The ideal currency doesn't bounce around, it moves back and forth only to provide economic stimulus or a break on the economy.
So you think a "ideal currency" does this without the hands of a 3rd party manipulating it in order to benefit the economic needs of one nation over another? Or do you think a "ideal currency" just does this naturally?
Is it your opinion that these fluctuations help to stimulate or slow an economy when the country needs it? Or are do those fluctuations happen to allow more of the "ideal currency" to fall into the hands of those 3rd party manipulators?
I am guessing what you are saying is that Bitcoin needs a 3rd party manipulator in order to ensure that its value suits your economic needs. I am suggesting that the opposite is what gives Bitcoin unique value over the "ideal currency".
Bitcoin is safer than gold for long term storage. At least in some respects. So what is your prediction for Bitcoin in 20 years? And why will it be less safe than gold stored for an equal amount of time?
I agree with your opinion that Bitcoin competes more with cash, checks and credit cards than gold, but bitcoin also has strong points in terms of storing value. For example, you can create "paper wallets" where the keys are never stored on a computer so it cannot be stolen by hacking a digital device that you own. Or you can create multi-signature wallets which allow you to split the keys between multiple locations. So if one bank vault is robbed, your coins are not at risk and can still be moved to a new secured location at your leisure.
Once the robber breaks into the vault, your physical gold is gone. But Bitcoin is like "ether gold" where you can divide it into 3 or more parts where you need to combine 2 or more of these parts before you can reconstitute and move the original "ether gold".
The gold you left for your great grand kids is not protected by advances in cryptography.
And also: you can verify that your bitcoin is exactly where you think it should be from a remote location. Gold in a vault requires you to go to the location where it is stored and then inspect it in person. And this assumes that your gold investment for your grandkids is something more than a piece of paper promising gold on demand in the future. Whereas, you can safely view your bitcoin exists where you expect without creating any additional risks to its safety.
I purchased a pair of underwear where the digital signature stitched into the strap did not match any on the public ledger and I heard about a friend who purchased a counterfeit pair of undies where the stitching was copied from a real pair.
The Miley Cyrus underwear currency has many valid uses, but it does not provide any defence against fraud or duplication the way that Bitcoin does.
The moral is that if you want to compare Bitcoin to another payment method, then you should know the features and benefits of bitcoin.
...if you take the customer's Bitcoins and decide not to ship their product. What recourse would your customer have then?
You are describing the "eBay problem" and it seems to have been solved by them. There is something called "reputation" online and it works. The thing about credit cards is that you pay their fees whether or not you want the protection. For example, Amazon is a company for which I would not pay these "protection fees". If I order from Amazon, I know that I will get the product in a reasonable time frame, it will be the product I expected and it will work as described. If something is wrong, I know Amazon will fix it. I trust Amazon, I do not want to pay a fee for protection I do not need.
If I wanted to pay by bitcoin to a company that I do not trust, then I can use an escrow service that is trusted by both me and the vendor.
Never forget that many of the protections and insurances offered by using credit cards cover the very insecurities built in to using credit cards. Don't you think it is crazy that you give out all your credentials (card no, name, cvv, expiry) to vendors and 3rd parties for every purchase? The vendor now has everything needed to fraudulently charge you again. Or maybe they will lose your data and someone else will charge your card. The credit card system is designed to facilitate fraud so the card company can make all their money protecting you from it and you will latch onto this idea and defend them while they overcharge for their service and add to your debt.
I think the real fraud is happening at the credit card companies. They make online purchasing is open to theft and then pull money from your pocket to save you from that danger... a danger that they made and support!
Accepting cash into your hand is a payment option where there is no risk of chargeback.
You are correct. The Credit Card companies love chargebacks. It is the best way to convince consumers that the Internet is dangerous and full of fraud and that the consumer needs to pay the additional 2%-5% credit card service tax and reveal all your purchasing habits to 3rd parties without compensation. Also, the credit companies do not pay for fraud. First they blame the customer and try to just make them pay. If that fails, they go to the merchant and demand the money back... suggesting that it is the merchants fault for accepting a fraudulent card... even though there is no real way to differentiate between a real purchase and a fraudulent buyer. So the credit companies never pay for fraud and they use it to convince consumers that they are needed to solve the very problem they have created.
