|
if an organization like this pays the developers what kind of trouble could we get into?
|
|
|
|
do we just install over the old version?
Yes sir. It was implemented in such a way that it will not matter what version you had installed previously. Edit: Here is a url too -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49831.0(Started a sep. thread to keep it a bit more organized as this was a rather old thread) Cheers, rasengan way to go. you're doing a good job. |
|
|
|
It can easily go lower. Just look at the basic fundamentals.
Bitcoin is a very tiny community.
Over 50K new coins are created every single week.
So much selling pressure would happen if the price started to rise. This would put an end to any rally.
Most people who want bitcoins, own them now. No reason to buy more
The community of bitcoiners is not increasing.
Nothing new has come out in months for bitcoin that would make it mroe desirable to own.
The price of Bitcoin has gotten beat so badly that most people will not risk buying even more bitcoins for speculation.
Bitcon was not made for speculation, it was made as a form of currency. There is no reason why it should just rise in price, especially considering the fact that over 50K new bitcoins are created every week.
Bitcoin still has many competitors. It is risky to own bitcoin when there could possibly be a better replacement at any time. Miners seem to mine what ever bitcoin earns them money. Personally i would buy another currency that put their cap in the billions, not in the millions.
The list could go on, there are so many negatives about bitcoin to speculate your money into it.
.... sounds like a lot of really good reasons to spend time on Bitcoin in general and on this board in particular  Time == Money stop being so practical. |
|
|
|
the other thing you're up against is being Zhoutonged. with all this volatility at this relatively low price level, shorts will be taken out and shot at each spike in volatility. its you or him.
Like I said, your hopes of seeing $30 are unrealistic. You certainly have more to gain in an upswing, but that's only if bitcoin actually survives. Second, you really, really need to stop acting like you know what you're talking about. It's extremely easy for an inexperienced trader to calculate relative volatility over the last month, and figure out how far they should be leveraged to avoid a margin call. Margin calls are the mistake of the investor, not the evil of the broker. i don't suppose you're feeling the Squeeze are you? |
|
|
|
We just uploaded Mt. Gox Mobile 3.0 (Android) to the Market. Sorry for the delays, it required longer and more in-depth testing than the previous versions due to multi-currency support.
do we just install over the old version? |
|
|
|
i asked you before and you never answered: why do you begrudge the early adopters who put up their hard earned USD's to buy hardware, pay for electricity, spent time and effort to build and secure the blockchain from scratch, and verify tx's when Bitcoin was worthless with the only hope of getting paid off for doing so by a rising price?
I never answered because it is a pointlessly rigged question. They didn't have to buy hardware, they paid an absolute pittance in electricity, and a computer spent time and effort to build the block chain and verify tx's, not people. They're not delivering mail in a war zone in the Congo. The only one who had any claim to profit from actual work was Satoshi for coding the software. But it is open source, a type of software that millions of people work on everyday with absolutely no intent in profiting. how do u know they didn't have to buy hardware? alot of early miners clearly did and bought lots of it. i guess the paper shufflers on Wall St would disagree with you about not delivering value as well as they just sit behind their computers and push buttons. those open source workers are probably speculating on Bitcoin just like the rest of us.
I've never said early adopters don't deserve a profit. I've always argued that early adopters sure as shit don't deserve to control the economy. Even if they "trickle in" coins over years, with the hordes accumulated from early adoption, one could potentially INDEFINITELY support themselves, their children, their grandchildren, their great-greatchildren, and so on without ever doing a single thing for the economy once it reached a minimum amount of stability.
i disagree that they are controlling the economy. i'd argue that the naysayers are the ones driving down the price and thus the eonomy. they've flooded this forum with FUD since the Spring.
Early adopters could have said that they plan on stabilizing the price, could have been completely transparent about it and taken a one-time profit (which would have been in the millions, quite a fair payment imo). But Satoshi especially went to immense lengths to remain totally anonymous and then disappeared. These are not the actions of a rational actor. These are the actions of someone who is looking to pump and dump. And probably already did. Problem is, he still has hundreds of thousands of coins to do it all over again many times.
