|
Depends.. If you have some further deeper insights into what the future is likely to hold a single order might be best but otherwise DCA sounds best to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Please change the title of this thread to something more sensible like "A Silk road user busted?"
kthxbye
|
|
|
|
Bruce supporters Those still exist?  |
|
|
|
Indeed it seems Bitcoin somehow very often intuitively disturbs many people. It often inspires modern day Luddism.
It's true. There's some kind of visceral response to the concept that I just don't really understand. It all boils down to people and their ability to think. Thinking correctly is not something we are born with but is taught by parents, family, friends, teachers, gurus, ect. And unfortunately most people "learned" the most about thinking in public school where a lot of mere opinions disguised as facts were shoved down their throats and demanded to be regurgitated instead of actually shown how and more specifically with which correct thought processes they were derived by. Few people learned to think correctly is what I'm trying to say and it shows when they encounter complex problems of which economics is arguably the most complex of all sciences if it can be even called that. Plus, never forget the human nature of looking to authority for correct answers and we all know what and how they think.. But this isn't really a problem. Just like teaching people that the Earth is not the center of the universe and being scorned for it couldn't stop the truth from being eventually learned by everyone so too the truth about what makes money a good money will eventually be learned by everyone. If not for theoretical reasons it will certainly happen for practical reasons. Count yourselves lucky you learned to think properly so you wont need to learn the hard way why we are right.  |
|
|
|
|
We say 10 dollars, not 10 dollar, so I don't know what you mean..
|
|
|
|
Agreed, the "Bitcoins" could be changed to "Bitcoin". We will keep that in mind for the next revision.
Thank you!
Actually, to totally go overboard: Some days ago I read the system is called "Bitcoin", the currency is called "bitcoin". Ente Yes the system's name is Bitcoin, the unit of account are bitcoins or a bitcoin(singular). |
|
|
|
Anyone can create an ID, the question is what does it take for your ID to matter? The whole idea is to put the power of an ID in the hands of its creator.
No, I disagree. The who idea is to put the power in the hands of those who want to know who they're dealing with. Right now anyone can have an unlimited amount of digital IDs and there are zero repercussions for bad behavior, you burn one ID and you create a new one. The idea is to stop that, meaning that once you burn your unique ID, that's it you're done, not able to scam anyone ever again. |
|
|
|
|
Actually I don't understand why you'd want a decentralized ID system, what's the point? Why allow just anyone to have an ID? Why not limit it to only those who are going to follow certain rules, on a voluntary basis of course.. this way the ID doesn't only identify a person but it also portrays a degree of trustworthiness of that person. And if the business offering this service ever misbehaves customers can simply take their business elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe people around here use the word taint for the follow two meanings:
1. bitcoins being assumed to have come from a theft based on some previous address they were sitting at
2. the relationship between the address the bitcoins are sitting at now with some other address (0% - no relation, 100% - next previous address)
I believe blockchain.info is using the word taint for the 2nd purpose which doesn't say anything about the perceived or actual legitimacy of some specific bitcoins but merely attemps to compare the connectivity between some specific addresses.
|
|
|
|
This makes zero sense. From the outside this looks like Mr A sent some money to Mr P and then Mr P sent 90% of it back. Is this your idea of money laundering?
From the outside it looks like Mr A sold bitcoins to Mr P. If authorities ask, Mr A says he mined them. Borrowing a lot of btc enables you to create your own btc tumbler, efficient enough that a blockchain analysis never holds up in court. Early adopters might have some coin unused since they were mined, check out the blockchain for interesting stuff.. And what is Mr P going to tell the authorities about where he got the 90% he used to "buy" the bitcoins from Mr A? |
|
|
|
Tldrifyed: An individual of profession, in order of probable probability, live poker player, carpenter doing some business on the side on weekends, drug dealer or bank robber, has got too much physical cash, and wants to convert his pile into a more legal form, preferably in the bank account of his legitimate business or possibly offshore. He makes a transaction with Mr P, who in turn makes a note in his books about selling bitcoins OTC to an unnamed customer, since KYC requirements is not needed for transactions not involving currency conversion, and btc is not currency as we all know. That the three letter requirement is unneeded is of course in the grey zone, but that's why he's hired a lawyer, making sure not to break any rules, just bend them. As soon as the cash is in the bank, a wire is sent to the individual, aka. Mr A, with the aforementioned profession's tax-paying account, and pays with the very same bitcoins that he bought before, getting a nice sum of about 90% of the former deal. The remaining 10% of the cash goes to mtgox and is swiftly converted into btc. A's got fresh smelling money in the bank, for which he payed 10%, and can now buy cars ans houses. P's got 10% more BTC. The market's got some less BTC, equivalent to 10 and not 100% of the total operation, which is convenient, since it is then easy when holding ten times that to put up a few walls of another kind than those Mr A crafts on weekends to stabilize the rate and not risk too much during the few hours he's in fiat. With P's background as CEO of TLP, Mr O's tool slides right off the stubble.
This makes zero sense. From the outside this looks like Mr A sent some money to Mr P and then Mr P sent 90% of it back. Is this your idea of money laundering? |
|
|
|
|
It appears he invests with pirate, so what is this, paying 1% - 1,5% for being able to invest with pirate and pocketing the 5,5% - 6% difference??
|
|
|
|
@Traktion
You don't have to join us or anyone else, we are just talking about software.
Which Traktion and me are trying to tell you is a non solution and therefor a waste of time. |
|
|
|
If BTC takes a shit he can easily repay his debt and has no loss of personal funds. If it rockets at the wrong time however, we will have a problem.
And what did I say? The theory goes the manipulator i.e. pirate is only trying to keep the price low not buy low, sell high.
|
|
|
|
How could he possibly profit from a low price?
All his funds are held in BTC right? All dividends payed in BTC as well.
So only a high price would be beneficial to him for a higher net worth of his funds held and in case he bails out with it, he will get more money for his coins once he sells them.
Here's why: No, I need no details. I just want to know why you don't have enough BTC to continue without investors by now. Exponential growth is pretty neat, and I don't see why these peoples' BTC should be better than your own.
If there's one thing I found out by now, then it's that you joke a lot less than it seems. I trust you can fulfill the promise above, and you'll have a laugh at a lot of people when you do.
I can't remember how many times I've explained this, but for you I'll do it again. Bitcoin is not fiat yet. That doesn't mean it won't be at some point nor does it mean I don't believe in it. There's simply no reason at this time for me to risk market movements with my converted fiat > bitcoin when there's hundreds of users that will let me make money with their coins. I don't need them, I just prefer them.My operation is funded by my lenders and I do hold a few personal coins myself. As you can see, he claims he does what ever the hell he does (I believe nothing) in USD and then converts back into BTC. The only reason he isn't doing what he does with his own money and gives up huges profits, he says, is because he doesn't want to risk his own money holding USD while BTC might climb, so he borrows BTC at insane rates from people and transfers that risk on to them. I believe there are post where he even says that a price jump higher would be really bad for him. |
|
|
|
Maybe he's just too smart for me, but I think this Manipulator acts irrationally.
Lets face the facts:
- Hes got funds worth about 50k BTC on the BID and 20k BTC on the ASK side
- Playing Ping Pong doesnt work anymore
- to bring the price DOWN to buy cheap bitcoins his 20k ASK wall seems to be too small and hes changing his positions too quickly
- to bring the price UP to sell all his 20k BTC, he's too cautios position his BID wall closer to the current market price, so everyone knows, that 50k BTC BID wall will be withdrawn as soon as price comes closer
- while trying to bring the price UP, he also can`t resist the urge to place his 20k ASK wall at the same time, inhibating any rally efforts
- a nearly 1 month old upward triangle is forming with increasing pressure to produce an outreak upwards or downwards, finalizing latest on the 25th of July, probably much earlier and leaving space for only 1 or 2 more outbreak attempts to the upside, before collapsing.
The most logical conclusion to escape this gridlock would be to withdraw the ASK wall completely, making way for the much anticipated rally beyond 7.00$ into the range of 9.00 or 10 $/BTC. Then just before the peak a selling would much higher returns anyway.
The theory goes the manipulator i.e. pirate is only trying to keep the price low not buy low, sell high. |
|
|
|
My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.
This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25. The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved. Let's take government out of the equation here. You and your 500 closest neighbors formed a voluntary association which legally, according to strict free market principles, bought up some nearby undeveloped land for the purpose of maintaining a park there. Everyone contributes a bit, everyone's happy. Three years later, there are some decisions which need to be made about which direction your commonly owned park will go in. There are debates as to whether the park should have a playground or if the money is better spent planting more trees, where the paths should go, whether a field should be cleared to allow people to play sports in it, etc. The challenge is to create a voting system which creates the optimal outcome in all of these cases while minimizing bureaucratic inefficiency. What should we do? Do what big corporations with thousands of share holders do to make any decisions.. |
|
|
|
My focus has been mainly around finding the "perfect" voting system.
This has already been found many many decades ago and it's called by strictly consumers regulated markets (i.e. free markets) where voting is carried out 24/7/265.25. The only problem is there's this small gang of psychopathic people who benefit immensely by using violence to interfere with it. Remove them and all of our problems with governments will be solved. |
|
|
|
|
-- non reversible
-- virtually can't be counterfeited
-- open
-- honest
-- voluntary
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
