False. I recently requested 3 withdrawals, SEPA, 5 figures each, and they arrived to my account in 2/3 days.
Gox has tens of thousands of customers, if all the SEPA transfers had such delays we would see a shitstorm going on in these forums, while we still have $11M on Gox order book and trading goes on despite the low volume. Following my own personal experience, the delays are an exception, and I think if they weren't we would see panic, which we are not seeing
oh boy, you're so full of shit  Why? I'm sharing with you my own personal experience. Then you are a privileged customer, I am already waiting for a month and a half for my last withdrawal, still hasn't arrived. I wonder why some wires go through so fast, while others not. Puzzling. BTW, I'm fully verified including notarized docs sent by regular post. I'm verified, but not "Trusted" (with the notarized docs), maybe that makes a difference. |
|
|
|
False. I recently requested 3 withdrawals, SEPA, 5 figures each, and they arrived to my account in 2/3 days.
Gox has tens of thousands of customers, if all the SEPA transfers had such delays we would see a shitstorm going on in these forums, while we still have $11M on Gox order book and trading goes on despite the low volume. Following my own personal experience, the delays are an exception, and I think if they weren't we would see panic, which we are not seeing
oh boy, you're so full of shit Why? I'm sharing with you my own personal experience. Then you are a privileged customer, I am already waiting for a month and a half for my last withdrawal, still hasn't arrived. |
|
|
|
|
back to $100-150, but it's about to launch into superbubble nr. 3, which will be the last or second to last bubble with that kind of increase in magnitude.
|
|
|
|
|
lol @ butthurt report form
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin likely can't survive another extended bear market. Those of you who want cheap coins be careful what you wish for.
So it can startup from nothing, gain global attention, but if the price drops for a long time, then it will burn to nothing, not the first time, but the second time? Yeah, seems likely....  |
|
|
|
I've said it once and will repeat: there's no fairer way to deal with a bank failure than a bail-in: - Current bank owners (shareholders) should lose everything.
- Creditors should lose the necessary amount to save the bank, starting by those who accepted more risks (like bondholders) until those who did not accept much risk (depositors). Ideally, depositors should not lose anything or very little - but if the hole was too huge, they might end up with a significant cut.
- These same creditors should be rewarded with ownership of the bank. For example, if you lost 10K, and in total 10G were needed to save the bank, you now must own a millionth part of the bank in shares.
I can see no way to make it fairer than this. Tax victims should not have to spend a dime - that's externalizing a cost to people that had nothing to do it (imposed negative externality, moral hazard, private profit public losses etc). Only those involved with the failed bank should. Federal/national insurances of bank deposits are unfair by definition and should never have been created in the first place. Agreed, I for one didn't understand why what I have been told is normal bankruptcy law (first the shareholder loses his money, then bondholders, then depositors) was not used in previous bank-ruptcies. It's ridiculous that they have only implemented this now. Basically governments are scared of contagion. If you see one bank go down, you run on another one, and that goes bad too. (Probably also some corruption, because people who would lose out are good at influencing the government.) I think a lot of people here have got the meaning of this backwards. When governments offer full bail-outs with taxpayers's money, it's because they think all the banks are very shaky, and they don't dare let one of them fail in case the rest of them topple, too. What's happening now is that the European banks are gradually getting more stable, so governments are feeling confident enough to try to reassert the original principles of how bank failures were always _supposed_ to work. Even if you are concerned with systemic risk, you can nationalize the bank and fund the liabilities with taxpayers money, but in that case shareholders and bondholders should be wiped out first. |
|
|
|
Gold below 1200.
Very close to gold production price. very very close Imho effect of production price on the gold price doesn't matter that much in the short run. It's important obviously, but I have the feeling that some gold bugs (I consider myself to be one) think that the price will magically rebound at the cost of production. But the amount of metal already mined is pretty big vs the new supply. What will 10% less supply per year do versus other factors such as QE etc. ? The more costly mines will shut down and the average cost of mined gold will go down, all else being equal (and supply will drop some, obviously). |
|
|
|
But under the current circumstances, when there is a vastly more efficient machine for the current algorithm, its good that these are being used.
Define: "vastly more efficient". at generating hashes with the current algorithm.... Try mining with your CPU versus the ASICs in the network. |
|
|
|
- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)
Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking! Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed? Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt). Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite. I agree that a hashing algorithm that has a normal pc as its ASIC (meaning there is no hardware more suitable to mine than a normal pc) would be ideal. But under the current circumstances, when there is a vastly more efficient machine for the current algorithm, its good that these are being used. |
|
|
|
Lets BitAttack those who say Bitcoin is useless, rubbish, illegal, and even those who spell it 'Bit Coin' or 'BitCoin'.
Or we could educate them. Why be rational if you can be a fanatic? |
|
|
|
I've said it once and will repeat: there's no fairer way to deal with a bank failure than a bail-in: - Current bank owners (shareholders) should lose everything.
- Creditors should lose the necessary amount to save the bank, starting by those who accepted more risks (like bondholders) until those who did not accept much risk (depositors). Ideally, depositors should not lose anything or very little - but if the hole was too huge, they might end up with a significant cut.
- These same creditors should be rewarded with ownership of the bank. For example, if you lost 10K, and in total 10G were needed to save the bank, you now must own a millionth part of the bank in shares.
