Quote from: Hueristic on February 15, 2017, 07:12:44 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 15, 2017, 06:16:41 PM

Quote from: pa on February 14, 2017, 06:43:44 PM

How would BTC ETF approval next month affect XMRBTC and XMRUSD over the next 3 months & the next year?

The ETF will amplify BTC volatility, which means increasingly noisy price signals for Monero in the short/mid term.

But that's not important.

The key new fundamental here is the looming probability/inevitability of Monero ETFs.

Silbert already made one for ETC. XMR is part of ICONOMI and should be part of Polychain Capital, etc. Cool

I don't think this is going to help BTC's EFT at all.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawyer-linked-to-martin-shkreli-arrested-on-fraud-charge-1450393836
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newyork/news/press-releases/former-hedge-fund-manager-and-new-york-attorney-indicted-in-multi-million-dollar-fraud-scheme

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 15, 2017, 06:16:41 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on February 15, 2017, 02:44:09 AM

BTW OS2 was far superior to windows and lost do to IBM overpricing at launch as well.

It's more complicated than that.

Win 3.0 was bundled with PCs. IBM wouldn't support non-IBM peripherals. And so on... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#1990:_Breakup)

The best version of OS2 is called "Windows NT" (which I ran for almost a decade and sorely miss). Cheesy

No Win Nt was not available for about 5 years after os2 and was primarily used for business (no directx and no backward comparability to win9x). That means no real mode driver support if you know what that is. The same thing that wiki is crying that OS2 lacked.

0s2 was a complete 32bit OS win 3.1 was 16bit layer ontop of a 8bit dos layer. Os2 did support non IBM peripherals I have no clue what your talking about there, they were just not already prewritten for the thousands of products. Any thing that was x86 compatible could have a driver written with little effort. BTW the 8088 was a 16bit chip with a 8bit address, 80286 had a 16bit address, 3086DX was 32 while the SX was 16, 486 SX/DX 32bit (SX had co-processor disabled). And thats off the top of my head so go wiki them and see if i'm right.

Wasting your time reading wiki's to make an argument is foolish, I was there and had been professionally in the market for years at that time and was one of the first 4 IBM and MAchintsh certified techs in my state. I have a clue.

From your wiki

Quote

The collaboration between IBM and Microsoft unravelled in 1990, between the releases of Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.3. During this time, Windows 3.0 became a tremendous success, selling millions of copies in its first year.[13] Much of its success was because Windows 3.0 (along with MS-DOS) was bundled with most new computers.[14] OS/2, on the other hand, was available only as an expensive stand-alone software package. In addition, OS/2 lacked device drivers for many common devices such as printers, particularly non-IBM hardware

Lacking a driver does not equate to "wouldn't support". W3.1 was priced into every system when you bought it as per M$ licensing so you had to but Os2 separate that was a massive hurdle to adoption. Gates really screwed the world on this as well as many other tech stifling moves and WFW3.1 put the nail in the coffin as it was practically free and the Os2 equivalent was Approx $890 or so. BTW back then M$ wanted their OS pirated and intentionally left it that way so users could use it at home and business would adopt it because there work force was already trained with it. That was a very smart strategy on M$'s part. BTW I was setting up all M$ OS's since M$ began.

What does the anti-Trump FUD about Shkreli's friend have to do with the BTC ETF, and/or the inevitability of XMR ETFs?

You don't need to tell me about 8088 blah blah blah. I owned one.

10 years later, my work-study job was doing IT on campus. I supported OS2 and NT systems and so am aware of their relative strengths and weaknesses.

I learn tons of stuff from Wikipedia, all the time. Putting down information because it appears on that site is a cheap shot typical of preening snobs who lack a better argument than attacking the ~~source~~ source aggregator.

The person who stated "OS/2 lacked device drivers for many common devices such as printers, particularly non-IBM hardware" is Michal Necasek, who wrote that in a little something called "The History of OS/2."

I'll take his research (and my own recollection) over your distorted view, which seems to take pains to avoid acknowledging that NT is OS2 3.0.

Your assertion that lacking a driver does not equate to "wouldn't support" is hilarious. Talk about a distinction without a difference! Cheesy