Well colour me awed!
The old man dumped another 100 BTC at $406.
"This is getting ridiculous. What am I meant to do with this $40K? Buy more Bitcoin?"
"I think I might change the plan slightly. Sell 50 instead of 100 at every $100 mark..."
Yes, otherwise you will be out by summer. Tell him you expect him to live longer than summer and want to have more time discussing this with him. |
|
|
|
IT is a crypto currency hearing, not a Bitcoin hearing and the senate creates the list of witnesses.
This just proves my point. A fair number of people on this forum are smarter than the members of the senate. Everyone knows that Bitcoiners are smarter and more attractive than most people. How many in the senate have bitcoin? |
|
|
|
In the meanwhile..
Btcchina at almost $400, compared to Stamp at $365. And still apparently no one has figured out the arbitrage.
you need a chinese bank account to withdraw your fiat, but you need to visit china to get a bank account thats the problem  I'm not implying most people could do it. But surely someone could do it, and would be doing it, you'd think. lol *checking chinese subforum* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=329534.0Remember how BTC-E has always had low prices? There's a reason for that: hard to get money in. And you know how now BTCCHINA has really high prices? There's a reason for that, too: hard to get money out. If it was easy to do, people would already be doing it and we wouldn't see as large a gap as we do. China is a Communist country, and they have a strong hold on their currency. Just doing some quick Googling, Chinese residents can only send $50,000 per year overseas. So, let's say you put up $45,000 to buy 150 coins. Send them to China, sell for $340 each, split the $6,000 profit with your Chinese partner, and have them wire back $48,000 (while also possibly paying taxes and bank fees, etc). Oh, and don't forget to add in your trip to China  So you might make $3,000 for the year. You could exceed the limit by having your Chinese contact's friends and relatives send you transfers in their names, but it seems like that would require even more trust. And if the price of bitcoins goes way up and the price difference stays the same, you'll hit your limit earlier and make less profit. It's a nice idea in theory, but I don't think it will pan out as well as it looks. Please let us know if you do try it, though!  Sure, but still at some point it must become profitable for someone.. If btcchina was at $1m/bitcoin and Btc-e was at $100/bitcoin, someone wouldn't take advantage? Cmon homeboy Maybe traders assume there is soon a chinese SR-like takedown to come? This risk is therefore reflected in the price difference. Is this called efficient market hypothesis - dunno? Difficulty moving money out of China explains both the price difference and the demand for bitcoins there. |
|
|
|
Is it the opinion of the OP that....
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
Applies equally well to Bitcoin?
Yes. The networks is already centralizing. The machines will get so big and powerful the network will get largely centralized those that were enriched by the adoption of the currency will use the their influence to consolidate the power. Perhaps they / we will, yes. Perhaps not. If such problems eventually arise, perhaps it will be replaced by something better? We have come only a little way on this adventure, there is far to go. This fear may be validated. What will you do in the mean time? The question is not just whether Bitcoin is better than what we may imagine, but more importantly, whether it is better than what we have had before. Bilbo thought to turn back complaining that he has no hat, handkerchief, or money. Dwalin tells him that he "will have to manage without pocket-handkerchiefs, and a good many other things." |
|
|
|
If it where cheaper, like 300-500$ i did buy it. But for 1100$? No way..
No problem for you to wait for version 2 after the early adopters with the killer apps make their money with it first. |
|
|
|
As for claiming Bitcoin makes law enforcement easier because transactions can be tracked, I think that is a mistake because it is really not true. You have change addresses that obfuscate things. You can also just use intermediate addresses and in court they have to prove the entire chain of custody unless they have other evidence. To trace things you have to depend on consolidation so trying to claim it makes law enforcement easier is just rhetoric. In some specific cases it may help and it others it may hinder.
You may not be aware long before Silk Road was taken down operators of a copycat site not so buried within Tor were arrested. If I remember correctly they were identified via use of their Hushmail account, which agents also used to introduce a trojan on their machine to aid their investigation. People, including law enforcement, will use technology differently and with various degrees of effectiveness. Very smart (or very large) law breakers will probably find a way to do what they want to do with or without Bitcoin. Using the block chain as a potential investigation aid is not rhetoric, because the degree of accuracy of computers is very high while the tendency of humans to never make mistakes is low. Saying it is a potential investigative aide sounds fine. Saying it will aid law enforcement because all transactions are traceable is rhetoric. It aids law enforcement in that the serial numbers on bitcoin are easier to track than the serial numbers on dollar bills, and they don't need to be marked, they come that way. Further, no subpoena is needed to look at the block chain, as they would need to pull bank records. It is not a BIG help, so don't oversell it. ========= Reading this before the meeting will give a bit of the perspective of what FUD the audience have already heard. http://dailyreckoning.com/a-currency-the-fed-cant-figure-out/ |
|
|
|
|
Is it the opinion of the OP that....
