2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
There are SO MANY American fish and whales that want to play online poker, but don't, because they don't want to mess with crypto (among other reasons). Like I said, Global Poker was insanely soft when you could deposit and withdrawal via credit card (to PayPal, which also sucks, don't get me wrong...)
Interesting.
Do they benefit because the banking system has cut them off from traditional rails or do they benefit in a different way?
I assume they benefit for numerous reasons, but I believe the main one is that they can easily hide all their transaction histories from would-be regulators. They may also be subjected to fewer fees. There's also the relative rapidity of crypto transactions.
Much like Ponzi/Pyramid schemes, those at the top reap serious benefits. I care more for all the little guys getting trampled and scammed. I know capitalists find that hard to fathom.
I assume they benefit for numerous reasons, but I believe the main one is that they can easily hide all their transaction histories from would-be regulators. They may also be subjected to fewer fees. There's also the relative rapidity of crypto transactions.
Much like Ponzi/Pyramid schemes, those at the top reap serious benefits. I care more for all the little guys getting trampled and scammed. I know capitalists find that hard to fathom
Wow so you just listed 3 benefits of crypto.
Cutting out fees to middle men and rapid transactions sounds great.
All bitcoin transactions are public and traceable, so I'm not sure how they hide them, but ok cool.
I don't understand how they are at the top and reaping any ponzi/pyramid benefits. Who is getting trampled and scammed here? Maybe I'm just dumb.
There are SO MANY American fish and whales that want to play online poker, but don't, because they don't want to mess with crypto (among other reasons). Like I said, Global Poker was insanely soft when you could deposit and withdrawal via credit card (to PayPal, which also sucks, don't get me wrong...)
Would you say that traditional finance has overall been good or bad for online poker?
Would you say that traditional finance has overall been good or bad for online poker?
That's a rather involved question. I'd say, simply, that giving players the option to deposit and withdrawal using traditional means would massively benefit the average player of online poker.
More fish on the tables is good for everybody. Good for currently playing fish, good for regs, more rake for the site. Of course, the financial institutions themselves are wary of dealing directly with gambling sites operating in a legal gray area -- which is why I'd love to see internationally legalized and regulated online poker! Wish me luck!
Wow so you just listed 3 benefits of crypto.
Cutting out fees to middle men and rapid transactions sounds great.
All bitcoin transactions are public and traceable (not in a way that is currently actionable for regulators -- Karl edit), so I'm not sure how they hide them, but ok cool.
I don't understand how they are at the top and reaping any ponzi/pyramid benefits. Who is getting trampled and scammed here? Maybe I'm just dumb.
Those are three benefits FOR THE OPERATORS THEMSELVES. Again, I freely admit crypto provides numerous benefits to the wealthy and/or certain business owners. I'm concerned on behalf of all the customers and consumers (an exponentially larger group). Conservatives/Libertarians tend to put themselves in the shoes of the owners and lack empathy or even basic consideration for all the faceless victims out there.
You don't understand how "they are at the top"? I'm referring to the CEOs and other executives of international gambling institutions. They are the ones reaping the lion's share of the benefits in this case.
I am always amused by KoG's bottomless well of concern for the financial wellbeing of the unwashed masses, expressed in the same breath as his desire to make it easier for them to deposit their money to gamble with him at a game where he is the overwhelming favourite.
That's a rather involved question. I'd say, simply, that giving players the option to deposit and withdrawal using traditional means would massively benefit the average player of online poker.
More fish on the tables is good for everybody. Good for currently playing fish, good for regs, more rake for the site. Of course, the financial institutions themselves are wary of dealing directly with gambling sites operating in a legal gray area
Do you think they only allow crypto deposits/withdrawals because of these benefits, or do they do it because the traditional rails won't let them or give them endless headaches. My guess is strongly the latter. Of course the would prefer more deposits. If crypto limits the amount of deposits they get, doesn't seem like a sound business decision to only allow crypto if they have that choice.
They aren't reaping any pyramid/ponzi benefits as you alleged. They are reaping benefits of being able to run a poker site.
https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/makin...
That does a very sane and balanced job of explaining what Trump is actually most likely to do (should he win). He's already used and benefitted from the same methods already. It's not as gloomy as some suggest in here. But it's also pretty bad and would take decades to undo.
It's an excellent podcast. The Putin takes in it are also very strong.
Good discussion. Thanks for posting.
I see it, the same as Bitcoin advocates do. I just don't see the real-world value in it. What exactly does one gain by being able to transfer value around the world without a financial intermediary facilitating and backing the transaction behind it?
Gold isn't a currency. And the "many other things" relating to money and credit are within the bounds of the financial industry and so do have the protections I described.
U probably live inagreat regulated country where corruption and Inflation is ya big issue ?
I won’t enter in semantics.
Wholly hell below this is the damn 2+2 bitcoin thread.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/30/bu...
----
Back to the fricking election, maybe I'm old school, but I prefer a presidential ticket for Pres/VP that is north/south, east/west, old/young, etc. California Harris with Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly seems too regionally close plus losing a senate seat.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz seems off as Dems already probably win MN.
So it seems with PA being a toss up right now the choice is Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.
But Mark Kelly if given the national stage is definitely a future President,
The point of your running mate is to capture your political blind spots be it demographic, ideology, or a specific state
I don’t see Shapiro doing anything but delivering Pennsyvania. Kelly balances the ticket much more. This was Clinton’s biggest failing is thinking it was so in the bag she preferred someone she could work with in Kaine more than someone who has strategic value (of which Kaine had none). There isn’t really a wrong answer for Harris among the would be candidates, I just think Shapiro doesn’t really bring a ton more to the table. Kelly has broader appeal and can help carry the folksy purple states that biden excelled at
And even that's questionable. Do VP candidates actually help a meaningful amount to win their home state? Would Shapiro?
Shapiro’s most recent approval rating in Pennsyvania is 49/31 with 22% of republicans approving and 46% of independents
It’s certainly not nothing. And if Pennsyvania is the make or break state to the presidency certainly justifies Shapiro being the choice
hey now, tim kaine speaks spanish. he was picked to deliver the latino vote ..... which he failed to do, because he's tim kaine
if they pick shapiro, they'll continue to struggle with people who care about israel's genocide and other wars
The point of your running mate is to capture your political blind spots be it demographic, ideology, or a specific state
I don’t see Shapiro doing anything but delivering Pennsyvania. Kelly balances the ticket much more. This was Clinton’s biggest failing is thinking it was so in the bag she preferred someone she could work with in Kaine more than someone who has strategic value (of which Kaine had none). There isn’t really a wrong answer fo
agreed
How long till Vance quits
Betting markets don't like chances but getting 9:1 a nice score.
If they keep him then they truly aren’t trying to win via democratic means
