Originally posted by tankiPL
only and big value of BTC is that it is alternative to bankers-stealers money system that is all
Very true.
It could also be said that banks are the alternative to hacker-stealers.
not really because BTC is not quilty that people stealing but bankers take from people money for credit for account use... or not use for credit/debit cards for transfers for conversion... for all... and almost all goes to bank menagment to ceo for his 100 lambo. But in BTC You just pay fee to miners for ecosystem without unnecessry
bureaucracy and that is all
Originally posted by tankiPL
not really because BTC is not quilty that people stealing but bankers take from people money for credit for account use... or not use for credit/debit cards for transfers for conversion... for all... and almost all goes to bank menagment to ceo for his 100 lambo. But in BTC You just pay fee to miners for ecosystem without unnecessry
bureaucracy and that is all
Consider though, the number of wallets that have been compromised by hackers and the contents stolen.
Out of curiosity, are there any wallets that pay interest on the amount of crypto currency contained in them?
So banks are evil because they charge a service fee? They should do their jobs and pay their expenses out of pure unbreakable love for humankind or what? ♦
Originally posted by Tamaseger
So banks are evil because they charge a service fee? They should do their jobs and pay their expenses out of pure unbreakable love for humankind or what? ♦
In the olden days, banks made their money on the difference between the interest charged on loans and the interest paid on deposits.
In the modern world, that difference isn't very large — so they charge fees. The complaint I make is that the fees are excessive.
OTOH, I have investments that include bank stocks, and while I don't have a lambo, I do quite enjoy the income.
I should've used the quote function, but I still kept forgetting it, sorry.
I don't know about America, but here in Europe there's a free market, so you can choose a service provider that has a package that fits you. I have/had multiple bank accounts in the past 10 years, and pretty much all I ever paid was the yearly fee of my MasterCards. Even had a credit card with a small cashback on it, I haven't spent too much with it, so I couldn't realize any profit, but it was enough to cover my card related expenses.
But again, I'm not familiar with the situation overseas.
Originally posted by Tamaseger
I should've used the quote function, but I still kept forgetting it, sorry.
I don't know about America, but here in Europe there's a free market, so you can choose a service provider that has a package that fits you. I have/had multiple bank accounts in the past 10 years, and pretty much all I ever paid was the yearly fee of my MasterCards. Even had a credit card with a small cashback on it, I haven't spent too much with it, so I couldn't realize any profit, but it was enough to cover my card related expenses.
But again, I'm not familiar with the situation overseas.
Yeah the quote function is extremely useful for maintaining clarity — I tend to over use it.
When people say "America" they often mean the USA — since in that country they refer to themselves as "Americans" and often refer to the country as "America" — almost as if there were no other countries on either continent.
I live in Canada, and our banking system has very little in common with that of the US. I am very selective regarding the banks I utilize — and I use several. Some have only loans or investments, some have a mixture. None of my accounts have fees — although my main credit card has an annual fee, it also carries significant travel insurance provisions, and provides cash back on purchases. The cashback for the cruise will cover the fee for many years.
Originally posted by Tamaseger
So banks are evil because they charge a service fee? They should do their jobs and pay their expenses out of pure unbreakable love for humankind or what? ♦
nowadays banks shouldnt exist becasue they are unnecessery
except central bank which produce paper cash
Originally posted by tankiPL
nowadays banks shouldnt exist becasue they are unnecessery
except central bank which produce paper cash
So everyone would have accounts in the central bank?
I almost never need to go into a bank building, but the bank itself is necessary for several reasons.
When I do need to attend in person, it is very convenient to have a local location where I can do so.
I can't think of any alternatives — any company that set itself up to do what a bank does would still be a bank — whatever name they chose to use.
Originally posted by tankiPL
nowadays banks shouldnt exist becasue they are unnecessery
except central bank which produce paper cash
So everyone would have accounts in the central bank?
I almost never need to go into a bank building, but the bank itself is necessary for several reasons.
