1. Longer block times, so it is pretty rare that multiple miners are finding multiple valid consecutive blocks to compete on separate chains
2. It is against their incentives. By being apart of the losing chain, they have used thousands in hash power and missed out on possible tens of thousands that would come from the valid chain.
>What's Bitcoin's excuse? Where is the technical limitation?
Block propagation? Non-shit 2nd layer? If all BTC transactions fees only cost .00001 USD to settle and that was consistent you think it wouldn't be more widely adopted? Fees are clearly a function of technical limitation.
It's like he forgot that one of the major "features" of cryptocurrency is a quality that proliferates the sphere with scammers.
I say this as someone with a very optimistic outlook, edge case usage is both the pinnacle and the opposite of virtue, we would do well to not forget the dark side.
We need to keep it at "hopefully will solve problems" and leave it at that.
Tether is probably not backed 1:1, but at the same time I believe it is closer to 1:1 than it is to 0:1 just because the entity that runs it is literally a money-printing machine (Bitfinex is extraordinarily profitable) and there is evidence for some large quantity of people using Tether (they had 500m seized no?)
End of the day imo crypto is still a small fish when we look at the absolute numbers comparative to stocks. Manipulation is expected to a certain degree but I still lean towards a positive correlation in perceived value and price. Also I believe it is treated the same as every other market, fake it until you make it or implode.
I mean I view it very much like Tesla in that in only gets is value from the "possible end state", but the reality is that BTC doesn't need much capital in the schema of the financial world to multiple even at current levels.
Eh I disagree for a multitude of reasons, first is that I really don't agree with the government assumed line of "what is poverty" and I seriously doubt that is the first thing that jumps into everyone's mind when they say people around them are "impoverished". Strictly speaking for 2018, 13064 is the official poverty line for an individual with no dependents below the age of 65. You can easily make above the poverty line working those jobs above, but working minimum wage is quite frankly poverty level in my mind, even 50% more would be pushing it.
Secondly there are additional items that are necessary for this next generation that I don't believe are really accounted for. A lack of good internet access in the form of a smartphone or pc is a literal handicap, if someone can't justify affording that, I would very much consider them impoverished. Time is literal money and denying the most advanced tool in our day and age that will save you large amounts of time/money is poor from my perspective.
Yes I realize this measures something else, but it is rather opaque, and it fails to account for other things like debt.
75-125 is an actual trip. Anything less than that you're not going to get the full psychedelic experience. We can debate the effects of microdosing, but 100-150ug has been a gold standard for decades for a reason.
I don’t disagree! :) I think you’d find the graphs in the tripsafe link interesting - they show a relationship of starting dose size and rampup vs. lasting benefits. Also some statistics of how many participants felt high anxiety per starting dose. The most significant lasting benefits seemed to come from initially low and then escalating doses. iow it seems like a small dose allows people to process better. Open more up? Be swept less away by the experience and work more within their personal selves’ substance and experience?
Everyone is saying meditation etc, I would disagree. A major part is the ability to put this experience in motion/action which I find counterintuitive to meditation. Quite frankly no, I do not think it is replicable to be able to turn off the filters in which are responsible for keeping the raw data to a manageable level, that is much different than increasing your sensitivity through deprivation. Alteration of brain chemistry may be simulated in the future, but there is no replacement today.
there is a mechanism called replace by fee, so it becomes a question of incentives
The payment processors can scan the mempool for transactions that would invalidate the initial transaction, so then it would be a question of lead time. Great for digital services etc, not so great for in life purchases.
So if you absolutely 100% need confirmation, then yeah 10 minutes is what you need to wait, but that again is a question of probability comparative to credit card chargebacks/fees etc.
Even the next block inclusion isn't a guarantee... it just means that you have at current prices approximately 200k insurance. With enough resources and luck, someone could +EV roll back your transaction, but the cost scales exponentially.
The current viable solution for small inperson transactions is pretty much replicating the banking system. Current versions of abstracting the banking system into something decentralized are clunky/buggy to say the least.
but yeah in a vacuum it blows