Everything can be priced in everything else (as long as those things have prices). That's just the way it works.
People have been trained their entire life to price things in their local fiat.
There is an exchange rate, so we don't need to choose "one or the other".
I don't think it is so much the fact they have been "trained" to price items in their local fiat, but rather they are paid in their local fiat so that is how they measure their money. I also think the exchange rate of bitcoin is too volatile for most things to be effectively be priced in terms of bitcoin. The only real exception to this would be things that are able to generate bitcoin income (for example miners or cloud mining) |
|
|
|
This story is only ~3 months lol. I think the moral of the story is to not attempt to blackmail people that have the resources to put out a reward/bounty to find the person doing the blackmailing. I am really not sure why the kid thought he was going to get "whacked" (killed) as this was not at all implied, and the bounty clearly said the reward would only be payable in the event of the conviction (and obviously the arrest) of the perpetrator. IIRC Ver said that the person who hacked Satashi's email seemed to be very similar to the person who hacked his domain |
|
|
|
Maybe google strikes back at apple pay with a killer google bitcoin wallet. Google could get tons of merchants on board and bitcoin could be off to the races.
ApplePay has to prove itself first, there are large retailers that are not even interested in it. Let's see how it works out, but I'm sure Bitcoin will get support from Google at some point. I don't think that google can effectively create a competitor to apple pay. Google only makes the android operating system but not the majority of the phones that run on android. In order to for google to offer something like apple pay they would need to coordinate specific technology to be put into phones that support/use android, and this would be difficult at best. While apple has been able to test the technology (especially the security of the technology) with their phone prior to making apple pay available, google will not have such a luxury. Android phones are also a lot more vulnerable to attacks as they are not sandboxed and users could (and often do) download applications that are malicious that can do serious damage, and the level of damage would only go up if the phone is being used as a credit card |
|
|
|
|
I don't think there is that much of a demand for a gift card at gyft. When someone is giving someone else a gift card they are giving them a gift card to a store they know/think the person receiving the card will want to shop at. I think it would be pretty rare that a person would not know what kind of gift card that someone would want when they are buying them a gift.
IMO most people are not even buying gift cards as a gift when buying from gyft, I think that most people are just trying to spend their own bitcoin at stores that do not yet accept bitcoin but they already shop at
|
|
|
|
Is this serious? What exactly did newsweek do wrong? Everything they have is public information anyway. Can't possibly be a lawsuit, otherwise criminals could always sue the news, am I right?
Dorian is not (was not) a public person. They published his name, photos, full details based on the incorrect assumption that he is the creator of bitcoin. The question is did they have a reasonable information to violate his (and his family) privacy. Not to mention they might have put his safety on the risk, as the real Satoshi allegedly owns a huge amount of bitcoins. If you are outside then you do not have a reasonable expectation that your picture will not be taken. This is regardless if you are a "public" person (  ) or not. Newsweek took information that was available publicly, published a group of such information and made a conclusion (one that was likely faulty). This is also not illegal as anyone could find this information if they wanted to. If Newsweek thinks that something is newsworthy then they have the right to publish it. They have an incentive to make an accurate conclusion regarding facts as if they do not then people will not take them seriously and will be unable to fill their advertisement spots |
|
|
|
You mean he is a scammer because he is defending Dorian Nakamoto vs Newsweek or do you have other insider informations? I hope he wins and becomes a millionare. I would consider the attorney to be a scammer. It is pretty rare that attorneys will attempt to crowd-fund a legal "defense" fund for someone when they are suing another company like this. It is much more common for attorneys to work on a contingent fee basis that would allow them to get paid only if they win the case or if the case is settled out of court (they are usually entitled to more then the standard 1/3 of damages and will also be reimbursed for any costs they incur out of the settlement). I would say that his attorney had doubts as to if he can win a case but wants to take it on anyway because he thinks the bitcoin community will fund the cost of litigation. I also think the legal theory behind a potential lawsuit against newsweek is dubious at best. I certainly do not agree with how newsweek handled the situation, is an example of poor investigative journalism, however is certainly not an example of a tort against Dorian. The fact that Dorian is wiling to attempt to pursue such a lawsuit is, in my eyes proof that he is not Satashi as I would think that Satashi would be able to clearly see that this is not a valid case. I also find it strange that money is being raised for a "defense" fund when Dorian is not putting on a defense but rather is filing a lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Would not the best solution be a dynamic update?
