Sorry, I did NOT mean to imply some kind of confrontation... hahahahaha, and really it seems like both of us, and probably a lot of other bitcoin (blockchain) watchers are trying to pay some attention and to learn details about these kinds of various options to attempt to verify the extent to which various big players in the financial world integrate into the bitcoin blockchain or attempt to build competitive systems that might attempt to innovate on blockchain technologies.

Accordingly, without really being certain about how it plays out whether it complements or competes against bitcoin, some posters may find a large number of these kinds of developments to be bullish for bitcoin. 

I personally do NOT really know what to think in terms of whether some developments are bullish or bearish because sometimes we identify some kind of current and new development that seems like it should have a positive effect on bitcoin and its price, and the price may in fact move the opposite direction in spite of such new development.

Your further explanation doesn't really contradict anything that I said in my earlier post.   Admittedly, you seem to be much more informed about the details than me, yet the whole concept seems to have quite a bit of  variability in how it could develop and then be implemented.

So,  even though money may NOT be a central concern of big banks, yet I could envision scenarios in which some of them may want to build some kind of private system, but to incorporate the bitcoin infrastructure in order to save money on computing power and security issues, meanwhile retaining some control over the extent to which they use the bitcoin blockchain infrastructure to achieve their private money moving objectives  - in that regard, rather than reinventing the wheel to take advantage of some of the wheel that already exists.

Yeah, right!!!


Does this really mean anything for Bitcoin?  They are creating a competing platform to have a private blockchain, but surely that blockchain is going to be centralized and secretive... .and then in the end, to what extent would it incorporate bitcoin's infrastructure at all? 

Hahahahahahaha...

I almost clicked on "report to moderator"

That does NOT look like a prediction, and instead it looks like a depiction of the past, with some kind of weird 2010 anomaly.

It's only a "little death" if you use that spending opportunity to cash out of BTC.  If you replace most if not all of your bitcoins as you spend them or some convenient time thereafter, in order that you continue to retain a sizeable stash of BTC, then the odds are better that your spending has caused some rippling effect (even if a majority is converted to fiat) and you have accomplished some positive developments in the bitcoin space.. rather than merely assisted in a cashing out.


Really there is NO problem with doing both... cashing out and spending and replacing... each person needs to assess circumstances to decide the extent to which s/he is going to engage in each activity.

The punchline is that Stolfi is making things up to suit his own rendition of history, and trying to characterize some kind of united front and consensus in economics, which would hardly be the case in any given time frame... surely there are going to be majority and mainstream economists and starting in the 1800s there are going to be marxists, who were NOT mainstream, except maybe in certain communist country circles.

    Good point!!!!  


Partly showing the extent to which Stolfi is pulling alleged facts out of his behind....

A couple of weeks ago, I did suspect that there would be another test of $200 or even attempts to drive BTC prices below $200; however, after BTC prices of the last couple weeks approached $247, then it became a bit more doubtful that there would be enough downward pressure generated in order to be able to achieve such a price point, even going below $220...

Currently, as I type, even though there seems to be dumping and breaking BTC prices down to $224, one must continue to wonder the extent to which coins can be dumped and how low BTC prices can decline with such dumping efforts? 

Currently, Stamp seems to be leading the dump, and even BTCe prices remain higher than Stamp's prices, which is an anomaly that seems to occur from time to time, when one exchange is potentially in a disbalance before it catches up to the other exchange.

If BTC prices break below $220, then is $210 possible, and then does breaking $200 become possible? 

It seems that there are a lot of additional buyers that come into play in the $220 to $200 price territories...   

But as many of us likely realize, dumping becomes more of a reality on the weekends because it is much easier to quickly move BTC around as compared with getting fiat onto various exchanges (in the event that fiat is NOT in the reserves on the various exchanges).

There are even a lot of buyers in the $230 to $250 price territories that can be seen by the volume over the past few weeks.  I never really know what to think exactly regarding the direction of price (even while dumping is occurring without any real apparent news as a driving point), except that I have been attempting to keep buying as the price is dipping.  Though can be impossible to know how to catch any bottom, exactly or to have Fiat left by the time prices go to their lowest point in the dumping cycle.

The official verdict from a bit over an hour ago is that the weekly candle on a large number of exchanges came out red...  (but barely).  Will be interesting to witness whether next week's candle is red or green... seems more likely to be green than red, but what da fuq do I know?

