Bajillion dollar propertie$ torrent download

I never hear about it happening. I have been fascinated for a long time about how fundamentally confusing it is to think about any of this stuff, because it's so obvious everyone who disagrees, disagrees about what the basics of reality are. I don't this is the correct account of the boom mentality for tulips, lates stocks, and perhaps the others. In both of those two cases at least, quite a lot of investors were quite aware that the market was a bubble and unmoored from values, and explicitly reasoned just as investors do today: "well, this market doesn't make much sense, but if I don't get in on it now I'll be missing out, and if it starts going bad I can always pull out.

They just didn't realize, over and over, that when the market goes bad it's essentially instant, with instant lockup and no liquidity and no way to pull out no matter how savvy you think you are. The most infamous example of this are the Bored Ape Yacht Club images that seem to have become the public face of NFTs, a set of purposely?

Yet people are trying to use them for actual things, like that Universal music thing , or " The Red Ape Family ," a trailer for a particularly badly-animated web cartoon series. It is a weird kind of mania, I assume it's something one would have to have money to understand. Let me finish waking up and drinking my coffee and I'll drop an extinction event sized meteor of knowledge.

Hey, I've been aware of BTC and cryptocoins since , and I have done an embarrassing and regrettable amount of reading and homework at this point. Almost all of your talking points about cryptocoins have been refuted in previous threads, but if you want a giant horsepill sized archive of these go to old.

Seriously, that sub is one of the only places to get the real news about this. You'll have to wade through memes and shitposts to get to it but it's there. Further, your talking points in this thread are nearly a complete bingo card of things that people who are new to crypto say with unwarranted enthusiasm or knowledge. Telling the thread to go read a "five-minute primer" is actually really insulting. Some of us have been aware of this stuff for over ten years.

I once ran an experimental full node with nothing more than an unused laptop and a wifi connection borrowed from a neighborhood coffee shop that I could connect to from my apartment. Stuff like "Major adoption is happening by financial institutions! Yes, the inflated prices of BTC the entire market cap of the entire cryptocurrency system is currently supported by both the inflated Tether peg and rampant speculation.

That "2 trillion market cap" is not real. Yes, El Salvador "adopted" BTC and it's been a total shit show so far and it's an example of a large scale scam with several crypto companies in cahoots with the government.

There were protests against it. You know what the citizens tried to do with the air dropped "free" dollars worth of BTC they were given to kick start the system? They mostly tried to immediately withdraw it and convert it to the local currency. Which they found was very difficult to do. They also found that it was very difficult to actually spend it at stores to buy useful goods. The companies in charge of the local networks and systems are making a tidy profit in service fees that are totally scammy and unnecessary.

Yes, every proof of work coin I've seen so far is a zero-sum game Ponzi scheme with lots of extra steps and wasted power. It would use less power if someone just started an entirely new Amway and started manufacturing cleaning products for independent sales contractors to sell to their downline. Amway might be a scammy garbage company but in theory at least you can get some cleaning supplies and a clean kitchen and bathroom out of it.

And when critics of crypto talk about zero-sum games we mean it, and we mean it in the sense that for someone might be able to get rich at the top of the pyramids a whole lot of other people have to lose their shirts, meaning that the total end value of that financial system is zero or negative.

With cryptocoins this is true simply within the financial systems at hand but it's doubly true when you start adding up the environmental costs and damage costs that people will have to pay even if they didn't participate at all. Take a really step back from the hype and promises and consider this: Most proof of work crypto systems and their blockchains - especially BTC and its forks - can't actually be fully solved using plain old digital computing following Moore's Law because of the increasing difficulties of solving blocks.

Like the energy and processing difficulty scales logarithmically and trends upwards nearly vertically from there. This is by design, and it's even in Satoshi's white paper and other papers about these systems.

What does this mean? This means that to secure, maintain and use a blockchain like BTC for wide scale adoption and a total financial system replacement for long term use if left unchecked it will eventually consume most if not all of the available computing power we can possibly build.

We're talking like consuming entire solar systems worth of power and building planet sized computers, here. We're talking like relativistic increases in entropy and acceleration of the heat death of the universe scales to fully mine out and unlock all of 21 million BTC coins because of this ever-increasing proof of work point that secures the network. As it is now the global adoption of all of these crypto systems combined is still tiny and some fraction of a single percentage point of the total global financial market cap in total transactions, or total transactions per day, or per second - and just the BTC blockchain and network itself is already consuming more electricity than some major and well developed European Union countries all so crypto enthusiasts can solve magic internet money encryption puzzles for the block rewards.

Here's another thing to consider, and on the surface it's somewhat paradoxical in light of the above: Have you stopped to consider the implications of quantum computing on a financial system that solely relies on processing cryptographic keys? Because if - well, when - quantum computing becomes useful enough to brute force cryptographic systems these blockchain systems are suddenly and instantly insecure and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down and that store of value is meaningless if someone can just brute force any and all keys.

