Yeah, I have to quit drinking.
Um no, no shrinks for me. Far too many bad experiences.
I am fine... ish. Still having difficulty with losing my boyfriend, but other than that I am okay.
Really it is not that people are mean to me, that I would understand. Everyone is excruciatingly nice to me. I don't get it. This is what happened.
My neighbor took me to the local convince store to get water. Yep I have a filter picture but my cat refuses to drink cold water the weirdo, so I get him a gallon or two of water every month. My neighbor's mother had her car parked in front of my garage so instead of waking her up she just took me herself. So I have my water, waiting in line six feet apart and the guy in front of me says, Here, let me hold those for you. I am okay, thank you though. Please, it is just water, let me help you. I gave up, not going to argue with him about water. The young couple in front of him is listening and they say, Well she can go in front. I didn't even get to say anything before the guy just takes my water and sets it on the counter. My face must have been bright red I was so embarrassed. The cashier says, Don't worry about it honey, sometimes people are nice. Then she takes the water I just paid for and starts to walk away. The other girl behind the counter looks behind me at the couple and says, Next. I am just staring, like what the hell, where is she going with my water? The new cashier says, Oh, I think she is helping you sweetie. Sure enough, here comes the young girl around the counter lugging my water. When she gets up beside me she asks, Where's your car hon? I felt like I was in an episode of Twilight Zone as I led her to the car and opened the door for her. There you go babe. Of course I said thank you. Face on fire I open the front door and get in, my neighbor asks, What was that about? I have not one clue.
Be honest, do I look elderly and infirm? I am inches taller than the girl. Not drunk, um yet. My mind spinning when I got home is what had me opening the bottle of wine. I really don't get it. I mean, yeah guys can be kind of ridiculous, my neighbor`s husband refuses to let me shovel my own snow. I don't even bother arguing with him anymore, even though he refuses to take anything for helping me I have just started taking a six pack of beer over and give it to his wife when he is out. She puts it in the basement fridge and says, He'll drink it on Sunday. Everyone treats me that way though. My neighbors I get, they knew my boyfriend before I did, everyone else though? I am used to people making fun of me, not helping me. And not even exaggerating, they talk to me like I am a teenager or like really, really old. I don't get it. It feels like the whole world is talking down to me. It is infuriating when my mechanic explains tire pressure to me. Not that he is using small words, not that he is talking really slow or even that he still looks like he knows I won't understand, it is that he obviously finds it endearing. Endearing! Are you kidding me?!? This was while my boyfriend was still alive, he just laughed while I fumed the whole way home. I am used to being in a fishbowl everyone staring, none of my business and if I am funny looking so be it. I just never look at people anymore. When I started transitioning is when I started wearing glasses, not to help me see they were reading glasses at the time, I wore them because they made everyone more than a foot away look fuzzy, so I didn't have to see the looks on their faces. Then I somehow became invisible, God that was a wonderful time, got prescription glasses and started just enjoying my life. A few years ago people started staring again. Ugh! Okay, just ignore them all, it is much harder to ignore someone talking to you though, not without being rude.
I am so afraid when I am out and about now that I don't have him with me everywhere I go. It's not that people are being mean to me at all, mostly it just feels like I have somehow slipped into an alternate universe while I wasn't looking. It doesn't make me less terrified, just extremely confused.
Just going to pile on with my own pet Limbaugh grievance here, as I think it's a key part of his career that should be remembered.
There was probably no more important media figure boosting the 2003 Iraq invasion than Limbaugh. He spread the misinformation about WMD's. He spread the misinformation about connections between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. He whitewashed shortcomings in disastrous post-Hussein occupation, he made excuses and whitewashed US war crimes in Iraq. He demonized press outlets that exposed Bush admin lies, warcrimes and other shortcomings. He advocated for a merciless treatment of the region and its civilians post 9/11. And, imo, no conservative media figure had a larger reach than Limbaugh during this period. He did more than anyone outside of actual government in engendering the "you're either for the Iraq War or a traitor" attitude that was commonplace among American conservatives during the W Bush administration.
The rose-tinted glasses among even some liberals WHO WERE THERE for this era pisses me off to no end. At best, in polite company during these years, you were Neville Chamberlain if you spoke out against the war, and one step from John Walker Lindh (look him up if you need to) at worst.
Yes, the mainstream press rolled over for the Bush Administration, but the jingoistic assault from AM radio (led by Rush and Hannity as a one-two punch) and FOX had to be experienced to be fully appreciated. And there WAS no liberal counter outside of blogs and a fledgling Air America with hardly any syndication. And, of course, when it all fell apart, no one who had accused you of being an outright traitor for being 100% correct apologized. Instead, they just all of a sudden didn't want to talk politics anymore. My politics weren't formed by Trump. They were formed by the nationalistic fervor of 2002-2006.
Funny, I could have said everything you just said. I was just old enough during the tail end of that era for politics to start becoming one of my primary interests, my first political positions at all were being against the Iraq War and being anti torture, and the internet was just pervasive enough that it was easy to get access to things. I remember hearing things like "schools will be bombed" just after 9/11 on the radio and being terrified. I mean, I was a child, who wouldn't be scared. And yeah, you really did have to experience that era to understand it. It was an entirely different world to the one we live in today. A big pastime was bashing, often justifiably, retrograde Christian forces in America which largely don't exist anymore. By the time you got to the McCain/Obama election you were just happy to see it over, both seemed worlds better.