I can see no way to make it fairer than this. Tax victims should not have to spend a dime - that's externalizing a cost to people that had nothing to do it (imposed negative externality, moral hazard, private profit public losses etc). Only those involved with the failed bank should. Federal/national insurances of bank deposits are unfair by definition and should never have been created in the first place. Agreed, I for one didn't understand why what I have been told is normal bankruptcy law (first the shareholder loses his money, then bondholders, then depositors) was not used in previous bank-ruptcies. It's ridiculous that they have only implemented this now. |
|
|
|
You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again: And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.
Why? Because it increases the cost for a potential 51% attacker. |
|
|
|
Don't listen to them. They are just grumpy old men. I'll tell you what it is but first I have an investment idea for you. Since you seem new and I like helping out new people I'll give you the exclusive chance to double your money. Send me 5 Bitcoins today and I'll send you back .0001 Bitcoins a day in interest for a year and at the end of a year I'll send you 10 Bitcoins doubling your initial investment. Ok?
|
|
|
|
I really wish transfer between BTCe and Gox was easier.
Never though I would say this, but I really wish somebody could create Pegcoin, all the advantages of instant, decentralized transfer of bitcoin, but pegged to fiat currency value. Obviously I prefer something with a limited supply like bitcoin, but for now it would certainly make arbitraging a lot easier... Probably not a viable idea to implement though (not to mention the legal issues). Ripple? I haven't really looked into Ripple decently, but isn't it a lending system? |
|
|
|
This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?! How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup. Well, the dot-com was a bubble and Bitcoin is also a bubble. If the dot-com, an economic ecosystem that based its potential on the Internet(which is the biggest revolution of mankind until now) was not able to sustain a bubble, I don't see how Bitcoin can sustain any bubbles either, whatever the potential of Bitcoin could be. "Because it's Bitcoin" is not a good reason enough to change basic economics rules. "Because it's a bubble" isn't much of an argument either... This point only applies if you ignore how a bubble is generally defined. We are past the point of being able to retrospectively identify the 2013 bubble as such. Perhaps you call a parabolic rise and fall something else, but maybe you could explain why it wasn't a bubble, since it is clear to so many that it was. I think we might be talking past each other (probably because I didn't sufficiently read the initial post to which Brunic was responding). In my book, 2013 was a bubble the same way 2011 was a bubble, but bitcoin will over the term of a few years still do well, and will not only be able to sustain these values, but add to them (though in the short run my guess is it will go down some more). I though Brunic meant with the 'cant sustain a bubble' that the current values were much higher than bitcoin is worth, but perhaps we are only quibbling over timelines here. |
|
|
|
I really wish transfer between BTCe and Gox was easier.
Never though I would say this, but I really wish somebody could create Pegcoin, all the advantages of instant, decentralized transfer of bitcoin, but pegged to fiat currency value. Obviously I prefer something with a limited supply like bitcoin, but for now it would certainly make arbitraging a lot easier... Probably not a viable idea to implement though (not to mention the legal issues). |
|
|
|
|
Interesting numbers. Keep in mind that US has probably had more bitcoin exposure than the average country.
|
|
|
|
This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?! How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup. Well, the dot-com was a bubble and Bitcoin is also a bubble. If the dot-com, an economic ecosystem that based its potential on the Internet(which is the biggest revolution of mankind until now) was not able to sustain a bubble, I don't see how Bitcoin can sustain any bubbles either, whatever the potential of Bitcoin could be. "Because it's Bitcoin" is not a good reason enough to change basic economics rules. "Because it's a bubble" isn't much of an argument either... |
|
|
|
Yes. I use Armory as well and although it is good software, it does demonstrate that securing bitcoins is going to be a big problem for most people. I think there are hardware wallets being designed that are offline until needed when they can safely plug into a computer like a usb drive. I am optimistic about this area because it does not tinker with core Bitcoin software like the blockchain optimizations. As market-share of Bitcoin increases there will be larger companies working on consumer components to make bitcoin management seamless and secure.
Hardware wallets definitely seem like a good solution for taking bitcoin mainstream. Not sure how they would work technologically, but I'm sure it's possible to do it well and I'm sure there is, or at least will be, money to be made in making a good product that solves this problem. Check out Trezor: http://www.bitcointrezor.com/ , very important development imho. I just hope they can make them somewhat cheaper in the future, so that it is also interesting for people with few bitcoins. Sounds like a great product. I tried to watch their product, but our internet connection sucks too much to watch videos on Vimeo, sadly. But I agree, it would be ideal if they can make it significantly cheaper than that. I can see them selling well at half a bitcoin, but at that price? I'd rather pay a little more and just having an offline computer that I'd also use for the wallet, since that I could at least use for more things than just keeping my bitcoins secure. I guess it (how cheap they can make it) might depend on whether bitcoin takes off again or not. If the bitcoin market cap becomes much higher, then there will be a lot more money available for security devices (say you are willing to give 1% of your stake to security), so there will be a lot more devices sold, so you can produce at larger scale, so it becomes cheaper etc. ... |
|
|
|
Yes. I use Armory as well and although it is good software, it does demonstrate that securing bitcoins is going to be a big problem for most people. I think there are hardware wallets being designed that are offline until needed when they can safely plug into a computer like a usb drive. I am optimistic about this area because it does not tinker with core Bitcoin software like the blockchain optimizations. As market-share of Bitcoin increases there will be larger companies working on consumer components to make bitcoin management seamless and secure.
Hardware wallets definitely seem like a good solution for taking bitcoin mainstream. Not sure how they would work technologically, but I'm sure it's possible to do it well and I'm sure there is, or at least will be, money to be made in making a good product that solves this problem. Check out Trezor: http://www.bitcointrezor.com/ , very important development imho. I just hope they can make them somewhat cheaper in the future, so that it is also interesting for people with few bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
