Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 40 results by Vaccaria
Re: Would a country ever support a decentralized cryptocurrency?
Currencies are a medium of exchange and the largest medium of exchange used become money. So it makes sense to cater the currency to the global audience. This will allow users from separate corners of the world to transact between themselves without issues like foreign exchange rate differences. The bigger the market of people that transact between themselves, the bigger the division of labor and the productivity of people.
For me it doesn't make sense to limit a currency to a specific geographic area. Economic, social or political differences are not important when using money.
For me it doesn't make sense to limit a currency to a specific geographic area. Economic, social or political differences are not important when using money.
One reason for limiting the currency - or at least cater specifically - to a geographic region or certain group of people, is the belief that it will speed up adoption (because its a problem-solver). But I guess in the long run, the currency would have to cater to the global audience anyway. So I guess its best to design one that caters to everyone (I'm not sure if it's possible to make everyone happy, though).
Then, does it have to be as simple as possible, or full of features?
Re: A serious discussion of what's funny... or not. How comedy has changed.
⭐ Merited by acarli (2)
I think it is a good progress. I see it less as restricting people from expressing themselves. Instead, it could be signs of being aware how powerful words can be, both in (unintentionally) empowering/enforcing certain beliefs and how people can be hurt by the jokes. Personally, I am impressed and glad that there are still so much fun one can have without being a racist or misogynist.
Things that are still okay: Things that are seemingly stupid/lack of judgement, culture/lifestyle/habits, politics.
(2) More political: Most of the comedians and actors have a are hardcore democrats. There's a huge bias in pretty much all of the media.
I agree with this too. Jokes are now more about pointing out how things lack common sense, and usually public event/announcements are what gets joked about.Things that are still okay: Things that are seemingly stupid/lack of judgement, culture/lifestyle/habits, politics.
Hello
It's with a cheerful heart I write down my introduction. Being a woman from where I come from limits one to having ambitions and goals.
I have made the choice to becoming a cryptocurrency bright head I have attended some functions and workshop in my locality and I have been enlightened on the basis this forum was an interesting part of the workshop and that's needless to say I would get the needed support and assistance I need to grow.
First thing I did was use the search the forum rules I wouldn't want to fall on the wrong side of it
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 it's quite plain and straight forward and would give my all to stick to it. And also the post from Lauda was loud enough https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1689727.0
Going through the sections it wasn't hard understanding that this was the write section for me going by the name.
Am anticipating an interesting time here
It's with a cheerful heart I write down my introduction. Being a woman from where I come from limits one to having ambitions and goals.
I have made the choice to becoming a cryptocurrency bright head I have attended some functions and workshop in my locality and I have been enlightened on the basis this forum was an interesting part of the workshop and that's needless to say I would get the needed support and assistance I need to grow.
First thing I did was use the search the forum rules I wouldn't want to fall on the wrong side of it
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 it's quite plain and straight forward and would give my all to stick to it. And also the post from Lauda was loud enough https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1689727.0
Going through the sections it wasn't hard understanding that this was the write section for me going by the name.
Am anticipating an interesting time here
Hi, and welcome! I consider myself a newbie too so it's a pleasant surprise to find someone similar who is also interested in learning (and less about ICOs and bounties). I mostly prowl the "politics and society" and "beginners and help". When I feel brave, I checked out "Development & Technical Discussion" and see how much I can absorb before I blanked out.
I am surprised by how much encouragement this introductory thread has given me.
Would a country ever support a decentralized cryptocurrency?
In the developing world, having high remittance flows (such as sub-Saharan countries) or being unbanked will make cryptocurrency very attractive for the population in general. But I'm not sure if the government themselves embrace the cryptocurrency.
Here's a thought: If you were to come up with a cryptocurrency, what features does it need to make a country supportive of it?
It has to be decentralized, and the people and government/authority both willing to use it long-term.
1. What kind of situation would a country have to be in for it's government to support its population using cryptocurrency?
"Support" here should be understood as concrete changes like accepting payment or transactions using a cryptocurrency, or investing in them.
Political parties may be raising funds by creating their own tokens, but these aren't likely to be the accepted currency for everyone in the country. On the other hand, there may be cryptocurrencies used to bypass trade sanctions: Would this be an example of a cryptocurrency accepted by both the people, the government and usable by more than one country (at least, their allies)?
2. A related question would be: What kind of government system would be most accepting of cryptocurrency?
Feels like adoption of cryptocurrency will be most resistant for countries with strong currency, and vice versa. A person living in a country plague with conflict and unrest will also find cryptocurrency appealing, though in regards to this topic, there is no "central authority" in a state, is there? Would the system of government affect how appealing cryptocurrency is? (Or do you believe any government would reject it?)
