That's not fractional reserve, that's just fraud.
Exchanges are not banks.
770 karma · joined December 9, 2017
Exchanges are not banks.
New wallets cost nothing to create and manipulation in this sector is rife.
The assumptions are flawed from the start.
QE backstopped the inflation that already happened during the credit boom.
By supporting housing prices (and other associated bad debt) they essentially prevented a deflationary spiral, which one could think of as an unwinding of inflation.
End result: ever higher housing prices and generally stagnant incomes.
It's a complex topic and a deflationary spiral was probably worse for the economy, but QE did affect inflation.
All it really had to do was decrease the sensitivity of the controls not override it. Once the manual controls were pulled back all the way the computer should have disengaged.
> This is like saying ABS shouldn't override the brakes on a car
Remind me, does the ABS system make the car speed up?
For instance, if the computer is attempting to pitch the plane down, while the pilot has the yoke all the way back.
It should be possible to detect without too much mind reading.
Computers should never overrule manual controls. If the autopilot is on and the pilot makes an manual adjustment to the yoke, the autopilot shuts off.
They should have designed the MCAS system to recognize when the pilot was fighting it and to disable itself.
It's like the runaway Prius problem. Turning off the car might be considered an appropriate safety cutoff, but not everyone thinks of that in an emergent crisis.
No, not people in the sense of end user customers. The industry is selling snake oil and some investors have bought into it and subsequently promote it.
10 years down the road and they're still trying to find a mainstream use case, but they won't find it because in the end using a blockchain makes everything harder if you are a legal enterprise.
> In this case consider conf or maybe c will do if the lifetime of the variable is short enough.
This seems petty. Is it really that problematic to type out a few extra characters?
Bitcoin has a history of huge factional schisms over changes that should have been a no brainer (increase block size to increase tx throughput).
Instead political wars have been fought as the Core dev governance gridlocked and stagnated leading to the Bitcoin Cash fork (amongst others).
No, this is an important distinction. Bitcoin isn't liquid enough to count as actual money and proponents of the idea that sending bitcoin is the same as sending money are glossing over the cost to buy bitcoin, and the cost of transferring it back to actual money on the other side.
Having access to 30K BTC doesn't do you much good if nobody is willing to trade you goods or real money for it on the other side.
You mean becoming more and more like a Surface Pro?
Ask yourself if the discount is worth the risk of experiences like this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4zczow/my_experien...
There are many objective reasons to take the other side of the bet:
Bitcoin will not succeed as a mainstream payment processing system because:
* The fees are unpredictable and average tx fees have been as high as $55 in the past, during it's most popular time.
* Apropos to the above, Bitcoin doesn't scale and it is clear there is no effective governance method in order to mitigate the problem. Cf. block size wars.
* The risk to the consumer is higher as there is no included fraud protection or chargebacks allowed.
* The difficulty of use is higher for the consumer, who now has to deal with purchasing fees and speculative volatility.
* It is accepted at an extremely low amount of vendors and even that is falling.
* Loss of private key, or password, or security exploit can lead to total loss of funds.
Blockchains will not succeed as a mainstream technological solution because:
* The use cases where you actually need a public, proof of work mined chain are actually very niche outside of cryptocurrencies themselves.
* Even if you have a use case that fits, you must reach a critical mass of mining hash rate or you open yourself to trivially exploitable 51% attacks.
* Corporations will still want to have permission based access, but if you have trusted users then you don't need a blockchain.
* Even if you go with a private blockchain anyway, the scalability isn't there, it is harder to use, the tooling is worse, the technology is less mature, and the upside for the increased difficulty and cost is marginal.
> In 2009, a report presented to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated that the purpose of Kylin is to make Chinese computers impenetrable to competing countries in the cyberwarfare arena. The Washington Post reported that:
> China has developed more secure operating software for its tens of millions of computers and is already installing it on government and military systems, hoping to make Beijing’s networks impenetrable to U.S. military and intelligence agencies.
Not always. It would be more expensive than a 3% credit card charge on anything < $20 at current levels (0.62 USD). And if if the network actually gets busy, like it would if bitcoin actually went mainstream, then your max fees per transaction top out around $55.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...
> * Safer for merchants as it avoids credit charge back fraud.
Less safe for consumers as this simply transfers risk to the buyer, who incidentally is the ones choosing how to transact. Why would they prefer Bitcoin over protected credit card transactions that, depending on terms, give a 1-2% cash kickback to the consumer.
> 13. On November 5, 2013, Tesla publicly filed a Form 8-K with the Commission stating that it intended to use Musk’s Twitter account as a means of announcing material information to the public about Tesla and its products and services and has encouraged investors to review the information about Tesla published by Musk via his Twitter account.
You might learn something.
Bitcoin has a throughput of about 3 tx per second. Ethereum a little better at 7 tx per second. Confirmations are on the order of minutes at best.
Why do you think this would be a good idea?
Otherwise you have a synchronization problem between the upcoming blockchain token system and the existing government deed registry, and of course the government registry would take preference, and has a history of working just fine for lower cost.
This video is an excellent overview of this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxmXIgLEAIE
I haven't seen blockchain systems as being more secure or more trustworthy. I see them being overhyped, subject to lax and magical thinking, and full of theft of coins due to hacks and scams.
Although I'm intrigued by the integrated pointer options, I don't think I'll make the switch due to the pricetag and 60% form factor.
And yet all the automated driving driver fatalities have been on the highway, with the Mountain View crash in particular having been caused by weathered / confusing road markings.
I wouldn't consider that solved at all.
But to the larger point, self driving lanes would only be a first step. Eventually it would develop into a standard set of markings and signage for automated driving friendly roads so that you could safely have self driving cars in things like snow storms.
There's no need to limit it to highways only, although there I think there is some benefit in the near term to segregating automated driving cars from human driving ones.
I think it will still happen, but they need to simplify the problem. The way to simplify it is to create automated driving lanes, similar to the current HOV lanes, that have standardized markers that are easy for computers to read, and then eventually extend it to automated driving routes.
That will take some amount of buy-in by the government to install, but I have faith in our well paid lobbyists.