He says, essentially, that the more merchants that are accepting bitcoin the more the price of bitcoin will fall, because they instantly convert it back to fiat (thus putting in SELL orders). So customers who own bitcoins and use them actually sell them onto the market, indirectly.
And where would the customers first get bitcoin to pay the merchant? Oh that's right, the customer has to buy the bitcoin first. On a global scale, the amount of bitcoins that customers would have to buy, would equal the amount of bitcoins that merchants will sell. exactly the person that bought 1BTC at $30 last year, would only need to sell 0.06btc now meaning the customer has taken 1btc off the market, and only put 0.06 back on the market to buy a $30 item today. thus there are less bitcoins on the market, meaning demand is higher. |
|
|
|
|
what happened yesterday?
answer: 照常营业。无需恐慌 (business as usual. no need to panic)
|
|
|
|
We need to hire a professional Chinese-to-English translator to correctly interpret such releases for the Bitcoin community.
simple facts. bitstamp over a year ago had to change bank accounts.. the "impact" was a minor change of 3 lines of information that appeared at the 'deposit funds' button (they simply changed their bank details).. customers did not notice anything worth panicking china... same thing.. a simple change of bank details changing on their deposit funds button... not even worth panicking over china just like UK and and america, have some banks that dont want to deal with bitcoin.. i do not see what the hype is all about |
|
|
|
I have had small bitcoin transfers take half a day before, but all of the NXT transfers I have ever sent took less than a few minutes every time.
for 3 years all bitcoin tx's took 10 minutes. but now due to mining greed, pool owners have added so many limits, rules and discouraged accepting tx's. that bitcoins are now taking longer just to be accepted. give NXT 3 years and the NXT dev's will start charging premiums and adding minimum spend limts too.. |
|
|
|
so now LESS bitcoin goes back to the market to give a merchant $4000. meaning the price does not tank, it rises as there is less bitcoin on the markets being sold.
so buying 10btc selling 8btc for the same exchange of fiat value between customer and retail. will help the price rise. help customers keep some wealth and for merchants, they will still get their fiat.
Customer buys 8BTC at 500 and in a week when he's ready to shop the btc price is down to 400 he now needs to buy more btc to make his initial purchase. oops. wrong. if a customer buys 8BTC at 500 ($4000) and a week later the price was 400 each. a smart customer would not use his bitcoin. he would keep the bitcoin in cold store and use his fiat.. thus no bitcoins would be sold. why would anyone be stupid enough to sell bitcoins at a loss just a week later!!! |
|
|
|
|
westerners. EG america and europe need to stop reading CAIXIN.
and instead get information from other sources, such as from the banks, from the exchanges, and from actual chinese people.
do not use caixin or any media quoting caixin as source.. media should just be the starting point to then seek out actual source information. and then form opinions on actual source information that has credability. do not form financial decisions based on media.
try to find any source that caixin uses (you wont find it, as caixin only post rumours not qoutes)
also westerners need to not panic about a country they do not visit, an exchange they do not have a username for. and a bank they do not have an account with.
unless you are actually physically linked in some way to china dont even worry about it.
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoin does not have a problem with transaction volume. infact each block is on average only a few percent full. the problem is that people such as Luke JR are trying to hinder the transactions available in these ways
1. forcing people to use new addresses per transaction. to make a new output require listing multiple inputs (excess data which discourages sending out as it incurs higher fee's)
2. adding the satoshi dust limit to stop large transaction volume. imagine if satoshidice was walmart instead. and the devs just cut off walmart from making microtransactions because it filled blocks.
3. mining pool owners do not want transactions as it causes their miners to actually do work. instead they prefer empty blocks.(greed for reward instead of ethics of minings actual purpose)
if mining pool devs stopped with their greedy practices and actually allowed transactions through freely, without excessive fee's or demanding certain criteria. then the blocks would have alot more potential to allow merchants to trade easier using bitcoin.
i see mining as no longer for people to transact between peers, but to being empty blocks where transactions are discouraged by miners, purely for them to have an easy life. imagine it another way. imagine the memory company Crucial, sold 16GB ram. but coded the chips to only allow 1GB of data to access the ram, and then charged a fee for allowing gamers to then access more of the ram chips, by paying a fee per game they wanted the ram to work with.
if only miners seen their purpose in life and actually worked towards that purpose instead of greed then bitcoin would grow more motivation for merchants to adopt.
currently due to the fe being 5c and the satoshi dust limits. the value of bitcoin wont get into the multiple thousands. as those limits prevent measurements of 1c to be transacted.
the fee and dust limit need to be lowered by a couple more decimals (atleast 6 decimals instead of 4) to allow for expansion.
i know i know im going to get replies that these limits are to prevent exploiters trying to DDos the blockchain by sending millions of cheap tx's.. but the point your missing is that the cost of btc is not $6-30 anymore, its $500-$1000 and the cost to ddos has increased atleast 10 fold since the limits were introduced. and as such the limits should now be reduced aleast 10 fold to account for this.
|
|
|
|
|
the price drop was due to the FUD of china.
and as for the news that merchant adoption causing price drops. they have forgotten the crucial point. the customer adoption (buying coins) causes price rises.
for every customer buying a coin to use for retail, there is a merchant selling that same coin at a later date back to fiat. thus there is an equilibrium. not a drop.
