Re: BCN Either way it seems people are going to be upset at the decision, so I thought it would be best not to risk labeling something incorrectly.
I'm working on implementing a tagging system so anyone can filter on whichever tags they want, maybe one of them should be "Deep mined" which applies to BCN?
Just out of plane curiousity - Bitcoin and Dogecoin are also going to be on that deep mined list? (Bitcoin 61.7% mined, Dogecoin - 85% mined) It's funny how only one side is supposed to "let it go", in your opinion. The answer is of course: No. Neither Bitcoin nor Dogecoin were even remotely flying as much under the radar as BCN before a widely known public announcement. Gliss made his opinion on the matter known. I don't share it, but I can't change it. However, as long as you keep on pushing for your pre-mine BCN, you yourself are not really taking the discussion into another thread. |
|
|
|
@Hexah, jellyhashman, Agent99
Now that the '**' is gone, the discussion should stop, huh?
You wish.
I'm waiting for feedback from gliss, if he has an opinion on this. It's his thread, his opinion matters. But you'll excuse if I don't take the opinion of BCN shills too seriously.
Well, to be honest, there is no opinion that should be taken too seriously. XMR shills on the one side and BCN's are on the other. I assume that Gliss is already fed up with all this trashtalk. He decided to add ** to the website, then he changed it back. I assume he used some kind of arguments. Complete agreement. But you'll note that I (in favor of calling BCN a premine, i.e. a "XMR shill" if you want) don't go around calling an end to the discussion. Like I said: gliss has the final word on it, both the decision itself and how and if the discussion is to be had in his thread. Until he says anything about that, I consider calls by others to end the discussion "because that's what he would want" to be noise. |
|
|
|
It's nice that my alarms actually worked for once, now how to figure when to close open positions...
Should one just close now and take the profits?
Or do you just let it run and continue to let the fees eat away at profits?
Sorry for noob questions.
dear noob. If you're a noob, maybe you shouldn't use leverage. Also: if you take profit in USD you're doing that bitcoin-thing wrong. Please consider the option of closing your leveraged long position and just buying some bitcoin outright. No continiual fees attached. Thanks molecular, sorry I wasn't more clear, I've just started playing with leverage on btc.sx -it's a pure bitcoin play. I'm all out of fiat, and my mining income just isn't cutting it for me anymore, so I figured leverage looked fun. Thanks for the advice anyways tho Yeah, I think molecular was a bit harsh here. To answer your question: going long on leverage in btc is slightly less dangerous to begin with than going short on leverage, but even the latter _can_ make sense, if used very, very controlled. In your case, you're making a bit of a gamble that I personally wouldn't do: you are betting big (leverage) on a major breakout, but you don't know yet if that'll happen. I would probably suggest to close the leveraged position (and take profit in USD), but (if you have the time) get back into it once the breakout is confirmed. That would for example be breaking the daily SMA200 conclusively, and almost certainly breaking the previous 680 top. In that case, there'd be almost certainly enough upwards momentum to warrant a leveraged long position, even if you're comparably risk averse. I am however assuming you're not leveraged beyond factor 2 or 3, right? Don't know what btc.sx offers... |
|
|
|
|
@Hexah, jellyhashman, Agent99
Now that the '**' is gone, the discussion should stop, huh?
You wish.
I'm waiting for feedback from gliss, if he has an opinion on this. It's his thread, his opinion matters. But you'll excuse if I don't take the opinion of BCN shills too seriously.
|
|
|
|
Daily SMA200. 2nd attempt.  |
|
|
|
Why are you so obsessed with the Chinese having to lead the exchanges? Its clear that stamp/finex led this based on how much they moved up (15-20 $) while huobi went up around $10.
* Huobi and OKCoin jumped from nothing at 05:43 UTC, Bitfinex only at 05:44, BTC-e maybe at 05:47. So Bitfinex and BTC-e can be eliminated. * At Bitstamp there was a trade of ~400 BTC at 04:43 but it did not have immediate effect; the price started rising over the next 3 minutes with very little volume; whereas at Huobi and OKCoin trade stayed very high after it started. * The the initial rise at Bitstamp from 600$ overshoot but quickly fell back, stabilizing at 613$ (13$ increase), while at Huobi and OKCoin the rise was ~70 yuan which is a bit more than 10$. The difference of 3$ can be explained by "hysteresis", since the real spread at Bitstamp is usually larger than that. The volume can easily be explained by the fact that the chinese exchanges have no trading fees. As an example some Chinese traders may be selling during the rally to buy back a few minutes later at a little lower price, which isn't as easy if there are trading fees that will cut into profit.
That may indeed happen, but it does not explain why they kept trading vigorously while the price was nearly stable, varying by only 2-3 yuan in each minute. Why wasn't this volume an hour ago, when price was varying by the same amount? In contrast Bitstamp has been nearly dead for most of the time. Obviously it is not the Bitstamp traders who are moving the market. You're reaching now, prof. Large orders came in at the same time, on the minute, across stamp, huobi, and okcoin. Could even be a large enough trader who coordinated his buys across exchanges. Price moved more on huobi and okcoin than on stamp, but the order on stamp was bigger by volume by a factor of around 2. Anyway, that's a case of 'it started across exchanges simultaneously', about as clear cut as it gets.    |
|
|
|
Somebody somewhere knows something that we don't.
Of course. Definitely. Had nothing to do with price banging its head into 600 for 7 hours straight without dropping an inch upon failure to break it, and some large-ish buyers finally deciding that's good enough evidence the trend is up. No, must be insider trading. |
|
|
|
It's funny that all people against Bytecoin are just posting bullshit, while their opponents at least provide proof links for their arguments.
