I thought they meant the twin towers by Gemini well I'll be damned, I was wrong. To Da Mon.

NICE

Last Sunday I was in a bus and at some point I randomly looked out the window and guess what I saw?! There was a car driving right beside the bus and its number plate had "666 BAZ". From here I deduce that we will be returning 666$ per BTC prices soon. But seriously, look at the order book in stamp. Just look at it! Look at it!


That sell wall is like a little midget about to get annihilated by a giant. Also, in my dream in September I saw 150$ bitcoins. The fall to 152$ was exactly dramatic enough to actually be the bottom. As the price cannot go up forever, it cannot go down forever. Fundamentals haven't changed. The mid-term bear market has to come to an end at some point and I believe this is it.

That's what they want you to think! Did you even read my opening post?

You registered in November 2013 and you're telling ME about sub 100 prices, market confidence and what not. Bitch please I was here when the price was 4$

There will have to come a day that actually is the bottom, right? (Given that in the long term we are mostly bulls here.)

With each call the chances of IT being the right one will increase . Same goes to your life too --- with each day you live the chances of your death increase.

To quote bassclef from this recent topic:


On the 14th of January 2015 this uber bearish article was published:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/14/bitcoin-is-revealed-a-ponzi-scheme-for-redistributing-wealth-from-one-libertarian-to-another/

Just right after fall to 152$ to encourage people into selling even more bitcoins. It's been long time since we last saw such volume. Putting it all together, I started to suspect that what we are witnessing is the end of the year long bear market. Last time this happened was in July 2013 when we bottomed at 65$. My question is --- is 152$ the new 65$? If that's so we should slowly but surely return to 450$, consolidate there for a while and then enter into new bubble phase (May 2015).



The buy/sell walls have changed notably. We can see that the walls are not equal at all these days but I remember that they were rather equally shaped over a long period of time before we fell to 152$. This makes me wonder how the walls looked like on the 13th of July 2013. Can anyone seek out the picture of the buy/sell walls from that time? I searched the wall observer thread but didn't find any good comparison to this:


So what other similarities do we have between 14th of January 2015 and 6th of July 2013? Turns out that during the next 7 days after the violent crash the price recovered by ~40% and in 2013 it never returned back. It is 7 days since we fell to 152$ and we are up ~40% already! Look at the comparison below:



Also, do we have any uber bear news from the 7th of July 2013 so that we could compare them with the news from 14th of January 2015? I personally just bought back the bitcoins I sold at 300$, so I'm bullish from now on.

haha, one of my friend's friend actually kept bitcoins on mt gox but had to leave the internet for several months and instructed my friend to use his account for buying heavily into ltc if ltc came to gox. I don't know if he was goxxed in the end or not, but that ltc going to gox story was fun.

anyway, is there any date announced when the etf goes live?

Definitely. Perhaps it's wise to look at the charts and detect the altcoins that are not affected by bitcoin's movement so much? NuShares seems pretty independent from Bitcoin's price.

Warring Buffer is secretly filling his buckets with bitcoins while scaring other investors away by yelling "I wouldn't touch bitcoin with a stick"

nice topic, OP might be on to something

If that's so poor argument then why the whole world essentially relies on trust? Stop trying so hard to undermine what I have said because you're reducing the quality of your post and you are bloating the topic with crap. Karpeles didn't even have cryptographic shares for his company. The fact that you even dare to use mtgox as a comparison shows your low degree of willingness to be constructive in this discussion. Not cool, man, you're wasting my time. Bad karma.

...And yes, as with anything, there is risk (should really be obvious).


I don't know about that. NuBits is just in the beginning phase and much of the power is currently distributed unevenly. I expect this to change as the network matures.


If you're background has anything to do with computer science then it should be fairly obvious to you that a mathematical protocol such as the block chain cannot stabilize the price on its own. For example, how should the computer know how much humans value gold at the current time? Unless we start building conscious computers, my original argument remains valid. Simple logic, but again I sense someone trying too hard to "win the debate".


I don't care to verify that because it's obviously possible for a custodian to screw something up and take huge losses. So far NBT has never lost the peg. The fact that NuBits actually survived the drop of BTC even when some custodians took losses further proves the trustworthiness of NuNet.


You can refer to the whitepaper to find an answer to that question. No one guarantees you that at any point of time you will get 1 USD for your 1 NBT. The mere essence of NuBits is to do its best to maintain the peg. If you don't trust it, don't use it. Same goes to dollars. I understand that right now there is much doubt in the air since Nu is just a couple of months old. When the time comes and NuBits has successfully maintained its peg for several years then all doubts should fade. Just let Nu prove itself and don't be hasty calling it a scam.

Who is we? The shareholders must trust the custodian. A regular nubits user must trust the shareholders to make the right decisions for the network. To have a cryptocurrency that is not volatile, a degree of human intervention is needed. There's simply no other way. The custodian is putting their PERSONAL capital at risk. If a single custodian defaults it's solely their problem and regular nubits users have nothing to worry about. There are many independent custodians operating concurrently on different exchanges which provides a perfect safety mechanism.


In the worst case scenario all operational custodians default at once. Although this is extremely unlikely, let's imagine what would happen. First, the peg is lost so the value of 1 NBT will be whatever the market decides. Then, demand arises to have new custodians providing buy side liquidity. These new custodians will replace the ones that defaulted. The peg will be restored. This works as long as there is supply of custodians.

Do you understand that Nu custodians use their own finances?