The Democratic activists I listened to at the time were against the Patriot Act for civil liberties reasons and were largely supportive of Wikileaks and a society that protected free speech. It's no wonder, since at that time you could lose your job for questioning the war if you were a journalist or if you were in the public eye. Those people have been cast out of the modern Democratic Party. Those were some big reasons I was a pretty solid Democrat during this time and remained so until the 2010's, until I was forced to reevaluate where I stood on the new spectrum.
Just going to pile on with my own pet Limbaugh grievance here, as I think it's a key part of his career that should be remembered.
There was probably no more important media figure boosting the 2003 Iraq invasion than Limbaugh. He spread the misinformation about WMD's. He spread the misinformation about connections between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. He whitewashed shortcomings in disastrous post-Hussein occupation, he made excuses and whitewashed US war crimes in Iraq. He demonized press outlets that exposed Bush admin lies, warcrimes and other shortcomings. He advocated for a merciless treatment of the region and its civilians post 9/11. And, imo, no conservative media figure had a larger reach than Limbaugh during this period. He did more than anyone outside of actual government in engendering the "you're either for the Iraq War or a traitor" attitude that was commonplace among American conservatives during the W Bush administration.
The rose-tinted glasses among even some liberals WHO WERE THERE for this era pisses me off to no end. At best, in polite company during these years, you were Neville Chamberlain if you spoke out against the war, and one step from John Walker Lindh (look him up if you need to) at worst.
Yes, the mainstream press rolled over for the Bush Administration, but the jingoistic assault from AM radio (led by Rush and Hannity as a one-two punch) and FOX had to be experienced to be fully appreciated. And there WAS no liberal counter outside of blogs and a fledgling Air America with hardly any syndication. And, of course, when it all fell apart, no one who had accused you of being an outright traitor for being 100% correct apologized. Instead, they just all of a sudden didn't want to talk politics anymore. My politics weren't formed by Trump. They were formed by the nationalistic fervor of 2002-2006.
Funny, I could have said everything you just said. I was just old enough during the tail end of that era for politics to start becoming one of my primary interests, my first political positions at all were being against the Iraq War and being anti torture, and the internet was just pervasive enough that it was easy to get access to things. I remember hearing things like "schools will be bombed" just after 9/11 on the radio and being terrified. I mean, I was a child, who wouldn't be scared. And yeah, you really did have to experience that era to understand it. It was an entirely different world to the one we live in today. A big pastime was bashing, often justifiably, retrograde Christian forces in America which largely don't exist anymore. By the time you got to the McCain/Obama election you were just happy to see it over, both seemed worlds better.
The Democratic activists I listened to at the time were against the Patriot Act for civil liberties reasons and were largely supportive of Wikileaks and a society that protected free speech. It's no wonder, since at that time you could lose your job for questioning the war if you were a journalist or if you were in the public eye. Those people have been cast out of the modern Democratic Party. Those were some big reasons I was a pretty solid Democrat during this time and remained so until the 2010's, until I was forced to reevaluate where I stood on the new spectrum.
It wasn't called that at the time, but what has now been termed as "cancellation" was just as prevalent back then, if not more so. It's easy to look at people in the media like Bill Maher, Ashley Banfield, Phil Donahue and Jesse Ventura losing their shows within 18 months of each other for not towing the line on the war fever, but it was pretty noticeable for everyday people as well. My roommate at the time also happened to be the one who was renting me my room in his house. In the weeks leading up to the war, he literally started wearing an American flag bandana on his head and started using the phrase "love it or leave it" in casual conversation. In that case, I didn't really feel like there was any room for discussion about how I was certain everything we were being sold was a bunch of nonsense. No, I was not cancelled, nor were any of my rights taken away. But I did make a calculated decision to keep my mouth shut around certain people (which was, at the time, MOST people) out of self-preservation.
The retrograde Christian forces are still there on the right, but from 2000-2008, they were THE show, and they weren't afraid to be on TV talking about it every chance they got. The problem is, they lost on their #1 issue for that time period, which was preventing gay marriage (and the fact that many of their leaders were caught up in the Abarmof scandal). They did a tactical retreat. None of the voting patterns of that cross-section of voters have changed. But you no longer see people like Ralph Reed and Tony Perkins on TV.
@_Nightfall_: I don't know exactly how folks have been treating you or what it looks like on the ground, but a LOT of people do talk down to women and act condescending, just as a lot of people try to act extra helpful and friendly to women. Condescension, being treated as incapable (mentally or physically), and traditional chivalry often overlap and coincide.
You ain't look very old, but I don't think you need to look pretty old for people to offer you help. Folks at HEB will sometimes offer to help me carry stuff to my car, even though I don't look very old (I'm 30 and I don't think I look much older than that). I wouldn't really be surprised if some random guy started talking down to me; that happens to women all the time.
It's possible that people avoided treating you a certain way when you were with your boyfriend. Put a man on the scene and the dynamics can change a lot. A single woman is treated differently, which can be good or bad.
I'm sorry to hear that you're not accustomed to people being nice to you. That kind of treatment is something we should be able to take for granted.
Not sure the politics thread is where to post this but what the hey? Some friends of mine have gotten me into investing in crypto currency. I was reluctant at first but after researching it I think this could be the future. It might even be a way for us middle-class schmucks to build real wealth, like legacy kind of wealth. Any thoughts from you fellow politics contributers? A fair amount of y'all seem to know your shit...
