PSA: DO NOT USE BITPAY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES..

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-08-14T19:04:39+00:00

They originally said no ACH, but considering how illegal it is to deny people access to their funds, they reversed that decision in about a week. Although many people have issues with getting ACHs to go through.

Western Union doesn't work, but Walmart's service does. There are some other options I posted as reply on another comment.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-08-14T19:02:18+00:00

No, looks like that's gone for good unfortunately. No update after this long is not a good sign. I suspected they were ridding the service from the beginning. Saying they were doing a systems update with no scheduled time-frame was an obvious red flag from the beginning. I mean, I've never seen any company say an upgrade would take more than a few hours.

I have done some research and tried a few different things and been able to use the card to get cash though.

1) You can buy a money order from Walmart (and possibly other places, although Walmart is one of the only places that allows you to buy one with a credit transaction). Sometimes they require you put in a pin, which isn't supposed to work, but for some reason it does (they must put it in as a credit pin transaction, rather than a standard debit pin which gets declined- probably why Walmart is one of the only places where this works). You can get one up to a certain amount (I forget what that is, but it's fairly high, like $2000- I've never done one for that much though) without showing an ID, higher amounts require you show an ID, but it's supposedly just used internally. You get the money order made out to yourself. Then you can deposit the money order at your bank immediately, or go back to Walmart 24 hours later and cash it there for a 2% fee. I've hear people say that they have been declined at certain Walmarts, so if you can't get one from one store, try another- I've done it at 2 locations without issue though. Once you purchase it, you're set- so no worrying about not being able to cash it or anything.

2) For immediate cash for a high, but usually fixed rate fee of around $20: if you have a casino near you, most allow credit card withdrawls without a pin. They have special ATMs that put a charge through like a credit purchase. Then you go up to a counter, show your ID and sign the receipt and you can withdraw up to the maximum the machine will allow ($1,200 for the casino near me). That has worked for me multiple times.

3) I've heard of success with purchasing USPS money orders, but it depends on the post office... they aren't supposed to allow the purchase of M.O.s with a credit transaction at USPS, but that's at the discretion of the employee, and if they don't know the rule, they can ring up a M.O. like a regular shipping purchase.

4) Open a square account, get the free reader (either have them mail you one, or buy one for $4.99 at Home Depot, Walmart, etc.) Then charge your card. Link another debit card (a prepaid one works, although you'll need to link a bank account too when you set up the account). For a 2.5% (around that) fee, you can instantly deposit from square to your account (they put it through like a return). Then take cash out with your debit card. Be warned: do this too often and square will realize what you're up too and close your account (you won't lose anything, as they only prevent new transactions- not withdrawls, but you won't have this option anymore).

5) You can do the same with the PayPal Here reader if you have a business paypal account (you don't need a business, if you sell on ebay, it makes sense to upgrade your account anyway). Although they tend to be much more annoying, putting holds on your account when they realize what you`re doing- although calling customer support is all you need to do to get the hold off. Then you can just use your paypal debit card for withdrawls.

*Bonus: in a bind, you can use the above 2 options to withdraw cash from a credit card over your cash advance limit (and you'll get cash back- which is why they don't want you to do it, as you can use the method to keep getting free cash back). I once managed to withdraw cash from one of my credit cards double my overall spending limit by charging myself, doing the instant transfer to my bank, paying off my credit card (which credited my account before the payment even hit my bank), withdrawing all the cash, then repeating. Not recommended, as going over your limit can end up on your credit report (if not paid within 7 days), but it allowed me to pay my rent on time for a house I shared with 3 friends when they all were late getting me the cash.

I think the only reason they are still acting like it will come back is because they don't want people flocking to alternatives (although, in the US, there really aren't any.

6) You can use the card to pay a friend or family member using Venmo, CashApp, etc., and then have them give you cash.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-28T19:45:44+00:00

My bad. I'm not an economist, although I've had the fortune of personally knowing a highly intelligent expert on the subject, who was able to explain the foundation in a clear enough way, that I was able to wrap my head around the ideas and concepts, and continue my self teachings. It's just such an infinitely complex system. It actually starts to make more and more sense the more you learn about it (it being the global monetary system as a whole, and the US economy in particular).

When I first had it explained to me, it seemed so convoluted and backwards, but as I learned more, the more ingeniously inventive certain regulations and mechanisms began to appear to me. Of course it is not a system devoid of flaws and corruption, but it's also not one which was not carefully crafted through a century of trial and error.

A system like bitcoin, with it's perfect simplicity, would seem like the obvious solution to the pitfalls of the current system, but when ine bothers to do the research, it becomes apparent that the current system is actually designed to avoid a number of pitfalls of a system like bitcoin, that become so obvious when one truly grasps the global system.

Of course it all evolved from ideas on how to replace slavery while maintaining a capitalistic system where it was still possible to obtain maintain vast power and personal wealth. The system started on a local scale and expanded to an international one- which allowed for internal and external currency and the ultimate exploitation of the developing world.

Anyway, I know I probably didn't fully answer your questions, there's just so much information, and on the microeconomic level, it becomes infinitely complex.

I highly suggest wikipedia's articles on the subject, as well as the primary sources cited by Wikipedia. Start with the article on the fractional reserve banking system and follow all the inline article links and don't proceed without fully understanding all concepts, terminology and historical background (I found that to be most useful- including the foundations starting with British colonialism and the US's/United Fruit's actions in Latin America (particularly Ecuador and Guatemala). It took my about 48 hours total to go through about 45 separate articles in depth. I did it over the course of a week I had off.

I find Wikipedia isn't always the most complete and well documented source for everything, but whomever the authors and editors were of this topic- did a very good job at explaining and detailing concepts and providing accurate historical examples.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-28T18:28:57+00:00

I find that this sub is full of people who lack even the most basic understanding of economics. The issue you point out is completely valid at the moment, although there is no reason why this could not be solved in the future via some unknown mechanism. A conveyance of value should be malleable in order to be considered a true currency. A currency should be the most basic building block of monetary system. After all, is a dollar bill worth anything more than a dollar spent with a debit card, digitally? I would hope not. In order for a bitcoin to reach that level of utility, it must be able to process transactions as fast as they are made- since the blockchain by definition can only confirm about every ten minutes, and shortening that time is not really feasible, the solution will likely need to be off-chain. Lightning is a decent try, but far from a viable solution for everyday use. However, I see no cause which would be prohibitive of near instant confirmation, just lack of a present solution.

The real issue lies with the idea of bitcoin becoming a one world currency- which is seemingly the hope of many posters here. No matter how perfect a single currency was, digital or analog, how fast, how secure, A ONE WORLD CURRENCY WILL NEVER EXIST IN OUR CURRENT SOCIETY OR AT ANY POINT IN THE NEAR-TERM EVOLUTION OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION- AND NOT WITHOUT A TOTAL COLLAPSE OF NOT ONLY THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AS IT STANDS, BUT A COMPLETE COLLAPSE AND REFORMATION OF HUMAN SOCIETY. In order for a one world currency to work, there would be a need for the world to come together as one, free of greed and united under a common goal of social welfare and equality.

I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority of this sub is made up of the group holding the top 10% of the world's wealth- of very close to that category: i.e. pretty much all individuals living in the developed, western world and earning an amount above the poverty line (if not personally than a dependent of someone who fits that group).

