There have been articles popping up here and there but to be honest most folks are watching Jodi / Zimmerman trials or the whole snowden thing. So when they hear "Bitcoin" their usual reaction is What? Followed by "Oh that must be some game currency like WoW Gold".
Exactly. Unless someone has the concept explained in person they will tend to equate it with niche "currency" like air-points, gambling chips, or some internet-based voucher system. Most people do not immediately understand why a cryptocurrency with a high mining hash rate is inherently far superior to Amazon coins or any other centrally issued currency. That is the learning curve and a barrier to mass adoption. |
|
|
|
Great link. I hadn't considered the angle that the banks were deliberately disincentivized from lending, just that CBs were pushing on a wet string because households etc did not want any more loans. The advantage of QE is that government gets first use of money and can also fire-hose it directly into the economy through food-stamps and other entitlements. In theory QE is meant to be unwound once the government runs a profit  , by redeeming its maturing bonds held at the CB, with tax receipts, and have that money permanently out of circulation and "destroyed". LOL, a pipe-dream indeed! |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the update. All your work is much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Quantitive Easing is deployed with a goal of increasing inflation sure, but do you disagree inflation is pretty much inherent in any monetary system since the concept of money was deployed?
Yes I disagree. What do you expect from someone named Discordia?  What about monetary systems based on the gold standard which have provided stable prices for decades and centuries (punctuated by outburst of price inflation during wartime episodes mostly)? What about a system based on Bitcoin? I dare say most monetary systems are not inflationary...it's just that currently the fiat monetary system (which is inflationary) is ubiquitous. Oh there might be some confusion about inflation. It helps when we clarify whether we're talking about monetary inflation (which is easy to pinpoint by definition) or price inflation (which is harder to distinguish and even harder to describe how it works). Since I find monetary inflation to be a much more useful concept than price inflation, that's what I'm looking at. And what I see is that Quantitative Easing = adding to the money supply = monetary inflation. Feel free to disagree. I'm confused I think we're basically saying the same thing? Yeah, a system based on bitcoin would be great. But we're not there yet. Money we'd need to at least plug in and have power running to use is cool but stable physical legal tender for now will will rule. I'm hoping for wireless charger tech to take over so everywhere we walk in cities/ towns we're juicing up wirelessly and never have to recharge our portables. Bitcoin would fit great there, and MTgox would still suck. I don't disagree and typing this post made me miss this jump in price! To be more exact, quantitative easing is CB printed money intended to replace the credit money which normally appears in a debt-based economy by new bank loans. It is not yet inflationary because the fall-off in new loans since the credit crisis began is greater than the amount of QE. This is also why interest rates are near zero, to encourage new loans. The problem with this CB meddling is that the reason new loans have fallen off is because consumers, households and companies all realize that too much borrowing has occurred, is unsustainable, and want to pay down debt. If governments ran balanced-books they would agree, but they are debt-addicted too, and can't tolerate deflation because it makes their own debts larger in real terms and even more unsustainable. |
|
|
|
|
I'm fed up with gweedo, does that help?
|
|
|
|
Another word is " mils" which has been used in several countries where the main currency unit was divided into thousandths. A one syllable word is most likely to gain common usage.  |
|
|
|
Music for the occasion...  |
|
|
|
|
This is the 7th junk article by shill PRWeb for micro-site forexminute posted on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent project. An important development needed to take Bitcoin mainstream.
|
|
|
|
Scaling isn't the only issue with bitcoin going mainstream. I think the scalability issue is a solvable problem. It's not trivial, but it's solvable. I do kind of wish that people would stop coming up with proposals to stuff more things into the blockchain though since that's only going to make the scalability problem harder if it becomes a way of trading stock as well (as has been suggested).
To me, the harder problem is security. I'm a geek and I think especially with Armory, I can handle securing my bitcoins. I suspect 90% of the Bitcoin userbase right now are people who are also geeks and could solve this problem on their own. But when it goes mainstream and random people who aren't geeks and don't think about security will need to be able to have security somehow too. Ironically, the easiest way of solving this problem is for these people to store their bitcoins in either an online wallet or a bitcoin bank. Which, of course, just shifts the security problem from the people holding the wallet to the banks or companies with the case of Coinbase.