With the quantum computing threat to traditional cryptography at best we're sparking off a major arms race of increasingly costly and power intensive ways to apply and secure traditional digital cryptography or advancing new uses of quantum cryptography. Last - the Tether problem and the zero sum game of these cryptocoin systems - for everyone you know or heard about who has managed to get rich or make some money - some larger amount of people lost a larger amount of value to support some other gains within that system.

By and large it's been the earliest adopters or the biggest whales who have been making any money trading in this unregulated space.

If this space becomes regulated and things like high frequency automated trading or wash trading or full financial accountability become functional - you will be able to watch these market movers exiting with a quickness, extracting every value they can from their holdings and leaving all of the little people holding their bags with no exit. Smart people have been watching for the Tether system to get rug pulled or collapse under it's own weight for a few years now.

It is behaving and functioning exactly like an arbitrary fiat and reserve system. This is what is floating and supporting that 2 trillion dollar or whatever market cap.

And it's fucking terrifying. There's going to be global financial fallout if this system collapses the same way we would see if a major mutual or hedge fund collapses and defaults. If it collapsed right now it would be pretty bad but not totally catastrophic, but it'll leave some millions of numbers of people holding the bags with no exit plan and with no value.

But let's pretend cryptocoins succeed and wide spread global adoption happens and people can actually buy things with it almost everywhere they go: The end result is a dystopian libertarian, capitalist and neo-liberal nightmare landscape where some major percentage of our planets electricity and computing power is dedicated to supporting these decentralized financial databases with transaction rates that are so slow that they look like typos and are bad jokes.

We're also talking about a currency or store of value that would be inherently dynamically unstable and highly volatile because it would pegged to things like energy costs, high frequency trading and speculation, blatant market manipulation and defending and securing the network against attacks and so on.

Yes, we can have a nuanced and detailed conversation about cryptocoins on MeFi. We've already had it in various threads. Some of our members are very well informed and the more informed you get the more likely you're going to see that they are scams - unless you're a scammer looking to work those scams.

Yes, people should be somewhat aware of these things so they can avoid them and identify them as the very harmful pyramid and Ponzi scams that they are so they can inform their friends and family that they shouldn't be buying into them and engaging in them even if they are able to get an increased return on their investments specifically because they are financially and environmentally unethical.

Yes, I even know some people who generated personal wealth from early adoption. Those positive numbers they got on their returns doesn't make it right or ethical. I also know a bunch of people who have lost real and significant amounts of cash, most recently in the dogecoin hype. Money is really easy to put into these systems, it's a lot more difficult to get it out. And these NFTs? They're the just the newest, most scammy layer on top of a giant birthday cake of layered scammy shit.

The real world values of these things aren't in the stupid algorithmically generated collectible art but in the flexibility of wash trading. And a lot of the value and economic movement of NFTs is just in the service fees and exchanges of people trying to jump on the NFT minting hype. It costs a pretty significant amount of real money to create, launch and register an NFT in fees or "gas" in the case of the Ethereum network in particular.

If you the proverbial, general you or anyone is buying into the very real world Tulip Mania hype of cryptocoins you're actively participating in these scams. The only thing keeping the prices going up is more flesh blood, adoption and fresh money supporting the base of the whole scammy, ecologically harmful pyramid.

Proof of work is inherently energy consumptive. Incontrovertibly true. As a holder of Stellar Lumens I'm starting to get a bit salty about Proof of Stake being regularly described as the alternative to Proof of Work. Stellar relies on neither , settles transaction far faster and far more cheaply than either, consumes less energy per transaction than Visa and many orders of magnitude less in total than other popular online services whose energy consumption is almost never even brought up e.

I have suggested, from time to time, that instead of "proof of work" cryptocurrencies that involve consuming a lot of electricity, we skip the middleman and have a unit of currency that represents a certain number of watt-hours. For example, one of the strongest criticisms levelled at blockchain-based remittance systems such as Stellar is that transactions are irreversible once made. That's a thing that cannot be fixed, because it's inherent in the nature of an append-only public ledger where transactions can only ever be initiated by the holders of the secret keys that authenticate the accounts.

The tradeoff is that Stellar transactions are insanely cheap - so much less than a cent apiece that they might as well cost nothing unless you're trying to spam the network with a high frequency bot. A Visa or Mastercard or PayPal could act as an intermediary between parties to Stellar-based remittances, much as they already do for those based on national currencies, and offer the same kind of chargeback and other buyer protections that they already do today. As a for-profit oligopoly they'd clearly charge way more for this kind of service than what they lose to fraud, just like they do already; but because the transaction costs in the underlying remittance system are so crazy low compared to SWIFT transactions they'd likely be able to do that while still charging less for a buyer protection layer added to Stellar than for what they currently offer.