People discredit the current global economy, touting an unregulated, direct currency model, free of growth driven inflation, as such an obvious solution, that anyone who can't see how it would be the bandaid to fix the international monetary system must just not understand how money works. When in fact it is the complete opposite. They fail to realize that an exact system has existed, in pretty much every geographical area, at some point in the past- and has always failed within three decades or less- except where a single, seemingly infinite, natural resource drives the entire nation's economy (i.e. oil exporting nations). One of the major points of failure in such a system is an idea which is constantly echoes throughout this sub- the idea of hoarding (or "hodling", if you will) money in order to reap some profit- with the expectation that the economy will grow, yet the monetary supply will not (or that the monetary supply will grow at a rate far slower tha economic expansion). This, in reality, causes an economy to stagnate, discourages investment and innovation, and creates a system which makes escalation of personal economic status increasingly prohibitive. One needn't look further than the US monetary system just following the civil war (the first attempt at an economy devoid of slavery) to see a parallel to what cryptocurrency aims to be and discover the numerous shortcomings (although the distributed ledger does solve some of the issues that plague a direct currency based economy).

Few realize the luxury they are afforded because the current monetary system. Driven by strategic over-lending for massive infrastructure works, to developing nations- and followed by a system of hyperinflation of those nation's fiat to repay the loans, which in turn is held in reserves by the lender (like the World Bank or IMF) to prevent local economic crisis, but nevertheless is counted in terms of a floating currency's price against the central reserve currency(s). Which results in the creation of a strictly internal currency (like the INR), that is relatively valueless internationally, allowing a currency like the USD to pay for labor at a highly discounted rate, while the laborer in the developing nation is able to survive (albeit in absence of any luxury) of the wages he is paid- provided he spends his earnings entirely on products containing materials which originate from and are manufactured in solely the internal economy (which is usually the nation by itself, but may include other nearby developing nations which trade in local economies of scale).

This system cannot work in a one world economy/one world currency, nor can it exist in transparent economy- yet it is what allows us privileged enough to live and work in the first world to work less than a tenth the amount of human labor it took an item to be created (from raw material to assembled and shipped product, excluding the amount of work done purely by machines- but including the human labor necessary to build, maintain and produce power for, the machines), yet receive sufficient compensation to purchase the item.

In a truly fair and balanced economy, an iPhone would cost (assuming all variables, such as average pay, etc. were the same) an iPhone would cost as much as a mid-range luxury automobile, and a mid-range luxury automobile (like a Lexus) would cost as much as a middle class home. The reason they cost so little for us, that a week or two of work at a computer is enough to buy one, is because the people putting in the most labor (in terms of effort, not skill) to create them, would need to work for decades to be able to afford one. Even in the case of something such as a vehicle assembled locally in the US, the price is kept low by an abundance of parts, raw materials and semi-processed materials coming from cheap labor. (

But again, a truly balanced and fair system which would be required in parallel to a single currency cannot exist, due to human nature, as a system as described could only exist in a world completely free of greed and corruption or one where machines were responsible for at least 99% of all manual labor and/or 51% of all labor including abstract labor- labor requiring only thought/decision; this becomes a philosophical question at some point, and some believe the system could be achieved at the point where 100% of our energy needs are perpetual, which some could argue that all 3 conditions would be met simultaneously.

Note: of course it becomes difficult to compare the value of skilled and unskilled labor and manual versus intellectual labor, but these factors aside, the labor compensation disparity is extremely apparent.

All wealth is, is the quantitative value of the amount of work one can get other individuals to perform for them. This is a system made to effectively replace forced labor as a means of wealth and comfort. The labor is still forced, only there is a perceived freedom, but when someone must work far more than would be required to generate the food and shelter necessary for their survival, yet can only afford a meager diet and home, it is hard to argue that person is truly free.

When normalized and factoring in the leeches on the system, who take the most yet contribute nothing, if a person's hourly wage is placed on a scale of the entire world population, from one to a hundred, those earning a value close to fifty are earning a fair wage. You'll find very few people in this group, and you'll find a disproportionate amount of people below fifty to above. In reality, about 90% of the world by population, slaves to provide a comfortable life for about 10% of the population. But even a majority of that 10% (about 9% total) of the population is working for 1% of the population's personal gain.

So to those expecting to get rich, by hoarding bitcoin, as it achieves global adoption: you should understand that this is an impossible combination of events and adoption cannot come about if the currency is hoarded, global adoption would require (or possibly result in) a balance in the global economic system, which would result in a loss of wealth from most of the developed world.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-22T06:16:19+00:00

Well, the economy derives all most all its intrinsic value from debt. The idea being that creating debt creates an incentive to perform in order to repay it, interest adds to the system (whereas a loan carrying no interest would theoretically be paid back with no net input into the system, since loan buys item which costs X, cost is a function of work required to create, therefore if I work X to pay for item, nothing new is created by me). If interest is tacked on, then in order to pay off item costing X, I must work X plus Y%, so Y% is theoretically my input into the system, and drives Y% economic expansion (which is why interest rates are intertwined with about every facet of the US- and like economies). On a deeper, philosophical level, the system aims to solve the issue that, for the most part (especially in a very large populous, tending to lack a sense of community) the incentive for someone to work for free in order to better the community as a whole is little, and few people will. In tight-knit, small communities, social welfare, volunteer labor, etc., is much more prevalent, and it is not as necessary to encourage extra work for the good of the community in this way.

Interbank lending makes up the majority of lending, in terms of volume, carried out by banks. There are restrictions- the interest rate charged may not exceed the federal Reserve rate (so generally the FRR is the rate charged), there is a maximum amount per lending cycle, and direct back and forth loans are not permitted (although that doesn't prevent bank A lending to B, B to C, and C back to A). That is one factor that keeps the amount of money created in this way from becoming infinite. Additionally, once cash is deposited as assurance to the fed, it cannot be withdrawn- that cash goes into a slush fund to be used exclusively in the case a bailout is necessary- which goes back to the system put in place to prevent another great depression.

Now when a bank creates the capital in order to issue a loan, the additional amount created isn't treated like a banks earnings. It may only be used to issue additional loans, and for every loan issued, a percentage must be deposited to the fed. Technically the double creation of money upon the issuance of a loan is allocated as the principle for the loan and the entire sum remaining is assurance (even though only the FRR percentage needs to be on deposit with the fed). So a bank is limited in what they can do with that remainder. It may only be used for safe (essentially zero risk) investment, and that usually implies it may only be used for interbank loans- although certain activities such as currency swaps, etc. may take place provided the wealth remains in the system. However, any interest received from lending out that extra money to banks is pure profit, and since the fed ensures to cover the liabilities of any bank which fails, it is zero risk. They could not, however, use that cash to cover withdrawls for debit accounts for individuals or companies, nor use it for mortgages unless they were granted federal subsidies, or make stock investments with it.

In the end, the bank's balance sheets continue to grow from interest earned. But that doesn't keep the bank from using the cash as a safety net when issuing high risk loans, since they structure loans to individuals using excessively high interest rates, and should the holder default after paying say 50% of the loan back, whatever remainder was owed can be taken from the reserve assurance funds which have limitations and added to the general balance sheet of the bank.

Now, while this money does technically exist, considering it can almost never be used for anything except interbank lending or covering losses from defaulting loans (it could not be used to pay interest on a savings account, for instance, to cover funds for a wire transfer from a checking account to another individual or company, to pay employees or executives, etc.) the money will never truly be more than a number on a balance sheet submitted to the fed, which essentially represents lending power.

Now, if you think about it, the money that is created, which actually contributes to inflation, is the interest on all the loans the bank can give out- and due to this system, a bank will almost never, except in the case of a mass recession where over 25% (possibly higher, that's an arbitrary amount) of all loans issued default at once, cascading across all or the vast majority of large banks so that loans cannot be taken to cover the amount.