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/bitusd-finally-has-some-volume-inspired-by-success-of-nu:

For example, if I want to be a custodian for Nu, I first must have my own personal capital (say 5000$). Now I promise to provide buy side liquidity for a month in return of 500 NBT. The nushareholders then vote and if I get elected I must use my own funds for a month to provide that liquidity. Instead of 5000$ I can use 10000$ or just 1000$. Either way I must prove to nushareholders that I filled my promise and this can be done. So if I cheat, for example, then I don't get elected next time (and perhaps I don't even get the 500 NBT?). So, now you ask NuBits custodians to publish proof of solvency? As a custodian in this hypothetical scenario, I personally don't care if some internet troll asks proof since I'm using my own capital to begin with. If the nushareholders doubt in my solvency then they simply won't elect me as a custodian.

Or perhaps just the first post because it does provide some good information about the essence of nubits.

When USD starts performing real bad another peg will be chosen to protect the wealth of the people holding nubits. When hyperinflation of USD happens, for example.

Also Zer0Sum missed the point that there's a HUGE difference between the consequences of 30% daily volatility and 0.3%.

Deja vu. Again we go back to the reserves. I'm almost tempted to let you prove the existence, location and custodians of the "300% decentralized collateral backing BitUSD" but I really don't care since this topic is not about BitUSD (whatever that is).

And what the hell has mtgox to do here with anything?

It is clear that much of the confusion arises from the definitions of the terms such as:

• reserves
• decentralized reserves
• decentralized vault of reserves
• decentralized proof of reserves
• decentralized systems of control

So when you prepare your next reply, please take time to provide me with a rigorous definition of those terms. I would also like to remind you that in the context of NuBits the conventional notion of reserves is irrelevant and there's a good reason for that.

The so called reserves are paralyzed wealth --- they just sit somewhere safe (hopefully), doing nothing. The clever concept of NuBits, however, uses those reserves to provide liquidity. If at some point audit is needed, it can easily be arranged. By cryptographically signing a message with the private keys that store the wealth held by liquidity providers their individual solvency can be verified.

Having said that, we see why the term reserves is not appropriate in the context of NuBits. Thus, an attentive reader could easily conclude that the term fractional reserves doesn't really apply to NuBits either.

Wrong, NuBits has assets available to allow a large percentage of people to redeem their nubits for 1$.

Without new money coming in, nothing will collapse. Assuming such a collapse is as ignorant as saying that without BTC's price increasing the development of the open-source protocol of Bitcoin will stop and network stops confirming transactions.

The blockchain indeed cannot allow verification of a lot of things. That's the reason why NuBits was built the way it was. If it was possible for the blockchain to verify exchange rate of BTC/USD then the volatility issue could be solved on the protocol level. Because a mathematical protocol cannot track the exchange rate of its units of value by itself we need to choose between 2 options:

• Fight volatility with the means of centralized human intervention
• Fight volatility with the means of decentralized human intervention

Which of these two do you think is the lesser evil?

Correct! Decentralization is the future.

Perhaps I am just a random internet's folk with a clear agenda to defend NuBits so my arguments are somehow less plausible? No problem, I can link you some objective scientific material that favours the approach NuBits has taken:
http://www.coindesk.com/japanese-scholars-draft-proposal-better-bitcoin/

So, if we want a cryptocurrency that is not volatile, NuBits is exactly the only and most reasonable way to achieve it. Fact is that there is clear demand for volatility-free cryptocurrencies. Wherever there is demand there will eventually be supply. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

NuBits is essentially the best of both worlds for anyone holding NuBits because:

• Currency board's decision-making is fully transparent.
• Anyone who holds nushares can participate in voting.
• The software is open source.
• The system is fully decentralized.

If NuBits had a central vault of reserves I wouldn't be in their community. I have seen peg failing due to the centralized reserves before (paycoin promised 20$ floor but failed miserably). The reason such centralization is impending doom is that it's a central point of failure and those reserves have a legal owner. The legal owner can go rogue or some other disaster could destroy the reservs, bringing down the whole concept. I think I don't need to remind you e-gold and Liberty Dollar.

Yes, it is brilliant. No, it's not like gold vault telling you what you just said. About your hint, you just destroyed your own argument with it. It's in the interest of any shareholder to keep new money coming in, that's the point. That's why the shareholders won't run away with the money. Your line of logic assumes that a treasurer would run away with the money they look after. So why aren't all the security guards and treasurers running away with the money they guard? Answer that question and you will see the problem in your statement.


How are you guaranteed that you will live till tomorrow to spend your USD? You're not guaranteed because no one can guarantee it. Even the companies that "guarantee" you stuff are not guaranteed to actually guarantee you what they promise.

So, you are not guaranteed anything, anyway. NuBits at least has the promise to work as long as the majority of shareholders agree to keep that promise. NuShareholders aren't just some random internet trolls who speculatively bought into nushares early on. They are trustworthy people who have shown skills and intent to develop and maintain NuNet. The beauty of this is that NuNet really is an autonomous (anonymous) decentralized global organisation (and it pays dividends, yay!).

Me too. But you must understand that nubits are not hard pegged. The shareholders can decide what buy/sell walls they maintain. The voting is decentralized and you can do that with the private keys of your nushares. Should USD collapse, the nushareholders would probably set some other (more reliable) peg.

The mere function of the peg is to reduce volatility by mutually agreeing on what the price should be. The term "fractional reserve" in the context of nubits does not make any sense. NuBits does its best to maintain the price of 1 NBT at the desired value in a decentralized manner. There is no central point of failure since there is no giant vault of assets backing the whole thing up.

The whole idea behind NuBits was to separate store of value function from the currency function. Currency should not be volatile and nushareholders do their best to keep volatility away from nubits. It is for their interest to fulfill the promise because if nubits succeeds there will be more dividends paid to the shareholders.