But it goes further. The Card companies will use fraud "strikes" against the vendor as a mechanism to increase their service fees percentage. That means a vendor may go from paying 2% to the card companies on each transaction to 3%. The choice for the merchant is to pay more or stop accepting credit cards. All merchants will pay whatever they ask for, because you cannot run a business online today without it.
Yes. Fraud is a WIN-WIN for the Credit Card companies and they love it. They will never get rid of fraud in the card industry, because their model depends on it.
Stupid is designing a secure operating system around Tor and then provide a browser where javascript is enabled by default and the home page is pre-set to call home (open the OS homepage). But don't worry, they do this to simply collect general non-identifiable statistics about their users.
"the most iconic router ever"? That comes as a surprise to me. Please let me know the specific model you are talking about and where it was determined to be iconic.
A boy tells a girl he loves her and wants to marry her. The girl sleeps with him. In court it is proven that he did not love her and did not want to marry her. The boy spends 20 years in jail for rape because lies ARE rape.
I hate censorship, because you are not getting the information in the format that the authors intended. That's why I never used blockbuster, a huge source of censorship and why movie producers made 2 DVD's, one for blockbuster (and those who got stuck with a censored copy) and another for the rest of us who prefer reality and truth.
If you cannot handle the content, then you do not deserve to see it.
If you own the content, you get decide whether ads play and the type of ad.
So if you have sit through long ads, then you should blame the uploader or unsubscribe to that user.
If you are watching content where the copyrighted is owned by someone else, then the ads are controlled by them. In which cases, you can blame the Music company or the video production company who has claimed the copyright.
As far as I know, youtube does not force any ads onto the video and instead just controls ads in the margins.
This isn't crying over lost money. This is about getting you to watch: "Jeremy Clarkson's new motoring show".
I mean, hey... they tell you that millions of people are doing it. And a million people cannot be wrong. And it must be easy. So what are you waiting for? Get out there... watch this super popular "Jeremy Clarkson's new motoring show"... everyone's doing it. So why not you? And if you are scared or lazy, you can also pay Amazon for quicker access.
That sounds exactly like what happens to corporations with closed source software. For example, Microsoft has to assess the security of their source code before release, and they continually fail to succeed at it. It is because their code is somewhat beyond their ability to maintain it properly. Corporations just aren't big enough to compete with the world of users. They would be much better served (for security) by releasing the source code. Then they would really flush out all those gaping holes lurking in that closed source. But the shareholders would not like it and Microsoft would need to obscure all the backdoors (mentioned in their EULA's) they have pre-configured in their source.
I am glad Microsoft is not open. It would be a shame to take brilliant minds away from great open source projects to patch up an old leaky expensive things like Windows.
When the source code is hidden, there is no need to hide a backdoor. When closed source software is "audited" how can you as a consumer know that the code you are running came from the source that was audited?
I have tested DDWRT and Tomato on a Netgear device. It worked for me with that brand on at least one device. A search for Netgear hardware in the hardware support page on the official router software sites will tell you more.
2^i is just the total number of combinations that a binary number of i digits can contain. They subtract 1 for the number "0" because that would represent no input food presented. What they found is that the number of "cliques" (N) required to identify between a number of "inputs" (i) is the same as if that brain had classified those items into a binary number.
Maybe soon discover that colour is processed in 24bit RGB
Slashdot Mirror
The ideal currency doesn't bounce around, it moves back and forth only to provide economic stimulus or a break on the economy.
So you think a "ideal currency" does this without the hands of a 3rd party manipulating it in order to benefit the economic needs of one nation over another? Or do you think a "ideal currency" just does this naturally?
Is it your opinion that these fluctuations help to stimulate or slow an economy when the country needs it? Or are do those fluctuations happen to allow more of the "ideal currency" to fall into the hands of those 3rd party manipulators?
I am guessing what you are saying is that Bitcoin needs a 3rd party manipulator in order to ensure that its value suits your economic needs. I am suggesting that the opposite is what gives Bitcoin unique value over the "ideal currency".