Question for fun: In a zombie apocalypse, is cryptocurrency more useful as a medium of exchange (assuming the infrastructure like internet is working)? I would assume it would make it easier to safeguard your accumulated resources and let you travel with less burden.
3. Design
In your replies, I am also interested in how you would the design of the crytocurrency model: what are the incentives to "behave well"; and will it be design for use in a region, or globally (I assume the cryptocurrency will have a targeted user, as global population have too much economic, societal and political differences).
Assuming you believe cryptocurrency will never be attractive to any kind of government, then:
Would blockchain technology be adopted? If yes, how will it be used?
(This is assuming the governmental body has a basic/informed understanding of what blockchain technology is.)
Here's a thought: If you were to come up with a cryptocurrency, what features does it need to make a country supportive of it?
It has to be decentralized, and the people and government/authority both willing to use it long-term.
1. What kind of situation would a country have to be in for it's government to support its population using cryptocurrency?
"Support" here should be understood as concrete changes like accepting payment or transactions using a cryptocurrency, or investing in them.
Political parties may be raising funds by creating their own tokens, but these aren't likely to be the accepted currency for everyone in the country. On the other hand, there may be cryptocurrencies used to bypass trade sanctions: Would this be an example of a cryptocurrency accepted by both the people, the government and usable by more than one country (at least, their allies)?
2. A related question would be: What kind of government system would be most accepting of cryptocurrency?
Feels like adoption of cryptocurrency will be most resistant for countries with strong currency, and vice versa. A person living in a country plague with conflict and unrest will also find cryptocurrency appealing, though in regards to this topic, there is no "central authority" in a state, is there? Would the system of government affect how appealing cryptocurrency is? (Or do you believe any government would reject it?)
Question for fun: In a zombie apocalypse, is cryptocurrency more useful as a medium of exchange (assuming the infrastructure like internet is working)? I would assume it would make it easier to safeguard your accumulated resources and let you travel with less burden.
3. Design
In your replies, I am also interested in how you would the design of the crytocurrency model: what are the incentives to "behave well"; and will it be design for use in a region, or globally (I assume the cryptocurrency will have a targeted user, as global population have too much economic, societal and political differences).
Assuming you believe cryptocurrency will never be attractive to any kind of government, then:
Would blockchain technology be adopted? If yes, how will it be used?
(This is assuming the governmental body has a basic/informed understanding of what blockchain technology is.)
Monkey king. sand king!) i like a king
I love monkey king! but I am poor using it
Zeus is awesome after the last upgrades 
I think they must decrease or change some of his skills with a new patch.
I think they must decrease or change some of his skills with a new patch.What position do you play Zeus?
Also distruptor heroes, its so good to support but not too appreciate by people in international championship
That is true, it has so many good skills. But no one seems to use it, even at the low rank games.
First, what I understand as DAO:
A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) is an entity in a digital system facilitated by smart contracts. Smart contracts involve digital tools and protocols that help support specific transactions or other contract elements. The "computer program" is transparent, controlled by shareholders and not influenced by a central government. In simple words, its a set of rules agreed by its users, that is written as a computer program, which everyone using the software has to follow. The rules can be changed if enough users agreed to it.
(My question may be irrelevant due to a misunderstanding of how DAO works. If that's the case, please point out where I have misunderstood and how that has lead me to jump to the wrong conclusions.)
1. Big data analytics already exists.Insurance industry is interested in customer's behaviour (are you a safe driver, do you smoke?), shopping industry is interested in your habits too (which promotions are best suited for a teacher with sick mother and two children to care for), or financial system is interested in your financial habits (your preference in payment methods, the volume and frequency of transactions, etc).
2. Blockchain is a way out for service providers/companies to use big data transparently.
3. And cryptocurrencies often come up with an ecosystem that incentivize users to behave properly. They reward you for providing truthful reviews, for being an honest and reliable seller, for honestly verifying transactions, etc.
Say blockchain adoption happens for every industry, with IoT and public infrastructure connected to a system that rates everyone (because each person is involved in at least a few industry/sector). This would create a world where both the physical world and cyber world are monitored.
(Edit: I found a post discussing something similar that is already happening in China https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5026060.0)
I grew up being taught to be nice to people around me, and it was implied that we do it not for the sake of expecting something in return. At least, not immediately (there's talks about karma). The point is that being nice to others is something a good person would do. We do not treat others nicely because that would give use money, service, discounts, or access to some exclusive package. I was given a moral compass and taught to follow it when making decisions in life.
Yes, this sort of "intrinsic" reward ("be nice for nice's sake") is not enough to guide the mass: We see how being somewhat anonymous on the internet has shown that people would troll and hurl insults. And there's the psychology/sociology of being in a mob/group will "deindividualize" a person, i.e. you adopt the emotion of the group you are in.