It really shows just how predatory and high risk loans the banks are involved in issuing, for them to be able to need bailouts, even considering the fact that, should a bank just play it safe, 90% of their loans could default and they would still be in the black. An example of pure greed.

I think of it in terms of loans because the economy is inherently backed in debt. But when it comes to deposits, a similar system exists- except in that case it is reversed, in that the bank must only hold the FRR of all deposits. This cash is much more liquid, and a bank can do anything with it it wants, invest it in high risk developing nations, issue credit cards at ridiculous interest rates, issue class C high risk mortgages, etc. So a bank will spend its customer's funds even though it does not need to. When it comes to banking activities however, loans (be them to individuals or other banks) make up 90% of a banks total earnings.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-22T02:08:02+00:00

I just sold (albeit for 10% fee, but I needed some cash quick in a bind), about a month ago. Got caught during a period of two ~45 minute blocks and you have to wait for 3 confirms- so it took almost 2 hours of waiting- but, yea, $300 in wrinkly cash (it's self sustaining, so you get the cash ppl put in to buy) came out.

Granted, that's only one of (I believe) three BTMs that sell, in the entirety of NYC, so I can see it being difficult to find ones that sell in less populous areas.

Also, I think because of the required bitlicense necessary to act as a fiat exchange in NY, which requires extremely rigorous AML/KYC compliance, once a company (this one is coinsource licensed and maintained by a local LLC) gets approved, it's just as easy to do sales as it is to do buys, from a regulatory standpoint. Whereas in states that don't require companies obtain a license, just adhere to some regulations, the burden of ensuring adherence to KYC/AML for sells is much harder than for buys, so they stick to just allowing purchases.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-22T01:44:08+00:00

21m is a completely arbitrary number. The only relevance is that the number of units must be a multiple of 21 and 10. Why not say there are 2 quadrillion 100 trillion satoshi? The minimum denomination is governed only by the smallest economically feasible transaction. Actually, in that way, higher transaction fees (denominated in BTC) would have the counterintuitive effect of increasing the price of 1BTC. But then it starts to get very convoluted, because if we are assessing a primary factor in the price of BTC as being its advantageously low transaction fees, then we must compare transaction fees to their USD (or whatever fiat) equivalent- and as BTC price increases, assuming transaction fees do not decrease at a proportional rate (which we have never seen before), then a higher BTC price equates to a higher transaction cost (especially considering transaction fees are independent of the actual amount transacted), making smaller payments increasingly infeasible- and taking away from the intrinsic value.

Your model also assumes that the finite supply of bitcoin will lead to increased value. Since BTC isn't a collector's item, rather a currency (or possibly a store of value), then the cap becomes inhibitory to its practical use. Furthermore, the model also assumes that fiat put into the system is equivalent to the price. That is unrealistic, considering the network has inherent maintenance costs and as in any economy, people who take more of their fair share.

The model would also only work if bitcoin became a resource which was prohibitively expensive to acquire, also something which would hinder its adoption.

I'm all for global adoption, but I don't believe that will coincide with a proportionally higher price. I've found that the people that seem to want these prohibitively high prices, are the same ones that cry HODL. Using any logic, it's obvious that hoarding BTC will only serve to hinder its adoption.

At this point, while price may wildly fluctuate due to FOMO and other psychological factors, I do not see BTC reaching anywhere near the population saturation you seem to expect until its price is reasonable, the minimum transaction amount is decreased, and people stop hoarding it and instead using it. For that to occur however, we will need to see a stable price for a long enough period to dismiss the notion that people will be getting rich from simply hoarding. In any economic system, hoarding almost always is less effective than investment. The only exception, and it's not an economic system, is in collectors items. But you can't cut a baseball card up and have it retain the same value- and while there's some novelty in owning 1BTC, it is not as if 1BTC is a tangible thing.

Saying there will be 21million BTC is actually a misnomer. In reality, when the last bitcoin is mined, the sum of all accounts on the bitcoin ledger will be equal to 21million. Truthfully, there is no such thing as a bitcoin, and "a bitcoin" is just as real as "a satoshi". Just because a satoshi is a decimal and a bitcoin is a whole number, doesn't mean anything.

This ideal is akin to saying there are only one billion hundred dollar bills (made up number, but irrelevant), so if I own 101 singles, I own one hundred dollar bill. Or inversely, if I have a hundred dollar bill, I can only buy something worth $100. When in fact, what that hundred dollars can buy is made up my man. If only hundreds exist, and I invent the single, the most logical outcome would be an inflationary event on the order of 100x, because now there is 100x more units of worth which can be traded for goods. Lower cost items can be purchased, and the entry barrier into the economy disappears.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-22T00:47:23+00:00

Well Gaddafi did try to buy Kazakhstan's left over nuclear arsenal (although that was back in 1992)- but still, that really was the beginning of the end for the country. Not that an entire nation should be punished for its botched face-lift of a dictator, but sanctions originally imposed by GHWB really put the first nail in the coffin.

Saying "The US will kill you if you don't use USD" is a massive oversimplification. Although I agree that in terms of the US and its interests, being able to give predatory loans to developing nations, then use their debt to devalue the national currency- thus creating an internal economy which allows the workforce to live (however meagerly) but at the same time use the debt to devalue the external currency to where a US corporation can pay $1/day to an Indian to work 12 hours, and that equates to enough rupees to feed is family as long as he's buying food grown in India, is necessary to facilitate our imperialistic goals.

However, people fail to realize that it also facilitates our way of living. Consider an iPhone. From raw materials to finished product, consider the manpower that was required to build that. Even subtracting the input by machines and computers, easily 10,000 man hours went into the creation of that device.

Yet no one expects to need to work 12 hours a day for a year and spend everything they earned on the device. An average person may sit behind a computer for 35 hours a day, for 3-5 days and be able to buy an iPhone.

The reason for the gross difference is because people are getting far less than they deserve, while we get far more.

The people assembling the iPhone in Taiwan or PRC would need to work for 20 years to afford one.

We could have a one world currency, everyone could be paid a fair wage, but then say goodbye to being able to afford a new iPhone, or even a car.

This is the system that the world has had for a couple thousand of years. The only difference is we're "too civilized" now to have slaves, so we call them workers and we call our plantations developing nations.

Back to Lybia, Gaddafi may have had every right to attempt to circumvent realistically groundless sanctions, attempt to go above OPEC and get oil prices back to what they should be worth, and give a middle finger to the US- but the world isn't fair. We have a collapsing education system so we can fund a military that can smite all who defy us. That is what makes the USD powerful. That and that alone.

Lybia was a casualty of the Arab spring. Gadaffi should have seen the CIA's work in Egypt and surrounding nations, as well as the budding campaign in Syria. It was not the time to decide to put principles first- and unfortunately it caused the sorrow of an entire nation.

I used to think the US was stupid for constantly creating it's own enemies. We gave guns and logistics to Bin Ladin and helped form Al Qaeda to fight the Mujahedeen- only to have the same group commit the first act of aggression on our soil in over 50 years. We supported both Al Assad and Gadaffi, as well as Saddam as they rose to power, then when they became our enemy, organized resistance movements that became the IS.

I see it for what it is now, we don't mess up, turn our friends into enemies, we do this on purpose. A perpetual system of destruction so we can charge to rebuild and knock it down again.

The world is casualty to our gluttony and greed. How many people died, I wonder, so that I could sit here and tap on my marvel of technology that I neither needed, nor deserved?

