I am kind of finding this fiasco hard to believe. Although, I have only had a few conversations with Amir over the internet, he has been really nice and patient with me during the previous process. I have never spoken to Prince Patrick, though.
What would be the downfall of signing this document from their POV? The sooner this shit gets done, the sooner the community can move forward. Unless I am missing something, I don't even know why these guys would want to be in public around other bitcoin people while all this shit is still up in the air. It is fucking embarrassing and starting to get just a tad bit ridiculous. I would have a seriously hard time looking people in the eye when speaking and meandering around the conference.
Please, just sign this thing and let's turn the page.
IANAL but I'm guessing that the only document they'd sign is something along the lines of "I do not acknowledge a successful transfer of control of Bitcoinica to myself, so I have no authority to release it into liquidation. But I will state that I will not contest any liquidation process that does occur"... In other words, by signing that document as written it looks to me like they would tacitly acknowledge responsibility for Bitcoinica at the time when the hacks occurred... |
|
|
|
 when you see the dump to 10.xx then a fast-ish rise up and over 12, you'll stop calling me crazy. i dont know how many time i have to get the predictions spot on before people start believing the penguin  Once would get us started  |
|
|
|
Nearest seller is 70 km away -mhh, I could become one myself  Still not nearly user-friendly enough for the casual user, though. You should! The only way for a currency to become popular is for people to start advertising that they will accept or trade it. If using the exchanges is complicated in Argentina then its doubly important. |
|
|
|
|
wow, last cbx trade was 11.79! I have no idea what the volume was tho... the CBX charts are really terrible (too fancy, not enough data) and it does not seem to provide a tabular history...
|
|
|
|
|
Buy 1000 btc. Tell Bernanke to announce QE3. Chill...
|
|
|
|
|
IDK about during it, could even be down since ppl don't have secure access to their acts. But given current trend, the convention, and QE3 next week is looking to be pretty huge :-).
|
|
|
|
|
I have no affiliation with campbx other then as a customer, but its good to have competing exchanges with Mt. Gox "just in case". So it would be good to get a bit more action there esp. now that bitfloor is RIP.
|
|
|
|
volume?
No  . But its maybe a bit above normal for campBX |
|
|
|
|
All this afternoon campbx has been trading a few cents ahead (above) gox...
|
|
|
|
|
The block reward halving is irrelevant since its a state of perfect competition.
If the miners can't make $, they will stop mining, difficulty will decrease until whoever is left will make just enough $ to continue mining. If we left the block reward at 50, the number of miners would increase until they make just enough $ to continue mining.
|
|
|
|
i first saw that video on Trace Mayers site RunToGold. as i've said before, he played a significant part in making me first invest in gold and silver back in 2005. i love that video. I thought the vid was rather dopey to be honest. The tone of the narrator made me want to puke, and I've always felt like dancing makes it appear that a person has some sort of neurological disorder. Bah, humbug I guess. My nature is to turn in the opposite direction of any crowd and keep going so such a situation as demonstrated, however illustrative it might have been, was bound to induce a negative reaction in me. btw, i also enjoy Stephen's posts.
I as well. Don't feel bad; it just means that you are the lone nut :-) Hey, somebody's gotta do it! |
|
|
|
Isn't this what the signed message in the new client is all about? Thus, you get the cooperation before the transaction and then afterwards it obviates the need for a he said she said.
No, that just ensures that a message was signed by the owner of that bitcoin address. That doesn't help me to prove that the merchant truly requested payment to that address. If addresses were static, then I could be reassured that since others were successfully using that address for payments that I could use it as well, but since Bitcoin only works when there is a different address for each payment then I see the situation where payment is made and then the merchant claims that the address isn't theirs and they aren't sure how or why the customer sent payment to that address. Maybe we should re-assess this assumption... it is certainly not intuitive. Perhaps allow a transaction to contain an arbitrary 4 byte field that the payer can tell the payee to use... so a payment "address" with txn id could look something like: 16QUrEh1Tw8BFnzyCQn9jVtaYLHfUYWyZx-12345678 |
|
|
|
|
I'm crossposting my analysis because I originally put it in a pretty obscure thread:
People know about it but are miners hoarding coins now waiting for the halving? I don't think many are, its still too early. They have bills to pay. But if you were a miner, would you sell ANY coins 1 day before the drop? Might as well wait to see what happens... how about 1 week before? So expect no ask depth in the days leading up to the reward halving.