So maybe there is merit in having an AI omnipresent judge that watches after everyone, a karma that is not based on religion but decided by the masses, complete with a karma record book that is accessible to its participants. That's what a DAO could do right?
On the other hand, I worry that people living in such a world will turn into criminals and savages when they are not watched by the system. If people are accustomed to watching over their shoulders, how civilized will a city maintain itself in a total blackout that shut off the system's eyes and ears for an hour? I am assuming 2 things here: People feel they cannot do everything they would like to do; and People will not grow to fit into the social rules/norms they are living with.
If you have played any games - video games or tabletop RPG - you will recall how your decisions are by-and-large affected by the desire to get better scores or better items? And what happen when we developed our physical infrastructure well enough to the point where this omnipresent rating system can operate indefinitely? We would live in a "gamified" reality.
Or should I not even worry about this? Will a moral compass no longer be necessary?
After writing this post, I thought of another possibility of how the future people can organize themselves. Multiple groups of semi-independent communities that have their own rules and rating systems enforced by DAO, and you choose where you want to go. Maybe something like a theme park, only these will be themed towns. A town where you won't be penalized for blaring loud musics and sporting loud modified cars around the town, while another town aims to be quiet and peaceful. Perhaps a town where nudist is the norm, and you would be penalized differently there based on your choice of clothing. Maybe two towns will have varying degrees of Sharia-compliance-y.
A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) is an entity in a digital system facilitated by smart contracts. Smart contracts involve digital tools and protocols that help support specific transactions or other contract elements. The "computer program" is transparent, controlled by shareholders and not influenced by a central government. In simple words, its a set of rules agreed by its users, that is written as a computer program, which everyone using the software has to follow. The rules can be changed if enough users agreed to it.
(My question may be irrelevant due to a misunderstanding of how DAO works. If that's the case, please point out where I have misunderstood and how that has lead me to jump to the wrong conclusions.)
1. Big data analytics already exists.Insurance industry is interested in customer's behaviour (are you a safe driver, do you smoke?), shopping industry is interested in your habits too (which promotions are best suited for a teacher with sick mother and two children to care for), or financial system is interested in your financial habits (your preference in payment methods, the volume and frequency of transactions, etc).
2. Blockchain is a way out for service providers/companies to use big data transparently.
3. And cryptocurrencies often come up with an ecosystem that incentivize users to behave properly. They reward you for providing truthful reviews, for being an honest and reliable seller, for honestly verifying transactions, etc.
Say blockchain adoption happens for every industry, with IoT and public infrastructure connected to a system that rates everyone (because each person is involved in at least a few industry/sector). This would create a world where both the physical world and cyber world are monitored.
- Your every action will be watched and rated by at least one ecosystem (when you dine outside, the insurance company will judge your choice of food and how it may affect your health, and a service-related company will judge your interaction with the servers.)
- Cameras all around the cities used to catch jaywalkers can be used to catch people littering, or helping a tourist find their direction, and punish or reward you accordingly.
(Edit: I found a post discussing something similar that is already happening in China https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5026060.0)
I grew up being taught to be nice to people around me, and it was implied that we do it not for the sake of expecting something in return. At least, not immediately (there's talks about karma). The point is that being nice to others is something a good person would do. We do not treat others nicely because that would give use money, service, discounts, or access to some exclusive package. I was given a moral compass and taught to follow it when making decisions in life.
Yes, this sort of "intrinsic" reward ("be nice for nice's sake") is not enough to guide the mass: We see how being somewhat anonymous on the internet has shown that people would troll and hurl insults. And there's the psychology/sociology of being in a mob/group will "deindividualize" a person, i.e. you adopt the emotion of the group you are in.
So maybe there is merit in having an AI omnipresent judge that watches after everyone, a karma that is not based on religion but decided by the masses, complete with a karma record book that is accessible to its participants. That's what a DAO could do right?
On the other hand, I worry that people living in such a world will turn into criminals and savages when they are not watched by the system. If people are accustomed to watching over their shoulders, how civilized will a city maintain itself in a total blackout that shut off the system's eyes and ears for an hour? I am assuming 2 things here: People feel they cannot do everything they would like to do; and People will not grow to fit into the social rules/norms they are living with.
If you have played any games - video games or tabletop RPG - you will recall how your decisions are by-and-large affected by the desire to get better scores or better items? And what happen when we developed our physical infrastructure well enough to the point where this omnipresent rating system can operate indefinitely? We would live in a "gamified" reality.
Or should I not even worry about this? Will a moral compass no longer be necessary?
After writing this post, I thought of another possibility of how the future people can organize themselves. Multiple groups of semi-independent communities that have their own rules and rating systems enforced by DAO, and you choose where you want to go. Maybe something like a theme park, only these will be themed towns. A town where you won't be penalized for blaring loud musics and sporting loud modified cars around the town, while another town aims to be quiet and peaceful. Perhaps a town where nudist is the norm, and you would be penalized differently there based on your choice of clothing. Maybe two towns will have varying degrees of Sharia-compliance-y.
Regret is an inevitable state of mind in crypto at one point or another:-
why didn't I buy that coin when it was $0.50?
why did I sell this coin early?
why didn't I take profits on the way up, only to see the value fall 50% in a market crash? (a lot of us in the last crash!)
why didn't I buy the dip?
why did I FOMO and buy at the ATH and now I'm holding an unrealised loss?
why didn't I buy more of this coin?
We're all going to make "mistakes" that lead to a feeling of regret and self-admonishment.
I have a couple of strategies here to help me dampen the feeling of regret.
1. I have to realise that regret is largely based on a "maximalist"/perfectionist mindset, which is both unrealistic and unhealthy. We are attached to the notion of maximising profits. But what would that involve? It would involve being the perfect, machine-like investor. Always buying low, selling at an ATH, taking profits at the perfect time. It's an impossible standard to live up to.
If I make a profit, I compare my profits to the stock market. If you do THAT, realise you're likely "killing it" even with a "modest" 100% gain (it's ridiculous even to put "modest" here). If you can make a 10% gain a YEAR in the stock market, that's considered a success.
Also realise that the maximalist attitude is largely shaped around only hearing one side of the story of other people's trades. People boast when they're winning, and they're quiet when they're losing. Therefore, you can start to think that everyone's doing incredibly well.
2. I can only compare myself to the other me who didn't get into cryptos at all. That's your baseline to compare to. There really is no other baseline. It's damaging and outright delusional to compare yourself to the "perfect you" that always bought at the exact bottom and sold at the exact top. That you does not exist. It's a damaging fantasy that always leads to you beating yourself up about not making the most optimal decision at each and every turn. Cryptos can quickly lose its fun if you think along those lines.
Are you in profit (as in cashed out your initial investment + profits in fiat)? Then you're winning - you're doing better than the other you that didn't bother with cryptos. Congratulations. You should extinguish any regret, and actually feel contentment at your achievement. Forget the "what ifs?" - you made a decision that has made you better off financially and you've learned a fair amount along the way.
Are you holding an unrealised loss? Then know that it's unrealised and while that can be stressful, you're doing well to hold on and you can be proud that you haven't sold yet. It won't fix the regret so easily, but you have the hope your unrealised loss can turn into a realised profit.
Are you actually making a realised loss in cryptos? Of course, this is the hardest situation of all. All you can do is see it as a lesson you paid for. Nothing is without value, and you will have learned something along the way. You gave something a try, and financially it didn't work out. You may not be out of the game, so you could be in profit in a few days or weeks' time. Or maybe you've just had enough. Fair play. Know that you're actually in a big group of people. Lots of people have faced your situation and come out the other side OK. I lost a fair amount of money in Forex a few years ago. I felt crap for a while, then I stopped feeling crap. Luckily, life moves on. Actually, without that experience with Forex, I doubt I would have found any interest in cryptos - and I have profited from cryptos much more than my Forex losses - so there is that. Plus, cryptos are a LOT more fun than Forex.
I know that everything above is purely based on financial regret, and the counterargument is that "there's more to cryptos than just making a profit" - but when it comes to regret, it's almost always about money.
why didn't I buy that coin when it was $0.50?
why did I sell this coin early?
why didn't I take profits on the way up, only to see the value fall 50% in a market crash? (a lot of us in the last crash!)
why didn't I buy the dip?
why did I FOMO and buy at the ATH and now I'm holding an unrealised loss?
why didn't I buy more of this coin?
We're all going to make "mistakes" that lead to a feeling of regret and self-admonishment.
I have a couple of strategies here to help me dampen the feeling of regret.
1. I have to realise that regret is largely based on a "maximalist"/perfectionist mindset, which is both unrealistic and unhealthy. We are attached to the notion of maximising profits. But what would that involve? It would involve being the perfect, machine-like investor. Always buying low, selling at an ATH, taking profits at the perfect time. It's an impossible standard to live up to.
If I make a profit, I compare my profits to the stock market. If you do THAT, realise you're likely "killing it" even with a "modest" 100% gain (it's ridiculous even to put "modest" here). If you can make a 10% gain a YEAR in the stock market, that's considered a success.
Also realise that the maximalist attitude is largely shaped around only hearing one side of the story of other people's trades. People boast when they're winning, and they're quiet when they're losing. Therefore, you can start to think that everyone's doing incredibly well.
2. I can only compare myself to the other me who didn't get into cryptos at all. That's your baseline to compare to. There really is no other baseline. It's damaging and outright delusional to compare yourself to the "perfect you" that always bought at the exact bottom and sold at the exact top. That you does not exist. It's a damaging fantasy that always leads to you beating yourself up about not making the most optimal decision at each and every turn. Cryptos can quickly lose its fun if you think along those lines.
Are you in profit (as in cashed out your initial investment + profits in fiat)? Then you're winning - you're doing better than the other you that didn't bother with cryptos. Congratulations. You should extinguish any regret, and actually feel contentment at your achievement. Forget the "what ifs?" - you made a decision that has made you better off financially and you've learned a fair amount along the way.
Are you holding an unrealised loss? Then know that it's unrealised and while that can be stressful, you're doing well to hold on and you can be proud that you haven't sold yet. It won't fix the regret so easily, but you have the hope your unrealised loss can turn into a realised profit.
Are you actually making a realised loss in cryptos? Of course, this is the hardest situation of all. All you can do is see it as a lesson you paid for. Nothing is without value, and you will have learned something along the way. You gave something a try, and financially it didn't work out. You may not be out of the game, so you could be in profit in a few days or weeks' time. Or maybe you've just had enough. Fair play. Know that you're actually in a big group of people. Lots of people have faced your situation and come out the other side OK. I lost a fair amount of money in Forex a few years ago. I felt crap for a while, then I stopped feeling crap. Luckily, life moves on. Actually, without that experience with Forex, I doubt I would have found any interest in cryptos - and I have profited from cryptos much more than my Forex losses - so there is that. Plus, cryptos are a LOT more fun than Forex.
I know that everything above is purely based on financial regret, and the counterargument is that "there's more to cryptos than just making a profit" - but when it comes to regret, it's almost always about money.
I think this post is as relevant now as it was back in January. A good mindset is important, and your strategy of comparing with the self that never bought crypto is interesting and useful.
I would only add on to it. My suggestion is that we commit or dedicate ourselves fully to each action/trade we made. This is done by convincing yourself through answering these 3 questions:
1. Is the current situation more favourable for you than before? Yes.
2. Do you know what will happen next? No.
3. Can you afford to lose this amount? Yes.
When I answer these 3 questions in the full presence of your mind, you will be able to find the resolve to back up your decision. And weeks later when you look back at that decision, that resolve will come back to support you.
Re: [ANN][ICO] Instoken - Powering The Global Services Marketplace
The use of clever contract on blockchain allowed Instance that function with another digital platform cannot be performed. Through that project will be developed and increasingly received more.
Yes, I like how blockchain technology is applied in Instance. Like you said, the smart contract is used cleverly. I especially like the fact that in disputes between merchant and customers, smart contract can be used to lock the Insta in the transactions and then redistribute some of it as rewards to "judges" that help resolve the dispute.
⭐ Merited by theymos (2)
With the kinds of people that rose to seats of power in democratic countries in recent years, democracy is losing its appeal.
Looking at it more broadly, "governance" does not have to just mean running a country. This thread reminds me of the ideals behind blockchain technology. Connecting decentralisation and democracy in my head also conjure up a creeping shadow: It makes me worry of the possibility that even an ecosystem or platform built based on blockchain can be corrupted. I found a discussion at Researchgate about this.
Now, about monarchy. Here's something I can share some opinion on.
I live in an absolute monarchy. As you said, the good thing is there is a guiding vision, and the monarch has a stake in the country's well-being, because it reflects his/her personal capability as the nation's leader + his/her heir will live in that country in the years to come. A monarch have to rely on a bunch of people to run the country though, so that's where issues like nepotism and corruption crops up. The silver lining is that big daddy can smack your ass and throw you out if you aren't a good boy.
Fortunately, I live at a time when my country is led by a good monarch who listens to the people. He made sudden visits to check on how his people live, and how well-run government departments are. This is a by-product of a system where government officials pander to one royal family in order to keep their position. Now, whether or not its good depends on one's perspective...
When it comes to federal budget, the country's treasury and the monarch's pocket is most likely connected. In this respect, should the monarch decides on a more involved government (more socialism than capitalism), the people stands to benefit from this pocket-treasury binding. My country is currently emphasising free medical care and education, even at the expense of the monarch's personal stash. But I can easily imagine how things would turn sour too.
If you have a monarchy, you can put all the nurture and care to a smaller group of individuals. Place your hope, future, dream, in one basket and make sure that basket is the most compassionate and competent basket the world has ever seen. There's always two sides of a coin, like you said.
Looking at it more broadly, "governance" does not have to just mean running a country. This thread reminds me of the ideals behind blockchain technology. Connecting decentralisation and democracy in my head also conjure up a creeping shadow: It makes me worry of the possibility that even an ecosystem or platform built based on blockchain can be corrupted. I found a discussion at Researchgate about this.
Now, about monarchy. Here's something I can share some opinion on.