Not sure the politics thread is where to post this but what the hey? Some friends of mine have gotten me into investing in crypto currency. I was reluctant at first but after researching it I think this could be the future. It might even be a way for us middle-class schmucks to build real wealth, like legacy kind of wealth. Any thoughts from you fellow politics contributers? A fair amount of y'all seem to know your shit...
It isn’t the future because national banks will not adopt it, therefore large businesses who control commerce won’t adopt it.
Black markets have adopted it because of it being harder to trace than real money and is the only reason why this fad hasn’t died.
If or when cryptocurrency gets regulated properly, then you might see it becoming slightly more mainstream, but when that happens, expect the only ones to profit from it are banks.
Not sure the politics thread is where to post this but what the hey? Some friends of mine have gotten me into investing in crypto currency. I was reluctant at first but after researching it I think this could be the future. It might even be a way for us middle-class schmucks to build real wealth, like legacy kind of wealth. Any thoughts from you fellow politics contributers? A fair amount of y'all seem to know your shit...
It isn’t the future because national banks will not adopt it, therefore large businesses who control commerce won’t adopt it.
Black markets have adopted it because of it being harder to trace than real money and is the only reason why this fad hasn’t died.
If or when cryptocurrency gets regulated properly, then you might see it becoming slightly more mainstream, but when that happens, expect the only ones to profit from it are banks.
Is a national bank adoption required? To me it seems crypto is more like a commodity, such as gold, that can be quickly and easily converted to other currencies. I'm not sure any national bank needs to be signed on for crypto to work. There isn't anything backing any monetary system anymore so it's basically faith in the national systems that backs any currency. Crypto isn't anything all that different. Just easier to trade and not tied into any one system...
@Balrog99 everything (in a free market) is subject to the laws of supply and demand to determine price. However, things can be more or less sensitive to those. Most goods have inherent value. Thus, while popularity of something like furniture can go up or down, leading to considerable fluctuations in price, it will always be of value to someone.
Cryptocurrencies have no inherent value at all and thus it's entirely possible that they can become of zero worth overnight. The recent Gamestop episode provided an example of how difficult it can be to sell shares when the market is falling and that issue would be greatly exacerbated if you tried to sell a cryptocurrency while it was falling in value.
From my perspective, cryptocurrencies have no useful purpose and therefore it would be entirely possible for the whole lot of them to disappear overnight. The creators of them would no doubt disagree, but the essential selling point I think is to allow people to buy and sell anonymously. I suspect that's seen as something much more positive in America, so you may be attracted by that attribute - rather than mainly seeing the potential for abuse.
Though everyone has heard of Bitcoins, there are a whole host of these currencies - see this site for instance. That currently lists 1,867 as "dead" coins with 405 currently alive - most of those though are recent issues and will definitely end up on the dead (worthless) list in the near future.
Hence my advice would be to steer well clear of this investment if your aim is to generate funds for a specific purpose later in life. If you just want an entertaining gamble with funds you're prepared to lose though, then of course go for it - perhaps pick an ICO for a new currency and hope you strike lucky with the next Bitcoin. Best of luck .
By the way I came across this article when looking for information on the number of cryptocurrencies. That gives short and readable information about them.
Not sure the politics thread is where to post this but what the hey? Some friends of mine have gotten me into investing in crypto currency. I was reluctant at first but after researching it I think this could be the future. It might even be a way for us middle-class schmucks to build real wealth, like legacy kind of wealth. Any thoughts from you fellow politics contributers? A fair amount of y'all seem to know your shit...
If anything is LESS real than the wealth generated in the stock market, it's cryptocurrency, and I'm frankly perplexed that people seem to think this is going to be a lasting source of wealth. It is not a stable currency, it isn't backed up by anything (say, for instance, a government) and I'm not even sure what sort of purchases you can even make with it without using a third party to convert it. In fact, even attempting to make a large purchase of it is going to be flagged as an online gambling transaction by banks in some cases. It's greatest value is obviously to people who want to sell or purchase things illegally without leaving a financial trail.
I mean, I guess you could argue it's worth whatever an the individual person you are selling to is willing to pay for it, but I've seen people compare it to investing in gold and silver, but that doesn't really wash, because the gold and silver people are buying physically exists on the material plane. These are just digital assets. I suppose you could argue the money in your bank is just being digitally transferred as well, but if you went to the bank and said you wanted $10,000 in cash out of your account, they would give you ACTUAL bills.
The fact is no bank is going to start trading in it, and no government (at least not this one) is going to recognize it as legal tender (at least while any of us are alive). The main point is, it's not backed up by ANYTHING. Your bank accounts are all insured by the FDIC up $250,000 each, meaning if the bank goes under, you don't lose your money. This was implemented when Roosevelt came into office during the Depression, to get people to put their money back in the banks. No one is going to insure your $250,000.00 of bitcoin, and to most of the world, it might as well not exist. I don't even know what it is. Is it a currency, a commodity, a future, a security?? To me, it's just an amorphous concept people have decided is worth something, in the same way you used to be able to barter an axe for a chicken.