With gavin suggestions we have that max blocksize will become
2014: 1mb
2015: 1.5mb
2016: 2.25mb
2017: 3.375mb
2018: 5.0625
2019: 7.59375
2020: 11.390625
2021: 17.0859375
2022: 25.62890625
2023: 38.44335937
...
LOL! I gotta wonder if that was not one of the ideas that came out of the closed door sessions with the CFR. I guess we'll never know since Gavin never saw fit to either swear off private conversations or give the community a de-briefing of any which may or may not have happened. At least that I saw. A huge percentage of humans lack the capability to conceptualize an exponential function, and people who make it to CFR status understand this deficiency well and deploy it liberally as a weapon. That said, I find the proposed formula workable insofar as it would not destroy the core concepts of the system. At these relatively modest rates the system would still be operational under significant attack and it would still be feasible to verify transactions fully by my estimation. I'm in. The downside of this modest growth is that it would not come close to solving the 'problem' of giving the system the capacity to serve as an exchange currency. So, what's the point? Especially if sidechains or some other logical scaling mechanisms develop. One way or another, let's run up into the economics of transaction fees to see how they actually work before something as drastic as a hard fork. The proposed changes to the block size has a goal of keeping up with anticipated TX volume growth over time. You need to remember that the average block size right now is well under 1 MB so even though the max block size is 1 MB, we are really not starting at that size when comparing the max block size in the future to today's block size. In the event that the block size growth is not able to keep up with TX growth then the protocol could easily be forked again to increase the block size growth |
|
|
|
Alright, since the general consensus is that stealing bitcoins is illegal.
If I discontinue the use of communication with said person (from a way that can be linked back to my IP address) and continue the conversation on an anonymized, encrypted email, with TOR, a VPN, and tails, and then execute said plan, law enforcement would have no way to prove that it was me who committed the crime and I would not be held accountable due to lack of evidence that it was me, correct?
I'm absolutely fascinated that people like you exist. Tell me about your parents. Were they cussing, drinking, smoking parents who were physically abusive to you? Do you think maybe you were born with some portions of your brain turned off (aka psycopath / no ability for empathy, etc) ? What is it that results in a human being like you? Are you aware that most of the world struggles with severe pain, both emotionally, physically, and otherwise because people like you exist? Wars, tortures, bloodshed, death, sadness, starvation, and misery originates with people who think ... like you. There are people around the world have to dedicate their entire lives to helping those that people like you hurt. What is it that goes on inside the mind of someone like yourself, when you realize that you are the personification of everything most people are disgusted by, in human nature? Just curious. -B- There are a lot of people that are like this, it is just that many are not as open about it. It happens enough so that the market for anti theft devices and security for inventory slippage is very large. To answer IsaacDestruction's question, not necessarily. It is very well possible that your execution of this would somehow leak your identity. It would be possible that you somehow have some setting mid-configured and your IP address and identity would leak or your VPN is not as anon as they advertise themselves to be. If this were to happen then law enforcement would probably be additionally harsh in bringing charges against you as you had taken steps to hide your identity to avoid prosecution. |
|
|
|
I wonder who the next big company will be that will be pushing BTC like Overstock.com has done
I think there will be one or two more soon as has been a little while. possibly travel firms and airlines as they need to compete with existing firms that DO accept btc already. I think it is hard to believe no firms will use cyber monday and black friday as a special bitcoin day to tap into bitcoin holders every company needs an edge there is a bitcoin friday effort going on in past years from community The number of other firms that would potentially do this is very limited as most firms do not have enough bitcoin related sales to make this worth it for them. It would probably be limited to coinbase and bitstamp. Other companies that accept bitcoin really do not have enough bicoin related sales (and wouldn't potentially get enough additional bitcoin related sales to make a TV ad a good investment). The fact of the matter is that the fact that a company accepts bitcoin spreads quickly within people that have and use bitcoin very closely without advertising so most of these companies would have little to gain by advertising the fact they accept bitcoin |
|
|
|
His name was Otong
Otong is in default trust.
Then he make a new account, Gosong.
Then he left his "fake" trust to Gosong has a trust.