I've gone back and forth, but at the moment I tend toward thinking that monarchy would be better than democracy, even though monarchy is clearly also very flawed. At least the monarch can have some sort of guiding vision rather than the total schizophrenia we often see in democracies, and they have more personal skin in the game, since the state's success is their success, for their entire lifetime and extending through the lifetimes of their heirs. But I've never lived in an absolute monarchy, and maybe I'd think differently if I did.
I live in an absolute monarchy. As you said, the good thing is there is a guiding vision, and the monarch has a stake in the country's well-being, because it reflects his/her personal capability as the nation's leader + his/her heir will live in that country in the years to come. A monarch have to rely on a bunch of people to run the country though, so that's where issues like nepotism and corruption crops up. The silver lining is that big daddy can smack your ass and throw you out if you aren't a good boy.
Fortunately, I live at a time when my country is led by a good monarch who listens to the people. He made sudden visits to check on how his people live, and how well-run government departments are. This is a by-product of a system where government officials pander to one royal family in order to keep their position. Now, whether or not its good depends on one's perspective...
When it comes to federal budget, the country's treasury and the monarch's pocket is most likely connected. In this respect, should the monarch decides on a more involved government (more socialism than capitalism), the people stands to benefit from this pocket-treasury binding. My country is currently emphasising free medical care and education, even at the expense of the monarch's personal stash. But I can easily imagine how things would turn sour too.
If you have a monarchy, you can put all the nurture and care to a smaller group of individuals. Place your hope, future, dream, in one basket and make sure that basket is the most compassionate and competent basket the world has ever seen. There's always two sides of a coin, like you said.
Thanks for pointing this out! I was probably one of these noobs. Being new to forum, I was not aware enough to notice the timestamp. On hindsight, that was stupid and careless of me... I'll be more careful in the future.
So it is a good practice to have a variety of wallets then?
For example,
Laminated paper wallets kept in a secure place - for long term storage (6 months and above)
Hardware wallet like Nano Ledger - for day trading (Qs: How often do you deposit/withdraw funds from exchanges into this wallet?)
Mobile wallet - For small misc transactions
When it comes to "splitting" assets into smaller amounts, can you explain why you should do so, and how/where you will split them? If it is for security, how does splitting them help? If it is for convenience, I feel it is counter-productive. Or is it related to cost of transaction in some way?
For example,
Laminated paper wallets kept in a secure place - for long term storage (6 months and above)
Hardware wallet like Nano Ledger - for day trading (Qs: How often do you deposit/withdraw funds from exchanges into this wallet?)
Mobile wallet - For small misc transactions
or if you want to use it to make purchases, then you won't really do it with 10, you do it with smaller so put that smaller amount (like 0.1BTC) in a place where you can access it easily. it can be your desktop wallet, your phone or if you really needed it a web wallet but that should be the last resort.
When it comes to "splitting" assets into smaller amounts, can you explain why you should do so, and how/where you will split them? If it is for security, how does splitting them help? If it is for convenience, I feel it is counter-productive. Or is it related to cost of transaction in some way?
After reading all your replies, I still don't gain much understanding on how a stable coin functions. I'll lay out what I know below.
#1. A "stable" coin pegs its value to either a fiat currency, or precious metal like gold.
So that means it's price is not affected (or at least not affected much) by the market's demand?
#2. From my initial understanding + the replies so far: A stable coin can create and destroy based on the demand.
So, with those two assumption in mind...
When the demand is high:
A stable coin buys fiat currency/metals to hold. By doing so, it will have more value than before. With the increase in value, it can creates more coins, up to a point where each coin will have the same value as the fiat/metal it is pegged to.
Did I get it wrong?
Another thing I noticed from the replies is that some are sceptical of a coin whose value doesn't change. "How will you profit from it?"
From my understanding so far, people will use a stable coin to "store their investment's worth" when the market is not going the way they want it.
#1. A "stable" coin pegs its value to either a fiat currency, or precious metal like gold.
So that means it's price is not affected (or at least not affected much) by the market's demand?
#2. From my initial understanding + the replies so far: A stable coin can create and destroy based on the demand.
So, with those two assumption in mind...
When the demand is high:
A stable coin buys fiat currency/metals to hold. By doing so, it will have more value than before. With the increase in value, it can creates more coins, up to a point where each coin will have the same value as the fiat/metal it is pegged to.
Did I get it wrong?
Another thing I noticed from the replies is that some are sceptical of a coin whose value doesn't change. "How will you profit from it?"
From my understanding so far, people will use a stable coin to "store their investment's worth" when the market is not going the way they want it.
From the opinions and replies, I see three types of views people have. I picked some of the replies above and share them here. (Note: I chose these replies because they are easier to understand. But the other replies are equally informative and everyone should read through every replies.)
Here are what people think of ICO with long sale periods:
View #1. It is understandable. A long sale period can be something that is necessary for a the project to run smoothly down the line.
