Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel. I can safely say I don't start with "your readers'" base knowledge (I mean, I'm familiar with much of it, but I wouldn't say I have <ahem> knowledge). Well, good luck battling the Illuminati.
As to how I know that the military design things that aren't intended to display warfare-persistence - well, partly common sense, seeing what army engineers build in civilian settings, watching disaster-relief operations in a few places, and having a military (naval) parent who designed things that were not intended to persist but rather to cease to exist, very rapidly.
Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel. It's called expectation bias and you're full of it, which is sad. I mean I'm sorry for your childhood dramas but comparing the Internet to a civilian setting is even more ridiculous than battling the Illuminati (which is by the way not what I am doing anyway, so again, expectation bias much on your side). How, exactly, am I "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting"? I listed numerous examples of the military designing things without warfare-persistence as a design goal - bridges in relief operations, administrative buildings in cities, limpet-mines. And "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting" was what you took from that? Honestly, I'm struggling to see how - or why - you would do that unless you were trying to deflect attention away from the issue at hand. Now, what was it about that response to your argument you actually take issue? (And, for bonus points, how might it be affected by your presumption of childhood trauma?) |
|
|
|
I won't, don't worry. Though I have to admit I don't have a come back to your last paragraph - partly because I have little idea what you're saying or why it's relevant, but mostly because it's got nothing to do with my argument.
Perhaps you wish to present me with some evidence that clearly shows that I was worrying?  My argument, you will recall, is that the Internet was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. It had specific design goals, of which warfare-persistence was not one. Charles Herzfeld has stated what the design goals were. All of this is falsifiable: you could disprove Charles Herzfeld, for example, by finding a collaborator prepared to spill the beans.
How can you know? You didn't design the Internet. Neither did the commissioner. You should be intelligent enough to understand that what is written on the paper is a whole different story from what is really going on, especially when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. Your argument currently appears to be "military project implies warfare-persistence" Well, it's possible that the Seabees - the US Navy's "Construction Battalion" - had warfare-persistence as a design goal when they were repairing roads and bridges in the wake of Hurricane Georges. I guess warfare-persistence was certainly a goal when the Pentagon was first built - I don't believe anyone thinks it's a realistic goal for some modern military buildings, but perhaps the administrative buildings are all civilian-designed? Perhaps. The military design things to blow up, they design temporary things, they design things that won't ever be near any battlefield - they design things for all sorts of reasons. Incredibly, they aren't just in the business of waging and surviving war.
That truly is incredible. How do you know that? I keep coming back to this, but I guess it's the crux of the issue - why would you say something and not care whether it was true or not? Why would you post something on a public forum and then try and deflect any criticism? There's a great discussion to be had around BTC and gold and stores of value, but you seem hostile to any real discussion beyond the usual cheerleading.
Because I demand my readers to have a certain degree of base knowledge. I'm not into babysitting oblivious sheeple, I let them disagree with me while secretly laughing into my paw. The time is ripe for the end of the current financial parasitism all over the world. It's make it or break it year for the Illuminati. The demand for physical gold is a clear indicator that something big has started to happen, there's no place for argument here because these are all pure facts. The global shipping is said to have ceased. The Worldwide Economy is Grinding to a Halt. The migrant crisis, tensions regarding Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia. 2016 being the Jubilee year, gold and silver soar and markets crash. The Death of Economic Recovery in 2016 by Peter Schiff. I don't have to even mention that BTC block halving will soon take place. Also the US presidential elections and for fuck sake, there's a limited amount of physical gold and silver and other conventional stores of value. But there are a lot of cryptocurrencies that can now be put in test for the first time in the history during a global financial crisis. Remember why Satoshi invented Bitcoin? It was exactly for the situation that is currently unfolding. Hell, they are attempting to ban CASH. You have to be a totally delusional moronic sheep living under a rock to dismiss all these issues and I even didn't go into the QE and interest rates. For fuck sake, if you don't understand these basics there is nothing I've got to tell you. Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel. I can safely say I don't start with "your readers'" base knowledge (I mean, I'm familiar with much of it, but I wouldn't say I have <ahem> knowledge). Well, good luck battling the Illuminati. As to how I know that the military design things that aren't intended to display warfare-persistence - well, partly common sense, seeing what army engineers build in civilian settings, watching disaster-relief operations in a few places, and having a military (naval) parent who designed things that were not intended to persist but rather to cease to exist, very rapidly. |
|
|
|
Yes, as you state I do know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general (electro-magnetic pulses from nuclear explosions create havoc for electromagnetic communications - pretty much all modern communications). I'm not sure why you're trying to derail this down that way, it really doesn't matter which type of war it is - ARPANET was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal.
Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier.
And don't get kicked in the butt by the door on your way out. But seriously though, it doesn't take a genius to understand that if military creates something for their own use it is automatically meant to withstand war. It's so obvious that they don't even put it into the reports. And to make matters worse for you, it is outright trivial that a decentralized network of any kind is versatile at times of war. You're just trying to be a smartass by citing offtopic in a hostile way while you could as well as do it without the obvious stench of a saboteur all over the place. By the way, the Internet is vulnerable to EMPs for the same reason the power grid is vulnerable --- because the civilian infrastructure hasn't been built in way that it would be resistant to electromagnetic pulses. When it comes to that, the Internet is the least of your worries. You will be without power, for months. If that's your argument then it's an outright doomsday argument that should be discarded even faster than a wild claim for 5k prices in the near term future. What crazy theory is next in your back pocket? That bitcoin wouldn't survive a zombie apocalypse? Come on, man, by now you just have to see your fallacy, it's so big and red and in your face. I won't, don't worry. Though I have to admit I don't have a come back to your last paragraph - partly because I have little idea what you're saying or why it's relevant, but mostly because it's got nothing to do with my argument. My argument, you will recall, is that the Internet was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. It had specific design goals, of which warfare-persistence was not one. Charles Herzfeld has stated what the design goals were. All of this is falsifiable: you could disprove Charles Herzfeld, for example, by finding a collaborator prepared to spill the beans. Your argument currently appears to be "military project implies warfare-persistence" Well, it's possible that the Seabees - the US Navy's "Construction Battalion" - had warfare-persistence as a design goal when they were repairing roads and bridges in the wake of Hurricane Georges. I guess warfare-persistence was certainly a goal when the Pentagon was first built - I don't believe anyone thinks it's a realistic goal for some modern military buildings, but perhaps the administrative buildings are all civilian-designed? Perhaps. The military design things to blow up, they design temporary things, they design things that won't ever be near any battlefield - they design things for all sorts of reasons. Incredibly, they aren't just in the business of waging and surviving war. I keep coming back to this, but I guess it's the crux of the issue - why would you say something and not care whether it was true or not? Why would you post something on a public forum and then try and deflect any criticism? There's a great discussion to be had around BTC and gold and stores of value, but you seem hostile to any real discussion beyond the usual cheerleading. |
|
|
|
> Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources?
Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better?
That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own.
...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved?
I'm seriously getting bored of you. Not only you seem to know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. You now don't seem to see a difference between reasons to commission something and reasons to actually do something. What are you trying to achieve here anyway? Make me admit that I didn't care to explain deeply enough my reasons to believe that 5k prices are bound to happen soon? Yes I admit it, I didn't care and you cannot make me care more because it is not about convincing the opponents to see the light but it is about seeing who the opponents are, how they think, what's their average intellect is and so on. Yes, as you state I do know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general (electro-magnetic pulses from nuclear explosions create havoc for electromagnetic communications - pretty much all modern communications). I'm not sure why you're trying to derail this down that way, it really doesn't matter which type of war it is - ARPANET was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier. |
|
|
|
Meh, the Internet wasn't designed top persist during any sort of war - that simply wasn't a design goal. But yes, nuclear and non-nuclear wars are different. The mistake you made was to repeat a common myth. The mistake you now make is to refuse to believe that you could possibly have erred, in the face of evidence. I know you made a wild prediction.I can only cite the people who did invent the Internet, correct. "Barking what fits my agenda", I like that. The topic is ludicrous, it really doesn't need my help sabotaging it. I'm not talkscheep, I'm not a bear troll. I've been in Bitcoin for a long time, I've been in it seriously since that Slashdot article, bought a GPU, started mining in earnest. I believed - and continue to believe - that there's a possibility that Bitcoin could be huge, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than present. I just don't think we'll convince people that that's possible if our analysis is sketchy hopium and we dismiss any criticism out of hand. I agree that it is common to believe that the Internet was created by the military so that it would persist during a war and in situations where nodes go offline. I also didn't know that such a claim is considered a misconception by some people. But then again, there are opponents to just about anything these days. Is it really a common misconception? I have no way of knowing nor do I care in the context of this topic. It's yet another of these things that cannot be proved nor disproved. Your evidence is not really evidence. And yes, I refuse to believe and no it is not a mistake. Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources? Don't you think it is human nature to come up with ideas that make other people seem wrong on the pursuit of academic fame, for example? It seems to apply to your misconception theory. But these same people, when confronted with ideas that threaten their description of the world, will do anything to defend it and while doing so they chant how much they think they like it when new science proves old science wrong, how ironic. > Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources? Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better? That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own. ...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved? |
|
|
|
I don't care about it that much, either - it's straying well into off-topic. However, you raised it. You - presumably - persist in your claim despite being shown evidence to the contrary. Disprove that evidence, or accept you made a mistake. Incidentally, here's Charles Herzfeld, ARPA's director at the time discussing why ARPANET was created, what the goals for it were - and weren't. But don't just take his word for it, Google is your friend. The reason it matters is - you made an appeal to your legendary status. I'm of the opinion that, particularly where matters of money is concerned, accuracy is better than longevity. If you raise a topic it looks pretty shabby trying to deflect criticism by calling other participants "brats", dismissing them because you perceive them to be comparative newbies. Particularly when, in the same post, you repeat a common myth. Well, for starters, I never said that the Internet was designed to persist during a nuclear war. So if you insist on clinging so dramatically to that part of my reply, then at least do it correctly. There's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. So what mistake could I have ever made? Just because you have wet dreams of me having made a mistake does not imply that I have actually made any. Wishful thinking busted. What is also laughable in your behaviour is the fact that you actually think that you can prove me wrong while in reality it is quite impossible. It just portrays you as a rhetoric dilettante. You see, I made a wild prediction based on vague calculations that in their essence cannot ever be falsified. Trying to do so only shows the attempter's lack of wisdom. What is more, it is impossible to win an online debate, and since you seem to be rather serious in your business I can only guess that you're either an excellent troll such as myself or a typical idiot who still has a lot to learn. Either way, you have not contributed constructively to this topic. If all you wanted to say was that in your opinion the Internet was not to designed to survive a nuclear war then why didn't you just state that and leave the making of conclusions to every reader themselves? It's of course good to know that some people perceive it as a misconception that the Internet was designed to survive nuclear wars but then I would ask --- did you invent the Internet? Since the answer is no, you have no way of knowing the full story around the conception of Internet. You just bark what fits your agenda and it is damn obvious that in this case your agenda is to sabotage this topic. Meh, the Internet wasn't designed top persist during any sort of war - that simply wasn't a design goal. But yes, nuclear and non-nuclear wars are different. The mistake you made was to repeat a common myth. The mistake you now make is to refuse to believe that you could possibly have erred, in the face of evidence. I know you made a wild prediction.I can only cite the people who did invent the Internet, correct. "Barking what fits my agenda", I like that. The topic is ludicrous, it really doesn't need my help sabotaging it. I'm not talkscheep, I'm not a bear troll. I've been in Bitcoin for a long time, I've been in it seriously since that Slashdot article, bought a GPU, started mining in earnest. I believed - and continue to believe - that there's a possibility that Bitcoin could be huge, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than present. I just don't think we'll convince people that that's possible if our analysis is sketchy hopium and we dismiss any criticism out of hand. |
|
|
|
You said, and I quote, "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war." It wasn't, that's a common misconception. Persistence during war wasn't a design consideration. A separate study into voice-communications by the RAND corporation looked at using packet-switching for persistent during an exchange of nuclear weapons - that's where the misconception comes from. Whether or not the Internet might survive such an exchange is academic, unless you'd like to revise your "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. " to "Besides, the Internet might persist during war".
Love the Satoshi stuff, keep it coming.