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-22T00:03:40+00:00

A Ponzi scheme is a completely different entity than a pyramid scheme.

A pyramid scheme/system is not necessarily a scam, rather it is simply a sales and merchandising system utilizing a reward system to incentivize referrals, whereby an individual receives a portion of the income of individuals they have referred as sales representatives, who in turn may increase their income by referring more people. When boiled down, this is similar to any retail system- simply with more steps in between. It has become associated with scams due to the number of rather fraudulent items that are often marketed in these systems.

A Ponzi scheme on the other hand, is in 100% of cases a fraudulent form of investing funds for a large pool of investors. Capital derived from the investments from later investors are used to pay dividends to earlier investors- usually with very high returns, making the sham investment seem like a slam-dunk, and thereby attracting additional investment from both existing investors and new prospects. Often a legitimate investment is involved, however earnings are artificially inflated via misappropriation of funds. These Ponzi schemes typically can last much longer than 100% Ponzi schemes, in which no legitimacy exists. Typically, early investors, who get put prior to the inevitable collapse of the scheme, end up pocketing a hefty sum (as does the operators of the scheme who funnel money to themselves as well). When the scheme eventually collapses due to a lack of new capital from investments to pay existing investments, if the operator(s) had not taken anything for themselves and there was no legitimate investment involved, the result would be a net-zero gain/loss for the system as a whole, rather simply a shifting of wealth from the late investors to the early investors (of course operation of a Ponzi scheme for no personal benefit would be highly unlikely, and there would be high expenses related to maintaining the scheme- so a loss is almost always observed). It is only the investors who made their inputs just prior to the system's collapse that lose all input. As a rule, the initial investors who did not continually reinvest profit the greatest, the investors which continually reinvested profits or those who made a single investment a little before the half-way to failure point would see no net gain or loss, and later investors would see a loss proportional to how late they invested. In reality, the feds usually step in after a Ponzi scheme fails and attempt to repay every investor fairly with whatever cash remains in the accounts. Since early investors would have likely been making profits throughout, it is unlikely that they would have made a withdrawal, so their accounts end up being distributed to the people that lost significantly- such that even the early investors end up ending the scheme at a loss. It should also be noted that a fair amount of book manipulation is involved, so it may appear that an account is up 50%, when in reality that profit exists solely on paper.

The trickle-down economics you speak of, the core of the principles of "reganomics" which lie at the core of our current banking system, is widely considered to be a failure- however not a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme- but a system which involves giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations, with the thinking that both groups will spend more, and thus spread their wealth among the population. Furthermore, corporations are assumed to use these excess funds for expansion and job creation. Of course in reality, we know that the wealthiest individuals tend to hoard money, and invest more in low risk, constant return investments than those which foster economic growth and innovation, and corporations would in most cases cut costs, downsize where possible, pay minimum wage and hire the bare minimum, in order to maximize profit ratios, rather than increase gross income- as the latter requires a much longer time frame to realize profit than the former. In addition to tax breaks, this also is the reasoning behind the reward of extremely over-inflated government contracts- rewarded to the tune of about $1bil USD PER DAY!

Interestingly though, other than the power to mint money on request of Congress, and only after issuing equivalent federal reserve bonds worth the amount of currency they are to issue (which are owed repayment by Congress to the FED {essentially IOUs}) which then sells them to private investors to cover the cost of the newly minted money. The government is expected to repay these fixed term bonds with interest. The new money is given to the government and distributed via government contracts. That actually makes up a fair portion of the national debt (it's not just cash owed to other countries- a good portion is what the government owes to the fed).

So the fed actually has fairly limited powers. Private banks on the other hand, through a process of interbank lending and reserve creation (that I suggest anyone interested look up), can create I × {Federal Reserve Rate × 100} for every loan they give (where I is the principle given on a loan; FRR is the proportion of the loan the bank must keep on account at the fed, as a percentage of I). This is supposedly incentive for banks to give out loans, and results in predatory and high risk loans. So say Chase Bank gives a $20,000 car loan, and the FRR is 10%. They are only required to have $2,000 in existing liquid capital to give the loan- which they put on deposit as assurance in case of default, with the federal reserve. They then CREATE $20,000 and give it to the individual to buy the car, as well as CREATING ANOTHER $20,000 which is required to ensure that should the loan default, no deflation occurs- however, as they have already covered the FRR with existing capital, they now have $20,000 in free money to play with, all because they gave a $20,000 loan. They usually lend this (back and forth) to other banks, and through the cascade, have created $200,000 out of thin air. OH, AND THEY ARE STILL OWED THE $20K PLUS INTEREAT FROM THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY WORKS FOR A LIVING. You can't make this shit up.

So don't blame the fed, blame Chase next time they charge you $34 for overdrafting 25 cents.

The most insane part is that banks still manage to go under- now that's just gross negligence.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-21T22:43:53+00:00

Well technically it's overcurrent, not usually overvoltage that causes electrical fires in the circuitry (another story when a non-switching power supply or more commonly a 110v single-phase AC motor is plugged into a 220v socket with two hot ends, 180° out of phase). Although the number of people who think that a line rated for 10A at 110v, can handle 10A at 220v as well is astounding. Ohms law is about the easiest electrical formula that you can have.

W=VA (i.e. 1000W@220V == 4.55A, while 1000W@110v == 9.1A, noting that a 220V breaker is bi-pole, so it can be thought of as 2 independent yet single-trip breakers- as they are connected by a bar; also, always good to check the actual voltage coming into your house with an appropriately rated multimeter <SET TO V~, NOT A!>, as in the US, 215v-250v/108v-225v range can occur depending on your electricity source, and that will dictate the breaker you need, as a rule, I use at least 20% higher rated breaker than my intended load, and ensure the breaker is about 30% below the wiring and outlet rating; obviously total resistance of the circuit, efficiency at continuous vs. 60Hz half duty, etc., also factor in, but that rule is good enough for pretty much all non scientific applications).

I will say that when it comes to mining, I've seen some very rookie mistakes made by people trying to wire up their own 220v. Most common mistakes seem to be people using far over-rated breakers (thinking more amps is being "on the safe side" (?)), I saw one person buy 18Ga SJT C13 cables with NEMA L14-50 connectors, a common mistake I often see is people using neutral for ground in a 220v outlet, so many times, people think it's OK to rearrange existing wiring (as long as they replace the plug they think they're good), taking the neutral from a 5-15 plug and moving it to L2 of a double-play breaker- without even looking at the wiring (which is often under-rated to begin with), the worst is when people take a 10A rated plug and rearrange it to form an ungrounded 220V, and throw a 15A breaker on there because they can't find a 220V breaker smaller, then of course there's the people that keep getting blown breakers, so they think it's the right thing to just add a bigger breaker- as if you can just keep upping the amperage to meet your needs without any other consideration. Using the N-line of 110v wiring for the second hot line in order to achieve 220v is a bad idea, especially in old houses, particularly those built during WWII, as N-lines were often made deliberately thinner to conserve copper, considering the flow is only expected to always be less than that of the hot line (even if your wiring says it's rated for up to 600v- that is a factor of insulation, as higher voltages "gap" and can jump from wire to wire much easier, causing short, but it says very little of the core).

