Not all choices are mutually exclusive, but some are, and even more are a balancing between two sides of a struggle. How is that different from any other fields of life? Taxation? Low enough to encourage wealth creation, high enough to afford social services. Policing? Severe enough to discourage crime, lenient enough to keep the electorate happy by and large. Parenting? Permissive enough to allow your kid to develop freely, strict enough to... you get the idea.
I'm not saying it's black and white. I'm saying that I'm under the impression that those who wield more influence than most of us are possibly -- probably going to tip the scales on some important questions in a direction that a majority of the early users, miners, supporters wouldn't like. Maybe they will, but it still operates in a democratic way and if the majority thinks the direction they're taking is wrong we can fork the chain or move over to another cryptocoin. I'm glad you're that optimistic. It's a good thing. This discussion started when I said, one or two pages ago, that I went to the conference/annual meeting and came back somewhat disillusioned about the, let's say: moral state of Bitcoin, while also becoming more confident about the investment aspect of it. So that's just it, my personal impression. I'm not trying to force it on anyone. Should have said that earlier, I guess. |
|
|
|
Would have been interesting to know how you would have felt if you would have visited, for example, the Amsterdam Bitcoin conference...
Seeing all those alpha type corporate guys networking and powertalking to each [ ... ] made me realize that Bitcoin isn't going to go away anytime soon, now that big money got its greedy paws on it.
I can see that there are many new enterprises trying to take money out of bitcoin users' pockets. ;) BitPay says that they made 100 M USD last year, which means at least 3 M USD of fee revenue, right? SecondMarket BIT bought over 100'000 BTC for its investors, it must have made several M USD from fees and smart buying, with hardly any cost. Large miners seem to be still profitable, exchanges earn lots in fees, etc. If a few million of the hoarded coins start moving, service companies could easily skim off hundred of millions of dollars from that traffic. Can't take money out of our pockets without creating volume. Can't create volume without price appreciating accordingly. Can't have price appreciating without us early parasites adopters becoming rich. Filthy rich! To da moon filthy rich! Did you buy a coin yet, old man? :D |
|
|
|
Seeing all those alpha type corporate guys networking and powertalking to each was a) somewhat disillusioning (Bitcoin idealism is dead, sorry guys) and b) made me realize that Bitcoin isn't going to go away anytime soon, now that big money got its greedy paws on it.
Oda, could you expand on what you mean by "bitcoin idealism is dead"? I had dinner last night with a colleague who attended the Amsterdam Conference and he seemed quite excited by the opportunities that are rapidly emerging. But I've never understood what "idealism" even means in the context of bitcoin. Bitcoin is useful. People will therefore use it to advance their agendas. And there are all sorts of different people with all sorts of agendas in this world. Greater interest in bitcoin from a broader swath of the population tells me that bitcoin is evolving as it should. I mean that those who have a disproportionally large influence on Bitcoin (be it by their elevated position in the ecosystem for reasons of trust, be it by the size of their dick wallet) will have to make choices balancing between the "Bitcoin values" that got many of us excited about Bitcoin in the first place (free flow of property, combined with anonymity, of sorts, in summary: the democratization of money) and making Bitcoin useful for businesses, as well as palatable to politics, and they will, by and large, prioritize the the latter over the former. And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics. Not all choices are mutually exclusive, but some are, and even more are a balancing between two sides of a struggle. How is that different from any other fields of life? Taxation? Low enough to encourage wealth creation, high enough to afford social services. Policing? Severe enough to discourage crime, lenient enough to keep the electorate happy by and large. Parenting? Permissive enough to allow your kid to develop freely, strict enough to... you get the idea. I'm not saying it's black and white. I'm saying that I'm under the impression that those who wield more influence than most of us are possibly -- probably going to tip the scales on some important questions in a direction that a majority of the early users, miners, supporters wouldn't like. |
|
|
|
Seeing all those alpha type corporate guys networking and powertalking to each was a) somewhat disillusioning (Bitcoin idealism is dead, sorry guys) and b) made me realize that Bitcoin isn't going to go away anytime soon, now that big money got its greedy paws on it.
