Socialism is too loaded of a word to convey any meaning.
So is captialism and anarchism unfortunately. We should find new words. Words mean what they mean, but changing the meaning of the words is one of the preferred methods of the status quo to control the people's thoughts. About capitalism and anarchism I have an endless debate on these forums. A lot of US folks in here calls themselves "anarcho-capitalists". I explain them that's an oxymoron, that anarchism is against capitalism by definition, because capitalism is hierarchical and coercitive by nature. And we go on arguing for 20-pages long threads in the politics&society subforums. Anyhow, sorry for the OT lucif, please show us some bearish triangles  |
|
|
|
If the price doesn't regain and maintain triple digits, I would see the bear market as confirmed.
The bear is on since the April crash, which was deeper and faster than the one we had in 2011. On the contrary, it looks like this time the bear will last longer. In 2011 we had 5 months of slow decline prior to the bottom. The "bitcoin is a ponzi" sentiment spread quite quickly, it didn't take so long for the people to unload. Now we are having more traps, the money is taking longer to vanish, we are even having some new investors here and there. But the bear is on. In 2011, the sentiment was "hacks&ponzis" In 2013, the sentiment will be "regulation&money stranded at Gox"  |
|
|
|
|
Both Google trends and forum activity are lagging indicators. Quite nice to picture the current situation, and to compare "today" with "yesterday", but complete useless anything else.
|
|
|
|
Just got my tracking. HalleYifu!
Finally! Congrats, mate  |
|
|
|
google searches are not that important. What we need to check is the number of activity in the community.
Nice chart, but can you explain WHY google searches are "not that important", and WHY what we need to check is the activity in this community? |
|
|
|
I would be very cautious about anything related to bitcoin.
Outcome #1: The order is voided, and life goes on
Outcome #2: The order is enforced
The problem is if: A legal argument is made that bitcoind is the "creator" of bitcions, and bitcoind is owned by the foundation, hence the foundation is the creator of a bitcoins, and all the problems that come with that legal argument
They can sue Bitcoin Foundation into bejizus for all most of us care. Life goes on regardless. They need to start jailing mom and pop shop operators that accept Bitcoin just like MAFIAA tried to sue all the 100 year old grandmas and dead people for downloading some crappy mp3's. Given how fascist the USA is I would not be surprised. This. Let's them do their thing. If they are so stupid to try to "ban" bitcoin and prosecute its users, they will just be making a fool of themselves, like the MAFIAA did when tried to stop "illegal" (LOL) downloads. Those stupid guys in suits need to hit with their heads 100 times on a wall before they realize the wall is not going to break. Let's them try to ban bitcoin, we're comfortably waiting laughing at them. |
|
|
|
That is a good news, it means 2015 it will touch 2000
I highly doubt that. Look at Google Trends:  In spring of 2013 Bitcoin was everywhere in the Mainstream Media (e.g. because of the Euro crisis). What do you think comes next? The Intergalactic Media? It seems like people are losing interest in Bitcoin. You can also see this in the trade volume on the exchanges:  This, and the big an small scandals & scams around Bitcoin (exchanges down (Vircurex, Cryptsy, Bter, btc-e), MtGox stopped USD withdrawals, aurumxchange closed, banks (Citi & Chase) no longer processing Bitcoin related transactions, shady ASIC companies (mining with customer hardware), etc.) will slowly kill Bitcoin. You forget that apart from media exposure there is a fundamental factor that need to improve for wider adoption: infrastructure. It's true that a massive % of the world population was exposed to Bitcoin recently, but 99% of them didn't have a clue about how to quickly enter the market. Buying your first bitcoins is an adventure, first you have to understand how Bitcoin works, then you start throwing a little money to it to understand how to handle the coins, and when you finally decide to invest significant money in it months has already passed. The fact is that there are only a few, very shitty exchanges, with obscure validation policies. The infrastructure is shaky, Bitcoin exchanges has a very poor history in terms of reliability, the % of them that just vanishes is astoundingly high. While its obvious that we recently had a massive hype cycle, the infrastructure is not good enough for massive, quick adoption. If the infrastructure improves, with less media exposure you will have bigger players (=more money) entering the market, and that's crucial to reach further heights. TL;DR -> there's still a huge margin for growth, regardless of what google trends say. |
|
|
|
