There's a hormone called Melatonin which (for most people) makes you feel sleepy and makes you sleep deeper, which means you need less sleep. Something in the order of 7 hours instead of 8. It's freely available in the US. In Europe the dosage you can get over the counter is restricted in some countries.
Makes me groggy in the mornings, actually. |
|
|
|
|
"..."
The crime investigator (aptly named, since he investigates crimes) unremorsefully continued,
"...heh. Heh heh heh..."
The Constable (aptly named because he was a con and hilariously unstable [get it? CONStable?]), extracted value from his right breast pocket and loudly stated:
"I hate women. I'm off to nap on a toilet."
|
|
|
|
|
Go figure, nobody reads the basic instructions on kitchen timers. They usually tell you to turn it past 10 minutes and then move it from there for this reason.
|
|
|
|
The saga continues. For others who might want to play around with Bitcoinica, here's some details.
After deciding that I didn't need Bitcoinica at this time, I withdrew most of my BTC, but left a token amount in with the intent of losing it playing around with leverage. That has not happened yet, but it seems that I am on my way with nothing I can do about it.
I had 8 BTC. I decided to try to bet that the price would go up to 2.29 (from current 2.19 or something). I put in a 'limit sell' at 2.29 for 25 BTC which I thought would execute if the price hit 2.29. What I thought was happening is that I was borrowing Bitcoinica funds (25 - 8 BTC) and that if the price fell a small amount, I would lose ?? but if I bet right ant the price went up, I would win ??. The experiment was to see what the ?? would be.
What happened was that somehow the 'order' was there, but I had no 'position'. I was not sure if this was normal or what. I waited for the lower number of the spread to exceed my target (the bet happened to be going in my favor) but when it did, nothing happened.
Oh well. I canceled the order. To what would have been my horror had I not been trying to lose my money, canceling an order turns it into a 'position' it seems. Now I have a 'position' on the books with an immediate 1% loss. Every time I try to 'liquidate' the position, I lose another chunk of money and need to settle, but it says I have 'insufficient funds' to actually liquidate.
I guess what I will do now is just sit on things until my goal is met (that is, until I've lost all my money.) Any attempt to do otherwise seems to simply expedite that process.
This sounds like an actual problem, and not a misunderstanding of a feature. You should post your order placement history for Z to look at and make sure it's not a bug. |
|
|
|
|
Hey. Atlas. You fail? Waiting for that nap 10 or whatever you're on update. (I bet he totally crashed).
|
|
|
|
That was basically what I concluded, and I appreciate a confirmation from someone who clearly understands this stuff much better. If/when I develop any strategies which would benefit by having a need to short, I'll re-visit things. OTOH, I have a fairly large collection of BTC by this time, so here again it may make more sense to self-fund. Not sure yet, and probably I will never need to be  It's not a bad idea to hold long on bitcoins through the basic exchange, and then place a short order hedge on bitcoinica. The advantage is being able to adjust your hedge easily with room on the margin, and maintain gains during a price fall, still holding your BTC while you wait for an upswing. And about the address, the sig is completely sarcastic; I don't want or need your money. I find the posting of addresses to be very much like pan-handling. Your verbal thanks are enough for me. |
|
|
|
Language is always evolving. Consider my use of 'of' as a mutation.