None of this even accounts for the online presence of professional hackers. And it's also just not very stable. It's worth fluctuates at a much higher rate than any widely-used currency, and I guess my final point is, what can you do with it besides cash it out?? Until I see everyday retailers pricing their goods in crypto right next to the dollar amount, I'll remain HEAVILY skeptical. It's probably really useful if you want to shower tips on cam models though.
Crypto currencies look too much like a Ponzi scheme for my liking but if you get out at the right time there’s apparently good money in it. I expect that the successful ones are already quite high value though
Not sure the politics thread is where to post this but what the hey? Some friends of mine have gotten me into investing in crypto currency. I was reluctant at first but after researching it I think this could be the future. It might even be a way for us middle-class schmucks to build real wealth, like legacy kind of wealth. Any thoughts from you fellow politics contributers? A fair amount of y'all seem to know your shit...
If anything is LESS real than the wealth generated in the stock market, it's cryptocurrency, and I'm frankly perplexed that people seem to think this is going to be a lasting source of wealth. It is not a stable currency, it isn't backed up by anything (say, for instance, a government) and I'm not even sure what sort of purchases you can even make with it without using a third party to convert it. In fact, even attempting to make a large purchase of it is going to be flagged as an online gambling transaction by banks in some cases. It's greatest value is obviously to people who want to sell or purchase things illegally without leaving a financial trail.
I mean, I guess you could argue it's worth whatever an the individual person you are selling to is willing to pay for it, but I've seen people compare it to investing in gold and silver, but that doesn't really wash, because the gold and silver people are buying physically exists on the material plane. These are just digital assets. I suppose you could argue the money in your bank is just being digitally transferred as well, but if you went to the bank and said you wanted $10,000 in cash out of your account, they would give you ACTUAL bills.
The fact is no bank is going to start trading in it, and no government (at least not this one) is going to recognize it as legal tender (at least while any of us are alive). The main point is, it's not backed up by ANYTHING. Your bank accounts are all insured by the FDIC up $250,000 each, meaning if the bank goes under, you don't lose your money. This was implemented when Roosevelt came into office during the Depression, to get people to put their money back in the banks. No one is going to insure your $250,000.00 of bitcoin, and to most of the world, it might as well not exist. I don't even know what it is. Is it a currency, a commodity, a future, a security?? To me, it's just an amorphous concept people have decided is worth something, in the same way you used to be able to barter an axe for a chicken.
None of this even accounts for the online presence of professional hackers. And it's also just not very stable. It's worth fluctuates at a much higher rate than any widely-used currency, and I guess my final point is, what can you do with it besides cash it out?? Until I see everyday retailers pricing their goods in crypto right next to the dollar amount, I'll remain HEAVILY skeptical. It's probably really useful if you want to shower tips on cam models though.
There's a Bitcoin ATM at the gas station right by my house. I'm usually skeptical about these types of things, but I'm not so sure this isn't the wave of the future. I'm no big fan of Elon Musk (prima Donna anybody?) but he clearly thinks Bitcoin is real enough for Tesla.
The OECD is looking carefully at how this area can be regulated and there are proposals for a reporting regime like that which exists for bank accounts, the common reporting standard. Platform providers would collect cdd and account information and report it to tax authorities for exchange. It probably needs some adapting to fit this asset class though
Not sure the politics thread is where to post this but what the hey? Some friends of mine have gotten me into investing in crypto currency. I was reluctant at first but after researching it I think this could be the future. It might even be a way for us middle-class schmucks to build real wealth, like legacy kind of wealth. Any thoughts from you fellow politics contributers? A fair amount of y'all seem to know your shit...
If anything is LESS real than the wealth generated in the stock market, it's cryptocurrency, and I'm frankly perplexed that people seem to think this is going to be a lasting source of wealth. It is not a stable currency, it isn't backed up by anything (say, for instance, a government) and I'm not even sure what sort of purchases you can even make with it without using a third party to convert it. In fact, even attempting to make a large purchase of it is going to be flagged as an online gambling transaction by banks in some cases. It's greatest value is obviously to people who want to sell or purchase things illegally without leaving a financial trail.
I mean, I guess you could argue it's worth whatever an the individual person you are selling to is willing to pay for it, but I've seen people compare it to investing in gold and silver, but that doesn't really wash, because the gold and silver people are buying physically exists on the material plane. These are just digital assets. I suppose you could argue the money in your bank is just being digitally transferred as well, but if you went to the bank and said you wanted $10,000 in cash out of your account, they would give you ACTUAL bills.
The fact is no bank is going to start trading in it, and no government (at least not this one) is going to recognize it as legal tender (at least while any of us are alive). The main point is, it's not backed up by ANYTHING. Your bank accounts are all insured by the FDIC up $250,000 each, meaning if the bank goes under, you don't lose your money. This was implemented when Roosevelt came into office during the Depression, to get people to put their money back in the banks. No one is going to insure your $250,000.00 of bitcoin, and to most of the world, it might as well not exist. I don't even know what it is. Is it a currency, a commodity, a future, a security?? To me, it's just an amorphous concept people have decided is worth something, in the same way you used to be able to barter an axe for a chicken.
None of this even accounts for the online presence of professional hackers. And it's also just not very stable. It's worth fluctuates at a much higher rate than any widely-used currency, and I guess my final point is, what can you do with it besides cash it out?? Until I see everyday retailers pricing their goods in crypto right next to the dollar amount, I'll remain HEAVILY skeptical. It's probably really useful if you want to shower tips on cam models though.