Bullshit. You have no way of knowing the real reasons why the Internet came to be. You're just quoting stuff that fits your agenda, trying hard to argue with me on the matter that I do not care about. I don't care about it that much, either - it's straying well into off-topic. However, you raised it. You - presumably - persist in your claim despite being shown evidence to the contrary. Disprove that evidence, or accept you made a mistake. Incidentally, here's Charles Herzfeld, ARPA's director at the time discussing why ARPANET was created, what the goals for it were - and weren't. But don't just take his word for it, Google is your friend. The reason it matters is - you made an appeal to your legendary status. I'm of the opinion that, particularly where matters of money is concerned, accuracy is better than longevity. If you raise a topic it looks pretty shabby trying to deflect criticism by calling other participants "brats", dismissing them because you perceive them to be comparative newbies. Particularly when, in the same post, you repeat a common myth. |
|
|
|
The Internet was not designed to persist during a nuclear war.: 5 It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks. (ARPANET was "an internet", a network-of-networks. It grew to become the pre-eminent internet now known as The Internet.) ...and $4 BTC? Pah, get off my lawn! It took me 4 days to mine my first 50 BTC with a CPU, and they were only worth $0.10! I kinda forgot about Bitcoin after that, until Slashdot ran a story about Dollar-parity ("OMG! How can magic internet money be worth more than the Dollar? It's unpossible!"). If that's true then where's the proof that the Internet would not survive a war? It's kind of dumb to argue whether the Internet was designed to survive wars or not when what really matters is if it actually would survive a war or not. And the stuff you quoted yourself indicates that the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks. So WTF dude? And you just admitted that you kinda forgot about Bitcoin after that. It says everything about you. Satoshi invents the greatest technology after Internet and you kind of forget about it. Just STFU and leave, you're embarrassing yourself. You said, and I quote, "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war." It wasn't, that's a common misconception. Persistence during war wasn't a design consideration. A separate study into voice-communications by the RAND corporation looked at using packet-switching for persistent during an exchange of nuclear weapons - that's where the misconception comes from. Whether or not the Internet might survive such an exchange is academic, unless you'd like to revise your "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. " to "Besides, the Internet might persist during war". Love the Satoshi stuff, keep it coming. |
|
|
|
Do you guys realize if there's thermo nuclear war, the internet won't survive? In fact, any and all electronic gears, including computers, phones, any electronic gadgets will stop working?
$5K??? R U Joking??? We can't seem to get back up to $500, let alone $1k, and U R talking bout $5K??? You must be HYENA.
You realize that a full blown nuclear war is the worst possible scenario that will never happen? The other humanoid species would simply not let that happen. What I am referring to is a false flag nuclear attack or a false flag asteroid hit to a specific location on Earth not the whole Earth. Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. Have some respect for a legendary member, brats. I have seen Bitcoin ever since it was trading 4$ each.[.b] I remember times when a regular PC mined 1 whole bitcoin per day. Now is the time to accumulate cheap bitcoins and physical silver. 5000$ bitcoins are a very pessimistic prediction, a more probable scenario would include at least 10 000$ bitcoins since it would account for human psychology, fear of missing out and panic buying.
: 5 It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks. (ARPANET was "an internet", a network-of-networks. It grew to become the pre-eminent internet now known as The Internet.) ...and $4 BTC? Pah, get off my lawn! It took me 4 days to mine my first 50 BTC with a CPU, and they were only worth $0.10! I kinda forgot about Bitcoin after that, until Slashdot ran a story about Dollar-parity ("OMG! How can magic internet money be worth more than the Dollar? It's unpossible!"). |
|
|
|
it's allready rising, halving will happen in september, and i think price will rise even before halving, also it will rise after halving
The halving will happen in June because of the hash rate increase. It was predicted to be in July 2016. Hash rate always changes - difficulty adjusts to compensate, ensuring that blocks are found every 10 minutes on average. Bitcoinclock is still showing July (13th), but you can probably work it out in your head - we've just passed the 400,000th block, leaving 20,000 blocks to halving. 20,000 blocks is (on average) 200,000 minutes. Google tells me 200,000 minutes is ~139 days away, roughly July 12th. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. Are you saying that there's a law in my jurisdiction that says my local police force won't regard fraud as fraud unless I pay scrypt.cc anything they may have paid me? I'm sure that can't be right, so could you clarify? Ideally, could you point to the relevant legislation/code (doesn't have to be in my jurisdiction, if you point me in the right direction I can probably find locally appropriate legislation).
There are ponzi clawback precedents: https://bernsteinlaw.com/publications-list/investor-beware-what-everyone-should-know-about-clawback-litigation/It's not as simple as Stroto claims though. That's awesome, thank you! I've got to admit - that actually seems fairly reasonable (with regards to Madoff, and possibly here too). If scrypt.cc is found to be a ponzi, any profits would be "false profits" and surrendered to the bankruptcy trustee. This would be used by the trustee to pay depositors who had been defrauded out of their deposits - the initial principle. Sucks for anyone who made money out of it, but at least they end up with everything they started with, which sucks less than losing money - even if some of that money is paid back by the bankruptcy trustee. I've not yet found the equivalent in my jurisdiction (UK) but I have to admit I think it would make sense here too. If you don't report this to the police then any money you've lost is lost for good (and any withdrawals in the future will result in further losses), and the scheme keeps running to the detriment of the wider community. If you do report then you may get some of your money back, and the operation may be shut down and the perpetrator fined or jailed. |
|
|
|
No, what you do is file a complaint explaining that you have lost money to a website which fraudulently misrepresented itself and claimed to be providing a legitimate service which you have since discovered was nothing but a ponzi-based scam.