"He isn't surely right, he's inclusively mundane." (fyi, I write in near opposites, because language is always evolving. Here's a guide: He = I isn't = correct conjugation of the positive "am" surely = not right = wrong inclusively = just mundane = special) |
|
|
|
I finally decided that if I continue to play around with Bitcoin trading, even if it is just for accumulation, I should learn to leverage some of the features of Bitcoinica. It is hard not to be impressed by the professionalism and skill displayed by Zhoutong over these last few months so while I will as with any other Bitcoin outfit trust them with as little as possible, I am confident enough to have an account and possibly a fair amount of value in it on a transient basis. I played around with stop orders and lost close to the precise amount of money I expected to...around two cents Several things of note: I was under the impression that I needed an Mt. Gox account for some reason. Something about redemption codes or some such. Not having been an Mt. Gox customer (again until last night) I did not really understand what they were and didn't feel like trying to. But it seems that I had a misconception about the necessity of having an Mt. Gox account. It seems like I can both add and withdraw BTC to arbitrary addresses though I have only tried the former as I write this. I seem to have been 'blessed' with 5:1 margin unless I am reading the UI wrong. I actually think that it is good practice to start people out with something lower if it is easy to set it to whatever the customer wishes. (If as a customer, I wish to be suicidal and can do so without risk to Bitcoinica, so be it.) In order to thwart those who would game the Bitcoinica user base, a good policy might even be to set the margin ratio randomly. I did not feel comported by several pieces of text that I found: "Why not place an order now?" "If you just want to make some quick bucks in the hot market, Bitcoinica is definitely for you!" "What are you waiting for?" I think that the Bitcoin economy needs a professional no-bullshit platform in order to have a hope being a usable economy (because it is natively volatile and unstable as a currency at this time) and Bitcoinica has some real potential to take an unassailable lead here. I guess that is why the text I have mentioned bothers me personally just a bit. But I'm no marketing guru. Just a heads up about depositing bitcoin instead of USD: By depositing bitcoin, you have essentially automatically placed a long order for the total quantity of bitcoin and are subject to the bid/ask prices on deposit. This means a few important things: 1) If you bought your BTC for $2 (say, the current price), and the spread is 1.95-2.05, when you deposit, you would have to sell at 1.95 to get USD. The alternative is to withdraw, deposit back into MtGox and trade from there. As long as you understand the lag and the spreads, this is just fine. 2) By depositing BTC, you have initiated a standing long order. I.e. your net value will adjust as prices adjust. This means that by depositing BTC, you are susceptible to margin call and forced liquidation as prices change. This is not true if you deposit USD. If the only way for you to get cash into bitcoinica is through BTC, and you want to hold long, this is all fine. But if you want to try short selling, you're paying a slight premium to deposit BTC, close your order, and then place a sell. Last, don't worry about leverage, if you're responsible. You aren't required to purchase on full leverage, only as much as you're comfortable with. |
|
|
|
Where the hell have YOU been? haven't seen your iron-fist style around here lately
After I cashed out my millions shorting the true believers, I got tired of stoking the flames (except the Atlas/Matthew drama). One time I supported a campaign to introduce new users to Bitcoin, but I recognized that at this point all that is doing is guiding them into the line at the slaughter house (or a majority of them anyway) so I withdrew from any activities along these lines. And would/did suggest that anyone receiving donations in Bitcoin (which I think is a great thing to do) immediately cash them out for just about anything else.
I retain a lot of hope that at some point Bitcoin will be a viable technology for the masses, but a good deal of evolution is needed before that is the case (IMHO.)
I genuinely thought this would be an interesting experiment, until it became clear that the unique features of Bitcoin were completely steamrolled by the same issues facing unregulated markets over the last century. That's been obvious for months now. It's been fun in a rubbernecking-sort-of-fashion, but I'm just beginning to feel sorry for people. I know what it's like to have a cause, but I'm genuinely disappointed at the full turn from reality and ignorance that permeates this fanaticism. I pray you're all trolls. anyone who got into / planned on using bitcoin as a speculation vehicle got exactly what they deserved. use it as it was intended - decentralized currency and not as a get rich quick scheme.
You're half right! Problem is "intentions" don't meet the real world about 99% of the time. Hope you're learning. https://bit-pay.com/aboutMobile.htmlI'm planning on approaching my lunch place on Thursday here in Cleveland to see if they will set up something to use this. I've been going there for 5 years and might be able to get them into it. Looking forward to paying for my future lunches in bitcoins! I just don't know what to say anymore. |
|
|
|
It's ironic that a Utopian commodity/currency designed for freedom is being heavily affected by high frequency trading, short trading, and other tricks the 1% on Wall Street use.
Where the hell have you been? There has never been anything but "fuck you, got mine" in the world of bitcoin. And, as many would argue around here, that is freedom. It's been obvious from day one why unregulated currency markets are bad for everyone but the 1%. I mean, Zhoutong even posted a gini index for bitcoins, .8. That's worse than Nigeria in terms of wealth distribution (.7). What in the hell ever made you think there was anything Utopian about this? |
|
|
|
I make a lot of people happy, Matthew. I can't prove that without giving you references. That's going to be open to abuse.
I cam verify that, being part of this summer's most popular internet forum-based situational comedy "The Bitcoin Forums", Atlas does make people happy and is rated among the most favorite characters, next to the whimsical yet incompetent swindler/token gay character Bruce Wagner. And Matthew, that persistent doller of sage wisdom who then fires himself up at a moments notice for the role of savior, only to creep out and become your stalker ex...a perfect cast of characters! |
|
|
|
But you can't get more of one without sacrificing the other.
