's loosely call that working wise. Basically, all I wanted to say was to emphasize that you shouldn't discard or write off the importance of luck completely. Ignoring a stroke of luck when it happens all of a sudden against all odds would be the most foolish idea that you will likely regret for the rest of your life. In this manner, it makes sense to work toward increasing your chances of meeting Lady Fortune one day. For example, if you want to be romantically involved with someone, it means visiting places where your chances of starting a romantic acquaintance are the highest.

Frankly, I don't see where I'm wrong here when I mention luck and that you should not only take it into account as a possibility and be prepared to take advantage of it when it pops up, but in fact act toward increasing your chances of encountering it. If you mean that your boss is somehow depriving you of any chance of meeting luck in your life, I think this is simply impossible because it goes against the nature of luck. In other words, luck is something which is not supposed to happen but still happens, and whatever you or they do to close the doors to it, luck will overcome all the roadblocks in the end because it is in its very nature.

No, it doesn't sound like crazy. Actually, you came up with an idea of a passive income, which I haven't yet seen coming up in this thread, well, not in the part that I was able to push through yet. If anything, working smart can be defined as an activity directed towards building more sources of passive income. That's an interesting idea anyway. It seems like this is the ultimate goal of working smart, that is doing more with less until you don't need to do anything in the end. And if you are a smart guy, you won't stop there, so I emphatically agree with your attitude and point of view.

If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000.

The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.

And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are generally not the most talented by other measures.

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Pluchino and co’s model is straightforward. It consists of N people, each with a certain level of talent (skill, intelligence, ability, and so on). This talent is distributed normally around some average level, with some standard deviation. So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else.

This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar.

The computer model charts each individual through a working life of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they are talented enough.

However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their wealth. These events occur at random.

At the end of the 40 years, Pluchino and co rank the individuals by wealth and study the characteristics of the most successful. They also calculate the wealth distribution. They then repeat the simulation many times to check the robustness of the outcome.

When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.

So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. “It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones,” they say. “And the less successful individuals are also the unluckiest ones.”

That has significant implications for society. What is the most effective strategy for exploiting the role luck plays in success?

Pluchino and co study this from the point of view of science research funding, an issue clearly close to their hearts. Funding agencies the world over are interested in maximizing their return on investment in the scientific world. Indeed, the European Research Council recently invested $1.7 million in a program to study serendipity—the role of luck in scientific discovery—and how it can be exploited to improve funding outcomes.

It turns out that Pluchino and co are well set to answer this question. They use their model to explore different kinds of funding models to see which produce the best returns when luck is taken into account.

The team studied three models, in which research funding is distributed equally to all scientists; distributed randomly to a subset of scientists; or given preferentially to those who have been most successful in the past. Which of these is the best strategy?

The strategy that delivers the best returns, it turns out, is to divide the funding equally among all researchers. And the second- and third-best strategies involve distributing it at random to 10 or 20 percent of scientists.

In these cases, the researchers are best able to take advantage of the serendipitous discoveries they make from time to time. In hindsight, it is obvious that the fact a scientist has made an important chance discovery in the past does not mean he or she is more likely to make one in the future.

A similar approach could also be applied to investment in other kinds of enterprises, such as small or large businesses, tech startups, education that increases talent, or even the creation of random lucky events.

Clearly, more work is needed here. What are we waiting for?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 : Talent vs. Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/

Waves has very good fundamentals and I agree that it is heavily undervalued at the moment. I think that their marketing has failed big time when compering with some other projects. It seems that hype is making a big part of market evaluation and Waves just doesn't get any. Furthermore, they don't have a charismatic figure like Vitalik for ETH.

Nevertheless, as I already said I like their fundamentals and will probably invest more in the project. They should be good long term investment but don't count on quick profit.