oh boy...not another reason for why the market goes up...fake bull market or a news generated bull market. i guess thats good for us traders... does anyone know if the price was still 11 when this article came out? Yeah it was hovering around there for awhile |
|
|
|
Not what I mean - I mean the overall volume of sells (as an average over say the first or two at least), will decrease. Picking on one day or two will just be noise |
|
|
|
What will happen when this countdown is over
nothing, there is no Jesus moment I would be willing to bet that the rate of selling decreases notably after the reward halving. That's about as close to a jesus moment as we will get |
|
|
|
A hedge can be a powerful reason. How can you hedge against Bitcoin while keeping your assets in the virtual world? Currently, if you want to hedge against BTC, you need to keep fiat money. But since fiat money devalues over time and Bitcoin tends to get more value over time, it's not a great method.
Litecoin is really similar to BTC, making it so that if you trust Bitcoin, you can easily trust Litecoin. There is two characteristics to Litecoin:
-The speed
-The algorithm
The speed is a neat feature, irrelevant today, but could give it a nice advantage as time passes and network technology get better and better.
The algorithm is the main strength of Litecoin right now. Why? You hedge when you want to play safe, so you need security. You can 51-attack Bitcoin, you can 51-attack Litecoin, you can 51-attack Bitcoin AND Namecoin, but you cannot 51-attack Bitcoin AND Litecoin. You have to choose. The processors attacking Bitcoin can't be used for Litecoin at the same time. If somebody steal the whole ASIC shipment of BFL tomorrow, Bitcoin can be killed on the spot, but it's going to do nothing on Litecoin, they can't even be used for that algorithm.
Also, LTC and BTC prices seems to have their own market. When BTC price move, LTC price doesn't necessarily follow. It reinforces the position of LTC as a hedge tool.
I know, LTC is still small, and it's not the ultimate hedge. But in the current situation, if you want to keep your assets in the crypto-currency world, it's the best around here.
This is potentially a great reason - though I haven't yet figured out how to view litecoin prices over long periods of time. Anyone have a link? |
|
|
|
Ok, I'll try to make myself appear more attractive in the future 
You are aware of the concept of a hot spare? How about a moderately lukewarm spare  |
|
|
|
The only worthwhile alternate coin is PPCoin.
Unless there is Win install available, it's going nowhere. None of 20+ miners I know of, including myself, will ever bother with compiling. There is no reason some altcoins can't have a future, unless bitcoin doesn't have one.
Exactly. I get there is no reason why they can't have a future - the question is why should they? Having just one currency means there is single point of failure. Having just one currency inevitably leads to ultimate concentration of power, and with humans, that means ultimate corruption, abuse and tyranny. It's actualy hillarious to see someone supporting alternate currency but at the same time not realising why there should be alternatives to that alternate currency. Why are you in Bitcoin? Once you find the answer, you'll have answer for your own question above. Or you really think Bitcoin is fail-proof? I agree that there should be a back up - and of course its not fail proof. That being said, I don't see the point in speculating on it. It seems to be quite active and people look to promote it all of the time. This is not only tiresome, but makes all alt currencies look bad. |
|
|
|
There is no reason some altcoins can't have a future, unless bitcoin doesn't have one.
Exactly. I get there is no reason why they can't have a future - the question is why should they? |
|
|
|
|
Curiousity is killing me - what time frame are you waiting for this candle to be painted in?
|
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one that sees a hideous crash in the not so distant future?