Bitcoin is safer than gold for long term storage. At least in some respects. So what is your prediction for Bitcoin in 20 years? And why will it be less safe than gold stored for an equal amount of time?
I agree with your opinion that Bitcoin competes more with cash, checks and credit cards than gold, but bitcoin also has strong points in terms of storing value. For example, you can create "paper wallets" where the keys are never stored on a computer so it cannot be stolen by hacking a digital device that you own. Or you can create multi-signature wallets which allow you to split the keys between multiple locations. So if one bank vault is robbed, your coins are not at risk and can still be moved to a new secured location at your leisure.
Once the robber breaks into the vault, your physical gold is gone. But Bitcoin is like "ether gold" where you can divide it into 3 or more parts where you need to combine 2 or more of these parts before you can reconstitute and move the original "ether gold".
The gold you left for your great grand kids is not protected by advances in cryptography.
And also: you can verify that your bitcoin is exactly where you think it should be from a remote location. Gold in a vault requires you to go to the location where it is stored and then inspect it in person. And this assumes that your gold investment for your grandkids is something more than a piece of paper promising gold on demand in the future. Whereas, you can safely view your bitcoin exists where you expect without creating any additional risks to its safety.
Bitcoin is a limited resource.
So are used pairs of Miley Cyrus's underwear.
I purchased a pair of underwear where the digital signature stitched into the strap did not match any on the public ledger and I heard about a friend who purchased a counterfeit pair of undies where the stitching was copied from a real pair.
The Miley Cyrus underwear currency has many valid uses, but it does not provide any defence against fraud or duplication the way that Bitcoin does.
The moral is that if you want to compare Bitcoin to another payment method, then you should know the features and benefits of bitcoin.
...if you take the customer's Bitcoins and decide not to ship their product. What recourse would your customer have then?
You are describing the "eBay problem" and it seems to have been solved by them. There is something called "reputation" online and it works. The thing about credit cards is that you pay their fees whether or not you want the protection. For example, Amazon is a company for which I would not pay these "protection fees". If I order from Amazon, I know that I will get the product in a reasonable time frame, it will be the product I expected and it will work as described. If something is wrong, I know Amazon will fix it. I trust Amazon, I do not want to pay a fee for protection I do not need.
If I wanted to pay by bitcoin to a company that I do not trust, then I can use an escrow service that is trusted by both me and the vendor.
Never forget that many of the protections and insurances offered by using credit cards cover the very insecurities built in to using credit cards. Don't you think it is crazy that you give out all your credentials (card no, name, cvv, expiry) to vendors and 3rd parties for every purchase? The vendor now has everything needed to fraudulently charge you again. Or maybe they will lose your data and someone else will charge your card. The credit card system is designed to facilitate fraud so the card company can make all their money protecting you from it and you will latch onto this idea and defend them while they overcharge for their service and add to your debt.
I think the real fraud is happening at the credit card companies. They make online purchasing is open to theft and then pull money from your pocket to save you from that danger... a danger that they made and support!
Accepting cash into your hand is a payment option where there is no risk of chargeback.
You are correct. The Credit Card companies love chargebacks. It is the best way to convince consumers that the Internet is dangerous and full of fraud and that the consumer needs to pay the additional 2%-5% credit card service tax and reveal all your purchasing habits to 3rd parties without compensation. Also, the credit companies do not pay for fraud. First they blame the customer and try to just make them pay. If that fails, they go to the merchant and demand the money back... suggesting that it is the merchants fault for accepting a fraudulent card... even though there is no real way to differentiate between a real purchase and a fraudulent buyer. So the credit companies never pay for fraud and they use it to convince consumers that they are needed to solve the very problem they have created.
But it goes further. The Card companies will use fraud "strikes" against the vendor as a mechanism to increase their service fees percentage. That means a vendor may go from paying 2% to the card companies on each transaction to 3%. The choice for the merchant is to pay more or stop accepting credit cards. All merchants will pay whatever they ask for, because you cannot run a business online today without it.
