datadata

8 ms·

271.
by datadata 4y ago
You are basically saying that accredited investor rules are not successful in excluding people from making certain types of more desirable investments, because there are other barriers that are in place anyway. I think this is true, but bes
272.
by datadata 4y ago
Accredited investor rules was an example of not having a even playing field. The market is not open to everyone which contributes to unfair outcomes. I'd welcome reforms to transparency as well there, as lack of transparency also contr
273.
by datadata 4y ago
> they can replace it with a system that they personally have an equity stake in. Isn't this a fact about capitalism and not at all specific to the financial sector?
274.
by datadata 4y ago
I think crypto fans want transparency and an equal playing field, and are more afraid of things like regulatory corruption and markets that are not open to them. It is not clear that "regulated finance" prevents comically unfair o
275.
by datadata 4y ago
Interestingly, trading for regular stocks on US exchanges is halted for many reasons including when the price moves too fast, a 10% move in 5 minutes automatically gives a 5 minute halt. https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.a
276.
by datadata 4y ago
That's why I said "can". Obviously there is a lot of diversity of forests in the world. Cutting down half of them to make room for human stuff might have reduced the average amount of carbon stuck in wood on average?
277.
by datadata 4y ago
> Crypto is "cult by design" in much the way all greater-fool scams are. Namely, since coins are incredibly deflationary I think you have it backwards. Bitcoin is not deflationary by design, but rather it becomes deflationary w
278.
by datadata 4y ago
With an inflationary fiat currency, people are always going to try to invent things like bitcoin to be able to do something with their money other than watch it dissolve from inflation or be forced to consume. I don't think that means
279.
by datadata 4y ago
I appreciate the nuance-- I completely agree that there are tradeoffs and that no money technology is perfect in all regards. I don't think it is fair to call complete resistance against counterfeiting a small win though, it eliminates
280.
by datadata 4y ago
The US also can't completely prevent people from creating counterfeit cash, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar . The transparency of bitcoin is a win here, as everyone can verify that this kind of fraud
281.
by datadata 4y ago
For someone in a another country, the current 8%+ inflation of US Dollar is far from negligible, especially when the dilution drivers such as stimulus packages are mostly only to the benefit of US Citizens. Physical bearer assets like cash
282.
by datadata 4y ago
I'm not sure how "non-cryprocurrency" applies to lightning in anyway. Lightning channels are denominated only in bitcoin. There is no non-cryptocurrency aspect of it. Lightning has many properties that a debit card does not.
283.
by datadata 4y ago
Citations seem to indicate this is actually enough! This surprised me also: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/global-carbon . Indicates 400GT are in from forests, vs 800GT in the atmosphere. Some various source
284.
by datadata 4y ago
I feel this will happen at the end of the adoption curve, should we reach it. Media will begin to shame legacy drivers and accidents will become newsworthy curiosities. Sort of like the last known cases of a pathogen that becomes eradicated
285.
by datadata 4y ago
One thing I'm curious about to see quantified (I'm sure this has been done, but don't know where to look): If you burn a gallon of gas, it immediately releases some quantity of heat into the environment, this becomes heat pol
286.
by datadata 4y ago
A single tree is likely to release its carbon at the end of its life. A forest however can permanently endure and keep retain carbon in aggregate, at least compared to the alternative barren ground. To your point though, I would be surprise
287.
by datadata 4y ago
> I’d also paid $40 in Bitcoin fees, such as levies for transferring the currency between Coinbase and my digital wallet. My Visa, by contrast, is paying me—$20 in cash-back rewards. This doesn't mention that Visa rewards are subsid
288.
by datadata 5y ago
There are stocks which are fraudulent, e.g Theranos, Enron, or ZZZZ Best. The fact that a company might have expected cash flows does not make them impervious to defrauding investors. Similarly, something issued without any claims of future
289.
by datadata 5y ago
To offer rewards you would need users and a vibrant market, otherwise the price would collapse and mining would not be profitable, or you are going to have to personally subsidize the rewards yourself, which would not qualify as cloning bit
290.
by datadata 5y ago
That would be true if you could time travel to 2008. In 2022 you have to compete with what already exists, not with how what already exists was created. There are no other options for cloning a PoW blockchain. You would not easily get &quot
291.
by datadata 5y ago
You'd have to exert the same amount of energy to clone Bitcoin as is being used in it's mining. Because the input energy is scarce, it is not trivial to clone as you are saying. You are also ignoring network effects entirely. Numb
292.
by datadata 5y ago
Agree with this all, but I don't think the simple answer is sufficient. Cash as an option must be preserved, but the abuse of this power over cashless transactions will still happen. Cash itself will become even more of a probable caus
293.
by datadata 5y ago
I think it is not very important whether blockchain is actually the savior or not. Rather, it presents an alternative option that changes the landscape of the debate. In terms of the Overton window ( https://en.wikipedia.org/
294.
by datadata 5y ago
My point is that the number of cryptos/websites/stocks doesn't matter at all. A saturated market does not lead to a failed market, a saturated market just means there is demand for something. Sure, most cryptos are probably g
295.
by datadata 5y ago
I'm making analogies so that you have to substantiate your argument. It isn't clear that just because there is a large number of something, the entire ecosystem must be worthless, which is what you originally said. You can't
296.
by datadata 5y ago
Scarcity by itself is not sufficient to make something have value, completely agree. But scarcity is necessary for value, so it is still important! There are two notions of scarcity: Scarcity of bitcoin themselves (21 million), and scarcity
297.
by datadata 5y ago
And stocks also? There are more than 10,000 stocks, therefore the value of stocks much also must go to zero as the market is saturated.
298.
by datadata 5y ago
> If anyone can make it, the market quickly becomes saturated and the value tends toward zero and people losing interest in it. You just restated your previous claim, you still didn't give any reason why the value must go to zero--
299.
by datadata 5y ago
We called one of our ICBMs a peacekeeper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper
300.
by datadata 5y ago
Coinbase isn't just claiming to have come up with the concept, they are claiming no ad agency could have come up with the concept. I could see how this could ruffle the feathers of an ad agency.

More ›