I personally voted for the smaller miner option on the website - I think it's got a couple advantages that shouldn't be overlooked. One, it allows for more individuals to get involved in mining, which in my mind follows the decentralization aspect of Bitcoin much better than large group buys and sticking large units in data centers. I realize that from a business perspective scaling up presents a number of financial incentives, but doing it with Bitcoin mining is sort of irksome to me, but it is the reality we live in. The other advantage is when a smaller machine goes down, the overall impact is lower to the miner. Again, in a scaled operation a Saturn or Jupiter going down probably is a small machine, but at the individual level a $7k USD investment going offline is probably a large chunk, or perhaps in many cases the entire operation! I'd like to see, if not a majority, at least a strong minority of mining capacity stay well distributed among individual owners, but most businesses and ASIC manufacturers I think are looking at it from a straight up, maximized ROI standpoint. Unfortunately, you can't blame them really. It's why most businesses don't embrace more p2p technology in the first place - no profit advantage over consolidation.  What we need for effective decentralization is millions of USB miners priced at $10 to $25, distributed in all the traditional channels (retailers, convenience stores, newstands, etc.). That's the most effective way to spread mining hashrate to the masses, while also spreading the "bitcoin word". Hope some manufacturer has the balls to make that project happen - I would have for sure the means and the knowledge to take those babies to mass distribution, but I don't have in any case the technical expertise to make that hardware happen. |
|
|
|
It means SELL. I would add more: SELL SELL SELL |
|
|
|
“We saw that the market was big enough to pre-fund the millions of dollars that you need for a 28 nm product. We decided that if we’re going to go, we’re going to go all-in to the very edge of the technology”. Hope they have already gathered the "millions" needed to pay for the chip order. It looks like they are still in that process. |
|
|
|
Don't keep cash in your accounts past the insured limit. If you are doing this, you are voluntarily acting as an at risk creditor. Like the insurance limit means something... Sure, better not having more than the insured limit, is another layer of (fragile) protection, but still the only sound hedge against the financial system is BTC |
|
|
|
1000, time for something interesting to happen.
IMHO, it may stay the same until Mt Gox makes a statement about the US $ withdrawal situation (hopefully, next week). Imagine Gox says that all USD withdrawals are indefinitely stopped. I guess we would have quite a lot of panic buying. In the meanwhile, in the order book...  |
|
|
|
I think the main stream of selling bitcoins are those miners, since the mining rig now is so high priced, the price of bitcoin will not be too low, maybe 100 dollars is proper.
Or else those miner will cry
Miners will cry very very soon, as they have always been crying. More hash rate is added to the network until mining is only marginally profitable, and the guys paying expensive electricity have no other choice than turning off their rigs, which happened at the end of 2011 and in 2012, and is happening now to all those that have no asic. We just had a very short time window in which mining with an asic was wildly profitable: that window is closing right now. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't this be a problem for people connecting through Tor? Privacy is freedom.
It won't be a problem if they pay the $0.50. Currently, Tor users need to bypass the Tor registration ban in some way if they want to register. This will be an improvement. Yes, now I see it, is in fact an improvement for those using Tor. I like the idea, plus is another place where to spend Bitcoins  |
|
|
|
ROI may not be a simple calculation of what you paid in BTC and how long to get your investment back in BTC. BTC is going to remain tied to fiat for some time and if all goes well it may reach a good fiat value in a few years. So, if you mine in a country where say, 4 BTCs pays all your living expenses for a month and you can save some BTCs for the long run then you may be able to make your fiat ROI although not your BTC ROI. Right now it is a very risky investment and we should all be very aware of it. This is not like a gold mine like some may dream of. BTC mining is not for the faint of heart or those with high expectations. I expect many will lose a lot and exit very frustrated.
J/
Really can't understand this logic, never could and never will. If you think bitcoin may be worth something in the future then just buy and hold it for the long run, do not pay 50 BTC to get 10ish BTC "in the long run"! |
|
|
|
Wow, I am getting more and more interested in KncMiner. They seem to be saying and doing all the right things.
If they can delivery on their claims in September, and do a decent job of keeping up with demand, they will be the new gold standard in Bitcoin mining hardware.
