Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Off-Topic discussion about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hmm. I’d like to be Prime Monster.
carry on, prime monster
You re not getting correctly what i'm saying. I know that i'm lucky about chance i got in this system. Believe me, i'm not ungrateful. It's mind blowing to have direct access to drinking water every day and to not be afraid some dick decides to shot me just because i crossed his road. But that doesn't negate my right to criticise what is wrong in this system.
As you pointed, a billions of people on earth doesn't have that luck. And why is that ? What is root cause of all that suffering ? I'm deeply convicted it's because of money are in control of governments and banks. It's centralised nature of money and ability for total control of money by few people what is root evil and cause of all this mess.
I see cryptocurrencies (and Bitcoin in particular, because it is most decentralised, and yet still most transparent) as way out of this misery. I don't want states to be completely destroyed - that would be bad thing i agree. Societies needs to cooperate in some way and state isn't completely bad concept (has some weak places though, like national factor which is again source of lot evil, racism, ultranationalism, shit like that).
What i want is to take absolute control over money out of hands of politicians and bankers. I don't see any other way than decentralised cryptocurrencies, otherwise money (== power) will be only more and more concentrated in hands of few, and one day all people will wake up in world, where bankers will be able to take out all your money and disconnect you from all benefits of system just because they want. It's starting in China with their insane expirements with expiration time for moeny, and it will spread world wide in case we will not stop it now. Many people naively thinking this is not possible in western world. Just remember how so called "democratic" USA stole all gold from people in 1934. How how bank deposits above certain limit weere stolen from people on Cyprus. There is many examples how goverments developed way how to rob people of their savings (inflation is one of most sophisticated and hidden ones)
I'm predicting 10 years from nov, most western country citizens will be forced to use CDBS, as will time go on national currencies will fade. Also negative interests on bank deposit or even money with expiration time will be "new normal" in case we will no stop this madness now.
Last thing. Just for those who are stating Bitcoin is just for speculation .. so here just one example how Bitcoin can be usefull for third world countries:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-s-usefulness-is-on-a-whole-other-level-depending-on-where-you-live
Reading Cryptoassets
https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoassets-Innovative-Investors-Bitcoin-Beyond/dp/1260026671
Seems very good so far. Can anyone recommend a good / cheap iOS app with nice candlestick charts?
Fiat currencies aren't truly centralised. The central bank doesn't issue much of the currency, most currency is issued by individual banks at the local level.
Banks create new money when people and businesses take out loans and mortgages. When a bank issues a loan it creates new money in the form of credit, and when that loan is repaid the money is destroyed but the bank gets to keep the interest.
So the money supply is in fact decentralised, and responds to supply and demand. If people apply for loans and banks deem them to be credit-worthy, new money is created to meet the demand.
This is done entirely voluntarily, people freely apply for credit, and if they meet the criteria then it is granted.
A fixed money supply, with a strict Gold Standard and full reserve banking (where banks are not allowed to create new money in the form of credit), is arguably a "centralised" system since the money supply is fixed by a central authority. Whether this is the government, the central bank or even a computer algorithm makes no difference. You end up with an inelastic money supply that is fixed by a central actor.
Bitcoin is not truly decentralised because you are simply subservient to a different authority: the Bitcoin algorithm. The authority in charge is Satoshi Nakamoto (or at least the decisions he made back in 2009) and the Bitcoin developers. You swap the state and the central bank for computer developers, who are just as human and fallible as any politician or central banker.
So all this talk of centralisation is a mirage. Just because nodes are distributed on a network doesn't make Bitcoin more democratic - the system is fixed and inflexible by design. It is the very antithesis of being "for the people", it is in fact tyranny by algorithm.
To summarise:
Bitcoin is a network of distributed nodes that are all subservient to the algorithm. Monetary policy is set by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Fiat is a network of distributed individual banks all subservient to the central bank. Monetary policy is set by the central bank.
I see no fundamental difference here.
To return to the subject of banks and their money creation powers: what are the benefits of fractional reserve banking vs full reserve banking?
First of all, you have to consider whether you want a fixed money supply or a more elastic one. There are various factors to consider:
1) A fully fixed money supply, which would comprise of a Gold Standard (or equivalent) and full reserve banking. The amount of money circulating in the economy is fixed and immutable.
