Jump to content

keybordem

Member
  • Content Count

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from cryptoxrp in XRP is Centrally Controlled by Ripple – Says Bank of International Settlements (BIS)   
    I am sure Ripple would love if every central bank was involved in running nodes along with Universities and major corporations. It's a little short sighted to judge a network just getting off the ground and needing some sort of central control to protect and guide it till it stands on its own. BIS has a great opportunity to get involved in shaping the future instead of just fighting it. 
    At the very least Ripple has a clear road map and could somewhat be held accountable for a steady path towards almost zero involvement by major governments inexchange for growing the network securely. . 
  2. Thanks
    keybordem reacted to OzAlphaWolf in Its official now XRP is SCALABLE over 50000 transactions per second   
    Can people please stop trying to turn nothing into something?
    Nothing has changed. Cobalt is not live. The XRP overview page still has XRP at a native speed of 1500tps and scalability tested to 50,000tps. Scaling is based on
    payment channels. It's not native. https://ripple.com/xrp/

  3. Like
    keybordem reacted to CryptoDrover in Europe Unveils "Special Purpose Vehicle" To Bypass SWIFT, Jeopardizing Dollar's Reserve Status   
    Although this article does not directly mention XRP (or Ripple) it may very well lead to direct consequences for it's use:
     
    Europe Unveils "Special Purpose Vehicle" To Bypass SWIFT, Jeopardizing Dollar's Reserve Status
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-25/europe-unveils-special-purpose-vehicle-bypass-swift-jeopardizing-dollars-reserve
    In a stunning vote of "no confidence" in the US monopoly over global payment infrastructure, one month ago Germany’s foreign minister Heiko Maas called for the creation of a new payments system independent of the US that would allow Brussels to be independent in its financial operations from Washington and as a means of rescuing the nuclear deal between Iran and the west.
     
  4. Like
  5. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from Swiss in 589 EOY could actually be possible.   
    Comparing XRP market cap to anything else is **** ING stupid. It's literally being set up to be all value by being a bridge. 
    The correct market cap argument would assume the total value of all assets in the world that can be put on the xrp ledger. There's also a huge difference using total supply, issued supply, and what's actually available and not locked up in holders or contracts. 
    The 80 trillion cash asset claim is non sense for an asset that can represent all fiats, metals, stocks, derivatives, real-estate, insurance...... 
    Quit thinking so small comparing XRP to currencies because it's not... Its more than hence the digital asset term. 
  6. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from xrp-pat in 589 EOY could actually be possible.   
    Comparing XRP market cap to anything else is **** ING stupid. It's literally being set up to be all value by being a bridge. 
    The correct market cap argument would assume the total value of all assets in the world that can be put on the xrp ledger. There's also a huge difference using total supply, issued supply, and what's actually available and not locked up in holders or contracts. 
    The 80 trillion cash asset claim is non sense for an asset that can represent all fiats, metals, stocks, derivatives, real-estate, insurance...... 
    Quit thinking so small comparing XRP to currencies because it's not... Its more than hence the digital asset term. 
  7. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from OzAlphaWolf in 589 EOY could actually be possible.   
    Comparing XRP market cap to anything else is **** ING stupid. It's literally being set up to be all value by being a bridge. 
    The correct market cap argument would assume the total value of all assets in the world that can be put on the xrp ledger. There's also a huge difference using total supply, issued supply, and what's actually available and not locked up in holders or contracts. 
    The 80 trillion cash asset claim is non sense for an asset that can represent all fiats, metals, stocks, derivatives, real-estate, insurance...... 
    Quit thinking so small comparing XRP to currencies because it's not... Its more than hence the digital asset term. 
  8. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from Deeznutz in 589 EOY could actually be possible.   
    Comparing XRP market cap to anything else is **** ING stupid. It's literally being set up to be all value by being a bridge. 
    The correct market cap argument would assume the total value of all assets in the world that can be put on the xrp ledger. There's also a huge difference using total supply, issued supply, and what's actually available and not locked up in holders or contracts. 
    The 80 trillion cash asset claim is non sense for an asset that can represent all fiats, metals, stocks, derivatives, real-estate, insurance...... 
    Quit thinking so small comparing XRP to currencies because it's not... Its more than hence the digital asset term. 
  9. Like
    keybordem reacted to Milly238 in 589 EOY could actually be possible.   
    Market cap nonsense again lol 
  10. Confused
    keybordem reacted to Chris_Reeves in 589 EOY could actually be possible.   
    Okay let's put an end to the $589 talk. I'd be as happy as anyone if it got there but it's in no way realistic just by looking at market cap. There are 100 Billion XRP in existance, well I'll even be conservative and call it 99 Billion. So 99 Billion. 
    Take 99 Billion and multiply it by $589. I'll give you a second to figure it out....
    Okay, so now we've figured out that this would cause a market cap of 58 TRILLION. I'll say it again, 58 TRILLION. 
    To put that in perspective, and I'm being conservative, the total value of all of the money in the world is around 80 trillion. And you're telling me that one digital asset would be worth effectively 20 trillion less than all of the money in the world. Come on guys. I could swing $20, maybe even $50 (that would be a market cap of around 5 Trillion) but I can't get behind $589. The only way it may happen is if XRP is used in the derivatives market.
     
