I am waiting for the price increase too. I don't care if it will be a bubble or a natural raise but it's better to ride the wave and get a profit than stay aside and watch the thing unravel without taking action.
well, you don't really care whether the price goes up natural or not. but a lot people are hoping for a more sustainable growth instead of the peaks that don't last long. if your only intention is to make profit, then the block halving will bring a lot volatility where you can profit from. these traders will have the time of their life. You definitely should care if the price increase is economically sound or a bubble. If the price increases because of a bubble, it can pop without warning or reason, and you're basically betting that you won't be holding the bag when it does. If the price increases because of economically sound reasons, however, you don't have to worry about that, because the price will reflect the true value of the asset. Price increases because of bubbles are full of risk. Price increases for good reasons have much less risk, and obviously you always want your assets to carry as little risk as possible. |
|
|
|
By the way, Warren Buffett bets on falling oil prices. His Berkshire Hathaway has bought about $1 billion worth of Phillips 66 (oil refinery) stock since the beginning of 2016 (oil refineries usually profit from falling oil prices): Berkshire already owned 61.5 million shares of the oil refining giant, and has recently spent $964 million to buy an additional 12 million shares of the company. Buffett's firm now owns 14% of Phillips 66 shares, making it Bershire's sixth largest holding The drop in prices means that Phillips can buy the crude it refines more cheaply. And it profits from the fact that the price of gas hasn't fallen as much as the price of oil has. Phillips' refining profits actually rose last year to $2.6 billion from $1.6 billion in 2014. Berkshire isn't buying Phillips as a bet on falling oil prices, but on the fundamentals of the company, taking advantage of weakness in oil and general market pessimism during a down period in a cyclical industry. I think you're assigning a sinister motive that doesn't exist. Obviously, you failed to read the article at the link I had provided (or even look at the headline), since if you did you would have known that it was not me who was allegedly assigning "a sinister motive that doesn't exist", lol... The piece headline reads " Warren Buffett's $1 billion bet on oil" If you're passing on the source, isn't it implicit you're subscribing to the conclusion it presents? Actually, scratch that, because the article doesn't even draw the conclusion you did. Article: Buffet betting on oil industry. You: Buffet betting on falling oil prices. That's not the same. I stand by my original statement. Perhaps it's not a sinister motive you're assigning (clumsy wording by me), but I think you're drawing an incorrect conclusion. Berkshire's acquisition of additional shares doesn't equate to a bet on falling oil prices. |
|
|
|
By the way, Warren Buffett bets on falling oil prices. His Berkshire Hathaway has bought about $1 billion worth of Phillips 66 (oil refinery) stock since the beginning of 2016 (oil refineries usually profit from falling oil prices): Berkshire already owned 61.5 million shares of the oil refining giant, and has recently spent $964 million to buy an additional 12 million shares of the company. Buffett's firm now owns 14% of Phillips 66 shares, making it Bershire's sixth largest holding The drop in prices means that Phillips can buy the crude it refines more cheaply. And it profits from the fact that the price of gas hasn't fallen as much as the price of oil has. Phillips' refining profits actually rose last year to $2.6 billion from $1.6 billion in 2014. Berkshire isn't buying Phillips as a bet on falling oil prices, but on the fundamentals of the company, taking advantage of weakness in oil and general market pessimism during a down period in a cyclical industry. I think you're assigning a sinister motive that doesn't exist. Obviously, you failed to read the article at the link I had provided (or even look at the headline), since if you did you would have known that it was not me who was allegedly assigning "a sinister motive that doesn't exist", lol... The piece headline reads " Warren Buffett's $1 billion bet on oil" If you're passing on the source, isn't it implicit you're subscribing to the conclusion it presents? |
|
|
|
|
Paper money is more durable than electronic money. Obviously, you cannot accept electronic money any place that is not specifically set up to take it, or when power or internet is out. I'm not sure you'll ever eliminate physical currency for that reason.
