Please read about the Stock Market Robot System we invented.
It will provide you with a relaxed system to make some profit by trading the markets automatically.
The stock market trading strategies developed by us are short- and medium-term strategies that can be traded manually, semi-automatically or fully automatically.
The Stock Market Robot System invented by us is an automated trading system that buys and sells on the stock exchange through various trading robots (Expert Advisor).
Many available financial instruments are bought and sold on the financial markets, short positions are part of the strategy.
I have already programmed twenty trading robots with Schmitt Trading Ltd, some of which generate up to 100 % return on investment.
Schmitt Trading Ltd rents such trading robots to investors who want to achieve a high yield with a passive investment.
In order to balance the fluctuations of the individual robots, we combine different robots and bundle them in our Stock Market Robot Systems 1-20.
New York and California are considering ways of regulating Bitcoin and making it easier to access, but those already using the virtual currency say over regulation could drive people away. Department for Communities and Local Government
It seems governments are finally coming around to the idea that virtual currencies are here to stay. Backed by a business community eager to utilise innovations like Bitcoin, California and New York are quietly considering ways to regulate the trading of these currencies.
Without this regulation, Bitcoin will never gain full traction as a viable and accepted currency. Unfortunately for those proposing the currency as the payment mechanism of choice on the internet, Bitcoin is never far from media controversy.
And so it was that this week brought news of the arrest of Charlie Shrem, a prominent Bitcoin advocate and CEO of the Bitcoin company BitInstant. Shrem and another man Robert Faiella are charged with money-laundering, operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business and failing to file a suspicious activity report.
The charges relate to Faiella’s Bitcoin business he had been operating on the dark web marketplace the Silk Road under the name BTCKing. Faiella would sell Bitcoin which were procured by Shrem through BitInstant despite both knowing that the currency was used to purchase drugs and other contraband on the Silk Road.
Interestingly, the federal regulations that were used to charge Shrem were only put in place last year and for some, it is the lack of overall regulation that is inhibiting the use of Bitcoin for legitimate purposes and consequently it is the absence of regulation that is making it a favourite currency of the underworld.
Between New York and Silicon Valley
Now two states in the US, California and New York, are moving to put in place regulations that will, they hope, bring some normalcy to virtual currencies and allow companies to incorporate them safely into their products.
The New York Department of Financial Services yesterday started public hearings about virtual currencies that will include the discussion of the potential for the issuing of a “BitLicense” for businesses wanting to use a virtual currency.
The hearings will feature testimony from Bitcoin venture capitalists, law enforcement, Bitcoin companies and the academics Susan Athey, Professor of Economics at Stanford University and Ed Felten, Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs at Princeton University.
Possibly the biggest irony however is the fact that Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss are also presenting. In 2012, the Winklevoss twins led an investment round that resulted in US$1.5 million in seed funding for BitInstant, Shrem’s company.
At the same time that New York is holding public hearings, financial regulators in California are taking a more discrete approach in privately consulting with lawyers and compliance experts as to whether companies transmitting Bitcoin require a license from the Department of Business Oversight and what other regulations need to be put in place for virtual currencies.
Commentary from the first panel in New York yesterday suggests that nothing particularly surprising will eventuate from the discussions. All of the commentators including the Winklevoss brothers have agreed that there needs to be some, but not too much, regulation.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
The US is not alone in considering regulating virtual currencies. Most governments are delaying the issue by just staying clear of any decisions and warning financial institutions of the risks associated with currencies like Bitcoin as a potential money laundering device.
The Swedish bank SEB AB has this week been reported as rejecting requests from customers to set up foreign exchange accounts to manage Bitcoin.
Amongst those calling for regulation of Bitcoin, Georges Ugeux has claimed that Bitcoin is essentially a Ponzi scheme that only works if buyers continue to be willing to believe that it has intrinsic value.
Of course, Bitcoin has no economic, social or financial value and so if people decided to sell one day, the theory is that the entire Bitcoin market would collapse. Uguex believes that the price of Bitcoin is being manipulated by those with an interest in preserving its value and because of the lack of regulation, there is no one that is interested in investigating this possible manipulation.
This is a view shared in part by the US Treasury secretary Jack Lew and Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan. At the World Economic Forum last week, Jamie Dimon warned that Bitcoin could be used to fund terrorism and that regulation would essentially shut it down. Lew commented that having talked to Jamie Dimon, “he and I both share a certain incredulity about the whole phenomenon”.
Bitcoin needs to be regulated by governments to realise its potential as being a more efficient means of conducting Internet commerce. But this regulation will come at the risk of severely dampening the enthusiasm behind virtual currencies in general. For Bitcoin it remains a question of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
In 2008, someone calling themselves Satoshi Nakamoto posted a paper describing the workings of what would become the world’s most important digital cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. Two months later, he posted the code for the first version of the software that would allow people to create and exchange the currency.
The paper was revolutionary because it brought together ideas that people had been working on in the area of digital currencies. It solved the problem of exchanging money in a safe and secure way, without having to trust third parties or even the other person in the deal.