  11. Like
    keybordem reacted to BiffTannen in Theoretical Tax Scenario (US version)   
    Assuming that crypto is treated the same as securities in regards to taxes, this would be considered a wash sale and you would get no benefit from the loss. i believe you would have to wait 30 days to repurchase in order to benefit from the loss. 
  12. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from BBS in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Agreed, but I do have a problem with Google baning firearms related videos that are legal under federal law. We are talking reviews and diy fixing all legal. Google also has a habit of removing republican and libertarian channels as well, again all legal. 
    There's a reason the internet is supposed to be free to all and why phones are essentially free for all as well. No one ever should be picking and choosing what content is appropriate because of their companies "values". Values are ideals NOT a community derived law. If it's legal leave it alone and let the people decide if they want to watch or not. No different than a religious zealot banning stuff they deem offensive to everyone instead of allowing people the freedom to think and figure things out for themselves. 
    You can argue start your own video hosting service but I'd argue Google has a monopoly on that business at the moment. I'd also argue the content or product is user generated and the Supreme Court has also upheld you can do whatever the hell you want to your product such as with Apple, Verizon, and other terms of service agreements. Companies do not make law and have no business "playing" in that sort of space. 
    All these PC good intentions are ruining what made America, the pioneer outlaw spirit were everyone's responsible for their destiny. Google is essentially limiting freedom of choice and hiding behind the private company excuse. Id point you to recent video of their many executives crying and bemoaning they didn't do more to help using Google to educate voters when Hillary lost. Regardless of party which isn't my point at all, they clearly have issues separating personal politics and company policies so I can never trust them to be impartial. 
     
     
  13. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from Deeznutz in Why Do People Listen To News Idiots   
    Fake it till you make it! They have nothing to lose unless they are legit fund managers. Worst case they lose a channel and some pride, but they aren't actually risking their lively hood or professional reputation. There's only accountability anymore if someone's breaches social or racial norms. 
    CryptoCurrency writers are. Like weather people. If they're right awesome, if they are wrong ops o well too many varibles. 
  14. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from Quinn in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Yep to me it's more akin to segregation being based on a disagreement on precieved beliefs and ideas. Yeah you can go somewhere else but the quality and reach and service would be subpar compared to the normal standard. 
    Good call with the harm reduction videos, they've also gone after ranchers and farmers about livestock but left a lot of vegan animal rights types alone. 
    I get politics is touchy and so are guns, animals, drugs ect.... Crypto is very divisive. The point is everyone needs to be holding these companies accountable so everything that is legal has equal opportunity in the public square and the people can figure things out for themselves. It's my personal belief that the freedom to learn and think is the only freedom anyone really truly has. If they can't change your mind then they limit what you can see and learn. 
  15. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from Quinn in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Agreed, but I do have a problem with Google baning firearms related videos that are legal under federal law. We are talking reviews and diy fixing all legal. Google also has a habit of removing republican and libertarian channels as well, again all legal. 
    There's a reason the internet is supposed to be free to all and why phones are essentially free for all as well. No one ever should be picking and choosing what content is appropriate because of their companies "values". Values are ideals NOT a community derived law. If it's legal leave it alone and let the people decide if they want to watch or not. No different than a religious zealot banning stuff they deem offensive to everyone instead of allowing people the freedom to think and figure things out for themselves. 
    You can argue start your own video hosting service but I'd argue Google has a monopoly on that business at the moment. I'd also argue the content or product is user generated and the Supreme Court has also upheld you can do whatever the hell you want to your product such as with Apple, Verizon, and other terms of service agreements. Companies do not make law and have no business "playing" in that sort of space. 
    All these PC good intentions are ruining what made America, the pioneer outlaw spirit were everyone's responsible for their destiny. Google is essentially limiting freedom of choice and hiding behind the private company excuse. Id point you to recent video of their many executives crying and bemoaning they didn't do more to help using Google to educate voters when Hillary lost. Regardless of party which isn't my point at all, they clearly have issues separating personal politics and company policies so I can never trust them to be impartial. 
     
