Lifting to optimize hypertrophy usually involves medium-heavy weights at significantly higher volumes. More along the lines of 5x12s instead of 5x5s.
770 karma · joined December 9, 2017
The lesson of 2008-9 is that TBTF and bailouts will be applied in case of any financial crisis. Not much has been done to rein in moral hazard and so institutions will continue to offload risk to the public when they can.
This works as long as the Treasury and Fed can absorb the shock and will create near term stability, at the potential cost of a currency crisis if the shock is too big to be absorbed.
So is bitcoin. Only 3 or 4 companies own the majority of mining.
Companies on the internet are centralized, but not the internet itself.
Blockchains do not have a monopoly on decentralization. People who assert this are trying to redefine the term to mean some kind of extreme P2P model that fits their narrative.
Since this isn't very likely, it strongly implies the smart contract model isn't a good one for writing software.
They are.
Django Channels: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2016/sep/09/channels-ad...
* The fees are higher.
* The risk to the consumer is higher.
* The difficulty of use is higher.
* It is accepted at an extremely low amount of vendors and even that is falling.
So you really how to wonder why people ever thought consumers would use it en masse.
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/08/20/dapps-userbase-dr...
It's also when everyone is selling. Nothing says this can't go lower.
If you are expecting a large influx of institutional investment money, I expect you will be disappointed.
> What are some of the factors to consider in assessing whether a digital asset is offered as an investment contract and is thus a security? Primarily, consider whether a third party – be it a person, entity or coordinated group of actors – drives the expectation of a return. That question will always depend on the particular facts and circumstances, and this list is illustrative, not exhaustive:
> Is there a person or group that has sponsored or promoted the creation and sale of the digital asset, the efforts of whom play a significant role in the development and maintenance of the asset and its potential increase in value?
> Has this person or group retained a stake or other interest in the digital asset such that it would be motivated to expend efforts to cause an increase in value in the digital asset? Would purchasers reasonably believe such efforts will be undertaken and may result in a return on their investment in the digital asset?
> Has the promoter raised an amount of funds in excess of what may be needed to establish a functional network, and, if so, has it indicated how those funds may be used to support the value of the tokens or to increase the value of the enterprise? Does the promoter continue to expend funds from proceeds or operations to enhance the functionality and/or value of the system within which the tokens operate?
> Are purchasers “investing,” that is seeking a return? In that regard, is the instrument marketed and sold to the general public instead of to potential users of the network for a price that reasonably correlates with the market value of the good or service in the network?
> Does application of the Securities Act protections make sense? Is there a person or entity others are relying on that plays a key role in the profit-making of the enterprise such that disclosure of their activities and plans would be important to investors? Do informational asymmetries exist between the promoters and potential purchasers/investors in the digital asset?
> Do persons or entities other than the promoter exercise governance rights or meaningful influence?
1. Is not an audit to be used for assurance purposes. The disclaimer at the top states that it "should not be used or relied on by any other party."
2. Is rather old now.
3. Was conducted by a firm that no longer conducts business with Tether, probably because Tether would not comply with information requests needed to conduct an actual audit, which is not as difficult as Tether makes it sound here: https://www.coindesk.com/tether-confirms-relationship-audito...
Or in other words, it isn't proof of anything, and the fact that Tether has not been able to produce an actual audit for assurance purposes in all this time, speaks volumes.
> You don't need a "blockchain" for timestamps.
He didn't say anything about whether the timestamp services were centralized or not.
So saying "ha, but they're centralized!" is not a rebuttal.
And if your id is leaked in one transaction, it links your id to all other transactions done with that wallet.
I thought the same thing as I read through these comments. Perhaps the attention deficit is not that of the child, but that of the parents/teachers.
This is true even for the miners, since they would not build out infrastructure and burn energy if bitcoin was worth zero.
I don't remember any of the early internet negativity that Bitcoin supporters do.
This is a weak attempt at deflection by those who want to discredit criticism. Anyone who understands this sector and thinks it is a bad investment, will not invest. This doesn't mean their view is somehow incorrect.
As for finding an ICO that hasn't lived up to the hype, throw a dart at the dartboard. How about Tezos, for one.
How about Tron for another, whose white paper was found to have plagiarized from IPFS and/or Filecoin. See: http://www.trustnodes.com/2018/01/08/trons-whitepaper-copied...
Even with titles that I have the option of downloading DRM free, say via Humble Bundle, I will still just go for the Steam key because it makes it easy.
This means that they are not resolved with delivery of the commodity and have no direct influence on the underlying markets.
Try posting a serious question there and see what happens!