It would be easy to guarantee this kind of trade. TBZ could give an escrow $1,000 worth of bitcoin that the escrow would sell on bitfinex, then the seller would provide the escrow 1,000 BTC. On May 6, 2015, TBZ would be given the 1,000 BTC and the escrow would purchase $1,000 worth of bitcoin on bitfinex and send the seller the corresponding amount of BTC that he can sell or do whatever else he wants with it
I won't be giving anyone BTC in this transaction. Well what the theory is that you would somehow purchase bitcoin with fiat, give it to the escrow then the escrow would sell the bitcoin with fiat (it is a way to give escrow fiat without actually giving them fiat). While I do believe that you would be willing to uphold your end of the agreement, how I described would virtually eliminate any possibility that either party back out of the transaction. If what you described worked perfectly (market price is $1 USD/ BTC on May 6 2015), it would be a negative-sum game for the seller, who would lose 1) the escrow fee (if not a free escrow) 2) the exchange's/exchanges' fees to convert to/from BTC 3) slippage as the market price continued its decline past $1 before they could re-convert the BTC. The escrow would not be able to sell the 1000 BTC (or whatever) sent by the seller. IMO, better to shitcan someone's trust for breaking the contract than them being guaranteed to feel slighted at the end of not breaking it. Nice of you to self-moderate though to save us from the bullshit posts.
That's a good description of your posts. Thanks! What? You post this - I want to sign a purchase contract for May 6 2015 for 1000 BTC minimum, at a rate of $1 USD per BTC. and we're supposed to take you seriously. Do you seriously not have the ability to watch the market price of BTC falling ~$10 USD per day? Or are you seriously obsessed with leaving your bovine's feces on my topic? :p |
|
|
|
I want to sign a purchase contract for May 6 2015 for 1000 BTC minimum, at a rate of $1 USD per BTC.
LOL. If you find a seller that has more BTC for sale then you can buy then feel free to refer them to me. I would offer the inferior to your offer price of $0.99 per BTC but I could buy several thousand BTC worth I doubt someone will want to sell more BTC than I can afford, but they are free to contact you directly based on this quote. Just out of curiosity, how would this work? The person who signs the contract with you would have to sell them even if market price is $1,000 and you would have to purchase even if market price is $0.01? Any collateral or other type of guarantee must be provided?
I don't think either of those price points are likely on May 6 2015, but yes, they could make $0.99 USD/ BTC profit off me as I would be bound to $1 USD/ BTC. We will be doing a double-signed PGP/GPG contract (I sign, then the counterparty signs they agree, combined with my signed message). Whoever breaks the contract gets neg trust for the amount of BTC reneged upon, which will be a brutal/suicidal hit to their trust rating. It would be easy to guarantee this kind of trade. TBZ could give an escrow $1,000 worth of bitcoin that the escrow would sell on bitfinex, then the seller would provide the escrow 1,000 BTC. On May 6, 2015, TBZ would be given the 1,000 BTC and the escrow would purchase $1,000 worth of bitcoin on bitfinex and send the seller the corresponding amount of BTC that he can sell or do whatever else he wants with it
I won't be giving anyone BTC in this transaction. I am willing to execute this trade earlier than May 6 2015, but I don't see why someone would want to sell their BTC for $1 USD/ BTC on May 5 2015 when the market price is still $11 USD/ BTC, or May 4 2015 at $21 USD/ BTC and so on. |
|
|
|
|
Assuming the market price of BTC continues its decline of ~$1000 USD per day, it should hit $1 USD/BTC (in a manner of minutes or hours before it drops to $0) on Feb 11 2018.
I want to sign a purchase contract for Feb 11 2018 for 1000 BTC, at a rate of $1 USD per BTC.
$1,000 is the maximum that's legal in a 24 hour period, AFAIK.
I can pay with just about any payment method if you reimburse the fees.
Local rule: anyone who has posted in this topic before may not do so again
|
|
|
|
|
God DAMN I love AI that detects users' 1) winning streak playing alternating 51/48 odds and switches them to losing streak mode 2) balance approaching 100 mBTC and switches them to losing streak mode 3) choice of robot odds heavily in users' favor and makes them go bust anyway
Please delete my account TBZ1, and thanks for wasting our time with provably fair as defined by the house, not reality, BS.
|
|
|
|
|
They can either sell at a loss or hold until everyone else stops selling at a loss.
|
|
|
|
|
You led yourself off a cliff of logic.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
|
|
|
|
|
No, you saying "never" is highly inaccurate, when I did not say "never" or any synonym thereof. Fucks sake, man, READ.
|
|
|
|
|
Just emailed a link and quote of the relevant part to Bert Kersey from Beagle Bros.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not going to use a Microsoft OS again for $50. Maybe $5000 per hour...
|
|
|
|
|
China's going to ban BTC again. They needed to formulate a more powerful amnesia drug to dose their citizens with (since the original one had a tolerance built up to it), so they panic sell and crash the markets even further.
|
|
|
|
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
I can't buy into this without your explanation of the reasoning which brought you here. Care to explain? Wolves do not eat themselves when there are sheep aplenty. Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
I can't buy into this without your explanation of the reasoning which brought you here. Care to explain? Most likely it would be included in their wadge or as a benefit. It would be very similar to doctors and their insurance I would guess. I don't see them making officers pay for a insurance and take a paycut. Insurance premium would be a wage bump or a benefit, and the deductible for legal representation/court costs/fines in case of crimes/civil rights violations committed under color of authority will also be paid by another name, with taxpayer dollars, as always. Of course there is effectively no need for insurance at all, when courts almost always grant government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al ad nauseam. |
|
|
|
|
You need to have people send you BIP38 encrypted private keys with their corresponding addresses to put on either side. Anyone using unencrypted private keys that anyone else generated risks having their BTC stolen.
|
|
|
|
|
1) None. Also you didn't include BTC-E?
2) 0. I trust that they will all be "hacked".
|
|
|
|
|
Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
|
|
|
|
Posters: Please don't create threads just to promote your referral links. It's spammy BS and if everyone did it the forum would be useless... rewarding just the few of you selfish enough to behave in a way that harms the forum is not in our interest.
The form has official ads, and the social norms here seem to tolerate advertising in signatures— or limited referral links in the context of places where you would naturally provide the same link absent the referral incentive. Creating a bunch of new threads purely to direct people to referral links clearly harms the signal to noise ratio here.
Vendors: Please don't create referral programs which are highly vulnerable to abuse, and to the extent that your programs can be abused by spamming please police yourselves by de-crediting users who promote through outright spamming. If you don't do this you may find your services completely blacklisted from places where they've become a nuisance. You can't claim zero responsibility for the foreseeable abusive behavior your programs encourage.
|
|
|
|
|
Physical copy with serial number printed on packaging?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
