wachtwoord

Didn't Zerohedge just get banned from Twitter for spreading false info about this? Twitter is a censor hell, just like Facebook. They've become too big and governments use them like they use their other news outlets: propaganda and controlling their narrative of the truth. Luckily you can still visit websites directly: www.zerohedge.com If that ever gets stopped (there are precedents in the western world), there's always the old trusty VPN solution.

My teenager told that among their circles finding a date through tinder implies that you are not smart enough to find one in person. That felt me as a warning flag for the future of the online dating industry, and I sold my MTCH stock while doing the year end re-balancing. Tinder is not for online dating but for online fling finding matchup (online casual sex?). Other solutions exist for finding relationships. The latter is a huge grow market in my opinion. Especially knowing how socially unconnected and busy people are these days (if this doesn't materialize birth numbers will go the way of Japan). Similarly, I expect solutions for finding friendships to appear and become popular (and no, before anyone says, Facebook is not for finding friends ...).

I don't necessarily disagree but, if you have time, can you provide evidence backing this up? Proof (I assume you mean the empirical kind) for something such as that will always be indirect at best since it's impossible to isolate the variable under study. An example of indirect evidence of what he's saying is in fact the lackluster return of the index discussed in this thread (but it can never be proof as so many other factors are present and can't be controlled pr compensated for). The reason why his statement is obviously true is simple logic. However I won't delve into that as not to derail the thread into a political one.

AFAIK, the cloud gaming is not only about computing, but is also has a different revenue model. You pay $20 a month for example and can play any game on their servers. This revenue model has been around for ages. Stadia Pro does not allow to play "any game on their servers". It allows you to play a selection of games. Xbox Games With Gold, Xbox Game Pass, Playstation Now, EA Access all offer the same. With differing selection of games of course. I’ve never used Stadia or any of these, but I assumed any game they have a license for you can play. Can you also install games you own on the cloud? It would make sense. Idk maybe this won’t take off I’m mainly thinking out loud on this thread, but at some point if these becomes the dominant way to play video games, it seems to me to be a way to eat into margins. I don’t think stadia stealing share is my main issue as I assume all the video game makers see what Netflix is doing to traditional media companies, but being forced to adopt this buffet style subscription model, would be problematic. Stadia forces you to buy games at retail on top of the $20 monthly fee to be able to play games. They have announced a free model (so no $20 a month, but you still need to buy games at retail) at the cost of degraded performance. There's a Stadia competitor (forgot the name) with only a monthly fee but their game selection is small and appearently they are technically inferior (I watched a review a month or so ago, the above is the opinion of the reviewer). Until this all goes to a Netflix model (can that be done profitably?) I don't see Stadia and competitors taking huge market share (and of course latency problems must be solved or at least improved upon).

Does this pose the risk of an (unfairly/unsafely) high representation in worldwide index funds or will the relatively large float stop that from happening? I mean, at their current prposed valuation, in my opinion the regulatory risks (by direct confiscation, high taxation, other arbitrary regulation or running the business not in the interest of minority shareholders) are not properly discounted.

And archive.org, and if you add: javascript:location.href='http://web.archive.org/save/'+location.href as a bookmark, you can add archive any page for future viewing through archive.org (of course this means doing so before seekingalpha restricts the pro post, which takes a few weeks I think?)

SD you're saying that the price will be higher if the accessible supply is lower. That is true, but how is that an impairment? I wish all my investment were impaired in that fashion! It's like a company buying back shares without the associated cost. Also 21M is not a magical number. It's not even the actual number as the actual number is 2100 trillion units. Arbitrarily 100M of these units is known as a Bitcoin.

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins? No impact on the proof of ownership. Big impact on the aggregate block-chain record. The current record says there are 18M coin outstanding, and available for transacting. But of course if you lost your key ... they are outstanding, but not available for transacting - a permanent impairment against the Bitcoin design limit of 21M coin. SD How is that an impairment? The total outstanding units is completely arbitrary. If some people lose their bearer shares to some company, how this impair anyone but the people lising the bearer shares?

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins? Indeed. Connecting blockchain data to physical assets is a silly notion anyway. Similarly, people that think their tokens are backed by some physical asset are going to wake up to some bad surprise at some point in the future. What you can do is prove that certain data existed at a certain point in time. For example show that some document or contract was signed at some point in time, by putting the hash of the document in the blockchain (the Bitcoin one preferably if you desire strong evidence).

@TwoCitiesCapital: The payment system is not the innovation here. The trustless settlement system is the innovation. The payment system is purposefully unscalable and relatively slow because security, immutability, censorship-resistance and distribution are the key value proposition of Bitcoin. This won't change, no matter how much you polish the payment system. It's the fundamental truth. You also can't compare the fees to credit cards or the traditional banking system because those transactions are reversable. In fact users of those system see the reversability as a feature while in Bitcoin non-reversability is the feature. Very different systems that don't directly compete with each other. @SD: the second "type of crypto" you mention is not a cryptocurrency at all and nothing new (but we me mostly seem to agree on this one)

Bitcoin has a very crappy payment system, so if that's your thesis I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about (about this specifically of course, I really like your contributions on other topics). It's an improved version of gold. It's optimized for decentralization, censorship resistance and immutability NOT for being an efficient or fast payment system (and it's a trade-off, you can't have both). Expect transaction fees to go in the hundreds and even thousands of USD equivalent is years to come (and that'a fine and a good development).

