when i say hard to buy i mean that only select exchanges carry bitUSD, coupled with the fact that bitUSD usually sells for a premium (like the premium you pay when purchasing physical gold or silver).
I should have said
bitUSD (smartcoin) = expensive to buy, but easy to liquidate any amount at $1
non-smartcoin/counterparty backed USD tokens can be easily purchased in any quantity, but difficult to sell large quantities at $1 when crypto is rising
Yeah, BitShares is hard to learn
thats why they made bitUSD simple with 1 rule only:
"you can sell any quantity at $1"
what more do you need to know?
can you sell any quantity of non-smartcoins for exactly $1?
Sounds good for protecting against a bitcoin price crash. Though it still would be a costly thing when you would have to pay a premium to go back. Or to go into bitusd again. You only can sell them when you bought them before. So i don't know if it makes much sense. |
|
|
|
coinmarketcap not updated yet after BitShares 2.0 release. BitShares developers will provide to coinmarketcap new data source for internal BitShares markets soon and when you will see BitUSD volume. But meanwhile you can check BitUSD volume in BitShares 2.0 online wallet: https://bitshares.openledger.infocoinmarketcap also doesn't count CCEDK BitUSD volume: https://www.ccedk.com/bitusd-usdI would need to create an account there. Can you tell me the volume and can you agree with the hard to buy part bitcoinsatan explained? I mostly use these coins to protect me against a falling bitcoin price. To create account you just need specify user name and password, no additional info like e-mail, and it's cost 0. Last days, BTS/USD trading volume 3000-11000$ per day, BTS/CNY: 0-39000 CNY, BTS/GOLD: 0.3-1 troy ounce .999 fine gold, BTS/SILVER: 0-196 troy ounce .999 fine silver Hm, sounds still like it is not very much. I wonder if the orderbook is filled enough at all to exchange a couple thousand USD worth. Nubits on poloniex have 88k volume per day. plus the other exchanges. but even then it is only usefull because they artificial create buy and sell walls you can buy into. |
|
|
|
Sebastian, consider plain FIAT
Fiat means you have to hold it on an exchange. Which is, we know, very risky. And if you push fiat from and to your bank account then this is very slow. Means when bitcoin is rising you need days to put it on an exchange. At that time the price already might drop. It's better if it is possible to act fast and don't have to trust the exchange to not get hacked or being run by scammers. |
|
|
|
Why not use futures to protect against a fall in the bitcoin price?
Futures are very liquid and designed for hedging; I like to use 796 exchange where they have no fees to hedge and speculate. In addition, you can typically sell the future at a price higher than the spot rate and make an arbitrage between spot and futures markets; all it takes to make a profit is the patience to hold until expiration and enough margin to protect yourself from volatility. There is sometimes a counterparty risk on the futures exchanges though. I traded on 796.com too once. But the support was nonexistant. Which drove me away. I believe another problem was the spread in orderbook. Too low volume so that it was hard to close positions with a profit. I now, if i do it at all, trade cfd on okcoin.com. It is the best place for leveraged bitcoin trading i found so far. |
|
|
|
Why not use futures to protect against a fall in the bitcoin price?
Because you have to trust the exchanges with your value then. I would like to take my coins into my own wallet. Then i only would need to trust the coin itself. |
|
|
|
What I advocated is to somehow restrict non-people from doing so, i.e. large exchanges and gambling sites from taking advantage of the distro model, which is what is happening with the digger,
How do you know this? Dooglus himself traced the series of addy's being dug by the digger to a now defunct gambling site. Which site was that? Did it end in a scam? Might be interesting for those who got damaged. Though maybe i await already always the worst related to bitcoin businesses.  |
|
|
|
Well, yes mining pools have the most power. But do they have ultimate control? No. Even satoshi doesn't have that. to stop/delay the halving, we'd have to all agree to a change in the coin's source code. Which is also making a totally different coin. Something like Bitcoin XT, which isn't really working out that well. One other reason why bitcoin is so successful is it's specific amount of coins and it's unique supply. If we change this, the price of bitcoin will plummet.
