A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted
-
@blek's articlle said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Dorsey says he'll convert the millions from his tweet sale to bitcoin and donate to COVID-19 relief in Africa.
Wait... Convert the millions to Bitcoin and THEN donate? Why not just donate the money directly WITHOUT converting them to Bitcoin first? Less hassle for everyone and less money lost to the exchanges.
-
@Atazhaia maybe he hates the environment?
-
@Luhmann said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
better start up a solar plant too to keep it green ... and we definitely need a diversity manager with a degree in wokeness ...
And @Tsaukpaetra could be the CTO.
-
Mostly not about cryptocurrency, per se (although they do accept Ether for payment), but all about blockchain:
NFTs exist on and are authenticated via a "blockchain", which is a publicly accessible online database not owned by any central authority, where the data cannot be altered. Blockchain technology provides the mechanism for which NFTs are authenticated by digitally attaching a permanent signature and established provenance to a digital artwork.
The most popular blockchain that currently enables NFT technology is the Ethereum blockchain. NFT tokens on Ethereum adhere to a standard called: ERC-721, giving the NFTs greater accessibility and liquidity.
I see no way this could possibly go wrong. And there's a lot of money at stake (not necessarily in total volume, but some individual transactions are big):
EVERYDAYS: THE FIRST 5000 DAYS sold online for $69,346,250
-
-
@Zerosquare said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Luhmann said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
better start up a solar plant too to keep it green ... and we definitely need a diversity manager with a degree in wokeness ...
And @Tsaukpaetra could be the CTO.
The Chief Tsaukpaetran Officer.
-
@Zecc
sounds like a function that comes with golden complicator gloves
-
And a $0 budget to buy hardware.
-
@Zerosquare said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
And a $0 budget to buy hardware.
Why buy hardware when you can milk the cow for free?
-
@Tsaukpaetra You're saying that... figuratively?
-
@Zecc said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Tsaukpaetra You're saying that... figuratively?
It's not so bad if it's only for yourself. It's when you do it for profit that things get complicated and emotional and then regulators come in and it stops being quite so fun,,,
-
@Zecc
Yes ... yes let's go with that option
-
Look, I have no idea how you could possibly milk a computer, but I know you're gonna try it and I'm pretty sure this is not a good idea.
-
@Zerosquare said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Look, I have no idea how you could possibly milk a computer, but I know you're gonna try it and I'm pretty sure this is not a good idea.
I have this here Gateway that seems to me like it's not braining.
-
-
@loopback0 ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That sale makes way more sense now.
-
@loopback0 said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
, who bought ’s $69 million piece owns , which sells tokens. is a business partner of ’s and owns 2% of coins. The price of went up from $0.36 to $23 after the Christie’s sale. How is this not a conflict of interest? https://t.co/g5X0B4sbzE
FTFM
-
@topspin said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@loopback0 said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
, who bought ’s $69 million piece owns , which sells tokens. is a business partner of ’s and owns 2% of coins. The price of went up from $0.36 to $23 after the Christie’s sale. How is this not a conflict of interest? https://t.co/g5X0B4sbzE
FTFM
Thanks! Yeah, that looks kinda skeevy. And to think that skeeve should be associated with the fine-art auction world, for shame (faints, shattering monocle and rendering hat, alas, perhaps permanently askew)
-
-
@Gribnit said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@topspin said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@loopback0 said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
, who bought ’s $69 million piece owns , which sells tokens. is a business partner of ’s and owns 2% of coins. The price of went up from $0.36 to $23 after the Christie’s sale. How is this not a conflict of interest? https://t.co/g5X0B4sbzE
FTFM
Thanks! Yeah, that looks kinda skeevy. And to think that skeeve should be associated with the fine-art auction world, for shame (faints, shattering monocle and rendering hat, alas, perhaps permanently askew)
There is absolutely no skeeve in the fine-art auction world! None! But buying and selling art is a very personal thing, you know. It's really not worth advertising. Or telling anyone about. Definitely don't talk about the transactions. And definitely definitely don't become a place where money gets laundered in transactions that nobody talks about.