But who was the enigmatic author? Who was Satoshi Nakamoto? The paper was written in a style that referred to “we” rather than “I”. This could have been a ruse. But if not, it suggests there was more than one person behind the idea of Bitcoin.
Over the next two years, the person (or persons) calling themselves Satoshi Nakamoto worked with volunteers to refine the software until one day in April 2011, the communications stopped.
The roller-coaster ride of Bitcoin
Since that time, Bitcoin has seen a meteoric rise and fall in value. It hasn’t yet disrupted the global financial system, but it has persisted nonetheless. In part, this ongoing interest in the currency has been fueled by China, whose market for Bitcoin represents 81% of the entire Bitcoin trading volume.
But why is revealing the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto so important to many people?
As with almost everything connected to Bitcoin, the answer is complicated, and in all likelihood, will remain unanswered until the person or persons behind the Satoshi Nakamoto identity step forward and try and prove that they are Satoshi.
The internet age has given us the ability to get instant answers to almost any question anyone cares to ask. With Satoshi Nakamoto, there are many unanswered questions.
For instance, the fact that we live in an age of technological superstars such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Larry Page and Serge Brin, Apple’s Tim Cook and others. The idea that someone could bring a technology as important as Bitcoin into the world without taking credit for it, is unheard of. Why was their anonymity so important?
Many theories
Various theories have been put forward for this including the fact that the inventors may have been concerned about the illegality of creating an alternative currency.
This would have been true at the time when digital currencies were being investigated for their capacity to support money laundering and other criminal activities. But this theory doesn’t explain why they would wish to remain anonymous today, now that Bitcoin has largely been accepted, even with its association with cybercrime.
Another theory is that Satoshi Nakamoto was concerned that Bitcoin should be a truly open source project that didn’t have leaders to dictate how it should function and evolve.
This perspective does have merits but part of the reason the Bitcoin community could be wishing for the appearance of a real leader who can lay claim to the title is that there is currently a split within the Bitcoin developer community, which is undecided on how the future software should work.
These arguments arise in other projects such as the operating system Linux for example but in Linux’s case, there is a leader, the inventor, Linus Torvalds, who can act as the ultimate arbiter in these disputes.
Show us the money
Probably the most intriguing question, however, and possibly the motive behind the interest by the media, is the whereabouts of one million Bitcoins that Satoshi Nakamoto is reported to have access to. At current market values, that is worth US$420 million. This trove doesn’t appear to have been touched and, again, the question has been asked as to why not?
One theory here is that the selling of the Bitcoins would possibly link back to unmask the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. Another view holds that the Bitcoin founder would not want to send a selling signal to the market by offloading large quantities of Bitcoin.
Another question that has been raised in regard to the Bitcoins, and in particular the idea that Australian businessman Craig S Wright could have been Satoshi Nakamoto, has been the possibility that this was what motivated the Australian Tax Office to ask police to raid his home and office.
However, it is likely that the ATO’s interest in Wright was for his involvement in many different companies and their tax obligations rather than anything specifically to do with Bitcoin.
Not the real Satoshi
As to any claims that Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, further evidence has surfaced that points to this being an elaborate hoax. Encryption keys that were used to link Wright back to Satoshi Nakamoto were most likely created far more recently than claimed and made to look like they came from an earlier date.
There have been many possible “sightings” of Satoshi Nakamoto based on a number of different possible leads. There are as many people seemingly hoping that the inventors’ identities will not be revealed. The mystery and enigma is very likely to be far better than the reality.
On the other hand, there are the others who hope that the “Steve Jobs of Bitcoin” will step forward and drive Bitcoin, and its underlying technology, to new heights.
Personally, I think it is better that Bitcoin remains a project that the community ultimately drives because that idea seems closest to the original intention of Satoshi Nakamoto.
Da die Wärmepumpe jeden Moment kaputt gehen könnte, beschäftigen wir uns derzeit mit einer Nachfolgelösung.
Leider finde ich keinen guten Ansatz zur Bewertung der aktuellen Anlage, da ich die Angaben im Wärmebedarfsausweis und die ermittelten Daten des Stromverbrauchs nicht interpretieren kann.
Könnte mir evtl. jemand helfen, zu einer Einschätzung zu kommen?
Folgende Fragen wären für mich relevant:
Entspricht der unter Realbedingungen ermittelte Stromverbrauch dem berechneten Energiebedarf aus dem Wärmebedarfsausweis?
Kann ich nach fast 20 Jahren den Originalausweis verwenden oder muss ich einen neuen Wärmebedarfsausweis erstellen lassen?
Ist eine Abluft-Wärmepumpe im Jahr 2021 noch empfehlenswert? Wir sind auch offen für andere, moderne Lösungen.
Ich habe mich bereits eingehend mit der Theorie beschäftigt und meine aktuellen Ergebnisse hier zusammengetragen:
Mit der Steuergesetzgebung 2021 wird es für private Investoren immer schwieriger, ihre Rendite vor dem Finanzamt zu schützen oder einen vernünftigen Steuersatz an das Finanzamt abzuführen zu wollen.