That will be sufficient for the complaint to be sent to a department which handles financial fraud. As has been said, there are enough cases of these ponzi schemes now being pursued by law enforcement to warrant the effort of making a complain. Particularly so in this case as the website is still live, which suggests there is potential for more people to be defrauded, adding impetus to any investigation.
You might want to add that if someone wants to report or file a complain and it will be actively prosecuted by law enforcement that whatever withdraw they ever made will be eligible for clawback, even more so if they knew about the project being a scam. So if you dropped 5 BTC in and got 1 out, you'll first need to pay back that 1 btc to put in the pile from where your 5 BTC will be paid out. A convenient law that somehow never gets mentioned by the ones that say they should file something somewhere  I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. Are you saying that there's a law in my jurisdiction that says my local police force won't regard fraud as fraud unless I pay scrypt.cc anything they may have paid me? I'm sure that can't be right, so could you clarify? Ideally, could you point to the relevant legislation/code (doesn't have to be in my jurisdiction, if you point me in the right direction I can probably find locally appropriate legislation). |
|
|
|
Call the police and report them that you invested in scrypt.cc and couldn't withdraw in the amount that you want. Make a point that they are paying nonetheless.
The police will act upon it swiftly for and won't laugh at you with ridicule for sure.
Some effing dumbass claiming that the site is "paying" has no bearing on the actual fact of fraud and no such point needs to be made. Undoubtedly, scryptcc is paying. LOL everytime it pays somebody reports the hotwallet used. Dumbasef, can I ask which do you prefer? "You're an idiot" ... or ... "You're a transparent shill, an apologist for scrypt.cc"? I'm kinda inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that you really, genuinely, truly don't understand what's happening around you. But I don't want to malign you as an idiot if that's not the case. (For the benefit of other readers, and to keep this vaguely on-topic, "paying" is not a magical antidote to fraud - the two are not mutually exclusive (though don't let me mislead you - "paying" means you accepting at minimum a 25% "charge" on your withdrawal). I'm not sure why Dumbasef would try and derail this conversation away from fraud, but Dumbasef is usually desperate to spin anything scrypt.cc in a positive light. I can only speculate as to why this is...) |
|
|
|
2%?
I use coinbase to sell and buy btc.
This trading webpagecharges 3% per buying operation and 3% per selling operation.
6% for any kind of operation. That means if I buy when btc hits 420usd and sell the stuff when hits 446, it would mean that I wouldn't get any raw profit.
On the other hand, when you have to switch your btc into fiat, most of us use paypal which charges 3.4%.
If you choose to use a bank transaction here in Italy banks charges arround 5-10% per transaction.
So how the hell do you do pingpong trading for btc or even other goods/shares/assets which their rate change is pretty much lower?
3% is pretty high. Bitstamp charges 0.25% (or less), and Bitfinex charges 0.2% (or less). There are Chinese exchanges which don't charge for trades (only for deposits and/or withdrawals). Having said that, I suppose you could do ping-pong trading at Coinbase by selling at 2% over the fee rate, i.e. sell for 5% more than you paid. |
|
|
|
yesterday the price had dropped to touch $ 415. I was quite scared if it should be down to $ 400. fortunately that did not happen, and now go up to $ 425
Many of us are in crossed finger yesterday, whether we are a buyer, we are waiting for the price to dip below $400 or we are a seller waiting for the price to climb again... lucky that it is now back at $425... Good thing it went back up to the $400 level, I guess there'll be more buyers now that they're seeing BTC as a 'cheaper' one. When did it dip below $390? (Or perhaps... on which exchange did this happen?) The lowest I'm seeing recently is ~$409 around 30 hours ago (05:00 on Feb 24, UTC). After rising again, there was a dip to around $415 (Bitstamp) or $420 (Bitfinex), followed by the recovery diegz mentioned. |
|
|
|
I think the market is quite stable. If the price rise/drops lower than 10% in one day, it is very stable.
