In most variations of such a calculation the expected number of planets would be 0. The fact that the actual answer is >= 1 might suggest that the calculation is not an accurate representation of reality.
I'm not sure I'm understanding. It is a well-defined probability question to ask about the "expected number" of planets with life if there are 10^24 of them each with probability 10^-24, and the answer is 1.
Manipulative, maybe. But why grossly? All you are doing is making the other person feel good. It should be encouraged and celebrated. If you have a choice between making someone feel neutral, or feel great, why wouldn't you choose great?
Bank of America and Bitcoin both have market caps of ~$290 billion. Bank of America usually sees huge trading volume for a stock and it traded about $1.8 billion of volume today. BTC/USD alone has done $3 billion today.
I realize it's not a perfect comparison, but I think it highlights the fact that large sales aren't going to just decimate bitcoin's value.
Given those figures come from the completely unregulated, unaudited, incredibly sketchy exchanges themselves, I would take that with a huge grain of salt. Odds are good a vast majority of that $3 billion is trades using funny money or, for all you know, made up out of thin air. Easy to just trade with yourself all day...
I think the cool thing about this idea is that "cats" is just one possibility. It can work just as well with nearly anything that requires proof of ownership or uniqueness. Maybe property or mineral rights, or stock and other securities, etc.
I always looked at it as Pokemon cards. Because it's unique you can track it's history and that opens up for a whole slew of new interesting services.
Ebook's could increase in price when sold second hand (owned by such and such), an open source gaming asset exchange allowing people to buy and sell no matter the game.
Basically it crypto creates physical like scarcity in an otherwise abundant digital space.
How does blockchain technology keep people from copying the ebooks? Why would anyone care about an abstract idea of ownership of an eBook that you could read without owning?
The value isn't in the ebook it's in the history of the ebook. Why do you think people pay extra money for a physical book they can buy cheap on amazon.
It's not the content of the book it's the affectional value of the book that's interesting.
Yup, web of information into a web of value which more closely replicates the real world.
Combine that with AR and VR tech among other wearables and sensors and we won't just be digital nomads anymore, our entire world will have become completely digitized.
While I agree with your argument in general, I'm not sure I understand this particular use case. There is an owner of this game who holds a key and decides when and how to mint new cats and generally holds the ability to change the rules of the game. Without this owner the cats are completely useless.
What is the benefit game-wise to trade the cats on a public blockchain? To an outside observer it seems like the users have to pay transfer fees at the order of a dollar for no particular reason. As long as someone controls issuance (which is completely reasonable for this type of game) they could just track ownership as well which would be trivial to scale.
I guess it's convenient not to have to deal with a payment processor when selling the kittens. I'm not sure how happy PayPal et al would be to take their business.
From 10 years dealing with different type businesses doing Paypal... they will approve you by default and unless you selling something from their prohibited items list, they will only care about dispute/chargeback levels. If you behave yourself they wouldn't care and I'm having hard times imagining people trading virtual gifts, such as in-game skins, to trigger lots of disputes, because that would eventually ban their PP account rendering them unable to purchase more in the future.
No, it cannot work for things that are physical because just like with any other piece of software, the smart-contract has no impact on the physical world, thus ownership must be legally enforced the same way it is with centralized systems that track ownership.
Better tracking of ownership can be a good thing even when you do need another system for enforcement.
For example, a problem for many low-income people in the U.S. is that consumer loans get sold and resold, often with poor record-keeping, and its hard for the consumer and the courts to know whether a creditor claiming nonpayment actually has a right to be paid. This is described in detail by Matt Taibbi in his recent book The Divide.
> consumer loans get sold and resold, often with poor record-keeping, and its hard for the consumer and the courts to know whether a creditor claiming nonpayment actually has a right to be paid.
Well, a loan isn't a physical object so that example doesn't really apply to my comment, however, I still don't think it solves the underlying issue since the cause of the problem isn't a lack of reliable record keeping technology, it's "poor record keeping" which is a deliberate choice made by some businesses regardless of what technology is available.
Which is possible because we trust those businesses to keep proper records, instead of putting them on a public blockchain that doesn't require us to trust anyone.
Another example which is physical is real estate records in some third-world countries, where the central government wants to enforce property rights but bribes to the local register of deeds are effective at getting the records changed. (I read about this in an article in The Economist several years ago, so don't have a reference handy.)
> we trust those businesses to keep proper records, instead of putting them on a public blockchain that doesn't require us to trust anyone
Nothing really changes. You still have to trust that those private businesses will correctly use the record keeping technology. In a world with practical blockchain record keeping they would simply fail to use it or use it incorrectly.
Not if you use a contract that transfers ownership only with an on-chain payment. Even without that, you at least can't claim you lost the records, as these companies sometimes do.
Set it up legally so the loans in the system are only transferrable via on-chain payment, and teach the courts how to read those records, and it doesn't matter what the incentives are. The chain is the source of truth that way. If you're recorded as the owner on chain, you're the owner, full stop.
If you're going to setup an entire legal framework that forces businesses to use a particular record keeping system then the problem is already solved. You could legally force businesses to keep appropriate records or to participate in a centralized record keeping system operated by a trusted third party like a government or tribunal. You could also use a blockchain for this, but it doesn't offer much value.
They're already required to keep appropriate records. But the courts don't have money to go checking so they just trust companies to swear they have them, and the companies lie.
And sure, you could spend a bunch of money setting up a government database and employees to run it, but at some point it's easier to write a few lines of code and be done with it.
The problem with what you state, is that your are pegged to ETH for currency of the whole system and quantified value of such stocks/securities. I don't see many mature corporations switching to this, but ICOs are an example of younger business willing to be 'pegged' to ETH. Some other smart contract platform like NEO support better out of chain functionalities.
that's what http://rare.network is building and they'd love any feedback you have I'm sure! The Discord is full of some of the best minds in rare digital art, feel free to stop in and say hi.
I know I guy who has "Rape Me" tattooed on his chest. It's his favorite Nirvana Song. For the most part, tattoos are a form of art and expression. Phrases such as "death wish" or "kill me" are pretty common, and are absolutely not meant as instructions. The idea of DNR is pretty popular in certain artistic circles. There is an incredible amount of ambiguity in this situation.
Of course I do. I'm talking about the consequences of getting the words "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" applied to your body along with your signature.
That said, there are lots of situations where I think it would be stupid to have "Rape Me" tattooed to my body. It might have lots of calligraphic merit, but if it's on your face, you probably aren't going to be working the customer service counter at Target.
Yes. The same applies to when you trade bitcoin for other cryptocurrencies. Although it is technically one transaction, if you want to be safe you should treat it as two separate transactions:
I'm not at all surprised that there are women who code and want to share that with others. I'm thrilled that there is more and more of this type of stuff on Instagram. This is how we reach audiences we normally wouldn't.
I think an important thing your average non-cs grad developer can learn from her story is the importance of networking. Maybe networking isn't the quite the correct term. But she put herself out there starting at 15, wrote and shared what she did. I'm sure she made a lot of contacts, even if only through the internet. She created an image for herself. Without that there is nothing to set you apart from everyone else in your situation. So it's not surprising that she had multiple recruiters reaching out to her during bootcamp. Good for her.
