I thought it was a fad that had already passed. I'm sort of surprised to see this level of discussion about cryptocurrency.
Google bans cryptocurrency ads
321–330 of 379 posts
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#322ELI5: why does the world need a larger number of cryptocurrencies vs fewer/one instead? (I’m not holding any position, I just want to understand the logic for either case)
Going off-topic, but I want to ask whether writing "ELI5" is really necessary? I find it too much of a redditism and while it doesn't seem to contravene any hn guidelines, I get the feeling that "simple" questions would garner a better audience without the ELI5 prefix. There's perhaps also the problem of it being an unnecessary abbreviation, specific to another community. Alternatives (even though it takes more keyst…
For me ELI5 is just a visual anchor in a wall of text.
I don't think it has anything to do with quality of responses. If you compare r/AskReddit and r/ELI5, you'll find the latter tends to attract more comprehensive and structured comments.
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
and you invest in food because if you don't eat, then you'll die and make no more money! That definition of "investment" includes almost everything anyone can possibly do.
No it doesn’t. One invests because the asset they are purchasing will either appreciate or generate cash flow. “Food” doesn’t generally appreciate or generate cash flow. (Outside of obvious restaurant contexts.) You can call food an “investment” but you could also call a dog a cat — that doesn’t make it so.
"That"
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#324It is interesting to note that OTOY will launch RNDR (Render Token) [1] in Ethereum and their advisory board includes Eric Schmidt from Google [2].
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#325Did Google ban all scam ads out there? Is predatory lending banned? How about magical thinking supplements, systems, and other scams?
Also, wallets? What did the crypto wallet makers do wrong?
This, my friends, is monopoly capitalism at its finest; when corporate interests are threatened they come down on information exchange, which means they can disappear products. And since it's privately owned and not state owned, everyone's okay with it morally. Because cryptocurrency is naughty.
Let's ban drug discussion, too, it's naughty. How about hate speech, let's disappear search results for that. Who needs Big Brother when a massive surveillance apparatus that, quite frankly, is a headache to avoid (although I use duckduckgo and Firefox for all non tech stuff) can also disappear ideas and products without a popular vote or accountability?
One plus of all this is I won't have to see the Crypto Genius Reveals Next Bitcoin ad with the pic of the guy staring off in the distance in crooked glasses. Always hated that one.
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#326I was listening to terrestrial radio the other day and was surprised to hear a radio advertisement beckoning retirees to cash in their 401ks to join the cryptocurrency future of Bitcoin and Ethereum. The bubble is too big for Google to slow it down and it has grown beyond the realm of tech savvy geeks into something fueled by hype and hubris.
From the best tweetstorm ever on topic by Sarah Jeong: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953464303960469504 > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is something that paints anyone who has legitimate concerns about financial censorship and mass surveillance a "paranoid dork", one of the best tweet storms ever? It's exactly this kind of crude tribalism that prevents constructive civil discourse and encourages ideological narrow-mindedness and conformity.
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Cryptocurrency valuations at the moment are 99% speculation about future utility. Actually it may be 99.9%.
Pet peeve: made up numbers. Why not just use an adverb? Yes, I spend a lot of time annoyed.
Yes I should have said "on the order of 99%". I think generally figures like "99%", when used in this context, imply that this is an approximate value, but I agree that it's better to explicitly state that.
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
does an AMZ share have an intrinsic value?
Yes because at the end of the day an share of AMZ means you own a small percentage of that company. That includes a small percentage of all their physical assets, servers, real estate, cash on hand etc. So yeah there is some intrinsic value.
can you go to amazon headquarters and exchange an AMZ share for an office chair? as a physical asset? i have a feeling that security will escort you from the building before you finish the transaction. the only intrinsic value will be the bruises on your wrists.
edit: the value of the share (in the old good days) is the discounted cash flow. you invest in a business, then business pays you the share of the profits (hence - share) in the form of dividends. AMZ share does NOT pay any dividends, nor does grant you any voting rights. nothing. zero. this is your intrinsic value.
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
does an AMZ share have an intrinsic value?
....yes https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/intrinsicvalue.asp
yep. the only intrinsic value i get in exchange for 1,300$ AMZ share is the link explaining the value of an intrinsic value. what exactly can you claim from amazon in exchange for a share? except for a kick in a butt from amazon security?
Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Get out of my mentions unless you read the white paper at least five years ago or earlier Love it, thanks for sharing. It does seem like she is making the mistake of conflating Bitcoin with general crypto however, which can be misleading to her audience. Bitcoin indeed suffers from slow transaction speeds and extreme volatility. Other coins, truer to the original vision, fair much better in those respects, and with…
Sarah Jeong posted that "crypto is short for cryptography" shouting-from-rooftops sketch a while back but I'm not sure where it's gone. I think when she refers to Bitcoin, she also means every other piece of madness that has come after it including altcoins/cryptocurrencies on the whole; and does not play favourites. Edit: Here's some evidence - https://twitter.com/search?q=%40sarahjeong%20cryptocurrency I'm sure sim…
This isn't an issue of bias from bad sources. I took issue with very specific complaints that were largely only true of Bitcoin, which has been undermined by corporate interests.
The ICO / ponzi scheme / overnight stock expert craze is ridiculous and I do not take part.
But Bitcoin Cash (closer to the vision of the original bitcoin whitepaper that she herself mentions, which she should know Bitcoin has now deviated significantly from) has been a transparent, expansive, and welcome addition to my other payment channels, much like Bitcoin used to be in the heyday.
I enjoy using it when and where I can, I enjoy the decentralization, the lack of reliance on the banking system, etc.
I am precisely that narrow part of the population she is highlighting.
Most of her points are entirely correct, but besides her conflation of some of Bitcoin's problems with other cryptocurrency, she ultimately discredits me and others who understand exactly what the point of cryptocurrency is, and its benefits to our lifestyles, with the dismissive phrase, "See you at Burning Man."
She must associate cryptocurrency with a specific kind of character and then attack that character instead, in order to drive her argument. That's fallacious and misleading.