     
  16. Like
    keybordem reacted to slinuxuzer in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    "It makes the reader or viewer" Naw man, you don't get to say "I was told to do thus by others" that's not a justification for anything in life, that's a cop out, if you're that weak you shouldn't be walking around with the rest of us.
    Did you ever think that these "idiots" as you call them may actually believe what they are saying? And they could be right? Maybe they are wrong, but who gets to be the thought police? What thoughts do we police? You're trying to police someone else finances, and who influences them, where is the line man? That's the entire point of free speech, the rights belong to the individual, not you, not YouTube, not Uncle Sam. And guess why, because about 60 years ago people were policing what people of certain races could say, or of certain sexual preferences. And if you police the thoughts of others and set that precedent, sooner or later you'll be on the short end of the stick.
  17. Like
    keybordem reacted to ADingoAteMyXRP in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Totally agreed. I'm not a gun owner and will probably never be, but I respect that many people have a different opinion than I do. Those firearm videos were created to help others, and the content is legal. YouTube shouldn't be taking it down. They did the same thing with harm reduction videos related to drugs last year, which probably resulted in an increase in drug deaths.
    It's important to make a distinction here between censorship and deplatforming. People can still host those videos anywhere they'd like, so technically it isn't censorship -- although their options for hosting at that price point and reaching that many viewers is severely limited.
    So I'm torn... If removing videos will make it easier for YouTube to attract and maintain a wider audience, they will do it period. Short of government interference, which also feels like a slippery slope. Not a lot of simple answers.
  18. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from CrypToe in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Pretty sure a woman was just convicted for encouraging her boyfriend to commit suicide. Again any crime shouldn't be allowed such as threats, anarchist handbook type stuff ect... But some guy on his soap box encouraging people to buy something has been around for ages snake oil and genuine product alike. The consumer has the responsibility of not being a patsy. Google/YouTube aren't mommy and daddy or our government overlords. Jungle guy isn't a Ripple employee so all the security law wouldn't apply to his hype so he's not violating any legal standard in place to protect weak people from predatory companies. The government to be fair has dropped the ball in this area. 
    Unless he was actually saying I work for ripple this and that maybe Ripple itself would have a case against him, but it's up to consumers to evaluate his qualifications and/or opinions. You're saying basically anyone that advises you on crypto or on anything else of risk should be liable if you end up losing. Winners never squeak, no one makes you believe in your convictions, it's your choice whether it's good or bad. 
     
  19. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from CrypToe in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Agreed, but I do have a problem with Google baning firearms related videos that are legal under federal law. We are talking reviews and diy fixing all legal. Google also has a habit of removing republican and libertarian channels as well, again all legal. 
    There's a reason the internet is supposed to be free to all and why phones are essentially free for all as well. No one ever should be picking and choosing what content is appropriate because of their companies "values". Values are ideals NOT a community derived law. If it's legal leave it alone and let the people decide if they want to watch or not. No different than a religious zealot banning stuff they deem offensive to everyone instead of allowing people the freedom to think and figure things out for themselves. 
    You can argue start your own video hosting service but I'd argue Google has a monopoly on that business at the moment. I'd also argue the content or product is user generated and the Supreme Court has also upheld you can do whatever the hell you want to your product such as with Apple, Verizon, and other terms of service agreements. Companies do not make law and have no business "playing" in that sort of space. 
    All these PC good intentions are ruining what made America, the pioneer outlaw spirit were everyone's responsible for their destiny. Google is essentially limiting freedom of choice and hiding behind the private company excuse. Id point you to recent video of their many executives crying and bemoaning they didn't do more to help using Google to educate voters when Hillary lost. Regardless of party which isn't my point at all, they clearly have issues separating personal politics and company policies so I can never trust them to be impartial. 
     