That's amazing! That means that I truly own SO MUCH STUFF BECAUSE I NEVER WRITE DOWN MY PASSWORDS! |
|
|
|
|
Nothing matters, so your argument is moot, Atlas.
|
|
|
|
I mean, fuck man. Are you just trolling?
What? "Since nothing matters, every argument is dead." Why the hell are you even here? Just cut and paste that quote right there and never type anything else. We may have gotten off track, but it was an interesting track, and substantive, with the exception of your contributions. Get the hell out of these forums, Atlas. You have nothing to add around here with your crap. |
|
|
|
Theft is never justified.
Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified? Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain. You guys are barking up the wrong tree, entirely. The important point is to ask yourself about property rights. Real, economic property rights. Not free market property rights. Not legally defined property rights. The kind of right that specifies ONLY (and I mean only, Atlas) a measurable ability to control a resource, under whatever circumstances. Thus, in this conception, if you and a friend find a briefcase full of gold in the woods, who owns it? In this example, the one with the bigger machine gun. This is the kind of property right I'm discussing. When you talk about these issues, the idea of "theft" becomes extremely interesting, and only relatable to modern law; was the appropriation of Native land in the US theft? Was it an efficient (i.e. less wasteful) use of the land by transferring property rights (THROUGH FORCE, ATLAS, NOT LAW) from those who couldn't defend it to those who could? Was it right? You have to recognize that on some level, people are uncomfortable with this low-level idea of might makes right, because it's violent and power-consolidating, which reduces choice. You have to consider some kind of collective mechanism if you want to move beyond that, and if you do, there's no way to guarantee perfect distribution. Under many circumstances, private organizations operate under might makes right, through the use of wealth to coerce government monopoly on violence. This is a huge problem, and exactly what successful, effective regulation is supposed to counteract. Sad that it doesn't work, but without it entirely, it certainly won't work. |
|
|
|
The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.
Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.
Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.
Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.
Alright, this discussion is staying civil, and I appreciate that, so I suppose I can set aside my frustration for a bit. The problem with your "taxes are theft" argument is that you're having trouble with the "tyranny of the majority"-type thinking. You see a limit on choice imposed by the government through threat of violence, which I assume you understand is where taxation legitimacy comes from. And yes, it's absolutely true that this limit on choice exists. It's not smoke and mirrors, and redistribution happens in ways that are sometimes "unfair," in your use of the word. However, your alternative, to let private organizations operate where once public organizations did, brings a very significant problem: free markets guarantee the opportunity of freedom only in perfectly competitive scenarios where goods can be well-priced, and the degree of competitiveness has an enormous dependency on things like access to wealth. In short, unequal distribution of wealth results in unequal access, and unequal access provides the mechanism for a minority to commit theft. It should be needless to say that the primary incentive of private business is the accumulation of wealth for this very purpose. This is the entire point of anti-trust: monopoly allows the tyranny of the minority to manipulate and steal from the majority through wealth (or resource) control. It's sad, but you really get two choices: you can have a system that at least purports to operate based on a public, collective mandate, or you can have one that rewards consolidation of decision-making power in to very few hands. Dollar voting costs. Ballot voting is cheap. This is the key difference. Even Joe Sixpack is not a fool when it comes to spending his money. He may not care to research the difference between cholera and hepatitis when he casts his vote on public health policy, but he will probably research the difference between a Sony and an LG when he buys a flat screen TV.
Dollar votes are likely to be more rational and less capricious than ballot votes.
Also, it's amazing how quickly people forget their "moral objections" when a substantial financial gain is involved.
No, Joe Sixpack certainly isn't a fool. He'd much rather spend that money on a Sony than cholera research, and I'll be damned if anyone tells me that that Sony does less good than curing cholera.  I mean seriously, did you even read what you wrote? Your last sentence should tell you why "dollar voting" brings you to the lowest common denominator with difficult-to-price goods (like public health, that are literally necessary for our survival), where everyone buys a coke instead of supporting needle exchanges: replace the word "objections" with "concerns." |
|
|
|
What's wrong with a monopoly if people voluntarily accept it and are happy with its service as opposed to a government monopoly that is forced upon its people?
I don't know where to even start, Atlas. This is the dumbest thing I've seen come out of your mouth. You presume some supreme crap here, that has absolutely no basis in reality. Let me rephrase your question for you: "What's wrong with a monopoly that actively circumvents people so that they have no choice but to accept it's service, as opposed to an organization that can be changed yearly through organization-supported avenues, constitutionally protected collective action, and even violent protest?" Stop talking and read, dude. These "scientific" measures only measure isolated sectors; there is no good scientific measure for the utility of the entire economy.
