|
Slowpoke says: happy $100 guys!
|
|
|
|
The idea is pretty absurd when you look at the numbers.
The World Gold Council estimates that the daily volume of physical gold trades is between $67 billion and $224 billion. It would be hard to imagine BTC purchases having any affect at all when total BTC exchange volume is only around $6 million per day.
True, though I could imagine it having a psychological influence --> "maybe gold won't be the ultimate safe heaven forever, so perhaps I shouldn't put my money into it" |
|
|
|
|
Not properly looking into bitcoin when I first heard about it around januari 2011 and forgetting about it for almost 2 years...
Those would have been some cheap coins...
|
|
|
|
A quick question: if one would go long leveraged, and the margin call liquidation amount is insufficient, leaving a net negative balance on the trading wallet, would this be deducted from funds in other wallets, or would bitfinex take the loss?
Bitfinex will take the loss (this has happen once in BFX existence). Now we are putting in place some mechanisms to prevent this from happening (as you can guess, we don't like to lose money  ) I think I left some room for interpretation in my question, so just to be sure: I was talking about funds in the "deposit" or "exchange" wallet of the same person. Is it still bitfinex that would take the loss then? |
|
|
|
Why would you hold anything else? This is the only thing I feel somewhat confident isn't being hyper-inflated, counterfeited, seized, or taxed to death. I have no reasonable alternative.
You could sell some if you expect it to fall so you can then buy more. FinCEN and taxation in the EU favor keeping it forever, though. Whats this taxation in the EU thing? Something I missed? |
|
|
|
|
A quick question: if one would go long leveraged, and the margin call liquidation amount is insufficient, leaving a net negative balance on the trading wallet, would this be deducted from funds in other wallets, or would bitfinex take the loss?
|
|
|
|
hahahaha the guy they chose to explain it... wow. just wow. I know right? How can you be ok with yourself sitting there just spouting nonsense? One advantage though, if bitcoin breaks through, this will make for a hilarious blooper classic ! "the bitcoin price has not even been validated" Seriously, what THE FUCK is he talking about. Price validation? Does he mean price discovery, if so which central authority sets that my man? Jesus christ, this guy has far exceeded the acceptable levels of douchebag threshold Hahaha, this guy is so epically douche indeed! I think I am going to bookmark the link to watch it whenever I need a good laugh |
|
|
|
Wow... that is one of the worst bitcoin article I've seen. They portrait bitcoin as being invented by [evil] "hackers" and currently being developed in some sort of filthy ghetto by some hipster, no doubt to show what horrible "lower class" people are behind it to buy drugs and illegal stuff with your money, then finish with a quote from some uneducated bear to spread fear. The author starts off thinking Bitcoin is a bizarre payment system and only learns as he is writing it that it is a currency first and foremost. Then he boasts about being an expert programmer. Read it if you can stomach it... http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39704.htmlThis a day after worlds most shitty bitcoin interview on bloomberg? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2UMkGTzDEhahahaha the guy they chose to explain it... wow. just wow. I know right? How can you be ok with yourself sitting there just spouting nonsense? One advantage though, if bitcoin breaks through, this will make for a hilarious blooper classic ! |
|
|
|
Wow... that is one of the worst bitcoin article I've seen. They portrait bitcoin as being invented by [evil] "hackers" and currently being developed in some sort of filthy ghetto by some hipster, no doubt to show what horrible "lower class" people are behind it to buy drugs and illegal stuff with your money, then finish with a quote from some uneducated bear to spread fear. The author starts off thinking Bitcoin is a bizarre payment system and only learns as he is writing it that it is a currency first and foremost. Then he boasts about being an expert programmer. Read it if you can stomach it... http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39704.htmlThis a day after worlds most shitty bitcoin interview on bloomberg? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2UMkGTzDE |
|
|
|
I'll check this again later but I actually checked and Interactive Brokers does not own my shares I do. If I goes bankrupt I lose my balance in fiat (USD and Euro) but keep my stocks as they cannot be seized by creditors.
Am I totally wrong in this?
I asked about it once, and IB indeed does not own the shares, it's a specialized firm that holds it for them. On the other hand apparently that firm can loan out the stocks for shorting too, so actually its not really safe either. At least that is how I understood it. The last portion I am certain is inaccurate. I joined their "Stock Yield Enhancement Program" 1.5 years ago. This program gives IB the right to loan out my shares to people willing to short and IB and me split the fees. When stocks in my portfolio are loaned out collateral is placed in my account matching the value of the stocks exactly (which is corrected every night) and I receive payments in lieu of dividends which match the dividends exactly. Without me joining their program they could not loan out my stocks (otherwise, why pay me for the privileged?) Well, I don't have a direct IB account, but through a local 'middle-man' company for IB, maybe that is the difference. (I am willing to provide you the emails in pm if you are interested). |
|
|
|
I'll check this again later but I actually checked and Interactive Brokers does not own my shares I do. If I goes bankrupt I lose my balance in fiat (USD and Euro) but keep my stocks as they cannot be seized by creditors.