Because the high-end market is all about discretion, you know.
-
@izzion said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-india-cryptocurrency-ban-idINKBN2B60QP
Penalising people who hold them but don't trade will be difficult; detecting that a device has the wrong sort of bit pattern on it is messy. I suppose it could be done in a more intelligence-based fashion, only taking action where someone has a suspicious communication pattern with a known trader (such as an exchange).
-
I believed I was getting lots of thot-spam contact requests on MeWe, but now I'm not quite so sure that's what it was. This one just came in:
-
Cryptoprenuer
Made-Up Word of The Day is
-
She managed to make a typo in a word that doesn't even exist. Well done!
-
Sounds like the guy was HODLing 10 bitcoins so it might not really have cost the guy £400 000 back when he acquired them. Still, stupid thing to do.
-
@JBert said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Still, stupid thing to do.
Not sure why people are always surprised by stuff like this. Thing has value, someone scams. Been going on since, well, forever.
-
@dcon said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Not sure why people are always surprised by stuff like this.
I draw your attention to the second word in this thread's title:
A fool and his ...
-
@HardwareGeek this reduces the surprise further. I know that calling attention to stupidity == comedy, but try not to do it stupidly, thanks.
-
This woman obviously has an editor with no sense of humor because, spoiler warning, she does not use the term "ButtCoin" in the entire article.
Filed under: A fool and his not-really-money are soon farted
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
This woman obviously has an editor with no sense of humor because, spoiler warning, she does not use the term "ButtCoin" in the entire article.
Filed under: A fool and his not-really-money are soon farted
It's time for the porn industry to step in. Just think of the difficulty of replicating a SpankCoin.
-
The Enlightened thread is
-
@Gribnit said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
This woman obviously has an editor with no sense of humor because, spoiler warning, she does not use the term "ButtCoin" in the entire article.
Filed under: A fool and his not-really-money are soon farted
It's time for the porn industry to step in. Just think of the difficulty of replicating a SpankCoin.
I must be having errors. I just envisioned a blockchain using human DNA, in which new blocks are added through appropriate levels of fucking. Then it turns dystopian because results not satisfying the desired changes would thusly be disposed of. AND THEN IT GETS WORSE because then there are factions that want to split the chain to fix things, and I should really stop I think...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
I should really stop I think...
*shuts down @Tsaukpaetra*
-
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ckjr9x214c
Slow miner
-
I don't remember if it was posted in this thread or the Tesla thread (Fake edit: I don't see it here, so it must have been the other one), but some of you may recall that Tesla has announced that it will accept Bitcoin as payment for a car. But you better hope your new Tesla isn't defective, because if you invoke your jurisdiction's "Lemon Law" to get a refund, there's fine print in the deal, and Tesla's going to screw you big time. Or try to; depending on your jurisdiction's law, they may or may not be able to.
In the following video, a lawyer who specializes in lemon law explains why it won't work in the state he practices in.
TL;DW: Tesla reserves the right to refund your money in either BTC or USD, at their sole discretion. The exchange rate can be volatile, and all the risk of volatility is explicitly assumed by the buyer, according to the contract. I.e., if they have to refund your money and BTC has gone up, you'll get your refund in USD equivalent to the BTC at the time of the purchase, and Tesla will have the BTC that are now worth more dollars. If the price of BTC goes down, you'll get your BTC (that are now worth less) back.
The lemon law in the lawyer's state actually defines the "purchase price" that must be refunded, and it is the number and unit shown on the buyer's purchase agreement. If that says USD, they have to refund USD. If it says BTC, they have to refund BTC (but it probably doesn't, because they have to send that paperwork to the state so they can collect their sales tax, and the state probably doesn't accept BTC for taxes).
"But it says in bold capital letters in the contract." The law says rights under the law cannot be waived. If a contract says A and the law says B, guess which one the court is going to follow.