There's a Bitcoin ATM at the gas station right by my house. I'm usually skeptical about these types of things, but I'm not so sure this isn't the wave of the future. I'm no big fan of Elon Musk (prima Donna anybody?) but he clearly thinks Bitcoin is real enough for Tesla.
But how is this different than any other ATM machine?
Instead of letting a bank, which is federally regulated to protect your money, handle the banking transaction, you are letting some unknown entity, probably part of some criminal enterprise handle it instead with zero regulations.
A single Bitcoin at the moment is worth $61,759.24 Canadian. When you trade in Bitcoin with that machine, you are practically helping the actual owners of the said coin launder money, while also tucking away a little service charge.
It sounds like this is not a consideration of trading for you as much as a buy and hold. So look at it as portfolio allocation. It can’t be negatively correlated very well, usually you would use bonds to lower your portfolios overall risk because of stock volatility. Depending on age and goals a portfolio can be adjusted by the uncorrelation of assets. You can’t even use it as a cash asset because it isn’t legally accepted as cash by the governments of the world. So where do you put it in your portfolio to manage your risks? It seems to rise and fall with tech stock but it is not a tech stock really in how it behaves.
Here is the thing, there is almost no way this will not be regulated which will change how we look at it. If you want to take a shot, keep it separate from the rest of your portfolio. It could be big one day, but unlike Microsoft, negatively correlating in your portfolio is eh... not sure is possible whatever some managers say. So keep your assets set to meet your retirement goals, or home buying goals, or whatever goals and put into cryptocurrency what you can afford that will not risk those goals.
I'm honestly surprised at the answers that have been given for the bitcoin question. Not saying they are wrong, it's just that I remember when bitcoins had a good rep, and that wasn't that long ago. What was it, 10 years or so? But back then, it wasn't about investing or trading them, it was all about mining them, that is, generating new bitcoins from your house using some specialized hardware. Mining bitcoins was all the rage back then. And a few years from that, some legit places accepted payment in bitcoins, such as some cafés and restaurants. But I never thought that cryptocurrencies encouraged illegal activities. Now that I think about it, I can see the point that you guys are making.
There's been quite a lot of adverse comment as well about the mining activities. This is one way of trying to both encourage and manage increasing demand, but as time goes on the amount of computer time required to mine each extra Bitcoin goes up - and that will continue to be the case as the total supply nears its pre-set limit (18.5 million issued out of a 21 million limit). I know I can be criticized for using my computer too much, but there has been real environmental concern about the sheer scale of industrial mining of Bitcoins and the huge amount of energy that requires - see this article for instance which suggests that Bitcoin mining consumes more energy than the whole of Argentina.
I've seen that article. To your point, another issue with mining is that the value of each mined bitcoin decreases over time, while the difficulty of mining it increases.
In the early days it was possible to mine them from your home with a somewhat modest investment in hardware. Nowadays that's impossible.
As others have said, bitcoins have no inherent value. They have no individual or state backing them up, as is the case with every other currency. And they have no purpose outside of acting like a currency, unlike something like gold or silver.
Bitcoin evangelists say the same is true of state issued currency, but it's not. All currency is really just debt and there is an ultimate debtor in the case of regular currency, the state. Not so with cryptocurrencies.
As others have said, thinking about it as a speculative investment that complements other investments you've made is the smartest way to go. Folks have made money on it. But, as I've suggested before, the best investment advice if you're not a pro is to put money in an index fund. If you're looking to build wealth towards some long-term horizon. In the aggregate, nothing performs better for amateur investors.
I've seen that article. To your point, another issue with mining is that the value of each mined bitcoin decreases over time, while the difficulty of mining it increases.
In the early days it was possible to mine them from your home with a somewhat modest investment in hardware. Nowadays that's impossible.
We have an intern here at work who mines Bitcoin. He's basically got a water-cooled supercomputer in his bedroom cranking out the calculations. Really strange how it all works...
We have an intern here at work who mines Bitcoin. He's basically got a water-cooled supercomputer in his bedroom cranking out the calculations. Really strange how it all works...
What's his take on it? Is it profitable for him, or is it getting worse for him each year?
We have an intern here at work who mines Bitcoin. He's basically got a water-cooled supercomputer in his bedroom cranking out the calculations. Really strange how it all works...
What's his take on it? Is it profitable for him, or is it getting worse for him each year?
It's been profitable for him over the years but definately less so lately. He's started moving his Bitcoin into Ethereum now. He says Ethereum has a better 'blockchain model'. My friend I mentioned earlier is getting into Telcoin. He thinks it's going to '"take off" soon...
I guess I'm a little ignorant on the whole idea of "mining" this currency, but it sounds like it supposed to mimic the real-life process of mining valuable minerals, but instead of chipping away at rocks, it's measured by how much computing power you can dedicate to it?? If that's the case it's even weirder than I thought. Does this somehow produce wealth to the people issuing the currency??
I guess I'm a little ignorant on the whole idea of "mining" this currency, but it sounds like it supposed to mimic the real-life process of mining valuable minerals, but instead of chipping away at rocks, it's measured by how much computing power you can dedicate to it?? If that's the case it's even weirder than I thought. Does this somehow produce wealth to the people issuing the currency??
Knowledge is power, power leads to wealth?
