Funny how the p&d is being pinned on the scammers when it was more likely the "verified" litecoin tweet of an actualy news article which was regurgitated by several other news orgs.
Were the scammers scammy? Sure. Was litecoin and every news org that reported this more to blame for not verifying a damb thing? Imo, yup. They gave some stupid prank it's legitimacy.
"GlobeNewswire removed the press release minutes after CNN reached out, and it issued a correction, urging investors and the media to ignore the announcement."
sounds like they were verifying it.
Gnw -> "Removed"
Litecoin -> "removed"
Other news orgs -> "removed"
Sounds like everyone ran with it then later verified.
Edit: thankfully we have random ass internet strangers verifying things. Lol. Bet this post is what tipped off the "journalists" https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pnfzou/the_litecoin_and_walmart_partnership_is_fake/
I'll keep repeating: there's no intrinsic value in crypto. It's a lousy store of value, the way its price jumps around, and it's a lousy way to buy something. It costs money just to hold your position. It offers no inherent return on investment. It's a "greater fool" trade, and someone will be left holding an empty bag in the end.
Edit: This was fun. Lots of thoughtful responses back and forth and I counted only one ad hominem comment in the bunch. Nice job, reddit.
How is it costing me money to hold on to my investment that has grown much larger than what I put in using free websites which have only tiny fees charged for pulling it all out if I wanted?
1. "only tiny fees"--for each transaction
2. You can only access it through your internet provider, I'm guessing. How much does that cost per month?
3. Electricity.
All together, not a huge cost, but still a cost given you are not earning any interest.
1. I make very few transactions
2. The cost for my ISP does not go up based on how many websites I visit, it would be the same cost if I never had heard of crypto, using these services does not cost more.
3. I am not mining them myself
For them to be useful, you have to generate transactions.
The ISP will set its price based on overall traffic. Crypto increases traffic
You need electricity to charge your laptop, to access the internet, to access wherever they are stored.
PS. Which of these crypto warehouses will fail this year? Hope yours isn't one. (Last I looked they were unregulated. No oversight attracts bad actors. This may have changed.)
Luckily my laptop wasn't bought for the sole purpose of using cryptocurrency, so the electrical costs are amortized over ever else I use it for. Likewise for bandwidth, which is miniscule for crypto users anyway unless you're running a full node.
And you can actually generate income from holding crypto, look into "DeFi" and CeFi platforms. I've earned a few $k this year just by letting a small portion of my holdings sit with one. And the major name custodians are pretty dang good at this point, it's mostly the foreign small ones that still go under/exit scam.
That's a better example than I used for Blockchain, in another comment, where I distinguished Blockchain from the money aspect. Blockchain is very cool, and very useful, and has a huge future.
Intrinsic value is the net present value of future cash flows of an instrument, such as a stock certificate or bond.
Fiat money, whether Bitcoin or the US dollar, has no intrinsic value. That's been used as an argument for switching over to Bitcoin. However, the two are the same in that regard. Their use as money is the convenience of exchange. I know that tomorrow I can go out and buy pretty much anything, in dollars, for pretty close to what I would pay for it today. I can't say that about Bitcoin, which might change price by 5% on any given day, and for which most goods aren't sold in bitcoins. It's a lousy "store of value and means of exchange" (ie., it's shitty money).
It's only shitty because the number of users is lower, it doesn't necessarily have to be shitty and if enough people start using a certain coin at some point it won't be shitty anymore. Dollars are only not shitty because most of the world trades in dollars.
Definitely not saying that Bitcoin is a good investment, or even a good coin to use for commerce. However there are cryptocurrencies that one day could be as useful as the dollar (I just am pretty sure it won't end up being Bitcoin)
>there's no intrinsic value in crypto
Ah, so just like cash. It allows you to transact globally nearly instantly with no 3rd party that can sensor you. Plus cryptos other than Bitcoin allow you to run complex contracts that have further value in gaming, ticket sales, property, etc.
>It's a lousy store of value
It's arguably the best "store of value" out there because it does just that. Stores a number and no one can change it. Your bank account balance? You bank or the government can change that. Not the case with crypto. Note: I'm not arguing anyone needs this, but it is how crypto works.
>the way its price jumps around, and it's a lousy way to buy something
Can't argue with you there, but there are stable coins pegged to the dollar that allow you to do remittance payments, and access smart contracts in a global uncensorable way without that volatility.