View #2. Longer duration of sale makes it less appealing (in terms of profit).
View #3. It will seem like a fraud if the duration is too long.
Here are what people think of ICO with long sale periods:
View #1. It is understandable. A long sale period can be something that is necessary for a the project to run smoothly down the line.
There could be multiple reasons for extension of an existing defined sale date:
1. Project makers are considering market is not good to have a sale and they may loose potential investors
2. Legal reasons, they are not fully compliant and ready to start the sale and they are waiting for updates from there lawyers.
3. Other internal issue like team management, re-organization, re-structuring.
For the second example:
It is well known fact that there are ICOs which want to raise a big amount of money for there project and they are expecting that the project will take longer period of time then other ICOs to raise the funds they require, so they make the ICO sale for a long period of time.
For both the cases, these are not the factors for considering if the project is good or bad.
1. Project makers are considering market is not good to have a sale and they may loose potential investors
2. Legal reasons, they are not fully compliant and ready to start the sale and they are waiting for updates from there lawyers.
3. Other internal issue like team management, re-organization, re-structuring.
For the second example:
It is well known fact that there are ICOs which want to raise a big amount of money for there project and they are expecting that the project will take longer period of time then other ICOs to raise the funds they require, so they make the ICO sale for a long period of time.
For both the cases, these are not the factors for considering if the project is good or bad.
I think it is not so much the duration of the sale period that makes a problem for investors confidence, rather than that when they keep changing or delaying or postponing that affects confidence.
For me, if ABC says they will do 3 months presale, 3 months public sale and etc, I have no problems. But if they say 1 month and then suddenly becomes 5 months, or if they say 1 Jan but delay to 1 Jun, then I have a problem because if they can't even do ICO to schedule, then what about their roadmap?
Even 1 year is okay for me. But not EOS 1 year where there was no cap!
For me, if ABC says they will do 3 months presale, 3 months public sale and etc, I have no problems. But if they say 1 month and then suddenly becomes 5 months, or if they say 1 Jan but delay to 1 Jun, then I have a problem because if they can't even do ICO to schedule, then what about their roadmap?
Even 1 year is okay for me. But not EOS 1 year where there was no cap!
ICOs really need to think about reaching their soft cap now. 2017 was a great year for ICOs and most of the ICOs raised good money. But the situation has changed now and gathering funds is really tough. So, ICOs tend to be longer than before. I dont think that the time span of raising funds actually affects the potentiality of the project.
View #2. Longer duration of sale makes it less appealing (in terms of profit).
I don't really prefer the long duration ICO. projects. The long duration ICO projects pay you after longer duration. The reason maybe because they need more time to raise their funds.
I have not participated in Bounty programs yet, but I want to participate in short campaigns, 8-10 weeks. If the Bounty passes for such a period, then the project has a great product and a professional team. If the bounty lasts longer than the initial deadline, I will immediately abandon this project and start looking for new projects. If long periods of ICO sales, then I think they will not pay or very little pay.
The extension of the ICO, says the lack of interest of investors. If there is no interest, then there are no fees. If the ICO collects little money, then who will be interested in this project in the future?? After all, tomorrow there will be better and more powerful projects with their ICO and people will invest in them.
View #3. It will seem like a fraud if the duration is too long.
I think it is negative impression created over the ICOs as investors think anything can be happened at the extra times. Many fraud ICOs take longer time and steal the money of investors. So I suggest to the ICOs to not take longer time than promised.
In the first case the ICO ABCD might have chances that they have not raised enough amount of money to develop the their project further which is why they had extended the duration of ICO. It may also be that they are not ready with the platform yet which might have lead to the extension of the ICO.
In the second case it might be that the ICO WXYZ have a bigger project to develop which is why they have took enough time to plan and develop the platform and hence this would have made them to plan a longer ICO period than usual.
If we take it as a negative side then in both the cases the chances for the ICO to extend the ICO period just to collect more money from the people and scam them are higher too.
In the second case it might be that the ICO WXYZ have a bigger project to develop which is why they have took enough time to plan and develop the platform and hence this would have made them to plan a longer ICO period than usual.
If we take it as a negative side then in both the cases the chances for the ICO to extend the ICO period just to collect more money from the people and scam them are higher too.
The longer the ICO then it means that the people behind it are just trying to get even more money from it. It is not always good to make yourself a part of such a project as they could be scammers who are just trying to buy time to get as much money as possible before they leave. But in a bear, it could be that the ICO have not hit their target so they are trying to hit it.
⭐ Merited by Don Pedro Dinero (1)
A stable coin is any cryptocurrency pegged to a stable asset, such as gold or fiat currencies. In theory, a stablecoin will remain constant in price, as it is a representation of a known amount of an asset.