Oda, could you expand on what you mean by "bitcoin idealism is dead"? I had dinner last night with a colleague who attended the Amsterdam Conference and he seemed quite excited by the opportunities that are rapidly emerging. But I've never understood what "idealism" even means in the context of bitcoin. Bitcoin is useful. People will therefore use it to advance their agendas. And there are all sorts of different people with all sorts of agendas in this world. Greater interest in bitcoin from a broader swath of the population tells me that bitcoin is evolving as it should. I mean that those who have a disproportionally large influence on Bitcoin (be it by their elevated position in the ecosystem for reasons of trust, be it by the size of their dick wallet) will have to make choices balancing between the "Bitcoin values" that got many of us excited about Bitcoin in the first place (free flow of property, combined with anonymity, of sorts, in summary: the democratization of money) and making Bitcoin useful for businesses, as well as palatable to politics, and they will, by and large, prioritize the the latter over the former. |
|
|
|
Rumors notwithstanding, I don't think Bitstamp is a reliable indicator of BTC volume anymore.
But they are, whether you like the place or not.  Note that Bitfinex volume includes orders routed to stamp. In sheer volume, btc-e is probably the second biggest exchange. Add them up if you want (I know I do, though I'm never quite sure how to account for the duplicated volume between finex and stamp in my calculations), but if it's a one-stop evaluation of today's USD volume, stamp is still the place to get that. |
|
|
|
Wow. Looks like Jorge was right all along... we went up without a sufficient cause, hence we're now going down again. Probably all the way to 300.
I see the sarcasm...  but actually I think that there was a cause for the rally. Only my feeling is that the cause was limited to the Chinese market; and it was not a general uplifting of the mood of all Chinese (or non-Chinese) traders, but rather something that convinced a subset of the Chinese traders to buy. Perhaps some inside information, something posted on some Chinese forum, some news or exchange policy adjustments that benefitted only a few traders, some rumor that only a few traders took seriously, etc. So I would think that the rise will be limited, although I would rather not guess what the limit will be, nor whether the rise will be permanent or temporary. I do not think that the rally is due to "increased adoption" outside China (the "West"). All those stores that accept bitcoin via BitPay are attractive only to people who already own bitcoins. I do not see how they could create increased demand for bitcoin at the exchanges; they will only convince some holders to sell a few of their bitcoins there (through Bitpay). I can't see any sign of increased adoption in the plots of Transactions Per Day and Total Transaction Output Per Day on blockchain.info. In fact, since there are no fees (yet) for bitcoin transactions, probably more than 90% of that blockchain volume is fake anyway. Would have been interesting to know how you would have felt if you would have visited, for example, the Amsterdam Bitcoin conference... Seeing all those alpha type corporate guys networking and powertalking to each was a) somewhat disillusioning (Bitcoin idealism is dead, sorry guys) and b) made me realize that Bitcoin isn't going to go away anytime soon, now that big money got its greedy paws on it. |
|
|
|
Price was much lower then, so raw coin value will maybe never be this high again. Still, we're seeing 10k coin volume on a good day right now, but in early '14 we saw 70k on the highest volume day. I'd like to see that kind of volume again eventually. Stamp? More exchanges and people buy off-exchange now. So what's a new healthy volume? One of the most important questions right now. I'm fiddling around with some crude methods to find a way to relate volume (change) and price (change), but it's too early to really do something with it. Intuition says we should see easily twice our volume now as we leave the bear market behind... I'd say, a month where each day is 10k volume, and some see 20k, would be very bullish. (bitstamp volume alone in this example) |
|
|
|
Price was much lower then, so raw coin value will maybe never be this high again. Still, we're seeing 10k coin volume on a good day right now, but in early '14 we saw 70k on the highest volume day. I'd like to see that kind of volume again eventually. |
|
|
|
 We are somewhere between 14-15 If we're lucky, yes. Worst case I can see realistically is that we're at 13 (and go back another time to 400s, maybe high 300s, but won't make a new low). |
|
|
|
What do you guys think of this ? it was taken from the french forum.  Bullish?  Which exchange is this supposed to be? This is Bitstamp's order book currently:  minus 40 USD: 6k coins plus 40 USD: 3k coins That's arguably a mildly bullish picture, but not overwhelmingly so. Walls turn out to be fake and are pulled, and 3k (or 6k) coins are eaten pretty fast if momentum builds up. |
|
|
|
I think its safe to leave the charts for the weekend and just have a price alarm set. Enjoy your bank holidays (if your in the UK)!