Besides the "Litecoin is silver to bitcoins gold" analogy (which I personally think is crap), what is the additional functionality a/o reason to support this currency over bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
bull and bear talk is broken recordy and boring
 Hey Adam, I'm feeling a plunge coming this weekend. What do you think? I still think we will see a low movement, high volume, 1 day candle. after that candle gets painted, we'll jump to 15 in a flash, and crawl up from there... ( ya it will probably be the most epic candle in the history of bitcoin ) because bears are feeling pretty confident right now (they have no clue who they are dealing with...), theirs a good chance we will see my candle this weekend. Where did you come up with this theory? nvm all the BS, take a step back, puff on your joint, and think. it should all become clear.   So hey man, you mean to tell me that when there is a painted candle AND low volume... wait what is that happens then? |
|
|
|
bull and bear talk is broken recordy and boring
Hey Adam, I'm feeling a plunge coming this weekend. What do you think? I still think we will see a low movement, high volume, 1 day candle. after that candle gets painted, we'll jump to 15 in a flash, and crawl up from there... ( ya it will probably be the most epic candle in the history of bitcoin ) because bears are feeling pretty confident right now (they have no clue who they are dealing with...), theirs a good chance we will see my candle this weekend. Where did you come up with this theory? |
|
|
|
Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong: "The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter." Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867<cough> No sorry. Money is the most liquid good in a barter economy, and arises naturally. And it does so, so quickly that there is no recorded example of a stable barter economy; at least not in the sense that some form of commodity didn't function as the monetary "change" in a barter transaction. There are plenty of examples of societies that evolved money well before any need to raise or mobilize an army, even before the invention of writing in order to record same. Don't argue with me, argue with David Graeber and history. Heheheh the fact that you cite a book which reviews the past 5,000 years betrays a misunderstanding of money, which is much older than that. We are not talking about round metal coins here. "Money" was deerskins and seashells long before coins existed, and long before any of the more advanced financial instruments examined by Graeber. It's you who is arguing with history. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that 50,000 years ago cavemen were exchanging one good for another (barter). You agree, right? During this barter, a smart caveman would realize that if he traded not just for things he personally wanted, but things which others might want, then he could get more for his efforts. The first time a caveman realized this, and traded his meat for the fur which he knew another valued, money was discovered. As other cavemen realize that it's always easy to trade a fur to someone else, they begin using furs as a medium of exchange. This is money. The world did not fundamentally change when these first cavemen started behaving this way, there was no point in history when mankind shifted from "barter" to "money." It's a progressive, natural process of marginally favoring certain goods over others which leads to one or several goods tending to become used as money. Money is thus inseparable from barter. Stated differently, we're all still bartering every day, and the item we prefer to barter for is now called Federal Reserve Notes, at least here in the US. A widespread fantasy which is talk in every economics 101 book, but a fantasy nonetheless. Economies have not historically been built to facilitate value exchange, but for other reasons, incomprehensible to economists. The problem arises because we have taken our economics and worked backwards - whereas what was needed was a comprehensive look at what actually took place (and is taking place today in primitive tribes around the world) in order to understand how money was created. Ummmm I can assure you that almost none of my opinions are obtained from an Econ 101 textbook. I'm merely thinking inductively. If I were a caveman (which we know existed), and I had possession of some object (which we know occurred), I would sometimes trade it for other objects. Noticing other cavemen doing similar activities, I'd adjust my trades so as to acquire goods which could be traded easily to others. Unless you can prove that my hypothesis there is wrong, then money was indeed formed naturally from barter. I'm not using a book to figure this out, I'm just using my brain. "So really, rather than the standard story – first there’s barter, then money, then finally credit comes out of that – if anything its precisely the other way around. Credit and debt comes first, then coinage emerges thousands of years later and then, when you do find “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow” type of barter systems, it’s usually when there used to be cash markets, but for some reason – as in Russia, for example, in 1998 – the currency collapses or disappears. Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/what-is-debt-%e2%80%93-an-interview-with-economic-anthropologist-david-graeber.html#yFpxiiB5eJMsrrBO.99" Like I said, it's for unintelligible reasons to us reasons that value exchange started. Our society is run by a monetary economy and for us to consider providing for our needs in another way is simply gibberish. That being said, for all of recorded history until a few thousand years ago, we did provide for our needs in another way entirely. Therefore, the exchange that we saw between tribes was usually for reasons that wouldn't "compute" in todays society. For example, many tribes give offerings to other tribes in order to insult them by showing how powerful they are that they can then afford to give so much to the other tribe. These types of scenarios only take place when your source of provision is derived from very "primitive" modes of provision whereby provisional reliance is personal or tribal. |