So no, I dont think the halving will be cancelled.
You are right. The miner have the power but ultimately the user have the power. Us bitcoiners that can chose to use a fork of bitcoin, believing that this is the real bitcoin that holds the real value. I mean at the end the price will decide which fork wins. And the price gets established by the users and traders. Though when i think about it, what if the corrupt miners take the forked coins and sell them all. Pushing the price of the forked bitcoin down to the bottom. Of course the forked bitcoiners could do the same. Though i wonder what the outcome of this would be. |
|
|
|
You can summarize this by a simple question.
Would you switch to a "miners-fork" where halfing is not done ?
I know I wouldn't. I have no bitcoins at the moment (well, I seem to have been paid by bit-x today, but this is dust). I sold whatever I had at 460. If that was at the top (I didn't follow the price closely), then I was just lucky, and I'm done with Bitcoin, wtf... So, personally, I don't care Nah, that is normal for bitcoin. And yes, you were near the top. If you follow the price then you might have even more coins at the end. At one point in time bitcoin price will stabilize when adoption is higher. |
|
|
|
The problem will solve itself. The reward over time is only as low as many miners take part in the mining game. Lower the reward and many miners will switch off their unprofitable miners. Which means the remaining rewards will be split through the remaining miners, which means they will earn more.
I don't particularly disagree with the said. In fact, I already mentioned something to that tune somewhere in the thread earlier. There are two major issues with this, though. First, this problem is apparently the flaw in design (an arbitrarily set number), at least, the way it is set up to work (if anyone begs to differ, think about how non-optimal (or, better, disruptive) the halving is/will be). Second, the disrupture in Bitcoin operation may be fatal to it, meaning it may never fully recover from this halving... I don't see why this halving should be different. I mean even when 50 or 70% of all miners are switched off then, it doesn't matter at all since the remaining miners will earn more because they don't need to share. I think because of that no problem can arise. |
|
|
|
Once must understand that halving is an essential part of the Bitcoin protocol, aimed at approximating the natural increase in scarcity, observed in other money systems, like gold (as opposed to currencies, like dollar, which can be printed ad infinitum) The problem is that Bitcoin itself is not natural. As I have said elsewhere (and been attacked by assclowns of all stripes and denominations, lol), Bitcoin, in this aspect, is no different than any other fiat money out there (or currency, if you please), my point being that mimicking scarcity (or any other quality) of its counterparts such as gold doesn't endow it with the resilience and robustness due to their inherent value (entrenched deep in the minds and nature of people)... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Scarcity is part of what gives both gold and bitcoin value. The only reason anything has any value at all is that everyone believes it to be true. This is true of bitcoin, gold, and fiat. Confidence in the particular monetary system is what bestows value, and part of the confidence in bitcoin is the built in scarcity of a hard cap and halving block rewards along the way. If that confidence is undermined, then the value/utility of the monetary system is going to fall, and that's true of gold and fiat too. What you write about the value is not fully true. There is the intrinsic value too. Gold for example has many usecases in electronics and more places. This means it has a value that comes from being gold alone. Not from the value it has from speculation or believe. So gold might crash but there should always be a bottom value. Of course the question is if so much gold can be used at all. But there are other items that are used as a kind of currency that has it's own value. Let's say cigarettes in war times. Some smoke them away, because they are stupid, some sell them for a warm jacket and are allowed to life because of that. But even when no one would want them, their value would be none for others, there is still a value in using it. (If you can say that at all about cigarettes. ) The same can't be said about bitcoin. You have nothing than some virtual flags if the value is crashing and everyone believes it is nothing worth. |
|
|
|
What?
Who has the most power over Bitcoin? Right, these are mining pools. Who is most interested in preserving the current block reward? The same mining pools... Who gives a fuck what the pools do, it's what the miners do. Mining pools act on behalf of the miners. Besides, do you understand that the miners will be the first to welcome the cancellation of halving?No. I've been mining since late CPU/early GPU days and still going strong. Been through the 50BTC->25BTC halving, when some of the same concerns were aired If no, why not then give me half of your earnings? BTC50 or BTC25 or BTC12.5 or BTC6.25 or BTC3.125 or BTC1.5625 or BTC0.78125 or BTC0.390625 ...
