How many simulations would you like, we already know large blocks propogate fine and at some point they will introduce orphans to a less optimized part of the network
But it doesn't mean they propagate "fine" if it pushes smaller participants off the network. That is exactly what cryptos like Bitcoin are trying to avoid.
Saving lives, changing lives, moving science forward - all better than 6-10% returns.
Kind of the whole point of charities is that the work they do is a better return than the market. Otherwise, every charity would be an endowment and they would just consume the 6-10% annual returns for their work.
> > and why should we believe they're the most effective?
> Whoever gave you that idea?
1. This quesiton makes no sense. 2. The question is how high the returns are--do they exceed the returns of investment. That would depend on the effectiveness of the charity.
> I believe most charities practice this, I saw a presentation on it with a bunch of accredited investors, don't have the source.
Charities report their opex. I've never seen one listed as 95%. Most are <10%. Some, like Mozilla and ACLU are split between Foundation and Corporation, but most are not.
> You can't will your alternate reality into existence.
So...you made some claims. I asked for evidence. You refused. I provided counter-evidence.
I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now. Or arguing in bad faith, at minimum.
People that hear about our software service always ask "hey whats to stop people from doing this illegal thing on your platform" and I say "a sternly worded Terms of Service"
This runs counter to all of my luxury aspirations in America
But I did consider doing a stint at the top of the Sony Center in Potsdamer Platz, Berlin
I think I'll stick to my existing aspirations of "get your funds up". Success for me will be getting called a douchebag because of my far-future son or daughter's car, without any further context of my character or in person actions. Then I will feel like "yes, I've made it".
Yes it was a comment about how unappealing this is, we do the same thing whenever somebody else here brags about the tech solution which lacks product market fit.
Shopping for a home has to appeal to people that are in the market for a home. The phrasing is not exclusive to buying versus renting, but colloquially thats what it implies. People in the bay area currently on the market wouldn't be looking for this, it would be the new and naive next year and the year after that may wind up considering this. The current market is people that can make down payments on million dollar+ mortgages and that doesn't include living in the carcass of a suburban mall.
These are one-way flights. Flights between SFO-LAX are sometimes cheaper if you book weeks in advance. The point of Jumpdrive is you still get a cheap fare without booking weeks in advance. We're working on redoing the site.
Do you think the cheap fare is the value proposition? Or is the private terminals and fast service? That sounds very appealing. I mean, it can be both - save money AND time.
All the TSA experience is awful (business travelers in the US have the pre-screen and stuff of course, but they're probably not your target).
As somebody who's interested in the service: The "cheap" fare is not the value. I fly that damn route often enough that I have frequent flyer status - and so I can just afford to keep things booked 4 weeks in advance, and take advantage of the free cancellations that comes with status. (Not to mention that even on two weeks notice, I can book roundtrip at ~ your price. Alaska in two weeks right now: $160)
The main value is in a private terminal & fast checkins.
That is, btw, a likely factor that might keep people from using your service: if you do on average 3 round trips a month, that's enough to get you to e.g. Gold status on Alaska. Unless LAX<->SFO is the only route I need to take, that's a pretty large incentive to stay with a regular airline. (Because status means no cancellation fees and easy upgrades)
The flight tomorrow is $59. January 11th. I only looked because the entire spiel ran counter to my prior experiences. Direct on Delta, Virgin America, Alaska, etc. Oh wow the same day ones later today are the same price!
I know we are splitting hairs because this isn't always the case, and what you offer is intended to always be the case along with being possibly shorter flights with quicker checkins.
I just think the messaging is a little off because the way it is described doesn't really solve people's problems, especially when they will be so often debunked.
I just counted the number of one way flights this Friday between SFO-LAX. There are 57 non stop flights on that day. And this doesn't even include OAK, SJC as well as BUR, LGB, and Orange County in So Cal. Fares start at $49. This will be a hard market to compete.
I'm not sure. Waiting in line at security and then again at the gate sucks, and I fly maybe once every six weeks. If I flew four times a month for business, I could see a private gate with no wait being worth some money. You're saving time, too, which I assume is worth a fair amount of money to the type of person who flies that often.
Well although I have TSA Pre, and you should too, I can give your argument some merit.
