|
mtgox: funds received
me : Yaaaay --> Buy
lets hope its a good move (small amount anyway)
|
|
|
|
Jeff now owns 0.3% of the network.... 300 of these babies and difficulty doubles  |
|
|
|
Haha, you changed it. Good on you! |
|
|
|
Last try, then I give up...
The wikipedia page also says : " The potential loss on a short sale is theoretically unlimited in the event of an unlimited rise in the price of the instrument, however in practice the short seller will be required to post margin or collateral to cover losses, and any inability to do so on a timely basis would cause its broker or counterparty to liquidate the position."
Now: if you just sold stuff that you already own, there wouldn't be theoretically unlimited losses (it says "losses", not "absence of profit").
Moreover: if you just sold stuff that you already own: why would you have to give a broker collateral?
And how could he "liquidate your position"? Would he randomly decide at some point to buy shares or bitcoins that you sold before, just for the fun of it? Do you see how nonsensical all of this sounds without the assumption that you are selling something that you didn't own in the first place?
yup you got me there  |
|
|
|
|
So Gabi, do you own bitcoins? If so, why? Are there reasons to think no government or payment service provider will try to pull this off?
|
|
|
|
I refuse your definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_%28finance%29 the practice of selling securities or other financial instruments, with the intention of subsequently repurchasing them ("covering") at a lower price. In the event of an interim price decline, the short seller will profit, since the cost of repurchase will be less than the proceeds received upon the initial (short) sale. Last try, then I give up... The wikipedia page also says : " The potential loss on a short sale is theoretically unlimited in the event of an unlimited rise in the price of the instrument, however in practice the short seller will be required to post margin or collateral to cover losses, and any inability to do so on a timely basis would cause its broker or counterparty to liquidate the position." Now: if you just sold stuff that you already own, there wouldn't be theoretically unlimited losses (it says "losses", not "absence of profit"). Moreover: if you just sold stuff that you already own: why would you have to give a broker collateral? And how could he "liquidate your position"? Would he randomly decide at some point to buy shares or bitcoins that you sold before, just for the fun of it? Do you see how nonsensical all of this sounds without the assumption that you are selling something that you didn't own in the first place? |
|
|
|
I don't quite understand, what is to stop for example Paypal from buying a shitload of ASICs (or FPGAs should ASICs all be a fraud) and shut down the network by DOS?
I fear such an attack would severely undermine bitcoin user confidence, send prices really low, and undermine incentive for other miners to up their game by buying new equipment etc.
I don't understand how a client update could prevent this problem. Wouldn't the attacker just upgrade too? Is there a way to distinguish between attackers and "true" miners?
I would love a good answer to this as together with scaling issues this is my main concern for bitcoin's survival and success.
Why attack it when you can join it? Because joining it can be risky because others can attack it. And attacking it if you are part of a money-making business could ensure give you a small chance for a large capital outlay that you eliminate competition. I am not saying this definitely will happen. I wouldn't own bitcoins otherwise. I just see it as a serious risk. FTFY Care to explain why you give this a small chance? |
|
|
|
I don't quite understand, what is to stop for example Paypal from buying a shitload of ASICs (or FPGAs should ASICs all be a fraud) and shut down the network by DOS?
I fear such an attack would severely undermine bitcoin user confidence, send prices really low, and undermine incentive for other miners to up their game by buying new equipment etc.
I don't understand how a client update could prevent this problem. Wouldn't the attacker just upgrade too? Is there a way to distinguish between attackers and "true" miners?
I would love a good answer to this as together with scaling issues this is my main concern for bitcoin's survival and success.
Why attack it when you can join it? Because joining it can be risky because others can attack it. And attacking it if you are part of a money-making business could ensure that you eliminate competition. I am not saying this definitely will happen. I wouldn't own bitcoins otherwise. I just see it as a serious risk. |
|
|
|
i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.
It's not even close. If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses. On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had. |
|
|
|
I feel an explotion to the up side is imminent.
/
/
/
/\/\/\/ <- we are here
/
/
so you bought back in? Seems like a smart move, I would too if only my funds arrived.... No, but he did have chili yesterday.
lol |
|
|
|
I keep hearing people talk about shorting bitcoin, but how are you doing it without bitcoinica or similar leveraged trading platform? Or are you just shorting through private btc loans? Or is the term "shorting" just being misused on this forum?
The "shorting" term is frequently misused on this forum, used instead of plain old "selling". yeah, its annoying. I thought we went over this, shorting doesn't need to be leveraged to be considered shorting. Yes I pointed this out before. Apparently you still believe you are right. I once again invite you to look at your own wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorting and see the "share borrowing" and "share return" part in the schematic. (no hard feelings Adam, but you are wrong on this one). |
|
|
|
this is it boys...someone's gonna fire the laser  To me, that looks more like a bearish "C/Sell Puke"... |
|
|
|
I keep hearing people talk about shorting bitcoin, but how are you doing it without bitcoinica or similar leveraged trading platform? Or are you just shorting through private btc loans? Or is the term "shorting" just being misused on this forum?
The "shorting" term is frequently misused on this forum, used instead of plain old "selling". |
|
|
|
There are two problems with someone trying to take over the Bitcoin network:
1.) No one entity in the world has enough computing power to do it now. That chance has passed. Lol? 10 millions $ and you have more than enuff computing power  The overlooked part of the 51% attack is you have to continually expand to maintain your advantage, making sure your blockchain is the longest verified one, and you can only do evil things with your own coins. It seems to me that between buying 10 million dollars worth of equipment or buying outright, you're probably better off sinking it into the system and getting the attendant yields. There hasn't been an attack because it is really useless to do so right now. I imagine in some extreme scenario where someone is running an attack to punish bitcoin, most users would probably decide to upgrade their clients to patch out the offending actors if needed - assuming that the attackers could even maintain their majority, which I highly doubt. I don't quite understand, what is to stop for example Paypal from buying a shitload of ASICs (or FPGAs should ASICs all be a fraud) and shut down the network by DOS? I fear such an attack would severely undermine bitcoin user confidence, send prices really low, and undermine incentive for other miners to up their game by buying new equipment etc. I don't understand how a client update could prevent this problem. Wouldn't the attacker just upgrade too? Is there a way to distinguish between attackers and "true" miners? I would love a good answer to this as together with scaling issues this is my main concern for bitcoin's survival and success. |
|
|
|
Update: As of 01/29/13 - it has been read 13,650 times - putting it on par with some of the more popular articles.
And probably 6000 of those are bitcoin enthusiasts such as myself refreshing the page to see the comments ... |
|
|
|
I guess it depends how high we go.
i think if we go above 40$ the down trend that fallows will be eternal...
I'm sure that is about as likely to be true as the prediction that "breaking through 19 is simply impossible".  i was wrong... today i can saw with confidence that breaking through 20 is simply impossible  Sure. It's happened before, but now it's impossible! Did you forget to wave your hand and utter the words "this is not the wall you're looking for"?  |
|
|
|
 See you all later! Haha, thanks mate ! We are going to have one hell of a ride ! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
that my little "trick" went unnoticed... so I'll spell it out. Recheck the wiki page:
