Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

83% of that volume is stablecoins, a metric which doesn't build my confidence in this.

u/bigmammoth2310 tipped you 2.0 DONUT!

co-author here, AMA

u/Icy-Order-3200 tipped you 1.0 DONUT!

Hear me out though. Visa is transacting real value for the most part. How much value transacted on Ethereum is speculation vs real value?

u/maverick950 tipped you 1.0 DONUT!

u/ethereum88 tipped you 1.0 DONUT!

ETH is better than Visa, and Visa knows it!

That's why Visa is busy trying to adopt ETH and other blockchain technology!

Can I ask, who is getting the ethereum fees? Or where are they going?

u/Same-Row-4665 tipped you 1.0 DONUT!

The utility of Ethereum is unstoppable.

Thank this post to u/jayjay16022 🙏💙

Tip this post.

TLDR: gas fees went up

Thank this post to u/0xstark 🙏💙

Good article. Very close to seeing the root of the problem. Hopefully as the rest of the series is published things get clarified.

as the rest of the series is published

Though it is funny to see manufactured scarcity included in an article about abundance. More on this later. 😁

Thanks for sharing.

Peter

"I just want to point out how much good we can do by simply taking on the enemies of abundance."

It's comforting to see articles like this that accurately identify scarcity as a major source of suffering. They're aware that there are weaknesses in the fabric of society spanning from energy to health care. Granted in this case the author doesn't know what exactly to do about it, but they're on the right track. I find that comforting. It reminds me that the transition may not look like a solid mile point but rather like a stream of water, flowing from one social structure to another. The flow is subtle yet continuous. And we're watching it unfold in front of our very eyes.

What should happen is the fed should stop giving out federal loans to students. That will in turn makes it so students wouldn’t be able to afford college forcing colleges to lower tuitions.

To summarize they believe it is because there isn't enough supplies of certain needed and quasi necessary goods. They say it isn't a spending issue, and then determine it is.

Yet the US government, in their example, did not order Covid tests because they believed Covid was basically done by Summer. The various organizations that slowed the process was due to red tape and too much incompetent bureaucracy.

Medical costs are high not because we don't spend enough or have enough doctors. It's because we have inefficient systems and no price controls. Education is so high mostly because we again have an inefficient system and no price controls. Why would it with no oversight and unlimited money.

When ivy league schools received more in foreign student payments and alumni donations did they reduce costs, no. When their costs during Covid went down due to students not attending in person did they lower costs or even pay teachers more, no.

We need an overall of the entire system and remove inefficacies, lost, etc. If you had a car with a hole in it's tank would you fix the hole first or just keep filling it with gas?

With the housing stuff, you start gradually. Legislation and referenda that allowed for ADUs (essentially home-owners in otherwise single-family homes being able to rent out rooms or ad-on units, typically one per lot) has been pretty successful in California.

I think the next step is allowing for duplexes to be built by-right, and small apartment buildings on roads that allow for more traffic. It all helps - if you can build duplexes and single-family homes on smaller lots, you've nearly doubled the amount of housing units you can build per area of land. Allow for town homes and small apartment buildings, and it goes up even further.

Solar, wind, and geothermal progress has been impeded by regulations that benefit the fossil-fuel industry, by antigrowth attitudes among Americans who don’t want new energy projects in their neighborhood, and by questionable cost-benefit analyses by environmentalists.

I'm in favor of reforming NEPA so that renewable construction gets the same benefit of the doubt as oil and gas production. But I also think we need to do a better job of getting people financially invested in infrastructure in their backyard, so they don't just see it as an imposition without any say on their part. One of the things Denmark has done to really speed up deploying wind turbines is mandating that communities get an ownership stake in wind turbines, that funding gets put aside for environmental preservation in the area, etc.

Nuclear power is 99.6 percent greener than oil in emissions per unit of energy created and 99.7 percent safer in deaths per unit of energy. But the U.S. has closed more nuclear-power plants than we’ve opened this century.

Austin Vernon has a good piece on this, but basically it's rather dubious that new nuclear plants are going to be commercially viable with the rapidly dropping prices of renewables and storage even with far more favorable regulators and ultra-cheap credit, and even existing plants are only barely at par with them just on operating costs.

Civilian nuclear power just doesn't really seem to have much of a future in the US unless either new generation nuclear plants can be built cheaper (or have very low operating costs), or unless they can be cost-effective at far smaller sizes.

Doctors who do not come from wealthy families end up with a half a million dollars of student loans after committing years of their lives to becoming a doctor. They do not get compensated well enough to recover from this easily and the current system is horrible to work in.

Hmm...this is actually pretty good. Kinda surprised, considering how The Atlantic and its regular writers basically went nuts after the pandemic started.