Afterward, Otong sell his Gosong's account to other with high value.
Then he create another account and repeat the same way.
Any time you pass on trust like this, it gets diluted. I wouldn't think A single feedback will have a lot of significance, especially if it's on a new account. This ^ If a brand new account is created and sudden receives trust, that calls into question the motives of the person who initiated the trust to begin with...especially if the new account has barely any activity or trading history. The lesson here is to focus not on the little green numbers, but rather on the people who left a trust rating to begin with (as well as any references). And use escrow...which should be obvious by now anyway. A little bit of green trust typically will make people comfortable on smaller deals. If an account has done a few deals with a few people (one of which being on default trust) then there is a good reason why people would think they can be trusted. Even though escrow is free it does add a bit of complexity to a transaction as there will be some kind of delays to the transaction as you have an additional party to communicate with. One way that this kind of attack could be prevented is to have a log published whenever someone adds or removes trust for someone. This would make it easier to detect when someone is "trust padding" their shill accounts |
|
|
|
When they determine how many gang killings were avoided because people could buy drugs online instead of involving gangs he will be given a medal for saving lives.
This was an argument that would be said prior to SR being shut down. It was generally considered that buying drugs over the internet was much safer then buying drugs on the street. SR probably did save lives of people who would have died in drug deals gone wrong. There were also at least two sets of murders that Ross allegedly attempted to pay for. If this is true then SR is not all that different from any other drug gang. The sellers on SR would also have access to the address of their buyers so they could potentially do bad things to their buyer in the event that something were to go wrong in the sale. You also have the fact that SR made it much easier to get addicted to drugs and made it easier for addictions to get worse both of which are things that our public policy tries to prevent |
|
|
|
Russia banning BTC is old news. It has very little effect on btc.
Last year when China banned Bitcoin we had an all time high price. Fueled by Chinese buying bitcoins. The Chinese started to attempt to more strictly enforce the ban on bitcoin shortly before we saw a pretty severe price decline (that was likely caused by Chinese selling). I don't think the russian market for bitcoin was really ever very big so I don't think this will be a very big deal however it is certainly not something that can simply be ignored |
|
|
|
"It's a free market"
So basically, you are trying to scam some unsuspecting purchaser by relying on him pushing the wrong button??
So basically - no. Read OP. Well it appears that this is the case. The most expensive hashlet is currently being sold for ~$250 for 5 MHs by GAW directly to the customer. This is for the hashlet prime. Your OP does not specify what exactly you were selling other then the fact that it was a 5 (MH) hashlet. IMO a more likely scenario is that you were trying to sell a 5 MH hashlet solo which is being sold by GAW for $79.95 which is actually less then what you got for them. Either way you were attempting to sell them at above market prices when a buyer would only accept your order in the event that they made a mistake (like you are claiming to do) |
|
|
|
... Then there was an error message pop up, he closed it and refreshed the wallet page...
That probably was probably a key moment. Exactly. They were key logging him or had hijacked the computer and then transferred the money out. It is doubtful it was a MITM attack while using TOR when the easier method is to just have owned his computer. (Of course it is possible, just very unlikely). I also agree. A man in the middle attack is really not feasible with TOR. One theory as to what could have happened (besides spreading FUD) to the OP is that he went on a hidden wikki, looking for a .onion version of blockchain.info, clicked on a fake blockchian.info link (hidden wikki is littered with these kinds of phishing sites), entered his identifier and password, then the person behind the phishing .onion site was able to login to blockchain and steal the OP's bitcon. IMO the OP is spreading FUD more likely then not. I don't see why the OP would be paranoid enough to use TOR when dealing with bitcoin but isn't paranoid enough to want to use cold storage |
|
|
|
...
Price of DJIA today ~17,100 (call it 17,000)
Return: ~24.7x in ~40 years.
Your chart has the CPI being at somewhere between one and three in 1910 (call it 1.1) and is at roughly 27 now (call it 28). That means the CPI has gone up by 25.45x in 102 years.
If someone had taken one dollar in 1910 when the fed was created, kept it in a mattress, then invested it in the stock market in 1975, they would have come close to beating 102 years of inflation in just 40 years and this does not count dividends which would be substantial (several percentage points per year).
