The point is that the other person needs to convert, and by the time you've sent money to an exchange, bought bitcoins (with an exchange fee added), sent the coins (potentially with a transaction fee levied by the network), the other person receives them, converts them to their currency with another fee etc etc.
Yes, it's true that you nobody needs to hold bitcoins for all that long.
Really should have done, but I'm terrible at following my own financial advice.
Also I don't want to get any of my money involved in any aspect of a bitcoin related business, there's a solid record of them folding, losing their data (and thus coins) or being outright scams.
"If you are making a simple payment, then you aren't converting the bitcoins back into dollars so there's no need to hedge anything."
But with bitcoins being such a terrible store of value, you'd be stupid not to convert in and out of the currency if what you wanted was a way to make a payment using their unique features.
Not that I actually do want to use their 'unique features' as I don't really like them.
And this is why you'll never be as good as the people that really know their systems because they actually enjoy learning about and tinkering with them, setting things up and gaining a little extra insight every time.
After being called ignorant, stupid and all sorts of other monikers for predicting this, I'm getting a pretty delightful sense of schadenfeude watching the prices tumble.
Yeah, but if they really saw that fast then they'd pretty much always see a moving blob of light. Our cats seemed to like butterflies and occasionally other wildlife.
Fully willing to admit that either my cats were special/dumb or I'm suffering from confirmation bias here, that's hjust the way it seemed to me.
Somebody put the dollars in to pay the miners, to pay for their rigs and electricity. All the 'fiat' currency in and out of the system came from somewhere.
No, the real problem is that (other than silk road) there is no bitcoin economy, there are just exchanges, speculators and hoarders, plus a few folks who realised they could 'mine' and pay for hardware that way.
Hoarders wait on a rise, they do not contribute to an economy. Miners who are not hoarders just sell as they generate. Everyone else is either a drug dealer or a speculator.
Oh, and there have been a lot of fraudsters too. And yes, I'm deliberately ignoring the 0.01% of people who have a genuine bitcoin business idea. It's unfortunate that there are so few of them, and all the businesses just seem to be "existing business" + "bitcoin!!!"
At some point we automate enough that even with our current lifespans most human beings become redundant.
We have to deal with this problem regardless of lifespan and I would suggest that a new economic/social model is going to be needed.
We can make enough food and shelter for an entire nation by employing a fraction of its people. Much of the rest of the economy is busy-work already in the west.
"Remember that nerds are people that actually know things... modern day computer geeks are generally people who"
I don't remember being signing a contract for a particular label.
To me a geek is someone that gets, well, geeky about something, any of a wide variety of things in fact. And a nerd is just a pasty-looking thin guy with stupid glasses, that may or may not be smart but certainly isn't a people-person.
So long as you're called Zev, or Xev. But when it finds a cyborg body, goes crazy and starts chasing after you shouting "You're not pretty, Stanley H. Tweedle, but you're my kind of not pretty", that's when you have problems.
I've used notes more or less constantly for the last ten years, and I'm talking about all versions. The search function is hidden away, hard to use and flaky. The client is heavyweight and unwieldy, and for something that is used primarily as an email client it's extremely overweight.
I did wonder if this would come up when I wrote the comment.
Clearly the law has more grey areas and more common sense than people like you and I who tend to try to apply any given law to every possible situation!
I'm not sure there's any Irony either, but you may want to RTFA, in which a police officer threatens to remove the camera under (blatant misuse of) the provisions of anti-terrorist legislation.
"the owners of that property can set any rules they like."
Yeah, not so much. They can't set discriminatory rules like "men only" or "no blacks", and neither can they confiscate your property if they don't like you taking pictures. They can ask you to leave, and take you to civil court over the photos. That's pretty much it.
I don't know that it's theft as such in the UK, but it's certainly not allowed.
There was supposed to be an education campaign within the UK police force to stop them from pulling this crap, as they've been shown repeatedly to be confiscating equipment without any powers to do so. And a mall cop certainly has no right to do that.
Taking a picture is most certainly not illegal either. It may be against company policy and may result in you being removed from and banned from the mall, but this is in no way illegal. (If you come back or refuse to leave, that's trespassing, sure.)
So it shouldn't make any difference who I vote for, right? Beause they all have the same access to polls and public opinion and it becomes irrelevant who the candidate actually is? And we drop the idea of the impassioned politician making changes they care about and believe in?
I'm not saying those are all bad things, just checking.
Slashdot Mirror
99% of all male CEOs are fat old guys with multiple chins. Is there a need to evaluate them?
When we have had enough female CEOs, pehaps people will stop commenting on how old and unattractive they are too.
"the small and midsized businesses that are the main audience for these devices don't care"
So farking what? my comment was in response to the usual "only if your time is free" snark that crops up here from the wilfully ignorant.
"In a very real sense, it's the people who predicted Bitcoin wasn't worth a shit that are at fault for its demise."
Awesome! I helped to kill* it!