Yes. Fraud is a WIN-WIN for the Credit Card companies and they love it. They will never get rid of fraud in the card industry, because their model depends on it.
Stupid is designing a secure operating system around Tor and then provide a browser where javascript is enabled by default and the home page is pre-set to call home (open the OS homepage). But don't worry, they do this to simply collect general non-identifiable statistics about their users.
People who love bitcoin buy it as a gift for the holidays. Receivers sell as soon as they can.
Later people kick themselves when it reaches $2000 during the next xmas rush.
"the most iconic router ever"? That comes as a surprise to me. Please let me know the specific model you are talking about and where it was determined to be iconic.
"plunging necklines is not allowed"?? They did not really say that. hahahaha
Fentanyl overdoses being an upside?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/us/as-drug-deaths-soar-a-silver-lining-for-organ-transplant-patients.html?_r=0
A boy tells a girl he loves her and wants to marry her. The girl sleeps with him. In court it is proven that he did not love her and did not want to marry her. The boy spends 20 years in jail for rape because lies ARE rape.
So you are saying that "TRUST" is the best policy when it comes to people accessing your property which can invade your privacy?
I hate censorship, because you are not getting the information in the format that the authors intended. That's why I never used blockbuster, a huge source of censorship and why movie producers made 2 DVD's, one for blockbuster (and those who got stuck with a censored copy) and another for the rest of us who prefer reality and truth.
If you cannot handle the content, then you do not deserve to see it.
"The Snow Goose" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can read the whole thing in a couple hours.
You don't know the power of fear or the value of a stockpile.
If you own the content, you get decide whether ads play and the type of ad.
So if you have sit through long ads, then you should blame the uploader or unsubscribe to that user.
If you are watching content where the copyrighted is owned by someone else, then the ads are controlled by them. In which cases, you can blame the Music company or the video production company who has claimed the copyright.
As far as I know, youtube does not force any ads onto the video and instead just controls ads in the margins.
This is important information for those poor user who are still stuck with a computer running a Microsoft OS.
How do you identify Uber drivers?
I never seen Uber and would like to know how to spot them, outside of their bad driving habits.
Yes, but you can't transmit your Beanie-Baby to me over the Internet right now. Babies don't fit in the pipes.
But what makes Bitcoin so much more than the Beanie-Babies currency, is that you cannot counterfeit it. So no more Beanie-Baby knockoff's
Watch Putin offer up Snowden to Trump as a token of trust in their new partnership.
This isn't crying over lost money. This is about getting you to watch: "Jeremy Clarkson's new motoring show".
I mean, hey... they tell you that millions of people are doing it. And a million people cannot be wrong. And it must be easy. So what are you waiting for? Get out there... watch this super popular "Jeremy Clarkson's new motoring show"... everyone's doing it. So why not you? And if you are scared or lazy, you can also pay Amazon for quicker access.
That sounds exactly like what happens to corporations with closed source software. For example, Microsoft has to assess the security of their source code before release, and they continually fail to succeed at it. It is because their code is somewhat beyond their ability to maintain it properly. Corporations just aren't big enough to compete with the world of users. They would be much better served (for security) by releasing the source code. Then they would really flush out all those gaping holes lurking in that closed source. But the shareholders would not like it and Microsoft would need to obscure all the backdoors (mentioned in their EULA's) they have pre-configured in their source.
I am glad Microsoft is not open. It would be a shame to take brilliant minds away from great open source projects to patch up an old leaky expensive things like Windows.
When the source code is hidden, there is no need to hide a backdoor. When closed source software is "audited" how can you as a consumer know that the code you are running came from the source that was audited?
I have tested DDWRT and Tomato on a Netgear device. It worked for me with that brand on at least one device. A search for Netgear hardware in the hardware support page on the official router software sites will tell you more.
2^i is just the total number of combinations that a binary number of i digits can contain. They subtract 1 for the number "0" because that would represent no input food presented. What they found is that the number of "cliques" (N) required to identify between a number of "inputs" (i) is the same as if that brain had classified those items into a binary number.
Maybe soon discover that colour is processed in 24bit RGB