Worth mentioning that mining will follow Moore's law, and therefore at some point we won't see exponential growth that we've seen in the last few years. So, while new products might temporarily set them apart compared to the competition, the margins get lesser as time goes on, until eventually affordable options are out there for everyone.

At the moment, we're at the point where mining is relatively priced out for those without quite substantial investments. That should change in time though as above.

For anyone not aware of these two applications, basically you can remove Google Play, and soley rely on these two apps to get pretty much anything you ever wanted. Aurora downloads from the same mirrors as Google Play, while F Droid only hosts FOSS software. Although, you can add repos, and you should still be careful of what you download, including Bitcoin wallets. Since, Open source doesn't automatically mean safe, especially when it's a relatively new application, that hasn't been audited by many users.

Ideally, for Bitcoin wallets, you'd be installing from their github or website, and verifying the install, not something you can do with aurora. At least, with F Droid you can check the repo, but I'd still prefer manually verifying for peace of mind.

Glover Teixeira. That's who I'm going for, even though I quite like Jiří Procházka. I just think he'll use his know how, and experience in the fight. I imagine he's due to hang it up any moment now, so I'm just hoping he can get some good wins under his belt, and bow out before it gets a little ugly.

If he were to win this, I don't see him holding onto the belt much longer. His age has to catch up with him at some point, and there has definitely been signs of it doing so, even in the fights he has won.

That would be some surprise. I know we've already seen an upset in recent months in WMMA, but damn for Shev to lose this would probably be a bigger surprise.

The thing is he might have been able too, but from Herb Dean's point of view, it didn't look good. He wasn't protecting himself, while kind of trying to run away while being stunned a few times. So, I'm in full support of stopping it, and I wish fighters just acknowledged that. Every fighter always says they can continue, even when they clearly can't.

I say he may have been able to continue because we don't know, but in all likelihood the way he was shying away from it, and not really defending himself effectively he probably would have been knocked out.

I do feel that Herb Dean gets extra criticism for whatever reason. I don't usually have a massive problem with his stoppages, and quite frankly it's part of the game. We don't want them, but things happen so quickly at times it's hard to know. Especially, when the fighter might be telling you different. No fighter wants to get a TKO against them, so they'll always protest about it.

I thought this call in particular was a good call. If you look at the replays you can definitely see why he jumped in. We also finally saw a points deduction in the Jackson fight, although honestly he should have probably been deducted two. He must have put his toes back in 5-6 times after being warned the first three times. I'm glad the ref waited until the end of the round to deduct the points though, and didn't reset the position.

As with most attacks. The cost is too high to realistically keep it up for a long enough period for it to have a meaningful effect. We'll likely see it attempted in the future again, even if it's on a smaller scale, but ultimately it'll have the same effect. Short term fee increase, but no real effect in the long term.

I guess, it could be problematic if a lot of people are relying on it for income/expenses, but ultimately all it would do is reduce consumer confidence for the short term. You could potentially achieve the same in the fiat run world too, although a little differently. Again, it isn't documented much since it hasn't really been done to any sort of meaningful effect.

For anyone that hasn't actually changed from Windows to Linux, who has tried in the past, but couldn't get along with it. Common distributions like Ubuntu are now incredibly similar to Windows. The change over would be somewhat seamless.

The only problem you're likely to run into is installing software, but since a lot of places are now offering packaged executables, that don't require any terminal know how, but a simple check for allowing as a executable, and double cliking it, the process is becoming more simple. Obviously, this has its own security risks, so obviously verify, and all that.

For any software that requires a bit of terminal work, the process is usually similar. For example, downloading a .deb, installing via dpkg -i, then installing any dependencies which it should flag up.

Since you probably aren't going to be constantly installing software, setting up your machine over a weekend should be enough, and then the repo's will likely be added to Ubuntu, and will update through the GUI updater or alternatively the terminal.

What I'm saying is, many years ago making the switch to Linux was troublesome, but Linux has come a long way for less technical users to actually use. I've not had a Windows machine for years now, completely converted, including a gaming machine. I won't be going back either.

