Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them. But this cost function is not just exchange fees. It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities. |
|
|
|
people were gabbling on the wall observer that the recent price runup to 290 was a pump to make more money off the auction. This "analysis" seemed ill considered to me because government functionaries aren't going to be getting a bonus based on the auction price and therefore have no incentive (unlike wall st) to pull these tricks. It seems more likely to me that the pull back right before the bidding opened was the artificial move... or even more likely it was a natural pullback that was amplified. An entity who engineered an artificial pullback would use this knowledge to keep its bid high while others might bid at current market. Obviously if this is true it is bullish... entirely speculation, but I'm interested in your thoughts...
from many years of trading, i would recommend ignoring news events in general, especially ones that have long lead times like the auction. certainly, natural disasters and "zero day" natural disasters will have effects if large enough. otherwise, following the technicals is the wisest approach as it's almost impossible to factor/price in all the myriad news events over short time periods even when it seems obvious. also, large swaths of ppl are just contrarians and love to invest based on doing something unexpected or going against the grain. thus, what's makes sense to you, may not make sense in terms of market responses to news events and explains why so many seemingly intelligent ppl get confused and emotionally distraught when prices move opposite to what they've reasoned. now, having said that i believe more in technicals than fundamentals, it IS important to understand the fundamentals of the market you're investing in, especially with Bitcoin. assclown emotionally weak minded individuals, like tvbcof, have emotions that swing like the lilies which follow the price. which is precisely why all his FUD bottomed precisely @155 and have now gone quiet as we've rebounded. unbeknownst to even him, since that bottom he'll now sneak in a positive comment every once in a while in an attempt to be able to say "he called the bottom" way out in the future. if you understand Bitcoin, like i believe you do, then you will view huge pullbacks like the last >1 yr as a buying opportunity and ignore guys like tvbcof. this pullback has been a dream to fulfill one's greed when it comes to Bitcoin accumulation. this means understanding the economics, cryptography, mathematics, and game theory behind Bitcoin. this knowledge helps keep things in perspective that helps shield against your emotions due to the volatility. Oh, this short term analysis is just a fascination/hobby for me; I bought on each 00 all the way down. |
|
|
|
|
people were gabbling on the wall observer that the recent price runup to 290 was a pump to make more money off the auction. This "analysis" seemed ill considered to me because government functionaries aren't going to be getting a bonus based on the auction price and therefore have no incentive (unlike wall st) to pull these tricks. It seems more likely to me that the pull back right before the bidding opened was the artificial move... or even more likely it was a natural pullback that was amplified. An entity who engineered an artificial pullback would use this knowledge to keep its bid high while others might bid at current market. Obviously if this is true it is bullish... entirely speculation, but I'm interested in your thoughts...
|
|
|
|
Antonopoulos is out of his mind suggesting the current hashing power of the network is enough to secure a $1T Bitcoin market cap
I didn't watch but I agree with him in principle. You can't steal coins with 51% only block service. So the only entity who would waste the kind of $ to 51pct is governments. But governments would simply legislate the problem away not waste 100 millions to build up hash. |
|
|
|
Firstly, I really want to thank you for what you've done here. You've perfectly formalized (and theoretically solved) a problem that was in the back of my mind since I've properly understood the bitcoin network topology. I should thank MojoNation. I've been musing about the problem ever since I encountered their (unsuccessful) attempt to solve it. In particularly, their experience was a great case study in why price discovery needs to be fully automatic on both sides of the transaction. Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution? To the best of my knowledge, they are aware of it. None of them have commented, however. I don't know of any immediate, specific plans to implement this. have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"? That is, when every tiny thing requires a micro-transaction the system suffers from certain drawbacks: 1. overly complex 2. inefficient 3. bootstrap issues both technical and social: a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data |
|
|
|
http://www.rre.com/blog/90-why-we-started-abraTo design Abra we turned to the traditional Hawala model. (...) Traditional Hawala’s are generally illegal in the United States as no one is allowed to hold or remit funds on behalf of someone else without being a licensed money transmitter both with FinCen (the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) and with the US State regulators where the consumers’ reside. In the case of Abra, however, consumers and Tellers are always holding their own money just as with the standard open source Bitcoin software. Abra Tellers simply buy and sell digital currency directly to and from other consumers in their neighborhood in small amounts. I am not a lawyer, but that explanation of why Abra is not a money transmitter is seems totally bogus. When you use Western Union, you give your cash to one teller here, and another teller over there gives his cash to the other customer. No cash is actually moving between the two locations, and there may not even be transfers between bank accounts. Yet WU is definitely a money transmitter... I agree in U.S. Law such a service is absolutely a money xmitter business, but what if the tellers are in the receiving country only? Anyone can legally buy bitcoin in the U.S. and send it to anyone they want (except drug dealers, terrorists, etc). Migrant worker remittances usually only flow one way: from the rich country to families in a poorer country. It would be foolish for those poorer countries' governments to discourage a more efficient remittance option. It just sucks money out of their economy to do so. Worst case, Abra could get a money transmitter license and so shield all of their Tellers from having to do so. All bank employees don't have individual money transmitter licenses... |
|
|
|
FINMA, NYSE, WSJ on board ... the regulators are these guys poodles, the 'announcement' for bitcoin NY regs is just fuel for their bubble.
People who I forgot i told about the coin ringing, texting. emailing wanting to know how to get in ... can't really be bothered with them now honestly.
Most don't know good advice when they hear it. Please take the time to help them. Broad adoption is the best way to success. |
|
|
|
The rates are garbage, but if a loan, or whatever it is called closes early, would the lender still get paid the interest for the day lended? (ex you loan 1 btc, the swap closes in an hour, do you still get 0.02 percent or do they screw you)
The rates are such crap it seems kind of pointless as I could probably make more money off of a $1 scalp than lending for an entire month, but if early closing still gives you interest it is not that bad during times where you don't have a strong stance on a position.
I emailed them about this last year. There ought to be a minimum charge (or another way to think of it is a minimum time) because the proceeds don't even pay for your time to click "offer swap" if it closes in an hour. And also I have seen people manipulate the rate by grabbing and then releasing all the swaps. This drives the swap % up. Maybe if other people also complain something will be done about it. |
|
|
|
 The lack of understanding continues right up to the eve of Ethereum's planned release. No comprehension of the ledger, still thinking in terms of "tokens" and "blockchain tech is the important thing, not the money." He's simultaneously totally wrong and completely right. How he's right: The concept of a database with per record access protection is incredibly useful. For example, you'll be able to actually receive electronic financial statements or other legal documents and not worry that they will be retroactively changed without your knowledge, because your private key is needed to change them. You could even imagine a bank that cannot change your USD balance without your OK...
For many of these databases tokens are unnecessary. The cost of maintaining the database is simply part of ongoing operations just like databases today. Ethereum is overly complex for this task. Bitcoin is overly complex. You could throw out all the mining logic, most of the scripting, etc because the DB does not need to be decentralized. How he's wrong: The killer app for a "database with per record access protection" is money because money is memory. So Bitcoin. how is that helpful to society when you, the acct holder, can change/alter them? multisig... |
|
|
|
The lack of understanding continues right up to the eve of Ethereum's planned release. No comprehension of the ledger, still thinking in terms of "tokens" and "blockchain tech is the important thing, not the money." He's simultaneously totally wrong and completely right. How he's right: The concept of a database with per record access protection is incredibly useful. For example, you'll be able to actually receive electronic financial statements or other legal documents and not worry that they will be retroactively changed without your knowledge, because your private key is needed to change them. You could even imagine a bank that cannot change your USD balance without your OK... For many of these databases tokens are unnecessary. The cost of maintaining the database is simply part of ongoing operations just like databases today. Ethereum is overly complex for this task. Bitcoin is overly complex. You could throw out all the mining logic, most of the scripting, etc because the DB does not need to be decentralized. How he's wrong: The killer app for a "database with per record access protection" is money because money is memory. So Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I agree. Is this garbage what we want the newbies who just watched that CNN special to read when they hit bitcointalk and look at active threads?
I understand that there's a fine line between trolling and a completely valid bearish perspective. So it is not right to moderate on-topic bearish posts. But the trash I'm reading today is not the image we want to present to new bitcoiners. Letting it stay here is a bad idea if you care about Bitcoin, even if you care but happen to be short today.
So I'm here posting on this thread to ask other bitcoiners to en-masse ask the moderators to start monitoring this thread until the off-topic trolling -- in fact all the off topic posting -- goes somewhere else.
Please reply to this post if you agree!!! Drown out the garbage posts with replies so the trolls see how little we appreciate their off-topic "contributions".
And also start clicking the "report to moderator" link on off-topic posts to this thread.
thanks,
theZerg
It's a fine idea but maybe this thread should remain a cesspit with proper discussion happening elsewhere. Either way it would be nice to have some type of moderation. No. We don't need to provide a cesspit under the name "bitcoin". Let them post their views on women and whatever else on some other forum. |
|
|
|
Some absolute crap getting discussed today on here.
Take it to off topic.
I agree. Is this garbage what we want the newbies who just watched that CNN special to read when they hit bitcointalk and look at active threads? I understand that there's a fine line between trolling and a completely valid bearish perspective. So it is not right to moderate on-topic bearish posts. But the trash I'm reading today is not the image we want to present to new bitcoiners. Letting it stay here is a bad idea if you care about Bitcoin, even if you care but happen to be short today. So I'm here posting on this thread to ask other bitcoiners to en-masse ask the moderators to start monitoring this thread until the off-topic trolling -- in fact all the off topic posting -- goes somewhere else. Please reply to this post if you agree!!! Drown out the garbage posts with replies so the trolls see how little we appreciate their off-topic "contributions". And also start clicking the "report to moderator" link on off-topic posts to this thread. thanks, theZerg |
|
|
|
What happened with the news that scientists were able to produce gold artificially ?
If that ran that process 24/7 we'd almost be able to see what they produced with a high school microscope and oil prices would be at ATH... Ok maybe I'm exaggerating a little. :-) |
|
|
|
|
The first headline we read about a nation adopting Bitcoin will be in the context of the PEOPLE adopting it, not the government.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, it seems like Willy caused a nasty bubble with a resulting year-long bear market causing significant negative sentiment both due to the volatility and the price drop. Hopefully the exchange market has been taken over by more responsible companies now and in 2015 we'll see less volatility and instead a price that reflect the steady worldwide adoption.
|
|
|
|
Would there actually be a market for a Bitcoin whale to travel to an economically stricken country with a trezor wallet packed with 100s+ BTC and sell them locally?
Anyone think this sort of thing happens? Serious question. Just musing on the idea.
Interesting idea. Risky (as in risky to your short/long term health) You couldn't just parachute in and set up shop. There's all sorts of local knowledge that would be necessary to operate. It would take a certain type of person to be successful at that trade, but I'm sure it's possible. I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. I think there's an education and volatility problem. Otherwise we'd be seeing BTC trading at a premium against the USD in places like Argentina and Venezuela. But AFAIK, it basically trades on par against the local currency with the "blue rate" USD. |
|
|
|
somehow we have to pin this on Bitcoin: If past HSBC transgressions are any indication, the amount of corrupted cash flowing through U.S. financial institutions could be absolutely startling. The aforementioned 2013 Senate report noted that HSBC allowed over $200 trillion in wire transfers to enter the U.S. unmonitored over a three-year period, including $670 billion in wire transfers from Mexico and at least $881 million in laundered money from Mexican and Columbian drug traffickers. In December 2012, HSBC agreed to pay a $1.92 billion settlement to federal and state authorities for failing to maintain an adequate AML program.http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/beneficial-ownership-rules-would-drag-criminals-into-daylight-1072763-1.html#commentsYes, for many of us its not that we are against regulation; if there was a magic oracle that correctly flagged money transfers that occur for illegal purposes then ok let's use it. But the reality is that regulation simply sets the bar higher, encouraging the formation of organizations that can pay big bribes, hire smart lawyers, money managers, etc. In other words, cartels. Better to have no money laundering regulation than a fantasy situation that only inconveniences honest people/businesses. People and businesses whose profit margins are much smaller so they can't purchase the money managers and lawyers required to deal with the regs.
you don't know it was FAKE FIAT.
gox could've been buying on behalf of a large whale. plus, volumes on Chinese exchanges were large at the time.
Yeah, buying when trading was closed, great way to give the whales a good price.  Between your hypothesis and Karpeles trying to make a quick buck even while he ruined Bitcoin for years, my gut makes a clear choice. that's not my hypothesis. it's just a possibility i'm pointing out to counterbalance what NHJT said. no doubt shady shit was going on, which is precisely why i tell ppl it would've been almost impossible to cash out at the top unless you had insider connections since getting fiat out of gox was next to impossible at the time and for sure extremely risky. when i queried MK on IRC at the time when we touched gold @1200 about his ability to wire USD as there were delays, he tried to lure me into sending BTC for this purpose by telling me he might do me a special favor. i lol'd and never did as that was a huge red flag and something to be avoided given all the delays everyone else was having. Yes, in retrospect we didn't touch gold. ~1050 was the highest price you could cash out at (bitstamp). |
|
|
|
Is there any corresponding "good news" to follow with this? If not, I think this bullish rise will slowly trend back down again :p
There is NO, as in zero, zilch, nada, good news that's behind the current rise. This is a classic PUMP & DUMP scheme, don't be left behind holding the bag. Sell while you can. It's going right back down to 200. A good news rally is likely to unwind in a bear market since it likely consists of trader money trying to catch a wave. Esp. In BTC where it takes a week+ to set up to buy. We saw this several times last few months. OTOH a good volume no news rally is more likely to consist of investment time frame purchasing. Of course 3600 coins per day could still take the wind out. |
|
|
|
What makes you so sure about it? Usually it's driven by news event but there's none at the moment. So any explanation?
A medium or high volume no news rally is actually really good news |
|
|
|
|
3600 new coins per day. Even at $200 that means we need 3/4 of a million USD of holders or transactional growth per day. All the great transactional news (remittance, large merchant acceptance etc) does not help the price SHORT TERM because it takes 100x transactional growth to = 1 holder growth (if you assume 3 days to make a transaction which is VERY conservative; the number could be more like 1000x -- BTC is "used" for just a couple hours during a transaction). However, transactional growth gives confidence to holders...
But holding is not in vogue right now due to the decline. We'll need some fiat shocks and a level or slightly rising coin to resume the buzz that makes your typical herd-mentality investor go back in. However when it happens, this one is likely to be fast and very large -- because BTC awareness is saturating society -- so it makes sense to buy and hold in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
