Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Is anyone using Brave browser? I use Firefox and was thinking about switching to Librewolf but there seem to be a few too many compromises I'd have to live with.
Brave looks pretty cool and I notice the BAT token it rewards you with is rising recently. Not sure if that's because the product is good or just due to speculation.
Brave looks pretty cool and I notice the BAT token it rewards you with is rising recently. Not sure if that's because the product is good or just due to speculation.
digger_R said:
Voyager 'temporarily' suspending withdrawals, trading etc....
An interesting few weeks ahead
Filed for bankruptcy apparently https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/crypto-lende...An interesting few weeks ahead
A guy I know of on another forum invested about $200k into META and cashed out for $1M. Sadly for him, for some strange reason he took a liking to XLM and reinvested the bulk of the money in Voyager and had about 3 million lumens in his account. Some users suggested cashing out of Voyager but I don't think he ever took the money and ran.
g4ry13 said:
A guy I know of on another forum invested about $200k into META and cashed out for $1M. Sadly for him, for some strange reason he took a liking to XLM and reinvested the bulk of the money in Voyager and had about 3 million lumens in his account. Some users suggested cashing out of Voyager but I don't think he ever took the money and ran.
Everyone who walks into a casino should know the risks.Al Gorithum said:
g4ry13 said:
A guy I know of on another forum invested about $200k into META and cashed out for $1M. Sadly for him, for some strange reason he took a liking to XLM and reinvested the bulk of the money in Voyager and had about 3 million lumens in his account. Some users suggested cashing out of Voyager but I don't think he ever took the money and ran.
Everyone who walks into a casino should know the risks.Unless you're seen as gaining an advantage on the house, or cheating, the casino is usually fair.
ked.g4ry13 said:
I know you're trying a metaphor here, but when you go into the casino and have your chips in front of you it's pretty rare that they don't let you take them off the table and cash out.
It can even happen to the non casino (are they!?) banks. Arguably they should be the least risky place and yet there is the widely broadcast 80/90K protection limit, proof of some risk?g4ry13 said:
Almost everything is gambling.
There's just different degrees of it.
That's a bit like comparing overtaking a car on a motorway and overtaking a car on a blind corner of a busy A road and saying 'it's the same thing, just different degrees of risk'. There's just different degrees of it.
Technically you are correct of course...
Scootersp said:
It can even happen to the non casino (are they!?) banks. Arguably they should be the least risky place and yet there is the widely broadcast 80/90K protection limit, proof of some risk?
It's £85,000 and yes, it's proof of some risk, but also proof of what you can do to mitigate against it.Ari said:
g4ry13 said:
Almost everything is gambling.
There's just different degrees of it.
That's a bit like comparing overtaking a car on a motorway and overtaking a car on a blind corner of a busy A road and saying 'it's the same thing, just different degrees of risk'. There's just different degrees of it.
Technically you are correct of course...
Everything is a gamble. It comes down to risk appetite and your perception of it.
Some people perceive the financial system as unstable and have a lack of faith in its longevity. To them, investing in the conventional instruments and banking systems is a huge gamble. Whereas others may consider the more vanilla investment products a much safer bet than other products / instruments out there.
The bottom line is that even 'investing' (as some like to consider their activities) is still defined under the umbrella of gambling.
g4ry13 said:
My point is someone says 'x or y is gambling' as if 'gambling' is a dirty word.
Everything is a gamble. It comes down to risk appetite and your perception of it.
Some people perceive the financial system as unstable and have a lack of faith in its longevity. To them, investing in the conventional instruments and banking systems is a huge gamble. Whereas others may consider the more vanilla investment products a much safer bet than other products / instruments out there.
The bottom line is that even 'investing' (as some like to consider their activities) is still defined under the umbrella of gambling.
Congrats Gary. You've just sparked another 10 pages of arguments with those comments.Everything is a gamble. It comes down to risk appetite and your perception of it.
Some people perceive the financial system as unstable and have a lack of faith in its longevity. To them, investing in the conventional instruments and banking systems is a huge gamble. Whereas others may consider the more vanilla investment products a much safer bet than other products / instruments out there.
The bottom line is that even 'investing' (as some like to consider their activities) is still defined under the umbrella of gambling.
r3g said:
g4ry13 said:
My point is someone says 'x or y is gambling' as if 'gambling' is a dirty word.