|
|
|
|
Your question will be answered next month when it reaches $2bn
A bubble getting twice as big doesn't answer the question as to why the bubble has value in the first place. As far as I can see, the only value the coin has is the perception that other people think it will increase in value. That's a bubble. Really? That's ALL you can see? The fact that doors that bitcoin is unable to open are being flung open wide for ethereum does not add value? The fact that governments and institutions that have no interest in bitcoin are investigating what the ethereum blockchain can do for them, and already committing serious resources and building apps in-house doesn't add value for you? (before you refute, be aware that I work for one of them) So I ask you sir, what should add value? Perhaps I misspoke. I'm not saying adds zero value, I'm saying it does not create a billion dollars of value. (Opinion, obviously.) This appears to be a hype cycle, the same as bitcoin went through. This is the point where people get swept up in the fuzzy and undefined future possibilities and push the price to an unreasonable level. And I don't understand a great deal about how Ethereum's blockchain is different from bitcoin's, so I'm asking for specifics about what makes it worth a billion dollars. I'm glad you actually work on the issue directly, because this will give me an opportunity to ask of you some specific questions to help me understand how this isn't a giant bubble: 1) Why is Ethereum's blockchain special? 2) What real-world uses do you see people using it for? 3) What governments are investigating and committing serious resources to Ethereum specifically? 4) What would an Ethereum app do utilizing a blockchain that makes it useful, and in a way that makes the blockchain a necessary component of it? |
|
|
|
Your question will be answered next month when it reaches $2bn
A bubble getting twice as big doesn't answer the question as to why the bubble has value in the first place. As far as I can see, the only value the coin has is the perception that other people think it will increase in value. That's a bubble. |
|
|
|
|
It's getting pretty hard for anyone to make the case that Ethereum isn't a giant bubble. What makes this coin worth a billion dollars?
|
|
|
|
I will not sell at a moment, I will hold it and sell after the halving is done, I think this not a profitable price to sell, so saving and holding for next couple of months is right thing to do.
I think the best moment to sell the hold bitcoins is after the next halving, selling now isn't profitable in my opinion. Yeah, selling at current price is not profitable enough, so if you hold it till the halving then you can expect some good returns out of it. It seems the halvlng is the magic time point, the price will rise to very high level at the time. But who will buy then? Everyone seems to think the halving is magic and will singlehandedly cause the price of Bitcoin to skyrocket. If that's true, it'll just be a bubble because everyone will be pushing the price higher because everyone thinks that everyone else thinks the price is supposed to go up. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy until the bubble pops. |
|
|
|
I think the point of the original post was that the economies around the word are slowing down and to sell but not necessarily sell bitcoin. At least I take it that way. To me, if the dollar gets weaker and stocks drop in value, then maybe it's a good time to invest in crypto currencies instead.
Yes, the OP was about all investment holdings and actually had nothing to do with Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
By the way, Warren Buffett bets on falling oil prices. His Berkshire Hathaway has bought about $1 billion worth of Phillips 66 (oil refinery) stock since the beginning of 2016 (oil refineries usually profit from falling oil prices): Berkshire already owned 61.5 million shares of the oil refining giant, and has recently spent $964 million to buy an additional 12 million shares of the company. Buffett's firm now owns 14% of Phillips 66 shares, making it Bershire's sixth largest holding The drop in prices means that Phillips can buy the crude it refines more cheaply. And it profits from the fact that the price of gas hasn't fallen as much as the price of oil has. Phillips' refining profits actually rose last year to $2.6 billion from $1.6 billion in 2014. Berkshire isn't buying Phillips as a bet on falling oil prices, but on the fundamentals of the company, taking advantage of weakness in oil and general market pessimism during a down period in a cyclical industry. I think you're assigning a sinister motive that doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
For the past decades the experts were saying we will run out of oil soon then years and years later the price of oil is crashing because of overproduction? Comes to show you can never trust anyone that considers themselves an "expert" at predicting future events.