Read the first part of the article where the writer presented problems and laid blame on singular causes for them, often oversimplified..

Hate that the top replies here are jokes.. Tax incentives would help fix scarcity and housing but that would be just one fix. You need multiple fixes in each issue presented.

It would channel the right’s fixation with national greatness to grow the things that actually make a nation great—such as clean and safe spaces, excellent government services, fantastic living conditions, and broadly shared wealth.

Yeah, those are things that the right doesn’t want. In fact, they actively work against those things. Again, another author who thinks that the right has actual plans or policies and that someone can just convince them to come around. That ship has sailed.

related:

• Something Sort of Like Left Libertarianism-ist Manifesto by Scott Alexander

• The Politics of Abundance by Matt Yglesias

• The Economic Mistake the Left Is Finally Confronting by Ezra Klein

• Cost Disease Socialism: How Subsidizing Costs While Restricting Supply Drives America’s Fiscal Imbalance BY STEVEN TELES, SAMUEL HAMMOND, DANIEL TAKASH

• Why shouldn’t supply-side reform deliver for the Tories’ new Red Wall voters? By Ryan Bourne

That's literally NOT a plan, it's a very generalized explanation of some possibilities with zero recommendations.

I.E. it's not a plan. It's party line garbage.

Not a bad article. It’s true that dumb laws are always at the root of high prices/shortages. I don’t,however think that foreign manufacturing or trade is a problem though. Foreign markets are bound to respond to the things Americans want to buy, and that’s good.

This article is hilarious. It points out real problems, but the solutions are all super conservative. Capitalism and imperialism are responsible for everything he lists, but he refuses to meaningfully address it and instead spends the article insisting that everything can be solved with better policy decisions. Policies the rich would never support.

Oh, what a clickbait title, and here I thought it was going to be put all of our faith into a single person and make them the unquestioned leader, I mean it is the 20s again. So there is precedent for it. At least in Italy.

The obsession with 'paying for it' is serving up an awful world. How about making a world worth paying for and providing the education to make it.

I am dumber for having read that.

Housing affordability is due to apartment complexes that cant be taller?

Assigning American greatness to Democrat agenda items as a gimme to Republicans?

What a joke.

I’m all for shaking things up. The systemic problem is greed. The left and right have a greed problem and that’s the first domino in everything this dude identifies.

There’s just too much money being greedily hoarded out of the economy.

Even as a Libertarian, I believe this has reached a point where the heavy hand of the government is needed to shake loose the cash from the top 1-3% wealthiest demographic.

Infrastructure, somehow forcing an actual living wage, and making college harder to get into would be great ways to get out of scarcity.

As for college needing to be harder, look, we have tried this “you can be anything you want” lie long enough. There’s a lot of very dumb people chasing dreams they aren’t capable of. I taught college for 3 years and left because there were just too many stupid people believing they could do stuff they had no business chasing.

College needs to be harder.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

Beautiful article wonderfully written that articulates an essential problem, while only grasping at the edges of it- much like a blindfolded boy beginning to understand he has within his grasp an elephant while scarcely grasping the trunk.

The fundamental problem is the philosophy of scarcity, not just the current practical and political symptoms. There already exists the resources within the world to feed, clothe, educate and care for every human being in Earth. There is at some distant and fantastic point in our shared legacy the point at which we shed the shameful evil that prevents us from reaching this most humble basis for human dignity.

Material obsolescence, consumerism, demand/supply based evaluations of the worth of human beings and their suffering become more barbaric and antiquated every day. Any futurist knows that it is within our grasp to build heaven or hell with the technology we already have. Every single one of us bears the burden and responsibility of which we choose to build.

I support almost all of this but college admissions really isn’t a question of abundance. There are many colleges that are actually facing closure because of falling admissions, even before COVID-19. Meanwhile, college affordability has dwindled not necessarily because of supply, but because states have reduced higher education subsidies and because the skill premium in wages is increasing faster than the rate of inflation.

American policies have been based around government imposed artificial scarcity for a very long time. We are now seeing all the fallout because of these policies. And I don't even blame the government for all of this. It is often times organized labor unions and home-owners that impose scarcity on others.

Housing is so expensive largely because cities refuse to build apartments over 2 stories tall- China doesn't have this problem, they house their urban poor in massive skyscrapers. The American people really do have the power to change this, they just have to get more involved in local politics.

Medical staff is so expensive because of artificial scarcity in the medical school and residency systems. There are plenty of other countries that just do a much better job at keeping medical costs reasonable than the US. There are foreign medical schools that are much more reasonably priced.

