Impress your friends! Instead of "selling" do a "covered short"! And why base yourself in obsolete fiat currencies? Buying bitcoin is soooo prosaic. Instead you'll want to do a covered short sale of USD.  Very sad  that my little "trick" went unnoticed... so I'll spell it out. Recheck the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_%28finance%29In finance short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling securities or other financial instruments that are not currently owned, with the intention of subsequently repurchasing them ("covering") at a lower price. In the event of an interim price decline, the short seller will profit, since the cost of repurchase will be less than the proceeds received upon the initial (short) sale. |
|
|
|
I refuse your definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_%28finance%29 the practice of selling securities or other financial instruments, with the intention of subsequently repurchasing them ("covering") at a lower price. In the event of an interim price decline, the short seller will profit, since the cost of repurchase will be less than the proceeds received upon the initial (short) sale. huh? That's not what it says!! |
|
|
|
I dunno, the price was so briefly above 19 and recovered so rapidly you can't see it on the 30-day chart. Contrast that to the pirate fiasco which caused a much stronger fall and kept the price in the doldrums for months. Its up to the OP of course but if I was running this little contest I would not call what happened last week a peak.
The post you replied to had a photo of today's mini-peak which was at exactly $18.88, the price I guessed at. I was joking. But last week's $19 peak should be counted as 'the peak' for the purposes of this game if the price doesn't go back up above it, don't you think? He wasn't very clear - did he mean the "first peak" or the "highest peak" or the "peakiest peak"? oops you're right! Replied to wrong message. Sorry did not know you were joking. But I was just trying to point out that although the OP clearly does not want to define what a peak is clearly, we can be pretty sure that it won't count if it doesn't even show up on a graph of the same timescale as his examples. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah smoothie, that's exactly right. I think that most geeks can't conceive of why this technology (or a hundred others) isn't instantly awesomely everywhere. So when the price drops it is inconceivable.
Cypher, you are entirely right, and no, I don't think you'll manage to convince too many of them. Not sure if you can squeeze the whine out of a geek :-).
Me, I've been pretty successful with doubling-down. But I'm terrible at calling the top.
|
|
|
|
The geeks fail to understand that which they hath created .
another way to look at this is that if you, as a geek, ask the first 49 ppl on the street if they'd ever heard of Bitcoin, they'd all probably say no. on the 50th person, they might say "oh yeah, that's that crazy internet currency of the geeks, right?". you be so ecstatic that you finally found someone who'd heard of Bitcoin you'd most likely just say "Yes, yes, that's right!!!" and then launch into a discussion about all the great features of Bitcoin. all the while knowing that you don't want to complicate the discussion by correcting that person to the fact that some mysterious "Satoshi Nakamoto" actually invented it. but you'd be wrong b/c most geeks don't understand the economic implications of Bitcoin and most geeks certainly did not create it. I never said "most geeks" -- well anyway I don't think I did :-). Regardless your argument is reducto ad absurdum -- "most" of any group don't understand any sufficiently complex thing. And obviously "most" of the geeks did not create any one thing -- there are too many of us. So obviously I meant something else. Something more like (not going to waste the time to quote myself formally): I think its a lot easier for a geek to understand economics (to the degree needed to appreciate bitcoin) then for an economist to understand this software. Also you say "fail to understand that which THEY hath created". Emphasis added. I think that the particular geek(s) that created bitcoin understood its economic implications. That's why the genesis block is dated "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks". And I think that more geeks understand its implications then others which is why so many geeks are on this forum. So your statement fails on multiple levels. Anyway, its not important enough to pursue this further... |
|
|
|
I don't know if that's what Cypherdoc meant, but there's not that much geeks who understand the economic implications of bitcoin.
Understanding the technicalities is fine, but bitcoin wasn't created to be a neat technical toy for nerds.
+1 Really? What's the source for your assertion that "there's not that much geeks who understand the economic implications of bitcoin"? I think its a lot easier for a geek to understand economics (to the degree needed to appreciate bitcoin) then for an economist to understand this software. For example, there are famous geeks that endorse bitcoin (RMS for example), but all I've heard from famous economists is misinformation. Heck, even many goldbug economists dismiss it. And what are the first companies to accept bitcoin? The Economist (magazine)? Wall Street Journal? Or Wordpress, VPS providers, etc? I have no concrete data, but the density of engineers on bitcointalk seems much greater then on reddit (as a representative example). The FSF accepts bitcoins, the EFF does not. Everywhere you look its the geeks that are driving this tech. But don't get me wrong, its great that guys like Cypher, Trace, Erik etc. are on board to translate this into language that other disciplines/other people can understand. Let me leave you with this last thought: Technology has been responsible for 50% of economic growth since WWII. So if anyone is holding a crystal ball -- is able to predict market successes -- its the geeks... |
|
|
|
|
AI, I think you are right. And its clear by your nick how important the idea of simplicity is to you. Personally, and sorry if this pisses off the core devs, I think you should go ahead with a dirt simple document stamper right in the client. But maybe double the tx fee, and pick a well-known amount of bitdust to transfer (it will be a hint to clients to not cache this unspent output).
