Or just the worthlessness of them. I have around 0.003 bitcoins kicking about in my wallet. If I want to convert that to hard cash, it will cost most of the value just to sell it within a reasonable time.
Out of the last 4 new years, Bitcoin rose for two of them (2016, 2017) and fell for the other 2 (2015, 2018). Don't think there's really any pattern here. Looking at coinmarketcap, there seem to be some bubbles and dips around new year but those happen all over the place so could be a coincidence.
If I write a song, and release it to the public domain right now, I can still use it in perpetuity.
Copyright is not property. It's artificial property-like rights to encourage creators. This rationale is explicitly stated in the US constitution, and for the first British copyright act in 1710.
If you haven't made a substantial return from a work after 5 years, you never will.
The British police would need more to go on than that though. They'd take precautions in case the suspect was armed, but wouldn't presume based on it being common in the area. It probably wouldn't be seen as a justification to shoot first.
Granted, unlawful killing cases seem to be a bit hit-and-miss, partly because courts are more likely to rule a killing lawful if the police accidentally kill a criminal, but I doubt they would in a situation like this.
I'm pretty certain in most of Europe, this would be manslaughter, or even possibly murder on the part of the police. There was no clear immediate danger there, and no compelling reason to believe he was armed.
There are alternatives to gold that look indistinguishable. People are attracted to it because it's expensive, not the other way round. If it's so valuable as a decoration why is it kept in vaults rather than on display?
I mean I don't disagree with crypto-currency being worthless. I'm just surprised people don't feel the same way about other worthless stuff.
Gold had perceived value long before dentistry, let alone electronics.
If it's so useful in industry, why are we keeping it locked in vaults rather than using it? I cant imagine people are holding it there because they know if there's an apocalypse they'll be able to sort out dental cavities.
Oh, and for those who read this and think, "That's all well and good in theory, but it would never happen in practice..."
Do people really think this? I mean Black Wednesday was unusually large, but I was under the impression that this sort of thing happened on a smaller scale much more often.
You can say the same about gold though. People have valued that for millennia. You can't eat it. You can't make anything useful with the amount that a typical person might have. Most people who own it keep it in vaults.
So why is gold valuable, but bitcoin isn't? Personally, I think gold's value is based on a bizarre delusion as well, but it's a delusion that's been going on for some time.
That still seems slow. When I made a large transaction for a deposit on a house, it went through in 2 hours. Cost me less than a bitcoin transaction fee as well.
If a country's peoples decided, through their governments, to make bitcoin the official currency of their realm, and managed to solve all of its scaling problems (probably by centralising the entire infrastructure), then it still wouldn't have value (like regular money doesn't, as such), but it would become a terms in which we talk about value.
It can't be about governments. Gold was seen as valuable before there was government recognition of this fact. It was used as a means of transfer between nations, without it being backed by something of use by a government.
Your comments about gold not being especially attractive are a little undermined by how much of it people buy for that purpose alone,
It's the other way round. People use Ruthenium for jewellery as well, and that's rather a drab grey metal. But people use it because it shows wealth. Other rare metals (e.g. iridium and palladium) are used for the same purpose, even though stainless steel would work just as well. But most gold is stored in vaults. Do the owners of that gold go down to their vaults and admire their ingots? Of course they don't!
Gold is only one of a whole world's worth of assets, it's just the one that's uppermost in people's minds when they think about value. People that store their wealth in assets don't just buy gold alone, they would diversify,
Yes. They'll have stocks and shares, bonds, and other things. But if they have useless metal why not also have useless cryptographic hashes?
Rarity is neither a sufficient, nor a necessary condition for value.
It is both. Moon rock has considerable value on the black market, so do dinosaur skulls. These are so valuable entirely because they are rare. Water is extremely useful, but so common that people will give it away. Water in the desert, or even in a park on a hot day has much greater value.
I think most speculators feel the same way. Personally I have a paltry amount of a selection of crypto-currencies. I have set points to cash out half of and all of my stake, but I'm well aware that I'm simply gambling at the moment.
I bought a lottery ticket this week, and that didn't win either.
"But the bitcoin is infinitely divisible into small and useful chunks."
I think this one is a delusion though. I mean it can be split into 100 million "Satoshi"s, which are low value enough for arbitrarily small transactions, and will remain so at least unless bitcoin rises past the million dollar mark, but given the cost of transfer, small values aren't worth having.
