While I don't necessarily agree with those that assert early adopters took greater risks, they are certainly entitled to the benefits they reap if nothing more than due to having the foresight to see what Bitcoin could (has) become. I can't say I see them as disadvantaged in any way. However, if any early adopter disagrees and would like to trade shoes, I'll gladly take them up on the offer.  |
|
|
|
yup, it's the same article and dated July 20th, interesting to see link to it on the front page
You know I looked at the date of the article and thought today was the 20th.... alright time for some coffee. |
|
|
|
I THINK this is the same article posted a few days ago, it's dated today but reads very similar. Anwyay, it's prominently posted smack dab in the center of their homepage today. http://www.cnbc.com/ |
|
|
|
ummmm I'm running 0.3.24 beta and if I open the options, by default, it's set at "pay transaction fee 0.00" and it says above that that 0.01 is recommended to make it get processed more quickly. Am I the only one who had it default to that? How badly delayed are transactions that you tack 0 BTC onto? Is it to the point where it's delayed indefinitely or are there so many miners and so little transactions that you're going to get picked up by them regardless or the transaction percentage/flat fee you tack on?
by the way, if I want to pay someone 10.00000000 BTC and I say add a transaction fee of 0.1 BTC cuz I want it done really, really quickly, do I have to do some math and send a modified amount manually myself so it's not less than 10BTC when it gets there or will the software send 10BTC to the target and automatically take the extra 0.1 out of my wallet for me?
A zero transaction fee is the default for the client. You can leave it at zero, if you try to send coin you should receive a prompt stating you need to add a transaction fee and the amount. You can then choose to continue or not. Some have stated that the actual transaction fee has been different than what the client prompts you, but I haven't found that to be the case. (although I haven't done many outgoing transfers) |
|
|
|
There is no way around that unless you believe all new supply is being hoarded, which is never going to be the case.
No you can sell it to me and I'll buy from you again using money I got selling your coins earlier. Money go around. The only real way to determine how much money is in the system, is sum up all incoming and outgoing wire transfers. Everything else is theories with no sound basis, it could be 10 times off and you would not know. If you buy the new supply from me, from selling your coins earlier, those "old" coins would have to be purchased by someone else. You cannot follow that chain into perpetuity without an injection of capital. At some point new money needs to enter the system to support the price. We already know supply of Bitcoins is increasing. If supply increases and demand remains constant, price will decline. |
|
|
|
What's special about bitcoin that you logic applies to it, but not the dollar? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think netrin has a point.
They're apples to orange comparisons. An inflationary (dollars) to deflationary (bitcoin) model for one. |
|
|
|
So CurbsideProphet, strictly by your logic, if let's say, oh I don't know, the Federal Reserve Bank convinced the treasury to print say 4x more dollars than has ever existed in a single year, the value of a dollar would be immediately reduced to 25%? Holy $h!t: We're talking about Bitcoins but thanks for the strawman. |
|
|
|
istar, no, absolutely not so, because BTC end up in someone's wallet who already might have money from selling BTC earlier. and then that money can be reused again and again and again.
Your logic is flawed because new coins are constantly being introduced. As the money supply increases, new capital must be injected. Yes, you can reinvest to a certain degree but to sustain or increase price when supply is going up requires additional capital. There is no way around that unless you believe all new supply is being hoarded, which is never going to be the case. |
|
|
|
|
OP,
Most of your questions have already been addressed so I'll just add that the deadline to raise the debt limit is August 2nd.
|
|
|
|
Yes.
Why post the same thing in two different threads?
And why does it matter to you to communicate this? Surely it's not to protect others if it's "long, slow slide" as they supposedly have all the warning in the world, so why is it so important to you to come on time and time again to spread the same message of negativity?
Further to that, why no positives that are the alternative? I think it was to refute the assertion made by another poster that, "In the past month, the value has tenfolded." A chart cannot spread negativity, it only represents historical data. I understand Nagle is a Bitcoin bear, but in this case, he's right. |
|
|
|
So, what do you think? Will the situation become so bad that a genuine sovereignty sale be considered? Personally, no, I don't see this happening. What I'm worried about is Europe will exhibit "bailout fatigue" similar to what happened to the US in 2008. Think of Greece as the equivalent of Bear Sterns. The first domino to fall and thus bailed out to prevent a systemic collapse. The contagion continues to spread and eventually a much larger and more significant country (Spain perhaps) is in need of a similar bailout but will suddenly be allowed to default, similar to Lehman. Thus causing a much greater problem and throwing the world into a deep recession/depression. |
|
|
|
Who cares its just stupid twitter. You expect things like that coming from them.
Who is "them" sir? freemasons Phew at least it's not the Illuminati this time. |
|
|
|
|
Who would be willing to do the work if there are no fees? Are you willing to work for free? You do realize there are fees associated with Bitcoin right?
|
|
|
|
This belongs in the gambling section.
I was going to post it there, the subject is primarily software development. The RaffleBit discussion topic goes in gambling, yeah, but this is a call to beta-testers much more so than gamblers. No, you are asking people to "beta test" by putting up their own coin to your raffle. That's gambling no matter how you want to spin it. If that's not the case then by all means send me some coin and I'll be glad to test your software for you. |
|
|
|
|
This belongs in the gambling section.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to change your font color, it's really difficult to read against that background.
|
|
|
|
|
If you set your transaction fee to zero, then send the transaction, it should prompt you that you need to add on a fee of 0.0005. Clicking the button to agree to pay the fee should then properly debit the correct fee amount. It did for me anyway.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is, for some reason, highly polarizing. For every person who loves it, there is a bitcoin critic who hates it. I believe the bitcoin critics suffer from Stockholm syndrome. Stockholm syndrome is a "paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors; sometimes to the point of defending them," according to Wikipedia. Bitcoin critics have fallen in love with the bankers who pillaging them and lash out at the solution to their problem.
I don't think it's that black and white. You can love an idea but still provide critique. Critical thinking is a good thing. At genesis, this project wasn't perfect. Nor is it in its current state. Critics can help to point out these flaws so they can be fixed. I think the main differentiator is someone who provides constructive criticism vs someone who just posts to start fights. I would go so far as to say everyone here should be a critic. Look at things objectively, maybe even take the devil's advocate stance from time to time. One critic (not to be confused with troll or scammer) will do more good for the longevity of Bitcion than 10 blind followers. IMO, of course. |
|
|
|
|
If you're selling information, why is this in the goods section? And what type of rig will you be mining on for the person you screw release this info to?
|
|
|
|
In legitimate investments you are buying a percentage of something. If you hold 1% of Apple, it will always be 1% of apple, even if they issue more stock, or split the stock that is already issued. This is not true of ponzi schemes in which the scheme continues to sell shares, the shares have no relationship to a percentage of ownership (even of the scheme itself). With bitcoins what you hold is a fixed percentage of the 21 million bitcoins that will exist. Just like owning stock in a company. What you own will _always_ represent the same percentage, distinctly unlike ponzi schemes, and fiat currencies.
I really want people to understand this point, so that we can kill this ponzi argument once and for all. Your ownership percentage in a company can absolutely go down. It's called stock dilution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