There's going to be global financial fallout if this system collapses I would be super interested in learning more about what's going to happen when the cryptocurrency bubble collapses.

It seems so disconnected from the "real" economy unlike the subprime crisis that I can't figure out the effects of a collapse. Do legitimate financial institutions have big liabilities in this space? By the way, the BitTorrent info hash of The Billion Dollar Torrent is eecb1db1b8f9eb1cb1c3daf8e3, and if you paste that number into the URL box of pretty much any BitTorrent client it will find the torrent in the distributed hash table and start to download the associated absurd quantities of useless information without you having to visit The NFT Bay or associate your BT client with any trackers.

If you want to stick that hash value up on some blockchain that you have an account on, knock yourself out. Amusingly enough, this is not the info hash listed on The NFT Bay itself for the torrent offered for downloading there.

Pasting that info hash into a BT client makes it start downloading a bunch of albums by the band November , a mere MB worth of MP3s. No, really, what? It really doesn't. I get that you're making a MeFi-brand TM throwaway joke, but it doesn't make sense. I would be super interested in learning more about what's going to happen when the cryptocurrency bubble collapses.

In the end, it'll be the people who fail to get out of it before it collapses who are hurt. My friend who works at Dennys with medical issues who has been sitting on a pile of Bitcoin, watching it grow in value.

I'm thinking about telling him he really needs to get out of it now while the getting is good, but while it's still valuable, it's hard to make that case to him? But there is no perfect time to get out except at the exact moment before it dies, unless I somehow get him out of it at that exact moment I'm going to look, to him, like a chump.

Then there's the infrastructure devoted to Bitcoin transactions. I know of a convenience store with a Bitcoin ATM. That couldn't have been cheap for them. I wonder if that hardware can be repurposed. Quantum computing is another thing I had filed under "possibly interesting research area that the rest of us should really be ignoring".

Thank you for taking the time to write it. Mainly there's going to be a lot of little people who lose out economically and left holding the bags and it will resemble stock market and penny stock collapses or what happens when other Ponzi schemes collapse and run out of fresh blood to feast on. Another point I wanted to touch on is that yes, our current economic system sucks and one of the many things that cryptocurrency promises is that it might liberate people from these systems, even to the point of causing entire nation states to collapse.

It won't. If anything it's going to accelerate financial dependence and the many negative issues of the current status quo of capitalism and make it even worse. When you peel back the many layers of this and start digging in way past the mainly libertarian talking points on this angle what we're left with is essentially the Austrian School of Economics written out as code, with code as law, and it's fucking nightmare fuel for more of the same neo-liberal and libertarian horseshit on crack and it's not going to "save" or "liberate" anyone from these systems.

Even though these decentralized systems try to talk a lot of big talk about being trustless, they also all rely on trust. Exchanges live and die by the implications of trust. Meeting people locally for the direct purchase or exchange of cryptocurrencies relies on the concept of trust. Even vendors on the black markets on the darknet like Silk Road have had to rely on trust and reputation scores of their vendors and the markets themselves being trustworthy enough to use.

At the end of it all the only real currency is trust and all functioning economic systems stem from this trust. Oh, don't misinterpret me as saying that quantum computing is a sure thing, but it's definitely something that the cryptocurrency space is willfully ignoring on purpose. But at this point it sure looks like quantum computing as some kind of useful thing is going to happen at some level, and if so it will mean some dire things about cryptography and privacy in general even if it can only be affordable to be useful to state level powers, and this mirrors and maps nicely to the existing history of computing and how the first real Turing complete computers were insanely expensive projects undertaken by major nation states to crack wartime cryptography or other military uses of computing.

And if quantum computing is usefully applied to code breaking it's probably going to spark off an arms race of also applying quantum computing to quantum cryptography solutions and security just like non-quantum computing did.

Sure, this also implies the paradox that quantum computing and cryptography can also be applied to securing blockchain networks if there's enough of a financial reward or interest to fund that arms race just as much as it could be used to attack and crack those networks Which, frankly, I do not. There has not been a default yet, but before January there had not been an insurrection yet. In this respect I think bitcoin is much like gold, another commodity that serves as a store of value despite its inherent worthlessness and the tremendous waste involved in its production.

There was some discussion about blockchain versus public key cryptography above. I'll give my non-expert summary of that, in the hopes it might help. In Public Key cryptography you have a secret key - a long random string which is known only to you. This secret key has a matching public key, which is derived from your actual key. That's a one way transformation - the public key can't be used to derive your secret key, and can be shared with world.

If I have a piece of information that I'd like to publish, I can use my secret key to produce a signature of that information. Anyone with the public key can then verify that this piece of information was signed by the holder of the corresponding secret key. It's then a matter of trusting that I am the only person with that secret key, and you've now verified that I published that information and it hasn't been altered.

