Wow. Bitcoin is almost $1,500

[Red Squirrel]

Sounds like you have much bigger problems than browser js.

More like browser makers do. That stuff should not be possible period, yet it is. There was a FF exploit discovered the other day that allowed remote code execution right through the sandbox. What's the point of the sandbox if it does not actually work? Yeah you should keep stuff up to date, but the whole idea of designing stuff securely should be that it works even on old versions. Stuff is never up to date, there's always new exploits. Stuff should be designed from the get go to mitigate any exploit from being able to do damage.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Old news to some, but for others maybe not. In any case, read up Binance users!

https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/14/binance-begins-to-restrict-us-customers/

Binance is opening a US-based exchange. That means they have to cut off US customers from their international exchange. Americans have a 90-day grace period to transfer assets off Binance (ending Sept. 14th). What happens to your account after that date? Nobody knows. Ideally they would transfer your account and funds to their new American exchange, but it's not clear if they'll be able to do that.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Woah ethereum is going up it seems. I'm sitting on about 900 bucks now. It's at 415/1 eth.

At least I have enough to pay off one of the GPUs now. The 1070 TI's are still going for like $400ish on Ebay too. I had paid $800 but that was a bit over a year ago.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Getting the regulatory aspects of the currency right will be key to its success, particularly in markets like India, which is proposing a new law that would make owning and selling cryptocurrency a crime – and punishable for up to ten years in jail.

Uh-oh. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

That's a quote from this article, about Facebook's new proposed CC "Libra".
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra-coin-globalcoin?utm_source=More Stories&utm_medium=internal

 

[Red Squirrel]

Hate how "tech" related crimes always seem to be the most strict and the ones with the most crazy penalties. 10 years just for using crypto, that's just ridiculous.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Hate how "tech" related crimes always seem to be the most strict and the ones with the most crazy penalties. 10 years just for using crypto, that's just ridiculous.

Well not ALL of them get the hammer. Some Equifax mope got 4 months and a slap-on-the-wrist fine for insider trading:

https://www.cnet.com/news/former-equifax-exec-gets-4-months-in-prison-for-insider-trading-after-breach/

Guy makes $950k+ via insider trading, pays $162k fine . . .

 

[Red Squirrel]

Well not ALL of them get the hammer. Some Equifax mope got 4 months and a slap-on-the-wrist fine for insider trading:

https://www.cnet.com/news/former-equifax-exec-gets-4-months-in-prison-for-insider-trading-after-breach/

Guy makes $950k+ via insider trading, pays $162k fine . . .

True but that's a big corporation, they never get in trouble for anything, same with rich people. After the hack all the execs should have been rounded up and given a life sentence and the company should have been shut down. It's ridiculous they are allowed to keep operating. Same with BP and the oil spill.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Maybe we should let someone spill a few tankers' worth of oil off the western coast of India, and then have someone else run around with a paper BTC wallet in downtown Mumbai with one satoshi in the wallet. See who gets the longer prison sentence.

 

[ultimatebob]

Question for my crypto trading friends... at what price point do you consider a cryptocurrency to be a worthless "shitcoin"? If it drops below a dollar each? A penny each? A tenth of a penny?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Depends on what the token does and the team behind it. If the team is fully-funded and pushing forward with project goals, then it can never be a "shitcoin". Investors just haven't got any confidence in it. That doesn't mean the token will ever go up, but it does mean that eventually it might serve some function.

 

[ultimatebob]

Depends on what the token does and the team behind it. If the team is fully-funded and pushing forward with project goals, then it can never be a "shitcoin". Investors just haven't got any confidence in it. That doesn't mean the token will ever go up, but it does mean that eventually it might serve some function.

I'm curious, because I'm still holding onto some Nimiq, which has been trading below 1/10th of a penny for months now. It's still being worked on, but I'm not convinced that it will ever gain any traction with the hundreds of competing coins out there.

Oh well... not every crypto can be as rock solid as Coolcoin

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'm curious, because I'm still holding onto some Nimiq, which has been trading below 1/10th of a penny for months now. It's still being worked on, but I'm not convinced that it will ever gain any traction with the hundreds of competing coins out there.