Oh, that's okay... no need to link to anything. I can do it right here... Fact #1 (Widely known) announcement of BCN on bitcointalk: March 12, 2014 Fact #2 Quantity of issued coins as of March 12 2014: ~147 billion. Fact #3 Total number of coins to be issued: ~184 billion. Conclusion: 147 billion out of 184 billion ~= 80% BCN mined before widely known release, i.e. effectively pre-mined.Questions? EDIT If I take the April 2013 Google search spike for 'Bytecoin' as evidence that there was some awareness of BCN at that time, a year before the bitcointalk announcement...  ... then it's still a 97B/184B ~= 53% pre-mine.  |
|
|
|
The changes to the deposit methods were announced on their homepages, as they happened over the past four months. I posted at least a dozen links to the notices in Chinese with Google Translations, others posted human translations, as well as Chinese media articles. Obviously they could not explain 4 months ago the changes that they were forced to make 2 months ago.
I'm not talking about announcing changes to the deposit methods. I'm talking about the fact that the Chinese exchange operators could have gotten together 4-5 months ago, had a meeting, and then published an official joint statement saying something to the effect of, "China has not banned bitcoin, and will never ban bitcoin. Whatever you read, whatever you hear, it is not banned and will never be banned. Do not believe any supposed China news FUD that you read that claims otherwise. Also do not believe any Chinese FUD related to our eventual exchanges demise. Our Chinese exchanges are not only legal, but we will never shut down. We will continue to work around the deposit issues with the PBOC. Do not believe the FUD! Also, OKCoin's volume is skewed based on 0% fees and HFT only, but it's not fake per se. But yes, it is a little misleading for sure." They could have offically published this in English for the Westerners, and on official sites like Coindesk. But they didn't do that, now did they? No official joint statement at all to help reassure the public and quell fears. Hell, the individual Chinese exchange operators barely even spoke (except for Bobby Lee) during that time. Their PR was just as bad, if not worse, than Mark Karpeles. It was as if they WANTED the continued ambiguity to fuel the ongoing FUD panic selling. And that's exactly what it did. That's not how it works in China, unless you want to make sure your business is shut down faster than you can say Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. |
|
|
|
[...]
There is no investment in the literal sense, no value is being created in addition to the value of the fiat put in to buy the bitcoins.
[...]
This is the exact point where our opinions differ then. If Bitcoin ever becomes something useful, enabling people to do something they couldn't have done before, it will have been through the early liquidity provided by us. That's what I'd call it an investment. If Bitcoin fails to ever become useful, then I'd call it a "failed investment", which is still a form of investment. I think, for you in order to not call it an investment at all, you have to work from the premise that Bitcoin cannot possibly become useful beyond something that existing implementations of currency already provide. Agreed on that last point? |
|
|
|
|
2014-06-29
trend: down
intraday median daily price: $596
intraday daily MACD hist: -5.5
RI1 (2) = 90
RI1 (3) = 65
RI2 (1) = 58
RI2 (2) = 53
comment: hope it doesn't get too confusing, but I need to introduce one more distinction, this time in the form of a parameter for both variants that I'd like to keep track of, to see which one performs better.
RI1 (2) = previous RI1 = the "original" RI
RI1 (3) = slightly more "cautious" version of RI1
RI2 (1) = previous RI2 = the "cautious" variant of the original RI
RI2 (2) = even more cautious version of the (cautious) RI2
In any case, all 4 of them are now well above 50, for the second day, which means the RIx signals are clearly saying 'up' by now.
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I'll unwrap the argument assuming it wasn't clear what I meant in the first place:
To invest in something implies that capital is provided to something which, without that capital being provided, wouldn't work as intended.
Your "cash under the mattress" is not an example of that: nobody needs to provide capital to your pile of cash for it to be placed under your mattress.
Disagree with the goal and the way it is pursued or not, but some of us think Bitcoin is already a minor, and will become a major a) medium of exchange and b) store of wealth.
To work as a), liquidity has to be provided. To get near becoming b), wide acceptance, value stability, and some liquidity needs to exist.
In either case, any type of trading and usage activity (short term or long term) furthers the 'liquidity' and 'acceptance' points. Stability is trickier, although I disagree that short term trades necessarily increase volatility.
In summary, everyone who holds any amount of bitcoins for longer than a few moments is, effectively, investing in the bootstrapping event of a global decentralized currency.
|
|
|
|
Providing capital to something in order for that something to be able to perform its intended purpose = investing.
Hence, we're investors.
If I stuff cash under my mattress it also performs it's intended purpose, it stays there. You were more entertaining when you were at least trying to make sense. /shrug |
|
|
|
[kinda angry sounding rant]
Respectfully,
His "main point" is that finex traders are overleveraged to the long side. Since this is the speculation subforum, if one group of market participants does something that another group of market participants thinks is dumb, we will discuss it. That is all. Title is a bit sensationalist, but not claiming anything per se wrong. He could change it, I guess, but doesn't have to. |
|
|
|
Providing capital to something in order for that something to be able to perform its intended purpose = investing. Hence, we're investors. thread over.
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe, Hyena. You're resourceful, but a bit abrasive, huh?
Anyway, thanks for being the voice of a "majority miner", zimmah. Invaluable input, really.
|
|
|
|
Everytime I hear Wagner I feel like invading Poloniex
 |
|
|
|
|
I feel sorry for Gliss, and that he has to make a call about this whole 'BCN premined or not' debacle.
He has to decide what is FUD, what is counter FUD, and what are facts. Not an easy choice.
That said, I'd like to at least make my own voice known in here (for whatever that is worth to Gliss) that the "two stars of premine shame" for BCN were deserved after all.
There is little evidence that the coin was advertised widely before a substantial portion was mined, so even if it was never the intention of the devs, it effectively is a premined coin.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