But seriously, the value of the mining is due to fact that a significant amount of computing power is required for the encryption/decryption algorithms securing the 'block-chain' (basically the transaction records). Without assigning a monetary value to that computing, people wouldn't do it and there is no mega-computer powerful enough to do it on it's own.
Every block contains a series of tags that need to be correct. You are basically brute force searching for the solution of each tag to get the block identified. Then you get paid for finishing the block.
I guess I'm a little ignorant on the whole idea of "mining" this currency, but it sounds like it supposed to mimic the real-life process of mining valuable minerals, but instead of chipping away at rocks, it's measured by how much computing power you can dedicate to it?? If that's the case it's even weirder than I thought. Does this somehow produce wealth to the people issuing the currency??
Knowledge is power, power leads to wealth?
But seriously, the value of the mining is due to fact that a significant amount of computing power is required for the encryption/decryption algorithms securing the 'block-chain' (basically the transaction records). Without assigning a monetary value to that computing, people wouldn't do it and there is no mega-computer powerful enough to do it on it's own.
And this must also be why processing a transaction can take long. This does nothing but enhance my initial skepticism.
They set up a maximum currency amount such that people will invest money in the hardware that can get them the money and they make it subsequently more difficult by reducing the solution rate and payments for it. From the outside of seems to be a long term money scheme. However, it appears that the value is significant enough to keep people involved and invested.
I don't know what to make of it but I am sure that if you are resourceful enough there is profit to be made somehow
I guess I'm a little ignorant on the whole idea of "mining" this currency, but it sounds like it supposed to mimic the real-life process of mining valuable minerals, but instead of chipping away at rocks, it's measured by how much computing power you can dedicate to it?? If that's the case it's even weirder than I thought. Does this somehow produce wealth to the people issuing the currency??
I like to think of it more like a giant jigsaw puzzle. It could have thousands or even millions of individual pieces, but it's not infinite. And no two pieces are alike, each one is completely different from the others. But the pieces are not given to you, you have to make them. Now, you can't give each piece any shape that you want. On the contrary, there is only one way to make each piece, and that is by proving that it has certain characteristics. In other words, you have to prove that the piece exists, and that proof will give you ownership of the piece. The proof in question is a mathematical proof, like a theorem. In principle, you could do this with pen and paper. But it would take too much time. It's better to just have some hardware brute force it until it can find the solution. But here's the catch: every time a new piece is produced, the proof for the next piece will be much harder. So you need more powerful hardware. And so on, and so on... and, each time a new piece is made, the next one will be worth much less, even though more energy was spent to prove that it exists.
Well, that certainly made more sense in my head before I posted it, now it reads like gibberish.
Comments
Um no, no shrinks for me. Far too many bad experiences.
I am fine... ish. Still having difficulty with losing my boyfriend, but other than that I am okay.
Really it is not that people are mean to me, that I would understand. Everyone is excruciatingly nice to me. I don't get it. This is what happened.
My neighbor took me to the local convince store to get water. Yep I have a filter picture but my cat refuses to drink cold water the weirdo, so I get him a gallon or two of water every month. My neighbor's mother had her car parked in front of my garage so instead of waking her up she just took me herself. So I have my water, waiting in line six feet apart and the guy in front of me says, Here, let me hold those for you. I am okay, thank you though. Please, it is just water, let me help you. I gave up, not going to argue with him about water. The young couple in front of him is listening and they say, Well she can go in front. I didn't even get to say anything before the guy just takes my water and sets it on the counter. My face must have been bright red I was so embarrassed. The cashier says, Don't worry about it honey, sometimes people are nice. Then she takes the water I just paid for and starts to walk away. The other girl behind the counter looks behind me at the couple and says, Next. I am just staring, like what the hell, where is she going with my water? The new cashier says, Oh, I think she is helping you sweetie. Sure enough, here comes the young girl around the counter lugging my water. When she gets up beside me she asks, Where's your car hon? I felt like I was in an episode of Twilight Zone as I led her to the car and opened the door for her. There you go babe. Of course I said thank you. Face on fire I open the front door and get in, my neighbor asks, What was that about? I have not one clue.
Be honest, do I look elderly and infirm? I am inches taller than the girl. Not drunk, um yet. My mind spinning when I got home is what had me opening the bottle of wine. I really don't get it. I mean, yeah guys can be kind of ridiculous, my neighbor`s husband refuses to let me shovel my own snow. I don't even bother arguing with him anymore, even though he refuses to take anything for helping me I have just started taking a six pack of beer over and give it to his wife when he is out. She puts it in the basement fridge and says, He'll drink it on Sunday. Everyone treats me that way though. My neighbors I get, they knew my boyfriend before I did, everyone else though? I am used to people making fun of me, not helping me. And not even exaggerating, they talk to me like I am a teenager or like really, really old. I don't get it. It feels like the whole world is talking down to me. It is infuriating when my mechanic explains tire pressure to me. Not that he is using small words, not that he is talking really slow or even that he still looks like he knows I won't understand, it is that he obviously finds it endearing. Endearing! Are you kidding me?!? This was while my boyfriend was still alive, he just laughed while I fumed the whole way home. I am used to being in a fishbowl everyone staring, none of my business and if I am funny looking so be it. I just never look at people anymore. When I started transitioning is when I started wearing glasses, not to help me see they were reading glasses at the time, I wore them because they made everyone more than a foot away look fuzzy, so I didn't have to see the looks on their faces. Then I somehow became invisible, God that was a wonderful time, got prescription glasses and started just enjoying my life. A few years ago people started staring again. Ugh! Okay, just ignore them all, it is much harder to ignore someone talking to you though, not without being rude.