It will only be worthwhile if banks decide to start offering bitcoin accounts.
Gold isn't valuable because it looks nice. Most of it is kept out of sight of the public in vaults rather than on public display to be admired. It looks pretty similar to iron pyrite, but is much more expensive. People use it for jewellery because it's valuable more than because it's attractive.
It's not like land, water or plastic, which are inherently useful.
It's valuable because it's rare. It's used as a store of value because it's hard wearing and rare. But bitcoins aren't going anywhere either and they're rare - there can only ever be up to 21 million of them. So why don't they have value?
This is something I can't work out. Does bitcoin have value? Gold does, and that's useless. Even if you do like the colour, or want to use it for electronics, most gold sits in vaults where nobody can see it.
If that's the service you want then you can still get that.
I want, in addition to this, a dedicated connection to another service. I don't care how I get connected. If they lay a specific cable to do it, that's fine. If they take advantage of spare bandwidth on existing cables, I'm okay with that.
There are several high bandwidth services (e.g. video and music streaming); that probably aren't an issue for home broadband but are for mobile users.
If they want to pay the bandwidth charges for me using their service then I'm okay with that. It is a benefit to the consumer, and allows for premium service providers to flourish.
The caveat though, is that this also should be neutral. No business should be allowed exclusivity. If Apple music is allowed to pay for bandwidth, then spotify should be allowed to on exactly the same terms, as should completely different businesses such as trading information companies.
A good mini series on largely the same topic was the BBC's "Micro Men". Covering the British side of the home computer revolution. Shame it's so difficult to get hold of.
Can't see the need for jet fuel. Airports must have plenty of diesel. There's huge numbers of airport vehicles that don't leave the airport. Most of them can't just drive down the highway to the nearest gas station.
I'm speculating a fairly paltry amount in altcoins. So far I've made a modest gain. If I lose it all, my investment is small enough not to worry about.
Personally I think it's all horribly overvalued right now, but I know nothing about this,and how it works.
I find ripping faster, at least for CDs. Load up audiograbber. Put in CD. Set it going. All nicely tagged thanks to CDDB. And I can choose my own bitrate.
I don't spend ages looking for a torrent, or worry about all the crap that the torrent sites spew onto my PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just the worthlessness of them. I have around 0.003 bitcoins kicking about in my wallet. If I want to convert that to hard cash, it will cost most of the value just to sell it within a reasonable time.
Out of the last 4 new years, Bitcoin rose for two of them (2016, 2017) and fell for the other 2 (2015, 2018). Don't think there's really any pattern here. Looking at coinmarketcap, there seem to be some bubbles and dips around new year but those happen all over the place so could be a coincidence.
If I write a song, and release it to the public domain right now, I can still use it in perpetuity.
Copyright is not property. It's artificial property-like rights to encourage creators. This rationale is explicitly stated in the US constitution, and for the first British copyright act in 1710.
If you haven't made a substantial return from a work after 5 years, you never will.
The British police would need more to go on than that though. They'd take precautions in case the suspect was armed, but wouldn't presume based on it being common in the area. It probably wouldn't be seen as a justification to shoot first.
Granted, unlawful killing cases seem to be a bit hit-and-miss, partly because courts are more likely to rule a killing lawful if the police accidentally kill a criminal, but I doubt they would in a situation like this.
I'm pretty certain in most of Europe, this would be manslaughter, or even possibly murder on the part of the police. There was no clear immediate danger there, and no compelling reason to believe he was armed.
There are alternatives to gold that look indistinguishable. People are attracted to it because it's expensive, not the other way round. If it's so valuable as a decoration why is it kept in vaults rather than on display?
I mean I don't disagree with crypto-currency being worthless. I'm just surprised people don't feel the same way about other worthless stuff.
Gold had perceived value long before dentistry, let alone electronics.
If it's so useful in industry, why are we keeping it locked in vaults rather than using it? I cant imagine people are holding it there because they know if there's an apocalypse they'll be able to sort out dental cavities.
Do people really think this? I mean Black Wednesday was unusually large, but I was under the impression that this sort of thing happened on a smaller scale much more often.
You can say the same about gold though. People have valued that for millennia. You can't eat it. You can't make anything useful with the amount that a typical person might have. Most people who own it keep it in vaults.