     
  20. Like
    keybordem reacted to slinuxuzer in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Either we have individual responsibility in society or we don't, in America we are supposed to have the freedom of speech and people are supposed to have freedom and responsibility to make their own choices and live with the consequences.
  21. Like
    keybordem reacted to Raz in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    I believe you are slightly wrong in one respect. When your company becomes so large, such as social media, then you begin to be influential. Therefore, these types of platforms become under the scrutiny of 1st amendment rights because it is a form of public censorship while promoting opposite views. All Jungle has to do is prove he’s being singled out for censorship while others engage in similar types of speech without injury and I think he might have a case. I’m not a lawyer and could be wrong but I believe I’m right on this one.
    EDIT: In light of Jungle Inc.’s statements on his latest video I would say it sounds like a hit job. No way he’s going to court over this and we all need to consider YouTube’s actions when we decide to vote with our time.
  22. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from Yodaxrp in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Agreed, but I do have a problem with Google baning firearms related videos that are legal under federal law. We are talking reviews and diy fixing all legal. Google also has a habit of removing republican and libertarian channels as well, again all legal. 
    There's a reason the internet is supposed to be free to all and why phones are essentially free for all as well. No one ever should be picking and choosing what content is appropriate because of their companies "values". Values are ideals NOT a community derived law. If it's legal leave it alone and let the people decide if they want to watch or not. No different than a religious zealot banning stuff they deem offensive to everyone instead of allowing people the freedom to think and figure things out for themselves. 
    You can argue start your own video hosting service but I'd argue Google has a monopoly on that business at the moment. I'd also argue the content or product is user generated and the Supreme Court has also upheld you can do whatever the hell you want to your product such as with Apple, Verizon, and other terms of service agreements. Companies do not make law and have no business "playing" in that sort of space. 
    All these PC good intentions are ruining what made America, the pioneer outlaw spirit were everyone's responsible for their destiny. Google is essentially limiting freedom of choice and hiding behind the private company excuse. Id point you to recent video of their many executives crying and bemoaning they didn't do more to help using Google to educate voters when Hillary lost. Regardless of party which isn't my point at all, they clearly have issues separating personal politics and company policies so I can never trust them to be impartial. 
     
     
  23. Like
    keybordem got a reaction from eoma in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    Agreed, but I do have a problem with Google baning firearms related videos that are legal under federal law. We are talking reviews and diy fixing all legal. Google also has a habit of removing republican and libertarian channels as well, again all legal. 
    There's a reason the internet is supposed to be free to all and why phones are essentially free for all as well. No one ever should be picking and choosing what content is appropriate because of their companies "values". Values are ideals NOT a community derived law. If it's legal leave it alone and let the people decide if they want to watch or not. No different than a religious zealot banning stuff they deem offensive to everyone instead of allowing people the freedom to think and figure things out for themselves. 
    You can argue start your own video hosting service but I'd argue Google has a monopoly on that business at the moment. I'd also argue the content or product is user generated and the Supreme Court has also upheld you can do whatever the hell you want to your product such as with Apple, Verizon, and other terms of service agreements. Companies do not make law and have no business "playing" in that sort of space. 
    All these PC good intentions are ruining what made America, the pioneer outlaw spirit were everyone's responsible for their destiny. Google is essentially limiting freedom of choice and hiding behind the private company excuse. Id point you to recent video of their many executives crying and bemoaning they didn't do more to help using Google to educate voters when Hillary lost. Regardless of party which isn't my point at all, they clearly have issues separating personal politics and company policies so I can never trust them to be impartial. 
     
     
  24. Like
    keybordem reacted to Paradigm in Jungle INC banned for spreading FOMO   
    These social media companies should not be allowed to censor free speech
  25. Haha
    keybordem reacted to BibleChronologyXRP in Ripple XRP - The Master Plan - as visioned by "Love for Crypto"   
    you tube video front cover picture are all a bunch of criminals. Please delete David Schwartz, I think is not an honor to be among all those reptilians shapeshifters.
×
×
  • Create New...