|
|
|
it's a established fact that many aboriginal cultures did barter Really? Lol Contrary to the popular opinion, there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.[9] Note the key modifier there. Of course there is no such evidence. There is much evidence that barter occurred, but none that any particular society relied upon it, for as soon as one did, some commodity became the dominant money. Yet, nor is there any evidence that no society has not relied (primarily or otherwise) on barter. You can't prove a negative, and neither can Graeber, but that doesn't mean that his assumptions about how money develops is correct. If I can find a single instance in the historical record, his theory is busted; but the problem is that the historical record is vague, and no one really kept records of early economic development because even in cultures that kept records no one knew there was any value to recording this information. Did you read the link posted? "Now, I’m an anthropologist and we anthropologists have long known this is a myth simply because if there were places where everyday transactions took the form of: “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow,” we’d have found one or two (economies that worked that way) by now. Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/what-is-debt-%e2%80%93-an-interview-with-economic-anthropologist-david-graeber.html#yFpxiiB5eJMsrrBO.99 " |
|
|
|
Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong: "The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter." Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867<cough> No sorry. Money is the most liquid good in a barter economy, and arises naturally. And it does so, so quickly that there is no recorded example of a stable barter economy; at least not in the sense that some form of commodity didn't function as the monetary "change" in a barter transaction. There are plenty of examples of societies that evolved money well before any need to raise or mobilize an army, even before the invention of writing in order to record same. Don't argue with me, argue with David Graeber and history. Heheheh the fact that you cite a book which reviews the past 5,000 years betrays a misunderstanding of money, which is much older than that. We are not talking about round metal coins here. "Money" was deerskins and seashells long before coins existed, and long before any of the more advanced financial instruments examined by Graeber. It's you who is arguing with history. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that 50,000 years ago cavemen were exchanging one good for another (barter). You agree, right? During this barter, a smart caveman would realize that if he traded not just for things he personally wanted, but things which others might want, then he could get more for his efforts. The first time a caveman realized this, and traded his meat for the fur which he knew another valued, money was discovered. As other cavemen realize that it's always easy to trade a fur to someone else, they begin using furs as a medium of exchange. This is money. The world did not fundamentally change when these first cavemen started behaving this way, there was no point in history when mankind shifted from "barter" to "money." It's a progressive, natural process of marginally favoring certain goods over others which leads to one or several goods tending to become used as money. Money is thus inseparable from barter. Stated differently, we're all still bartering every day, and the item we prefer to barter for is now called Federal Reserve Notes, at least here in the US. A widespread fantasy which is talk in every economics 101 book, but a fantasy nonetheless. Economies have not historically been built to facilitate value exchange, but for other reasons, incomprehensible to economists. The problem arises because we have taken our economics and worked backwards - whereas what was needed was a comprehensive look at what actually took place (and is taking place today in primitive tribes around the world) in order to understand how money was created. |
|
|
|
come on papa, $11 then straight down to $10
I'm going to say that's doubtful lol I feel like this is the turning point back into a bull market. Yep. its going back up! |
|
|
|
There is nothing to rebut, you gave your opinion of what your kids are to you. I find that sad as hell as that's not what mine are to me, but it's an entirely subjective matter. I could offer my opinion of what mine are to me, but somehow I don't think you are terribly interested in that.
I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like. Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet. You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude. If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me? We are getting to deep into moral relativity waters and the interwebs are simply not made for this type of discourse. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong. I respect your opinion, though in a potentially pompous way, I find it sad. I know full well that you don't respect my opinion, although you might respect my right to express same. I question even that, but you don't have any power to prevent it, so there it is. That said, I can accept your concession. I hope someday you look back and are able to laugh at the angry man you left behind |
|
|
|
There is nothing to rebut, you gave your opinion of what your kids are to you. I find that sad as hell as that's not what mine are to me, but it's an entirely subjective matter. I could offer my opinion of what mine are to me, but somehow I don't think you are terribly interested in that.
I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like. Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet. You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude. If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me? We are getting to deep into moral relativity waters and the interwebs are simply not made for this type of discourse. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong. I respect your opinion, though in a potentially pompous way, I find it sad. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