I am so afraid when I am out and about now that I don't have him with me everywhere I go. It's not that people are being mean to me at all, mostly it just feels like I have somehow slipped into an alternate universe while I wasn't looking. It doesn't make me less terrified, just extremely confused.
Anyway, sorry about all of that.
Funny, I could have said everything you just said. I was just old enough during the tail end of that era for politics to start becoming one of my primary interests, my first political positions at all were being against the Iraq War and being anti torture, and the internet was just pervasive enough that it was easy to get access to things. I remember hearing things like "schools will be bombed" just after 9/11 on the radio and being terrified. I mean, I was a child, who wouldn't be scared. And yeah, you really did have to experience that era to understand it. It was an entirely different world to the one we live in today. A big pastime was bashing, often justifiably, retrograde Christian forces in America which largely don't exist anymore. By the time you got to the McCain/Obama election you were just happy to see it over, both seemed worlds better.
The Democratic activists I listened to at the time were against the Patriot Act for civil liberties reasons and were largely supportive of Wikileaks and a society that protected free speech. It's no wonder, since at that time you could lose your job for questioning the war if you were a journalist or if you were in the public eye. Those people have been cast out of the modern Democratic Party. Those were some big reasons I was a pretty solid Democrat during this time and remained so until the 2010's, until I was forced to reevaluate where I stood on the new spectrum.
It wasn't called that at the time, but what has now been termed as "cancellation" was just as prevalent back then, if not more so. It's easy to look at people in the media like Bill Maher, Ashley Banfield, Phil Donahue and Jesse Ventura losing their shows within 18 months of each other for not towing the line on the war fever, but it was pretty noticeable for everyday people as well. My roommate at the time also happened to be the one who was renting me my room in his house. In the weeks leading up to the war, he literally started wearing an American flag bandana on his head and started using the phrase "love it or leave it" in casual conversation. In that case, I didn't really feel like there was any room for discussion about how I was certain everything we were being sold was a bunch of nonsense. No, I was not cancelled, nor were any of my rights taken away. But I did make a calculated decision to keep my mouth shut around certain people (which was, at the time, MOST people) out of self-preservation.
The retrograde Christian forces are still there on the right, but from 2000-2008, they were THE show, and they weren't afraid to be on TV talking about it every chance they got. The problem is, they lost on their #1 issue for that time period, which was preventing gay marriage (and the fact that many of their leaders were caught up in the Abarmof scandal). They did a tactical retreat. None of the voting patterns of that cross-section of voters have changed. But you no longer see people like Ralph Reed and Tony Perkins on TV.
You ain't look very old, but I don't think you need to look pretty old for people to offer you help. Folks at HEB will sometimes offer to help me carry stuff to my car, even though I don't look very old (I'm 30 and I don't think I look much older than that). I wouldn't really be surprised if some random guy started talking down to me; that happens to women all the time.
It's possible that people avoided treating you a certain way when you were with your boyfriend. Put a man on the scene and the dynamics can change a lot. A single woman is treated differently, which can be good or bad.
I'm sorry to hear that you're not accustomed to people being nice to you. That kind of treatment is something we should be able to take for granted.
It isn’t the future because national banks will not adopt it, therefore large businesses who control commerce won’t adopt it.
Black markets have adopted it because of it being harder to trace than real money and is the only reason why this fad hasn’t died.
If or when cryptocurrency gets regulated properly, then you might see it becoming slightly more mainstream, but when that happens, expect the only ones to profit from it are banks.
Is a national bank adoption required? To me it seems crypto is more like a commodity, such as gold, that can be quickly and easily converted to other currencies. I'm not sure any national bank needs to be signed on for crypto to work. There isn't anything backing any monetary system anymore so it's basically faith in the national systems that backs any currency. Crypto isn't anything all that different. Just easier to trade and not tied into any one system...
Cryptocurrencies have no inherent value at all and thus it's entirely possible that they can become of zero worth overnight. The recent Gamestop episode provided an example of how difficult it can be to sell shares when the market is falling and that issue would be greatly exacerbated if you tried to sell a cryptocurrency while it was falling in value.
From my perspective, cryptocurrencies have no useful purpose and therefore it would be entirely possible for the whole lot of them to disappear overnight. The creators of them would no doubt disagree, but the essential selling point I think is to allow people to buy and sell anonymously. I suspect that's seen as something much more positive in America, so you may be attracted by that attribute - rather than mainly seeing the potential for abuse.
Though everyone has heard of Bitcoins, there are a whole host of these currencies - see this site for instance. That currently lists 1,867 as "dead" coins with 405 currently alive - most of those though are recent issues and will definitely end up on the dead (worthless) list in the near future.
Hence my advice would be to steer well clear of this investment if your aim is to generate funds for a specific purpose later in life. If you just want an entertaining gamble with funds you're prepared to lose though, then of course go for it - perhaps pick an ICO for a new currency and hope you strike lucky with the next Bitcoin. Best of luck
By the way I came across this article when looking for information on the number of cryptocurrencies. That gives short and readable information about them.