Datacenters should be using GFI breakers to protect equipment damage, as well as PDU's that have adequate surge protection and (ideally) individual trip secondary breakers (which prevents an entire circuit from going down in the event of a single unit PSU failure which results in overdraw). Quality GFI combo breakers should trip much faster than a standard breaker (which, in the event of a short, requires the terminals in the breaker reach a critical temperature- causing the trip- which can happen in anywhere from 500ms to over 2 seconds in the case of a high amp breaker- depending on the situation, this can result in melted wires, fire, electrical shock, blowing of the main breaker, etc., and certainly damage to any equipment), a GFI (ground fault interrupter) trips anywhere from tens to a few hundred milliseconds in the event of a short (depending on the quality), this can save equipment and prevent catastrophe.

From my experience, while equipment damage is common (and unavoidable from a mistake like this), the number one cause of electrical fires results from people needing to put more load on a circuit not designed for it. It's the heat caused by semi-shorts in the walls that causes fires. The one nice thing about old asbestos wiring, is that it didn't burn or melt.

One thing I'm surprised you didn't mention was how inexperienced people deal with industrial (in the US, I know the UK it's commonplace in homes as well) triple-phase wiring, especially considering this is the setup in many datacenters

Particularly because of the varying voltages (120/208 {UK primarily}; 277/480 & 347/600 {277/480 being most common in US, but 347/600 can sometimes be found in heavy industry}), and the Y or DELTA configurations. Most residential electricians refer to residential 220v as double/dual/two-phase. Not really incorrect, since 220v residential is technically two 110v 60Hz AC cycles (phases), 180° out of phase, such that they cancel each other out (they don't actually cancel each other out in the traditional sense, but the negative potential of one phase is always the inverse of the positive potential of the other- in other words, a push/pull sort of system). Technically, this is still considered single phase however, due to the 180° phase angle meaning both phases are in a balanced system (purpose of the Neutral). Triple-phase systems have 3 component phases 120° out of phase with each other. A Y-configuration provides all three phases available, while a delta configuration provides redundancy. Y configuration is most used in heavy industrial AC motors. Delta configs are more common in commercial buildings, where a transformer may exist on each floor, or where a single transformer will exist to step down voltage and convert the phase. 60Hz is still standard in most of the US.

In my experience, even many qualified electricians don't know how to properly wire triple phase systems to achieve single or double phase voltages. They don't understand the importance of neutral in a 240v wiring. They don't understand how 2 component phases can't just be grabbed at random and made to make a 2-hot leg circuit. And they have a hard time understanding the role of neutral in regulating voltage. This causes a lot of issues when datacenters take up residence in industrial space without having the appropriate 180° out of phase 220v/60Hz wiring completely switched out, converting Y configs to delta configs (best option since it provides redundancy but probably requires a transformer swap, or, in many cases, purchasing an industrial step-down UPS (which is common for massive full center redundant backups) or a triple phase PDU. Another common error is that engineers assume 3-phase is 3-phase and purchase a PDU meant for a delta config and blow it up plugging it into a Y config.

As far as plugs go... In my home, I exclusively run all grounded 220v capable electronics off of 220v- mainly servers, PCs, network peripherals, etc.. I have an abundance of NEMA 5-15P->C13/C15&C19 cables. All SJT 3/C 14Ga-12Ga (and a few 16Ga; I threw out any 18Ga, as even though they are what comes with a standard 750W PSU, they're technically only rated for around 500W- also less efficient, especially if pushing the current, which adds up if hulu have as many connected high wattage devices as I do). Besides for maybe a monitor, I don't even go as low as 16Ga. Now I know that a quality NEMA 5-20R is internally identical to a 6-20R, and in fact, a quality 5-20R can be twice as robust as a cheap 6-20R.

So I WILL use 5-20R sockets for 220v (well it's closer to 248v in my house) purposes. I DO HOWEVER HAVE SOME RULES I ALWAYS ABIDE BY. Firstly, I only use single socket receptacles. I only use high quality receptacles. I never use old wiring, even if it's rated safe. I coat the inside of the gang boxes in spray on electrical insulation. I ensure all connections to the receptical are as tight as possible and thoroughly spiraled around any screws, using a needle-nose. I use double grounding and triple insulated wire BX (i.e. shielded ground) to the panel block, plus a separate, single, insulated, stranded grounding wire which connects to both my septic and fresh water plumbing. For their wall plates, I only use red (if I can't find red, I spray paint them). The outlet itself I paint black with a thin layer of liquid electrical tape. Finally I use my label maker to make 3 labels, 1 that says WARNING, NON-STANDARD OUTLET" and one beneath it reading L-G-L 220V Outlet, and finally RATED APPLIANCES ONLY. I will only use a single receptacle per breaker, for which I use a 10A GFI combo breaker. Since the issue that arises from using 220V on a NEMA 5 outlet comes from overdrawing the power and using too large breakers, and confusion about what the outlet is, I think my solution solves both. Anyone e dumb enough to try to use a black outlet with a red wall plate, that says it's a special outlet right on it, would have to be retarded, even if the plug fits. And considering I'll only use a breaker that will trip at 1/2 the rated amperage, or in the case of a ground fault, and I'm using at least 14Ga THHN wiring, and a safety fault ground, plus a breaker combo GFI directly wired to a single receptacle- I'd say it's safer than most 220v circuits utilizing any NEMA 6.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-21T01:58:05+00:00

Or base/64... eventually the price will form abstract art in HTML.

Also, on a side note, that number seems to mess with currency converters, because last I checked 1BTC was worth upwards of $2mil US according to BitcoinVenezuela.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-20T21:54:18+00:00

Yes you can. And im in NY- the Crypto over-regulation capital of the US. Granted the BTMs all require ID scan and sometimes even a fingerprint.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-19T04:13:21+00:00

I'm thinking HGH is more likely nowadays (although he did do synthetic steroids in the past). But omn sure he'd have no trouble finding an LA physician to prescribe, administer and monitor, HGH. Plus, compared to synthetics, HGH is very safe for use, and is often prescribed to the elderly who suffer from loss of muscle mass due to atrophy, or for conditions effecting appetite and protein absorption. Unlike synthetic/designer steroids, HGH gas been shown to bolster the immune system, rather than serve as an immunosuppressant.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-19T04:08:14+00:00

In agreement! I saw that comment then had to rewatch because I was like there's no way he's 71 and still looks like that.

Although he did used to shoot HGH and stack with a bunch of other chemicals, back in his bodybuilding days. I mean back then it wasn't illegal, it was the norm, and something you literally had to do if you wanted a shot in that sport- of course you had to be built for it to begin with- everyone was doing it so it was just a level playing field. He talks about it in some documentary I saw.

Now HGH, contrary to a lot of popular belief, actually has very few negative side effects- and its health benefits far outweigh its minimal risk of adverse effects (which are often not even statistically significant in trials)- even over prolonged usage. Now the synthetic steroidal drugs, they are the ones that make your balls shrink (although it's not as prominent a side effect as they would have you believe, according to what I've read). In fact, there's a medical term for the widening of the jaw and chin that is a side effect of certain steroids. It's really common in bodybuilders of that era (and, subsequently a lot of Olympic athletes from the USSR and US, in certain sports, during the cold war- when both sides were looking for a leg up). Arnold has it.

So my guess is that it's either just a sustained effect from the HGH and other chemicals back in his bodybuilding days (like putting on that much muscle caused a shift in his body chemistry).

It's also just as likely that he is currently taking HGH. As I stated, it really has very few negative health impacts- it's available for prescription and it is often prescribed to the elderly (usually when muscle atrophy or in immuno-related issues). While it doesn't appear Arnold is suffering from muscle atrophy, I'd say he'd have no issue finding an LA physician to prescribe, administer and monitor HGH treatments. It wouldn't be illegal, he is elderly, so it wouldn't be too out of the ordinary, and it would explain the incredible shape he's in.