Sure, some time in the future blockchain bloat, unspent Tx, and transaction volume will start to become an issue. And guess what? Either we will increase the scalability of bitcoin or transaction fees will rise! But it won't be so bad if scalability is not solved. People will simply have to compete to get their txns into the blockchain. So bitcoin will be used for the big transactions and different alt-coin chains for pocket change txns. At that point a more complex solution (or just a "stampcoin" fork) will make sense. Moving this out of bitcoin (and Satoshi Dice, et. al. shifting to lite-coin :-) ) will free up capacity for other transactions.
tl;dr; Use bitcoin now to encourage scalability and shift to an alt-chain when the bitcoin TX fees grow too large.
|
|
|
|
I actually think the BTC price is not going up nearly as fast as it could because BTCs are increasingly being used as settlement currencies.
Do you have evidence of its use as a settlement currency? Nothing I would like to share publicly besides stuff that is already public like MPEx. Yeah, I figured you would not be able to discuss this, but I had to try! I'm getting pretty excited about the increase in volume in China ( http://www.bitcoincharts.com/charts/btcnCNY#tgSzm1g10zm2g25zxzi1gVolzcv) -- even before bitcoin is used by consumers, it will be a great way for businesses to pay for goods. There's a lot more value-per-effort in a supplier relationship then in a single one-off ebay purchase. The geeks fail to understand that which they hath created .
Cypherdoc, I know you love the sound of this idea, but its just not true. That's in fact the problem right now. A lot more geeks then normal people understand Satoshi's paper, understand the byzantine general's problem, p2p, etc. Everyone else says "but what if...". And its reflected in the # of geeks on the forums. |
|
|
|
Random guess: $18.88
Nailed it!   I dunno, the price was so briefly above 19 and recovered so rapidly you can't see it on the 30-day chart. Contrast that to the pirate fiasco which caused a much stronger fall and kept the price in the doldrums for months. Its up to the OP of course but if I was running this little contest I would not call what happened last week a peak. |
|
|
|
I actually think the BTC price is not going up nearly as fast as it could because BTCs are increasingly being used as settlement currencies.
Do you have evidence of its use as a settlement currency? |
|
|
|
Anyone want to speculate on why the price of bitcoin has been trending up, what seems to me to be sharply, over the last week? Did I miss a bit of news that made bitcoin much more valuable?
A major gambling site is said to accept bitcoins soon. I think that provably fair gambling, ease of cash-out (really the whole concept of cash-out may be rendered obsolete), anonymity, and lack of charge-backs add up to gambling being the "killer app" for bitcoin. It gives significant benefits to both sides. Saving a couple of % on CC charges, and avoiding fraud and chargebacks is a "killer app" for low margin resellers like *mazon but unfortunately the vendor cannot strongly influence how the customer pays. But if gambling helps us get to 1B-10B -- if it puts BTC in the hands of a significant minority of the population then this will bring us the rest of the way. Vice is often an early adopter of many technologies -- the internet, beepers and cell phones are a few examples. And those are the uses that make the news. This has been a public service message for newbies concerned with how this technology is being used. |
|
|
|
|
2245 bids of 209121 btc (2345725.00) above 5. 1675 bids of 118402 btc (1693777.00) above 10. 625 bids of 54106 btc (886741.00) above 15.
325 asks of 33288 btc (635507.00) below 20. 521 asks of 44889 btc (890487.00) below 25.
Order book bids scratching at all time highs, asks dropping...
|
|
|
|
To me it looks like the market reacted very calmly to the "dumps". We've seen no large drop, price is over 17 and even the timing of the dumps was perfect (weekend coming up).
Based on that I would say that there is a good possibility that the rally continues next week. It's not certain of course but the reaction of the market has been bullish constantly so maybe there is still plenty of upside left.