If anything is LESS real than the wealth generated in the stock market, it's cryptocurrency, and I'm frankly perplexed that people seem to think this is going to be a lasting source of wealth. It is not a stable currency, it isn't backed up by anything (say, for instance, a government) and I'm not even sure what sort of purchases you can even make with it without using a third party to convert it. In fact, even attempting to make a large purchase of it is going to be flagged as an online gambling transaction by banks in some cases. It's greatest value is obviously to people who want to sell or purchase things illegally without leaving a financial trail.
I mean, I guess you could argue it's worth whatever an the individual person you are selling to is willing to pay for it, but I've seen people compare it to investing in gold and silver, but that doesn't really wash, because the gold and silver people are buying physically exists on the material plane. These are just digital assets. I suppose you could argue the money in your bank is just being digitally transferred as well, but if you went to the bank and said you wanted $10,000 in cash out of your account, they would give you ACTUAL bills.
The fact is no bank is going to start trading in it, and no government (at least not this one) is going to recognize it as legal tender (at least while any of us are alive). The main point is, it's not backed up by ANYTHING. Your bank accounts are all insured by the FDIC up $250,000 each, meaning if the bank goes under, you don't lose your money. This was implemented when Roosevelt came into office during the Depression, to get people to put their money back in the banks. No one is going to insure your $250,000.00 of bitcoin, and to most of the world, it might as well not exist. I don't even know what it is. Is it a currency, a commodity, a future, a security?? To me, it's just an amorphous concept people have decided is worth something, in the same way you used to be able to barter an axe for a chicken.
None of this even accounts for the online presence of professional hackers. And it's also just not very stable. It's worth fluctuates at a much higher rate than any widely-used currency, and I guess my final point is, what can you do with it besides cash it out?? Until I see everyday retailers pricing their goods in crypto right next to the dollar amount, I'll remain HEAVILY skeptical. It's probably really useful if you want to shower tips on cam models though.
There's a Bitcoin ATM at the gas station right by my house. I'm usually skeptical about these types of things, but I'm not so sure this isn't the wave of the future. I'm no big fan of Elon Musk (prima Donna anybody?) but he clearly thinks Bitcoin is real enough for Tesla.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-virtual-currencies-an-overview-of-tax-treatments-and-emerging-tax-policy-issues.htm
But how is this different than any other ATM machine?
Instead of letting a bank, which is federally regulated to protect your money, handle the banking transaction, you are letting some unknown entity, probably part of some criminal enterprise handle it instead with zero regulations.
A single Bitcoin at the moment is worth $61,759.24 Canadian. When you trade in Bitcoin with that machine, you are practically helping the actual owners of the said coin launder money, while also tucking away a little service charge.
Here is the thing, there is almost no way this will not be regulated which will change how we look at it. If you want to take a shot, keep it separate from the rest of your portfolio. It could be big one day, but unlike Microsoft, negatively correlating in your portfolio is eh... not sure is possible whatever some managers say. So keep your assets set to meet your retirement goals, or home buying goals, or whatever goals and put into cryptocurrency what you can afford that will not risk those goals.
Just what I would do.
In the early days it was possible to mine them from your home with a somewhat modest investment in hardware. Nowadays that's impossible.
Bitcoin evangelists say the same is true of state issued currency, but it's not. All currency is really just debt and there is an ultimate debtor in the case of regular currency, the state. Not so with cryptocurrencies.
As others have said, thinking about it as a speculative investment that complements other investments you've made is the smartest way to go. Folks have made money on it. But, as I've suggested before, the best investment advice if you're not a pro is to put money in an index fund. If you're looking to build wealth towards some long-term horizon. In the aggregate, nothing performs better for amateur investors.
We have an intern here at work who mines Bitcoin. He's basically got a water-cooled supercomputer in his bedroom cranking out the calculations. Really strange how it all works...
What's his take on it? Is it profitable for him, or is it getting worse for him each year?
It's been profitable for him over the years but definately less so lately. He's started moving his Bitcoin into Ethereum now. He says Ethereum has a better 'blockchain model'. My friend I mentioned earlier is getting into Telcoin. He thinks it's going to '"take off" soon...
Knowledge is power, power leads to wealth?
But seriously, the value of the mining is due to fact that a significant amount of computing power is required for the encryption/decryption algorithms securing the 'block-chain' (basically the transaction records). Without assigning a monetary value to that computing, people wouldn't do it and there is no mega-computer powerful enough to do it on it's own.
Or something like that
And this must also be why processing a transaction can take long. This does nothing but enhance my initial skepticism.
I don't know what to make of it but I am sure that if you are resourceful enough there is profit to be made somehow
I like to think of it more like a giant jigsaw puzzle. It could have thousands or even millions of individual pieces, but it's not infinite. And no two pieces are alike, each one is completely different from the others. But the pieces are not given to you, you have to make them. Now, you can't give each piece any shape that you want. On the contrary, there is only one way to make each piece, and that is by proving that it has certain characteristics. In other words, you have to prove that the piece exists, and that proof will give you ownership of the piece. The proof in question is a mathematical proof, like a theorem. In principle, you could do this with pen and paper. But it would take too much time. It's better to just have some hardware brute force it until it can find the solution. But here's the catch: every time a new piece is produced, the proof for the next piece will be much harder. So you need more powerful hardware. And so on, and so on... and, each time a new piece is made, the next one will be worth much less, even though more energy was spent to prove that it exists.
Well, that certainly made more sense in my head before I posted it, now it reads like gibberish.