Am I totally wrong in this?
I asked about it once, and IB indeed does not own the shares, it's a specialized firm that holds it for them. On the other hand apparently that firm can loan out the stocks for shorting too, so actually its not really safe either. At least that is how I understood it. |
|
|
|
HOLY FUCK , the 'expert' on the show didnt even know that there were exchanges ! Watch him give bogus answers to 'how can I get some'. Seriously, how fail can you get?  Airheads like these make me want to buy more coins... |
|
|
|
who sells 1000btc into a wall, twice?
I don't sell bitcoins, but if I did, I would certainly enjoy a nice wall to sell into. As opposed to the freaks who think it's a good idea to sell into shallow depth. Sure, if you need to liquidate immediately, but assuming you can wait a couple few they'll get gobbled up on much better terms. Unless you believe price will drop. |
|
|
|
(To bad the cut about half of the reportage that was shown on tv)
They didn't, here is the remainder of the story: http://www.deredactie.be/permalink/2.27543?video=1.1589115Excellent interview by the way, Jo Caudron did this perfectly. Bitcoin was well explained with attention for the decentralized, p2p nature of the system and the fact that supply is limited. It was mentioned that although it is unlikely many people on Cyprus are using it, Bitcoin creates whole new possibilities of making secure, fast and anonymous transactions around the world. Yes, the dude clearly understood what he was talking about, he got what bitcoin is about. I wouldn't be surprised if he is active on the forum (or a lurker), and has a stash of his own . They mentioned illegal activities, but in a sensible way. Very nicely done. |
|
|
|
So you win a battle, but you are losing the war...
I still think the bubbles are normal price discovery though.
Why can't I just keep doing this forever, preventing most of the people in the WORLD from viewing bitcoin as anything other than a highly technical instrument of speculation that is unsafe for the average person? If it were an actual strategy, it is already a losing strategy. Bitcoin is gaining a lot of adoption. Granted, it is still very small, but it used to be a lot smaller... PS: Apologies if I repeated someones argument, this thread was tl;dr for me. |
|
|
|
A new, interesting pattern. Bids are continuing to rise to all new highs (over 11mil now) but asks also rising (though still now where near where they were two weeks ago and on par with last weekend). Bulls still have advantage, but signs point to continued slug fest.
I am guessing we'll battle it out around $100 for a while. |
|
|
|
"I'm starting to think that bitcoin as a store-of-value might end up being more attractive than bitcoin as a medium-of-exchange." -Gavin Andresen, 10-17-2010
Yes, that seems to be happening now. However, if MOE function falls too much it will quell SOV advancement (i.e., slow the price rise), which will allow MOE function to grow again, which will eventually spur SOV growth, which will interfere with MOE (but less now, since market cap is bigger), etc. So they may take turns leapfrogging each other.
The great thing about bitcoin is that it can turn from being a store of value to being a medium of change on a dime (pardon the pun). Want to save for a rainy day? Do so. Need to spend it? Do so. In many ways, it's a new paradigm. Yes, "store of value", "medium of exchange" and "payment processor" are just facets of Bitcoin. We're used to thinking in those terms because that's how money has been and how it has moved until now. But, in spite of the naysayers, Bitcoin truly is a different concept, which gathers all of the above (and perhaps some others that we haven't even thought about yet) into one simple and elegant solution. Gavin's a wonderful developer, but this falls into realms that maybe aren't his strongest suit. I disagree. I can see bitcoin becoming the digital equivalent of gold, backing other faster, cheaper to transfer (sure you can send feeless at the moment, but for how long?), centralized digital currencies if no solutions are found for the scalability issue. That being said, there is probably room for a whole lot of creativity to fix problems. |
|
|
|
Originally posted at RedditPlaying Devil's Advocate here....Let's play a game: I'll be the Central Bank with say, 10 billion USD to devote to the "problem" of bitcoin. You try to think of why my plan won't succeed. - I win when I can cause situations that scare users away from using Bitcoins.
- I lose when non-technical users successfully and satisfactorily use any currency that's not controlled by a central bank.
