Healthcare in the US is broken and that is the reason for the high prices, over the long term, medicare for all saves us trillions of dollars. We are supporting useless leeches at the insurance companies that do nothing but take our money, raise prices and try to deny care, this has to end.

Raising the minimum wage improves things if anything, large employers such as Walmart would still be extremely profitable even if they paid a minimum of $15 an hour.


You can look at places in the US where the minimum wage is raised a lot more than the federal over the years, they are doing as well or better than places that have lower minimum wages. Unemployment doesn't seem to increase with increasing minimum wages either.

There are tons of studies that support my point of view. I can't dig them up right now, but you're definitely wrong on this.

Here's a video on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-aOmwtYpEw

1.Big corporations like Amazon and Netflix pay almost no taxes. The rich people in the billionaire class can write the laws to benefit themselves. Bernie taxing them would cut the deficit.

2.Bernie is also against the rampant military spending that only enriches the corporations that sell us these expensive toys. Honestly I don't think paying more for expensive toys wins wars. I think having a more functional country is a better long term strategy.

3. The US taxpayers bailed out Wall Street. A tiny tax on certain transactions is only fair, and it would limit high frequency stock trading which if we're honest is just a high tech form of stealing. This wouldn't really affect regular people who buy a stock because they believe in a company and hold it for five, ten or more years.

For every big thing Bernie proposes he explains where the money will come from. When congress votes to spend another half trillion dollars every year for the military they don't.


Edit: typo

I think this video got great numbers, any video on YouTube that gets a greater number of views than a channel's total subscribers is an outlier, or a hit.
Joe Rogan's Channel has 6,015,027 source: https://www.youtube.com/user/PowerfulJRE/about

The Bernie        JRE #1330  has 6.1 M views  (in about 3 days)
Andrew Yang's  JRE #1245  has  3.4 M views  (in about 5 months)
Tulsi Gabbard   JRE  #1295  has  2.2M views   (in about 3 months)



I've watched a lot of JRE episodes and there are times where Joe really does expose, confront and ridicule bad ideas, especially when he disagrees with them. I like that he lets people talk and works with them.

As for him not making waves, he does host a lot of very controversial people that the MSM would never give hour after hour of airtime to, people such as Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson, both of whom I disagree with on most things. Yeah, Joe wants them to potentially come back so he doesn't become hostile but he does push back on some things with his guests.

edit: minor typos and missing word

Bernie Sanders went on to the JRE podcast and got over 5 million views over a couple of days. During a little over an hour, Bernie has time to make his agenda clear, unlike what we saw in the democratic debates.

If you're at all interested in what a Bernie Presidency might be like, and I believe he has a shot it's a good watch.

I know the topic has been covered already but they only thread I found here was a trash-fire that got locked by the person who posted it.

I'll look around and if there's a better thread I might just delete this one.

If Trump was saying good things about bitcoin that's when I'd double check my own love for bitcoin. Trump represents the system, he is a dinosaur, he is a slave to the bankers he owes money to.

I wouldn't be surprised if his masters (the banks that he owes money to) forced him to write this.

Not really

I'd say hold even if the price corrects temporarily. I don't think that bulls are so easily exhausted. I hope this time around the market is less bubble prone than 2017 but I remember the price rising for about a year.

If you believe in bitcoin and you want to put money behind it hodl and you'll get your due.

If you trade it it's almost the same as gambling, you'll probably lose it all, and the exchange (which would be the house in that analogy) will take their fee at best or go down with your funds at worst.

I feel like that would be the best outcome. I don't expect solo-mining to make a return, but smaller pools with miners from all over the world.

I'm not as much interested in my thoughts, or having my thoughts read on the subject, feel free to reply without reading my full post.
 
The mining arms race that happened from CPUs to GPUs to ASICS took mining away from the regular person, and thus the distribution, which would have undoubtedly have been much wider and re-directed that cash flow to people who could afford a lot of power hungry specialized machines.

I believe that Satoshi himself much lamented how the arms race form CPU mining to GPU mining meant that bitcoin would be concentrated into fewer bigger miners.

Here's the quote:

When the technological arms race finally comes to a close (with regards to high exponential increases in hash-power relative to electricity and hardware cost) will then the regular person be able to just set their regular pc to mining (through a pool, through their wallet of choice, maybe even supported in bitcoin-core)? Maybe with a specialized mining card or chip that will be a common feature in new phones or computers?

That's what I'm hoping for and betting on.

Maybe if bitcoin is successful it will allow regular people to collect money through lightning nodes and mining on their own hardware, perhaps even utilizing excess solar. That's kind of a Utopian dream compared to today's bitcoin mining reality.

I remember when I first got into bitcoin in 2012, I could even mine tiny amounts of bitcoin with my laptop's GPU, it was questionable whether it was worth the wear, although considering the price was at times below $10, and I'm using a different laptop with the previous one not suffering GPU damage from mining, I think my only regret should have bee not mining even more with it. (I eventually mined a little bit with an ASIC)

I got into bitcoin when the price was at around 8-13 dollars. It was 2012. Mining on a PC was just getting phased out and good GPU's were king. It was about a year before the first ASICS.

