|
It's funny how everyone believes the banks are going to squash cryptocurrencies.
No they won't, they would just handle it the same way as every other "currency". And earn some money in the process.
Authorities is a completely different question, many countries has already outlawed them.
Sweden is more pragmatic, the tax authorities simply defines them as a commodity like any other, and demand that the profits are taxed the same way as anything else.
You make a profit, you pay a percentage.
You have a bitcoin farm, you pay VAT and income tax.
Simples.
|
|
|
|
|
That is not an unreasonable approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. I don't think banks will squash them... they can't. Technology is bigger than banks. I totally agree they'll accept them after they make changes to keep them in the power loop.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: What to do, what to do.
Its just too expensive to buy anyway.
One bitcoin is 358762 Indian Rupees!!
 
[I could keep adding the same emoticons but somewhere the firewalls would kick in]
|
|
|
|
|
I could bite my ass not having bought bitcoins two years ago! Now I would bite my ass if I would buy bitcoins! The whole thing is too volatile and in-transparent to me and I don't understand enough about it to risk my money.
The cryptocurrency aside, the technology behind, block-chain, might be more interesting, depending in which industry you are in.
|
|
|
|
|
You must remember: Bitcoin existed long before "Bitcoin inc".
Bitcoin itself not a scam. It may-or-may not be overvalued. Just like a single tulip cost bazillions in the 17th century (Tulip mania - Wikipedia). Tulips were not a scam either, just extremely overvalued.
As for "Bitcoin inc" they might be scammers, does not mean that Bitcoin is.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Fair point and agreed that the company mentioned does come across as a possible scam - may not be, but that's how it looks.
|
|
|
|
|
Giskard:
Bitcoin is of course part a scam and part thin slice bread, or better yet, snake oil or cough syrup... 
Joking aside you can comparte Bitcoin to the birth of Coca Cola... it started as a do it all, health beverage based on Coca leaves (where you extract Cocaine) and Kola nut which is a fruit rich in caffeine. It was served at room temperature so tasted like sh*t... that was John Pemberton and if you come to Atlanta there's a beautiful place called Pemberton plaza which houses "The World of Coca Cola".
Alas, as a medicine, Coca Cola was a deep scam and today, original Coca Cola would be banned as it contains not only high concentrations of caffeine, but also traces of Cocaine.
But, ironically Pemberton never became rich from his invention. He died of stomach cancer, being a morphine addict and sold most of his rights to the beverage to keep up with his addictions.
But Coca Cola, later became a wild success and today it's an empire (based on Atlanta) which sells billions and has hundreds different brands and tastes. But the "secret sauce" of Coca-Cola still is "ground zero" for the full corporation.
So with that in mind, Bitcoin might fare equally well. In the future we might have a Satoshi Nakamoto plaza somewhere in the US, Japan, Russia or whatever.
Millions would be made with Bitcoin, but don't just yet dump you're full life savings on it.
Dutch family sells everything to bet on bitcoins
You must follow the "Wences rule for investing", created by my fellow Latin American Wenceslao Casares (sounds Russian, but he's actually from Argentina, which casually means "Place where the money is").
The simple formula for becoming a bitcoin millionaire, according to one of its innovators
Just take 1% of your current state and invest it on Bitcoin, and let it mature (or rot) for 5 to 10 years.
If all goes to hell, you've only lost 1% of your household. If everything goes as planned, you would have a 500% return on your investment.
In the mean time, just buy the world a Coke and live in perfect harmony....
Mad Men "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" series finale, Coca Cola TV ad
|
|
|
|
|
Once the feds figure out how to tax it, it will just be another bookkeeping technique. Right now, it's about "tax-free" bartering.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To run on Azure, or to run Azure on it? 
|
|
|
|
|
So either it's so bloated that runs like a dog and needs huge power
... (echoes of ms office - good to see standards maintained),
or it's going to help supercomputers run like a dog
(so non-super people can see/count how often it stops to relieve itself???)
outside the states - well Asia for sure, azure runs like a dog (in fact the entire ms cloud - 14 hours to install office 365 down a fiber link, ffs).
it's no wonder google is winning.
|
|
|
|
|
lopati: roaming wrote: it's no wonder google is winning.
Are they? Just about every article I see on cloud provider market share places AWS first, followed by Azure, and then Google is a fairly distant third.
MS is also attributing a huge chunk of its growth as of late to Azure and related services.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are going to rank an article as 1 then please have the nerve to say why.
|
|
|
|
|
I personnaly did not cast any vote to your article (I suppose here you are talking about the Bowling scores one). However, I flagged it as a "wrong type" because, imho, you do not explain anything about your implementation. It consists only of a brief introduction, three screenshots, a "How to use the code" section, and short "History" and "License" sections.
I suspect the persons who have voted 1 have the feeling that your article is way below their expectations of a CP article. Maybe if you would mind putting a little more efforts on the "Implementation" part, then these people may modify their votes accordingly.
Anyway, I would say chilling a bit would not do any harm to anyone 
Kindly.
selfish adj. Defines someone who does not think of me.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you expect. The article discusses the iterative nature of scoring a game of bowling. The algorithm is posted. There is not much more to the code than the scoring algorithm which is posted in plain text.
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Bantly wrote: What do you expect.
Implementation details.
selfish adj. Defines someone who does not think of me.
|
|
|
|
|
That's probably why it got a one vote: it's a poor article.
That doesn't mean it's a poor app, just that as an article it's - frankly - barely a tip.
Quite how that got through moderation I'm not sure ... I would have voted "wrong type" on it myself if I'd seen it in the queue.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I am working on the details. I appreciate the real devs coming out of the woodwork to call me out and say "hey, you can do better". It is on the way; complete with code and explanations. My normal articles have been well received so this is an eye opener.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully someone can change it, or Elsa he might have a stroke.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Olaf if you will, but it's not funny.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