They only count reserves they know to exist (obviously you can't count oil you don't know exists), and saying we're going to run out of oil "soon" is relative. I don't know that anyone was saying soon as in we are on the verge of running out of oil so much as it was in the sense that we could estimate the current rate of consumption compared to proven reserves, and predict a window when oil would become scarce 50 or so years in the future. Relative to the millions of years it took for the Earth to produce that oil, that's "soon." But a lot has changed since then, including finding new reserves and advancement in technology that allowed accessing previously inaccessible oil in shale. |
|
|
|
FTC story continues It seems that after all we were on wrong fork. Developers thanks for your wise advises  !!!! https://forum.feathercoin.com/topic/8366/feathercoin-fork/2During that time pool solved 400 blocks, which means we lost 32000FTC. But don't worry. Rewards for all those blocks with over 120 confirmations mined on wrong chain will be paid form pool's reserves.Right now FTC pool is stopped. I must compile and test fixed version of wallet 8.7.3 Thanks for the update, please let us know when the issue is resolved and you are back to operating. I will mine something else in the meantime. |
|
|
|
Here, I fixed that for you. There is no true reason that wealth should be held by those who hold it except that they earned it or were peacefully given it by someone who earned it, and in a free and equal society, no one else gets to impose their will on you or what you are allowed to own.
There is no true reason that private property should be owned by personal individuals except that private property is an inherent human right originating from mankind's dominion over the Earth.
There are obvious examples that show those born into poverty have far more hindrances to achieving their "true potential" than those born into wealth, which doesn't justify forcibly taking from people out of a misplaced sense of morality.
There is no true example of a socialist country, nor a capitalist country. They have all been corrupted, which is irrelevant to the question of the morality of the theft necessary to enforce socialism.
Corruption is real. Anyone who thinks that either pure socialism or pure capitalism can work by themselves is deluded.
All governments require the threat and use of force to maintain their status quo.
All people are born.
All people die.
It's much better now. private property stretches from toothbrushes to the entire earth. obviously they offer different scopes to dominion. one fiinds it hard to consider that a human overlord owning vast tracts of wealth is meant by "an inherent human right", whilst many others are relegated to a dependent reality relying on the overlords good will to share their wealth. instead a shared community based ownership seems more in line where all mankind can share in this apparent right. there is no reason why wealth should be assigned by position of birth, or even by position of current wealth. if a situtation is unjust/unfair/broken that is a good reason to fix it. your morality is misplaced if you think it's fine for some people to indulge in wealth while others starve because of the status quo. just because. theft is not as obvious as you claim. my inherent human right has been stolen from me by those who monopolise wealth/property. What I meant that you didn't understand is that property is unique to the human species. Man is the first species that has had the capacity to understand the concept of property, therefore is the first species on Earth capable of owning property. The Earth was therefore man's for the taking the moment that mankind first asserted it. Wealth is not assigned by position of birth in non-caste systems. In America, you have the ability to move up. More can be done to lessen the obstacles, but trying to create equality through the use of force is immoral. When socialism can achieve its ends without the use of force, it will be a morally acceptable system, but of course, it cannot by its very nature. |
|
|
|
My bad, also the link you linked, the two I found have more BTC received in total than almost all of them. The amount received doesn't have much to do with the richest person. It could be a mixer address that has a lot of transactions run through it to jumble things up, or some sort of service that uses cold storage for anything above a relatively small amount. Could also be a change address for somebody that makes a lot of small transactions with a large balance, though that wouldn't make too much sense. I would have expected Gox to have the most turnover of any wallet ever. I wouldn't call them the biggest wallet though, they don't contain nearly 10million bitcoins, otherwise people would rightly complain that bitcoin was too centralized! (whereas they complain anyway, but it isn't as true.) Centralization has to do with the ownership of the network hashing power, not ownership of the bitcoins. If anyone is talking about bitcoin's level of centralization, they're talking about mining. |
|
|
|
...
I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin. As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).
The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).