Yes you could have beaten inflation over 100 years by investing a dollar from 1910 in 1975, because the ponzi scheme only started in 71 and we all know if you get in early in a Ponzi scheme it's great  ... But get in after the peak and it's not so great  Thanks to central banks the current global money system is like musical chairs, yes the musics still playing and the players are still dancing around, but there's only one chair left, and there's a loaded gun on it, the game wont end well. The most brittle aspect at the moment are the derivatives markets where all the book excesses have been pushed into. There are five "too big to fail" banks in the United States that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives. Today, the U.S. national debt is sitting at a grand total of about 17.7 trillion dollars, so when we are talking about 40 trillion dollars we are talking about an amount of money that is almost unimaginable. And unlike stocks and bonds, these derivatives do not represent "investments" in anything. They can be incredibly complex, but essentially they are just paper wagers about what will happen in the future. The truth is that derivatives trading is not too different from betting on baseball or football games. Trading in derivatives is basically just a form of legalized gambling, and the "too big to fail" banks have transformed Wall Street into the largest casino in the history of the planet. When this derivatives bubble bursts (and as surely as I am writing this it will), the pain that it will cause the global economy will be greater than words can describe. SOURCE: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/tag/derivatives-crisisI think the point is that you could beat 100 years of inflation by investing for only 40 years even after having 60 years of inflation eating away at the value of your money. Historically speaking investments in the stock market have outperformed the rate of inflation by ~7% per year. To suggest that investing in the stock market is investing in a ponzi is just crazy. Companies create actual value by producing goods and offering services which results in earnings (and potential cash flow) that are available to their shareholders. Much of the derivative risk that large banks "have" is not actually risk because many of the derivatives cancel each other out and is hedged. To say that banks could potentially lose $40 trillion is really not accurate. |
|
|
|
If you have a fair amount of bitcoins is it stupid to keep them all on Bitcoin Core on a computer that's just about always online? I wouldn't call this stupid. I would say this is very insecure especially considering that you are using QT, as QT will broadcast the fact that you are someone that uses bitcoin (or at least is someone involved in Bitcoin) so potential attackers will know that you are someone they should target. By saying that you have a 'fair amount' you are implying that you have enough so that you would be negatively affected in a significant way in the event that your money were to be stolen. Even with a good password? A strong password is only one line of defense. You however must utilize other lines of defense as well. A strong password will not protect yourself against a keylogger of malware that can 'see' your private key when you temporarily decrypt it when you go to sign and push a TX. Do you think cold storage is essential?
Not necessarily however at the very least you should have your bitcoin stored on a computer that is not on a network that can be associated with Bitcoin use. As long as you are disassociated with bitcoin you will be somewhat safe as attackers will not know to attempt to attack, so if your money is stolen it would likely be the result of a more random attack. Most people however do believe that cold storage is essential as it eliminates the majority of risks of getting your bitcoin stolen |
|
|
|
Ahhh, marcotheminer, the stalwart of signature campaign honesty. ^^scarsacm. He apparently has neg trust because he was wearing both the dicebitco.in and bitmixer signatures at the same time, against both campaigns' rules. https://i.imgur.com/i2vC4pQ.png Sounds a lot like a scam artist to me. |
|
|
|
ah, shoot. i spaced out on this whole forum posting thing amidst some personal stuff the last few weeks. i think instead of cranking out 48 posts in the next 5 hours, i'll just start the new month, if that's possible. please let me know, EvilPanda. if so, post count = 287. i have updated to the new signature. thanks. |
|
|
|
everyone is selling if you don't do it you will lose everything after the final capitulation
I am not selling so your "everyone" theory is shot to shit. And you don't "lose everything" after a capitulation, you lose during. Get your shit straight scammer. LOL, falllling is not a scammer, he's just a harmless troll. and a broken record at that. but i'm interested since you are of the Spartan mindset. would you go down with the ship? or is there a price where you'd pack it up and go home? |
|
|
|
We may have a triple low to bounce off before the next leg up, yes, but $50? Dude, I would be thrilled, but I really don't think it's going to happen. Too many people will be stocking up on the way there. $350 again maybe.
you say you'd be thrilled -- and i've seen others say that as well. do you really think so? it's easy to say now, won't feel the same if/when we get there. i got in mostly the $60s and $70s.... seeing $50 would scare me a bit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