Okay, we are well past the 50 BTC reward, but may I hope that you will make do equally well with the remaining numbers right now? The problem will solve itself. The reward over time is only as low as many miners take part in the mining game. Lower the reward and many miners will switch off their unprofitable miners. Which means the remaining rewards will be split through the remaining miners, which means they will earn more. Given that we have 100 times more miners than we would need then you can assume that if 99% of all miners were switched off then the remaining 1% would earn 100 times the earning they had before. Market will find it's way. And mining will always be profitable for those who can get their hands on cheap hardware. |
|
|
|
coinmarketcap not updated yet after BitShares 2.0 release. BitShares developers will provide to coinmarketcap new data source for internal BitShares markets soon and when you will see BitUSD volume. But meanwhile you can check BitUSD volume in BitShares 2.0 online wallet: https://bitshares.openledger.infocoinmarketcap also doesn't count CCEDK BitUSD volume: https://www.ccedk.com/bitusd-usdI would need to create an account there. Can you tell me the volume and can you agree with the hard to buy part bitcoinsatan explained? I mostly use these coins to protect me against a falling bitcoin price. |
|
|
|
bitUSD is hard to find cheaply (which is why there is low volume) because it can always be sold for at least $1
bitUSD = no matter how much you have, you can ALWAYS sell it all for $1 whenever you want (without counterparty risk of course)
because they made the mechanism that way, it is simple to understand
bitUSD - hard to buy (at a good price), but easy to sell (at a good price)
get it?
All the others are easy to buy (at a good price) but hard to sell (at a good price)
and that is why bitUSD is unique
Which do you prefer?
1. easy buy hard sell (all the rest)
2. hard buy easy sell (bitUSD)
To find the answer, just ask yourself if you like getting trapped in a trade (unable to exit a position)(holding a bag)
Now you have learned something about yourself, and are able to choose the correct option that is best for you
In fact i mostly need a fast trade when i held bitcoins and they start to crash. I then try to get my value into a stable cryptocurrency. And those are mostly artificially held at a price connected to fiat. I'm not sure that i can follow your explainations about why they should be hard to sell or buy. I mean as long as the price is not very volatile you can fast buy and sell nubits. I did not see a difference there. |
|
|
|
Full blocks all the time it seems. And i'm wondering why my normal fee'd transaction don't confirm. Surely we need to keep 1 Megabyte blocks to make it even more fun.  Or is a stress test running that iam not aware of? For me it looks it's the rising transaction volume because of the crash. Even without stress tests, the average number of transactions per day (in 7 day running average) has climbed from ~130'000 in September to ~160'000 now, with a peak of 210'000 on 2015-11-05 (click "raw values" on that graph). This increase does not seem to be due to a stress test, but simply to the rapid changes in bitcoin price over the last month, that seem to have prompted many people to deposit and withdraw BTC from exchanges. It may also be due in part to Sergei Mavrodi's onging Global MMM ponzi, that uses bitcoins only and may have made millions of victims all over the world, but mostly in China. However, the prospects for a true good spam attack are getting better and better. The effective capacity of the Bitcoin network seems to be about 240'000 tx/day. Therefore, by issuing only 120'000 tx/day, with suitable fees, an attacker could block 40'000 legitimate transactiions each day and hold them in the queue to the end of the attack. It is not possible to guess what fees the attacker would have to pay, but if there are 40'000 tx/day that would not pay more than $1 in fees, he would have to burn at most $120'000 per day to keep them in limbo. I noticed malleability attack is going on too at the moment. At least when i sent one transaction to poloniex i had, again, two transactions with the same details in their deposit list. One of them confirmed after a hour or so. The crazy thing is... the one who propose to let it be at 1mb blocksize limit, and who want to develop a fee market, want it to be the standard that a certain amount of legit bitcoin transactions can never be confirmed. That is so crazy that i can't believe how many think that this would be a good idea. They speak of us being socialists and that we try to undermine their bitcoin. Really crazy stuff at times. |
|
|
|
Full blocks all the time it seems. And i'm wondering why my normal fee'd transaction don't confirm. Surely we need to keep 1 Megabyte blocks to make it even more fun. Or is a stress test running that iam not aware of? For me it looks it's the rising transaction volume because of the crash. |
|
|
|
|
Is support staff here? I noticed that the bitcoin address for deposit changed automatically. But normally i need a fresh address for every deposit and when i deposit i deposit from 4 or 5 addresses that should not connect. I mean i don't want to let everyone know in which projects i invested or whatever.