Yes one thing I like about trains - their ONLY redeeming quality - is that if the trip says 2 hours, then it is really JUST 2 hours out of your day
Whereas with flights, if the trip says 2 hours then it is more like 4 and a half hours out of your day. Always have to consider showing up to the airport at least an hour early, always have to consider going to the edge of town, always have to consider sitting on the tarmac, etc.
I could see the utility of getting to skip all of this at a fixed price which is NEAR the normal prices. The next thing up is Jetsmarter for $10,000+
That’s a fair counterpoint. I don’t have TSA pre, but maybe that cuts enough time to make the value prop not worth it. Also, I’ve been meaning to get it, so maybe now I will.
> but I doubt the solution involves all games performing state updates using on-chain transactions in a single, shared blockchain.
Right, and there are people working on the blockchain level with very compelling bandwidth improvement solutions.
You might find one interesting, take a look.
There are people making silly games right now on the understanding that the infrastructure they are building on will improve. These people are doing this because it helps them understand the toolkits, language and infrastrcture, which has a massive upside in their opportunities by merely exposing themselves to it now. When the infrastructure is already there, and the books exist, and the college kids are learning it at state schools, the opportunities won't be nearly as great for them. And yes, they can be wrong!
But it isn't as simple as you (and everyone other competent full stack engineer) questioning their life choices and being the only people to notice that the underlying platform has an uncompetitive limitation right now.
My problem with this idea is that it assumes this is the ONLY issue that a multinational corporation would be aware of.
There would be so many counterweighting forces at play at any time that it would be EASY to rationalize why this one shouldn't affect the share sale's view in the court of public opinion. Given that none of the other sales did either.
Case in point, we are analyzing this timely disclosure a full quarter later. I count at least five 8-k's since then, let alone form 4's
This is no different from billionaires that hold massive equity stakes in their own companies, including Zuckerberg.
> Yet the fortunes of Mr. McCaleb and Mr. Larsen are not nearly as durable as those of other people on the Forbes list given that the value of virtual currencies fluctuates wildly. If Mr. Larsen wanted to access his wealth by selling Ripple tokens for dollars, it would likely drive down the value of Ripple tokens — and his riches.
People keep trying to apply a different higher standard to cryptocurrency in order to prove why it cant function as legacy asset classes.
Honestly, I think its because people dont know how the equity/currency/commodity markets work and are synthesizing standards while watching crypto billionaires get minted on the fly to justify their missed opportunities.
In Ripple’s case, the founders are probably more liquid than other equity billionaires. Ripple traded 7 billion usd today, Facebook only 2 billion.
And I dont even like Ripple, but right now I have to fight ignorance outside of the crypto arena.
Thats not the point, the xrp being cannot be bought by one entity because there are already millions of addresses and this has a helpful effect on the network and was designed for this exact scenario
Read up on it yourself, I think its some form of staking or validating
Im not the evangelist of Ripple just because Im not succumbing to widespread ignorance and flawed analogies
Right its not, what does that have to do with my grandparent post
My point was that the ripple network wouldnt be useless for the entity that bought 99.99% because of the network structure, I’m not sure what your point is
Another user of the network would need to buy xrp from the majority holder, there’s nothing controversial about that. Diamonds function the same way for DeBeers except they have a much lower standard of utility until the owning entity created a new use for them.
> what does that have to do with my grandparent post
your gp was response to my question, so i thought you thought you somehow addressed it
> ripple network wouldnt be useless for the entity that bought 99.99% because of the network structure
what is "network structure"? it can't be the residual 20XRP on everybody's accounts because those are equal to 0XRP as you've just agreed to.
the point that somebody can still buy XRP from the majority holder^W^W the effective sole owner of all usable XRP is sort of irrelevant, because you can make the same point about any other commodity/currency.
I dont know the answer to the network structure, I think it is some kind of staking/validating thing, thats the basis of my thesis and I had tangentially read it somewhere before deciding to pass on XRP for other reasons. feel free to tell me if you do some independent research on that assumption
Yes it is the same standard of any commodity and currency, which is why its not irrelevant. Same info, different conclusions, odd.
i don't have any useful answers for you. i passed on XRP solely because it has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies and it bothers me that they try to pretend to be one and it seems like people are buying it (pun intended).
Yet for the first time in history, the island is the entire world.
There was no gradual cross-border liberalization of markets
There was no mega-exchange merger that got approval from multiple continental government regulators
All there was being a new kind of asset that trades freely across the internet and is able to capture the pent up capital of the world, and the market decided.