So why is gold valuable, but bitcoin isn't? Personally, I think gold's value is based on a bizarre delusion as well, but it's a delusion that's been going on for some time.
That still seems slow. When I made a large transaction for a deposit on a house, it went through in 2 hours. Cost me less than a bitcoin transaction fee as well.
It can't be about governments. Gold was seen as valuable before there was government recognition of this fact. It was used as a means of transfer between nations, without it being backed by something of use by a government.
It's the other way round. People use Ruthenium for jewellery as well, and that's rather a drab grey metal. But people use it because it shows wealth. Other rare metals (e.g. iridium and palladium) are used for the same purpose, even though stainless steel would work just as well. But most gold is stored in vaults. Do the owners of that gold go down to their vaults and admire their ingots? Of course they don't!
Yes. They'll have stocks and shares, bonds, and other things. But if they have useless metal why not also have useless cryptographic hashes?
It is both. Moon rock has considerable value on the black market, so do dinosaur skulls. These are so valuable entirely because they are rare. Water is extremely useful, but so common that people will give it away. Water in the desert, or even in a park on a hot day has much greater value.
I think most speculators feel the same way. Personally I have a paltry amount of a selection of crypto-currencies. I have set points to cash out half of and all of my stake, but I'm well aware that I'm simply gambling at the moment.
I bought a lottery ticket this week, and that didn't win either.
I think this one is a delusion though. I mean it can be split into 100 million "Satoshi"s, which are low value enough for arbitrarily small transactions, and will remain so at least unless bitcoin rises past the million dollar mark, but given the cost of transfer, small values aren't worth having.
It will only be worthwhile if banks decide to start offering bitcoin accounts.
Gold isn't valuable because it looks nice. Most of it is kept out of sight of the public in vaults rather than on public display to be admired. It looks pretty similar to iron pyrite, but is much more expensive. People use it for jewellery because it's valuable more than because it's attractive. It's not like land, water or plastic, which are inherently useful.
It's valuable because it's rare. It's used as a store of value because it's hard wearing and rare. But bitcoins aren't going anywhere either and they're rare - there can only ever be up to 21 million of them. So why don't they have value?
They pay for transit to a certain point. The recipient pays for the last mile.
This is something I can't work out. Does bitcoin have value? Gold does, and that's useless. Even if you do like the colour, or want to use it for electronics, most gold sits in vaults where nobody can see it.
If that's the service you want then you can still get that.
I want, in addition to this, a dedicated connection to another service. I don't care how I get connected. If they lay a specific cable to do it, that's fine. If they take advantage of spare bandwidth on existing cables, I'm okay with that.
Yes, I'll grant you, this is an issue that I haven't addressed. Lack of competition in the US telecoms market is a serious problem.
There are several high bandwidth services (e.g. video and music streaming); that probably aren't an issue for home broadband but are for mobile users.
If they want to pay the bandwidth charges for me using their service then I'm okay with that. It is a benefit to the consumer, and allows for premium service providers to flourish.
The caveat though, is that this also should be neutral. No business should be allowed exclusivity. If Apple music is allowed to pay for bandwidth, then spotify should be allowed to on exactly the same terms, as should completely different businesses such as trading information companies.
A good mini series on largely the same topic was the BBC's "Micro Men". Covering the British side of the home computer revolution. Shame it's so difficult to get hold of.
Can't see the need for jet fuel. Airports must have plenty of diesel. There's huge numbers of airport vehicles that don't leave the airport. Most of them can't just drive down the highway to the nearest gas station.
I agree.
I'm speculating a fairly paltry amount in altcoins. So far I've made a modest gain. If I lose it all, my investment is small enough not to worry about.
Personally I think it's all horribly overvalued right now, but I know nothing about this,and how it works.
A lot of Norway is pretty remote though. Mass transit can't get everywhere, even for a well run country like Norway.
They know the identity. It's a listed company based in Tel Aviv.
No idea why they can't use a legal solution, but it's not because they don't have a company to sue.
I find ripping faster, at least for CDs. Load up audiograbber. Put in CD. Set it going. All nicely tagged thanks to CDDB. And I can choose my own bitrate.
I don't spend ages looking for a torrent, or worry about all the crap that the torrent sites spew onto my PC.