Excuse me but I'm not a money launderer and I don't want central banks to exist much less be involved in things. Central banks are anti free-market by definition.

Great investment thesis, Greg. [And from here, please don't expect me to participate in this topic.] Well Greg is wrong there but the feeling he's basing the decision on is real. What he should do (if he really wants to put "who knows?" to rest) is do what he does when he decides to invest in a stock. He wrote on this board he looks at stocks and looks for a reason that makes it uninvestable so he can stop looking at it and move to the next company. That is easy to do here too (easier than with stocks, because the crap is so much more on the surface). Just look for insurmountable problems. Examples: Problems with the initial distribution (pre-mining or the founders continue to assign part of the mining reward to themselves for "development"). Problems with being centralized rather than distributed (what is the added value of a centralized crypto, either by organization or technically?) Is it even a cryptocurrency? Is there mining? Is it a token? is it a "stable coin" (aka unprotected, non-yielding loan to a not trustable 3rd party) Do the idea behind it, and the differences with Bitcoin make any sort of logical sense? Just those 4 questions will eliminate nearly all of them. Of course no-one has to do this, but saying it's unknowable is like saying it's unknowable which stocks are investable and which are not. Simply untrue (unless you take the statement literally: you can rarely know anything ever with absolute certainty).

The court decision is outrageous as her swaps were done before the rules banning it were active. In non-banana jurisdictions there's a little thing called legal certainty. Then again the UK once post facto changed the statute of limitations and prostecuted people for (old) crimes on the basis of that.

It's easy to waste money if it's not your own money you're wasting but money you took from others. It's also easy to be popular by handing out money you took from others. Politicians are the parasite class of society.

He'll call in sick for 2 weeks lol! Not more childish than labour has been behaving.

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources. Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun. Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence). All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women. In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples. So there is no doubt that current climate changed is influenced by the liberal agenda, however as mentioned earlier, if one had a discovery that suggested with a good deal of certainty that climate change was caused by factors other than humans, the researcher would immediately become famous, potentially win a Nobel Prize, and journals would be stepping over themselves to get it published. No they wouldn't. There's lots of (published AND statistically significant) research the sun cycles have high correlation with the historic temperature fluctuations on Earth. This not ground braking or new. It's just impopular right now because it doesn't help the socialistic large government political agenda.

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources. Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun. Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence). All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women. In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples.

Using images and simple language so even the lazy confirmist collectivists can follow: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures

I think you used CSU rather than CSU.to ;) He wrote that in his blog.

Indeed, I read is as: Premise: because of this and this change Apple's income will seem lower on the books. Conclusion: This lowers the value of Apple Even if one accepts the premise, the conclusion in just ridiculous. Unless they mean to conclude that the price will go down because the market will not understand the effect from the premise. But they just reported this in mainstream media .... ???

1. Looks like it 2. Yen is much weaker than CHF. Also there's likely more demand for these.

True deflation is impossible as central banks never shrink the monetary base. Deflation as Keynsians tried to peddle the term for the last decades (increase of purchasing power relative to goods) is possible in the short term through market folly. When that happens negative interest rates still are unnatural as you could (or at least should be able to) just hold cash without lending it away. In my opinion this is just signs of the current system crumbling. They'll just replace it with a new system though (just like they did with Bretton Woods) and before too long most will have all but forgotten about it.

On overall basis, I do, actually. The question is if this is warranted, or I'm naive. Perhaps it's not only about the Danish legal system, but also about that I live a place, where we have some kind of a "dual legal" system - the legal system and The Law of Jante. Parts of the Danish press practise The Law of Jante zealously. Here is a hilarious example. ["You can't speed up a Tesla when it's standing still" and "I haven't filed a police report for violence against me by the officers because they were two against one." [ : - D]] The real problem is that I may be severely biased here because I forget about such cases [related to equality for the law] in the long run - simply because I don't give a damn about them [like example above], and because I haven't really seen some appalling evidence that there exist exemptions from equality for the Law. There is a risk that the casuality in this line of thinking may be logically flawed. So, thank you for asking, wachtwoord. Thanks for answering. I read that Junte law thing before and it's against everything I stand for. It clearly places collectivism (and ostracizing standing out or being special) over individualism and I despise that. Is this actually taken seriously? (I may be missing something important here as reading the other article with Google translate and it didn't make much sense at all how the wealthy man defended himself). I don't trust our (Dutch) legal system very much. Judges often make (large) mistakes (false convictions in criminal cases are not acceptable AT ALL), are above criticism and give ridiculously low punishments for heavy crimes (murder, aussault, rape etc) even though the law allows far higher punishments (how can you give a sentence less than the crime?) On the other side of the coin the US system is clearly worse. First off the prosecutor there gets rewarded per conviction so is motivated (and will!) try to convict even if he knows full well the suspect is innocent (even if he has evidence that shows that, which he will then withhold). The system in Holland does not force the prosecutor to prosecute unless he believes that to be warranted and sharing evidence that hurts his case (and helps the suspect) is mandatory. You'll often see cases where prosecutors ask the judge to dismiss the case. Secondly, while settlements are everywhere, in the US these are extraordinarily popular. People are told to confess (even if not guilty) and take a low punishement or go to trial and threathened with far higher punishments. Do I really have to explain to a forum of intelligent people how that will inevitably lead to a great many false confessions out of fear? Confessions out of mental torture should not be admissable in court.

Do you trust yours? :/