Why not start small and just try to kill the penny?
Why not start small and just try to kill the penny?
Yes, you pay a percentage after you meet your deductible.
But, then you go and and meet your "out-of-pocket max". After that, you pay ZERO (caveat: only for in-network physicians, covered treatments, covered medications...)
I can guarantee you it's deterministic. Unless you can literally source quantum fluctuations, every such game is. Now, Go and Chess are, in practice, not "so deterministic" because the rainbow tables explode really quickly.
I have only read the first paragraph, and the bullshit is strong in this one.The gist being: "Americans' proposal to make bitcoin bigger was rejected by the Chinese... who threw their lot a group of programmers who.."
Bah. For one, that "other group" is mostly all-American as well.
The first group comprises a list of PHBs and CEOs that want to wrestle control over bitcoin. One way is to come up with some change, ANY change that makes their attempt different.
Most bitcoin programmers and experts agree that the change will serve to make bitcoin (1) insecure (2) decentralized (3) confer more power to a few companies such as those in the first group.
The wide community (and not just Chinese miners) have stuck with the long-time bitcoin developers instead of going for the marketing tricks employed by the PHBs. A sample of these tricks: (a) Creating an alternative version and labeling it classic. (b) Buying up bitcoin.com, providing an alternative version, and calling that bitcoin, and many others.
Again, the community has stuck with the wisdom of the security experts and developers. But more power to these CEOs. A few more NY articles and maybe they will fool the rest of us. Pro Tip: This time, label your fork "bitcoin original." That will fool us, for sure!
I'm not sure if it's Android in general or Samsung specifically but I've noticed that my Galaxy S6 Edge uses word-completion suggestions culled from browser usage in incognito mode.
Yes he was gouging poor people. They all do. The company before him was doing so too; the only difference is that it wasn't eye-catching.
Everyone will take advantage of the law to their fullest. They are playing by the rules. And, it is hard to make a moral judgement. He owns the rights; he charges what he wants. At some point, someone gets outraged. But, back to my real point: His was just the more visible and eye-catching gouging. They all gouge, even his predecessor.
We always bicker blaming X or Y for taking advantage of this or that bad law.
The real outrage is the LAW that allows this. The law that forbids a free market. The law that forbids others from making the drug. The law that grants him an artificial monopoly.
The real outrage is that our Gov. is for sale. The moment Gov expands its mandate from national security to interfering with the free market, it starts writing bad laws such as this. The laws are ALWAYS bad, because the Gov. is always for sale.
>> Because only X many bitcoins can be created, they need to hyperinflate if they became more widely used. This is why it will always be a toy currency used at the fringe.
Oh, my. Swarms of PhDs, brighter minds and economics professors completely missed this fact for five+ years. They haven't answered this question continuously for a thousand times. Not at all. If that were the case, it would even be addressed in every single bitcoin 101 FAQs. It would even be addressed by the very Satoshi in his initial paper. Even the first google search on this issue would have addressed it.
Thanks for coming along and pointing this out this egregious error!
>> All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
Are you serious? Let me remind you of the brother of Jeb. His lies actually led to the invasion of the wrong country, and killed 100K people. He is not in jail, nowhere close.
I am all for prosecuting Clinton, but a sense of proportion is important. By this measure, everyone in DC should be in prison (and they should!). And, the entire Bush administration and the Rs should be in prison for 100k years. These guys *actually* *deliberately* leaked undercover CIA officers just to settle scores.
>> The 1MB block, what does it store exactly? What happens when it fills up under the current implementation? Is Joe unable to send Jack the 0.0000001 bitcoin? Is it really laggy? Do the records of some old transactions get discarded?
Quantamann, Block size limitation and a vastly popular bitcoin will together mean that (1) Joe will either have to pony up a fair market fee, or (b) use lightning network add-on, or (c) find another off-chain way to send his minuscule transaction.
As an example, currently, the network is constantly spammed by bots sending 10-8 bitcoins around the world, because it is all-but-free to spam. But, Gavin is still "worried" about this capability disappearing.
The result of increasing block sizes too much will mean that only very few people will run full nodes. It will mean centralization. Already, a very small fraction runs full nodes any more. Like other developers say, THIS is what the main crisis is that the network is facing, and the integrity of the network is hanging by a thread.
Ironically and amusingly, Gavin argues that *not* increasing the blocksize will lead to centralization.
The cost of you (a) sending a bitcoin is borne by: (b) miner, (c) users running nodes - who have to store and verify your transaction for all eternity.
The miner and sender arrive at a fair price in this free market. Neat, right?
But, you do see that that conclusion rests on (c) being negligible, right? And, that's where the block size debate comes in.
Already, people's hard drives (and backups) are filling up because Joe sent Jack some 0.0000001 bitcoin somewhere. Imagine your hard drive, and everyone's hard drive filling up every time one of the billion users sends another of the billion users one cent for a negligible cost (because cost above 0 is free extra money to the miner.)
If blocksizes are not limited, (a) and (b) together maximize their profit by externalizing their costs to (c) where the cost gets amplified manifold.
Mr. Gavin, who *drove* away Satoshi by going to CIA, and conveniently declared himself bitcoin's successor fails to understand both the economics and the technicalities.
The fact is that people like Maxwell (the real horses who do most of the bitcoin heavy lifting and who understand the technology and economics of bitcoin far better than Gavin) were dousing out fires even with the 1MB blocksize, even as Gavin was running a public campaign to increase the limit even further.
All the other developers know this
His idea has barely any support among any person who's the who's who of bitcoin's technical world. Yet, he falsely declared to the public that he has, not just majority support, but vast consensus for his idea.
He used to publicly say that he believes in being very conservative, and that not breaking bitcoin is his first focus above all. This sudden change is weird and hard-to-believe.
But, public and all the noise aside, the miners and big nodes have real economic interests. So, they employ actual technical people. And, indeed, Gavin's idea has found very little support not just among developers, but among all the large economic entities in this world.
That's what this fork is, then. A lot of noise.
Gavin has always been mainly a PR person. And, it shows. It really shows. PR people are very good at declaring themselves in charge, even as other developers are quietly snickering at their stupid pronouncements.
With this fork, he's basically taken himself out of the loop. Win-win, I say.
You kidding me, right?
With a Mars colony, unlike with a moon colony, there's hope. Hope of creating a self-sustaining colony. A backup for the human race.
ALL the world's problems you worry about everyday pale in comparison to that one single problem. Poverty, Racism, republicans, democrats (yes, they're both problems, aren't they?), global warming, dictatorships, mass murder are all tiny, tiny, non-issues compared to this one problem: We, as a species, have no backup.
As I heard an economist once say, almost all but the poorest in the poorest of countries have their basic needs taken care of. Very few starve, at least in the West.
Beyond that, all our efforts - for a bigger house, or for a BMW, for example - are really about status.
Whether it is about reputation or prestige or status, the much-vilified money is just a convenient measuring unit to keep track of said status.
"This did not compromise the bitcoin protocol or network or anything like that."
The main gist of the story really is simply: Some who took (incorrect) shortcuts paid the price for it by foregoing some profits.
Fair points. Thanks for that perspective. Indeed, the frankenstein let loose is worse than its creators; and I didn't for a second mean to justify or condone or dismiss CIA's actions.
"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351