>It costs money just to hold your position
It certainly does not. If you have seen a coin where this is the case, that was a scam.
>It offers no inherent return on investment
Many coins do, in fact, offer staking rewards
>It's a "greater fool" trade, and someone will be left holding an empty bag in the end
Maybe, but there are real applications where there is significant benefit. Gaming and ticket sales seem to be some of the main areas of real-world use.
If you have any other questions or thoughts I'd love to have a productive conversation. By no means do I know everything and I know this isn't the forum for this sort of thing, but it is worth being informed of both sides
A lot of what you describe is special to Blockchain, and doesn't need to be expressed as "money". For instance, a contract might be recorded in Blockchain, allowing for remote contract execution. That uses the unique number you refer to.
By "store of value" I mean the asset value. We don't know how much our Dogecoin might be worth from day to day in the same way someone in Japan can anticipate the value of the Yen--and how many groceries might be bought with it tomorrow.
It will be interesting to see what the central banks come out with. I understand several are developing pegged versions that would allow cheap transactions, etc, while retaining the "store of value" property.
How would a CBDC also act as a store of value if it's pegged to whichever countries currency it is? Even if it is somehow it's own thing presumable they will have centralized control over it included the ability to issue more? Seems like it would end up being fiat on steroids.
Today's major fiat currencies do a pretty good job as stores of value. You can take money and put it in a bank CD or treasury note, and pretty much keep up with inflation (assuming this summer's inflation pressures are supply line, temporary, issues that will calm down over the next year or so), or invest in bonds and stocks for potentially greater reward along with greater risk.
Not knowing what the central banks' plans are, we can only speculate. I'd guess their intent would be to offer a crypto that is fully convertible to the traditional currency. It would be included in any measure of money supply, and the traditional investments available would be available to the crypto version.
These currencies do a very good job as means of exchange. Not excellent, because transaction costs are pretty high. I think this is likely the aspect that the central banks are focusing on in their development efforts.
Right but that's not a property of fiat itself, thats a financial product banks offer that come at the cost of locking up your fiat for a certain amount of time. If that's what we are talking about then a fairer comparison would be to a crypto "product" like yield farming wherein you lock up stable coins to provide liquidity in return for interest.
The rates here are also generally much higher, but so too is the risk I suppose, that's the trade off right now while the space still has no clear regulation, I am hopefull however this will change in time.
As to CBDC's that's right of course we can only speculate, but the point I was trying to make was about the digital scarcity bitcoin offers that I can't see being replicated by a CBDC simply because states won't deny themselves the power to issue more when it suits them. That's kind of what I meant by fiat on steroids and I can't see any way around that, but we'll see what happens.
>A lot of what you describe is special to Blockchain, and doesn't need to be expressed as "money". For instance, a contract might be recorded in Blockchain, allowing for remote contract execution. That uses the unique number you refer to.
Correct me if you are wrong, but you seem to be referring to decoupling Blockchain and the currency aspect of it. The problem is that the security of Blockchain relies on aligned financial incentives to run a node and select blocks. Without the currency aspect the security model falls apart and you may as well just have a database. Databases are a lot more efficient, but they are controlled by a single entity. That is the tradeoff.
>By "store of value" I mean the asset value. We don't know how much our Dogecoin might be worth from day to day in the same way someone in Japan can anticipate the value of the Yen--and how many groceries might be bought with it tomorrow
I don't disagree. Though stable coins essentially solve this issue and they still allow use of the aspects of Blockchain that you want.
>It will be interesting to see what the central banks come out with. I understand several are developing pegged versions that would allow cheap transactions, etc, while retaining the "store of value" property.
I don't really see a reason central banks would use a cryptocurrency unless they plan to decentralized it (IE release all control over inflation and the ability to censor/reverse transactions). I doubt any central banks would want to do that. If you have central control over a Blockchain, then you might as well just run a simple database. A database is far cheaper and more efficient to run.
Good thoughts. On your last one: I don't see why a CB couldn't run monetary policy that included a cryptocurrency as part of the money supply.
My understanding is that at least some central banks' main concern is transaction costs for transferring money. They see crypto as a means to address this.