what have you been smoking today? 10% price change in a day is considered to be very heavy volatility. how can you say that the price is very stable then? just prepare yourself for the volatility once we are just a few days away from the block halving. then you will see plenty of 10% price movements in a single day. let's see if you then still think that the price is very stable.... Considered by whom? Because there's a pretty standard definition of volatility, used throughout the world of finance. And there's even a web-app that shows actual historic volatility for BTC/USD. And there's the empirical evidence - the might rises and falls of the past, far larger than the drop a few days ago. Heck, only last month there was a much larger drop than the recent one.well, i am more talking in general. if certain stocks go down 10% in just a day, then it will be all over the financial news here where financial experts nearly can't believe what is happening. if the price of the euro loses 5% against the dollar in just a day, then it's basically the same story. people will go nuts. that's what i meant with 10% being considered heavy volatility. Oh, business journalists. I see. Back to the 10%, and my preference for data over truthiness, when did BTC/USD fall by 10% recently? The poster you replied to was talking about less than 10% - not that precise, but accurate enough. The recent drop was from ~$440 to ~$420. Around 5%, if you include the intra-day highs and lows. |
|
|
|
Its all over that 400. I think this is an old topic or something. I hope that it will rise more and more in the future.
But we dont know what is coming to us. You never know what is going to happen in the future. To predict a currency is very hard.
It's a Kwukduck post from nearly three months ago. Price broke through $400, and survived for a further five weeks after Kwukduck's dire prediction! In addition to being very entertaining, Kwukduck is also a fantastic contrarian indicator. |
|
|
|
It is not. It is now higher than 400 and that is so good. I hope it will rise for a long time and that many people are happy.
I hope that we can all sell it with much profit so we can have more money in the future.
You say market ain't stabilized yet??? It's still playing in between $420 and $450, what would you say it then, manipulation??? It's stable unless we see a huge spike or dump, and not necessarily will it rise as it purely depends upon the interests of people for using it ahead or not... I think the market is quite stable. If the price rise/drops lower than 10% in one day, it is very stable. what have you been smoking today? 10% price change in a day is considered to be very heavy volatility. how can you say that the price is very stable then? just prepare yourself for the volatility once we are just a few days away from the block halving. then you will see plenty of 10% price movements in a single day. let's see if you then still think that the price is very stable.... Considered by whom? Because there's a pretty standard definition of volatility, used throughout the world of finance. And there's even a web-app that shows actual historic volatility for BTC/USD. And there's the empirical evidence - the might rises and falls of the past, far larger than the drop a few days ago. Heck, only last month there was a much larger drop than the recent one. |
|
|
|
It is not. It is now higher than 400 and that is so good. I hope it will rise for a long time and that many people are happy.
I hope that we can all sell it with much profit so we can have more money in the future.
You say market ain't stabilized yet??? It's still playing in between $420 and $450, what would you say it then, manipulation??? It's stable unless we see a huge spike or dump, and not necessarily will it rise as it purely depends upon the interests of people for using it ahead or not... I think the market is quite stable. If the price rise/drops lower than 10% in one day, it is very stable. Was that sarcasm? Anyway, its quite unstable at the moment. I don't know about you guys but, any huge spike in BTC price, up or down is unstable in my opinion And I'm not convinced that I'd describe the recent fall in price as a "huge spike" - it was a fall of a little over 5%. Look at the daily chart, and there are much larger drops as recently as last month. On the weekly chart this week's movement looks fairly small compared with most other weeks. |
|
|
|
Does anyone have some kind of guide or tips to help us victims efficiently withdraw our bitcoins?
I understand the current maximum is 0.004 BTC Is there a maximum number of successful withdrawals we can make at a time?
Thanks for the info.
I mean useful info please. Can I make like 50 0.004 BTC withdrawals all at once? if I do more than a certain number, would they get lost? I believe you can make as many withdrawals as you wish (all subject to a 0.001 BTC charge), though I have no direct experience (and my understanding is based on what I've been told by a scrypt.cc apologist). Be aware that 0.004 BTC was correct recently, but the maximum permitted withdrawal may has fallen once again - try one 0.004 withdrawal, and if it gets knocked back try slightly lower until you get one that works, then make multiple withdrawals at that level. Good luck! Oh, and consider following the advice of the PSAs that people post here periodically - if you've been defrauded by scrypt.cc: report it to the police! The more police reports, the greater the likelihood that the police will act, and there have been several reassuring examples recently of regional and pan-national police forces (the FBI and Interpol) bring charges against fraudsters using BTC or even cloud mining to run their scams. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