2) A semi-fixed money supply, which could be either a Gold Standard with fractional reserve banking, or fiat money but with full reserve banking. You decide to limit the money-issuing power either of the state, or of private banks.
3) A fully elastic money supply, with fiat currency and fractional reserve banking.
Why should you limit the supply of money? The only reason to do this is to control inflation.
What problems might arise from limiting the supply of money? A fixed money supply is inherently deflationary, and often a driver of recessions as well.
With a fixed money supply, what happens if the population increases? There are more people, but the same amount of money to go around, which means that somehow everyone needs to take a pay cut to account for the population growth. In other words: deflation.
With a fixed money supply, what happens when the economy grows? With productivity growth the economy can generate more goods and services with fewer resources, which is why we are materially richer than our ancestors (basically we have a lot more stuff than they did).
If inflation is classically defined as more money chasing fewer goods, then you need to turn that on its head to account for productivity growth, which creates more goods. Less money chasing more goods is deflation, which is why a fixed money supply can't accommodate a growing economy.
Why is deflation bad? that's a whole post in itself, but the short version is that deflation discourages spending which in turn strangles economic growth. Deflation is much worse than inflation, because it makes everyone poorer in real terms.
So to avoid deflation an elastic money supply that can accommodate things like population growth and productivity growth is far more desirable. An elastic money supply can grow as the economy itself grows.
I've already discussed why the Gold Standard is a bad idea, so I won't repeat any of that. But what about fractional reserve banking?
The main benefit of allowing banks to create money when they make loans is that you introduce a market mechanism into the cycle of money creation. Instead of a central authority deciding how much money should be injected into the economy, you leave it to the market to decide.
People who want to buy a house apply for mortgages. Businesses that want to expand apply for loans. Consumers who want to buy cars or cameras apply for loans or credit cards. And so the money supply fluctuates with demand. If consumers feel confident they apply for loans, and when consumer confidence shrinks (for example during a recession) the demand for new money in the form of loans shrinks too.
If the amount in new loans being taken out exceeds old loans being repaid, the money supply expands. If old loans are being repaid faster than new loans are being taken out, the money supply shrinks. Classic supply and demand, a true market system.
And this means that the money supply can accommodate consumer demand. It responds in real-time to the needs of the economy, with no central planning.
Full reserve banking on the other hand does not allow for this, since the money supply is fixed by a central authority.
There is definitely an argument to be made that full reserve banking is safer, since it allows for less risk in terms of banking. But full reserve banking would also reduce access to credit, since loans would be much harder to get.
This in turn would mean it would be more difficult for ordinary people to buy a house or a car, and more difficult for businesses to borrow for investment.
It would also mean slower economic growth due to reduced spending.
So it wouldn't be as bad as a Gold Standard, but I don't think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
Everything is a trade-off, there are no perfect solutions. Full reserve banking reduces risk, but at the price of lower economic growth.
Not possible to change until ALL nodes will not have agreement on that change. EVERY single user can directly participate on this decision making by running NODE. It's cheap and it contributes to network decentralisation. If developers decides that there is any meaningful change needed, and nodes will approve it (usually before any change happens, there is wide public discussion about that change, everybody can participate, there is no "boss" to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed), then anything can be changed.
This is not related just to monetary policy but to any network change, good example is upcoming Taproot update which improves transaction processing efficienci and adds security (amongs other usefull updates)
It's great example of direct democracy. This way, network always runs with rules wich are ok for most of users (at least for those who are participating by running node)
Fundamental diffence is central banks are changing rules at their will, nobody can control them, especially not users (people who are using fiat currency). Basically even politicians can't fully controll central banks. It's fully their internal decision of central bankers, which are sometimes corrupted bribed criminals (like for example Christine Lagarde, president of ECB)
Really if you don't see here fundamental difference, then any further discussion is meaningless, sorry...
one of 3 alternatives i posted at 22.may:
so far, we are going based on plan
Pretty currious if it will do another drop to re-test 32k again or we stay with that green line, slowly going up to retest 42k again .. lets see ...
Central banks have very precise remits that are set by politicians, and they can't change the rules at their will. One example among many is that the Fed is not allowed to directly monetise US government spending.
And central bankers are all appointed by politicians, who also have the power to sack them. That doesn't mean that every appointment is good, and Christine Lagarde is a terrible choice, but that's partly because the EU is set up in a way that shields the commission from the electorate.
