Pfft...this isn't surprising that someone is trying to monetize the payouts. That's what hedge funds do, they gamble. Good luck to the claimants, I say. It would be good if they got anything back. Fuck Gox.
My perfectly legitimate claim was denied, but unless I can find a Japanese lawyer, I'm SOL. |
|
|
|
Okay so I'm quite convinced that the trend is gonna be bullish... but at the same time I'm expecting more dumps bottoming out a bit lower than the last one (around 960-970)... what are you guys expecting
Price will move to the right. Some up, some down, but mostly right. |
|
|
|
Why does one bitcoin belong above one ounce of gold? Why not a pound of gold? Seems like there are a lot more ounces of gold than there are bitcoins, but I guess gold is way more popular as an investment and also useful for electronics and jewelry.
if you read and see picture in post op, gold price is above bitcoin price gold price in over 1200 dollar/ounce and bitcoin price over 1000 dollar/bitcoin ussualy if dollar value is down , gold price can incraese, and this week dollar price is down price is extrem so, gold price incraese is very high Those are arbitrary numbers though. An ounce is some random amount like 28 or 30g right? It's a useless figure so comparing the prices of gold vs usd and bitcoin vs usd is useless. What's more important is the market cap and the total supply. Gold is priced in troy ounces. 1 troy ounce = 31.1035g. |
|
|
|
A bitcoin ETF would be for the bitcoin 'market cap' like an IPO for big. tech. stock ....
Opens way too high, crashes immediately, then slowly recovers to 4X the IPO price? |
|
|
|
Last week was lunar new year so the Chinese where mostly on vacation. |
|
|
|
|
I've not met anyone who works in technology that didn't get it after reading the white paper (see sig if you haven't read it yet). Most deniers simply haven't taken the time to learn what it is. Unfortunately, the white paper is no longer front and center when you google bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
We're approaching the lowest % diff ever. If we get below the lowest in a year (8.68%, 2016/02/05), then you have to go back to October 2015 for lower days. The lowest ever was October 28th, 2015, where it got down to -4.32%.
My math comes out to 16.3% premium. If you are assuming 1/10th BTC / share that is no longer the case. Current BTC / share is 0.09350819. https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/ |
|
|
|
Does this link show historical BTC swaps used together with the unused swaps, omitting the USD swaps? https://www.bfxdata.com/swaphistory/btc
The bottom chart on that page shows this.
total sum of BTC margin funding: 22,414
unused sum of BTC margin funding: 199
The top chart on this page shows these values.
https://bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd
BTCUSD long positions: 34 425
BTCUSD short positions: -13 267I assume the different totals are because USD is included and those figures are active values. I always thought the difference was because BTC margin was used for long position in the other markets as well as for shorts in BTC. I have never used swaps on bitfinex. Can USD margin be used for long position in the other markets as well as for shorts in BTC? I think I read you can borrow bitcoins and use them to go either long or short with, and I assume USD is similar. Yeah, my previous statement was wrong. The 199 is the bitcoins reserved but not used. The rest is BTC borrowed to short BTC against other currencies besides USD. USD swaps can only be used to buy a different currency (aka sell USD). BTC swaps can only be used to sell BTC (aka buy some other currency). Margin is the balance you hold in your account that determines (along with your leverage level) how much you are allowed to borrow. So there are nearly 22k in shorts, but only 13k shorting against USD. 9k are shorting BTC against other currencies. |
|
|
|
jfi there are still > 22k BTC shorts on bitfinex. that can escalate quickly. next week is critical  Short positions on bitfinex haven't exceeded 16k since the hack. The current figure is about 13k. I'm not sure where you are getting 22k from. https://bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd |
|
|
|
Patrick Byrne on FOX tv, this guy is one of those awesome Bitcoin frontrunners  Overstock +16%, good job Patrick!  #myteam  ~Wall Street Wants In!!! on his red cap, isnt that a cool move from Patrick? straight up gangster! he strikes me as just plain awesome. just found the interview on youtube. yup he's the man. |
|
|
|
The last 3 months, GBTC has gone up 19.61%, while BTC has gone up 57.33%. The last year, GBTC has gone up 68.67%, while BTC has gone up 119.65%. ...suggesting that COIN and XBTC ETFs might have a chance. I don't know about that. Why would someone sell their shares of GBTC based on that premise, given that the underlying asset that they hold would be worth a lot more on the news of COIN or XBTC being approved? no, the ideal trade based on that premise would have looked like this (last July when premium was the highest): Short GBTC, buy the equivalent $$ amount of bitcoin. Almost no risk if you know that ETF is going to be approved eventually. As you yourself pointed, that trade would have made almost 51% in a year (119.65-68.67) with almost ZERO risk. AFAIK, GBTC can't be shorted because it is an OTC product, not exchange listed. The only way to make that trade is if you already hold some. |
|
|
|
... Bitcoin Unlimited [users] got destroyed yesterday with that huge mistake and BU...