I keep reading on these forums that people think supply vs demand means a reward drop in half = a doubling of price. But this assumes a linear x=y supply demand curve. Depending on the flexibility of demand (i.e. gasoline is inflexible while M&Ms are very flexible) this could be very much not x=y, but x=100y or x=y/100. To figure out what the curve really is, you have to ask yourself, how flexible is demand for BTC?
But the above argument is faulty. It focuses on instantaneous supply. But in fact the supply is not changing (well due to miners, it will change due to anticipatory hoarding), it is the RATE of supply increase that is changing (because bitcoins are not a consumable). So a lack of supply on day 0 of reward halving cannot be fixed in the classical econ 101 manner by an increase in production tomorrow. There will be a similar lack on day 1,2,3, etc. The issue must be fixed by a reduction in demand.
Given a constant economy, this reduction in demand can only be addressed by an increase in the price of BTC compared to other commodities. In other words, until SR merchants, etc lower their prices in BTC to compensate for an increase in BTC price (or sell less product) we'll see a constant increase in price vs USD to meet existing demand. And if the BTC economy is growing and currently balanced by the 50BTC reward, we'll see great pressure on the price due to lack of supply at 25BTC.
The above is the normal negative feedback mechanism that keeps prices sane. But if the BTC economy grows BECAUSE of an increase in BTC price (i.e. due to new interest from investors), we could see an unsustainable positive feedback mechanism. This will cause the hockey stick bitcoin price appreciation until the positive feedback switches back to negative (i.e. investors see BTC as overpriced).
So the block rate halving is more likely to affect (increase) the rate of long term appreciation of the value of a BTC, combined with a spike leading up to the reward halving could possibly (low chance) turn into a massive price appreciation event. And then (regardless of whether we see a small spike or a big rise), we'll see a dump afterwards as the short term hoarding is sold.
|
|
|
|
You heard it here first folks, subtraction is complicated and can't possibly be accurate across all systems. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY the coin distribution could be determined by subtraction because that means we would eventually resolve to a whole number rather than an ever decreasing amount that goes beyond the divisibility of the currency in 2140. Oh the huge manatee.
Don't be silly! You can't use subtraction because eventually you'd get negative numbers which means miners would have to PAY bitcoins to mine a block!!! But seriously your proposal would result in a probably trivially different curve, you were extremely rude in proposing it, and who cares nobody is going to move to an alt-coin for this trivial issue. And most importantly, that solution would not be nearly as FUN!!!  |
|
|
|
D - an unbounded supply that is determined by the number of people who want and work for new money
That's how gold mining works. There's always more gold to be found, if there are more people who want to work for new gold. Bitcoin improves on that model by making the inflation rate predictable. People can argue all they want about how Bitcoin's coin creation rate may not be "optimal", but it's good enough that it's not going to make-or-break the currency, and predictability is far more important. Nothing dramatic is going to happen when the block reward drops from 50 to 25, because everyone already knows about it. The above "nothing dramatic" is not well considered. People know about it but are miners hoarding coins now waiting for the halving? I don't think many are, its still too early. They have bills to pay. But if you were a miner, would you sell ANY coins 1 day before the drop? Might as well wait to see what happens... how about 1 week before? So expect no ask depth in the days leading up to the reward halving. Econ 101 people think supply vs demand means a reward drop in half = a doubling of price. But this assumes a linear x=y supply demand curve. Depending on the flexibility of demand (i.e. gasoline is inflexible while M&Ms are very flexible) this could be very much not x=y, but x=100y or x=y/100. To figure out what the curve really is, you have to ask yourself, how flexible is demand for BTC? But, the above argument is faulty. It focuses on instantaneous supply. But in fact the supply is not changing (due to miners, it will change due to anticipatory hoarding), it is the RATE of supply increase that is changing (because bitcoins are not a consumable). So a lack of supply on day 0 of reward halving cannot be fixed in the classical