|
I see in that video how they instantly mention the negative of a large currency unit. Do people really want to be fiddling with tiny little bits, ie. roughly why litecoin and possibly also dogecoin are maybe better liked; you can have 10 and its not a great big deal to handle. Simple thing but its factor to the masses imo
Same thing can be argued with gold. Just a gram is more then many people would carry in their back pockets without thinking about it, common currency has to be just that if you really want mainstream
Guy at 10:20 gets it, people lack imagination. They dont care about your 32 bit hash encryption, its really just the immediate factors affecting them and thats success and future price
|
|
|
|
Thats not exactly fake volume though, its exactly what happens on stockmarkets as well, same parcels of shares traded back and forth, tis called daytrading.
Most my tradings done in ltc on chinese exchanges, I often rack up large volumes of trades in a day (so I find chinese exchange data believable), but yeah its the same coins back and forth.
High volume trading provides liquidity and price stability for the general consumer, some exchanges pay their participants for their involvement. I dont know if that applies to LTC but China does not have a free currency and it is constantly diluted to keep it fixed to the dollar which would make large holders perhaps look for alternatives certainly litecoin has less paper work and probably faster to send. I wouldnt say its without features cause bitcoin itself is not especially well stocked, it moves faster and I guess its possible that the cheaper unit is more preferable for some. China has alot more claim to cryptocurrency then us as we can send or use any global currency we want |
|
|
|
|
What does Cloak do that gave it success especially or just a well done launch ? I was holding Redd because a special betting site was using it for currency but they have also added doge and lite now for a more conventional route.
However I own none of those as I just sold alot of my stock to close out one of my exchange accounts and I put it all into blackcoin because the devs are so relentless in polishing it into a useful product
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldnt believe it otherwise but Ive seen a fire start on a graphics card that was mining. It was only brief and came from a small capacitor I think but I suppose its possible for it to spread if cabling were not done right. A house operation may have too much dust, where as a proper setup with correct air management would probably help prevent heat build up better then your little small miner with it sitting on a carpet
|
|
|
|
dam it, all this time Im thinking these guys are like james bond villians deep under london mining bitcoins like they coming from the centre of the earth and now i find its just a monster poster. I need one of those  |
|
|
|
I was under the impression that there was more paper gold in circulation than there is actual gold in vaults, is that not the case? is all paper gold a 1:1 ratio?
GLD is an exchange traded fund without any leverage. Some allege they do not have full backing but outside of a conspiracy theory I think we can assume they do keep the gold they are supposed to. One idea is they buy the gold but then lease it out to market, this is similar to stock short sales. For a fee you can borrow stock from long term holders, sell it and then buy it back later. If the stock falls in price, it can be very profitable. I guess gold leasing works in a similar way, I know european banks were leasing gold some time ago but Im not sure now. So that is leverage, but its not fraud as it must all be reversed eventually. The big fuss on derivatives for gold or anything is not needed as most contracts may circulate in market at a price but expire with no action taken, one side collects a small premium for giving an option to buy which seems alot like insurance to me; only a potential liability. Still theres maybe alot of tricks done by people desperate to make gold price fall. China is the biggest influence as they fail to report their accumulation of gold and they are the worlds largest miner I have read; this allows them to buy gold from the west more cheaply. So Im stating the opposite, there are more gold sales then reported and it is not circulated but China is transacting and storing gold |
|
|
|
|
Gold is vastly larger market capitalisation then bitcoin, sure it is. I expect btc is more liquid asset to deal though, they are just different classes really.
Thing is with gold when its bought in large amounts, they keep it and thats it, the owner will issue notes against its worth but never sell it. Bitcoin you cant do that so much, some brokers will let you buy shares based on your gold holdings as security but I not heard of btc being used that way though I guess its possible
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a pump and dump just like gold is. This says it all.
Right well if it lasts thousands of years that will be quite a bubble. Lets hope it really is the start of something that big Satoshi probably passed away I reckon, if it was just one person I imagine it was just somebody who wanted to make a difference to the world how did the market build itself? I checked out bitcoin in 2011 and my quick impression it was tokens for web site builders and stuff like that. If you look up Krugman who writes in NYT he goes into details of a babysitting club and this had a virtual currency, just tokens where you would spend when you go out to dinner and earn when others wanted you to look after their kids. Its not money exactly, its exchange. You could say btc came from people swapping their spare labour in this way with an interest between them and probably quite alot of goodwill and willingness to compromise on price I dont really do html, mining gave errors on my gfx so I skipped - I could have been a contender /o\ |
|
|
|
I've never seen a real crisis where people bring out their gold. There's usually a lot of lead moving around.
Gold was used in Zimbabwe, its used in Vietnam now and I guess maybe other countries though not in the street to buy food I doubt. A loaf of bread was 1 gram which is a rip off but worthless cash causes problems and the bread was coming from south africa |
|
|
|
|
The house could have been wiped out by tornado meawhile, who knows as a house is both an asset and potential liability. Its not possible to say he was totally wrong, going all in one thing is usually not the best thing and I think everyone is assuming that. My guess is he was well off anyway and this was just a bet for him while he has other means of earnings, maybe he should buy some btc now. Investments are usually best done monthly not as a one off, goes for shares and many things
|
|
|
|
All the crisis are consequences of free market. Because the market is unstable, there is no "invisible hand" ruling it, it's a crowd of humans doing business, diving into bubbles, then the bubbles pop etc. Think about Kondratiev and Schumpeter.
If you accept pure free capitalism, you also accept many collateral damages, such as extreme inequality (born in a rich family or a poor one), no stability (bubbles, crisis). The auto-regulation of the economy is brutal and violent.