How can we do that please ? ( for free as possible ) Best Android app right now (imo) is Bitcoin Checker.Another good one: Bitcoinium. And here's an alert that works through a webpage: Bitalarm.comPlease consider donating a few Dollar if you keep using them. I understand you asked for free services, and the above are free to use, but without community support, they won't be updated and supported. It's up to us to keep the developers happy. |
|
|
|
Ok, last time when it was at $200 I called a high of $1600 over the next 6 weeks (it only went to $1240). Here is the timeline this time:
June 20: $900
July 4: $1800
July 11: $3600
That next week it will top out near $4000.
So it is written, let it be known.
Not even close. We are months - 4-18 months from the next major bubble. Agreed. Next bubble inflection point February 2015 (if we're lucky), otherwise fall 2015. I don't think so. In the last weeks there have be plenty of very good news and a larger adoption is right around the corner. It is as if it's an elastic tensed veeeery much. At the release it wil skyrocket fast and violently. Low volume so far, and the breather we're taking now after just <20% upwards, says differently. Oh, that, and that in this bear market about every major LT indicator gave a bearish signal. It'll take a while to get out of that, I think, but we'll see. |
|
|
|
Hopefully on Monday we smash through the double top.
Maybe even earlier if enough people feel like front-running it (not in the legal sense, I mean) and don't want to wait 'til the weekend is over, but that's not the most likely scenario maybe. Would be nice to close above daily BB again (~520), but possible that won't happen today. If we defend 500 over the weekend, I'd take that as a pretty positive sign. From 490 on, I'll start to get worried about our little breakout. |
|
|
|
Ok, last time when it was at $200 I called a high of $1600 over the next 6 weeks (it only went to $1240). Here is the timeline this time:
June 20: $900
July 4: $1800
July 11: $3600
That next week it will top out near $4000.
So it is written, let it be known.
Not even close. We are months - 4-18 months from the next major bubble. Agreed. Next bubble inflection point vertex February 2015 (if we're lucky), otherwise fall 2015. |
|
|
|
|
Wow. Looks like Jorge was right all along... we went up without a sufficient cause, hence we're now going down again. Probably all the way to 300.
Short all the Bitcoins!
/s
|
|
|
|
Well I'm discussing the topic either way not saying they are definitely not asking for proof which is the whole issue.
1)how many times does someone have to say we're not saying they're insolvent for you to stop putting up that straw man when replying to someone who's said they're not saying they're insolvent several times.
2)Agree, isn't this one of the things I've been saying.
3)So you can't see the other guy in this thread and the guy in the Stamp thread. Its cool though, ignore them. Even if its not regular should it not concern people that at any point you could be asked to provide proof that you, for whatever reasons they may be , don't want to provide, after the being verified and making the trade and initiating a withdrawal request.
Thats fine I don't think there's much benefit in continuing but understand why people are concerned instead of just calling it impotent rage.
1) Look, you can be all blasé about it and continue saying I'm strawmanning, but fact is that more than one guy in here already got the wrong impression. So, since I consider it important, I want to drive home this point. As often as necessary. 3) Alright, sorry for the "impotent rage". Uncalled for. But see my perspective again. I never traded on gox. One day, I stumble onto this huuuge thread of withdrawal delays. Every day, another page added. Go back a week later. Thread still growing, people still saying "naah, it's fine, they're just a bit slow". I watched this shits for months! That's a situation in which I get worried about the enterprise as a whole. I'm sorry for the guys who seem to have stuck a withdrawal now. In my experience, Bitstamp support is fast and rather generous in resolving those issues. If they aren't resolved in a week or two, or more cases pile up, I will change my tune. Until then, I can have sympathy with them individually, but I'm not worried about stamp. |
|
|
|
I wonder if everyone would make such an effort to reach out if we didn't perceive Veronica to be a female. It's very big hearted of everyone to look out for the newbie, but I see this kind of sad tale on a pretty regular basis in the world of bitcoin and the typical response is, "well, dude, you shouldn't have invested more than you were willing to lose." But in those cases, they didn't have feminine names or give a sob story about wanting to stay home with their daughter.
Just saying guys, you could be getting manipulated here by your natural sense of chivalry.
For me at least, little to do with the fact that she's a woman, but a lot to do with the fact that she seems to take care of a child. Makes some sense, no? I'm willing to bet she's more than a little ashamed, and probably upset by some of the words and ideas thrown at her. If she were to reply, someone would probably accuse her of being a panhandler or a fraud. The only way to verify the latter is not the case would be to ask for personal information. Do you expect her to give that out, especially considering the treatment here? I'd be rather paranoid myself.