this is just your opinion. |
|
|
|
but there hopefully will be a substantial ECONOMY that will use it to trade one day. this would then drive demand and eventually the price. wish in one hand, sh** in the other... not that this has any bearing on the problem of early adopters, it only makes it worse if they continue to wait to sell. also why do ppl invest in gold? do you understand the fundamentals behind that? I'll pretend this is an honest question: to protect themselves from the machinations of fiat. In bitcoin, you trade the fed for the early adopters. Early adopters are already machinating. They are controlling the economy to benefit themselves. Withholding currency to drive up demand; placing huge bid walls to manipulate the falling price. Except now the people are nameless and faceless and answer to no authority. i asked you before and you never answered: why do you begrudge the early adopters who put up their hard earned USD's to buy hardware, pay for electricity, spent time and effort to build and secure the blockchain from scratch, and verify tx's when Bitcoin was worthless with the only hope of getting paid off for doing so by a rising price? |
|
|
|
It can easily go lower. Just look at the basic fundamentals.
Bitcoin is a very tiny community.
Over 50K new coins are created every single week.
So much selling pressure would happen if the price started to rise. This would put an end to any rally.
Most people who want bitcoins, own them now. No reason to buy more
The community of bitcoiners is not increasing.
Nothing new has come out in months for bitcoin that would make it mroe desirable to own.
The price of Bitcoin has gotten beat so badly that most people will not risk buying even more bitcoins for speculation.
Bitcon was not made for speculation, it was made as a form of currency. There is no reason why it should just rise in price, especially considering the fact that over 50K new bitcoins are created every week.
Bitcoin still has many competitors. It is risky to own bitcoin when there could possibly be a better replacement at any time. Miners seem to mine what ever bitcoin earns them money. Personally i would buy another currency that put their cap in the billions, not in the millions.
The list could go on, there are so many negatives about bitcoin to speculate your money into it.
this entire list is opinion based. |
|
|
|
vol is way up///
get ready for an explosion upward... |
|
|
|
number of investors logged in at mtgox (double normal) Source? my general sense by monitoring the users logged in on mtgoxlive which usually is around 400 |
|
|
|
|
i think we're going higher based upon the number of investors logged in at mtgox (double normal), the volatile up spikes occurring more frequently, the reappearance of the bid wall, my sense that alot of USD were wired to mtgox at the end of last week, and whats occurring in the general economy via the USD fall resuming, the UST selloff, and the overall RISK ON sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
i think we're going higher based upon the number of investors logged in at mtgox (double normal), the volatile up spikes occurring more frequently, the reappearance of the bid wall, my sense that alot of USD were wired to mtgox at the end of last week, and whats occurring in the general economy via the USD fall resuming, the UST selloff, and the overall RISK ON sentiment.
|
|
|
|
why would you assume early adopters would drop a large load of coins at a given pt in time anymore than a Steve Jobs would dump a large load of Apple stock at a given time which he never did? Bitcoin is NOT A STOCK. It is a CURRENCY that if you invest in it, it is on the HOPE that early adopters DON'T SELL. There is no PRODUCT. There is no COMPANY. There is absolutely no basis for any value except SCARCITY. Any RETURN ON INVESTMENT is in the HOPE that OTHER PEOPLE BUY IN and early adopters DON'T SELL. A STOCK produces RETURNS by INVESTING YOUR MONEY into a COMPANY, thus giving you PART-OWNERSHIP, that works to improve its PRODUCTION. It does NOT require others to buy in to see an investment return, that is called a PYRAMID. BITCOIN IS NOT A STOCK. It is NOTHING at all like a stock except that it has a limited quantity and an exchange. You do not OWN anything but a digital trash token. No STOCK starts as being worthless. but there hopefully will be a substantial ECONOMY that will use it to trade one day. this would then drive demand and eventually the price. also why do ppl invest in gold? do you understand the fundamentals behind that? |
|
|
|
anti-bitcoin mostly because they can't hold it
Actually, I suspect they are anti-bitcoin not because they can't hold it... but they can't get ahold of them using what they know. They can't go to the coin shop and buy them They can't tell their broker to "buy SLV and BTC" because BTC doesn't exist as an ETF. They can't use their credit card to buy them. Want to make bitcoins a true commodity, we need a BTC ETF ... similar to this like for silver silver. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SLVIt works is rather simple. The number of shares roughly equals the number of ounces of silver they have. So they buy and sell silver ounces to equal what they have, their "stock" price is roughly the spot price of silver. Their broker can buy SLV like a normal stock, and at the same time they "technically own" silver.. abit paper silver. Do that with bitcoins and that ETF would have to start sucking bitcoins into their reserve to match whatever the demand is. Hence sending the price upwards and widening the market to anyone that has a 401k plan. http://finance.yahoo.com/etf/education/01+1 this is a great idea and someone should implement it. would be a huge winner IMO. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is so volatile I really don't see why people want to short it. Today we saw the price go from $2.83 to $2.44 to $3 and back to $2.64 within 2 hours. One super spike can wipe out most positions.
