No Microsoft does accept Bitcoin. They then convert the Bitcoin into USD. The distinction is who hires the middleman to convert. If a merchant asked all customers to first go to BitPay, get USD, then come back and give them the USD, then no they don't accept bitcoin. However, if a merchant takes your bitcoin and then gives you the goods, and after the fact finds the middleman themselves and converts, then they accept bitcoin.
Well, tell this to the folks who hold Bitcoin. They love when big merchants start "accepting" Bitcoin, but secretly pray that they won't have much sales as the selling pressure will drag the price down. So, there's a difference as this isn't a highly liquid market. If you pay Microsoft USD via your European credit card, EUR is sold for dollars on the Forex, but given that this is the most liquid market in existence, you're not gonna affect it. On the contrary, we often see on Bitstamp how 100 BTC can drop the price by 5-10% with a weak orderbook. I hope you get my point why there's a practical difference.
Transactions are not required to include a fee. Zero fee transactions are fine, and will make it into blocks rather quickly if they have a sufficiently high priority (input age).
The DoS prevention measures are enacted by the enforcing the dust limit (min transaction relay fee), based on the cost to the network to spend the coins.
No, you can call yourself whatever you want. A janitor can call himself a "custodial engineer". You're probably thinking of the "P. Eng." designation beside your name.
Ash is right, in Canada, you can't state that you're an "engineer" without being accredited by a provincial body, at least in Quebec it's pretty strict. However, it doesn't matter in the context of this article and it shouldn't detract from it either.
Really great stuff and nice hear about a career move that made you happier :)
On passenger trains what are the people taking tickets called then? I've never heard the person driving the train to be called a conductor before since that's usually (at least in US terms) a demotion for them.
>Road signs commonly ask you to use both lanes up to the point of the bottleneck. That’s reasonable advice, but it’s not going to get anyone home faster.
If you simply kept reading:
>This is good because it is less likely to affect other traffic by spilling out onto onramps and surface roads. Also maybe there’s someone on the highway who’s planning to exit 3 miles before the bottleneck. If the backup is 2 miles instead of 4 miles, that person doesn’t have to wait in traffic.
His point is a little different: that someone exiting the highway might exit before reaching the traffic if the line were shorter. My point is that a line on an exit ramp which reaches back onto the highway will cause additional traffic for everyone on the highway. Since his model doesn't take traffic-causing-traffic into account, he never reaches my conclusion.
Exit lines are particularly costly because adjacent lanes of traffic generally only sustain a 10MPH difference in speed. Once the right lane is stopped, a 4 lane highway has a maximum safe speed of 30MPH in the left hand lane. This reduces the flow capacity of the highway and may cause the left lane to lock up because left lane drivers get frustrated at slow speeds and are the more likely to tailgate and cause traffic waves.
His model also is only concerned with the self: "can I reach my goal any faster", and he reaches the mostly correct conclusion that he basically cannot (even though avoiding traffic waves by driving in the rightmost non-exit lane would help him significantly). He does not appear to value his contribution to the delay of the people behind him, which is where all the really interesting conclusions are found, including the reason why traffic wave busting is beneficial.
But in this case the consumers are the sellers. These are ordinary people with shares that lost value. Cuban had information that the ordinary people didn't since he was an insider, and unfairly used that information to get to market faster than everyone else. If everyone else knew that information they would have sold at the same time, causing Cuban's shares to be worth less when he tried to sell.
Also, selling pumpkins at a high school football game? Far out analogy...
Your theory rests on a faulty understanding of insider trading laws. The SEC rules simply do not work the way you think they do based on what you said.
Trading on perceived insider information is not always illegal. There are very specific situations in which it is illegal.
Cuban is going to win because he didn't agree to hold the information in confidentiality, he didn't leak the information (which could have caused all sorts of other ramifications), and he also was not a director / employee / CEO / executive etc.
The SEC needs to get him on Rule 10b5-2, and they will not be able to.
I can't understand why they are pursuing this case since presumably the SEC is going to argue that he agreed to confidentiality but they almost certainly cannot prove that. If they had convincing evidence (e.g. a signed document) Cuban would have almost certainly settled.
On the other hand Mamma would have been breaking the law if they didn't enforce confidentiality so maybe the case does have some kind of legs.
His sale didn't change the price. What it changed was how much the company could raise. Which is why it is civil not criminal. By selling he limited how much of the company was available to the public, and sold to all those who would want to buy before the company had a chance.
Limited market with a time constraint. The analogy was meant to show that the price, was the same, but with a limited number of buyers and those buyers only having limited need/desire for the offering that you could make it so their was no one to sell to in a week.
I didn't know of another way to constrain market and time on something that people would only need so much of. A hotdog they would buy next week. And it had to be a market you could saturate.
