|
You have your poll worded rather confusingly. Why are there two options for 50%? Also, having the poll question as a negative is confusing.
Better would be:
Poll question: How confident are you that bitcoins will drop below $25 at some point in the future?
- 100% Bitcoins will definitely fall below $25
- 75%
- 50% they may or may not drop below $25
- 25%
- 0% Bitcoins will never fall below $25
|
|
|
|
It does not make sense for the pass-through to trade much higher than the underlying asset. It makes complete sense when your position in a bitcoin company trading on MPex is going to be about 100 to 300 bitcoins. Spending 30 bitcoins just to trade when your position is going to be 10x the fees - that doesn't make financial sense to me. (Most people on Bitfunder don't even have a position of 300 bitcoins. More like 20 bitcoins. But anyways...) It does not matter what your size of position is, since the pass-through fee is a percent of profits. So whether you have a .01 btc stake or a 1000 btc stake, the pass-through still takes 5% of the profits. The MPEx fee is a flat fee, so there the total size does make a difference. Yes, we are saying that if the current asking price on the pass-through is above the MPEx price, it would be better to put up a bid and wait for it to be filled. Alternately, you could buy the over-priced share and hope that the underlying asset goes up in price past what you paid for it, but either way you will have to wait some time for your investment to profit you anything. |
|
|
|
The issue is each pass through share is usually priced at a premium than the MPex rate. I buy them at a premium.
This'd seem to be more an issue of you than of the PT. Why buy at a premium? Put your bid in at 95% of MPEx price and wait for it to be filled. ii. Have liquidity in the market - allowing me to sell the shares at a price higher than I would be able to at MPex.
Basically it's like this: MPEx exists to put a skewer through the greater fool theory. You figure that's what "investing" means, so you just won't let go of it. Consequently you'd like someone to run a little bubble machine which is vaguely related to MPEx to offer it some backing, but sufficiently remote for you to still be able to play in your bubbles, make fiddy cent or w/e. It's not that the PT op "should" anything, it's that you shouldn't be doing this. It does not make sense for the pass-through to trade much higher than the underlying asset. While there is some convenience factor to the pass-through, the operator takes a cut of the profits. There is more risk because you have to trust an intermediary and one more exchange, so to me it makes sense for the pass-through price to be even less than 95% of the underlying asset. |
|
|
|
|
Ian,
When do you estimate dividends will resume?
|
|
|
|
Free market will tell you, dot be impatient!
This thread is not about being impatient, it is about saying what the free market is telling us right now. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't parity with the price per ounce of pot be more relevant?
Yeah, I know I could look it up, but what is one of those going for these days? |
|
|
|
|
1 bitcoin is worth 1 ounce of silver today.
|
|
|
|
Hey BBE was great. It was the first and is now totally overrun by blockchain.info. I hope that Liraz Siri is genuinely interested in competing with blockchain.info so we don't slide into a monopoly situation.
When I am at work, where they have a very strict firewall, I cannot access blockchain.info. The webblocker says it is in the category of "gambling". I suspect this is because there is a way to use the blockchain.info wallet to play satoshiDice. Anyway, what I am getting at is it is nice to have blockExplorer as an alternative. |
|
|
|
Thanks Peter that is just what I needed. I'll play around with some gpu mining on my current hardware and rule bitcoin out as an investment opportunity.
I didn't mean to say you should rule out investing in bitcoin completely, just that expecting huge gains in the short term might leave you disappointed. If you temper your enthusiasm and accept the risk, and extend your investment horizons beyond a few months, then bitcoins can be a wonderful investment. |
|
|
|
I was thinking how the "change addresses" thing will cause problems eventually. Why? Well because 99% or more of bitcoin users do not know about that, they think that if they have BTC in the address A and they spend some of them, then they will just have less btc in address A. They make a paperwallet, backup, or whatelse and meanwhile use it.
Then when one day they will use the paperwallet they will notice that the btc are no more in that address but in a new one due to how the "change" works.
Or not?
Would it be possible for the client to let the user designate the change address? Like have the send money dialog pop up, you imput the amount and receiving address, and there is a checkbox with "Send change to new address", which if you uncheck, then you can input a change address (or choose between address in your wallet). This could be something which is turned on/off in the settings. |
|
|
|
They are helping bitcoin by providing more places where bitcoins are useful. We just need a way to tell all those people being cut off by the credit card companies that they can switch to bitcoins and continue their business. |
|
|
|
If there is already a post about this can someone point me there? I could not find one. So anyway, am I right or wrong in saying-
1. the new ASIC chips are shipping next month
2. they are guaranteed to drive up difficulty
3. difficulty going up is guaranteed to drive bitcoin value up
4. investing in bitcoin before March with the intent of selling it back within a couple months has a very high porbibility of being profitable.
Thoughts?
Yes, you are wrong. Now would be ab bad time to invest in something like a gpu graphics card to use as a bitcoin miner. But ASIC miners should not have much overall affect on the price of bitcoins. 1. There are already ASIC chips mining. A specific company might be shipping large amounts of ASICS next month. 2. Yes, difficulty will rise dramatically. 3. Difficulty rising only raises the value of bitcoins because it means the network is more secure, At this point the network is already secure enough that attacking it would be difficult, so while rising difficulty is good it will only have a small affect. (The law of diminishing returns) 4. The aforementioned facts do not support the conclusion that there is a "high probability" that buying bitcoins will be profitable over the next few months. Bitcoins are still a risky investment. The price has risen dramatically over the past couple months, so there is a large probability that the price will go back down some amount or stay steady. |
|
|
|
title says it all, i am trying to understand yet the answers are so variable and some contradict. i want a answer or collective answer that i can draw a picture to . thanks
Recently there seems to have been an influx of new users into the bitcoin ecosystem. The general consensus is that as the number of users goes up, the price should go up (because more people are holding the same number of coins, and also the coins are more useful because there are more people to trade with). The problem is nobody knows how many new people are joining, how much capital/expertise they bring with them, or how much they will affect the overall price. So the price will continue to be volatile and jump up and down as the market tries to find an optimum level. tl;dr New voluntary currency in price discovery phase. |
|
|
|
No, there's a huge difference. With credit card, the shop can be pretty sure that most of the people isn't going to fraudulently chargeback, the chargeback process takes a lot of time and effort to go through with. Also once you are flagged as a chargeback abuser, you can no longer successfully chargeback.
But double spend, is trivial to do, it's simple as sending two transactions, one with a fee, the other without. There's no time or effort involved, also you can do double spends as much as you want, with no one stopping you.
The chargeback process taking a long time for credit cards just means there is a longer window of uncertainty for the merchant. If double spending is so easy to do, do you have any examples of people double spending against you? If I understand correctly, it does not matter whether you include a fee or not, if the coins in the transaction are already in another transaction then the transaction is not accepted by nodes. It does not take long for a transaction to propagate through the network, so to do a double spend you have to time the sending of the two transactions very closely. |
|
|
|
What do you care what's my understanding is, I asked my questions here and people can answer, that's the idea of a forum as far as I know. You can open your new forum and ask people to take an exam before they are allowed to post.
I also can say you are a troll because you are an idiot, so?
You are not a troll because you are an idiot. A troll is somebody who makes inflammatory statements with the intention of causing others to react. While you may be making these outrageous arguments because you do not understand bitcoin, we cannot tell. Therefore, you should learn more about how and why bitcoin works the way it does, then you will not accidentally make statements which are trolling. |
|
|
|
I think the Freicoin (crypto-currency with demurrage) and Ripple (peer-to-peer credit) projects were created by organizations that do intend some kind of more equal redistribution after a while. Maybe you'd want to check those out. I was just about to suggest Ripple as something to look into. If I understand correctly, anybody can generate currency in ripple. |
|
|
|
In theory it would be possible to start out with every individual a share of the total of bitcoins. Problem is, in that case the idea, both of the technology and the limited supply, must have been agreed upon in advance. I don't see how that possibly could be true.
Hypothetically, if there was some way to prove your identity, the system could be set up so that each person who joined the network would be given an initial 50 units (or whatever number you picked). Would that fix the OP's desire for an equal distribution? The problem is there is no way (that I know of) to keep people from claiming to be new people and collecting extra bunches of coins. Rememberhow there was a bitcoin fountain set up by Gavin, giving away 5 bitcoins free to anybody new to bitcoins? He quickly had to lower the amount given out and add various checks to keep people from abusing the system. |
|
|
|
well I have the thread all to myself now!
So as is common with all "mad" people I will continue to elicit a response:
The owners of asset tickers: silver, and gold on glbse were informed by Nefario on 12/12/2012 of their share holders.
I had shares in these assets but have not been contacted by them?. If they or anyone who knows who they were, would they contact me. I would be very grateful. regards reg.
I didn't hold any of these assets, but I thought the threads for each of them said all the shareholders were paid back? Let me see if I can find a link ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79992.msg1472338#msg1472338https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79993.msg1472331#msg1472331Hopefully that helps. |
|
|
|
Bitcoins biggest selling points are its ability to be anonymous and decentralized. Most people do not care about this. The only services currently offered that really are served by bitcoins biggest assets are illegal ones--Gambling and Silk Road. The current run up is 95% related to speculation that "everyone will get rich by just buying and hoarding bitcoins". This will end like the last run up--crashing down to reality.
The fact that bitcoin is well suited for illegal activities does not make it ill-suited for legal activities, just as cash serves me just fine for my day-to-day purchases even though it is widely known that criminals prefer to be payed in cash. |
|
|
|
When the optimal level of adoption is reached, a bitcoin hoard can no longer be regarded as an entrepreneural investment, so bitcoin will slowly move from the hoards to profit making investments in the real economy. That is a slow downwards pressure on the value of a bitcoin.
While "hoarding" bitcoins will no longer be an income generating investment, keeping "savings" in bitcoin will still be a way to avoid inflation. As the bitcoin economy matures, the volatility will decrease, which will make such a method of savings more secure as well. People using bitcoins as a savings vehicle will help maintain the price value over the long run. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