Poloniex, please change things back. Especially when the bitcoin price is crashing you want to upload the coins fast. This is not possible if you get, maybe, one unique address a day. I would need to search another exchange then since i value my privacy.
|
|
|
|
Looks like another round of divs went went out.
Guys dont forget to check off "Disclose email" in Cryptostocks settings, this wil insure that when the time comes, you will be able to validate your shares, if CS goes down for good.
Yes... and even though the amount of bitcoins is less than last time, the usd value is similar because bitcoins are worth more now. Hope things move more smooth now. |
|
|
|
I think changing the rules or splitting any community this coin has at this point would be a bad idea.
It wouldn't just be bad for current holders, but for possible future holders as well.
Taking away the very thing that caused Just-Dice to adopt it or even for the word CLAM to come in the JD troll box many moons ago would be unwise, greedy and boarder line scammy.
Mostly, the people who made shitty trades want change.
How are those .004 coins I sold you @ market price feeling to ya dooglus? I recall you clowning on me over that sale... and my service and now that everything I said would happen is happening... yall are starting to resort to brainstorming ways of scamming people.
Real cool.
I agree. It could mean a slow death to clams because THE thing that attracts new users is still the promise of free clams you might own. Besides gambling of course.  |
|
|
|
People dont want buy so long digger still digging. He destroys the clam with use so long time.
Maybe that's the whole point. It could be someone who hates altcoins in general or CLAM in particular. Though i think i know very little persons who would, without need, destroy value they own only because they dislike altcoins. I think it's more likely that he don't have a clue about trading. Though who could it be? Who owned so big wallets? Only exchanges i guess. Can it be a scam exchange that went down? And that is the reason he does not want to get exposed? Though when selling the clams his identity probably is know to the exchange. |
|
|
|
I'm kinda dumb, so I'm having a hard time understanding what happens to alt coin prices when bitcoin goes sky high. It seems to me like the main conversion for alt coins is into bitcoin, so when bitcoin goes crazy and if the price of the alt to bitcoin remains the same, then that's essentially a bump in price for the alt (if you look at it in fiat). Does that mean that the CLAM price basically went up 100% alongside bitcoin last week? Or am I missing something?
I thought so first too but clam is more of a coin pegged to bitcoin. The clam price does not care about the fiat price of bitcoins, only the amount of bitcoins are of interest. So when you hold clams and the bitcoin price drops then you will lose value. Since normally clams don't react on the change in bitcoinprice. I only can assume that no one exploits these changes. Normally it should look like an arbitrage possibility but it might be the volume is too low to exploit it. Of course there are other altcoins that clearly correlate invers with the bitcoin fiat price. Not perfect but good enough to see it. Edit: I would have hold clams longer if this connection would not have been. If you hold clams, they remain at the same value in bitcoins, but the bitcoin price drops, then you lose. So you always have to keep 2 currencies in view. If you had faith in CLAM maintaining it's value against Bitcoin in the long-term, it would be beneficial to hold CLAM given the ability to stake. Might be possible but when the bitcoin price drops 10% a day then even when the clam price remains stable, you will lose. And holding out on clams might have made them worth now a fraction of it's worth too, with the digger. So probably depends in which timeframes one sees my decision. Can be right or wrong then.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