In their defence, they at the open day, actually said, "they intend to set the gold standard...", with respect to Bitcoin hardware, fed up seeing a lack of professionalism this far. So let's see... They want to be in this for the long haul and this means behaving in the best interest for Bitcoin and those that support and use it. Do you remember they mentioned somewhere producing a ~$20k device in the terahertz range as a gen-2 product? Part of their "in it for the long term / repeat customer" strategy? I'd love to make enough from these early devices to invest in a $20k device ^_^ They have alluded to a larger mining device in future, yes. What hashrate? No one knows. Marcus has much scope to play and revise future chips once they know what they have. There is a poll on their homepage currently, if you want a larger device, go vote! Oh I did, sadly seems the majority want a smaller option. Only 19% voted, like me, for the larger device. Thing is they are not keen to scale up the customer support required to service such large volumes of individuals, but would prefer to offer an IPO share type agreement, or encourage a cottage industry of safe unit sharing,at least thats what was discussed at the open-day. However since the poll, options are likely open, as the response has been strong for a smaller item, and the peeps have spoken... Obviously cheaper units will always win, nothing else should be expected and it's pretty pointless to make a poll, the result is clear on beforehand. The real point is how much money are the "big" customers going to invest compared to the "small" customers: if the 20% that voted for "larger unit" are willing to spend $15,000 each, and the 80% that voted for "smaller and cheaper" are willing to spend only $700 each, it's pretty clear what is the most profitable business decision to take, without even considering the additional costs related with bigger customer support. In any case, I think they chose well the two models available as a starting point. Then, the market will tell them what is the most profitable option, they will see it on the order book, regardless of the poll. |
|
|
|
At 10 BTC, they would be worth buying right now. Anything more, a waste.
Possibly, possibly a little less than that. Agreed, if he priced them at 9 BTC he would sell A LOT of them, resellers would do big orders. But I have the gut feeling he will give it a try at 20/25 BTC, maybe he prefers to sell 300 at 25 BTC than 1,000 at 9 BTCI think the numbers you mean are 60,000 at 25BTC instead of 100,000 at 9BTC. You do the math.... No, i dont mean those useless numbers. They didn't sell a thousand blades at 50 BTC, they won't be selling 60,000 at 25 BTC. And the correlation you made between demand at 25 BTC and demand at 9 BTC is ridiculous. 9 BTC is a price ANY miner would pay. 25 BTC is a price that would be paid only by i) someone that doesn't care about ROI, ii) someone clueless or iii) someone looking for the greater fool to which resell the blade. And before spitting nonsense numbers like "60,000 or 100,000" blades sold you do the math about what would that represent in terms of network hash rate and maybe you will realize how far from the reality are those numbers. The point was simply to show that I can also pull numbers out of my ass - numbers that compute differently than the numbers you pull out of yours. Until you have insider information about ASCIMiner's sales numbers and profit margins - and we find out what the new pricing is - anything and everything is just speculation, nothing more. Your made up numbers don't prove anything different than mine do. ASCIMiner/FriedCat is not stupid - he knows what he's doing and works to maximize his own profit - whether or not buyers can make some ROI isn't relevant from his end. Sales numbers are not so difficult to figure out, this is a super small market and network hash rate is a pretty good indicator. You know for sure they are in the order of thousands. Still selling the blades at a price that allows ROI would at least three-fold the demand for those (actually much more IMO), so my example is still valid. The point here is simply that for ASICMiner ATM is more profitable to have a limited supply of hardware sold at a high prize while they maximize their mining profits. |
|
|
|
When a spambot is banned, their IP address will be marked as suspicious. Further registrations from that IP will require a small fee (~$0.50). Proxies and heavily-abused ranges of IP addresses will likewise be marked as suspicious.
Wouldn't this be a problem for people connecting through Tor? Privacy is freedom. |
|
|
|
I really wish transfer between BTCe and Gox was easier.
Never though I would say this, but I really wish somebody could create Pegcoin, all the advantages of instant, decentralized transfer of bitcoin, but pegged to fiat currency value. Obviously I prefer something with a limited supply like bitcoin, but for now it would certainly make arbitraging a lot easier... Probably not a viable idea to implement though (not to mention the legal issues). Ripple? I haven't really looked into Ripple decently, but isn't it a lending system? Yes, like fiat itself. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
