6 months next bubble !  no... within 6 months well have hit bottom for sure, and will be building up toward next bubble. So that recent $50.01 wasn't the bottom? Or you think maybe it will bounce around 100-130 for six months...? |
|
|
|
Yes, a lot of weird people are buying now. You didn't sell? I did, and I'm from Slovenia. I didn't know that even more screwed up countries exist. Where are you from (some part of Balkan I guess or America)?
bitcodo, Is there widespread recognition of Bitcoin in Slovenia? Are people considering it a safety net in case a Cyprus-like bail-in situation happens to Slovenian banks? |
|
|
|
"money laundering" is an artificial, made-up crime.
It was created by the ability to track monetary transactions, not by any real evildoing.
People committed crimes since ages, but only at the point when it became possible, thinkable or feasible actually to track monetary transactions, such a thing like "money laundering" started to exist...
Absolutely. It is a vast excuse to enable syping on the financial affairs of citizens, just as terrorism has became overblown in order to further the surveillance state. AML is also lazy policing. Organized crime should be stopped on the streets while it is happening, not by behind-a-desk policing of the proceeds of crime afterwards. |
|
|
|
|
That was actually very bullish. And three interviewees who actually had some in-depth knowledge is a good sign. Bloomberg/BusinessWeek is taking Bitcoin very seriously now. That subliminal message is important to investors too.
|
|
|
|
Most likely if bitcoin became THAT pervasive it would mean that fiat money was dead. if fiat money was a thing of the past than governments would have no way to hide the cost of war through money printing. If politicians had no way to hide the cost of war through money printing they would have to get on stage and say "look we need to go to war with dirkadirkastan and so we will be sending every man woman and child a bill for 50,000 dollars to pay for it" Even the most ardent neo-cons may find themselves wearing hemp wrist bands and making peace signs under those conditions.
so that was the long way of saying no the military will never accept payment in bitcoin.
It was military spending which killed the gold standard. World War I broke sterling as the world reserve currency. It was the Vietnam War which forced Nixon to close the gold window and take the US completely off the gold standard too. Both countries have been debt-addicted ever since to finance excessive government expenditures including military adventures. In a Bitcoin-only economy with fiat gone, the military will have to live within the tax-base available to support it. However, this may simply mean a diversion of resources to robot technologies, which are far cheaper per unit firepower than projecting human soldiers thousands of miles away. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/29/killer-robots-ban-un-warning |
|
|
|
It all depends.
We can't rule anything in or out. |
|
|
|
Currencies have popular names like Yen, Dollar and standard names like JPY, USD.
XBT is not about renaming Bitcoin, but to agree on the unit compatible with legacy financial software and thinking of the rest of the world, so it helps adoption.
Traditional currencies are dividable by 100 (and not more), therefore virtually none of existing financial databases support currency columns with higher precision. This is why it is suggested that the standardized unit for those applications should be:
1 XBT = 100 satoshi
that also leads to
1 Bitcoin = 1 million XBT
The notation is handy since:
1,234,567.89 XBT = 1.2 Bitcoin or 1,234mBTC.
It is XBT and BTC because BTC is actually taken by Buthan and X is reserved for supranational currencies.
No conspiracy kids. Just a practical solution. Nobody takes Bitcoin away from you.
+1 |
|
|
|
"The truth is, we know nothing of what goes on at Bitcoin headquarters." Quick, someone invite Mr. Lewis to tour the Bitcoin headquarters so he can find what goes on!  To help him, the secret Bitcoin Headquarters is built inside the extinct volcano on this island:  |
|
|
|
Yeap I am stupid enough to click on the link and wasted 5 minutes of my life  . I think the prejudice they have against Bitcoin really runs deepppppp Lol i'm finding it hard to resist the urge... I'm like the kid who goes and does what he's told not to do. Even though I know its for my own good. If you can't resist reading the Motley Fool piece, and want to rinse your mouth out afterwards, here is the perfect antidote from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/bitcoin-the-perfect-schmuck-insurance.html |
|
|
|
He sold! Buy Buy Buy!
adamstgBit trap  IMHO the 4-hour chart shows a retrace to 131 likely. The recent downtrend could just be a temporary bounce off the $135 resistance area. $140s still on the cards for June. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, a weak title for one of the best Bitcoin articles written about the long-term perspective. |
|
|
|
|
This is a temporary problem, so why risk breaking the protocol with a change?