econ 101 manner by an increase in production tomorrow. There will be a similar lack on day 1,2,3, etc. The issue must be fixed by a reduction in demand. Given a constant economy, this reduction in demand can only be addressed by an increase in the price of BTC compared to other commodities. In other words, until SR merchants, etc lower their prices in BTC to compensate for an increase in BTC price (or sell less product) we'll see a constant increase in price to meet existing demand. And if the BTC economy is growing, we'll see great pressure on the price due to lack of supply. The above is the normal negative feedback mechanism that keeps prices sane. But if the BTC economy grows BECAUSE of an increase in BTC price (i.e. due to new interest from investors), we could see an unsustainable positive feedback mechanism. This will cause the hockey stick bitcoin price appreciation until the positive feedback switches back to negative (i.e. investors see BTC as overpriced). So the block rate halving is more likely to affect (increase) the long term appreciation of the value of a BTC, combined with a spike leading up to the reward halving which could turn into a massive price appreciation event. And then (regardless of whether we see a small spike or a big rise), we'll see a possible dump afterwards as short term hoarding is sold. |
|
|
|
|
@Loup, this is an odd post for you, as you are normally pretty hard-line. I've actually lost a lot of respect for your words given your defense of MNW. It is unacceptable to apply a different criteria to someone just because you happen to know he is a flake. No one is welcome to make financial contracts they do not intend to keep and we as a community need to enforce that unilaterally. Personally, I don't think this was a joke at first to MNW but that is irrelevant.
There should be zero tolerance for "jokes" that masquerade as financial contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
look at the whole risk. You have to leave $ on these exchanges to take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity but so many exchanges hacked...
There's about 400BTC at approx 11.10. You could have sold for maybe 11.30. Subtract 1% fees:
print 400*((11.30-11.10)-(11.20*.01))
35.2
So you are making 35 bucks on this unprecedented 160k bidwall, if you are willing to expose yourself to 4500 USD constant risk.
|
|
|
|
|
Larry flynt must have recvd proof...
|
|
|
|
I would argue bitcoin is tangible for the purposes of the argument presented in the sense that you can lock it away from access to third parties ("physically own it"). "tangible" == "not paper" == "no third party risk".
Maybe it'd be better to say: "Anything that doesn't involve some kind of a promise and can be owned unconditionally will go up" instead?
Unfortunately, in some kind of an economic meltdown situation, bitcoin might become generally unusable for a while. Temporarily nonexistant.
The word tangible means 'perceptible by touch' or 'cear and definite; real' but the etymology for tangibility has more to do with mental sense than corporeal status. It appears to be used to connote realness as opposed to fantasy, delusion or illusion. I have been thinking a lot about tangibility and how it applies in monetary science in an attempt to formulate a rule or theorem. In the Information Age I think organized information, information objects, can have properties of tangibility just as clear and definite, or real, as physical objects. Thus, for something to be real it does not have to be corporeal. The Bitcoin Magazine exists in both a corporeal (paper) and incorporeal (PDF) form. Both are both clear and definite thus they are equally real. One is an information object the other a physical object. But this distinguishment does not go to tangibility as they both exist in the real world and are not figments of imagination, fantasy, delusion or illusion. We would agree that the Bitcoin Magazine Issue #1 is tangible, regardless of of paper or PDF form, and flying fire breathing black dragons are not tangible. A bitcoin is real because it has clear and definite organization of information therefore making it an information object in the real world and is not a figment of imagination, fantasy, delusion or illusion. Therefore, a bitcoin is tangible. Anyone up for logically attacking the assertions? Maybe "bitcoin" is tangible but "a bitcoin" is not. If you send a bitcoin to my wallet (that has other bitcoins in it), I can't send you that same "coin" back... a bitcoin is not a chunk of bits like a .pdf file, a wallet or the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a little OT, but if I just pull from master am I getting your RC? If so, its working great for me :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