(*assuming it does actually die, it may not)
The point is that the other person needs to convert, and by the time you've sent money to an exchange, bought bitcoins (with an exchange fee added), sent the coins (potentially with a transaction fee levied by the network), the other person receives them, converts them to their currency with another fee etc etc.
Yes, it's true that you nobody needs to hold bitcoins for all that long.
Really should have done, but I'm terrible at following my own financial advice.
Also I don't want to get any of my money involved in any aspect of a bitcoin related business, there's a solid record of them folding, losing their data (and thus coins) or being outright scams.
"If you are making a simple payment, then you aren't converting the bitcoins back into dollars so there's no need to hedge anything."
But with bitcoins being such a terrible store of value, you'd be stupid not to convert in and out of the currency if what you wanted was a way to make a payment using their unique features.
Not that I actually do want to use their 'unique features' as I don't really like them.
And this is why you'll never be as good as the people that really know their systems because they actually enjoy learning about and tinkering with them, setting things up and gaining a little extra insight every time.
So in order to make a simple payment one must set up not only a bitcoin transfer but also a short position to maintain value? At what cost?
And it's stopped sounding so simple now.
Was it in any way the same 'Mark' though, or a renewed and relaunched currency?
After being called ignorant, stupid and all sorts of other monikers for predicting this, I'm getting a pretty delightful sense of schadenfeude watching the prices tumble.
Yeah, but if they really saw that fast then they'd pretty much always see a moving blob of light. Our cats seemed to like butterflies and occasionally other wildlife.
Fully willing to admit that either my cats were special/dumb or I'm suffering from confirmation bias here, that's hjust the way it seemed to me.
No one really lost anything
Somebody put the dollars in to pay the miners, to pay for their rigs and electricity. All the 'fiat' currency in and out of the system came from somewhere.
No, the real problem is that (other than silk road) there is no bitcoin economy, there are just exchanges, speculators and hoarders, plus a few folks who realised they could 'mine' and pay for hardware that way.
Hoarders wait on a rise, they do not contribute to an economy.
Miners who are not hoarders just sell as they generate.
Everyone else is either a drug dealer or a speculator.
Oh, and there have been a lot of fraudsters too. And yes, I'm deliberately ignoring the 0.01% of people who have a genuine bitcoin business idea. It's unfortunate that there are so few of them, and all the businesses just seem to be "existing business" + "bitcoin!!!"
Not sure I believe this, as I've seen several cats chase butterflies and other small, edible creatures on the screen.
At some point we automate enough that even with our current lifespans most human beings become redundant.
We have to deal with this problem regardless of lifespan and I would suggest that a new economic/social model is going to be needed.
We can make enough food and shelter for an entire nation by employing a fraction of its people. Much of the rest of the economy is busy-work already in the west.
Inadequate in it's response?
Could that be the understatement of the year?
It's response at every turn has been to protect itself and the abusers. That's not inadequate, that's evil. Fuck the catholic church and the pope.
"Remember that nerds are people that actually know things... modern day computer geeks are generally people who"
I don't remember being signing a contract for a particular label.
To me a geek is someone that gets, well, geeky about something, any of a wide variety of things in fact. And a nerd is just a pasty-looking thin guy with stupid glasses, that may or may not be smart but certainly isn't a people-person.
You are absolutely correct sir!
And bugger me it's Friday, I usually get two pink pills and one orange on friday... The pink ones make me sleepy.
So long as you're called Zev, or Xev. But when it finds a cyborg body, goes crazy and starts chasing after you shouting "You're not pretty, Stanley H. Tweedle, but you're my kind of not pretty", that's when you have problems.
I've used notes more or less constantly for the last ten years, and I'm talking about all versions. The search function is hidden away, hard to use and flaky. The client is heavyweight and unwieldy, and for something that is used primarily as an email client it's extremely overweight.
I did wonder if this would come up when I wrote the comment.
Clearly the law has more grey areas and more common sense than people like you and I who tend to try to apply any given law to every possible situation!
I'm not sure there's any Irony either, but you may want to RTFA, in which a police officer threatens to remove the camera under (blatant misuse of) the provisions of anti-terrorist legislation.
"the owners of that property can set any rules they like."
Yeah, not so much. They can't set discriminatory rules like "men only" or "no blacks", and neither can they confiscate your property if they don't like you taking pictures. They can ask you to leave, and take you to civil court over the photos. That's pretty much it.
I don't know that it's theft as such in the UK, but it's certainly not allowed.
There was supposed to be an education campaign within the UK police force to stop them from pulling this crap, as they've been shown repeatedly to be confiscating equipment without any powers to do so. And a mall cop certainly has no right to do that.
Taking a picture is most certainly not illegal either. It may be against company policy and may result in you being removed from and banned from the mall, but this is in no way illegal. (If you come back or refuse to leave, that's trespassing, sure.)
So it shouldn't make any difference who I vote for, right? Beause they all have the same access to polls and public opinion and it becomes irrelevant who the candidate actually is?
And we drop the idea of the impassioned politician making changes they care about and believe in?
I'm not saying those are all bad things, just checking.