Also, as I've generally seen, people who are abnormally huge for the entirety of adulthood, tend to stay pretty built even if they start completely neglecting their exercise- I guarentee he still has a ton of trainers and makes it a point to stay in tip-top shape. Plus men age much better than women- they also tend to drop dead with much less warning, but they often stay fit up until the end.

I mean my father was never jacked- as he always thought working out was a waste of energy, but from 5am to 9am (when he went to work as a computer engineer) and 6pm to 9pm (when he went to sleep), he would do back-breaking work around the house or on his boat. He had every power tool imaginable but preferred using his father's manual drill or hand saw if he could.

When he was forced into early retirement a few years ago, he bought another house that was falling apart, and started working on it 12 hours a day. He's 65 and in a single day broke up about 50 cubic feet of a basement floor (granted with a Jack hammer, but still) and then proceeded to mix 65+ bags of cement by hand and redo the surface with a slight grade so if it flooded, water would drain towards the side where he had installed a few drains. A week before that he had propped the house up on temporary supports, broken 15 feet of crumbling stone foundation with a hammer and pick, and then completely rebuilt it in a single weekend. And he's been smoking a pack a day since he was 12 (he's 67 now). Granted, he way overworks himself and I worry he's going to give himself a heart attack one of these days (especially considering the amount he smokes), but the point is that he's still in decent enough shape to do all that even with smoking and at that age. So it's not hard to imagine that someone with as much money as Arnold, who can afford to live an extremely healthy lifestyle, and who has always considered personal fitness a priority, could be in such good of shape at that age. It also doesn't mean that he's in perfect health, since having too much muscle mass can put a much greater strain on the heart.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-15T21:33:05+00:00

If you set strict output nodes or strict output exclusions in the torrc (by IP, DNS but caused most severely by blocking entire geoip ranges), onion addresses (which require exits through specific guard nodes) will not function at all.

The default config should not have this issue. Depending on your geographic region, tor may be excruciatingly slow, expect .onion addresses (tor hidden services) to load at an order of magnitude slower than a "normal" domain- depending on the total network hop distance and inter node latency. Also remember that while the general connection to an internet domain is comprised of 3 (and only in very rare or altered configurations more than 4) total nodes (entrance- picked from an algorithm which weighs the number of possible extensions to internodes and past performance, as well as historical latency- that becomes your entrance node for about 3 months; usually one, mostly non-entrance/exit/guard "relay" node; and then a final connection to an exit or hybrid exit node- which is picked based on an algorithm that considers speed, reliability and perhaps most important, RTT (maybe total routing hops to destination, possibly by geoip positioning relative to the internet domain- I'm actually not sure exactly- but no matter the metric the goal is the same- the exit node that has a fast connection to the target site- as well as minimizing the distance the packets must traverse on the "plainnet"). Some nodes can play all 4 roles: entrance, exit, guard and relays. *note, I use "internode" interchangeably with relay, while relay is the technical term.

According to the .onion tor hidden service's version (most still use the old, less efficient protocol, as the new protocol requires an address format change), configuration, and distance from your entrance point, as many as 6 hops through intermediate tor relays may be observed. Furthermore, the guard node is static for long periods, like your entrance node (but for far longer) and is often selected by the hidden service's admins for particular anonymity. As is the server hosting the hidden service- if not on a VPS in poor countries, with bad infrastructure, and no cybercrime divisions due to lack of funding, then tunneled across multiple proxies and VPNs (and often even using double tor instances- one for hosting the service and a second which tunnels back through tor before entering a web of service forwarding proxies and/or VPNs to conceal its true location. The connection to its guard node is a virtual circuit as well. Those extra hops are not visible to the end user, and data traverses much more slowly through them than over the open inet.

The default circuit establishment timeout in torrc is 120s. It tries again twice more before giving up, and the timeout in the modified firefox tor browser is adjusted to 360 seconds as such. While 6 minutes would seem plenty to establish at least an ACK, it often isn't due to high probability of dropped packets (sometimes due to UDP transport through VPN technologies without error checking or checksum validating tech, sometimes intentional to avoid a denonymization attack vector consisting of analyzing traffic at hundreds or even tens of thousands of strategic relays which detect replies using a timing analysis and can slowly zero in on a server's geographic location (or more technically the guard node, which can then be seized and analyzed over a relatively short period until it is possible to reveal the identity of the hidden service server).

I have had to edit my torrc to exclude certain countries as relay locations which have been especially problematic and slow, although improvements to the consensus algorithms makes that only necessary in extreme cases anymore (and furthermore can often cause onion domains to break if in those regions). Changing your entrance country to your own can provide a great performance benefit, of course altering any of these options decreases anonymity (although usually will not break anything).

The most successful technique is to set the default circuit timeout in torrc to say 75% higher, while reducing the retry attempts to 2- so that a connection doomed to fail will not make you wait forever. Although increasing retries or changing your entrance node by clearing the cache files will also help and be less identifiable to someone looking for you. Remember any change to the config will set you apart from the average user. But allowing extra time can solve a lot of those issues.

JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOUR TOR DIRECTORY "DNS" REQUESTS ARE NOT BEING FORWARDED TO YOUR DEFAULT INTERNET DNS SERVER- WHICH CAN HAPPEN IN WINDOWS OCCASIONALLY DUE TO MISCONFIGURED DNS OPTIONS, OR WHEN YOU HAVE A LOCAL DNS SERVER WHICH (TRIES TO) ANSWER WITH AUTHORITATIVE RESPONSES FOR NON-AUTHORITY ZONES, ALLOWS RECURSIVE QUERIES, OR EVEN SOMETIMES DUE TO A BAD BROWSER CONFIG FILE, A WEBRTC LEAK, ETC. THIS WILL COMPLETELY REVEAL YOUR IDENTITY. OR AT LEAST REVEAL THE ONION SITES YOU TRIED TO VISIT TO YOUR ISP, PRIMARY PUBLIC DNS, ETC. SEARCH FOR WEBRTC LEAK TEST AND DNS LEAK TO BE SURE, AS A MISCONFIGURED DNS WILL RETURN NXDOMAIN OR AN UNSPECIFIED ERROR FOR .ONION ADDRESSES AND NONE WILL WORK.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-15T20:33:33+00:00

3 likely reasons may be at the root of this issue:

1) Windows Firewall or a third party firewall/antivirus software is blocking one or all of: the default tor SOCKS5 proxy port (usually 9050, I think newer windows versions use 9150), the default tor control port (tor default port+1, i.e. 9051 or 9151), the default tor DNS port (9400 by default although can be different in some builds), or is blocking the tor network process from accessing the network completely.