I'm assuming you're talking about taxation. Just about every country levy taxes. It's not unique to socialism. There are some exceptions, but they've got some rather odd justifications that cannot be universalized. The United States has a higher level of maximum taxation than most countries with a history of social democratic governments. Socialism creates a ponzi scheme economy. They all know that the pension system and endless welfare cannot be funded by taxation, so it feeds on itself and creates a ponzi economy. The financial ponzi scheme is inevitable under a socialist economy. Unless you want to choose North Korean economics with 50% yearly inflation and wiping out bank accounts every 2 years. At least North Koreans are honest about it, and dont try to hide their ponzi in financial derivatives. ? Poorly financed pension systems are not exclusive to countries with socialist governments. One of the things that weighed down GM and Chrysler in the 2008-2009 financial crisis was their massively under financed pension obligations. So they were bailed out with the tax-payers money. Nor do all countries with socialist governments have poorly financed pension systems. In fact, much of Europe have had comprehensive overhauls of their pension systems to make them more sustainable in the future. As for your admiration of North Korea, I've got nothing. Pensions are a socialist idea, and the fact that for-profit companies have attempted them has no bearing on the fact that they commonly fail because the idea is unviable writ large. GM and Chrysler had a form of internal socialism to the company, managed with the profits of the business for the benefit of the workers, and when the unviability of the program dragged those companies down, it still sucked in tax payers who had nothing to do with the irresponsible promises those companies made or the fact they they couldn't honor them. And the fact that Europe has to continually undergo "comprehensive overhauls of their pension systems to make them more sustainable in the future" is not because the pension system is economically viable, it's because the programs are not economically viable, and they need to keep scaling back the promises made under the pension programs in order to keep the charade going longer. Pension systems are almost universally under-financed because the socialist concept of pensions is economically unsound. |
|
|
|
the basic truth is that many people claim either socialism or capitalism as the only obvious reality
they ignore that many decisions are made that have no relevance to either.
how do you judge/admonish a rapist under a capitalist system? rape is not a crime of capital but rather an ethical issue that must reside within a seperate realm
amusingly i'm finding it hard to come up with an example under socialism, the example governments so far have muddied the socialist waters with extreme shades of facism that make it hard to imagine a true socialist culture.
Capitalism and socialism are economic models, and rape is not an economic crime. Ostensibly there would be no difference in how rape is prosecuted under a capitalist or socialist government. The question doesn't even make sense. The economic model employed by a particular government or society has no bearing on how rape is punished. |
|
|
|
Here, I fixed that for you. There is no true reason that wealth should be held by those who hold it except that they earned it or were peacefully given it by someone who earned it, and in a free and equal society, no one else gets to impose their will on you or what you are allowed to own.
There is no true reason that private property should be owned by personal individuals except that private property is an inherent human right originating from mankind's dominion over the Earth.
There are obvious examples that show those born into poverty have far more hindrances to achieving their "true potential" than those born into wealth, which doesn't justify forcibly taking from people out of a misplaced sense of morality.
There is no true example of a socialist country, nor a capitalist country. They have all been corrupted, which is irrelevant to the question of the morality of the theft necessary to enforce socialism.
Corruption is real. Anyone who thinks that either pure socialism or pure capitalism can work by themselves is deluded.
All governments require the threat and use of force to maintain their status quo.
All people are born.
All people die.
It's much better now. |
|
|
|
I am quite sad that Bitcoin transfer is so far down the list, but I am happy that paypal transfer is last on the list.
Why? This just shows and proves that it is the good old traditional payment methods and channels which are mostly used for money laundering and capital flight. Paypal is a lot closer to revolutionary than it is to the traditional banking model. paypal is just a robber which have lots of fee in transaction even for a transaction with small amount. But i doubt how paypal allow to do that money laundaring from china?  In order for it to be robbery, someone has to take money without the owner's consent. If you're using PayPal, you're consenting to the fees. Anyone who doesn't like PayPal's fee structure can very easily avoid paying any fees by not using the service. It's almost like magic! |
|
|
|
I am quite sad that Bitcoin transfer is so far down the list, but I am happy that paypal transfer is last on the list.
Why? This just shows and proves that it is the good old traditional payment methods and channels which are mostly used for money laundering and capital flight. Paypal is a lot closer to revolutionary than it is to the traditional banking model. |
|
|
|
What is this false info about bitcoin transaction fees? Bitcoin transaction is not based on value or amount of transferring money/BTC.
It maybe small but that is the way misconceptions are born.
It increasingly is these days now that the network is operating at capacity. You can't get your transaction to confirm without paying substantially more in fees, and the more you're transacting, the more you'll likely have to pay to get the network to confirm it quickly, otherwise you're sitting with an unconfirmed transaction for an extended period of time that can't be used anywhere. The higher the value of your transaction, the more risk you're taking on by not paying extra fees. So while it's not required to pay more to transact more value, there is a de facto situation where this is increasingly proving true, and it will stay this way until bitcoin solves the block capacity problem. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