-
@HardwareGeek said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
I don't remember if it was posted in this thread or the Tesla thread (Fake edit: I don't see it here, so it must have been the other one), but some of you may recall that Tesla has announced that it will accept Bitcoin as payment for a car. But you better hope your new Tesla isn't defective, because if you invoke your jurisdiction's "Lemon Law" to get a refund, there's fine print in the deal, and Tesla's going to screw you big time. Or try to; depending on your jurisdiction's law, they may or may not be able to.
In the following video, a lawyer who specializes in lemon law explains why it won't work in the state he practices in.
TL;DW: Tesla reserves the right to refund your money in either BTC or USD, at their sole discretion. The exchange rate can be volatile, and all the risk of volatility is explicitly assumed by the buyer, according to the contract. I.e., if they have to refund your money and BTC has gone up, you'll get your refund in USD equivalent to the BTC at the time of the purchase, and Tesla will have the BTC that are now worth more dollars. If the price of BTC goes down, you'll get your BTC (that are now worth less) back.
The lemon law in the lawyer's state actually defines the "purchase price" that must be refunded, and it is the number and unit shown on the buyer's purchase agreement. If that says USD, they have to refund USD. If it says BTC, they have to refund BTC (but it probably doesn't, because they have to send that paperwork to the state so they can collect their sales tax, and the state probably doesn't accept BTC for taxes).
"But it says in bold capital letters in the contract." The law says rights under the law cannot be waived. If a contract says A and the law says B, guess which one the court is going to follow.
If it won't work was it ever actually a loophole?
-
@HardwareGeek Just looked around a bit and found that German law states that if you're entitled to having your money returned, the other side has to use the same method you used when returning the money (i.e. you paid by credit card? The refund goes to the credit card's account).
The contract may establish another means of returning the money - but only if it does not incur any additional financial penalty to you.
The last part is probably where Tesla would fall flat on its face in this case.
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The last part is probably where Tesla would fall flat on its face in this case.
No idea why they think this is Tesla's plan in the first place, but assuming "Tesla reserves the right to refund your money in either BTC or USD" only applies if you originally paid in BTC to begin with... well, then it falls flat because nobody does that, because drug dealers don't buy Tesla.
-
@topspin said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
only applies if you originally paid in BTC to begin with... well, then it falls flat because nobody does that
Someone will. There's likely an overlap of the sort of person who thinks BTC is good enough to invest that much money in it, and the sort of person who would buy a Tesla.
-
@loopback0 said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@topspin said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
only applies if you originally paid in BTC to begin with... well, then it falls flat because nobody does that
Someone will. There's likely an overlap of the sort of person who thinks BTC is good enough to invest that much money in it, and the sort of person who would buy a Tesla.
Okay, then what's the odds that one single person will also refund a lemon?
INB4: 100%
-
@loopback0 said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Someone will. There's likely an overlap of the sort of person who thinks BTC is good enough to invest that much money in it, and the sort of person who would buy a Tesla.
That sounds like ... Silly Valley.
-
@dcon said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@loopback0 said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Someone will. There's likely an overlap of the sort of person who thinks BTC is good enough to invest that much money in it, and the sort of person who would buy a Tesla.
That sounds like ... Silly Valley.
Yes, I imagine a few of them are there.
-
If nothing else, buying a Tesla with bitcoin and then selling it on seems like a decent way to get money for your bitcoin.
-
-
@izzion I'm not quite sure why this question warrants the surprised Pikachu?
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@izzion I'm not quite sure why this question warrants the surprised Pikachu?
Because they haven't figured out we're all @boomrobot yet.
-
@izzion said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@izzion I'm not quite sure why this question warrants the surprised Pikachu?
Because they haven't figured out we're all @boomrobot yet.
@ITAPPBOOMONROBOT
-
I want off this world...
-
@izzion said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
I want off this world...
I've been getting Facebook advertisements for Dogecoin. I think someone's doing a pump-and-dump.