Well, rudeness would probably be trolling to the extent that it is merely attempting to spark an emotional response from someone else rather than about the content... Also, engaging in ad hominem attacks would probably be rude and also trolling to some extent...   ON the other hand, merely using colorful and forceful language to either support or to denigrate ideas would NOT be trolling, but merely an attempt to challenge the substance of someone else's arguments.

I don't know whether Stolfi really has any reputation for being rude... He generally seems to have a reputation for being fairly courteous... like as if he may, from time to time, play in a sort of passive aggressive behavior...  IN my view passive aggressive behavior may NOT be rude, but it could be a form of trolling, depending upon how it plays out.

If I have witnessed Stolfi engage in rude behavior, such events were probably pretty rare, the exception rather than the rule... I have witnessed him get fairly worked up in some of his comments, but none of them have really risen, in my sense to the level of rudeness.

I recall several strings in which Stolfi was getting attacked from several angles, and then he engaged in  data collecting assessments to quantify some of the posts concerning him, but those seem to be mostly attention seeking and/or reinforcing activities rather than rudeness... in other words to be complaining about how many posts were about him, while at the same time posting about himself... hahahahaha.. 

If you are here to create drama, like the "drama junkie" label describes under your avatar, then possibly you are engaging in some trolling behaviors.  No?

Your definition of trolling seems to be mostly correct, and I am of the sense that people who are providing negative arguments about bitcoin are generally welcome to the dialogue, even though there would likely be disagreement from the bitcoin bulls about their assessment of bitcoin.  Your assessment of Stolfi is NOT correct, because he frequently puts out misinformation, and frequently does NOT engage in genuine arguments..   I have NOT tallied his posts to determine whether he purposefully misinforms 10% of the time or 30% of the time; however, I find it irritating when there is any purposeful misinformation (beyond mere inadvertance) taking place.

Yep... I would not expect posters of this thread to fall into categories, so in the end, each of us has to decide for himself and to weigh the various evidence, including a variety of factors including our own experiences and perspectives, such as our past experience in investing, the level of our portfolio diversification, our risk tolerance, our  views on expected future value.

In fact, each of us has the potential to get some of these wrong and then need to readjust based on our learning.. and some of us will take longer than others to learn and each of us learn in differing ways, including dancing, if that happens to be our predilection at the moment.   

We do NOT need to know... because bitcoin is NOT only currency...

I think that there has been quite a lot of action in the past 24 hours or so in order to attempt to get the weekly candle to be red, rather than green.  It seems that there is only about 40 minutes left to determine whether this week's candle is going to be red or green...

Currently, the weekly candle is on the cusp of either way... but seems to be trending more towards the red...

Stolfi has his own agenda... he is NOT going to answer any of your questions, unless he can put a proper spin on the topic and to adequately deflect.  To the extent that there are material undermining of his position, he frequently ignores responding to the substance of those kinds of posts.

Again, you seem to be attempting to spin this matter, because even if you did NOT use so many words to proclaim your professorship, over your membership, you have in many ways attempted to incorporate such credentials in order to assert some kind of supposed "expertise"... and in fact that you use your real name tends to support the reality that you want to be known for your real world credentials into this thread...

I don't really have as much of a problem with anyone waiving anonymity, as I do with some of the contents of your various misleading posts in which you frequently attempt to describe something in delightfully and apparently academic ways to suggest that it is some kind of problem in the here and now when it is only hypothetical, speculative to be a problem potentially 50 or 100 years later, assuming that the BTC sphere would be completely locked into such projection.










Certainly, I am NOT stalking you or even really care that much, but you surely do seem to spend quite a bit of time on your "hobby."  Have you published any works on bitcoin in academic journals or incorporated anti- bitcoin advocacy into some of your academic teaching and lectures?  Surely, there is some academic freedom in teaching students, so sometimes it will NOT matter too much if you have some incorporation of relevant aspects of your hobby into such course teachings or academic advising.. However, I will take with a grain of salt your proclaimed lack of monetary interest in this topic of bitcoin that you are spending so much time to denigrate and to denigrate bitcoin advocates... and even denigrating the motives and hard work of a lot of people who have spent a lot of time developing various aspects of the bitcoin space.

I thought that I was on your ignore list....?    hahahahaha  We buddies again?   

You are speculating way too much.  We are a hell-of-a-long way from everyone owning bitcoin, and I again looked at that pie chart that was posted with the koolaide man, and in any event BTC occupies only about .004% of the currency at the moment... ... a long way before your little problem becomes any kind of real potential concern. 

Additionally, like i mentioned earlier, if someone is hungry, they are likely going to buy food rather than hold onto bitcoin.. HELLO, is anyone home??