The point still stands: the Bitcoin network is completely subservient to the ideas of Satoshi - he is the central authority. Just because a bunch of ideologues willingly go along with that doesn't change anything - there is still a central authority that dictates how everything is run.
This is huge. Ray is very respected investor. He was back in few very much against Bitcoin, his opinion was always "it's cbubble"
https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-ray-dalio-i-have-some-bitcoin
Nope. Literally everything in Bitcoin code can be changed if community gets consensus about that change. Everything. Nothing is subservient and any authority at all. You still doesn't understand not even fraction of how Bicoin works after all those toms of pages we wrote here :-)))) It's direct democracy.
As I see it the real threat of central bank systems isn’t the theoretical selfish fat cats [1] or self-interested politicians, but actually slightly idiotically programmed automation built in. Most of the time it all works smoothly, but occasionally things drift into the world of emergent conditions and stuff happens extremely quickly because it was programmed that way but nobody had seen it do that until the real world showed up and didn’t behave like it did in testing.
[1] I think the trope that bankers are selfish fat cats isn’t necessarily grounded. Bear in mind that about 400+ years ago a bunch of religious outsiders with a weird and unacceptably democratic way of expressing their religious freedom were effectively ejected from England, ending up in Holland for a few decades, dismayed at the Dutch culture while their children were “growing up Dutchmen”. So, plans to leave again were made, risking a permanent move to help colonise that new land over there called America. An organisation called The London Company (heh, imaginative) had their hands on some territory there, and this enabled their journey and objective (eventually). Who were The London Company? Basically, bankers. Bankers who would rope in investors. Most big ventures today – technological and social – are enabled by bankers who make things happen. (And don’t ask me about their religion, despite my surname (Tindale), on the atheism meter I’m pinning the red )
@richardyot
https://www.sitepoint.com/bitcoin-nodes-mining-validation/
here is whole concept how bitcoin developement works described more in derail with one important mistake :-) They're reffering to miners makimd decision but that's not exactly true.
There is "validation node" (simple computer storimg whole blockchain and validating transactions and blocks) a "minimg node" which is just subset of "validation node" set.
Validation nodes are those who are voting about system changes.
You could say that about any democratic system, including the ones we live in. Rand Paul could run for president on a platform of ending the fed, if he got enough votes it could happen. Bernie Sanders could run on a platform of monetising the deficit, and if he got enough votes it could happen. Neither would need the 95% supermajority required for making changes to Bitcoin so I’m not buying the argument that Bitcoin is somehow more democratic than the Fed.
That's not entirely true, i would be really afraid of this guy, he can actually eat you !!!
😂🤣
(it's chief of "central bank of all central banks", guy who wants to make CBDC into live to, according his world, get full controll about how and where are people spending all money or to be able to add negative interests to people money in case it will be needed by economy)
True supervillain.
🤣😂 i don't believe you really believe whar you wrote here ... I'm starting to be suspicious you're just trolling me all the time 😂🤣
The Blockfolio app is not bad, but the CoinMarketCap app is probably a bit better for candlestick charts.
No one could possibly believe that Sanders comment.
You don’t believe that voting can affect change in a democracy?
You don’t grasp the concept of a hypothetical example? Maybe I’m not the one who is trolling
The US Federal government is a representative republic, not a democracy. And I cannot fathom why any informed person, especially yourself Richard, can continue to repeat this fallacy.
a rEpuBliC nOt a dEMocrAcY
I’ll rephrase the question: can voting affect change in a republic?
lol
teoretically ? yes i do .. practically ? not so much. it's all the time same story
Direct democracy would be different story (people directly voting on every change). Bitcoin is great example it works.
Democracy with policians, political parties and other relared shit doesn't work at all. It's just circus with clowns and other actors playing for naive publicum.
But have to admit this discussion had another positive impact to me. I realised something what i wasn't aware before. Bitcoin is best working example of direct democracy which ever existed on this planet ... never had this point of view until i didn't read what you wrote in last few posts, thanks for eyeopening moment :-)
no idea who said this, but there is huge truth within these words... pure gold. Or pure Bitcoin i should say 🤣
"If voting could change anything it would be illegal"
@dendy if your direct democracy requires a supermajority of 95% to achieve any kind of change, it's not actually all that democratic.
A minority of 6% can block any proposed change, it's minority rule on steroids.