When I do need to attend in person, it is very convenient to have a local location where I can do so.
I can't think of any alternatives — any company that set itself up to do what a bank does would still be a bank — whatever name they chose to use.
1. Central banks can open many places where people can deposit or withdrawal cash
2. You can buy crypto for cash and send where You want
private banks now are expensive bad joke 20$ for SWIFT transfer and 5 days waiting??? in 21 century??? wtf? all time problem... all time fee... all time retarded support... all time stupid veryfy and i am tired of this shi*
That must be nice. I cannot open an account at Canada's central bank — but I can open an account at any chartered bank or credit union — which is a type of institution that does most — but not all of the functions of a chartered bank. I cannot simply by crypto for cash — and few organisations I deal with accept it as payment.
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
If any malicious entity gains control of the network, all is lost.
By now it is virtually impossible that any one entity could gain control of the network, it is too decentralized to be stopped. And this is also one of the main differences between Bitcoin and other "cryptos" - most (if not all) other networks could be captured by an entity with enough power. There have been takeover attempts of Bitcoin, but all have failed.
BTW the relationship between energy production/usage and Bitcoin is a fascinating topic to discover and I'm certainly not the best at describing it, but to put it short: Human flourishing has always coincided with increased energy usage and energy efficiency (think about the difference between farming by hand in the 1700s for example vs modern large scale farming and the productivity difference between them). So first of all, thinking that humanity should limit it's energy usage is nonsensical. For us, but even more importantly for people in 3rd world countries and tough economic situations to rise out of poverty and enjoy a life quality we all want to experience, energy production must increase, not decrease.
Bitcoin mining is a first and last resort energy buyer. Energy producers must always be ready to produce enough energy to satisfy the consumers' demands at peak usage. However, storing and/or moving energy from one place to another has huge costs to it and very quickly starts making no economical sense. This means that if bitcoin mining is built into the energy grid, then it will help stabilize energy grids by a) being an energy buyer when nobody else wants to (Bitcoin miners will pay the least for the energy, but they will be a constant buyer at their price levels) b) being an energy buyer where nobody else wants to (e.g. thermal energy in a non-populated place could be monetized by Bitcoin mining and thus the energy produced there can be transformed into monetary energy (BTC) and then moved across time and space with no losses)
In description a: BTC miners can turn off their machines when other consumers (who are also ready to pay more for the energy) come back to the marketplace and bid on the energy. In description b: countries can utilize their unutilized resources in remote areas, perhaps even create new habitable areas for humans by reducing energy costs in those remote areas and thus incentivizing economic activity there.
For a bit more in-depth take on BTC and energy production, an interesting start would be this episode of the WBD podcast:
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Fiat currency carries the promise of its issuer to pay the stated value.
Yes, in nominal terms.
But as we all know, the money supply of fiat currencies is uncapped and due to the nature of it being a fractionally reserved credit-based system, where most of the money is actually debt, it needs to expand continually for it to not collapse under the weight of the cumulative debt and interest payments. See how ever-slightly the US M2 has decreased since it's top and how much asset prices (stocks, Bitcoin, bonds) already deflated.
Originally posted by Satoshi Nakamoto
The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.
Over time, all fiat currencies tend towards 0, as Voltaire famously said.
Originally posted by AlvisR
Is everyone ready for next crypto bullmarket?
No. I'm not, so that leaves out "everyone"
However, I suspect that most crypto g̶a̶m̶b̶l̶e̶r̶s̶ investors are eagerly anticipating one
Originally posted by AlvisR
well my roi is great on crypto. im riding the waves
I had thought that I would use a dollar-cost-averaging strategy, but I lack two things: money I can put at risk time to study nerve the ability to count to two
Originally posted by AlvisR
Well some people i know heating up houses by mining. No noise if propperly isolated.
If they could cut the noise down, they could probably do that in the location from that article.
My guess though, is that the people that set up the mine did so on the cheap