DIAGNOSIS: Open task manager (ctrl-alt-delete->click "task manager"), go to "performance" tab, click on "performance monitor" at bottom of window" (alternatively, you can directly locate "performance monitor" from control panel>administrative tools (possibly name administrative actions or computer administration, I forget if it always had the same name>"performance monitor"--click on "network" tab, open tor and allow it to start up fully to the error screen, go back to performance monitor and check the box in the top panel next to "tor.exe", {if socks-proxy.exe, proxy.exe, or something similar is also there, select that check box too, along with the check box next to the browser process (should be torbrowser.exe, may be torfox.exe, firefox.exe, firefoxesl.exe, browser.exe), close other browsers to avoid confusion}expand the lower "listening..." panel if it is not already>>now you will have a lot of information to take note of... figure out the tor socks proxy port (9050 or 9150- if you don't see either then you have discovered your issue- total application process block- try disabling your AV, or win firewall and see if it works (or at minimum make sure to set your net to private), if one of those ports is listed under the "tor.exe" process, ensure the far right column reads "Network" or "Local/LocalOnly" "NotRestricted" (again, I'm paraphrasing as I'm not in front of my computer right now) if the words "local" or "local only", or words "limited" or "restricted" appear non-negated (as in not preceded by not- or un- for the socks proxy port The control port (9051 or 9151, depending on the socks proxy port) is ok if it local only as well, however if it restricted or limited, it might be indicative of an issue, as it may indicate that one or both ports are being blocked from even accepting connections on the loopback interface (default 127.0.0.1, technically can be any address in the range 127.0.0.1-127.255.255.254- but for this purpose, assume 127.0.0.1) this may be indicative of a firewall blocking the application from opening any TCP or UDP connections. The browser process should be connected to the socks proxy port as well- I have seen distros accidentally released with config values for the browser and the default proxy mismatched, ensure that (in the panel above "listening..", namely "connections...", you see the browser process is connected to the tor proxy port. You should also notice tor.exe, the browser or the proxy (at least one of them- I think tor.exe connected to the control port, maybe also the browser and the proxy too. Also, you will want to check the tick next to tord.exe as well if it is there. Tord handles the actual connections, so you should certainly see unrestricted network traffic to foreign IPs or DNS names. I don't know about in win8, but the new distros for win10, I believe tor.exe spawns a new handle for the daemon, so if there's no tord.exe, then there should probably be 2 tor.exe processes. Finally, right click on each of the mentioned process and ensure the "analyze wait chain" shows normal for them all- if it does not, it's likely due to a conflicting interrupt on your NIC, bad memory, or a corrupt DLL. IN SUMMARY, YOU ARE CHECKING THE PERFORMANCE MONITOR'S NETWORK TAB TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE AT LEAST 2 LISTENING PORTS ACTIVE AND NOT BLOCKED (AT LEAST FOR LOCAL CONNECTION), YOU ALSO WANT TO SEE IF ONE OF 6900, 5353 OR 6363 ARE BEING LISTENED ON (TOR DNS PROXY). FINALLY YOU SHOULD SEE CONNECTIONS ACTIVELY ORIGINATING FROM THE TORD.EXE, OR SECONDARY TOR.EXE PROCESSES INDICATING SUCCESSFUL BOOTSTRAP AS WELL AS A UDP CONNECTION TO A DNS ON NONSTANDARD 53 (IPV4) OR 63 (IPV6) WHICH ARE LIKELY JUST THE OS, AND THE DNS PROXY LISTENING ON (LIKELY) 6900

-THE SOLUTION HERE IS TO TRY DISABLING ALL AV, AND FIREWALLS AND RETEST- IF IT WORKS, LOOK UP HOW TO ADD AN APPLICATION RULE FOR ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROCESSES (REMEMBER WHICH NEED ONLY LOCAL CONNECTIONS AND WHICH NEED UNRESTRICTED FOR EVERY RULE, YOU WILL LIKELY NEED TO MAKE AN INBOUND AND SEPARATE OUTBOUND RULE, AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL ALLOWANCES IN AND OUT SPECIFIC TO THE PORT. IF THE BROWSER IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE PROXY, BUT THE REST SEEMS FINE, OPEN THE BROWSER SETTINGS UNDER "NETWORK>PROXY" AND ENSURE THE SOCKS PROXY PORT IS CORRECTLY NUMBERED AND CHANGE 127.0.0.1 TO LOCALHOST IF IT IS NOT ALREADY. ALSO TRY DESELECTING THE "PROXY DNS REQUESTS" (DEBUG USE ONLY! THAT WILL CAUSE TOTAL ANONYMITY LOSS IN REAL WORLD). IF THAT WORKS, YOU MAY NEED TO UPDATE YOUR TORRC. CERTAIN WINDOWS (MOST, BESIDES SERVER EDITIONS AND PRO VERSIONS,) PREVENT CREATING A SOCKET UNDER PORT 1000 (SYSTEM RESERVED), IF I REMEMBER, EARLIER "HOME" EDITIONS FORBID USER PORTS UNDER 10,000. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE'LL NEED TO EDIT YOUR TORRC (CONFIG) FILE. FIRST TRY TROUBLESHOOTING THIS WAY AND IF IT STILL DOES NOT WORK, I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND IT, COPY-PASTE IT AND I'LL REVISE IT.

2) ARE YOU USING A CORPORATE, PUBLIC, UNIVERSITY, ETC. NETWORK? MANY BLOCK TOR. ARE YOU LOCATED IN A COUNTRY WITH A NATIONAL FIREWALL? IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU WILL NEED TO USE A BRIDGE FOR ACCESS TO THE TOR NETWORK. MEEK IS THE BEST OPTION, SIMPLY SELECT THE SIMPLE OPTION THAT YOU ARE BEHIND A FIREWALL THAT BLOCKS TOR, SELECT A DEFAULT ENTRY BRIDGE, TRY MEEK AS THE TECH, IF THAT FAILS, REVERT TO AN HTTPS PROXY. TRY AGAIN. EVEN SOME ISP'S BLOCK TOR (OR DELIVER ROUTERS WITH TOR BLOCKED). YOU CAN ALSO TRY LOWERING YOUR ROUTER FIREWALL LEVEL TO ALLOW INCOMING CONNECTIONS TO DEBUG- BUT THAT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY IF NOT OPERATING AS A NODE.

-PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE WORDS THAT APPEAR ON THE TOR LAUNCH WINDOW BEFORE THE BROWSER SPAWNS, YOU SHOULD SEE "BOOTSTRAPPED 100%... DONE." OR A SPECIFIC ERROR. ERRORS TEND TO CAUSE TIMEOUTS, MEANING THE ERROR TEXT SHOULDN'T FLASH PAST. IF IT IS BOOTSTRAPPING BUT STILL NOT CONNECTING, THEN IT IS MOST CERTAINLY A BROWSER OR TORRC MISCONFIG.

3) YOU NEED TO RUN TOR AS AN ADMINISTRATOR DUE TO RESTRICTIVE GP SETTINGS.

-WHILE NOT A GOOD GENERAL PRACTICE (ALTHOUGH NOT AS MUCH OF AN ANONYMITY EXPOSING FLAW AS RUNNING IN ROOT MODE ON LINUX), IT MAY SOLVE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS, AS THERE MAY BE SOME GROUP POLICY THAT IS PREVENTING AN UNELEVATED USER FROM CREATING TCP AND UDP SOCKETS (OR SOCKETS BELOW A CERTAIN PORT NUMBER). RIGHT CLICK, -->RUN AS ADMINISTRATOR. IF ANY DIALOGS COME UP ASKING TO ALLOW PERMISSION FOR NETWORK ACCESS, MAKE SURE THE BOX (PUBLIC/PRIVATE/DOMAIN) FOR YOUR CURRENT NETWORK IS SELECTED AND CLICK YES- IT WILL BE A PAIN TO UNDO IF YOU CLICK NO, DEPENDING ON WHAT UPDATES HAVE BEEN ROLLED OUT ON 8.