1/3rd of Americans needs a government license in order to work. That number was only 1 in 20 in the 1950s. California had to slash the number of hours spent in school to become a cosmetologist down to 600 from 1500 because of labor shortages. The reason why DIYing is so popular is because labor costs to hire contractors are so high.

Trump actually did run on an abundance agenda. And he did bend a few rules during the early days of COVID, like signing the defense production act. Many of his policies were based around abundance and removing red tape. He wasn't successful in many of them, and many of those policies occur on a state and local level. China tends to have much more free policies when it comes to the issues that this article points out, they probably are going to become the world superpower at this rate.

Pretty good ideas, but sadly, most of them are impossible to implement here. And I have no idea what would it take to convince our politicians as well as the average citizen to try to make this country better for all of us. (In the past only really big events like WW1 and WW2 did it.)

This is ultimately a political problem through and through. The larger picture is basically gone from the minds of many Americans, replaced with what about meism. It's definitely not an economic question of whether or not any of this can be achieved. Thousands of people spent the last decade building-up and hustling pyramid schemes on distributed databases. We've trust the market for the last 40-years and we've done nothing but slowly let other economies catch-up and threaten to replace ours.

Borrowing against the productivity of future generations doesn’t sound like a fix to scarcity so much as a band-aid.

Garbage source. Pitiful.

More government? No thanks, if you identify the problem as government regulations why are you going after more regulations?

I’d like to see these charts with average child support figured in to the income numbers. Add the amount women are paid to their numbers and subtract the amount men are forced to pay from their numbers. My guess is that it shrinks up that gap significantly.

The other is a biological explanation: that women may have a stronger preference for spending more time in activities related to child care.

“What our evidence shows is that a lot of gender inequality is associated with choices that suggest different preferences,” Kleven says.

Blasphemy! Burn the heretic! Such inconvenient facts must never be spoken!

Well there you go. Stop having children and all the 'problem' will disappear!

Yes, a woman's earnings may go down as a result of having children.

And very often a man's earnings go up (by working overtime) to make up for the the decreased FAMILY income.

How dare we men oppress our women and children by working harder to make up for our whole family's income loss.!

Wait wait, hold on.... so what they're saying is-- and stop me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here--- if I were to scale-back and/or stop work entirely for many years at a time... I would earn less than someone who doesn't??? Whoa.

Is that the secret here? To stop working means earning less than someone who doesn't stop working? My god, that's earth-shaking! And, conversely, to work more means to earn..... more?

Whoa, man. Mind. Blown.

It's a shame that child-bearing isn't a choice nowadays, isn't it? And that this isn't a self-selected "penalty" that the author is describing, which normally gets called an "opportunity cost" in any other kind of economic situation?

...

...

...

Did these people just step-off the flying saucer from fucking Pluto or something? No wonder they find obvious things "stunning."

Apparently, the patriarchy pushes women out of the workforce and penalizes them for not being in the workforce. That's not a very smart policy, patriarchy. Not very smart at all. If you were smart, patriarchy, you would make a woman's children more lovable and joyful than punching numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and everyone knows that Excel spreadsheets are the funnest things around!

If I were an employer concerned with revenue, I would hire an equally qualified man over a woman because he's less likely to leave and lose me money. It's economics.

I am now going to play Devil's Advocate.

Imagine that YOU own a company.

You are responsible for the company.

You handle all the business.

You make sure that the company's bills are paid, and on time.

Now imagine that you have an employee who is going to be out of work for a few months, but you still need to pay this employee as if they were still working.

This employee cannot contribute to the company.

You must have one or more other employees take up the slack of the out-of-work employee.

This cuts into productivity.

It might, and I do mean nearly might, effect company moral, as others now have to work harder.

All the while, this is probably going to be going on with other employees over the years, costing YOU even more money.

In closing, I remind you that I have been playing Devil's Advocate.

Some question and before I'm down voted I'm not making any implications on my opinion I'm just asking.

Why should we expect businesses to pay for and accommodate child birth after all they don't owe it to us and it is a choice that you can plan and save for? Child free people don't get special vacations for not inconveniencing others why should we expect everyone else to loose while we gain just because we have made the decision to have a child?

Should having a child not be something you should be 100% prepared for? If you expect your employer to pay for it how are you prepared??

Finally we have a population crisis already with the state of the world getting worse and worse and a food crisis just around the corner should we really be making it easier for people that cannot afford to look after children without funding from somebody else to have kids?

Once again, if there is a wage gap, why don't businesses hire all women? Labor is the largest expense in almost all businesses.