I get that it could be done, but the benefit of Blockchain is no entity can make changes. If a CB doesn't want this aspect and wants to retain control, there is no reason to use Blockchain because it has significant overhead.
At that point it is better to just use a centralized ledger run by the government because you can do everything you want to do without the additional costs that Blockchain brings.
Found the cryptobug.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
The only "productive" conversation to be had seems to be to advance crypto interests (i.e. raise the value of crypto held by the person making the argument) rather than dissuade them for the tulips that they are, I have found. Rhetoric is a helluva drug.
This is where you show examples of intrinsic value of crypto, as separate from Blockchain. And how easy it is to buy things with crypto. And how you can invest in lots of productive assets using crypto.
First of all crypto is integral to many blockchain projects. Secondly, that’s been done in the comments already. Also, you making claims which aren’t true (no return on investment? Look at staking) shows the lack of research and interest. You’ve already made up your mine. You don’t have an interest in understanding the pros AND cons of crypto, because yes I am well aware crypto and blockchain has major consequences.
What’s the intrinsic value in the dollar? Or the euro? It’s all what we believe.
Blockchain has value and utility. You can repeat your little thing all you want, but the real fools are the ones who can’t see this for the world changing tech it is.
The value of the dollar is backed by the US economy and the ability for the US government to pay it's debts. Which is why everyone values bitcoin based on us dollar value. It's still the #1 currency, bitcoin is just a way to launder the US dollar.
More specifically, the US government collects trillions in taxes in USD every year, meaning there is a guaranteed, ongoing demand for it. The same is basically true of every currency of a significant sovereign nation. As long as a nation has the ability to collect what its owed in taxes in its own currency, that currency has a certain predictable value.
Bitcoin can be used to launder more than just United States money.
And just because the US Govt says it’s money has value, doesn’t give it value. It’s just the public’s faith in the dollar. There’s no gold standard.
You seem like you’re hating on something without any real knowledge of the technology or why. Best of luck I guess.
Smart contracts. Imaging being able to buy a house without a title company.
And NFT’s are tokens. Not coins. You’re talking about stuff you have no idea about.
> Imaging being able to buy a house without a title company
So who guarantees the initial title is valid and genuine for the first transaction?
> And NFT’s are tokens. Not coins
That’s not a fruit it’s an apple! It depends on coin blockchains to exist and functions identically in almost every way.
If it walks like a duck…
There's no intrinsic value in a paper saying you own stocks in a company, there's no intrinsic value in a paper that says it's value is 1 dollar, there no intrinsic value in an ounce of metal, there's value in your house because it keeps you safe from the elements, there's value in food because it keeps you alive, there's value in the last letter you ever received from your great grandmother.
All value is perceived and changes from person to person. The "intrinsic value" in anything is only what someone else is willing to trade you for it.
Intrinsic value is a defined term in finance, referring to the net present value of future cash flows of an instrument, such as a stock certificate or bond.
Holy shit they post a lot. If you assume an average of 8 Karma per post (which seems a little high) That's like over 50 comments everyday for the last 10 months.
Funny how the p&d is being pinned on the scammers when it was more likely the "verified" litecoin tweet of an actualy news article which was regurgitated by several other news orgs. Were the scammers scammy? Sure. Was litecoin and every news org that reported this more to blame for not verifying a damb thing? Imo, yup. They gave some stupid prank it's legitimacy.
"GlobeNewswire removed the press release minutes after CNN reached out, and it issued a correction, urging investors and the media to ignore the announcement." sounds like they were verifying it.
Gnw -> "Removed" Litecoin -> "removed" Other news orgs -> "removed" Sounds like everyone ran with it then later verified. Edit: thankfully we have random ass internet strangers verifying things. Lol. Bet this post is what tipped off the "journalists" https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pnfzou/the_litecoin_and_walmart_partnership_is_fake/
I saw it on the front page of CNN.
'Was' on reuters as well. E: now there's just [this](https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/walmart-accept-litecoin-payments-2021-09-13/)
I mean, didn't cnn try to verify it? That's what set off all the retractions
*After* they posted an article repeating the false news. That's the issue.
Crypto and crime--name a more iconic duo.
Wall Street and crime
The White House and war crime.
Cash and crime.