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
Applies equally well to Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
You just have to remember: there is nothing is for free in that life. Somebody pays for it as taxes or other way. Yes, if you not willing to work and live on social help, you will get help, despite that you are a parasite.
I don't mind that my taxes go to help someone with the misfortune to get sick and without the resources to deal with it. I'm happy enough if I never get into that situation. What pisses me off is that we have an extremely inefficient health care system largely because, IMO, it is for profit. More profit is to be made by charging more and giving less and skimming the middle. It's as plain as the nose on one's face. I do not appreciate it at all that the government is complicit in forcing me into a situation where my tax dollars go not to people who need it but to and industry with useless parasite CEO's making $100k per day. This is classic 'merger of state and corporate power' and Obama is as good at it as anyone has been to date. It only takes a person who can complete a sentence to impress my liberal friends these days, and Obama is relatively good at that. The FDA has a strong hand in this. Having exceeded the bounds of its reason for existence long ago, it has created a giant and expensive approval process that is also ineffective. The time it takes to bring new medicine to people has about doubled, from 8 years in the 1960's to about 15 years today and the cost is close to US$1B for a single drug. http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/25/government-pillsAs a result, we get less innovation for a greater cost, and a large incentive to game the process. Less attention to more uncommon illness, and a proliferation of minor tweeks to existing medicine to prolong the patent protection without benefit. Their process also increases medication shortages. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/02/13/health-care-leaders-drug-shortages-major-threat-patients/9XfOujrFRSEW5FBOkc1cmK/story.htmlBut worse even is that the FDA stranglehold doesn't end with the drug approval. The manufacturer must get approval for how much of a drug it plans to produce with its "output controls". We hear of fear of the "death panels". they are already here. Drs at John Hopkins had to ration cytarabine (treatiing leukemia and lymphoma) deciding who will live and who will die because of the FDA controls. Other centers were less lucky and ran out completely. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/06/08/rx-drug-shortages-regulation-can-be-deadly/And the FDA creates artificial monopolies. "17P" was used for years to help expectant mothers from having pre-mature births, made by pharmacists cheaply for $10 a dose by low income families, until a company called Hologic got the FDA to approve this progesterone fomula and got exclusive rights to it, raising the cost to US$1500 per dose (US$30000 per pregnancy). The costs are really because of private for profit enterprise? More so the costs are because "private enterprise" can wield the power of government against the rest of humanity to enrich themselves. Where you put the blame sort of depends on whether you think government should be doing this sort of thing in the first place, or on the other side, whether you think government should be doing everything and we should all be working for government. It is the weird blend that some people think of as "private enterprise" (that is in reality anything but that), which is the source of the problems. This gets compounded year by year because any failure of the system is used as an excuse to increase the system, until the system becomes too-big-to-fail, and then fails. Putting our health in the sole hands of policy makers is wise, up until it isn't, but in the long run, we are all dead. |
|
|
|
no refunds  and nothing I can do apparently its not worth bothering with as there is less than a 5% chance of wining in cort You'd probably win. Collecting is another matter. |
|
|
|
|
On coinfinder guy...
There are many others that have never found their lost coins. Likely a big part of the reason he forgot about those, was probably because he put the chance for success at much much lower than we are today. So yes, there are the odd few who made money by taking an early risk and not contributing. They relied on the enterprise of others.
Is this Bitcoin's fatal flaw?
Is this the reason we ought all abandon it and try again?
Well... if so... that's just what litecoin fixes. Bitcoin's little sibling, not premined, different crypto, more evenly distributed. Go for it.
|
|
|
|
Still struggling with this.
Are car insurance companies making money by sitting on their ass and taking the risk (that you don't have an accident)?
Is offering insurance immoral? Is purchasing it?
If by making money by "sitting on your ass" what you mean is "continuing to take financial risk" is immoral then the question becomes: What is the basis for the immorality?
Would you further suggest that it is somehow also not ethical, and if so, who is it that is harmed?
