191–200 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does the printed tether enter the market?
Bitfinex buys cryptos with them on their own exchange. They get free cryptos, and everybody else gets monopoly money in exchange. Tether is such a scam it's unbelievable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as reference as the comment here was deleted. Pretty important stuff. http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=3MbYQMMmSkC3AgW... https://i.imgur.com/BsPSZKO.png
Basically I think the tether are fraudulent. I do not have proof but they likely are. What is the best way to make money on them? Can one short tether?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't really "print" a $200million. Finex explanation is that when a user requests USDT they issue new USDT from their USD reserves.
Unless they would prove to the public and/or competent regulatory authorities that they definitely have done that, they should be considered as "printing" this money. Proven reserves count, claimed reserves don't. If USDT is "covered" by reserves that are claimed but not verified, then USDT is not covered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google surely must have a copy, as well as Archive.org. These people benefitted from the scam; they should be held accountable as well.
I love these comments because they highlight the ambivalence of the HN commentariat. If google actually had copies of deleted user data, the privacy-minded would lose their heads. And they’d be right because there are all kinds of laws around this. Deleted user data has to be really gone, even from backups, within a finite time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had a very similar experience - a friend of our family (also a member of a, let's call it, high-intensity christian denomination) got started in a MLM (MonaVie) and invited me to their "internal" event (one aimed at people already in the network). Oh. My. God. What I saw there was a textbook definition of a cult, a pure affective death spiral[0] instantiated in our material world. People were literally one-upping one…
I'd never heard of MonaVie so I Google'd it and read the Wikipedia page - was slightly surprised to get Amazon adverts for $40 bottles of fruit juice at the same time....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you invest in crypto is thinking you are smarter than many well respected experts like Warren Buffet. If you invest in cryptocurrencies (and I do), you are not any more clever than those who bought into BitConnect.
Oh yeah and assuming Warren Buffet et al can literally never be wrong is so much smarter. The world is not black and white.
Only up until very recently did Crypto as a whole break away from it, and BitConnect just happens to have its foot in both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lotteries are also illegal to operate privately, which makes them completely irrelevant to this conversation.
> Lotteries are also illegal to operate privately I didn't know that. Does that mean that raffles are technically illegal? Or is there some kind of special-case about winning money?
To allow a raffle, dodges often enshrined in law include:
* Very low prize limits (e.g. max $100) but donated prizes don't count towards that limit. So your local charitable raffle has no problem getting a nice bottle of Scotch, dinner for two with wine at a nice place, family portrait, whatever local merchants want to donate, and it's all fine, so long as they don't buy it.
* Exemptions if you can only buy tickets in one place, or if you only sell them to members of your organisation that exists for some other purpose (e.g. a local church, employees at a factory)
* Exemptions if the profits of the gambling go to a recognised charitable organisation.
* Exemptions if there's no profit at all, all is spent on prizes that go to ticket buyers randomly, so the whole operation only moves money around randomly inside a group of participants.
BitConnect is definitely a ponzi, but I think this sets the wrong precedent. Exchanges should have voluntarily delisted BCC (many already have, but it still trades on some markets and is listed on coinmarketcap) rather than being forced by threats from the government. This gives regulators credence as our protectors and suggests they will try these strongarm tactics again in the future.
The regulators exist because the entire history of our financial and legal system demonstrates that companies frequently don't "voluntarily" do the right thing when there's money to be made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love these comments because they highlight the ambivalence of the HN commentariat. If google actually had copies of deleted user data, the privacy-minded would lose their heads. And they’d be right because there are all kinds of laws around this. Deleted user data has to be really gone, even from backups, within a finite time.
You put something up voluntarily on the open internet, you lose your right to keeping that thing private.