That too is what I thought of. Though in the book the product is of dubious quality and constantly changing what it promises. So it's hard to be believe someone thought it a good idea to associate their product
I don't know. There's a certain level of cognitive dissonance required. They will say...
Tether was FORCED to print, even if they didn't have the USD. The amount of FUD, and active attacks from the traditional banking system suppressed the price of bitcoin. Tether were trying to SAVE us... and so it goes.
Careful! Errno can be set even when there is not an error.it's value is only relevant when the return value of the function indicates an error.
That said there are some functions where the possible return values can't indicate an error. In those cases errno should be set to zero before the function call and then a change during will alert you to an error.
Why it's like this I have no idea but it's pretty annoying.
Yes of course demand increases for UDST on downturns which increases the market value of USDT and that's fine.
In fact printing tether to ensure it's market value is $1 is a fine solution. Except for the fact that the bank accounts that BACK the tether with USD are now in deficit compared ot the UDST supply. So while the crypto market value of USDT is $1 it's no longer backed 1-1.
So now, if they're legit, tether must figure out a way to get the missing dollars back into the bank account. The most efficient way to do this is to find an outside investor and trade him all the newly printed USDT for USD. In practice this would be rather difficult to do consistently in sliding markets, difficult enough that the correlation would be low as I pointed out.
You could also exchange USDT for various COINS then sell the coins for USD which then go into those reserve bank accounts. If you have a willing exchange partner with lots of cash and a need for bitcoins then this could work pretty well. Considering Bitfnex is run by the same dudes as tether, if they are legit then this is probably what they are doing. But all that's just IF they are legit and there's plenty of things wrong with USDT outside of whether it's backed 1-1 with USD.
TLDR: Trading volume and market value of USDT does not relieve tether of actually having USD on hand for each Tether that exists.
What market have you been watching where you think the statement 'Investing in bitcoin is extremely risky' has been proven wrong?
In one day in Nov 2017 bitcoin went up 15% in early trading then was down 21% later in the day before rebounding to close near even.
Whether bitcoin will be some like long lasting actual useful thing remains to be seen, but one thing that is undeniable is that investing in bitcoin is extremely risky.
This hold true just focusing on the general market behavior alone while ignoring all the issues such as getting money into and out of exchanges and hacks.
No, it's unlikely if Tether was legitimate USDT printing would correlate so closely with bitcoin (crypto) market downturns.
The reason being, assuming tether is legitimate, for every printing they are sourcing additional USD to back the newly minted USDT. The idea they could so consistently find large investors willing to make NEW 100M+ investments while the crypto markets were in free fall is unlikely to say the least.
And it's not as if that's the only complaints about Tether. The fact Bitfinex and Tether has the same management; USDT pretty much acts as a proxy for Bitfinex to maneuver around banking laws; and that USDT supply pretty much grows monotonically are just a few of the other issues that suggest Tether is not legit.
They did exactly this on Hansa. They also used this same method to break the multisig transactions that hansa used to direction bitcoins directly to LE wallets (The dutch say 2million euros worth)
1) They were investigating AlphaBay for nearly 3 years
2) They came upon somehow control of an email address which contained 3 year old mail that contained the password reset email
3) They are capturing and storing large amounts of tor traffic much like the NSA does on clearnet see: xkeyscore
Dry Drowning takes place after children have a serious near drowning incident. Water has to get in the lungs you will know this has happened you won't be surprised by it.
We just got done doing a swimming class for our 2 year old and this was addressed in the class. I highly recommend you take a class with your children. Classes for younger than 3 years old are done with parents in the water. It'll make both your children and you much more comfortable and safe.