SpamSandwich

DAalseth said:

mistergsf said:

tundraboy said:

 '"Forcing users to use the App Store instead of Dapps (websites), or IAP instead of crypto payments, reminds me of what Microsoft did back in the day (forcing users to use IE if you were on Windows) which led to all their antitrust issues," Armstrongs says. '

No Mr. Armstrong.  Windows had a monopoly (okay an overwhelmingly dominant market position) in desk/laptop OSes.  iPhone doesn't even have a majority of the smartphone market.  Your analogy doesn't apply.  Complaining that Apple is a monopoly because it is the sole seller of Apple iPhones is like accusing Audi of monopolizing the market for Audi cars.  It's stupid talk.

Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters?  Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in?  Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?

Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society.  Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.

I still don't fully comprehend how Bitcoin works let-alone "cryptocurrencies".

I have a feeling I'm going to get flamed for this but IDGAS. 
I have looked into them. I do understand them. I saw them appear over a decade ago and watched them grow. I stayed well clear from them because they are a scam.
Basically a bitcoin is an imaginary bag of nothing. It is worth what the other people with these bags of nothing to pay, but there is in fact nothing there. 
People who mine them with other people's electricity might come out ahead. The people who set up this scam did great, because they set it up so the nothings were easy to mine early on. The people who come later find it much harder to mine them, so they pay real money for these nothings. The people who set these schemes collected their money and got out. People who put real money into them are likely going to lose everything.
Can you say Ponzi Scheme?
So I'm very happy with Apple not allowing Coinbase to keep doing their racket. 

I’m not going to flame you for your post, because it’s a common misperception. Cryptos are still in their growth and development phase and because there are so many of them (besides the mother of them all, Bitcoin) people who haven’t seriously investigated them in all their variety see them as a scam. Yes, some are rather scammy. But the beautiful thing about all of them is the robust competition among their creators to offer something of value that will be used and trusted. The cream of the crop attract R&D money and their ‘coins’ are purchased and held.

The person (or people) who created Bitcoin did so because they opposed central banking and the fact that it was so easy for people to manipulate fiat currencies and destroy value for the people who are legally required to use that money. Bitcoin was a means to transmit money anywhere in the world, not centrally controlled.

Here’s a site where the most popular ones are tracked:  https://www.cryptocompare.com/

But if you really want to learn the nuts and bolts of these things, read the white papers that are commonly used when a new crypto is offered to investors during their ICO (Initial Coin Offering).

Also, you might want to familiarize yourself with new concept in cryptos, like Hedera Hashgraph, which don’t rely on energy intensive mining the way Bitcoin does. Or read up on Filecoin, which is a means of securely storing nearly limitless amounts of data among computers scattered across the world.

————
*Full disclosure, I hold a small amount of Chainlink (LINK), and I am loosely to moderately well-informed about a number of cryptos. I am not an expert, nor am I offering anything approaching investment advice.

mistergsf said:

tundraboy said:

 '"Forcing users to use the App Store instead of Dapps (websites), or IAP instead of crypto payments, reminds me of what Microsoft did back in the day (forcing users to use IE if you were on Windows) which led to all their antitrust issues," Armstrongs says. '

No Mr. Armstrong.  Windows had a monopoly (okay an overwhelmingly dominant market position) in desk/laptop OSes.  iPhone doesn't even have a majority of the smartphone market.  Your analogy doesn't apply.  Complaining that Apple is a monopoly because it is the sole seller of Apple iPhones is like accusing Audi of monopolizing the market for Audi cars.  It's stupid talk.

Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters?  Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in?  Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?

Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society.  Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.

I still don't fully comprehend how Bitcoin works let-alone "cryptocurrencies".

Bitcoin is covered by the catch-all phrase “cryptocurrencies”. Not all cryptos are created equal, however. For one to succeed these days it must deliver value to the holder beyond just being a commodity for speculative investment.

There are many educational resources on the web which explain in the broad and fine details what these are and how they differ.

Here are a few:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/02/cryptocurrencies-explained-in-plain-english.aspx

I have no real inside information here, but if you are on Costco’s mailing list, you’ll see exactly when Apple’s lines are being phased out for new models because they tend to go on sale at Costco soon before the new models are announced.

That has to still be one of their worst prepared product announcements. Never announce something unless it’s done or the bugs have been completely worked out.

robin huber said:

Time for a start-up to step in and offer an ethical alternative. Maybe a non-profit model where drivers are stakeholders. F an IPO. 

I don’t agree that there’s anything wrong with either Uber or Lyft, but there is another alternative which involves skipping all of the licensing and safety requirements cities demand. There’s an app which connects drivers and riders directly called “Arcade City” which I’ve known about for years because it’s a blockchain-based service.

https://twitter.com/arcadecityhall/status/1293734138160336897?s=21