This is very useful and can form the basis of any kind of system in which you trust a central authority. If I trust Visa to say what financial transaction occurred, then Visa can maintain a ledger of those transactions, and I can obtain a copy of that ledger and verify that it came from Visa.

I can transmit my personal transactions back to Visa and Visa can verify that those came from me and add them to the central ledger they maintain if they think I have the right to make those transactions. Blockchain introduces a secure, distributed ledger. The major innovation is that new transactions are added to the ledger not by coordination with a central authority, but by the consensus of the network.

Anyone can get a copy of the ledger and verify it piecewise, with the limitation that the only thing you can transact on this ledger are the digital tokens that comprise the network itself. This is a very cool piece of technology, but one without an obvious use.

We can attach a meaning outside of the system to the tokens, but doing so negates the trust-less aspects of the blockchain.

If the meaning of a token is outside of itself, then we have to develop a system for trusting how that meaning was assigned. Let's take car titles, which were mentioned above. I can create a token on a trustless blockchain which represents the title to my car. But since the blockchain is trustless, anyone else can make another token which also claims to represent title to my car.

Okay, so maybe we have a central authority who we trust to create the car title tokens, and after that the blockchain takes the wheel. Anyone can still make a token that has the same claim, but we can verify that that token didn't originate with our trusted party. That could involve public key signing. What now? Well, we've re-introduced a central authority, but they don't have to maintain the ledger themselves.

That might be a good thing, but it's not at all clear that it is when balanced against the other concerns going on. You do get some other potential benefits: immutability and uniqueness among them. Those sounds good, but lead to their own problems. If my car title is a blockchain token, and that token is by fraud or accident transferred to someone else, what then? I still have the car. The central authority has washed their hands of it, and the transaction is immutable, so I can't get the token back.

If the token has the force of law as my title, then I don't actually own the car anymore, and probably need to pay whatever ransom is demanded. Or maybe I can convince the central authority to issue a new token for me, and somehow declare the old one invalid. That's ideal, but now we've lost the whole point of the central authority not maintaining the ledger themselves. That kind of brings things around to smart contracts.

Smart contracts allow additional rules and stipulations to be built around future transactions involving a particular token. That sounds neat, but the same problems show up - there's very little recourse if anything goes wrong hard fork of Eth nonwithstanding. And the truth is - we've had smart contracts for thousands of years - they're called contracts. The kinds of people developing blockchain technology are probably going to think that's a good idea, because they understand code well, and legal stuff not very well.

But law and code are equally foreign to most people, and there's good reasons why the legal system is the way it is. Ultimately there are very few to no problems that the blockchain solves. We are witnesses to a financial scam of the largest proportions, and the sooner it collapses the less people will be hurt.

The sooner it collapses, the less damage will have been done to the environment. It is a moral imperative to call it out as the scam it is, and do what we can to put an end to it. This has always been my impression of blockchain tech too. A distributed ledger no-one owns sounds like a cool idea, but so far every implemented use has been actively stupid or harmful and every theoretical use doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

It's a solution in search of a problem, and people are convinced that because it's a very clever solution it has to be applicable to all sorts of problems.

Encyclopedia at PM on November 19 [ 6 favorites ]. We have that. It's the decentralized system known as "trade", and what it trusts in is a general expectation that all traders are going to judge the value of what's being traded in roughly the same way. He later appeared in separate episodes as brothers Eric and Billy Koenig. He continued to appear in the second season as Billy and a third brother named Sam. In season four, he also played a fourth brother, Thurston.

He also voiced the male version of Jesse in Minecraft: Story Mode , which was released in October Oswalt had a voice over role in science fictioncomedy film Sorry to Bother You , [26] which was released in theaters on July 6, Oswalt replaced Louis C.

In addition, he is set to reprise his role as Professor Dementor in the Disney Channel Original Movie Kim Possible , a live action adaptation of the animated series. Trivia The show debuted on the streaming service Seeso until the company shut down in A web campaign to " BuyJillion" started so the show had a platform to be streamed.

In , the free streaming service Pluto TV picked up all previous seasons of the show and includes the unseen 4th season.

User reviews 6 Review. Top review. Unreal how hilarious this show is. I, like so many, have an obsession with real estate reality TV shows. Took a chance and have been obsessed from the start. Unfortunately i rocked through all the episodes created in one night.

Middle of season 1 kind slow however end of season 1 and all of season 2 has been ridiculous. So many special guest appearances spoofing million dollar listing to a T.

The whole cast is extremely talented and almost makes you feel like You truly are watching million dollar listing as a complete joke FYI character glenn is almost too creepy. I am certainly hoping this show continues for the long run. Details Edit. This will create an email alert. See more. Kulap Vilaysack - Wikipedia. Eugene Cordero - Wikipedia.