Car insurance companies are not sitting on their ass -- they risk their money by offering you a service. You, their customer, may plow into a crowd of people & cost them much more than you have paid in dues. This is in no way comparable to sticking your sound money in your mattress and sitting on it to become rich. Purchasing auto insurance is an obligation in most US states, it is an industry with plenty of regulations & plenty of slick lobbyists (see: Big Gobment). You may or may not consider it immoral in that respect. While obscenely bothersome, is not immoral to me. If we assume deflationary, sound money (accept it as a premise of our argument), sitting on your ass *guarantees* you profit. There are no risks involved. As i have mentioned earlier, money itself doesn't change the amount of goods in the world. By changing from one money to another, the world doesn't suddenly become wealthier or poorer as a whole. So, to answer your question, as you & other money hoarders become richer, the rest of the people become poorer, and that's who gets hurt. The poor people, the have-nots, the ones who always get hurt. There's the assumption I was missing... We are starting with the bizarre assumption that Bitcoin is today, sound money. But by the time Bitcoin becomes sound, there probably won't be much deflation left to it, and very certainly nothing like it is today. Currently, it is anything but sound. It is still a very risky venture, and even some of its strongest advocates and investors are giving a much less than 50% chance for success. If everyone that has bitcoins just "sits around" with them, it is pretty much guaranteed to fail, if even half do this, it is probably dead. The blasted stuff is still in beta. Wait until it is version 3.x for this complaint, not beta version 0.8.x However, the stakeholders are NOT just sitting around, and if everyone did, they wouldn't be worth much anyway. Most are pestering anyone who will listen about it. They are programming, they are developing, they are creating economies, they are looking for opportunities to make it succeed. Some are hacking each other, and ddossing exchanges, and all manner of illicit craziness. Others are shoring up defenses, building better exchanges, and trying to make a go of it. We have not yet seen the real bitcoin adversaries even. These are very early days. If you are under the illusion that your money held in bitcoins is not at risk, you probably won't have them for very long. If you don't believe me, just ask Tradefortress. If you think sitting on your ass *guarantees* you a riskless profit... I wish you luck with that. This thought may have come from that guy who forgot about his bitcoins, and then found them. There are many others that have never found them. And the reason he forgot about those, was probably because he put the chance for success at much much lower than we are today. |
|
|
|
|
Still struggling with this.
Are car insurance companies making money by sitting on their ass and taking the risk (that you don't have an accident)?
Is offering insurance immoral? Is purchasing it?
If by making money by "sitting on your ass" what you mean is "continuing to take financial risk" is immoral then the question becomes: What is the basis for the immorality?
Would you further suggest that it is somehow also not ethical, and if so, who is it that is harmed?
|
|
|
|
|
Missing the implications...With this I can ring my water heater with ASICs had have an electric blanket to heat my pool.
|
|
|
|
Is it the method of distribution (banks and government first, the rest trickle-down so inflation is not experienced by those issuing the currency)? Yes. I am doing diner and getting it on with my wife tonight so I will respond to the rest of your comments in the morning. We just got a sweet box of wine. Thank you for clarifying that. On this we agree. There is still much of that conversation that I've not yet been able to fathom. In your formulation, is unequal distribution a problem too, or no? If so why? Is rewarding good risk-taking immoral? (Remember, all these "rich" risk takers could still be left with zero) The current system rewards poor risk-taking (though bailouts and bail-ins), and currency wars. Which is more moral? |
|
|
|
|
Maybe you are looking for "Mastercoins" or "Colored Coins" where the virtual is redeemable for a specific quantity of an asset?
We also do this with the Bitcoin Specie pieces whereby bitcoin is redeemable in precious metal.
The goal of stable money and low taxes will lend to prosperity for all, this deflationary period is not going to last forever. (We are in beta, remember? It can very easily go to zero, folks are also paid for their risk of capital more than for "doing nothing" as you put it. The earliest investors took the most risk and are justly and morally compensated for that.)
|
|
|
|
honesty!
Read the whole post.
That is how the dollar maintains some price stability. When the demand for currency goes up so does the number of units. The problem is the distribution.
If the dollar was inflated or deflated by a machine and passed out randomly to the members using the currency it would be a moral system.
Lost me again, sorry. Inflation and deflation does pass out value to the members of the community, based on their "stake". The US dollar doesn't maintain price stability. What is the problem with the dollar's distribution? Is it the method of distribution (banks and government first, the rest trickle-down so inflation is not experienced by those issuing the currency)? Or the fact that distribution is unequal (redistribution being immoral)? Or some other aspect of distribution? I'd recommend a reading of Saltzman's "Gold and Liberty" http://www.amazon.com/Gold-liberty-Economic-education-bulletin/dp/B0006PFFZOIt may clarify some things about honest money, and it is not all that long, and really excellent. Or for lighter but longer reading, on monetary morality:  Are you advocating a proof of stake system rather than proof of work? It seems you are alternatively advocating this or its opposite, it is difficult to ascertain from the conversation. I think Shawshank sort of has it... This theoretical "not enough" money has never occurred. If you think of Bitcoin as a tech stock, and bitcoins as shares, maybe it makes more sense to you? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