Pick any moment in time and bitcoin could be worth 20% less or 20% more within minutes. Impossible to predict.
Because some of those who got in early on the short, and truly believe Bitcoin will tank, stand to make a lot of money if they're right. How is this any different than those who go long, besides the usual SKY'S THE LIMIT! thinking (which is stupid and unrealistic)? the other thing you're up against is being Zhoutonged. with all this volatility at this relatively low price level, shorts will be taken out and shot at each spike in volatility. its you or him. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is so volatile I really don't see why people want to short it. Today we saw the price go from $2.83 to $2.44 to $3 and back to $2.64 within 2 hours. One super spike can wipe out most positions.
Pick any moment in time and bitcoin could be worth 20% less or 20% more within minutes. Impossible to predict.
Because some of those who got in early on the short, and truly believe Bitcoin will tank, stand to make a lot of money if they're right. How is this any different than those who go long, besides the usual SKY'S THE LIMIT! thinking (which is stupid and unrealistic)? b/c at this price a shorts profit limit stops at zero compared to if we go back to $30 the pain would be enormous by comparison. |
|
|
|
Earlier today I posted a thread on the interesting October 10th article in the New Yorker positing that Satoshi was Michael Clear, a grad student at Trinity. After a review of some of the forum posts and paper by "Satoshi" I do not think it could be him. Even though occasional British spellings are used, the overall language is very Americanized. Also, the writer is much older than 23. He refers to the USENET, for example. Also, the writer's fluent knowledge of cryptocurrency issues is way too thorough for a youngster, even a brilliant one.
Like others I analyzed the language of the Satoshi posts and quickly noticed word collisions with posts of another contributor, Robert A. Hettinga. For example,
.......Right, exactly.
.......synchronisation (spelled with an 's')
.......etched
.......shenanigans
That is interesting, but.. 1. none of those are super rare. 2. I (and others I'm sure) eventually start mimicking after talking to or reading from someone for a while. 3. If I were hiding I would make sure to remove my own previously shown idiosyncrasies, but not think of ones I'd picked up from others considering them standard. None of them INDIVIDUALLY is rare but the combination is what clued me in to Hettinga. If you do a concordance analysis on the mailing list archive what you will find is that Satoshi's posts correlate most closely with Hettinga's and by a wide margin. If I really wanted to prove it was the same person I could do a latent semantic analysis using a Stanford parse of the grammar, but I have little doubt what the results would be: a match to Hettinga. then i think that is what you should do to settle this controversy. |
|
|
|
Yeah Bitcoin would be also a possibility in a nanotech world, no question about it but I can't see how gold fails it according to your argument. But I think that has been pretty well described in the article.
I'm just telling you Bitcoin is different than Gold in 2 things:
At first Bitcoin needs consensus not to replace it with another cryptocurrency, gold is unique in its own right.
Gold mining is dependent upon technology and scarcity while Bitcoins scarcity is predetermined over time. 'Peak Bitcoin' occured at the genesis block Peak gold is occurring now or in a few decades depending on estimations.
The problem is the synergy between those 2. Bitcoin was a free for all at the beginning while during the early historical gold rushes miners didn't haul tons of it out one at a time with a pick axe.
This little seemingly insignificant 'error' might be the death sentence for bitcoin we are seeing this now with the emergence of alternate cryptocurrencies.
I can't see this threat disappearing in the near future and while it might not seem threatening now it could very well become so at some point.
So much for that, has nothing to do with Gold and why Goldbugs will not abandon it though.
take a look at this thread where we debate the merits of Bitcoin vs Gold heavily. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35956.0 |
|
|
|
Actually it would be wise for bitcoiners not to see goldbugs as their competition.
They are the first people who would embrace bitcoin for what it is, a decentralized way to pay money. But they will not use it as an alternative to gold.
I recently heard the term as bitcoin as 'internet gold', that is just naive wishful thinking and no ghandi quote gonna change that.
would you please clarify. i have made the switch. i think Bitcoin has more potential and has many use cases exceeding that of gold. of course, it also has more risks but these are being addressed quite nicely with encryption. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