There are plenty. Here's a nice one that's actually used today, and would not be taken into account by a private organization because of it's application to public goods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_lifeBtw, the above is the best case. In practice, governments often consciously enact policies that are scientifically proven to be unfavorable in terms of above measures because they are pandering to the caveman instincts of ignorant voters who have little personal stake in the public good.
A classic example is the blocking of cheap and highly effective needle exchange programs by right wing politicians, even though needle exchange is scientifically proven to reduce the chance of catching hepatitis and hiv, even for non-drug users.
You do realize that your "caveman voters" are the same people that will be voting with their dollars? The problem with needle exchanges is they butt up against powerful moral objections that exist just as prominently in the private sector. Killing government does not make this go away. These ridiculous ideas don't come from a featherbed but from my personal experiences.
I used to live in a country where I suffered from heavy air pollution, where the trash piled up in the streets, where the sewers were simply emptied into the sea, where I didn't feel safe in the street because the police didn't do their job, and where people died from treatable diseases because public hospitals had 10 years waiting time.
Despite the fact that people are forced to pay 1/3 of their income for those "services", as soon as they can afford to, they get private insurance, send their kids to private school, and move into gated communities that do a much better job of providing security and trash removal.
A free market doesn't do a perfect job of providing public goods but government does an even worse job.
Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many. I'm sorry, but this is all I got. Arguing with you folks really is like arguing with a brick wall. |
|
|
|
You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?
Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.
To get at your question, many of these services would not come about without government. It's a really simple concept surrounding public goods (non-rival, non-excludable goods), has been for a very very long time with nearly every serious economist over the last 100 years, and has been the paradigm for a reason you don't like but should probably accept: it has been shown with convincing experimental evidence that these goods exist and will not be provided by the market in a way that allows the efficient exchange of resources. There is nothing "magical" about "my" government, it just happens to be a better mechanism for certain kinds of exchange and resource management. No argument that probably most of the things you need in your life, along with nearly all of the things you want can be handled better by private organizations. But you have to stop acting like your mythical extreme is better simply because it hasn't been tried. Enough of that extreme has been tried and summarily rejected by massive worker revolt over the last two centuries. Spend some time reading about the definition of monopoly before you start swinging it around in the context of government. The fact that there is no competition for those services is not enough to claim monopoly, and its power to siphon consumer surplus right to the owners of the organization. Besides, it always cracks me up when you argue against "government monopoly" only to support free-market practices that lead to private monopolies, with the silly little BS argument "but that's only because the market wasn't free enough!Um, all those things were once done by the private sector. The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard.
Just because you say it's true does not make it true. The reason government got into many has nothing to do with standards, it has to do with the over-consumption of scarce resources because of their "public" nature. Really, don't bother trying until you've read a bit more on the subject. Definitely don't tell me the reasons that government does anything until you know what you're talking about. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/tennessee-firefighters-watch-home-burn/Tell me it's fair that if you can't quite afford $75 a month, that you deserve this. |
|
|
|
Yay! Then the poor will be guaranteed to starve and freeze as well! Government guarantees this happens. Can you point to example where government money has not? I would be interested. Or a example where "free Market" currency has harmed the poor, in the absent of government perversion? Just one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization#Cochabamba.2C_BoliviaAnd I know you won't read it, so here: "In the previous years, despite funds made available by the World Bank to support the public utility of Cochabamba, access to piped water in the city had decreased to 40%, water losses had remained high at 40% and water was supplied only 4 hours a day. Those not connected to the network paid ten times as much for their water to private vendors as those who were." For water. This is a good example pretty much because it's one of the few "goods" we need to live. Private != Free market Crony state-enabled capitalism is not properly incentivized services and goods. Sub-contracting a state monopoly is not the free market at work. Excuses. I know you think "but it's not perfect, that's why it doesn't work" is your answer to everything (i.e. redefine it every time to make sure counter examples don't apply), but this is reality. You have your examples, and they work great, whether you like it or not. Nothing in life is a closed system. And unless you want to float high above the level of practice all day, you have to come down and try stuff in real life. This happened, and you can't deny it's failure because it wasn't "perfect". But you will, because you are completely inept at any serious attempt at arguing a point. Seriously, go away, Atlas. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
