Bitcoin erreicht zeitweise neues Rekordhoch über 1200 US ...
Bitcoin erreicht zeitweise neues Rekordhoch über 1200 US ...
1200 Euro to Bitcoin or convert 1200 EUR to BTC
1200 Bitcoin = 14229360 US Dollar (USD) - Walletinvestor.com
How much is 1,200 Euro (EUR) in US Dollars ? Convenient ...
ᗌ 1200.95 Dollar $ in Euro € - Umrechnung Euro Live
So... The insurer whose "solvency" is most dependent on maintaining the fiction that the riskiest assets in Exter's Inverted Pyramid (derivatives) are actually worth something - is now paying the devs who write the code for the solidest asset in that pyramid (Bitcoin). What could possibly go wrong?
Exter's Pyramid Exter is known for creating Exter's Pyramid (also known as Exter's Golden Pyramid and Exter's Inverted Pyramid) for visualizing the organization of asset classes in terms of risk and size. In Exter's scheme, gold [and now Bitcoin?] forms the small base of most reliable value, and asset classes on progressively higher levels are more risky. The larger size of asset classes at higher levels is representative of the higher total worldwide notional value of those assets. While Exter's original pyramid placed Third World debt at the top, today derivatives hold this dubious honor.
I like to think that the graph in the link below provides a nice, updated version of "Exter's Pyramid", although the layout isn't exactly triangular (but the sizes of each asset class are actually more accurate): http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12 Note that Bitcoin is the safest asset in the system - and derivatives are the riskiest. And there is very, very little Bitcoin - versus a shitload of derivatives. But if you hold Bitcoin (ie, you hold your private keys), then you have absolutely no counterparty risk. Versus if hold a derivative, it could be totally worthless - depending on whether the counterparty behind it is "solvent" or not. And I would think that the battle between "people who hold Bitcoin" versus "people who hold derivatives" will shape up to be a million times more massive than the battle between savers and borrowers that we've already seen in the world. In other words, an insurance company like AXA, which is more dependent on derivatives than any other insurer, is probably freaked out that they'd lose over a trillion dollars if Bitcoin were to succeed. So... Can people start to see why I'm so freaked out about AXA funding Bitcoin development via their "investment" in Blockstream?
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/ http://www.actuaries.org.hk/upload/File/ET210513.pdf (see where AXA is on the graph on page 5) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=axa+blockstream&ia=web It's really poignant to see some clueless people wondering what AXA's "business model" might be for investing in Bitcoin. Those clueless people need to wake the fuck up and face the reality of how bankers continue to print trillions of dollars to enslave the world. AXA has absolutely zero interest in becoming some kind of two-bit Red Hat earning chump change in "support fees" or even "transaction fees" from being the maintainers / developers of some kind of open-source cryptocurrency sidechain code. I can pretty much guarantee you: that is not their "busines model" for wanting to control Bitcoin development via investing in Blockstream. As of 2007, AXA already had 1.123 trillion Euros in AUM (Assets under Management). http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/AXA_%28AXA%29/Assets_Management That's over a million million Euros. And as of 2014, one half of AXA (just their "AXA IM" part) had AUD 891 billion of Assets under Management. http://www.professionalplanner.com.au/cut-and-paste/2015/03/06/axa-im-reaches-record-assets-under-management-34877/ So, for a giant insurer like AXA, "investing" $55 million in Blockstream is like dropping a fraction of a penny on the ground. And any paltry few million dollars - or even billions of dollars - which AXA might make or lose from Blockstream / Lightning or whatever, would still be pretty insignificant bordering on immaterial when compared with the half a trillion or so dollars of derivatives which are on AXA's balance sheet - and which they must desperately try to continue to prop up, by continuing to keep people believing in the whole charade of the worldwide derivatives casino. That's what is at stake here. The very definition of the worldwide accounting ledger itself - not a few entries in it. And as we know, Bitcoin provides an entirely new - and transparent, and unforgeable - ledger. That's why companies like AXA want to control Bitcoin development. Not to make millions or even billions of dollars on fees. But to to continue to prop up the so-called legitimacy of their legacy accounting ledger containing hundreds of trillions of dollars. (Remember, the derivatives