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. |
|
|
|
50 BTC moves the market 5 bucks :-)
Looks like bull and bear sentiment is diverging -- some whales REALLY think we're going up, some REALLY think we are going down. I don't believe a single player is manipulating both sides -- too expensive
Agreed. And both too dumb/panicky to drip feed their orders and save a load of money. |
|
|
|
|
Exactly my thoughts.
Is there some major news?
|
|
|
|
Lets call mBTC "credits" like in sci-fi movies.
I always liked "credits". Would have been a good name for Bitcoin in the first place. But perhaps credit is better for microbitcoins, as a currency of the far future when 1 BTC = $1 million then 1 credit would have the buying power of $1 today. |
|
|
|
I wish I could. Logically, none of this makes any sense. But then again not only I Am Not A Lawyer, but I Am Not A Crazy Person either. And I am starting to suspect these people might be.
Maybe they are just desperate. Consider this equation. The state government in California is all but bankrupt. They have a sales tax for revenue. They read news stories about people "living a week on Bitcoin" and the meme that "Bitcoin allows people to avoid taxes". The recent conference means that Bitcoin is growing. So for desperate people 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 666 |
|
|
|
As a long bull I am feeling very bearish. These Mt Gox issues are bad in my mind. People are happy Gox is losing market share but for me it's more like the lynchpin of the bitcoin ecosystem is failing due to political forces. If the bitcoin processors are dependent on gox then we are close to the point where retailers give up.
Yes. A healthy MtGox is good for Bitcoin. Bitpay and others need a proper fx market with depth to maintain their business. The other exchanges are too illiquid. I think that people who want mtgox to fail are mostly those hoping to buy BTC at 2012 values because they missed the ramp up this year. They are not liquid because most people are still using MtGox. If MtGox were to die, the other exchanges would immediately have tons of liquidity. And then they would have the performance problems which mtgox has had. Everyone would be screaming at them for having rubbish systems. |
|
|
|
Wow. You are patient D&T I'm undecided, but I worry about the impact on the use of coloured coins.
This is the sort of business which off-chain solutions can do (like fidelity-bonded chaum banks). If off-chain doesn't work for this - then it is a complete failure and we had better hope that Bitcoin scaling software solutions can deal with a super-big blockchain. |
|
|
|
As a long bull I am feeling very bearish. These Mt Gox issues are bad in my mind. People are happy Gox is losing market share but for me it's more like the lynchpin of the bitcoin ecosystem is failing due to political forces. If the bitcoin processors are dependent on gox then we are close to the point where retailers give up.
Yes. A healthy MtGox is good for Bitcoin. Bitpay and others need a proper fx market with depth to maintain their business. The other exchanges are too illiquid. I think that people who want mtgox to fail are mostly those hoping to buy BTC at 2012 values because they missed the ramp up this year. |
|
|
|
|
Is the foundation going to make any announcement about this matter to its members?
|
|
|
|
When BTC is trading at over $1000 all of that "dust" is going to be worth alot. If I can only use BTC to transfer large amounts of cash I would be using it much less than I am now.
When BTC is trading at over $1000, they'll change the rules regarding dust transactions so that it's value is sub-cent again. Logic. How are they going to adjust the dust amount on the fly when BTC are trading at $650 USD on week and $200 USD the next week? Maybe letting miners decide what to include in the block chain instead of hard coding it into the software perhaps? I thought the whole point of this system was to let the market determine what works and to avoid using some human decree as the law of the land. It will get changed with new versions of software and the devs will average the recent fx rate to determine the dust value. It is utterly irrelevant that the dust value might be equivalent to 0.65c one week and 0.2c the next. If Bitcoin is a world-beating currency then dicking around with sub-cent transactions is like mostly using your Ferrari to go down your driveway to collect your mail. |
|
|
|
Yeah, this change is causing problems for me as well on EMC. I definitely do not support it at this point.
I agree with Firefop. A solution needs to be found that addresses the problem, not covers it up and ignores it. At some point, even large transactions are going to bloat the block chain if bitcoin becomes popular enough... so it's a problem regardless of transaction size.
Even sendmany is rejecting payments less than the specified amount, when there are many, many other, larger values - that makes absolutely no sense.
Doh! Just truncate BTC amounts to zero which are less than US 1 cent equivalent! And don't send that particular payment. That is what every other company in the world does. Ever received a dividend check for 0.78c? Just leave a credit amount on the client's account until/if it ever gets absorbed into other larger transactions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