I decided to get an ASIC from BFL. It was a total disaster but it more than made its money back. I used most of the bitcoin I mined to buy things so I can prove to myself and others that it works. I kept only a tiny amount of bitcoin. I lost a decent amount of altcoins in exchanges that shut down. Cryptsy was one of them but I dodged Mt.Gox

It's still early to get into bitcoin, but I wish I was one of the early miners solo-mining blocks of 50 and what-not.

I gave a speech about bitcoin in early 2013 in front of my classmates in college when the price was at $100.

Well, it's not meant to be super accurate. I'd rather work with a round number. Notice that 21/7 is 3. I could adjust for bitcoin in circulation and an accurate population number but that is meaningless. Close enough is good enough in this case.

I see your point about using more accurate numbers, it would be fairer to assume the usable number of bitcoins is lower. However, most bitcoins will have been mined long before 2140.

97.5% of bitcoin will have been mined by about 2029 and 99% of bitcoin by about 2037
You can look at this chart for reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130619.0 (scale looks to be 2.5% per line)

I also mentioned earlier that the actual distribution of bitcoin is probably a zipfian one (as in according to zipf's law). That means that if the richest bitcoin entity has about 6% of bitcoins than the distribution is probably something like this:

Rank               Bitcoins
1                    1,260,000
2                    630k
3                    420k
...
100                12,600
...
1000              1,260
1,000,000      1.26
...
7 Billion         0.00018

Edit: Cut unnecessary stuff out of the post.

I've used bitcoin in the past just for the sake of using it. To prove it's real to me and to the other person using it. I've bought baklava (a dessert) for 0.5 BTC among other things, most of my bitcoin (I was mining back in 2012-2013 went out that way.

If all of a sudden no-one was willing to sell bitcoin for less than 100k, the price would probably have to go up to 100k. Then again if no-one was willing to buy bitcoin at 1 cent, the price would eventually jump to 1 cent.

My argument here is that since bitcoin is really scarce AND it's proven to work, the former is actually reasonable. Of course the market is driven by how much people value bitcoin the inherent value of it is questionable. Bitcoin has value because it can be trusted as money. It can be trusted to store economic energy.

The dollar isn't scarce, therefore its value proposition is very shaky, therefore the usd to btc ratio should eventually go to 100k, even if bitcoin doesn't gain or lose any real value.

Notice I'm not making a claim on the actual distribution of bitcoin, although I suppose if I were, I'd assume a somewhat zipfian distribution (as in according to zipf's law).

My whole point is that bitcoin is extremely scarce as compared to the population. Take the example where every US Citizen having 6.4 bitcents would already add up to 21 Million.


The richest bitcoin entities have amounts of 100,000+ bitcoins leaving a lot less for the rest of us. It can easily be assumed that the top 10% of bitcoin holders hold more than 90% of bitcoin, where the supply of bitcoin is considered the number of bitcoin that can be used (disregarding lost and burnt coins).

Bitcoins per person... If you simply divide 21 million by 7 billion you get this:

0.003  It's currently around 25 dollars worth of bitcoin.

So as long as you have this, you have your share. If we divided by 1 billion it would be 2.1 bitcents

If we divided by the population of the United States it would be 0.064


The actual numbers are lower since not all bitcoin has been mined and a lot of bitcoin has been lost.
Also these numbers don't imply that you shouldn't strive to increase your holdings to any arbitrary multiple of that. More is definitely better.


I think these numbers are good to keep in mind to remind ourselves how scarce bitcoin actually is. A whole bitcoin is actually a whole lot of bitcoin. Kind of crazy that people are letting whole bitcoins go for less than 100,000 USD

I think I can safely say....

F*** YEAH!

Does tps scale with more masternodes and if that is the case can we assume that 300k tps is possible?

I think it will have an effect in price. The dollar has lost ridiculous amount of value over time because of inflation. On Bitcoin we are on a fixed schedule.

There's a good thread about that here on BT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130619.0

Monetary inflation will drop to around 2% from around 4%.

It's the point where we'll be finally inflating at a lower rate then the dollar.

I think the effect on price will mostly be psychological. The value of something is not an inherent property of that object but what people are willing to value it as.

That being said, I feel like it's a huge milestone.

I've read this entire thread so far.

The most insightful thing in it was:


The geoengineering fixes in question, are unlikely to work.

Take converting CO2 back to fuel.

Think of all the air you need to push through your reactor to do that. And then all the energy needed to convert that CO2 into fuel. And then add the fact that if you convert it into fuel rather than burying it you're releasing the CO2 right back into the atmosphere.

So even if the process is carbon neutral, with current technology setting up the infrastructure certainly isn't. This technology would be viable in a fantasy land with ample zero-carbon energy production, but it's not going to magically save us in the next 10-20 years.