Don't know about you, but a file that doesn't even need to be technically executed by the user, and simply copied onto their machine is what I'd call critical. I guess Microsoft might be downplaying it because the attack surface is rather low, and hasn't been widely distributed, but that could change over night.

Although, it still comes down to how the user uses the software, rather than it inherently being insecure, since the user would have to download that .doc in the first place. However, it's a rather sly one, as most people wouldn't even think twice about a .doc.

Yeah, but obviously if the computers are connected in any way, i.e via using the same USB's or through the same network, they should ideally be considered compromised, even if they aren't proven to be.

Aye, but don't those services collect information on you? By either requiring Know Your Customer (KYC) information on you or by cross referencing from the data collection honey pot. Even sim cards that you buy online now need to be registered to an address, and while at the moment I do believe you can buy sim cards at a store without KYC, in certain countries they've even began to require that.

So, I can see the appeal for a service like this, but as time goes on it's likely to be considered a illegal operation, especially as times become more constrictive with KYC.

Don't know enough about Bitcoin, and the ways of securing it will likely be our biggest obstacle. Users here like to talk about scalability, and various other limitations to the code, but those can definitely be reworked. However, I don't see enough work being done towards simplifying Bitcoin so that the general public can just pick it up like fiat.

Now, I do understand that this is partly a unrealistic expectations, since securing Bitcoin is always going to be complex, especially if you aren't relying on a third party. I imagine in years to come we'll start seeing banks or the equivalent of banks which will offer to secure your Bitcoin for you, which could actually increase adoption. However, this breaks one of the golden rules for many of us, and one of the reasons why Bitcoin is unique, and revolutionary. It allows you to be your own bank, which is brilliant for us that do our due diligence, and don't mind being responsible. However, not everyone will be comfortable with that.

Lets face it, how many people in the general public break security rules all the time. I would say the vast majority do. People in my family have such weak passwords that I would be able to guess in under an hour. I know that, since I've done it before to prove a point. Yet, they still didn't change it to a more complex one. How many people write passwords down, right next to their computer for example? At that point there's no point even having a password.

I've been saying this for a while now, and I do believe there's others that are in support of it. I don't think the concept of Bitcoin is at fault, it's generally how uneducated we are as people about security. I'd love to say I had a solution to this, but I really don't. We can simplify the wallets, Bitcoin to a certain extent, but there's a ceiling to that.

Hardware wallets are something that has changed the game a little bit. They've provided a way for people to use Bitcoin without knowing much about securing it. They just trust the device. This is all well, and good, but the only problem with that is trying to convince these people to use open source hardware wallets, and acknowledge there are still risks of using them. As the saying goes, complacency is one's worst enemy.

If the statistics are to be believed in the OP, they agree with me. Over 80% of people don't go into Bitcoin because of not understanding i.e Bitcoin being too complex or not knowing how to secure their Bitcoin. That's our mass adoption right there gone, and therefore is the biggest stumbling block. I believe every other problem we might have, can be solved given time, and adoption. The more people that come into Bitcoin, the more urgency there is to solve any other superficial problem, and then we'll have even more people lending a hand to solve it.  

For example, too expensive or don't know how to buy can be solved. The more demand, the more exchanges, the easier it becomes to buy. However, for it to be considered to expensive is baffling to me, since you can buy any denomination you want, but convincing the public of that will be a little more difficult. I imagine, we won't be using 1 Bitcoin in the future, but talking in Satoshi's. That way, it removes the idea that 1 Bitcoin is too expensive, since most people I talk to have an obsession with whole numbers, and owning that 1 Bitcoin. It's like they think holding anything less, isn't worth holding. It's a weird problem, that will likely be overcome with some terminology changes.


The reason for this is, because I would deem us in either the early bird catagory, i.e early adopter or the speculative investor period. It isn't ready to be a main use currency right now, although it can be used as one, it isn't as enticing as other options for people.

