Well there are only so many hours in the day to research every and all aspects of life and how we may be materially affected by various changes and the conduct of others.  Certainly, there is a need for a variety of people to look into matters, rather than taking things at face value, and certainly I cannot fault you for any of your attempts to find flaws that may exist because if you were to uncover any significantly material flaws, then the whole bitcoin community could benefit from uncovering of such flaws, if they exist and were previously unknown.

What kind of lame question is that?  Bitcoin is NOT pegged to anything.   

helrow?

 

Bitcoin is valued in whatever it is being traded against, doesn't matter what is the other asset, the trade value will float and will be determined at the time of the trade, if fiat collapses and it costs $1million to buy a loaf of bread, then perhaps bitcoin will be valued at $1million per 1 satoshi or something like that... .

Aztecminer, you seem smart enough to be able to extrapolate that various assets and/or currencies float in value against others and wouldn't really go completely to zero, unless there is completely no utility or value in the asset.

Monkey needs some fucking glasses.   

The answer to that question is fairly easily researched, and on bitstamp (which is frequently the BTC price reference point, unless specified otherwise), BTC's price reached $502 on November 4, and several times for about 4 hours surrounding that $502 price peak, BTC traded at $495 on Bitstamp.

I believe that you have kind of answered your question in a couple of places by asserting that you don't really know if the points that you raised are issues are not.

Well to draw a bit of an analogy, there are a quite a few areas related to bitcoin that I do not understand or claim to understand - for example, cryptography, math, economics and politics (to name a few), but in the past two years, I have been continuing to invest in bitcoin because I have some faith that the various bitcoin contributions are filling niches that are not otherwise filled by mainstream traditional (and often centralized) institutions, and I am continuing to investigate various dynamics and contributions of BTC.

Even though on an ongoing basis, I continue to learn about various bitcoin dynamics, I frequently read, see and hear people who appear to be much knowledgeable than me in some of the areas that I lack knowledge causing me to maintain a positive view of bitcoin and to continue to be fairly bullish about the future performance of bitcoin.

Accordingly, it does not hurt to ask a large number of questions like you have done, but contrary to what you seem to be doing, I would not assume without specific evidence and/or examples or even proposed scenarios that various contributors to bitcoin's code are sloppily leading us down some perilous doom and gloom path. 

In fact, it seems to me, that in the whole scheme of things, we should feel some comfort in the opposite, that is if a bunch of battling coders are currently appearing to compromising and agreeing to such compromise, there must be some mutually agreeable aspect regarding such compromise that causes the battling sides to be gravitating towards intermediate consensus (at least for the short term).  So it makes little sense to me if someone seems to be assuming, without evidence that they are a bunch of fuck-ups. 

And?  What's the problem? 

Is BTC's security undermined? 

Are the odds of double spends increased? 

Is there some other kind of vulnerability for malicious players to exploit? 

Under Segregated witness, isn't all of the accounting going to be reconciled within a relatively short period of time?  It's not like segregated witness causes ongoing unresolved transactions. Is it?

Instead of a suspect,  BjA is acting the goofball with his inflammatory and emotionally laden prognosticating.

So what?   What's the purpose of informing us about your pie in the sky expectations and non-specific outline of a plan?

The Roach is quite the self promoter!!!!!!         Good threads.   

how they gonna get the coins? 

don't you believe that if he really is Satoshi, then he would be smart enough to take various security and/or preventative measures to guard, camouflage and or separate his stash of coins - so maybe at most the govt could get access to 10% of his stash, if that?

If govt officials are more strategic they would have wanted to get their grubby lil hands on 1 million BTC, like they did with Ulbricht's 150k btc

Are you suggesting that in any time in the near future BTC prices are going to slump back below $350?   I am having my doubts at the moment, even though I understand that nearly anything is possible in bitcoinlandia.... in other words we going upward.. not downward... maybe $500-$600 range in the near-term?

Don't leave Richy_T.... neither you nor your companion....

I may not agree with your various libertarian outbursts, but many times you have solid contributions to our discussion herein, even sometimes when you incorporate a libertarian twist.   

Under the current state of the reality of the BTC space, it seems like you are going to be waiting a long fucking time... and seems pretty likely that you may not be buying BTC at all if you are stupid and/or stubborn enough to be good for your word.

You may not have noticed that the past couple of years have been the product of a real (not imaginary) forced suppression of BTC's price and potential  - and BTC's upcoming price rise, after such forced suppression could become quite violent and explosive (and NOT in the downward direction).

There quite a few of these "wait and see" types, who will likely enmasse be chasing the train between $700 and $5,000 in their disbeliefs but wanting to join in


I can understand hesitancy to some extent, but I have been like a broken record to a lot of these types to suggest to them over and over and over to at east invest a little bit, like $20 per week or even $20 per month, which would have been helpful in acquiring at least 1 BTC and maybe even 2 or 3 BTC...

We can only hold hands so much before we just gotta leave them be with their too much delayed and ultimate inaction.

I hope that you are not waiting for such a price drop before you buy.   

Your characterization of $500 seems quite strange. 

Think about what you are saying?   

I would not characterize an inability to sustain a sudden rise to $500 (of prices above $450 for less than 18 hours) to be any kind of meaningful test of resistance.

In retrospect, it should be clear that the November 4 rise to $500 was just to quick under the then circumstances.

Currently, such $500 prices may or may not be sustainable depending upon how long from here it takes to get there and whether BTC's current price performance begins to attract deeper support - for example in the coming weeks between now and when santa lands his sleigh on various BTC trader roofs.   

As I type, at this point, less than 17% appreciation of BTC price will equal  $500+   ... definitely reachable within a day, a week or by the time santa lands his sleigh on the roof.

I believe microsoft did some kind of incorporation of the ripple platform - kind of dumb, but what can you do?

You are correct that about a year ago, there was some loss of confidence in Bitstamp based on the "hack" and the period of its shut down and for a period of time after Bitstamp's shut down.... and Bitfinex and coinbase were added to Chartbuddy around that time because of Bitstamp's various issues around that time.

Nonetheless, Bitstamp has returned to various forums and discussion groups as the default price reference point for a variety of reasons including at minimum:

1) a) volume is more reliable because there are staggered fees
1) b) volume is more reliable because there is no margin trading

2) a few months ago bitfinex had its own loss of confidence issues with a series of shut downs and various investors questioning its solvency.