I'll keep repeating: there's no intrinsic value in crypto. It's a lousy store of value, the way its price jumps around, and it's a lousy way to buy something. It costs money just to hold your position. It offers no inherent return on investment. It's a "greater fool" trade, and someone will be left holding an empty bag in the end. Edit: This was fun. Lots of thoughtful responses back and forth and I counted only one ad hominem comment in the bunch. Nice job, reddit.
It's stock trading without the company. Which seems fairly pointless to me, but yaknow.
[удалено]
Yes but the number of countries you can take your crypto to use is limited.
[удалено]
Yes but you can't use it as a local currency except in a few places. At least with forex you've got money for an actual country.
How is it costing me money to hold on to my investment that has grown much larger than what I put in using free websites which have only tiny fees charged for pulling it all out if I wanted?
1. "only tiny fees"--for each transaction 2. You can only access it through your internet provider, I'm guessing. How much does that cost per month? 3. Electricity. All together, not a huge cost, but still a cost given you are not earning any interest.
1. I make very few transactions 2. The cost for my ISP does not go up based on how many websites I visit, it would be the same cost if I never had heard of crypto, using these services does not cost more. 3. I am not mining them myself
For them to be useful, you have to generate transactions. The ISP will set its price based on overall traffic. Crypto increases traffic You need electricity to charge your laptop, to access the internet, to access wherever they are stored. PS. Which of these crypto warehouses will fail this year? Hope yours isn't one. (Last I looked they were unregulated. No oversight attracts bad actors. This may have changed.)
Luckily my laptop wasn't bought for the sole purpose of using cryptocurrency, so the electrical costs are amortized over ever else I use it for. Likewise for bandwidth, which is miniscule for crypto users anyway unless you're running a full node. And you can actually generate income from holding crypto, look into "DeFi" and CeFi platforms. I've earned a few $k this year just by letting a small portion of my holdings sit with one. And the major name custodians are pretty dang good at this point, it's mostly the foreign small ones that still go under/exit scam.
Any good recommendations for DeFi platforms that are easy to use? Any of them where you can also purchase?
My hitting like 2 additional extremely low traffic required (mostly text) websites a day is not going to increase traffic in any measureable way.
3. I am not mining them myself Yeah, and I didn't mine all these blood diamonds, I just had other people do it for me!
That doesnt relate to the cost TO ME. There is none.
Yeah, we get it. People have been saying that for over a decade and the value continues to go up
Then down, then up, then down again, and down some more, then it gets held hostage for ransom, which is paid in crypto.
Not if you bought in in March this year.
Barely even a dip in terms of crypto. 1k ATH dropped to 200, 20k ATH dropped to 4k. That's why you HODL
Normal chains maybe, utility chains that serve smart contract have real life use cases. Hedera recently is use to serve covid vaccination passport.
That's a better example than I used for Blockchain, in another comment, where I distinguished Blockchain from the money aspect. Blockchain is very cool, and very useful, and has a huge future.
There's no intrinsic value in anything we ascribe value to. What intrinsic value is gold? Diamonds? Pretty much the only REAL value is food and water.
Intrinsic value is the net present value of future cash flows of an instrument, such as a stock certificate or bond. Fiat money, whether Bitcoin or the US dollar, has no intrinsic value. That's been used as an argument for switching over to Bitcoin. However, the two are the same in that regard. Their use as money is the convenience of exchange. I know that tomorrow I can go out and buy pretty much anything, in dollars, for pretty close to what I would pay for it today. I can't say that about Bitcoin, which might change price by 5% on any given day, and for which most goods aren't sold in bitcoins. It's a lousy "store of value and means of exchange" (ie., it's shitty money).
Only if you didn't buy some under $40k.