I thought of that, that's why I asked her to PM me, so it's at least not going to happen "on stage". But, yes, if she contacts me, I will ask for some personal information to at least make sure the story checks out by and large. I understand that's not ideal, but necessary I believe. I want to help her out because she sounded seriously distraught, but I'm not allowing myself to be taken advantage of either. In fact, one could argue that preventing the latter is what enables the former. Noble, but I don't know what kind of proof you could ask for that cannot be manipulated. Even if she showed up at your front door, there's no way to prove her story. It requires some amount of trust in her. Alternatively, you could poll everyone here to get distributed consensus on her validity. ;) You're not a 4chan (or, more benign, randomactsofpizza) regular, are you :D A picture of her and her daughter in their living room. For all I care, with her faces blurred out. For all I care, sent to the board mod, not myself. That's all. I'm not mortally afraid to be taken advantage of, I just don't want to be the easiest kind of target. |
|
|
|
Anecdote != data.
So my annecdotal case != data. Your annecdotal case(s) == data. Sure. Sounds fair. /s I repeat my main points one more time, then I'm going to duck out of this discussion: 1) It's anal KYC procedure, NOT a solvency related withdrawal problem like in gox' case. Let's make sure to let the newbies that read along here know that difference. 2) The biggest problem I see so far is that Bitstamp didn't announce this change in procedure BEFOREHAND. I agree with Blitz that this is shitty behavior. 3) What could in principle be an actual problem of gox-ian proportions if they would require proof that users can't reasonably provide. So far, after having read mentions of the KYC procedure around 40 times (my ballpark guess) in the past months, I have /today/ heard the first time of unnecessary proof being required (in the reddit thread). That's 1 out of 40 cases (from my own perspective) and it doesn't exactly make me jump to the conclusion that Bitstamp asks for this regularly now. |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with insolvency oda, take your strawmans elsewhere. Telling people they're verified and letting them trade/deposit just fine, not mentioning any sort of anal probes about source of Bitcoins in TOS, and then having it come as a surprise when withdrawing is inacceptable. No real broker will do this.
Go through the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Count how often someone asks "does this mean I should be worried about my deposits"? (by my count, around 4 or 5 times). I will stop building strawmen when you guys stop using the rhetoric reserved for a "danger! get your money out!" situation, where in reality you should be using your "that's against my principles, and all that btc stands for" rhetoric. "You guys" doesn't include me (and many others either), I never made that argument. And this has nothing to do with principles but lawfulness. Again, no real broker will ever create a situation where you have money on exchange and are suddenly surprised by some anal probe all the while thinking you were verified and have your money trapped. I can't wait for the day that we don't have to deal with these amateur operations anymore. Sorry but most in here are not saying that they are insolvent. What they are saying is that the intrusiveness goes above and beyond reason and is sprung on you with out any guidelines or clarification, thats not impotent rage. People are allowed to feel how they like about that, both in terms of the requirements themselves and what happens to the data, and discuss it too.
And that quote is out of context of the conversation which was about being asked for proof. He was saying that they don't ask for proof despite evidence to the contrary including a user who posted after that.
I'm aware of the context. And as I said before: I (and all the other cases I've hear of, except for one now I guess) appeared to get out of those questions just fine without providing ridiculously complicated proofs. I have been following this in the past and I had the same impression as you prior to today's reddit post. That is why I am surprised. Perhaps they have changed things? How recent is the last case you heard of where they did not ask for proof? Today. Myself :D |
|
|
|
I'm willing to bet she's more than a little ashamed, and probably upset by some of the words and ideas thrown at her. If she were to reply, someone would probably accuse her of being a panhandler or a fraud. The only way to verify the latter is not the case would be to ask for personal information. Do you expect her to give that out, especially considering the treatment here? I'd be rather paranoid myself.
I thought of that, that's why I asked her to PM me, so it's at least not going to happen "on stage". But, yes, if she contacts me, I will ask for some personal information to at least make sure the story checks out by and large. I understand that's not ideal, but necessary I believe. I want to help her out because she sounded seriously distraught, but I'm not allowing myself to be taken advantage of either. In fact, one could argue that preventing the latter is what enables the former. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
