I think if he originally had $8k, his profit would be 2k
But if he had only $6k, his profit would be 1k
True, If he only had 6k then he could not have made the second purchase.
Since it says he made both purchases he must have had at least 7k to start.
He could lend this money
So he gained 1k from the 1st deal
Then took -1k when he lent
And then again +1k
You suck! I'm not thinking about this one anymore!
Wait, maybe his grandma lent him another 1K?
Shit I lied!
I’ve got a load of XRP left at Bittrex, not overly concerned about it but be great if they went to say $100 each one day
It's always best to be first when dumping shitcoins.
Magic 8 ball says: "Concentrate and ask again".
In all due seriousness, I really don't have a good read on this yet. I've not even finished my analysis as to which way I would like to see it go.
As for my initial preferences:
My first read is that I'd like to see it tend toward no block size cap (and therefore have max block size be an emergent property of the system, a la BU). I also think I like the idea of re-enabling opcodes that were in the initial release - at least as compared to enabling a new opcode. I don't see the need for CTOR either.
All the above would put me in the SV camp, rather than the ABC camp. Or perhaps BU (hash power vote on each feature), or C0bra (no changes). But as I said, more analysis is required.
I also hold out some hope for a kumbaya moment. However, cross-camp relations don't seem to be getting any better with time.
Given that Bitmain has a split commitment to BCH and BTC, I was fairly comfortable in the hashpower battle going forward with nChain/Ayre/&co. However, with Bitmain finally successful (from all reports) with a 7nm chip, this no longer seems a safe assumption.
I guess I'll need to finish my analysis, pick a side, and get involved with the internal advocacy...
Not sure about bitmain specifically but 7nm yields are shit across the industry, so don't expect them getting any massive returns on that front. Of course they are creating simple logic with minuscule footprint so the yields may be higher than industry average, It would be interesting to find out.
After all, one of the narratives is that BCH is not supposed to be used for a store of value;
Whose narrative is that? I don't recall that position ever being advocated by anyone of note.
Ability to be used as a medium of exchange (MoE) certainly does not preclude ability to be used as a store of value (SoV). Indeed, there is significant evidence that MoE is necessary for any commodity to become a SoV. And a reasonable theory that any commodity that loses its MoE will therefore lose its ability to be a SoV. Which bodes poorly for BTC, unless the LN grows quickly by several orders of magnitude.
I don't know shit about BCH but it is a simple inheritance thing isn't it? Bitcoins original vision was not to be a store of value but a currency. BCH shills have been screaming since day one they will stick to that vision. So yeah there is that. don't get yourself caught in any circular logic trap here.