jallen_dot_dev

Tether will only redeem amounts of $100k or more. The vast majority of people get out of USDT by selling it on the market.

Depending on how many people want to sell, how quickly they want to, and how many market makers are willing/able to arb it back up to $1.00, you might just take $0.99 instead.

I took "fail" to mean someone seeing his transaction in the mempool and frontrunning him, exploiting the flaw for themselves before he could. AKA Ethereum's "Dark Forest." Not that the transaction would fail as in a bug or something. I'm sure he knows how to simulate transactions locally if he could figure all this out.

> it's supposed to be the final word on the actual financial transactions that happen within the contract.

The court doesn't care how crypto idealists think the world should work.

I think a lot of Americans are in for a surprise when they finally report their gains, the IRS audits them and does a little digging ("You reported a sale of USDT, where did the USDT come from? You say you traded BTC for it? You never reported a sale of BTC."), and they find out they have owed taxes on trades for years, plus penalties and interest.

You've never heard of a 8949, have you?

Do we not? Volume of trades was in the billions during the collapse.

> The amount of electricity is not proportional to the market cap. It's proportional to the difficulty.

But the difficulty is proportional to the amount of miners, which is proportional to the profitability of mining, which is proportional to the price, which the market cap is proportional to (i.e. price x supply). So electricity is indirectly proportional to the market cap.

> One solutions is to increase the block size, another is to use a secondary chain.

Those solutions don't address the energy spent on mining, they just allow more people to transact. The former means more transactions (more fees), the latter means fewer but more expensive on-chain transactions (more fees). Either way I believe the block reward (and thus the amount of energy miners will throw at getting that reward) will be roughly the same, it'll be a function of how much people value and want to use bitcoin.

> And people making transactions will not pay more fees than they need to, so the existence of miners able to mine profitably for lower fees will in turn bring down average fees.

Only to a point. Since a limited number of transactions can fit into a block, users competing to get their transactions mined in a timely manner will drive the fees up. That price point can be well above the cost of many forms of energy.

So as long as Bitcoin is still valued and there are enough people wanting to make transactions, there will still be miners burning useful energy.

If Tether is backed, then Bitfinex could buy currently-discounted tethers off the market and redeem them for face value, pocketing the difference. The fact this is not happening means they really don't have the money, do they?

If the PPP was intended to help struggling businesses, but your business wasn't actually struggling due to the pandemic, then you didn't need it. It has nothing to do with fairness.

> Do you see any problem in anyone spending their own money in any way they'd like?

"How dare you tell the bank robber to return the money he stole. Who are you to tell him how to spend his own money? That's awfully moralistic and judgmental of you."

"Green juice" is fruits and vegetables, FYI. Look at their marketing material. The bags listed the ingredients on the front and they included things like apple and pineapple.

> It wasn’t orange juice at all, or any type of fruit juice. It was green juice.

This is a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter what the juice is called. It doesn't change the fact that it's idiotic to pay hundreds of dollars for a machine that just squeezes bags of fruits and vegetables, and needs an Internet connection to ensure you're locked in to only squeezing the company's pricy bags.

> There were other brokers that managed to do it just fine.

If Robinhood is taking a net inflow of shares, then logically other brokers must have a net outflow. So of course there would be other brokers with shares to buy.

One reason you could go to some other broker and buy GME is because that broker had many other customers looking to offload an overhyped stock. You couldn't buy on Robinhood because their customer base was mostly retail traders looking only to buy.

He'll finance it with credit card debt.

I agree with you. The rational HNer thinks of course streaming services should be the first to go when money gets tight. But people don't behave rationally.

The cord-cutting trend didn't really kick off during the depths of the Great Recession, but in the years after when better online alternatives came around.

Pay-as-you-go phone plans. Early model phones. Phone/pc repair.

While exercise is healthy, it isn't a great way to lose weight. Eating a healthier diet, in particular lower calorie, is how you lose weight.

The real lesson to me is don't use a Google Voice (or probably any carrier) number as a recovery for anything too important. An attacker can just contact the FCC to threaten your carrier into releasing the number to be ported without you authorizing it.

In your middle of nowhere example, you didn't disallow anyone anything.

This is really such a silly and pointless thread.

No? If other people didn't exist then there is nothing to disallow. We are talking about how people will go to meetings to try to veto building proposals.

I guess I don't understand the distinction or how the second one isn't a positive right. By your own rule of thumb, if you take away other people then the right to tell others what they can/can't build disappears.

> Also the former does not exist in reality

Irrelevant, we're discussing how things should work not how they are.

"I have the right to build apartments on the land I own."

"I have the right to tell you what you can and can't build in my neighborhood."

Which one is positive and which is negative?

The center text certainly gives Time Cube vibes.

Keep in mind many 9/11 victims wouldn't have been able to get to a window or break it out. And many would have succumbed to the smoke and not had the chance. Also, one isn't going to commit suicide if they think they are still going to be rescued by the firefighters they knew were on their way. Contrast that with a month of seemingly irrational lockdown with no end in sight because 0-covid is futile.

I don't even understand the point you're trying to help defend. You know a story about suicide must be fake news because suicide isn't a thing that happens? Really?

This isn't a good analogy. A retailer is responsible for giving you what you ordered (a nice new widget) because you are literally buying it from them. In this case, Affirm isn't fulfilling the purchase at all.

I think a better analogy would be you bought a house, but you find out later the seller lied about something (maybe they didn't install a new roof like they claimed), so you think the best course of action is to stop making mortgage payments to your bank.

> Regardless of whether amazon was actually responsible for providing the widget they received your money and ergo they are responsible for giving it back.

Yeah, after you request a refund from them. Try issuing a chargeback to Amazon next time you buy something from a 3rd party seller, I think you will have a bad time.

> If their client isn’t fulfilling their duties it’s Affirms problem too.

Again, they didn't even know there was a problem because the author never brought it to their attention before the chargeback.

The author borrowed money from Affirm and agreed to pay it back. He's in breach of his contract with Affirm, over a dispute with the merchant (a different party).

Other commenters are offering very rational reasons including inflation and the time-value of money, but I think there's a much simpler explanation when it comes to most people: they see a smaller number, it's psychologically easier to pay less today.

Author never disputed the transaction with Affirm, he just went straight to chargeback after getting nowhere with the merchant.

You are sealioning with all of these questions and accusations. This isn't a trial, aroundtown doesn't need to divulge all of the evidence in order to share their anecdote here. You've made an unfair judgement without knowing them or their boss.

> continually talks about it being worthless

Kinda weird to try to sneak millions of a worthless coin into your wallet.