My question is: Does a stable coin have a set total coin supply? Or does it have to be able to create and destroy based on the demand?
The image in my head goes like this:
A stable coin pegged to a currency started off its business saying it would have a coin supply of $5 billion. Everything works well until one day, the crypto market goes south and everyone rush to buy the stable coin. The coin is unable to sell to everyone because the demand for the coin is too high, so some people are left out.
Please correct me my misconception
My question is: Does a stable coin have a set total coin supply? Or does it have to be able to create and destroy based on the demand?
The image in my head goes like this:
A stable coin pegged to a currency started off its business saying it would have a coin supply of $5 billion. Everything works well until one day, the crypto market goes south and everyone rush to buy the stable coin. The coin is unable to sell to everyone because the demand for the coin is too high, so some people are left out.
Please correct me my misconception
So there's different type of wallets out there, paper wallet, hardware wallet, mobile wallet, browser-based wallet.
Then there's different things that people do with their cypto: holding it for months, trading it every day on exchanges, using them on their respective blockchain ecosystem, etc.
My question is: What kind/method of storage is best suited for each activity?
Different ways of asking the same question:
What is a paper wallet best suited for? Or;
When is it good to use a browser-based wallet? Or;
What is the advantage of a mobile wallet?
Thanks!
Then there's different things that people do with their cypto: holding it for months, trading it every day on exchanges, using them on their respective blockchain ecosystem, etc.
My question is: What kind/method of storage is best suited for each activity?
Different ways of asking the same question:
What is a paper wallet best suited for? Or;
When is it good to use a browser-based wallet? Or;
What is the advantage of a mobile wallet?
Thanks!
Re: [ANN][ICO AUG 8] X-INFINITY Merchant-Enabled Unified Cryptocurrency Wallet
Hello everyone! Check out the article posted by Crypto Coin News on X-Infinity USD $20.5m Private Sale Round! https://www.ccn.com/x-infinity-closes-private-funding-round-at-usd-20-5-million-for-its-multi-cryptocurrency-wallet/
Nice! X-Infinity is gaining steam! Debit card next?
Looking forward to more developments!Interesting, thanks for all the responses.
From the answers so far, many sees it as a case of the ICO team extending the duration of sale.
I have another scenario though. Let's say two ICOs begin at the same time. But the duration of their sales are different. (Note that in this case, its not extending.)
How would you look at it then?
(I will add this into the original post.)
From the answers so far, many sees it as a case of the ICO team extending the duration of sale.
I have another scenario though. Let's say two ICOs begin at the same time. But the duration of their sales are different. (Note that in this case, its not extending.)
How would you look at it then?
(I will add this into the original post.)
There's some ICO which announce crowd sale that lasted longer than others. What does it signify?
Following that question, would you consider the duration of the different stages of an ICO sale? (e.g. a long angel round, or a pre-ICO sale that is very short)
Does it make a difference to you?
UPDATE: From the answers so far, many sees it as a case of the ICO team extending the duration of sale. But "extension" is not the only scenario that can happen.
Here are two examples:
1. An ICO ABCD at first announce a sale lasting X days. But when it gets close to the start of the sale, they extend the duration of the sale.
2. An ICO WXYZ announce their sale, and it is a long period (e.g. maybe 1.5 times longer than normal main sale period?)
So if you see these two ICOs, what would you think?
(EDIT: After reading some responses, I edited/updated this post to clarify and present a clearer case.)
Following that question, would you consider the duration of the different stages of an ICO sale? (e.g. a long angel round, or a pre-ICO sale that is very short)
Does it make a difference to you?
UPDATE: From the answers so far, many sees it as a case of the ICO team extending the duration of sale. But "extension" is not the only scenario that can happen.
Here are two examples:
1. An ICO ABCD at first announce a sale lasting X days. But when it gets close to the start of the sale, they extend the duration of the sale.
2. An ICO WXYZ announce their sale, and it is a long period (e.g. maybe 1.5 times longer than normal main sale period?)
So if you see these two ICOs, what would you think?
(EDIT: After reading some responses, I edited/updated this post to clarify and present a clearer case.)
Nowadays there are thousands of ICOs. While some ICOs have 20 times gain , some have 1/20 times gain 
.
How to find the best ICO...
According to the my opinion, above three criteria are the most important when we select an ICO campaign to invest.
, some have 1/20 times gain .How to find the best ICO...
- Whitepaper and website
- Team
- ICO ratings
According to the my opinion, above three criteria are the most important when we select an ICO campaign to invest
.I have read on Reddit, Medium and Bitcointalk how ICO ratings are paid for by the ICO themselves. So I'm not sure if its a good idea to use them as a criteria in selecting our investment. However, they are a good starting point to find similar ICOs who are competitors with one another. Find out yourself what specialties each of them have, and decide which one will succeed in the long run.