Depends on what the token is really "for". Nimiq, for example, is basically its own blockchain, so I'm guessing transaction fees are paid in NIM, and it will eventually move to PoS (probably mimicking Ethereum's system). So NIM will earn "interest" eventually. If Nimiq is actually adopted as a payment system, NIM value will go up somewhat.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Noticed yesterday, that the 'Coinstar' machine, was showing big ads for Bitcoin. Apparently, you can trade cash for Bitcoin.

 

[ultimatebob]

Noticed yesterday, that the 'Coinstar' machine, was showing big ads for Bitcoin. Apparently, you can trade cash for Bitcoin.

Wow... they would have made a killing if they had made that available two years ago. Now, I'm not sure how eager people are to put more money in Bitcoin after the last price drop.

 

[destrekor]

Question for my crypto trading friends... at what price point do you consider a cryptocurrency to be a worthless "shitcoin"? If it drops below a dollar each? A penny each? A tenth of a penny?

That's unfortunately not a good way to look at coin values though. Yes there is a a psychological barrier where something so cheap must be a failure, but there's another major element that should be considered: market cap, or the total value of all the tokens/coins available.
For some, there were always meant to be so many total tokens, that traders simply adjusted with different denominations of a sort: just like you can have 1 bitcoin, which is also equal to 1 billion satoshis (I think?) 100 million satoshis. But overall lesser valued per-token shifted others to trade commonly in a unit size that equals 1000x the standard unit. Think of that like framing the US currency as based on the dollar - there are still smaller sub-units with the smallest then being 1/100th of the common unit. But otherwise the counting then, after 99/100 (99 cents) starts counting at 1, and we have trading units that equal 100 base units. ($100 bills). There's at least one crypto that trades like this, I can't recall it off the top of my head and it doesn't look like I own it anymore -- think I just traded it a bit at one point. I think that coin still technically had a tradeable .00000001 level, in addition to trading levels of and 100, 1000, etc I think, so not quite like a penny unless we start doing pieces of eight style. lol

 

[ultimatebob]

Well... the total Market Cap for Nimiq is about $3 million dollars now, out of the $12 million dollars that they raised during the ICO back in 2007.

So, I guess that it's not totally dead yet, but it seems pretty damn close.

But, seriously, does anyone else here have a crypto investment that went bust? If so, how did you know it was over?

 

[DrMrLordX]

@ultimatebob

Main thing to remember is that the Nimiq crew still has that $12 million. Or whatever is left of it anyway. A small developer team can run off that money for a loooong time.

I have one investment potentially going bust right now, but I'm hesitant to mention it by name since I do not wish to slick-hype something I'm HODLing. It's down 45% or so since I bought in at what was an all-time low. Now it has found a new all-time low! But the dev team is still trucking along, and they're flush with cash from their ICO so . . .

 

[VirtualLarry]

Google "Phone farming". It's a thing, using cheap Android phones (a bunch of them) to simulate ad clicks, and video views, using pay-per-view apps, to earn pennies per view. Much like GPU mining, it seems. There's a Motherboard / Vice article about it.

 

[Craig234]

Google "Phone farming". It's a thing, using cheap Android phones (a bunch of them) to simulate ad clicks, and video views, using pay-per-view apps, to earn pennies per view. Much like GPU mining, it seems. There's a Motherboard / Vice article about it.

Sounds like theft. The ad payments are intended for legitimate consumers.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Sounds like theft. The ad payments are intended for legitimate consumers.

Is it "theft", if you look away, when a YouTube ad comes on? Do they own your attention? Most rational people wouldn't consider that "theft".

Edit: To my knowledge, at least, this isn't "click fraud", at least, not in the traditional sense, of ads being reported as "clicked", when they're offscreen or not actually shown on the phone's display. My understanding is that this is simply displaying the actual videos on the phone (legitimate "view"), but the owner of the phone simply doesn't watch all of them. Or, sometimes does, if they prompt to continue, etc.

Is it "theft" to own multiple television sets, turned to multiple major networks, and not focusing your full attention on each and every set, especially when the ads come on? It's basically like that.

 

[Ichinisan]

Is it "theft", if you look away, when a YouTube ad comes on? Do they own your attention? Most rational people wouldn't consider that "theft".

