I don't get it. There are 5 Million BitCoins in existence as of now, I could buy 10% (500,000) and that is assuming parity (which it isn't even at). So in reality it would take less than $500,000. 10% of 5 Million is 500,000. And then by simple manipulation, maintaining that 10% ration is not that hard just through buying and selling on the market. Especially with Dark Pools but even without them, transactions do not get confirmed to all nodes at once. It takes time, and as of now, a lot of time, for the transactions to reach all the nodes.
As soon as you start buying, unless you find a immediate sell order matching your 500,000$ bid, you will empty the ask part of the order book and then raise the price. I have no idea about how much it would cost to buy 500,000 bitcoins. I guess it depends on how you proceed, and which time frame you target, but it would certainly cost much more than 500,000$. |
|
|
|
Right Now, it would cost me $500,000 to have a 10% controlling interest in the market.
I very much doubt so. It might cost you 500$ to own about 0.01% of the total amount of bitcoins, but not 1,000 times more to own 10%. It is NOT proportionnal. PS. Anyway what you say can be said about money itself, or even the very concept of "wealth". It's not just bitcoin. Some people think money is unfair at best, evil at worst. I don't, but we all understand your concerns. Nothing new here, people think that about money since the beginning of time. |
|
|
|
|
wb3, manipulating a market as you describe it is probably much more difficult than you think. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with it, ethically speaking. If someone has managed to own more than one million bitcoins, somehow he has done something to deserve them. It is his property and he does whatever he wants with it.
You believe in private property or you don't. Don't try to compromise.
|
|
|
|
I believe that a free market needs to be regulated to be efficient. How much is a matter of opinion.
IMHO a complete laissez-faire economy would be catastrophic for the large majority. As would a planned economy.
How about you let people choose what they want ? Its not about one system or the other its about freedom of choice. +1 I have nothing against regulations, as long as there are several sets of them, and you can chose which one seems to you to be the most fair. Otherwise it is just like saying that Poker is the only allowed card game, that other games such as black jack, bridge etc. are forbidden. |
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry I don't share your enthusiasm guys, but I'll wait until I see the video...
|
|
|
|
Yup. Externalities: what anarcho-capitalists (libertarians) fail to understand or will simply ignore.
Anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism doesn't magically prevent human beings from making mistakes or being unwise. The point is just that no-one has the right to prevent people from acting according to their freedom just because of that. In your example of sex between a boy and an girl: what do you want to do? Prevent them from seeing each other and have sex? Punish them very hardly if they do? Who the f.ck do you think you are to mess with other people's business and private life? |
|
|
|
Truth doesn't change in a couple of months.  It's a bit frustrating to see people that were supposed to understand the origins of value to keep repeating a dangerously misleading logical contradiction as "intrinsic value". It's this constantly repeated mantra that makes so many gold worshipers to question bitcoins fundamentals by saying that "it's not backed by anything, so it cannot have true value!". I'm a "gold worshiper" and yet I have absolutely no problem with bitcoin not being backed by anything. Gold isn't backed by anything either. It is backed by itself, as bitcoin is. To me your argument about "intrinsic value" is more about "objective value". I do think there is no such thing as an objective value. However, the concept of intrinsic value is different, and it DOES make sense for some stuffs, especially money. I think your problem is that you keep thinking of the word "intrinsic" with a material meaning. It is not necessary. Money is something that can be used as an intermediary for exchanges. This usefullness has some value. Talking about the intrinsic value of money is discussing about its residual value once you substract this monetary use. Take cows, for instance. They used to be used as money in Africa for instance. Apart from this monetary use, a cow has obviously some value, because a lot of people can make a good use of a cow, whether it is for its milk or meat. Cows are money WITH intrinsic value. Now if you take Yap stones, they are as we know now thanks to Gavin, an ancient form of money. But those large stones had absolutely no use apart from their monetary use. Yap stones are money WITHOUT intrinsic value. Would you dare saying this distinction is not pertinent? Which word would you use if you don't agree with "intrinsic"? |
|
|
|
Intrinsic value means pretty much the same thing as "squared circle". It's a logical contradiction, simply doesn't exist. Value is not in stuff, value is on the beholder.
Oh please... again? |
|
|
|
|
Songez à utiliser #bitcoin-otc sur freenode pour laisser vos évaluations
|
|
|
|
a. Less than 1 % b. Less than 5 % c. Less than 10 % d. Less than 15% e. More than 15% Personnaly I'd add: f. Who cares? Mines are not lost |
|
|
|
|
There IS obviously a strong incentive for hoarders to sell at some point: profit.
I mean, say someone owns 100,000 bitcoins, as many very early adopters probably do. Didn't such a person have a huge incentive to sell while bitcoin reached parity?
Personnaly I own a few thousand bitcoins. If bitcoin was to worth 10 euros per bitcoin, let me tell you that I'd sell some of them!
Of course I won't hoard the euros I bought, but I'd buy a few stuffs with them.
|
|
|
|
I'll add that there are two manual pages that I think are really really worth reading. One of them is bash's man page, the other one is screen's.
meh.... bash man page? Its pretty freaking long. It is also very hard to search since so many of its keywords are used in many many places, and are often part of larger words. frustrating. Well, I may be a bit biaised, since I'm a bash freak. |
|
|
|
|
I'll add that there are two manual pages that I think are really really worth reading. One of them is bash's man page, the other one is screen's.
|
|
|
|
Maybe it depends on how you run it, buit I believe that not to be true.
I mostly say this because one of the things that I have used screen for is when my net connection is flakey and I want to be able to log back on and still have my session usable when my connection drops. You should be able to get a listing of screen sessions and reattach.
Just tried. Indeed, closing the terminal doesn't kill the screen session. |
|
|
|
Debian GNU/linux, unstable branch, aka Sid, more precisely the derived distribution called "aptosid" ( www.aptosid.com) |
|
|
|
That's useful to know - I usually run screen in a terminal (or in PuTTY on Windows) so I can just close the terminal without bothering to detach.
I doubt so. If you close your terminal without detaching screen, the screen session will be killed for sure. You MUST detach before closing your terminal. |
|
|
|
I don't really understand how to use screen to keep a session running on a remote server. You know, so it doesn't end when I close the shell?
Just detach your session with "Ctrl-A D". You can then logout, and reattach later with "screen -r" already mentionned. |
|
|
|
Ctrl+A, C - Create a new virtual terminal (VT)
Ctrl+A, N - move to the Next VT
Ctrl+A, P - move to the Previous VT
There's obviously a lot more to screen than that, but honestly that's all I use 99% of the time.
Edit: Oh, and obviously "screen -r" to reattach a screen session...!
There is, indeed, a LOT more to know about screen, but that's a good crash course. I'd like to mention the copy/scrollback mode, which is not so known and yet extremely usefull. |
|
|
|
Heh, I have been having trouble with screen since I tried starting a TF2 server. I barely got that working. It seems you really have to play with this stuff to understand it.
screen is a little bit hard to grasp at first, but it totally worths it. I couldn't live without it now, and I know that a lot of people feel the same. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