market is a ledger with entries currently totally $1.2 quadrillion dollars - ie, 1200 trillion dollars - and that ledger itself is what Bitcoin's very existence is threatening to "uber".) AXA does not give a fuck what happens to the $55 million that got invested in Blockstream in that second funding round they participated in back in February 2016. The only purpose of that money is to sprinkle a few hundred thou around per dev per year to control useful idiots like Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back and outright lunatics like Luke-Jr - to let those economically ignorant coders keep on toiling away on their idealistic pie-in-the-sky mathematical cypherpunk daydreams, while the Bitcoin network goes into paralysis due to artificially small blocksize due to doctrainaire dolts like the current crop of "Core" devs. AXA does not give a fuck if Blockstream or SegWit or Lightning succeeds. The only reason AXA is interested in Bitcoin is because Bitcoin is real money, and AXA's balance sheet uses a legacy ledger based on the fiction of fantasy fiat money - and Bitcoin threatens to destroy all that. AXA knows that it must destroy Bitcoin - or else Bitcoin will destroy AXA. And before some brainwashed amateurish sophomoric loser wanna-be astroturfing troll from r\bitcoin wanders over here again and tries to spout some meaningless nonsense disruptive bullshit to sidetrack this serious topic (responses in the previous thread linked above included gibberish like "get a job!" or "MtGox!" or "but scammers!") - I would appreciate it if someone around here could divert about a half hour of their precious multitasking time and brainpower towards addressing the 800-pound gorilla of a question in the room, namely: Do you think it's a good idea for the insurance company with the biggest exposure to the "legacy ledger" of derivatives in both $ and % terms (AXA - with $464 billion in notional derivatives exposure, over 50% of their balance sheet in this 2013 report - see graph on page 5) to be paying the devs who are in charge of "upgrading" our Bitcoin code - or do you think there might be the tiiiniest chance of some kind of conflict of interest there??? This could be the biggest issue in Bitcoin right now. But it doesn't seem to get addressed head-on very much. You don't hear the name "AXA" or the word "derivatives" used very much - although these might be the most important aspects of the issue here. This isn't about earning or losing a million dollars here or a billion dollars there. This is about redefining the very heart and soul of the world's ledger - which Bitcoin has a chance to do. This is about that tiny speck called "Bitcoin" at the top of the chart in the link below: http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12 organically growing and blossoming and eventually destroying that grotesque metastazising mass called "derivatives" at the bottom of that chart. That is why AXA is interested in Bitcoin. It's about the ledger itself - not the payment rails - not even the tokens - and certainly not the fees. Trust me, no company with 1 trillion dollars of Assets under Management is going to pay any attention to some miniscule little runt like Bitcoin with a mere $7 billion in market cap - unless they think that miniscule little runt actually might contain the code which might possibly replace their whole precarious phoney fiat fantasy accounting ledger which pays their billion dollar bonuses and buys their mansions and yachts. That is why AXA is "investing" in Bitcoin. To control it - not to earn some pathetic tiny fees from it. And it's time we started addressing this issue seriously. The main question is: Do you want a massive, derivatives-dependent, legacy fiat insurance company like AXA controlling Bitcoin development?? Upvotes on these kinds of posts are certainly nice (and drive-by troll-snark is of course tedious and annoying). But what I would really like to know is whether there is anyone on these forums who wants to spend some time seriously discussing things like:
the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives casino,
that other notorious insurance group (AIG) which engaged in massive and fraudulent derivatives shenanigans that almost took down the world's economy in 2008,
the massive and glaring conflict of interest in letting a company whose very façade of solvency depends on maintaining the fantasy legacy ledger which Bitcoin threatens to replace
etc etc etc