Well, no. But thanks for playing. We've got a lovely consolation prize for you on your way out. One BU miner lost out on the gains they would have made, due to their otherwise solved block being orphaned. Absolutely nobody else experienced any untoward effects. As for me, my BU node remains chugging away, happily, as always. BU just passed 20% of hash rate. |
|
|
|
Someone took a risk and set their blocksize larger than 1mb. It was a foolish thing to do with the current state of the blocksize debate, but it only hurt the miner who chose that setting.
Isn't it the case that this was a *bug* in BU code, rather than the pool operator going gung-ho with larger block sizes? AFAIK it was a bug. No need to sugar coat it. I wasn't aware at the time, but you are correct. However, the bug did not harm anyone except the miner who chose to run BU. There is already a fix under review, and existing clients can work around it by reducing their configured blocksize by the size of the coinbase transaction. The bug was that the coinbase transaction wasn't included in the blocksize calculation when producing blocks. Blocksize was counted correctly when verifying blocks, so no other BU miners would have built on the block unless their blocksize exceeded 1000000 bytes. This incident shows us two things: 1. BU needs more testing and better code review processes. 2. The consensus mechanism works as it should and punished the miner who attempted (unintentionally) to make a larger block without agreement from the majority of the network. |
|
|
|
I think I'll pass on setting up a mining pool with retarded parameters. I'll say a prayer for you. You obviously have a lot of hate in your heart.
Ok, a passive-aggressive pussy who lacks the courage of their convictions. You should just paste that in your signature so next time I'll know not to bother logging on ... Open up your hate and let it flow into me. |
|
|
|
It is just another orphaned block.
You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation. Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block. No wrong and wrong again ... any miner who runs BU >1MByte is wasting electricity and resources on every hash they do ... they are buying tickets for a lottery that doesn't exist. I agree. BU miners should keep their produced blocks below 1MB for now. A larger setting is dumb, but it won't hurt anyone but themselves.
BU is a radioactive mess, anyone who touches it is getting burned and sick. In a way they deserve it, but assholes like you who shill for BU deserve a special place in BU's hell of its own making. You should set up a BU mining farm, to show us all how dedicated to the cause you are ... pit all your money, time and resources into the biggest losing proposition in bitcoin, do it!
I think I'll pass on setting up a mining pool with retarded parameters. I'll say a prayer for you. You obviously have a lot of hate in your heart. |
|
|
|
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.
It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.
When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!
If you want a cleaner implementation, bitcoin classic also supports a flag for specifying block size. As for the "shit show" comment, can you explain why letting miners determine blocksize is a problem? If it is a problem, we'd better hope they aren't able to get their hands on gcc or we are all screwed. |
|
|
|
I don't think p2pool works for small miners anymore.
I have 50GH/s pointed at p2pool.org for a couple of weeks now, and it hasn't found a single share. The miner stats say around 20hours estimated time for a share, yet hundreds of hours have passed without one.
If anyone is interested, there is some initial code to enable a p2pool backed mining pool here: https://github.com/yrral86/proxy-p2poolEssentially, it allows a group of people to mine to a single p2pool address and it records the shares each address/username submits. The log file can then be parsed to determine payouts. I ran it for a couple months quite some time ago, but there was not much interest at that time. PM me if you need some help setting it up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