People who care for and raise children are doing important work and making a long term investment in the sustainability of our economy. Having children is an individual choice, but if no one did it, we would all be in trouble. Yet the work of having and caring for children is largely under compensated or uncompensated. It is generally not even viewed as work at all, but a "gap in employment". Societally, we value neither the product of this work (the future workers and productive members of society), nor the experiences and skills gained while performing it. Parenting can provide a crash course in time management and organizational skills, conflict resolution and crisis management, delegation and negotiation, project management, enhanced communication and interpersonal skills, coaching and mentoring, and more. Put that on your resumé and you will be mocked.

Saying that women make less money because they do less work or less valuable work is a justification, not a reason. We value it less because it has traditionally been done by women. Sharing the work of child care equally between genders would be a step in the right direction, not because it would burden men, but because it would create a better appreciation of the contributions that have traditionally been made by women.

Personally I say there is a third option not explored by this study. The need for short term gains in income.

When you have two parents that can both take time off. The mother is obviously going to take it first. So lets say 6 months pass.. bills are still increasing as is the nature of having a child.

You are now faced with a choice does the mother keep taking time off or do you switch and have the father take time....

If the mother goes back to work after 6 months she is basicly starting freash again. This means more time before being concertered for advancement and with it raises so you can better afford and pay the raising costs of your family. But if the mother continues to stays home, the father has (if at the same job) the higher chance of a promotion sooner since he has been working and proving himself during this time.

Short term goal planning say this is the better option. So most people would choose this. Long term the reverse would be true but when you have raising costs you look for the short term fix typically not the long term.

Yeah, which is exactly why we need mandatory, parental leave for all parents including men.

Am a man (sorry)

How long should paid maternity leave be?

who should pay it? (company/govt/both)

if the company pays it wouldn't that deter them from hiring women?

Shouldn't men be afforded the same right of paternity leave?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/14/here-are-the-facts-behind-that-79-cent-pay-gap-factoid/?utm_term=.1ff0239be059

This is a pretty good article about the wage gap and wage earnings. There is still a slight wage gap even adjusting for time taken off work and career choices.

Some points from the article:

Women are penalized more for being outspoken, and for asking for raises.

Careers that become female dominated from male dominated start to pay less, as in "women's work" is often valued less, even if it is just as difficult.

All of this said, I agree. Equalizing childcare as much as possible would go a long way towards equality. And it would be great for men too. Father's shouldn't feel bad about taking time off to raise their children. Children do best when both parents can be involved.

Women's earnings drop as they generally spend more time with the child and less hours working hence the "wage gap". I don't know why this is even considered that revealing as it's been the main argument against the supposed wage gap. At the end of the day this should come down to the couple making the decision as apposed to people moaning about inequality in pay because of reasons X,Y & Z.

Also I love the title, "the gender wage gap is really a child care penalty", having a child is a commitment from both parties and generally women want to spend more time with the child due to maternal instincts, it's well known babies hold a deeper connection to the mother after childbirth so obviously with all that in mind we can all see why "women are most affected" by this. I'll reiterate, no one forces you to have a child and when you do decide to have a child obviously some compromises have to be made, in this case that would mean working less hours in order to correctly raise your child.

Why didn't they include a men without kids/ Wen without kids graph to demonstrate any remaining differences? It makes me slightly suspicious.

This is something that almost every single economist worth their salt knows. The gap is rarely down to any actual pay discrepancy, but rather the costs of raising a child and things such as maternity leave, childcare problems (as mentioned in the OP) and the knock-on effects that the loss of employment experience.

I could see a case for direct discrimination being the cause before the economics research started to appear, but now, it's a sad state where, yet again, people ignore the reality to spout baseless accusations.

So far,e veryone who's posted here has the rigth idea - get to a point where both parents can share a legitimate equal rights and responsibilities.

This is pretty obvious. I always thought vocal feminists are harming themselves when they push the idea that women get paid less for the same job.

Its harmful because they are wasting time fighting the wrong battle which is proven to be insignificant.

If we want the pay gap to close we need to fight for better childcare options, joint parental paternity leave and end the stigma of men taking time off for their children.

I'll say it again. It's only a penalty if you value children, child care and family at 0

I see an explanation for an earnings gap but not a wage gap.

My main problem is that these types of articles seem to equate personal success with career success which is insanity.

Of course having children is going to penalize you in the workplace. You are shifting priorities from work to family. This is common sense and people make these choices of their own free will. If you go from working 60 hours a week to only working 40 how is there an expectation that your income trajectory won't be affected?

Even if we consider the concept of a perfect balance of work and family won't we still see people that focus on work doing better in that field? Why is that a bad thing?

I've had discussions about the gender wage gap where the other party had been under the impression that the wage gap was controlling for everything but gender.

After explaining causes (such as this being the most influential one), they've actually flipped on the issue to the perspective that it's not actually unfair. It may be relevant that these were married men who had been less than free to take the minimum allotted paternity leave.

One is an environmental explanation, where social norms make it harder for mothers to stay in the workforce. Under this explanation, moms may find that they aren’t offered certain opportunities — a job that requires significant travel or long hours, for example — because of the perception that they are the primary caregiver to a child.

Or women are choosing not take these opportunities? Why must every article like this strip women of their agency. I have no doubt there are ALSO social pressures involved, but I don't think every woman (just like I don't think every man ) is seeking out the apex job.

While I agree that child rearing contributes to the wage gap, this alone doesn't explain the racial pay gap.

When we don't acknowledge the racial piece of the pay gap, we tend to focus all of our attention to the top, ie high-paying jobs and positions, which white women are more likely to hold than women of color. But high-earning white women aren't the majority of female workers — and the majority of wage discrimination happens to low-wage workers.

While paid family leave would certainly help to bridge the wage gap, even more basic solutions are needed as well, like raising minimum wage. The wage gap exists because women, especially women of color, are more vulnerable to exploitation by their employers. Basic workers protections—which this country severely lacks—would go a long way toward closing not only the wage gap but the gap between the rich and the poor.

In theory, Danish policy does allow parents to split up their leave. But in practice, Danish women take off the vast majority of time after the birth of a child. Recent data shows that Danish men account for just 10 percent of parental leave taken in the country.

“When parental leave is neutral [not specifically divided up between two parents], then we wouldn’t expect it to do something great for the gender gap,” Kleven says.

While maternity leave is no doubt a family-friendly policy, it isn’t the type of policy that will fix the gender wage gap. If anything, it potentially can widen the gender wage gap by taking just women out of the labor force for as long as a year, likely reducing their earning potential in the future.

Let's take choices away from people so that our equality metrics look nicer!

Eh.

Yes, kids are a career handicap. I'm living the dream, it has ups and downs. I think this is a more complicated conversation though, dipping into verboten toxic femininity.

Are professional women looking for house husbands? Even willing to consider them? I don't think so. I've read that women earning more than their spouses is a much higher risk for divorce than average.

Of families I have experience with: the dual income households where both partners maintain their careers leverage third party child care heavily. Very heavily. They make it work, but time with the kids is lost. Even this is a career impact, but not an extreme one. Apex career paths don't have leeway to support this situation, they are binary all-work or nothing.

For professionals, spending time with your kids is a luxury. Working parent + stay at home parent offers some nice benefits, but both parents accrue risk doing do. The risk materializes along lines of social bias by gender.

I think the outcomes shown do boil down to choices: often hard choices. But I think the choices are framed by social wants. If women choose spouses (even partially) by earning ability, that sets a lot of boundaries on the choices available. Child care is expensive. Having a stay at home parent until school starts makes a lot of sense, both in terms of quality of life and finance. If lady X was attracted to dude Y because of Y's sweet paycheck, guess who is more likely to be the SAHP? If the mother stands to gain more status, who is more likely to be the SAHP? If the father loses more status for giving up career... Well, you get the idea.

I love my kids, I love being a father. I cratered my life to do what I want to do, I accept the outcome.

I mean, really, the wage gap is evidence of sexism against men more than anything.

We already know that men are punished more harshly for taking time off work than women are. For most couples, what's the rational course of action? For a woman to take it on the chin and be "punished", or for a man to be punished far more harshly?

It's not an irrational thing. The problem is that society itself is sexist against men, and this is driving the gender wage gap - men are expected to sacrifice everything for their work on the basis of their gender, including spending time with their families.

Cool, make it better than Nvidia cards please. I need a new gaming card for a good price.

Roi 5 years 🤡

If you want to learn more about Bitcoin´s use of energy, you can start here:

https://www.danheld.com/blog/2019/1/5/pow-is-efficent

https://research.ark-invest.com/hubfs/1_Download_Files_ARK-Invest/White_Papers/ARKInvest_031220_Whitepaper_BitcoinMining.pdf

https://squareup.com/us/en/press/bcei-white-paper

https://wintonark.medium.com/bitcoin-mining-impact-on-renewable-uptake-fc91c5aa9be0

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-green-case-for-bitcoin

"I'll take things society doesn't need for $2000 Alex."

Imagine putting such incredible technology and resources into producing....... nothing.

Seems pointless, make a CPU that is actually good at RandomX instead, like a Ryzen is.

Ugh time to buy calls again. Nancy Pelosi bought Intel as well.

I mean Intel is no longer competitive in the CPU market. They spent so long to crack 10nm they got left in the dust, even with the huge government stipend to build new manufacturing for better chips to ease reliance on TSMC, we are a decade away from that even being feasible...

They have to do something to make up for the loss of Apple chips and losing to AMD on multi-thread/core processing, as more programs and especially gaming utilize the power of chips more efficiently.

Pandering to Crypto could make up for some of their shortcomings.

Human greed.

Human greed about some stupid code that is economically deflationary and environmentally destructive.

Human code that has zero intrinsic value, wash traded, aggressively falsely promoted.

And no one cares because they make money. Humanity is a curse.

Crypto is the future... of the destruction of our enviornment.

For a subreddit about the future, a lot of users on this forum are surprisingly uneducated on this subject.

I've noticed a lot of people on Reddit shit on crypto mining without having complete knowledge or experience in mining crypto.

Yea just fuck the environment for worthless internet money

Maybe then all you crypto nerds can f off and leave our gaming GPUs alone. The prices have gotten absolutely ridiculous

if bitcoin isn't praying to capitalism idk what is

I hope they tackle optical proof of work. That would lead to real efficiency gains and not require high end lithography.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Bitcoin_is_plan_A:

If you want to learn more about Bitcoin´s use of energy, you can start here:

https://www.danheld.com/blog/2019/1/5/pow-is-efficent

https://research.ark-invest.com/hubfs/1_Download_Files_ARK-Invest/White_Papers/ARKInvest_031220_Whitepaper_BitcoinMining.pdf

https://squareup.com/us/en/press/bcei-white-paper

https://wintonark.medium.com/bitcoin-mining-impact-on-renewable-uptake-fc91c5aa9be0

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-green-case-for-bitcoin

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/s7pqwp/intel_to_unveil_bitcoinmining_bonanza_mine_chip/htba2fp/

It'll be very interesting to see the efficiency gains they talk about. If substantial then this will very good for Intel and very good for crypto.

If you want to learn more about Bitcoin´s use of energy, you can start here:

https://www.danheld.com/blog/2019/1/5/pow-is-efficent

https://research.ark-invest.com/hubfs/1_Download_Files_ARK-Invest/White_Papers/ARKInvest_031220_Whitepaper_BitcoinMining.pdf

https://squareup.com/us/en/press/bcei-white-paper

https://wintonark.medium.com/bitcoin-mining-impact-on-renewable-uptake-fc91c5aa9be0

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-green-case-for-bitcoin

ELI5, if a company produced golden geese, why would they sell them?

What a waste of recources. What a waste to use chips for this kinda bullshit.

If you need proof that Intel sucks then here it is

This belongs in r/collapse.

Unfortunately the chips won't be available everywhere due to supply issue and to be honest, their competitor has been doing specialized miners for over a decade now.

Intel finally entered this field , and it also shows the the competitiveness brought by Pat. Go Intel!

If you want to be like Bernie's paradise Venuzuela, sure.

"Just stop. Seriously," Austan Goolsbee, a professor at the University of Chicago, said in response to the question. Goolsbee previously served as chairman of the Council of Economics Advisers under former President Barack Obama.

F you Goolsbee and Chicago school.

Limiting how much companies can charge will distort markets, they argue, causing shortages and exacerbating supply chain problems while only temporarily reducing inflation.

Yeah, sure. You know what really distorts the hell out of markets:

Monopolies and corporate capture of government.

conservatives and "moderate" democrats reading this headline

Strategic oil reserve

Farm subsidies

We already do. Headline implies is a huge change to policy here.... when it's largely just a matter about how hard we pull available policy levers.

Basics ingredients and healthy food should be subsidized. There should be a zero mile initiative for food like they have in other countries like Italy. When you walk into the supermarket and there is no chicken, that’s because your chicken comes from god knows where.

As for gas, let it die. It’s killing the Earth anyway. America should subsidize renewable energy systems that don’t have us rely on foreign entities for energy and be at the mercy of their prices.

No. The government should never try to control the price of anything. Because usually they will try to make the price lower. Which leads to less people supplying it. Which leads to higher prices.

The government should regulate the costs of food, energy and healthcare including pharmaceuticals as these are needs more so than wants of every American.

What if we had the gov't competing in the private market? That is, non-profit run businesses. Could probably shave 10% off prices and would make it harder for for-profit businesses to jack up prices if the gov't option is always rock-bottom. I could see this being particularly helpful for those industries where profits and high prices seem out of control. E.g. housing, baby formula, internet connection, and a few others.

Fascism

its should the rich control the prices?

When it comes to price gouging, then yes. When a volatile market is in question, then no. Governments have already made markets more volatile by causing artificial crashes during the shut-downs to prevent disease spread. The markets will fluctuate back and forth until they reach equilibrium. Government assistance will bring an artificial equilibrium, which is unhealthy for industry. Industry either becomes reliant upon government help to sustain low product cost, or the cost of the product is fixed higher than it needs to be, causing businesses to lose customers.

Government already effects Gas Prices by requiring manufacturers to produce regular gasoline with ethanol (an unneeded additive which gives corn farmers business).

Additionally, large farms are already largely subsidized, artificially driving down costs to the detriment of producers not conforming with subsidy agreements. In terms of agriculture, farmers are not permitted to fully cater to market demands as other industries if they want to compete with other farms receiving subsidies.

Government should confirm more things

If they arent going to count it in the Consumer price index for inflation then yes maybe, same with housing. As it stand it defacto makes the US dollar a fungible labor only reserve currency by having stock, capital measured and policy regulated as a separate economy from labor dollars.

The only to bring the price of gas down is to stop big oil from exporting oil out of the country!

Control and set prices? Absolutely not. 10000000% no.

Should they introduce market caps for consumer goods that fall victim to extortionate pricing out of step with the requirements for their production? This I can get behind.

For example, insulin. I won't even begin describing why because you probably already know. But controlling gas prices is a whole different animal.

Well this is just capitalism at work. Isn’t one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism “supply and demand,” so companies will charge as much as they can while maintaining profits? That’s just how the game is played

Quick, we got to scare the boomer libs before they learn about decommodification!

Can we throw healthcare into this conversation as well?

The article quotes economists who don't think it's a good idea for price controls. But they are economists from the University of Chicago, which is fairly well-known for austerity economic ideas....

People are paying a lot more for food, gas, cars and services, and inflation isn't over yet as the pandemic continues to distort the economy. So should governments consider setting the price of essential goods?

It's been done before, typically during times of crisis, but for most mainstream economists, the answer to this question is a resounding "no." Limiting how much companies can charge will distort markets, they argue, causing shortages and exacerbating supply chain problems while only temporarily reducing inflation.

"Price controls can of course control prices — but they're a terrible idea," David Autor, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, remarked in a survey published earlier this month by the University of Chicago.

Only if Democrats run that program. If a republican is in charge we will all die.

Depends on who is running the government

No, that's Socialism

Yes and no.

The government should make sure that there are no policies causing shortages of any of these things. The government should also provide the necessary subsidies to ensure energy independence (ie, making sure we have appropriate levels of solar and wind investment, where possible, to reduce fossil fuel dependence).

The government can also make sure that food prices are relatively stable by providing need based assistance to people who need food. This ensures a stable floor of food production so that there is enough food to meet minimum requirements and no sudden influx of food demand (leading to inflation in food prices) if the population does well economically.

The government, generally speaking, cannot literally control the price of food and gas.

Lol at Republicans upset that a Democratic President isn't acting like a Communist.

Isn't it not good when governments seize the means of production?

Thank this post to u/twigwam 🙏💙

It’s a virus that runs on computers and human brains.

So Bitcoin mining is good because miners will "reduce demand" when asked? Is that actually "will reduce demand when prices skyrocket"?

Bitcoin consumes as much power as the entire zinc mining industry? So rather than doubling the amount of injection-moldable, infinitely-recyclable metal parts we use -- we instead have 20 minute long flame-pit burn competitions, and whoever makes the biggest smokiest cloud wins and we start over?

Just so a bunch of cryptobros can say "decentralized"? Fuck all this, and fuck your fake internet money.

You waste a bunch of electricity and computer hardware in exchange for Internet monopoly money. What's to misunderstand?

Here comes the crypto enthusiast brigade to defend themselves and hype the potential to change the world without offering any concrete details of how exactly it'll happen.

“Most misunderstood “? I’m not so sure. I think there are many other industries that are less well understood by the average American.

And is Bitcoin Mining even an Industry? They don’t really make anything physical, like a real industry.

Lol if you think /r/technology won't ignorantly downvote this article to hell without even reading it

It's such a weird dystopia. People getting careers, using energy in a time of climate catastrophe, to feed the machine, with no clear to service to other humans. Shouldn't money be a reward for your service to others, not the machine? Tell me one more time that I just "don't understand it," "blockchain" "decentralized" yada yada. Get a real job.

Love me some litecoin, mined half of one on a laptop 😎

Bullish on Litecoin, it's here to stay, and with that comes further growth

Litecoin is a unique blend of all the right elements, with omnilite improvements still in the works, mweb incoming and taproot on deck.

Top 3 infrastructure ultraglobal accessibility w/ liquidity & constant volume Top 3 security, global evolved asic Top 2 decentralization fairly launched Top 1 reliability w/ 100% uptime 10 yrs Only top tier crypto w/ subcent fees

Lots of alts think they can just do the last one, but it's not enough.

LTC is the Honda Civic of crypto.

Great, finally we can shit LTC with shitmeme animal token full. I will buy you hard, ElonKingSilverCrab

Ltc, my love who broke my heart.

Reddit likes to be negative on LTC but from what I’ve seen, major exchanges feature it front and center with BTC, ETH, DOGE. There’s no denying it has it’s merits.

For people that are much smarter than me, how much of a positive impact does this have on Litecoin if any affect at all?

Can't wait to build BitconnectV2

Quick send EMT’s to Ltc.

Ah, LTC, my worst performing coin. There might still be hope for you.

• Litecoin Pros & Cons - Participate in the r\/CC Cointest to potentially win moons. Prize allocations: 1st - 300, 2nd - 150, 3rd - 75.

• Sort comments as controversial first by clicking here. Doesn't work on mobile.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

The metaverse is absolutely the last thing this world needs. The wns is near.

We’re doomed. This shit makes absolutely no fucking sense unless you’re a fucking idiot with more money than brains.

Edit: had to change the word insan but with an e because apparently that’s a bad word. Go figure considering who’s running the show.

Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭

⚠ Announcements: ⚠

NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts

Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines.

Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!

Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren

Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for socialist discussion.

LSC is run by communists. We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.

This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Too bad Ryan headhunted all the best talent out there!!!!!

Good luck with that!

🦍🚀

Does walmart support Al-Qaeda? I dont want to give my money to a company that does. 🙃

What? Do t they know NFTs market places are DOA? Do t they know only terrorist will use their platform? I hope they are comfortable helping ISIS and Al Quedia launder their money…

I mean that is what they said about the gamestop nft market place

Your submission was removed because r/NFT doesn't allow whitelist or presales. Please fill in this form first and join our Discord's #Contact-Reddit-Mods channel to get whitelist/presales approved.

• Join r/NFT Discord [70,000 members]
• Follow rNFTcommunity Twitter to get featured!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Walmart properly bribes the media while GME did not. Also walmart is the souless low quality giga type company they wanted to take over when they flash crashed everything in 2020. Amazon handling the majority of online and Walmart being the main physical stores.

According to Frank Chaparro, director at crypto information services firm The Block, many retailers are still reeling from being late to e-commerce, so they don’t want to miss out on any opportunities in the metaverse.

“I think it’s a win-win for any company in retail,” Chaparro said. “And even if it just turns out to be a fad there’s not a lot of reputation damage in just trying something weird out like giving some customers an NFT in a sweepstake, for instance.”

Ah yeah but when GME does it, it has the potential to support terrorism. I am so fucking done with MSM!

‘Walmart is quietly preparing to enter metaverse to compete with what was a small, dying, brick and mortar store….which has transitioned into a competitor that has a footprint in most of their plazas’

Or that’s how it reads to me. GameStop used to be in the strip mall by Walmart’s cart corrals in the parking lot. Now they are stealing their business and becoming a huge competitor.

Talk is cheap.

"quietly"

Wait, I thought they said it was a shit idea when GameStop did it?

wut doing CNBC??

Who isn't?

IMPORTANT POST LINKS

What is GME and why should you consider investing? || What is DRS and why should you care? || What can you do to support the company and local communities

Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk. Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here

If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, UPVOTE this comment!!

If this post should not be here or or is a repost, DOWNVOTE This comment!

Bullish on People of Wallmart NFT collection.

Walmart getting into the NFT game?

Let them. NFT's are so fail. South Park was right to call out how profoundly retarded NFT's are. Kind of like bitcoin mining.

lol.. metaverse users will be able to buy virtualized furniture, food, electronics, (from walmart)for their virtualized homes in the metaverse with a cryptocurrency developed by Walmart.. Metaverse reminds me of a game i use to play when I was younger. How exactly does Walmart make profit(fiat currency) from this? They'd sure make a lot of money in decentralized currencies though.

Can't wait to see the clearance ones! /s

Thank this post to u/Devils_doohickey 🙏💙

Fuck Walmart. Worst business on earth. Idgaf how much you’re “earning” when your employees need to go on welfare you’re running a failure of a business. I’d be fucking EMBARRASSED if I couldn’t pay my workers enough to eat. Why we as a country haven’t boycotted this place and shut them down permanently (many communities have fought against them) is beyond my understanding.

Would be nothing but a long shot guess from anyone here

So they HAVE bought

Into this spiel

I'd really hoped

This wasn't real

The perfect toy

For rich buffoons

They'll pay our checks

With SamCoin™ soon

PoorCoin

Attention seekers

Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):

Rule #3. Titles

• Submissions must use either the articles title and optionally a subtitle, or, only if neither are accurate, a suitable quote, which must:

• adequately describe the content

• adequately describe the content's relation to technology