Do we want a corrupt derivatives monster like AXA (which is probably only steps away from becoming the next AIG) to be in charge of paying Bitcoin devs? I don't have all the answers. I'm just some shmuck who spent a few years writing code for some major financial institutions, and I heard and saw a few things, and I watched how those scumbags almost brought down the world's economy in 2008, and I am fully convinced that they do not want something like Bitcoin to "uber" their legacy ledger. So I am simply raising the question, and I really would like to know if anyone else has anything substantive to say about this: Should the insurance company with the biggest exposure to derivatives (the riskiest asset in the world), which is totally dependent on maintaining the charade of the world's legacy fantasy fiat accounting ledger, be in charge of paying the devs writing the code for the solidest asset in the world (Bitcoin), which threatens to "uber" that very ledger? Could there be a conflict of interest in this kind of situation? Am I the only person around here who finds this absolutely outrageous? Or does everyone just think it's fine and dandy - and maybe we could even just put someone like Blythe Masters or Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein in charge of paying Bitcoin devs? Henri de Castries might not be a household villain name like some of those above. He's probably a more behind-the-scenes guy. But he is the chairman of the Bilderberg group, and he is the CEO of AXA, and he is going to move to HSBC this fall - and now he is paying Greg Maxwell's and Adam Back's and Luke Jr's salary. And then we sit here and keep wondering why "our" devs keep ignoring us when we've been begging them for over a year to pretty-please give us bigger blocks so the Bitcoin network won't die. Well, maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye here. Maybe it's time for us to start to recognize the magnitude of who we might actually be up against here, and how they might have used social engineering to infiltrate and neutralize the Bitcoin development process, and how desperate they might be to maintain the so-called legitimacy of their make-believe legacy accounting ledger which Bitcoin is poised to replace. Maybe it's time to stop bringing a pocket-knife to fight a SWAT team. Like I say, I don't know what the answer will turn out to be. (Maybe a spin-off, but who really knows at this point.) But I do think it's time for all of us to sober up and start asking some serious questions about this bullshit we've been getting from Blockstream. We need to be realistic about who and what we're up against - and how many trillions of dollars they know are at stake - and how dirty and sneaky they're willing to fight. And we need to liberate Bitcoin development from the people who stand to lose the most from Bitcoin - and put it back in the hands of people who stand to win the most from Bitcoin.
Do you know how much is 1200 Euro in US Dollars (USD) at the current exchange rate. Currencies . Convert to Japanese Yen(JPY) Convert to South Korean Won(KRW) Convert to US Dollar(USD) Convert to Euro(EUR) Convert to British Pound(GBP) Convert to Chinese Yuan(CNY) Convert to Swiss Franc (CHF) Convert to Hong-Kong Dollar(HKD) Convert to Canadian Dollar(CAD) Convert to Singapore Dollar(SGD ... 1200.95 Dollar $ in Euro € Umrechnen.ᗌ Realtime kurs: ᐈ Dollar $ (USD)/Euro € (EUR) Wechselkurs in Echtzeit. Aktueller Historischer kursen für USD/EUR. Währungsrechner Dollar $ zu Euro €. € 10 k BTC 0,91 € 50 k BTC 4,55 Der finanzen.net Währungsrechner bietet eine sekundenschnelle Währungsumrechnung von Euro in Bitcoin. Urlauber in Euroland können hier Umrechnungen zu ... ROUNDUP: Bitcoin erreicht neues Rekordhoch über 1200 US-Dollar 24.02.17, 10:13 dpa-AFX FRANKFURT (dpa-AFX) - Die Digitalwährung Bitcoin hat ihren jüngsten Höhenflug fortgesetzt und ein neues ... 1200 Dollar $ in Euro € Umrechnen 1 Dollar $ Euro € Kurs Realtime (Echtzeit) Wieviel Euro € sind 1200 Dollar $?. REALTIME: Der aktuelle Dollar $ zu Euro € (1200 USD/EUR) Kurs. umrechnungeuro.com bietet Ihnen den aktuellen Wechselkurs. Mit dem Währungsumrechner können Sie verschiedene Währungen umrechnung und die aktuellen Live-Kurse (Echtzeit) anzeigen lassen.
Bitcoin nieuws vandaag: Volgende week 10.000 DOLLAR? Tezos en Chainlink werken samen
Ich habe nun damit angefangen, mich mit Bitcoin auseinander zu setzen und möchte meine Erfahrungen mit Dir teilen! Im heutigen Video sprechen wir über den Milestone als der Bitcoin das erste mal ... Discover How to Turn Every Friday into a $1,000 to $1,200 Dollar Payday Peter Schultz - Duration: 42 ... What's up with bitcoin and the euro - Duration: 15:00. Trade Empowered 6,267 views. 15:00 ... 🔥Bybit $90 Bonus: https://www.bybit.com/app/register?ref=nOnj5 🔥 Bitcoin Technical Analysis & Bitcoin News Today: Ross Ulbricht predicts Bitcoin's price to $... Bitcoin (BTC) Could Soar to $2,000,000 in Massive ‘Super Cycle’ Says Kraken Executive - Here’s Why - Duration: 17:50. Crypto News Alerts Recommended for you 17:50 Bitcoin steigt innerhalb von Minuten um über $1.000 - Wie geht es weiter? Zudem aktuelle News des Tages zu Kryptowährungen! 💰 $60 Bonus ByBit Bonus: https://...