Take throwing salt into the atmosphere:

There is the problem that even if the temperature is reduced, CO2 stays the same. The climate can still be different despite the temperature being the same.
Then there is the global conflict such geoengineering could spark. What if the temperature can only be reduced if Russia's or The United State's crops have to fail for one year?
Where is the clear proof that this actually works as intended? Then there is the simple fact that you're throwing more water in with the salt particles, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.


The take ocean greening

The article itself debunks it and points to another article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7959570.stm

I'd also like to add that iron ore isn't free and that it would probably sink to the bottom, requiring us to keep adding it to the ocean for eternity.



I believe that we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climate. The glaciers will melt, the sea levels will rise, millions will lose their homes, incomes and food stability. But we'll probably survive it. We'll just be living in a different planet earth.

And one day, the history books will have a chapter on the time we could have saved millions of species of animals and plants, and prevented human suffering equivalent to many world wars, but instead we chose to drive gas guzzlers, build tanks and bombs and destroy ourselves in the process.

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=68448
Current Amount of Posts (Including this one): 1097
SegWit eligible BTC Address: 3MLWJwkQJ9EstSH5Haoa9rG5KwYDpJ5ksK

I'll take whatever position is open.

Edit: I changed the address, decided to use a new one.

I'm just happy that Bitcoin is getting more coverage.

I'm sort of in the same boat as Laszlo I bought various things with Crypto, and it's been bittersweet. Once I spent half a bitcoin on baklava, because I wanted to use bitcoin as a currency.

I don't think letting go of your bitcoin without thinking is a good way to increase bitcoin adoption.

If he kept the Bitcoin he'd be nearly a billionaire, that's worth a lot more than being known as the pizza guy.

I don't personally regret spending my bitcoin, it felt good and it validated it in my mind and I'm sure in the mind of the person accepting it that it was a currency, as good as gold (and better because it's actually usable).

But even when I've donated to places like Khan Academy, and I donate regardless of whether they take bitcoin or not, it's a good cause, I see them then dropping bitcoin. So, spending bitcoin to prove it works is not as good as actually improving the protocol and spreading the message.

Seemingly 60 minutes will attempt to explain bitcoin to the masses once more. Hopefully some people will catch the same fever that most of us caught.
Of course 60 minutes is covering bitcoin positively now that the market went slightly bullish, I doubt they would do positive coverage if it stayed at the same or a slightly lower price and they would all be laughing at us if it crashed dramatically calling it a ponzi scheme, and buying air and things like that.

I'll be into Bitcoin even if it crashes down to the price of 10,000 for a few pizzas.

Live chat has always worked for me faster than I ever needed it to. Did you try using live chat on the Gincoin platform?

I gave a speech in front of my class at college back in the days when it was at $100, I've talked about bitcoin to everyone I could and I shared my excitement with everyone in my life.

Most people seem to only care about price despite me talking about why bitcoin is better and why it's useful.

The truth is that mass adoption is an uphill battle. The ones currently in control are funded by the banks and the banks can generate as much cash as they want through fractional reserve banking. Eventually this is going to show up via inflation.

We need to play the long game.

We need to demonstrate the destructiveness of the inflation tax and for that we need to find some metrics that work. What would our money be worth if it wasn't for inflation?

Price is not the only factor. It used to take a lot more labor and capital to produce food than it does now and yet it's more expensive. Therefore if the value of the dollar and other fiat was stable the prices would be falling.

We need to show the world how getting the bankers and the money printers off our back would benefit everyone. We no longer need to pay a 3% tax on our money every year. This really disincentivises saving and I believe that people have the right to save money so they can start a business or own property.

How can someone start a business when the competitor is funded by banks that steal money from everyone else via an illegal tax?


Also we need to showcase that bitcoin is more environmentally friendly then the alternative. Bitcoin can provide funding for renewable electricity and the ability to convert electricity to money where there is excess electricity. Unlike banks, bitcoin itself doesn't have to operate large buildings. Bitcoin doesn't have to print costly anti-counterfeiting measures and bitcoin cannot be counterfeited either.

Going forward we need to promote bitcoin and its advantages whether the price is going up or it's going down.

We need to show the people a world in which our money isn't devalued by the bankers and a world where the banks don't own us.

Here is the video From CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioQ90j-E-Sg
Here is the poll analyzed:      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcHeWGOnCAI

According to a CNN poll Joe Biden is the front runner democrat at 39% Bernie according to them is at 15%.

The CNN poll had a measly sample of 1000 people, They threw out everyone younger than 50 years old.

Even in the picture of the candidates they buried Bernie Sanders under almost everyone else.


It's really clear they don't want him to win. This isn't just bad journalism, it's an attempt to lie to US Citizens. I think that CNN needs to be held accountable by a large protest and boycott. I hope all the money that the establishment throws at them gets wasted.


People on the Internet aren't fooled. The video has a 30% approval rating (that is to say 70% dislikes) and most of the comments are people who understand what's happening.