Yeah, that's a concern for many. However, if we look at the recent war with Russia, and the West you'll see that many people had trouble withdrawing their fiat money. So, this isn't exclusive to Bitcoin. However, I will admit that's a concern.

Yeah, directly correlates with number one.

This is the most difficult one to answer. At the moment, we're very environment friendly, and every company has to appear green. It's an actual selling point now if your company is doing things green. Now, I think the Bitcoin argument of us using too much energy is unfounded, but we should probably be thinking about ways of improving it regardless. The only problem with this accusation is it's hard to prove, and hard to disapprove, but as soon as people hear it, that's what they believe.

Therefore, it's not a problem of proving otherwise, it's convincing the general public that it's not true, which is a lot harder.

Hmm, it really only becomes an advantage if you're a speculative trader. If you are receiving your monthly wage in Bitcoin, you ideally don't want that to be going up, and down. Especially, if you're using it as a currency, and not a reserve currency.

Some people already live pay check to pay check, so adding some volatility into the mix, isn't good. As long as massive amounts of volatility exist, Bitcoin will not be adopted by the masses. Luckily for us, Bitcoin is naturally deflationary, and the block rewards reduce at given intervals, which effectively introduce volatility i.e Bitcoin should in theory get less volatility the longer it exists.

Edward Bernays basically taught us to not limit people's choices by outright stopping them from using it, as they'll feel suppressed, and will rebel. Instead, convince them they've a choice, and basically release propaganda about the options that don't work into their favour. So, yeah I'd say it's common psychology for people rebelling when outright being limited.  

Absolutely, love it. I have little worry about the long term, so the short term downtrends just allow us to earn more Bitcoin than we would've been able to if it was in constant uptrend. I mean, anyone that's planning on holding more than two years, should probably feel the same way. In an investment you want to earn as much as possible, before it bangs up in price, and stays there.

If you're a trading it's a different story, but I've never been much for trading too much risk for me, and I definitely don't have the knowledge on how markets or the economy function, at least enough for me to gamble my Bitcoin away.

Which would effectively achieve nothing. I know users here aren't going to like it, but you kind of need people to be poor to be considered rich, and you need people to make bad decisions for you to make better decisions. Otherwise, you're all the same, and no one gains or loses anything. I know that sounds pretty morbid, but that's the world we live in. Ideally, there would be a better solution out there, but that's what capitalism sort of promotes. What the majority of users here are trying to do is escape that pressure to participate in the cut throat nature of capitalist business.

Socialist's communities are usually a little bit more balanced, but I won't go into that as I'll be labelled as communist .

It's particularly a good idea when you're running low on sMerits or you're close to exxhausting your source. I've done it, instead of chucking posts in a spreadsheet or making a mental note, which takes a lot longer to go through. These days I'm pretty much playing catch up, and as soon as I get my source replenished it's gone on the same day.

I've still got a spreadsheet with one hell of a backlog.

Okay, so I see that some users don't believe you're being hired, even the OP. So, basically all hired means is they're paying you to do something for them. In this instance, they're paying you for the posts you make. It's not a sponsorship, and most definitely is a hired position. I think users are getting confused that hired means you've to be a sockpuppet to the company, but that isn't true. People working at ASDA/Walmart might not recommend that store over another, doesn't stop them from being hired by them.

You can hire me to go pick up groceries for you, code a line of code or mind your children. The principles are the same. If you want any other confirmation, any signature earnings you make is deemed as income, now you might not be directly employed by the company i.e on their books, but you will be deemed to be self employed (it might have another term in other countries). Therefore, the tax authorities will be expecting you to declare every single earning as income, and be taxed appropriately on it.

Also, by advertising a certain product or service you're effectively putting your reputation on the line. For example, certain companies won't hire you if you've been involved in a branch of KFC that was shut down for cleanliness, because it reflects badly on you. So, at every given moment you should ideally be checking on the reputation, and who you're intending on advertising for, that's if you care about your reputation.