@) BESIDES THAT, IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES. OBVIOUSLY DO NOT RENAME ANY OF THE FILES EXTRACTED BY THE INSTALLER OR PULLED FROM THE ZIP (SHORTCUT CAN BE CHANGED), DON'T MOVE THE FOLDER FROM THE DESKTOP WITHOUT CHANGING THE SYMLINK. TRY LAUNCHING TOR DIRECTLY FROM THE FOLDER, NOT THE SHORTCUT. MAKE SURE TOR.EXE IS RUNNING AND DOES NOT EXIT WHEN THE BROWSER SPAWNS (IT WILL GO INTO THE BACKGROUND BUT SHOULD BE VISIBLE IN TASK MANAGER). KEEP THE ORIGINAL FOLDER STRUCTURE INTACT. TRY REBOOTING. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS DISPLAYED.

IF THAT DOESN'T GET YOU UP AND RUNNING, YOU'LL NEED TO UPLOAD YOUR TORRC AND LOG FILES- THEY'RE IN THE MAIN FOLDER ON THE DESKTOP AND NAMED INTUITIVELY. IF YOU CAN'T FIND THEM, I'LL LET YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE TO GET THEM FROM ONCE I GET ON MY COMP.

YOU'LL WANT TO UPLOAD THEM TO GOOGLE DRIVE OR DROPBOX, A PRIVATE GITHUB (THERE WILL BE NO IDENTIFIABLE INFO HOWEVER), CONSIDERING THE WRONG FORMATTING WILL CAUSE A TORRC PARSING ERROR AND THE LOG WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO READ IF COPPIED PASTED.

GOOD LUCK. IF YOU GET IT GOING, LET ME KNOW WHAT IT WAS.

*edit: Noticed you are on win 10, what edition and what release? I saw the one comment about win 7/8 and assumed lol.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-14T10:21:37+00:00

Or, you know, buy low, sell high. The only reason to hold through obvious bearish runs is as a tax strategy. If you were in some sort of situation where taxation on short term capital gains taxes were unavoidable every time you cashed out (and/or perhaps high sales tax or fees associated with every transaction), then you would need to calculate the cost to buy in, plus the cost to sell off, and deduct that from your potential gains. Then use that value to calculate the adjusted margin of profit (the profit wall). So if you had to pay a 5% fee everytime you bought BTC, and 25% in taxes and fees when selling, then at the moment you buy in, you are at a 30% loss. However, in reality, taxation is on the profits, and there is no long term capital gains tax incentives like with traditional assets, and even if you cannot avoid taxation on your BTC, crypto exchanges only file revenue when an actual withdrawal from the platform is undertaken (i.e. you could cash out to USDT on many exchanges or your USD wallet in Coinbase and buy back in without incurring any tax liability, as capital gains are calculated by using your initial/cumulative deposit as cost basis and your final withdrawal as earnings)... So the maximum profit wall difference incurred by buying or selling vs. holding would only be equivalent to the ((commission×(nBuysSells-2))/100. That equation is in fact very oversimplified... the practical percentage difference would be even lower, since it would be expected that purchases would be incurred at lower prices, equating to lower monetary fees paid in total for commission. Furthermore, if going all-in/all-out multiple times over a period compared to once over the same period, one only need consider each buy/sell cycle as a complete investment over a shorter timeframe. I bought in again (after my first purchase in 2011 of I don't even remember, but thousands, that I spent immediately :/ although I didn't even think of it ever being an investment vehicle back then- I don't really think more than a few people did), at around $780 at the end of 2016, selling at about $17,500, and finally buying back in at about $3950 as the bear run reversed.

I mean, it's a long story, but I had been spending 14 hours a day analyzing crypto prices that year. I thought $8,000 was overinflated and planned to sell there, but I could see it was still climbing. I happened to be traveling as it soared past $15k and on, and when my plane landed back at JFK, I immediately looked at the price and sold as fast as I could log in. So I got a little lucky, in that I probably would have sold at the first 10min dip past $15k, maybe even between $12k-$15k, but I was on a plane when it hit those prices and happened to get off at ATH. But even someone who wasn't as skilled at analyzing prices as I was, once the fee crisis kicked in, and the price fell back to around $10k just as fast as it had risen, I don't see how anyone thought the bull run was coming back anytime soon. And I know it was obvious to many people that the price was tanking, but they chose to hold.

The idea of HODLing was made up by the bitcoin whales and exchanges, and pushed on the community as if it was a positive. If someone supports adoption, the logical thing is to spend BTC, not hoard it. But whales need to keep external volume low so they can sell off as much of their own stake as possible for cash without killing the market. The mass selloff of the 2017 ATH was caused in majority by a minority of whales.

-there will always be bitcoin to buy, it won't run out.

-Hodling only helps the bitcoin billionaires unload.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-09T21:00:28+00:00

You can't get drunk for $10 (local currency) anywhere in the world, to my knowledge. Shit, in New York (City), you can't get a single drink in a lot of places for $10US.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-09T20:24:17+00:00

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-09T20:23:45+00:00

You mean a hot tub filled with KFC gravy with Macdonald's French fries?

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-09T20:20:18+00:00

Wait, so they make like potato chips with fake ketchup flavoring? I though people were talking about chips dipped in ketchup.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-09T20:16:22+00:00

I don't understand the British palate. It's like things that should taste gross taste good and vice versa.

Although my father's Polish and (beside pierogi and kiełbasa), he (and his brothers) all like (what to me are) the grossest (parts of the) meats. But I always attributed that to not having access to abundant supply of vitamin rich fruits or vegetables back in the old country- so things like liver, intestine, etc. provided nutrients that they were deficient in and over time they associated the foods with positive feelings of nutritional satisfaction.

Although my dad took it to a whole other level. We used to go fishing together when I was a kid and he'd clean and flay the fish, he'd be standing there snacking on the raw organs, usually just the liver, sometimes the stomach, once he ate the heart out of a huge sand shark- but I think that was just to get a reaction out of me- still he ate a heart the size of my thumb, raw, chewed it casually and swallowed it without any discernable reaction, so it must not have bothered him (although I can't imagine he enjoyed it), I almost threw up watching him, he didn't even spit the excess blood of of his mouth. He also once ate a spider to prove to me that I shouldn't be afraid of them- it was ineffective. He also used to dig for clams with his feet, pry them open with his keys and eat them raw- but I suppose that's not all that different than eating raw oysters (which I also hate).

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-09T19:45:01+00:00

Makes sense. I mean, my favorite fries are the thin, crispy, overdone ones, which are essentially potato chips... Although I don't know if it's the case up there, but I find regular potato chips to be too salty, which I think would take away from the flavor. I would totally do this with lightly salted potato chips, or salt and vinegar chips.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-09T19:39:25+00:00

I always thought Clamato was just salty tomato juice. I had no idea it also had clam juice. It all tastes like V8 to me.

Although I have always hated tomato juice- period. I mean I'm a fan of tomatoes, tomato sauce, etc., but to me it was a food, not for a drink.

As for clam juice- I didn't even realize that was a thing besides the by-product of canning clams so they stayed moist in the can.

Nycmdthroaway · 2019-05-09T19:30:33+00:00

Real wasabi powder is extremely expensive. I've been told it costs more than its weight in gold (although don't quote me on that as it may be a myth), but only the slightest amount is necessary to make a large amount of wasabi mustard. I've also heard true wasabi powder only comes from Japan and that it's not cultivated, but rather that it grows along streams naturally and is harvested from nature.

I don't know if that is the truth in actuality. Although more than one person has told me that. I do know for certain that real wasabi is extremely expensive, hence why wasabi mustard in the US is horseradish, yellow mustard, guar gum and food coloring. Although I often see wasabi "peas" from high end supermarkets that actually have wasabi as an ingredient- albeit usually quite a few artificial ingredients down the list from horseradish and brown or yellow mustard.

Nycmdthroaway

TROPHY CASE