Edit: To my knowledge, at least, this isn't "click fraud", at least, not in the traditional sense, of ads being reported as "clicked", when they're offscreen or not actually shown on the phone's display. My understanding is that this is simply displaying the actual videos on the phone (legitimate "view"), but the owner of the phone simply doesn't watch all of them. Or, sometimes does, if they prompt to continue, etc.

Is it "theft" to own multiple television sets, turned to multiple major networks, and not focusing your full attention on each and every set, especially when the ads come on? It's basically like that.

You're conflating the role of the ad distributor and the ad consumer / target.

The distributor is stealing money from their paying client. The client is being defrauded.

 

[Craig234]

Is it "theft", if you look away, when a YouTube ad comes on? Do they own your attention? Most rational people wouldn't consider that "theft".

Edit: To my knowledge, at least, this isn't "click fraud", at least, not in the traditional sense, of ads being reported as "clicked", when they're offscreen or not actually shown on the phone's display. My understanding is that this is simply displaying the actual videos on the phone (legitimate "view"), but the owner of the phone simply doesn't watch all of them. Or, sometimes does, if they prompt to continue, etc.

Is it "theft" to own multiple television sets, turned to multiple major networks, and not focusing your full attention on each and every set, especially when the ads come on? It's basically like that.

You really need this explained? Sigh.

Common sense. If you don't have that, quit reading, now, it's a requirement for this.

There is a basic and reasonable contract between the consumers of advertiser-subsidized content and the advertisers who pay for that content.

It's pretty lenient, but it's not non-existent, morally at least. Simply act as an honest person. It's not required you watch every ad, much less buy every product. You are allowed to go to the bathroom during commercial breaks. It's all built in, that there will be some reasonable rate of viewership, which is hopefully adequate to justify the payments.

Where it becomes unethical more, is when you go out of your way to evade even that minimal part of the deal - making a special effort to watch an 'ad-free' version that's not paid for by you to be ad-free, or even worse, abusing a 'click' payment system to generate phony 'clicks' that are not real, different consumers acting as consumers, but instead people trying to just get the money.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways in your comments. If one person has some automated system for many copies or clicks of the content simply to generate money, that's not a valid 'consumer' use of the system. The tv sets are a false analogy - the additional sets don't cost the advertiser extra money.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The tv sets are a false analogy - the additional sets don't cost the advertiser extra money.

No, that's exactly the case here. The phones are on sites set to pay the consumer of the content, for watching the content.

It's exactly, like getting paid pennies an hour to watch TV. So, scale it up, buy one, two dozen TVs. Now you're making dozens of pennies an hour to watch TV.

These are people that have simply "scaled up" the system, not defrauding it, as I understand.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Simply act as an honest person.

I suppose, then that as an "honest person", you read the Yellow Pages book when you get it, cover-to-cover, to make sure to satisfy that "moral contract", that people have with advertisers. You know, those guys that paid for your Yellow Pages to be produced and delivered to you.

Oh, you don't? THIEF!

Or that when you look at a Community Newspaper, you make it a point to read each and every ad on every page.

Oh, you don't? THIEF!

That seems to be your moral code.

Nevermind, the morality of internet advertisers that would take over your PC (YOUR property), and FORCE you to watch UNWANTED ads 24/7. (*Malware/spyware/adware... etc.)

But when people take advantage of the fact that certain services offer the consumer direct kickbacks for watching said content, and those people choose to scale-up their operation, so that they can view multiple phones at once, and have them all playing video content, and getting paid for all of it, WELL THEY'RE THE THIEVES.

Let me just say, you have a really BLEEP BLEEP sense of Morality, Craig. I wouldn't want you to teach my kids "corporate rule morality". I prefer the Bible. I guess that's what happens when you breath the air in California.

 

[VirtualLarry]

In my defense, I did say "simulate ad clicks", which the article doesn't really go into, I was reading more into it than I should have. From the Motherboard article, it basically says that these guys, are just trying to make a few bucks while the getting's good on the offers, and not trying to defraud the system in place for pay-per-view, they just want to scale it up to the point of making money with it.

I shouldn't have said "simulate ad clicks". That was my imagination embellishing things I guess. They did talk about "simulating clicks", but not specifically simulating AD clicks, I don't think.