fdggdfsvscvsd
Is that some kind of hyper progressive safe space thing?
Please explain. I'd like to be a good citizen.
And I question your claim about enthusiastic people being the least informed. I'd say the people who work on it and dedicate their lives to improving the infrastructure are both enthusiastic and informed. Of course there are also enthusiastic people who are misinformed.
With Bitcoin, the maximum number of Bitcoins that will ever exist is fixed.
It doesn't really matter who mines them. Of course at the moment, indeed, new Bitcoins are mined all the time, but the timeline for the future is clear.
Whether it is a good thing, I don't know. There are a lot of weird aspects about it.
As for China - sure, some miners will accumulate a lot of BTC. But they can only affect the price by selling or not selling it. If they wouldn't mine the BTC, somebody else would. It doesn't really give them that much more power, except for monetary power.
It's probably true that right now there are several people or entities who could crash the Bitcoin price by simply selling off all their BTC. That's not very reassuring.
On the other hand, such a crash could also be a chance to distribute BTC more evenly. It would actually be in the interest of the rich BTC people, too, as it would lead to more adaption and hence more value and stability.
Distribution is a hard problem.
There are several problems with crypto, but they are also interesting, and smart people are trying to solve them. At least it is fun, even if it is unclear if it will be worthwhile in the end.
I'll check the value of the Reichsmark, but again, I suspect the market is limited.
Network going down: in theory you could keep it up with a Raspberry Pie, so I suppose somebody will. Although I don't know if all the mining hardware out there would make it nonviable (as anybody could start a mining attack with such mining hardware, against a Pie).
As for proving Bitcoin isn't a scam: we don't need the inventor or their plans, we have the implementations of it. That can be validated, as much as possible. I'd argue that if it still has flaws, then they weren't because of scamming, but because of technical issues nobody could foresee.
Edit: they seem to be selling notes of one billion Reichsmark for 1€ on ebay (here in Germany). Not really worth the effort.
The technology is obviously not a scam. At most it could turn out that it has technical flaws, like the crypto algorithms could be broken or whatever.
People selling you Bitcoin or making you promises about Bitoin might well be scammers. But that's not the same thing.
Worthless fiat money: it seems to happen a lot, actually. I have a couple of Billion Reichsmarks I could show you. I don't think Zimbabwe $ are worth enough to support your argument.
Of course to use Bitcoin, you have to trust that it will have or keep some value. In that sense, yes, you are back to trust.
I just note that you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore discount your opinion accordingly.
Not sure how that would supposedly work.
There is one interesting application of government, though: the distribution of the coins. That is what all the cryptocoins struggle with. A government could give every citizen an equal amount of coins, because they have a database of people.
"Is it really viable not to have safe exchanges?"
Some would say that they don't need exchanges, they want to be able to pay everything with Bitcoin. So they wouldn't need fiat money.
Apart from that, exchanges can be at least as safe as banks or traditional stock exchanges. I am mostly using one that is associated with a bank, in fact.
That's much harder to do with governments controlling fiat money. Or with banks. What is a person supposed to do, who is denied financial transactions by the established financial service providers (paypal, credit cards,...)? There have now been several cases where paypal and others have tried to silence people by cancelling their accounts. What can you do, in the traditional banking world?
And many complaints are not about things Bitcoin actually promises to do. It doesn't promise to make exchanges safe.
The environmental impact is a concern. Miner power perhaps not so much. For example mining hardware coming from one company doesn't seem that bad - you can simply verify the transactions the miners find before sending them out to the network.
Assuming suicides are usually a result of violence (bullying by peers, pressure by parents and teachers...). Wouldn't it be better to show practical ways out of it? Saying "I'm so great and thankful" while bullies pounce on you might feel rather hollow quickly?
Don't get me wrong, this seems to be set up as an experiment, which seems like a good thing. Maybe they'll find it will actually help.
Your argument sounds like "something has to be done, because..." - but something is not always the right thing.
Actually working on issues might work better, and might also not be easy.
Isn't that basically the job of children, and has always been?
Not to denounce the efforts to improve their mental health. Just saying some struggle seems normal and unavoidable, probably even necessary.
In any case the AI could make several educated guesses on how good the band is. Quality of the venue would be another indicator.
Even small businesses may have several ways of reducing taxes?
What is the minimum income for considering the "What is the Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich" or whatever is the tax avoidance hype of the day?
I think that's a problem of all those studies actually. After all, reading books is a subset of things you could do on a tablet device.
No question there are harmful apps and movies, optimized to increase addiction. Few people you should simply hand kids these devices and never check what they are doing.
And presumably, harmful books also do exist. It probably makes a difference what kind of books you read.
There are actually still bookstores and other stores around to this day, in most regions.
As for taxes, that is another debate, but I don't see how Amazon paying more taxes would prevent people from working for Amazon?
For babies, I am not sure what to think. Who watches 1 hour of movies with their baby? Were they really able to disentangle that from all other factors (socioeconomic status and so on)?
Books would cause the same withdrawal from actual people and the physical world, yet I haven't seen anybody warn of too much reading in quite a while.
So basically no apps at all.
In general - if somebody does a job, presumably the alternatives would be worse. That applies to prostitution as well.
While it seems her concerns are warranted, that kind of writing just puts me off. It seems also unlikely that women are more concerned with sex than men. And it is not nazis and incels taking over the internet and censoring sexual content, but presumably US puritanism. And also, presumably, liberals who worry that porn is exploitation of women. Google and Facebook are dominated by SJWs, not by nazis (unless you admit those amount to the same thing).
Maybe Puritanism simply won - their work ethic resulted in creating Silicon Valley, so now they get to establish their puritan rules in the global digital network.