So I'm assuming everyone understands why central banks will never like Bitcoin. It's a construct completely outside their control, and since they get their power from issuing and being the central clearing house for paper currencies the mere existence of an alternative that doesn't have those problems is very dangerous, because it's obviously a better deal for its users in the medium-long term. You can't manipulate a currency unless you have a lot of it at your disposal. With dollars, that's easy - Just create some new currency. But with Bitcoin, you can't do that - So what do you do as a central bank with the ability to create as much paper money as you want..... You buy a bunch of bitcoins, and the price doesn't matter. Actually, it's BETTER for you if your buying causes the price to go up, the more the better. The total market cap for Bitcoin just hit 1 billion, so if the Fed wanted to buy 10% at current market rates best case scenario it would be 100 million, which is pocket change for the entities we're talking about. The demand spike creates a price spike which pulls media attention which brings new buyers which feeds higher prices which feeds more media attention, the cycle becomes self perpetuating after a while. That's where we are now. Because Bitcoin's fundamentals (stable supply, distributed decision making, borderless operation) don't really leave room to argue they're worse than Dollars, the only argument that can reasonably made against them is that they're unstable and therefore unsafe for the average person to use. So the way you do that is help the price go way up by buying in quantity over a reasonable period of time without regard to the price, then once you've cornered a reasonable proportion of the market (say 5-10%) you dump them all at once, smash the price, and incur massive losses for the new users who bought in during the climb through higher prices. Then (after the market exhausts itself at the bottom) you DO NOT buy any of your coins back, since the dollar amount is trivial it's better to leave the impression that demand in the market has completely left town. This also means you can use the same trick of accumulating -> causes bubble -> encourages newbies to get in -> sell large stake -> pop bubble -> cause newbie panic -> advise currency is unsafe -> wait for fundamentals to become important again -> repeat What do you think, why wouldn't this be easy for any major central bank to do? We had a bubble already. Tell me, how is that working out? (look at nr of transactions, nr of wallets being used etc.) It took 6 months+ to recover, scared a lot of players out of the market who have still not returned, and let everybody talk about how "unstable" bitcoin is because it's just a speculative bubble. The fact we're now in an even bigger bubble is cause for concern in the short term because as normal people buy into the currency, not wanting to miss out on the next big thing, a crash in price back to even 500%+ what it was in January will mean HUGE losses for anyone buying in at prices over 60/ea. Those investors won't hang around once the price is at 30 hoping for a rebound, they'll take the loss and be out of bitcoin thankful they didn't lose more and swearing to not be stupid enough to try a "new currency" again Which again, is my goal (as the central bank) so I won that round, and it looks like I'll win this round too. Crash the price, Gut the newbies, destroy the legitimacy of the investment for at least a few months. So you win a battle, but you are losing the war... I still think the bubbles are normal price discovery though. |
|
|
|
|
Haha, I like them numbers.
Apart from that: is this the new 'gentleman , I think we are...' thread?
|
|
|
|
Originally posted at RedditPlaying Devil's Advocate here....Let's play a game: I'll be the Central Bank with say, 10 billion USD to devote to the "problem" of bitcoin. You try to think of why my plan won't succeed. - I win when I can cause situations that scare users away from using Bitcoins.
- I lose when non-technical users successfully and satisfactorily use any currency that's not controlled by a central bank.
So I'm assuming everyone understands why central banks will never like Bitcoin. It's a construct completely outside their control, and since they get their power from issuing and being the central clearing house for paper currencies the mere existence of an alternative that doesn't have those problems is very dangerous, because it's obviously a better deal for its users in the medium-long term. You can't manipulate a currency unless you have a lot of it at your disposal. With dollars, that's easy - Just create some new currency. But with Bitcoin, you can't do that - So what do you do as a central bank with the ability to create as much paper money as you want..... You buy a bunch of bitcoins, and the price doesn't matter. Actually, it's BETTER for you if your buying causes the price to go up, the more the better. The total market cap for Bitcoin just hit 1 billion, so if the Fed wanted to buy 10% at current market rates best case scenario it would be 100 million, which is pocket change for the entities we're talking about. The demand spike creates a price spike which pulls media attention which brings new buyers which feeds higher prices which feeds more media attention, the cycle becomes self perpetuating after a while. That's where we are now. Because Bitcoin's fundamentals (stable supply, distributed decision making, borderless operation) don't really leave room to argue they're worse than Dollars, the only argument that can reasonably made against them is that they're unstable and therefore unsafe for the average person to use. So the way you do that is help the price go way up by buying in quantity over a reasonable period of time without regard to the price, then once you've cornered a reasonable proportion of the market (say 5-10%) you dump them all at once, smash the price, and incur massive losses for the new users who bought in during the climb through higher prices. Then (after the market exhausts itself at the bottom) you DO NOT buy any of your coins back, since the dollar amount is trivial it's better to leave the impression that demand in the market has completely left town. This also means you can use the same trick of accumulating -> causes bubble -> encourages newbies to get in -> sell large stake -> pop bubble -> cause newbie panic -> advise currency is unsafe -> wait for fundamentals to become important again -> repeat What do you think, why wouldn't this be easy for any major central bank to do? We had a bubble already. Tell me, how is that working out? (look at nr of transactions, nr of wallets being used etc.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