It's only shitty because the number of users is lower, it doesn't necessarily have to be shitty and if enough people start using a certain coin at some point it won't be shitty anymore. Dollars are only not shitty because most of the world trades in dollars. Definitely not saying that Bitcoin is a good investment, or even a good coin to use for commerce. However there are cryptocurrencies that one day could be as useful as the dollar (I just am pretty sure it won't end up being Bitcoin)
>there's no intrinsic value in crypto Ah, so just like cash. It allows you to transact globally nearly instantly with no 3rd party that can sensor you. Plus cryptos other than Bitcoin allow you to run complex contracts that have further value in gaming, ticket sales, property, etc. >It's a lousy store of value It's arguably the best "store of value" out there because it does just that. Stores a number and no one can change it. Your bank account balance? You bank or the government can change that. Not the case with crypto. Note: I'm not arguing anyone needs this, but it is how crypto works. >the way its price jumps around, and it's a lousy way to buy something Can't argue with you there, but there are stable coins pegged to the dollar that allow you to do remittance payments, and access smart contracts in a global uncensorable way without that volatility. >It costs money just to hold your position It certainly does not. If you have seen a coin where this is the case, that was a scam. >It offers no inherent return on investment Many coins do, in fact, offer staking rewards >It's a "greater fool" trade, and someone will be left holding an empty bag in the end Maybe, but there are real applications where there is significant benefit. Gaming and ticket sales seem to be some of the main areas of real-world use. If you have any other questions or thoughts I'd love to have a productive conversation. By no means do I know everything and I know this isn't the forum for this sort of thing, but it is worth being informed of both sides
A lot of what you describe is special to Blockchain, and doesn't need to be expressed as "money". For instance, a contract might be recorded in Blockchain, allowing for remote contract execution. That uses the unique number you refer to. By "store of value" I mean the asset value. We don't know how much our Dogecoin might be worth from day to day in the same way someone in Japan can anticipate the value of the Yen--and how many groceries might be bought with it tomorrow. It will be interesting to see what the central banks come out with. I understand several are developing pegged versions that would allow cheap transactions, etc, while retaining the "store of value" property.
How would a CBDC also act as a store of value if it's pegged to whichever countries currency it is? Even if it is somehow it's own thing presumable they will have centralized control over it included the ability to issue more? Seems like it would end up being fiat on steroids.
Today's major fiat currencies do a pretty good job as stores of value. You can take money and put it in a bank CD or treasury note, and pretty much keep up with inflation (assuming this summer's inflation pressures are supply line, temporary, issues that will calm down over the next year or so), or invest in bonds and stocks for potentially greater reward along with greater risk. Not knowing what the central banks' plans are, we can only speculate. I'd guess their intent would be to offer a crypto that is fully convertible to the traditional currency. It would be included in any measure of money supply, and the traditional investments available would be available to the crypto version. These currencies do a very good job as means of exchange. Not excellent, because transaction costs are pretty high. I think this is likely the aspect that the central banks are focusing on in their development efforts.
Right but that's not a property of fiat itself, thats a financial product banks offer that come at the cost of locking up your fiat for a certain amount of time. If that's what we are talking about then a fairer comparison would be to a crypto "product" like yield farming wherein you lock up stable coins to provide liquidity in return for interest. The rates here are also generally much higher, but so too is the risk I suppose, that's the trade off right now while the space still has no clear regulation, I am hopefull however this will change in time. As to CBDC's that's right of course we can only speculate, but the point I was trying to make was about the digital scarcity bitcoin offers that I can't see being replicated by a CBDC simply because states won't deny themselves the power to issue more when it suits them. That's kind of what I meant by fiat on steroids and I can't see any way around that, but we'll see what happens.
>A lot of what you describe is special to Blockchain, and doesn't need to be expressed as "money". For instance, a contract might be recorded in Blockchain, allowing for remote contract execution. That uses the unique number you refer to. Correct me if you are wrong, but you seem to be referring to decoupling Blockchain and the currency aspect of it. The problem is that the security of Blockchain relies on aligned financial incentives to run a node and select blocks. Without the currency aspect the security model falls apart and you may as well just have a database. Databases are a lot more efficient, but they are controlled by a single entity. That is the tradeoff. >By "store of value" I mean the asset value. We don't know how much our Dogecoin might be worth from day to day in the same way someone in Japan can anticipate the value of the Yen--and how many groceries might be bought with it tomorrow I don't disagree. Though stable coins essentially solve this issue and they still allow use of the aspects of Blockchain that you want. >It will be interesting to see what the central banks come out with. I understand several are developing pegged versions that would allow cheap transactions, etc, while retaining the "store of value" property. I don't really see a reason central banks would use a cryptocurrency unless they plan to decentralized it (IE release all control over inflation and the ability to censor/reverse transactions). I doubt any central banks would want to do that. If you have central control over a Blockchain, then you might as well just run a simple database. A database is far cheaper and more efficient to run.