take this last week for instance. imagine a customer buys 10 coins. the price was $400 each. the customer then looks around websites for a week and finally finds a product they want to purchase. they buy a product for $4000. which this week is 8 bitcoin (not 10btc as it would have cost the customer last week)
so now LESS bitcoin goes back to the market to give a merchant $4000. meaning the price does not tank, it rises as there is less bitcoin on the markets being sold.
so buying 10btc selling 8btc for the same exchange of fiat value between customer and retail. will help the price rise. help customers keep some wealth and for merchants, they will still get their fiat.
|
|
|
|
facebook not creating their own crypto blockchain. they are simply expanding the utilities of their facebook credit database to allow withdrawals of 'credits' value and not just purchasing credits |
|
|
|
|
OP needs to learn, holding bitcoin is tax rate of ZERO. but holding fiat in his personal account after selling the bitcoin. he needs to pay tax on that fiat gain.
but i do agree people are silly when it comes to saying "bitcoin is doomed" and here is why
1. people will find other ways to not need FIAT, thus not needing to claim FIAT gains
2. the IRS wont care about useless / worthless items. IRS have categorized bitcoin, thus it has proven bitcoin to be a valid store of wealth.
|
|
|
|
|
today is the day of the next mega rise i agree. but 'bitcoin day' is always going to be january 3rd
|
|
|
|
|
apart from appearing like a 16yo trying to make a name for yourself.
what actual authoritative status do you hold in the real world, are you:
1) a real world police officer that can search records or has the power to arrest
2) a lawyer in the area if financial crimes
3) a judge
4) a basement dweller with only an idea and no powers to bring people to justice.
bitcoin is not a game, where you can pretend to be something. if you do not have powers of arrest or skills in the courtroom. then please stop what you are doing, as your actions are of deceit and it makes you no better then the liars in the community that promise things they cannot deliver, all for a quick buck.
|
|
|
|
In the US, prosecutors use existing 'elements' of existing laws to shape or portray current conduct as unlawful. I seriously doubt a conviction for money laundering will be obtained without him pleading to it first. If this goes to trial, it will be a long drawn out education of a jury who will question what the federal position is on crtyptocurrency, something we all know they have no clue about.
best defense show me physical proof that it was X writing emails to Y. anyone could have had access to X's computer system, or atleast spoofed X's ID |
|
|
|
Money laundering is money laundering. Charlie should get the same thing other got who did similar bad deeds.
i dont condone shrems actions. but i do find the law stupid. a financial crime that is not directly killing people* has a 20 year max sentence. yet i have seen rapists and murderers get out in under 6. so if shrem ends up doing above 6 years. then the law is truly making an example of him, by treating him worse then rapists/murderers. if the prosecution uses the argument that being financially linked to drugs makes him worse then a murderer, because drugs 'can' kill. then gunshop owners should be prosecuted too, due to the fact they are financially linked to a product that 'can' kill. *(ignoring the 'possible' later repercussions of what drugs do to people later on as it's passed many hands and cut with nasty stuff) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin promises nothing, just promises early adopter rich.
bitcoin will be around for hundreds of years (2140 atleast)... so you being here now, makes you an early adopter. so dont complain. satoshi, was not rich 12 months after starting bitcoin, gavinA wasn't rich 12 months later. but now 3-4 years have passed. those first adopters are rich. and if you are still interested in bitcoin after 3-5 years, you will be too. but in all cases, you need to put your own individual effort in to get good results in return. satoshi and gavin truly 'earned' the results they have got. and anyone that can pt effort into making bitcoin better, can do the same to maximise their wealth |
|
|
|
I wouldn't. Anything you mine is not taxable until it is converted for dollars (and usually not even then). (IANAL and especially IANYL).
keywords: dollar, FIAT if you touch THEIR property (banknotes are trademarks of banks/government.. not individuals) then you have to play by THEIR rules. so tax is only enforcable when converted to FIAT, and money transmitter licences are enforcable to businesses (working as middlemen/agents) passing large amounts of FIAT between different people |
|
|
|
This is huge!
not as huge as banks and government tax departments talking about bitcoin.. but a huge positive like governments legitimizing bitcoin got covered up with the fud about how the cry babies dont want to pay tax |
|
|
|
Bluetooth for secure distance upto 100 meters Hahahaha! From a guy who reads lots of science fluff and has never used Bluetooth. Every Bluetooth I used is dead after 10 meters. thats bluetooth 1.0 (class 2(first gen)) your talking about. im happily using 2.0 (class 1) its been out for many years now, bluetooth even have version 4 now. but yea i should have emphasized the "upto" 100 metres as that's the key word, still better then clinkles 'hissing' or chirping that has to be much closer. |
|
|
|
|
clinkle had a few flaws which other technologies already existed to fill.
high frequency sound meant that other phones had to be in listening distance. and the sounds could get missed in high Decibel area's such as near trains, busy coffee shops and music concerts.
also to note the time for 2 phones to communicate (one setting phone to listen, other setting phone to send) aswell as agreeing on the terms of the transaction, and a per-arranged identity to avoid 'man in the middle' thefts by third parties also being set to listen. made the whole transaction timely, and not practical.
where as Bluetooth for secure distance upto 100 meters could solve the issue with more convenience, or QR codes could solve the problem with more efficiency. taking a picture is faster then listening to a 4 second soundbite.
clinkle was like bringing the irritating 'white noise' of 56k modems back to a generation of 4G phones.. very impractical in today's society
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