Everything is a gamble. It comes down to risk appetite and your perception of it.
Some people perceive the financial system as unstable and have a lack of faith in its longevity. To them, investing in the conventional instruments and banking systems is a huge gamble. Whereas others may consider the more vanilla investment products a much safer bet than other products / instruments out there.
The bottom line is that even 'investing' (as some like to consider their activities) is still defined under the umbrella of gambling.
Congrats Gary. You've just sparked another 10 pages of arguments with those comments.Everything is a gamble. It comes down to risk appetite and your perception of it.
Some people perceive the financial system as unstable and have a lack of faith in its longevity. To them, investing in the conventional instruments and banking systems is a huge gamble. Whereas others may consider the more vanilla investment products a much safer bet than other products / instruments out there.
The bottom line is that even 'investing' (as some like to consider their activities) is still defined under the umbrella of gambling.
Honestly nothing new there. Risk is a perception which we each calculate differently.
Some things i'm sure we can agree on and others not. That's what makes a market.
I would definitely argue that over the next 100 years the risk profile of bitcoin is way lower than ANY Fiat currency on the planet.
There is no alternative open-source, non state-owned, decentralised, privacy-preserving digital currency, and there's nothing on the horizon. I don't think any of the naysayers on this thread have even begun to grasp the value of bitcoin. It's kind of sad, but also predictable because they're so entrenched in the business of making the current shambles maintain some kind of operational state.
There is no alternative open-source, non state-owned, decentralised, privacy-preserving digital currency, and there's nothing on the horizon. I don't think any of the naysayers on this thread have even begun to grasp the value of bitcoin. It's kind of sad, but also predictable because they're so entrenched in the business of making the current shambles maintain some kind of operational state.
dimots said:
I would definitely argue that over the next 100 years the risk profile of bitcoin is way lower than ANY Fiat currency on the planet.
There is no alternative open-source, non state-owned, decentralised, privacy-preserving digital currency, and there's nothing on the horizon. I don't think any of the naysayers on this thread have even begun to grasp the value of bitcoin. It's kind of sad, but also predictable because they're so entrenched in the business of making the current shambles maintain some kind of operational state.
Oh you've really gone and done it now. How long until "buttttttt ! use case ! buttttt ! intrinsic value !" ? I will give it an hour.There is no alternative open-source, non state-owned, decentralised, privacy-preserving digital currency, and there's nothing on the horizon. I don't think any of the naysayers on this thread have even begun to grasp the value of bitcoin. It's kind of sad, but also predictable because they're so entrenched in the business of making the current shambles maintain some kind of operational state.
r3g said:
dimots said:
I would definitely argue that over the next 100 years the risk profile of bitcoin is way lower than ANY Fiat currency on the planet.
There is no alternative open-source, non state-owned, decentralised, privacy-preserving digital currency, and there's nothing on the horizon. I don't think any of the naysayers on this thread have even begun to grasp the value of bitcoin. It's kind of sad, but also predictable because they're so entrenched in the business of making the current shambles maintain some kind of operational state.
Oh you've really gone and done it now. How long until "buttttttt ! use case ! buttttt ! intrinsic value !" ? I will give it an hour.There is no alternative open-source, non state-owned, decentralised, privacy-preserving digital currency, and there's nothing on the horizon. I don't think any of the naysayers on this thread have even begun to grasp the value of bitcoin. It's kind of sad, but also predictable because they're so entrenched in the business of making the current shambles maintain some kind of operational state.
dimots said:
I would definitely argue that over the next 100 years the risk profile of bitcoin is way lower than ANY Fiat currency on the planet.
There is no alternative open-source, non state-owned, decentralised, privacy-preserving digital currency, and there's nothing on the horizon. I don't think any of the naysayers on this thread have even begun to grasp the value of bitcoin. It's kind of sad, but also predictable because they're so entrenched in the business of making the current shambles maintain some kind of operational state.
There's no alternative because there's yet to be a use for it.There is no alternative open-source, non state-owned, decentralised, privacy-preserving digital currency, and there's nothing on the horizon. I don't think any of the naysayers on this thread have even begun to grasp the value of bitcoin. It's kind of sad, but also predictable because they're so entrenched in the business of making the current shambles maintain some kind of operational state.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff