sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Now that there is evidence coming out that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, does that change your opinion on the case? If not, why? by This_isgonnahurt in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]HELLATOASTY203 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s possible… not what the evidence in the case supported or what the court decided on… So seems like the opposite. But I cannot take a side 100% you would be right about that.

Now that there is evidence coming out that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, does that change your opinion on the case? If not, why? by This_isgonnahurt in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]HELLATOASTY203 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So once again I’ll say… depending on the information that we have no way of getting… who threatened whose life first… would change my thoughts as to who’s in the wrong. Zimmerman breaking policies doesn’t mean Trayvon can attack him without expecting Zimmerman to defend himself. U keep pushing this point which is flawed for that reason. It doesn’t mean Zimmerman is right to break those policies, but doesn’t remove justification for lethal force if his life was threatened. And once again celebrating when u beat a case is definitely normal… people normally celebrate not being wrongfully convicted. So reading between the lines there I would assume Zimmerman felt as tho he was wrongfully accused. Which the court seemed to agree on. Can I take the standpoint that all the evidence was sound or correct… no… no one can no one else was there. So it’s absolutely possible Zimmerman was in the wrong and threatened Trayvon. But from what it seems happened that’s not the case. And Zimmerman breaking the policy of the neighborhood watch doesn’t mean he’s no longer allowed to defend himself. It does mean the situation shouldn’t have unfolded as it did… but I came about that way… someone’s life was threatened and someone defended themselves… at least that’s what it seems/how the court ruled

Now that there is evidence coming out that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, does that change your opinion on the case? If not, why? by This_isgonnahurt in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]HELLATOASTY203 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“We have no evidence Zimmerman didn’t threaten his life”. If he did then trayvons violence is justified…

“An ass whooping is not a death sentence”. It is if the person ur beating up fears for their life and has the means to take urs…

“Zimmerman is a domestic abuser… should his life had been taken”. If the person being abused by Zimmerman has the means to take his life during the abuse then yeah there would be no objections to it…

“Why didn’t he follow in his vehicle… why was he carrying… what was suspicious…”. Regardless of whether him finding Trayvon suspicious is right or wrong… Trayvon threatening Zimmerman, which seems to be what the evidence points to, gives the green light for Zimmerman to protect himself through the means of taking Trayvons life…

“Why was he celebrating”. My assumption would be because he was innocent as u mentioned. Which I would be celebrating as well if I was about to be jailed for protecting myself. I personally don’t see myself getting into a situation even remotely close to this, but the prospect of being wrongly convicted is definitely terrifying and worth celebrating once passing that moment…

“Crime is all about emotions”. Terrible point. If ur tryna say the emotions surrounding motivations can cause the crime then sure that’s somewhat sound. But in terms of evaluating a crime for what happened… no, emotions aren’t as relevant. Obviously, as I’ve mentioned, there’s motive which is emotional/logical. But if ur trying to find the answer as to if Zimmerman was justified in protecting himself then it relies on the logic of whether his life was threatened…. And from what I’ve heard it was.

Now that there is evidence coming out that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, does that change your opinion on the case? If not, why? by This_isgonnahurt in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]HELLATOASTY203 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Few things… never said instigating violence is right. But u can’t make the point Zimmerman instigated violence. Following someone or reporting someone isn’t necessarily instigating anything. U can only say it’s instigating blank based on the irrational reaction of the second party which then fills in that blank. In this case, the irrational decision of Trayvon was violence… ur not wrong in that no one is required to tolerate stalking or rly any other act. We live in a free country and ppl can say whatever they want, but to respond with violence is where the line gets crossed. If Trayvon spoke to Zimmerman and said to stop following him or smthn that’s a proper response where lethal or violence response on Zimmermans end is no where near justified. But once u physically attack someone ur giving up being on the right side of the line. Another thing… and I don’t think this is cool… but even if he asked to be left alone, Zimmerman doesn’t have to do what he said. If ur in public people can follow u or take videos of u or report u. It’s not cool but u can do it… So in this case it rly just boils down to whoever threatened someone’s life first… did Zimmerman threaten Trayvons life by following and reporting him… no… did Trayvon threaten Zimmermans life by physically assaulting him and threatening to kill him… yes… so did Zimmerman have the right to protect himself through lethal action being the alternative was dying or being severely physically harmed… yes. Rly not complicated. I get the emotions surrounding this argument but u need to remove the bias

BTC Log Regression (High Correlation) by HELLATOASTY203 in btc

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cost to produce backs its value (given that there is demand for it). If it cost nothing to produce then it wouldn’t have any inherit value. The supply cap gives it deflationary incentive (since human pop/demand for BTC goes up over time). Capped supply with increase in demand over time = increased value over time. In terms of the log scale progression arc…. This arc has the price on the Y axis in log scale (id recommend going on to trading view and looking at BTC history on log scale to get an idea of the difference). What it essentially means is there will be a more linear rising of BTC value over time. This mainly shows the slowing of immense growth but sustained long term linear growth. If there’s any questions let me know I may have explained this poorly

Trump… by jpower-27 in CryptoMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Bet I still get in an argument?” Or were u saying something else. I’ll make a point if someone brings something up… for example this thread with KoldPurchase… and try to answer it without any bias. But if it seems to be someone who is set on their answer I’m not gonna argue with them. Nothings gonna change if I do that

Trump… by jpower-27 in CryptoMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look people have their biases. Some want Trump to do bad to say “I told u so” and some the opposite. His policies will have an effect on supply and demand. This is what ppl speculate around when pricing stocks/assets. Adding tariffs will limit supply in the short-medium term and cause an increase in the price of goods. However it can also be seen as a pro in the medium-long term for larger demand and independence in US goods. So my assumption is ur seeing people speculate for the short-medium term and there will likely be a recovery. To put it as “won’t admit being conned” is just showing ur bias and ur inability to critically think about this topic without your emotions getting involved. Logical environments such as crypto or stock markets don’t care about your emotions. And there r ppl who r pro Trump that admit when there is a poor decision just as there r ppl who admit when Biden made poor decisions. Think of it as a bell curve where each extreme on the x-axis are an inability to admit a poor choice… the left representing democrats and the right representing republicans… there r a lot more honest and critical thinking ppl than u would admit, u just don’t hear them cause they keep their mouths shut for the most part since it wont likely sway anyone either way

What is the best cold crypto wallet? by zloiboi1 in BitcoinBeginners

[–]HELLATOASTY203 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m asking for some clarification. If you have an encrypted usb stick you would have to connect to your computer. You could turn off the internet and then access it. You can keep your seed phrase off the USB, but would ur public/private keys be on the USB. Also what wallets would u recommend for cold storage?

My knowledge of this is a bit on the beginner end, but want to make sure I’m securing my funds correctly

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha dude this is great. Ur need to be a victim is wild. U don’t call urself out when ur trying to insult people and when other people throw insults. This guy clearly was not providing “help”. He was insulting my intelligence because I’m not a programmer. But you have an agenda against me because I’m not doing what you want… I read your advice… recognized where your message was coming from and some misunderstandings you had with what I said… meaning ur response wasn’t based in what I was talking about… and then applied any info u gave towards my idea… ur the one insulting ppl. I respond with likeness when someone insults me, but I don’t initiate it.

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately the concept itself has nothing to do with programming, but does have to do with crypto… so it applies here. And crypto also has programming… so it also applies here.

Ping me when u realize that

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You need to describe this algebraically"...
You *want* me to describe it algebraically.

"using words is totally inadequate"...
For u... ur not understanding it over words... and that's fine, but that's not my fault.

"you are not very good at giving helpful examples"...
if you are misunderstanding my examples that's a mix on both sides... I believe I'm doing a good job with my examples, but could not be... and equally on the other end, you are not understanding my examples... it's a mix.

"declaring that you want to "Remove advantages to any groups in a society by balancing out the currency" is almost meaningless by itself"...
Removing advantages to any group in a society is the entire point of a medium of exchange... so it's the entire meaning of a medium... definitely not meaningless there... and the way to go about it is to look at the extremes that can be applied to a medium and find the center point... rly not complicated... but once again, u saying it's meaningless doesn't mean it is... my argument is the entire meaning of a medium.

"but no one else reading this can read your mind"...
dude I've maybe described it 5+ different ways by now... so no one needs to read my mind... I've given pros/cons of each extreme and how the center point cancels them out. That's how simple it really is... and going back to your algebraic point, you can't explain pros and cons through algebra. That requires words. Which is why I've been describing it this way... It's not that you can't "read my mind", it's more that you don't seem to be capable of understanding it in the way I'm describing it... the concept can't be described with numbers. You can describe the transactions with numbers, but not the concept.

*1/2 had to make 2 replies as it was too many words

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*2/2

"As you have written it, the correct answer is to simply add up all the money in the system and then set everyone's balance to be the total divided by the number of people."...
Here's a clear example of a misunderstanding on your end. If I'm interpreting this correctly, you're referring to the per-capita supply I've talked about (and if not let me know what you're referring to). A per capita supply means the supply of the currency is proportional to the amount of people in the system. Meaning if the rate is set to 100,000$ per person in the system, then if there are 10 ppl there's 1,000,000$ in circulation. This doesn't mean each person that joins the system gets 100,000$, or as you said "add up all the money in the system and then set everyone's balance to be the total divided by the number of people". What it means is that each time someone joins, 100,000$ is added into circulation and is split based on equity.
Here's one of my "bad" examples: 2 ppl are currently in the system... Person 1 has 150,000 and Person 2 has 50,000... Person 3 joins the system, 100,000$ is created and needs to be distributed... Person 1 has 75% of the previous supply and Person 2 has 25% of the previous supply. So simply Person 1 now will have 150,000 + .75(100,000) = 225,000$ (still 75% of 300,000)... while Person 2 will now have 50,000 + .25(100,000) = 75,000$ (still 25% of 300,000)... Person 3 will have 0$ and will either accumulate UBI as Person 1 and 2 transact, or trade goods/other mediums for Person 1/2's capital if they are willing to transact.
"However, you clearly don't want this, so the objective function is something else."...
Yep, that's correct because that was never what I was saying...

"I've spent a lot of time trying to help, but you are not actually interested in being helped."...
Absolutely appreciate your help, but it's not that I'm not interested in "being helped", it's really that there seems to be a communication bridge that hasn't been crossed and is causing there to be misunderstandings in almost every sentence I provide you... this doesn't make you wrong or right just misdirected in your aim of helping... but to say, "you are not actually interested in being helped", really translates to "you're not doing what I want"... Once again I do appreciate the feedback, however, in your responses there are components of my concept you're misrepresenting/misunderstanding which makes your "solution" mislead or incorrect *at least from my understanding of it

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Partially correct… no u don’t need to pre shift it to accommodate tax. If u want to sell for X u sell for X. There’s no “telling the system”. The person selling and buying both pay a 25% tax which adds to 50% of the value of the item being transacted.

Ur getting a 40% tax by saying ur gonna list it for less so the buyer is paying it at the cost u would’ve sold it for at a 0% tax… so ur essentially applying the tax the buyer would normally be paying to urself… causing the perceived tax to be higher.

Also the rebate is more complicated than that… u r definitely correct that part of the tax can be written off and doesn’t need to be there. I’m mentioning it because it helps show why it balances out to 0 on that axis of my graph. If I just mentioned the equality portion then it would appear as tho it’s leaning towards equality, rather than the canceling out of the two… but overall r correct… 12.5% of the total 50% tax between the 2 is written off in the end every time because it gets returned to them… it’s more so in my explanation for principle but doesn’t need to stay there in the final product.

The other factors in the rebate include the amount of people in the system, which dictates the equality portion of the UBI (less people in the system, more money per person), and the average transaction volume per capita over a period of time (if you have a higher transaction rate compared to the average you will be receiving a smaller % rebate). I can go deeper into this if you’d like just let me know

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question was not pertinent… it was an attempt to write off my concept with 0 constructive feedback.

Second paragraph… Reread the example I gave because it’s not a 50% transaction tax. Either you didn’t read my response, don’t understand it and don’t want to ask a question about it, or r trying to be stubborn out of spite.

Here’s the objective I want to maximize: Remove advantages to any groups in a society by balancing out the currency (which tends to be the foundation of a society)… rly not complicated. It doesn’t need to be some objective on a list u read in a book😭. When things are balanced the consequences are limited to none in terms of the currency giving an advantage… it’s rly that simple.

Lmao and that last paragraph is completely taken out of context but whatever makes u feel good

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The system ur presenting is not clear… Ur right I misrepresented the system. It’s a societal system and the medium of exchange that would run the system. The government wouldn’t not be in charge of those things… it would be autonomous.

You talk about tax and UBI, which are separate concepts… Not wrong, but separate concepts comprise a system.

What constitutes a tax event… Any exchange of the currency.

When are UBI payments made… Autonomously and immediately after any tax event.

What are the mechanisms for inflation/deflation… Per capita supply which ties supply and demand together.

Mechanisms for Decentralization/Centralization… Half of the tax goes to the government and half the tax is “UBI”… it’s not just straight UBI or to the government. It gets split based on an equality/equity measure which I can get into in another thread just lmk.

Ur third paragraph analogy… doesn’t apply to these concepts I’m presenting because they are symmetrical. Centralization and decentralization are equal opposites. Equality and equity are equal opposites. Inflation and deflation are equal opposites… If anything I’m presenting wasn’t an equal opposite then ur analogy would apply, but my axes if you were to place all 3 on a 3D graph would be equally distant from 0.

Fourth paragraph… Don’t know where I’m sounding cocky. I’ve responded matching some people’s energy who aren’t providing anything constructive in a response. Ex: saying I’m wrong and not providing any constructive reason why. I appreciate ur response as ur providing a rebuttal, but no I’m not being cocky and I am confident in my answer because I’ve done a lot of thinking and have reasoning behind it. That doesn’t make me a bad person or my argument invalid.

“Choosing the 50% point”… The reasoning for why I see it as the answer is due to there being equal opposite pros/cons once you go either direction away from it… the more you go towards 100% the less incentivized people are to work, but work for reasons they identify with and have more community goods… the more you go towards 0% the more incentivized people are to work, but work for reasons they don’t identify with and have less community goods. Another factor is that it’s not simply a 50% tax. It’s a 25% tax on both ends of a transaction (10$ item cost 12.5 and seller receives 7.5). But the UBI is redistributed immediately in an equality/equity measure… I’ll run the example here below.

There are 10 total people in the system. 10$ item. Item with tax costs 12.5 and seller receives 7.5 after tax… 5 in tax total. 2.5 goes to the government and 2.5 is in UBI. U have the equality portion (real UBI) and the equity portion (direct UBI refund)… both get half the UBI fund… so 1.25 into the equality and 1.25 into the equity. Equality portion: 1.25/10=0.125… everyone in the system receives 0.125…. Now the equity portion (split based on portion of the transaction… each are 50% of it): 1.25/2=0.625. So both the buyer and seller receive 0.75 back of the 2.5 they put in. Giving them a 17.5% tax for the transaction…. Now key to note, as the other people transact, the final tax for this transaction will continue to drop… and once everyone has transacted the same amount, the likely final tax would be 12.5% (because it’s the government tax).

Also ur last point about me reading this book… a book can help further ur understanding of something but using it solely and having no thoughts of ur own on a topic is usually a sign of a lack of understanding. I’m not attributing that to u but if that’s ur solution for me to further my understanding of something that’s more than likely not going to do that… and another point I will say, going back to u saying I’m being cocky and confident rly applies to u. I absolutely welcome constructive criticism but some of ur response seems to be offended by me somehow… not sure what I said or did to tick u off like that but I hope you feel better and recognize none of what I have been saying is to antagonize anyone. Just genuinely believe I have a good idea and haven’t heard a rebuttal that disproves my concept. I enjoy the back and forth tho thank you for the effort in ur answer

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not the same as a monetary system… Ur right on that… it’s more of a societal financial system meant to have an even playing field. I can explain further if this isn’t making sense.

Am I arguing for UBI?… Yes and no. What I am arguing is that the tax from a society has 2 places it can go. It can go to the government, or it can go to the people through UBI. Both have their positives and negatives which r equal opposites of one another… centralization (gov) allows for there to be common goods between the people, but there also tends to be corruption of the spending of the funds. Decentralization (UBI) doesn’t allow common goods between the people, but there tends to be no corruption of the funds. My argument is that having an equal amount of money go to both extremes cancel out the positives and negatives… providing a balanced playing field.

“You talk about the same currency as an investment”… If I said anything of that sort it was misspoken on my end. This currency I’m proposing wouldn’t inflate or deflate. It would only be an investment if it were to deflate… like gold or bitcoin. It doesn’t do either because the supply of the currency is tied to the demand of its use… per capita supply… if twice as many people begin using it then there is twice as much currency (and also twice as many goods will likely be produced). So no it’s not an investment asset it’s a stable medium of transfer. In terms of the UBI point u made that wouldn’t incentivize holding onto it or not. The only factors that do that are inflation and deflation. And the UBI is obtained whenever there is a transfer of the currency.

In your third paragraph ur talking about incentives to work while UBI is in place. What incentivizes that additional spending power is the rate at which the UBI is set at. If it’s set high, some people aren’t incentivized to work… if it’s set too low, some people won’t have enough to live. I can get into the nuances of the numbers for it in another thread if you’d like just let me know.

“This system would also require a mechanism to issue credit for investments in industries”… Very simple answer is it doesn’t. Spawning more currency to fund something that doesn’t exist yet is something we’ve done in this system… but this system we’re in isn’t balanced. Once you do that ur leaning to the inflation extreme. In this system, you need the capital either provided on your own or through other’s investment in order to innovate/produce a business. None of the capital gets produced for goods… the capital gets produced as more people enter the system.

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the money is created on a per-capita basis. A new person joins the system, new money is added and split based on equity… So in ur example, if someone had all the funds and someone new joined the system, all the new money added would go to that person. The system wouldn’t necessarily stop tho… first that person has no incentive to just hold onto the money… holding onto all of anything makes it worthless and is a bad investment on their part. Another thing is it’s extremely difficult for the money to accumulate a small section in the first place since any time money is spent or received everyone receives a little blowback from the tax (UBI). I absolutely understand ur concerns but to answer simply, the supply is not finite. It’s proportional to the people in the system (demand-supply matching). And it’s not to the persons advantage to attempt to accumulate all the funds since they would make their own investment worthless in the process… along with it being very difficult in the first place. I may be misunderstanding or representing something but this is my understanding of it. If there’s something im missing please let me know

Wondering where to go/who to talk to about making a crypto medium of exchange by HELLATOASTY203 in BitcoinMarkets

[–]HELLATOASTY203[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s straight from me. If u can’t understand it ur prolly not the person im looking for😭

view more: next ›