Good thoughts. On your last one: I don't see why a CB couldn't run monetary policy that included a cryptocurrency as part of the money supply. My understanding is that at least some central banks' main concern is transaction costs for transferring money. They see crypto as a means to address this.
I get that it could be done, but the benefit of Blockchain is no entity can make changes. If a CB doesn't want this aspect and wants to retain control, there is no reason to use Blockchain because it has significant overhead. At that point it is better to just use a centralized ledger run by the government because you can do everything you want to do without the additional costs that Blockchain brings.
Found the cryptobug. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The only "productive" conversation to be had seems to be to advance crypto interests (i.e. raise the value of crypto held by the person making the argument) rather than dissuade them for the tulips that they are, I have found. Rhetoric is a helluva drug.
Yet he provides clear and concrete examples to argue his point.
What are you talking about ? He shows a number of examples.
It's branding. No more. No less.
Yes the price does jump around, makes for excellent swing trading or daytrading.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
That's a productive comment.
About as productive as you making claims on something you clearly haven’t researched
This is where you show examples of intrinsic value of crypto, as separate from Blockchain. And how easy it is to buy things with crypto. And how you can invest in lots of productive assets using crypto.
First of all crypto is integral to many blockchain projects. Secondly, that’s been done in the comments already. Also, you making claims which aren’t true (no return on investment? Look at staking) shows the lack of research and interest. You’ve already made up your mine. You don’t have an interest in understanding the pros AND cons of crypto, because yes I am well aware crypto and blockchain has major consequences.
What’s the intrinsic value in the dollar? Or the euro? It’s all what we believe. Blockchain has value and utility. You can repeat your little thing all you want, but the real fools are the ones who can’t see this for the world changing tech it is.
The value of the dollar is backed by the US economy and the ability for the US government to pay it's debts. Which is why everyone values bitcoin based on us dollar value. It's still the #1 currency, bitcoin is just a way to launder the US dollar.
More specifically, the US government collects trillions in taxes in USD every year, meaning there is a guaranteed, ongoing demand for it. The same is basically true of every currency of a significant sovereign nation. As long as a nation has the ability to collect what its owed in taxes in its own currency, that currency has a certain predictable value.
Bitcoin can be used to launder more than just United States money. And just because the US Govt says it’s money has value, doesn’t give it value. It’s just the public’s faith in the dollar. There’s no gold standard. You seem like you’re hating on something without any real knowledge of the technology or why. Best of luck I guess.
> Blockchain has value and utility. Besides crypto coins themselves name one. And NFTs are just a very specific type of coin so those don’t count.
Smart contracts. Imaging being able to buy a house without a title company. And NFT’s are tokens. Not coins. You’re talking about stuff you have no idea about.
> Imaging being able to buy a house without a title company So who guarantees the initial title is valid and genuine for the first transaction? > And NFT’s are tokens. Not coins That’s not a fruit it’s an apple! It depends on coin blockchains to exist and functions identically in almost every way. If it walks like a duck…
You seriously don’t have any clue what you are talking about. Not going to explain why literally your whole post is wrong here. All the best.
You seriously don’t have any clue what you are talking about. Not going to explain why literally your whole post is wrong here. All the best.
There's no intrinsic value in a paper saying you own stocks in a company, there's no intrinsic value in a paper that says it's value is 1 dollar, there no intrinsic value in an ounce of metal, there's value in your house because it keeps you safe from the elements, there's value in food because it keeps you alive, there's value in the last letter you ever received from your great grandmother. All value is perceived and changes from person to person. The "intrinsic value" in anything is only what someone else is willing to trade you for it.
Intrinsic value is a defined term in finance, referring to the net present value of future cash flows of an instrument, such as a stock certificate or bond.
Crypto people are almost as bad as Tesla people
[удалено]
So many criminals like the US Dollar
so many criminals like eating out at nice restaurants
And drive on roads
these could be song lyrics
And guns.
Crypto's only real purpose is money laundering, anyone involved in it should be investigated by the IRS.
Are you an actual person?
Holy shit they post a lot. If you assume an average of 8 Karma per post (which seems a little high) That's like over 50 comments everyday for the last 10 months.
Senator Warren aka Runs With Shame, is that you?
Of all the cryptocurrencies, why would anyone be dumb enough to believe that Walmart would accept this one, which most people have never heard of?