I'm interested about BTC because I'm a programmer. But I'm not a libertarian like 90% of the Bitcoiners. I don't believe in a pure free market, because the power is then possessed by those who have the more money.
Printing money is artificial and can't be a long term solution, I agree with that though.
Im glad you stated that point of view because I think its a common view. Capitalism gifts the rich with overwhelming advantage, means oppression and misery for poorer masses. However I do not agree First we have democracy and that is important and so its not absolute pure capitalism, nobody wants to argue one human should be less valid as a person then another Then a court system also most countries have constitution or system of rights, all of those should balance out 'i'am rich, get out' extreme inequality With fixed currency you have equality from one coin to the next. With our system now, the FED produces money and it is not giving or selling in exchange for that worth it acquires. That is vastly more unequal. The dollars are not equal, some have access to large amounts more easily then others. "invisible hand" ruling it, it's a crowd of humans doing business The invisible hand is just a name for human nature. Its not random, we all start jobs, advance in life wanting to be at least bit richer. What drives capitalism is competition and that open struggle is productive for society not just rich people. This idea is hard to explain but say compare it to sprinters in a race, alot of work goes into getting 1st place. You might say only the winner gains, Im arguing society can benefit not just 1. All that effort by all runners is usually positive work, the athletes are healthier, maybe some technology/biology (whatever, some advance of some kind) is discovered along the way. If one competitor starts cheating, its destructive to the sport. The FED producing new money is destructive, its not useful to society and its not competitive capitalism failing of the gold standard I think it was dollars which failed that standard. The gold being a cause of failure I dont think I can agree on though Ive heard it plenty, ie. tight money is cause of bankruptcy, etc Well they devalued dollars in 1930's, thats easy money and it didnt work then |
|
|
|
|
I think it does speak highly, he gives clear warning and has a history of allowing deposits to withdraw at users will. Yes its inconvenient, I think he is still a 1 man band but Ive known quite few exchanges now who failed users and the integrity of their balances. (might not be their fault but still)
If I read it right the fees will continue after the website is renewed but thats down to the investor to judge. I only ever owned a related token listed on cryptostocks, not sure who ran it even but he saw us all cashed out at a fair rate (long ago)
|
|
|
|
|
End of an era, cant help but feel this reflects badly on bitcoin network if a good pool cant risk being part of it. A distributed network that keep consolidating? Is that a good thing really, seems a bit dangerous to continue on this path
|
|
|
|
STT Post: 928 1B9zDQ5KiWviHJvxihQvAkHuEGnbgYxfbs |
|
|
|
|
I dont see a simple answer except it is fairly clear we are as a society at an extreme in various ways such as the low interest rates and 'easy' monetary policy. This could end very badly, I think you could even weasel that answer out of Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan
I havent read all of the posted links but points to examine are the amount of dollars contained in bonds and the term of those bonds. The average turnover for 17tn of US debt is I believe 4 years though that data is few years old. Within a few years that debt could fail to roll over, things could alter drastically and that amount of money being circulated not held would alter considered facts quite quickly. So extremes vary between default and effects from that or quite large inflation but probably not hyper.
Dont get caught up in the doom and gloom scenario, what matters most is productive capacity, bankruptcy is a positive process for society in sum total even if it doesnt feel like it at the time
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be up the gold plated campaign if possible. I dont spam or anything so pretty hassle free to vet me hopefully
|
|
|
|
So who is that John Maynard guy?   Pretty controversial, many competing recipes What is a 'traditional monetarist'? Capitalism is the capital worth of an economy distributed among its participants not controlled by a central body. Not equal worth distribution, but certainly not QE, probably not fixed interest rates and I would argue, no central banks with exclusive license in a free capitalist society. That would be traditional, we're a long way from that. The positive about bankruptcy is that bad ideas die, we may have a while to wait IMF article - Relevant still
Still, the monetarist interpretation of the Great Depression was not entirely forgotten. In a speech during a celebration of Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday in late 2002, then-Fed governor Ben S. Bernanke, who would become chairman four years later, said, “I would like to say to Milton and Anna [Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right. We [the Fed] did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.” Fed Chairman Bernanke mentioned the work of Friedman and Schwartz in his decision to lower interest rates and increase money supply to stimulate the economy during the global recession that began in 2007 in the United States. Prominent monetarists (including Schwartz) argued that the Fed stimulus would lead to extremely high inflation. Instead, velocity dropped sharply and deflation is seen as a much more serious risk.
Although most economists today reject the slavish attention to money growth that is at the heart of monetarist analysis, some important tenets of monetarism have found their way into modern nonmonetarist analysis, muddying the distinction between monetarism and Keynesianism that seemed so clear three decades ago. Probably the most important is that inflation cannot continue indefinitely without increases in the money supply, and controlling it should be a primary, if not the only, responsibility of the central bank. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/03/basics.htm |
|
|
|
|
The Mcxnow site has a warning to clear all balances before Nov 15th or they will be lost. Could be a few who need a reminder so just bumping this thread well beforehand
|
|
|
|
|
Worth bumping this thread to say all balances must be moved before Nov 15th from site to elsewhere or will be lost
|
|
|
|
|
Sure Im not stating absolutes but to run deficits always like they have, I dont believe Keynes did advocate government actions of this nature. The main danger now is with excess, so such large debts, such extreme interest rates, the amount of QE and the degree to which fiscal expenditure makes up gdp. All of these dials are in the red, they dont have to do anything at all but it seems likely with so many extremes that consequences or 'rebalance' will be hard to mitigate.
The argument always seems to be, government can do whatever they wish to set forth, set rates low, never pay debt off, increase spending as they desire or see best fit to do so but 1 central body dictating is not the case in democracy or in capitalism, if we are facing other possibilities beyond that it has already become very much not a story of success
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
