 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2]
|
I would personally think he is full of it. It is very unlikely IMO that someone who "blow the whistle" on reddit. It is just not the kind of forum that you can easily show proof. It would be much more effective if he were to go to congress or go to the MSM who could verify his story but keep his identity private.
Yeah why not use wikileaks? Possibly, but you could argue that Reddit is the right place to talk to a bitcoin audience (you could also argue that Reddit is the best place to spread a made up story, so hard to know). I really want to believe this, but it is hard not to be skeptical. The broader support you can claim for the story is that: the Fed governor and her predecessor have both made good noises about bitcoin which proves they are looking at it; and it is believable that the Fed would commission a serious study of bitcoin's potential given it is the Fed's job to stay on top of the financial system (whether they do that well or not I will leave to others to decide). |
|
|
|
|
When do we call it a bubble? Presumably it is after we reach a new high, in which case I don't know that we'll see it this year.
Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, banks are private company and they don't have any obligation to serve anyone or justify why they don't want to.
Exactly. Unfortunately we need them more than they need us, hence they have the power. Pretty ordinary way to treat customers though, especially customers who are doing nothing illegal or immoral and just happen to be interested in bitcoin. I had a similar experience with an Australian bank which prevented my transaction (transfer to an exchange) and then refused to even tell me why. This highlights why we need this whole bitcoin experiment to live up to its promise - it is the only way we can kill these pr!cks running the show. Best part is I think we will succeed, unless the banks convince the regulators to clamp down... |
|
|
|
|
I would be an interested buyer (at the right price of course) if it could be done properly. The idea of the full balance of coins in escrow (as per TwinWinNerD's proposal) works. In the options world this is called a "covered call" because you are selling the right to buy an asset which you already hold so your obligation is covered.
Even if the interest is not there yet, it will come. This is a necessary part of any developed financial eco system. It also opens up massive potential for hedging bitcoin to USD for payment processors and companies accepting bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure bitcoin can be used by criminals, but as has been said by a number of people so can lots of other things. The key question is do the positives outweigh the negatives? The answer for bitcoin is that they absolutely smash them. Bitcoin is overwhelmingly good despite the issues that have been raised.
One thing though - the pseudonymous argument made time and again is a little lukewarm. the block chain may record everything that happens, but in practice it does not allow for the effective tracking of laundered money. This still makes it much better than cash given cash is truly anonymous, but the fact that bitcoin is much easier than cash to move in large amounts across borders cancels this out in my view.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE bitcoin, but I think we are better off acknowledging its imperfections and stressing that they pale in comparison to all the benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
Patters are typically only ever maintained because people believe in patterns. This makes them a less than ideal basis for a long term investment strategy.
The key drivers of price are:
- on the upside, more and more big companies like Dell accepting bitcoin and more and more people spending them; and
- on the downside, ugly regulation (which is our real risk in my view) or one too many Mt Gox-type events.
If anything else drives your analysis, then it seems to me any success is largely down to luck rather than good management. The good news for the bulls is that the bitcoin technology is so good the long term trend should be up (again barring stupid regulation).
|
|
|
|
This has been talked many times. Many people tend to hoard due to the deflation character. I think the deflationary characteristics are an effect of hoarding rather than a cause (or worse still it's a loop). the other question is do any retailers price their stuff in bitcoin (as in truly price, not adjust each day as the BTC price changes)? This would potentially change things. Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App |
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that the next key step for bitcoin is true mass adoption. The day my dad uses it to buy something is the day I know we've made it.
Problem is if everyone is holding rather than spending, I am not sure how we ever get there. I know that there are many people spending, but the main game is still buy and hold expecting profits through price appreciation. My question is is this changing now that the price feels like it is settling down a bit? Does anyone have the stats?
Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App
|
|
|
|
Some exchanges are verified because of an audit but as you know some of them can close when they want unpredictably.
I don't trust any of these audits. From what I can tell, none of them have been carried out in a manner that proves current possession of assets to cover all liabilities. The New York regulations are going to try to change this. The goal of the regulations is to get it so exchanges must prove that they have enough bitcoin to cover all of their customers' bitcoin and fiat deposits. I like the spirit of this, but if it is a full-reserve system (which is what it sounds like) then I think it risks being too limiting to allow the bitcoin ecosystem to evolve. |
|
|
|
I think it all comes down to liquidity and depth of markets (which are to an extent driven by trust, quality of APIs and so on too). As an example, I spent $3k on bitcoin on one the other day and moved the market nearly 2% to fill my order. That is unsustainable for customers.
How do you solve this if you are a smaller exchange? I think you need a shared order book with other smaller exchanges; without this, I almost have to go to Bitstamp or Bitfinex every time.
Ease of moving money on and off also high on the list.
We actually aggregate Bitstamp's order book into our own internal order book. Essentially meaning we combine our own liquidity with Stamps. Not to mention our API offerings outnumber everyone in the industry (we have FIX 4.4 API, Web Sockets API, and RESTful/JSON API) [they're pretty fast as well, if I don't say so myself]. The problem with integrating Bitstamp's book is that it potentially just reinforces its status as top dog given they get the volume too. I think that partnerships with other smaller exchanges will ultimately be better for the bitcoin community as it will create more competition and reduce the risk of another Mt. Gox (by which I mean the death of a large, well known player linked to lots of people), something which could really, really set us back. |
|
|
|
|
Until there is a proper market for lending bitcoins (as in bitcoin loans made to real borrowers at real rates of interest), it seems strange to me that anyone could afford to pay interest on bitcoin deposits. Where would the money come from?
Only explanation I can come up with is this is a marketing expense, but this would make me wary because it may not be sustainable.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it all comes down to liquidity and depth of markets (which are to an extent driven by trust, quality of APIs and so on too). As an example, I spent $3k on bitcoin on one the other day and moved the market nearly 2% to fill my order. That is unsustainable for customers.
How do you solve this if you are a smaller exchange? I think you need a shared order book with other smaller exchanges; without this, I almost have to go to Bitstamp or Bitfinex every time.
Ease of moving money on and off also high on the list.
|
|
|
|
|