At the end of the day though, we're arguing over semantics. They pay you to do a job, you do that job, and must declare that as income to the tax man. That's as simple as it gets.  

That's true, although generally outward scams are widely known among the community, since one off's are likely not reading the terms of service or was a misunderstanding, and usually rectified by the person responsible if both parties are reputable.

Technically, your account probably isn't your property any more than it's your property on any other social media. It's the company or people behind it that own it, technically speaking. Although, that's rather irrelevant.

You don't have to advocate for them, but I can bet if you started advocating for alternatives in your posts or you were talking down of their service you wouldn't be hired for long.

Well, I had a opportunity to cash out for £500, but didn't take it as I thought the Karolina Kowalkiewicz would go to a decision. I didn't bet on either of them, just for the fight to go the distance. Definitely wasn't expecting Karolina Kowalkiewicz to come out like she did. Anyway, I actually had a pretty good night in terms of betting if it wasn't for that fight I could've been looking at £5k.

That last minute switch to Volkov again nearly paid off. Again, wasn't expecting him to finish Rozenstruik like that. Some might argue that Herb called the fight too early, but honestly if you look at it from his point of view I thought it was a decent stoppage. Rozenstruik didn't look good, stumbled several times during that combo, and was turtling up.

 

Nearly got caught out because of this. Just caught the Tom Gravely finish. So, I think I missed four fights? Bloody earlier starts I absolutely love them because I can go to sleep a somewhat normal time, but they don't half catch me out most of the time.

Bet slip is surprisingly still running at the moment, could be a good night boys.

Tempted just to put some money on it now so that you don't feel completely horrible when it comes in or would that make it worse? .

Looks mostly similar to the bet I'm putting on anyway except a few differences. I'll probably be putting down Ige just for value of money. Shame the football has stopped, as putting one or two bet builders down alongside the UFC used to massively put your return up.

If you want to look at it from a different perspective, and when I say this I don't mean to say that this will continue like this, but anyone who invested, and then at least held for 2/3 years profited massively, and not one of them lost money.

Depends, personally I don't believe there's any altcoins currently worth investing in, at least not for the long term. So, by diversifying if you mean outside of cryptocurrency as well as Bitcoin, that could be a good idea. Think like property etc. I'd probably agree, but diversifying into altcoins? I mean there aren't that many promising altcoins in the first place, so you'll likely get burned if you invest into too many.

I do agree, you're speaking to someone who has degoogled their phone, uses Qubes OS, and is generally very paranoid . I've never had to use a USB socket at an airport, I tend to go for phones with bigger batteries.

Although, as much as we try to avoid it, if they go to this extent, they've probably already infiltrated most of the phone manufacturers themselves. It's generally why it's said that you can't really escape state level spying, whereas you can at least keep your privacy intact from non state level spying.

I'll take a look at the juice jacking in a bit more detail. I'm quite fascinated, since I knew of USB exploits being plugged into a computer (hence why I like the idea of a disposable sys-usb on Qubes OS), and obviously phones, but I never really considered it with the USB sockets themselves.

Also, worth considering is the legality of this wherever you live or are hosting this service. Wouldn't want you to land up in trouble, simply because you didn't get some legal advice. If it's legal in your jurisdiction, then I say this could be a decent service for those that want to keep their privacy. Although, the only issue is you'll likely have a lot of malicious users using the service, which could potentially cause some issues for you. Just something to think about.

Phone calls are a pretty niche department. I'll echo what has said above SMS numbers that you can use, would have far more use.

Not just heavyweights, I find most fighters don't know how to utilize their height advantage. Although, I do believe Volkov is one of the exceptions here. I've seen him put in some good technical performances. Stefan Struve was gifted with that height, but time after time he didn't know how to use it. I'm not sure what his coaches were teaching him, but being tall while it does open you up for certain attacks is one of the best bases for MMA. You're longer for submission attacks, you're longer, and therefore harder to takedown especially on double/single leg attacks.

I always find myself frustrating with the significantly taller guy not utilizing it properly.