I am more surprised to see so much liquidity. People, it seems, sold because they wanted to buy back cheaper rather than move the money from the exchange. If that is true, then the bull market will continue for a while. The timing does strongly imply an intention to buy back during the dump+dip. And that is what we are seeing. Additionally, buying interest above 5 is > 200000 BTC, a condition which is rarely seen before tuesday and never on the weekend as long as I've been tracking it (a few months). However it seems obvious (but not formally tested by me) that some portion of the change in this metric is simply due to the greater space between 5 and 17 vs 5 and 10 or 13... |
|
|
|
MPOE-PR I'm not really interested in responding to your ad hominem attacks.
Then don't. Fuckwit. You make strange comments about my future contributions but you don't know anything about me.
Then again, maybe I do. You don't know whether I do or I don't, you'd just like to assume that anyone who'd know would think more of you than I do. What you'd like to assume is not worth money. So let me simply suggest that if you really think this is the right thing, then don't hide your beliefs deep inside the TOS but instead put your red quoted modification right above your bitcoin deposit address where it cannot be missed by anyone thinking to use your service. Stand by your ideas and see how many new customers agree with them.
Why don't you quote what it actually says "above the bitcoin deposit address"? Just to show that you're not the sort of idiot who talks out of his ass for lack of a head to talk out of. Hm? Fuckwit. When your argument has no sound basis you can always resort to name calling... not sure if it is effective but it sure feels good! |
|
|
|
|
greyhawk, there are critical differences. First, law rests on intention. Second, there is an implicit contract between MPEX as a service provider and the customer. So this is not strangers forcing you into an interaction. Third, contract law rests on mutual exchange of value/benefit because that concept underlies successful capitalist economic theory. That's why CEOs (who make $ on options) still pay themselves 1 dollar instead of working for free. So that new clause is probably not enforceable in most jurisdictions because there is no mutual benefit.
What MPEX is doing is more like if your credit card bill is $20.53 and you wire just $20 the company just keeps the $ and still claims you owe them the full $20.53.
MPOE-PR I'm not really interested in responding to your ad hominem attacks. You make strange comments about my future contributions but you don't know anything about me.
So let me simply suggest that if you really think this is the right thing, then don't hide your beliefs deep inside the TOS but instead put your red quoted modification right above your bitcoin deposit address where it cannot be missed by anyone thinking to use your service. Stand by your ideas and see how many new customers agree with them.
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to go read the thread again, but I don't recall any mention of an attempt by the plaintiff to resolve the matter prior to initiating the rota process.
My first thought was that sending cookies coded in the amount field was silly, and that mpex should stop that yesterday. But it does allow full transparency. Anyone that wants to can look at that address and see exactly how much money has come in. The value of such transparency is quite considerable, and I understand why mpex would want to keep it.
I think the judges made a mistake here. And I can understand why that mistake would signal the failure of the idea. Having a good reputation for completing trades in OTC is not the same thing as having a good reputation as a fair judge. Only by judging cases fairly can you develop that reputation, and who would want to put themselves at risk to provide that experience?
The idea of encoding some data in bitdust is great. But if someone messes it up, you do not get to keep their 2250 bucks. In my book that's stealing regardless of what your TOS says. |
|
|
|
jesus...this isn't even a retracement. Its turning into just an isolated dump... bigger then normal but still quickly repurchased
yes denial runs deep within the community, reality check is in order. lol.. so says the guy who sold at 16.25 CAD... |
|
|
|
|
jesus...this isn't even a retracement. Its turning into just an isolated dump... bigger then normal but still quickly repurchased
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if I ever considered investing with MPEX reading this case has disabused me of the notion. If someone sends you 130BTC and forgets the bitdust it is morally flawed to just keep it. Return it or at a very minimum donate it to a charity. You are taking the route modern banks take whereby they gain the majority of their profits from the charges they levy on the mistakes of their customers. But you are even worse. If I send a bank wire to a bad address, it comes back to me eventually. A situation where the institution's gain is the customer's loss soon sets the institution against its own customers and is a recipe for failure since it violates the basic idea of mutual benefit that underlies contract law and capitalist economic theory.
MP, your precedent and abuse argument is specious. If the number of mistaken deposits becomes an issue, solve it via a fee that discourages abuse but still loses MPEX money. Because its your d*mn system and if customers can't follow it then losing a bit of YOUR money encourages you to fix it!
And I frankly can't believe you wasted everybody's time on this stupid case. If I was a judge I would have charged you a penalty. A penalty for being forced to do the right thing instead of just doing it yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the streaming API down now? I can't receive it
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