Fees are increasing steadily, and the block reward halves every four years. Probably during the time the reward is 12.5 BTC the fees per block will be begin exceeding that amount. So any miner producing empty blocks will be throwing away 50% of his potential revenue. Because difficulty will probably be 500+ million it will be uneconomic to mine empty blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the bitcoinity line chart the trend in May looks like a gentle upward continuation of Feb/early-March, before a seismic event of BTC excitement... So main trend intact,
|
|
|
|
As far as the use of Bitcoin as an exchange medium is concerned, the nominal price of the coin does not matter except to the extent that the current price of about $125 makes it impossible to use BitCoins to buy a hamburger. WTF?!?! you would think these guys know that Bitcoin is divisible to .00000001 Boo hoo. All worthless, can't buy a hamburger...  |
|
|
|
Shame we don't have a posting restriction here - I'd set it at 300 > to do anything. These people coming in with fresh-faced newbie accounts spouting off about what they "know" is rather annoying, like that SEC troll.
Another idea is that when a newbie gets a load of ignores from 300+ posters, that the newbie gets dumped back in newbie jail for a few weeks..  |
|
|
|
I argue that the end result will always be off-chain transactions (hopefully of the variety ~retep talks about where the possibility of counter-party fraud is minimized) so we might as well stop growth when the actual core blockchain is as nearly universally accessible as possible. Because, again, in that state the core system is nearly impossible to successfully attack.
And this is where your hitherto reasonable arguments depart from reality. Yes, you can stop Bitcoin growth, but you can't stop cryptocurrency growth in the worldwide market which is now well aware of the exciting potential future of currency and payments. Leaving a 1MB concrete block on the track may derail the Bitcoin train, but what about Litecoin and others? As soon as Bitcoin fails to scale, another alt-coin will embrace a flexible or unlimited block size and probably seize all the momentum from Bitcoin's first-mover status which it will have just thrown away. 3rd-party, off-chain solutions MUST take loading off the Bitcoin blockchain organically, on their own merits, not because Bitcoin has been derailed in a high-stakes gamble that the market can be forced to behave a centrally-planned way. I'd call it a much more high-stakes gamble to design around an assumption of a friendly and compliment operating environment and prostrate oneself to the tender mercies of the regulatory authorities and network carriers. I'm doubtful that Bitcoiners will be getting the 'seven strikes' or whatever afforded to media pirates. And if that is the path chosen, I hope that the stakeholders have saved up some significant lobbying funds. Enough to get close to matching those of the financial industry. I'll likely not be around to chip in. I understand what you are saying, and agree with your response. Decentralization is the best protection against the risk of prostration before authorities which would have Bitcoin as subservient as Paypal/Mastercard. It is just that inflexibility about the 1MB also introduces major risks. I really don't understand why some flexibility on this is impossible when one likely scenario is that block sizes may not even be 3MB when fidelity-bonded banks are up and running, and decentralization still healthy, enabling a smooth transition. |
|
|
|
I argue that the end result will always be off-chain transactions (hopefully of the variety ~retep talks about where the possibility of counter-party fraud is minimized) so we might as well stop growth when the actual core blockchain is as nearly universally accessible as possible. Because, again, in that state the core system is nearly impossible to successfully attack.
And this is where your hitherto reasonable arguments depart from reality. Yes, you can stop Bitcoin growth, but you can't stop cryptocurrency growth in the worldwide market which is now well aware of the exciting potential future of currency and payments. Leaving a 1MB concrete block on the track may derail the Bitcoin train, but what about Litecoin and others? As soon as Bitcoin fails to scale, another alt-coin will embrace a flexible or unlimited block size and probably seize all the momentum from Bitcoin's first-mover status which it will have just thrown away. 3rd-party, off-chain solutions MUST take loading off the Bitcoin blockchain organically, on their own merits, not because Bitcoin has been derailed in a high-stakes gamble that the market can be forced to behave a centrally-planned way. |
|
|
|
Pretty good, but here's the real test: did you act on it, and with how much commitment? Cause for example, I called yesterday's dip with high accuracy and well before it began, yet I didn't make any trades that took advantage of it, part out of laziness, part out of doubt about my own analysis. Indeed. Everyone's situation is different. I have bought and sold and re-bought, so was "all-in" last time from 117, so I didn't buy more although a spike up seemed likely. I have also decided to reduce my exposure to mtgox to a minimum until such time as the uncertainly over the Dwolla situation is resolved (even though I have never used Dwolla, and never intend to). I find it inexplicable that mtgox have not released a proper official statement to reassure their customers that they a working to comply with the FinCen regulations and unfreeze that account. I mean, how can they ignore their own obligations when they make their customers go through the verification (KYC evidence supplying) process? |
|
|
|
I just saw something that worried me. I think if the U.S. government decided that Bitcoin was a bad thing and told me, “Stop doing what you’re doing,” I’d stop doing what I’m doing, quite frankly.
It's the opposite. This shows a very level-headed and pragmatic viewpoint. Good qualities to see in Bitcoin Core Dev. Now, if you want to get worried try asserting that there are no dev people elsewhere around the world to continue working on the project, even at a slower pace. However, there seems to be a number of other people who could continue, so worries are overblown. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
