So people that have open position on bitcoinia still don't know what is going on with that... and the price in bitcoins are going up, wouldn't you hire more staff to handle these claims before the price in bitcoins really goes higher... The longer bitcoinica takes the more they lose, and im speculating that bitcoins will be alot higher before I get my bitcoins back.
On the bright side, if you the price of bitcoins continues to go up, then maybe bitcoinica's grip will keep you from selling out too early. See, there's always a silver lining. |
|
|
|
Looks like that guy was the buyer.  Edit: Ok, maybe not. |
|
|
|
I'm going to shove it right in my smarmy friends faces the next time they're all "How are your little Bitcoins?"  I take so much pleasure in this... especially since I bought out most of my friends coins for under $5  Haha, well done. |
|
|
|
bots playing...  what else is new? ban bots and deny volume < 1 btc... You don't need to make a purchase limit. You'd just need to put a limit on the number of trades within a certain time. Yeah 25 trades a day limit sounds good to me. Bots pay trading fees too, no? Why do we need to limit them again? Because it makes the chart 'look funny'? Yeah, honestly, I don't really care about them anymore. |
|
|
|
bots playing... what else is new? ban bots and deny volume < 1 btc... You don't need to make a purchase limit. You'd just need to put a limit on the number of trades within a certain time. |
|
|
|
Is anyone seeing the same fast oscillator I'm seeing on gox right now ?
Yep. |
|
|
|
Edit: To be clear, I'm not defending that practice, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't seem to be uncommon and it's apparently enforceable.
diagnosis: nonsense treatment: contract law 101 Then I'm at a loss for why bitcoinica didn't go after Linode? I'm sincerely asking here, I don't know much about contract law. Was it perhaps because the entirety of that theft was in bitcoins and bitcoins aren't recognized as having any value (I don't know how that would be the case)? Bitcoinica got $350k stolen from them in 2 different hacks and they didn't report it to the police. What are you expecting? Miracles? Add to it that those thefts, even without the theft of the bitcoins, would be a crime of computer intrusion and it's even more surprising that none of them were reported to any authority. If they had been reported, do you think that Linode could have been held responsible for the value lost despite that their ToS states that they aren't? I bet the PR nightmare would make them reach a deal and pay long before it went to trial. There didn't seem to be too much of a PR problem for them and the story was accurately reported on a bunch of widely read websites (e.g. Arstechnica). IIRC, Linode explicitly admitted it was their system that was compromised because of the way they had their customer service portal configured. |
|
|
|
Edit: To be clear, I'm not defending that practice, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't seem to be uncommon and it's apparently enforceable.
diagnosis: nonsense treatment: contract law 101 Then I'm at a loss for why bitcoinica didn't go after Linode? I'm sincerely asking here, I don't know much about contract law. Was it perhaps because the entirety of that theft was in bitcoins and bitcoins aren't recognized as having any value (I don't know how that would be the case)? Bitcoinica got $350k stolen from them in 2 different hacks and they didn't report it to the police. What are you expecting? Miracles? Add to it that those thefts, even without the theft of the bitcoins, would be a crime of computer intrusion and it's even more surprising that none of them were reported to any authority. If they had been reported, do you think that Linode could have been held responsible for the value lost despite that their ToS states that they aren't? |
|
|
|
so i've just got this set up - candlesticks, moving average, volume. love it.
but two things i'm hitting a block on: i'd like it to update in real time, is that possible?
and... it's saying the price is 4.50 currently. obviously, it's not. (5.54, i just checked on bitcoin charts.) any ideas why this is the case? well i figured THIS out - it's watchintg mtgox euro. how the heck did i manage that...
It's been a while since I've used this SierraChart bridge, but when I did it was definitely real-time. Sometimes it was ahead of MtGoxLive. Has the whole history downloaded yet? It can take a few minutes to get all the data. |
|
|
|
Edit: To be clear, I'm not defending that practice, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't seem to be uncommon and it's apparently enforceable.
diagnosis: nonsense treatment: contract law 101 Then I'm at a loss for why bitcoinica didn't go after Linode? I'm sincerely asking here, I don't know much about contract law. Was it perhaps because the entirety of that theft was in bitcoins and bitcoins aren't recognized as having any value (I don't know how that would be the case)? |
|
|
|
I believe that the company had plans to amend the Terms of Service to mention the illegibility of NZ non-accredited/non-institutional investors for Bitcoinica service.
You mean the Terms of Service available at: https://bitcoinica.com/pages/tos ? Oh, that's right - Customers did not have access to terms of service for over a month, at a time where it matters the most. Speaking of ToS: [17] Force Majeure
You agree that Bitcoinica will not be liable in any way to you or to any other person in the event of force majeure, or for the act of any Government or legal authority, or for the failure of or damage or destruction to its computer systems, data or records or any part thereof, or for delays, losses, errors or omissions resulting from the failure or mismanagement of any telecommunications or computer equipment or software. The parties shall be released of all responsibilities for partial, full or non-fulfillment, as well as for improper fulfillment of the obligations under this Agreement, if such non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment was a result of extraordinary events, which occurred after this Agreement was concluded and which the party could not either foresee or prevent (natural calamities, wars, armed conflicts etc.). I assume Bitcoinica is not treating this incident as Force Majeure? If not, how is Bitcoinica LP treating it? Let's assume that those tos are geniune. See bold text. Bitcoinica, who the hell came up with this drivel for you. Do you really think you can write this shit into Force Majeure and everything is hanky dory and you can just continue to be be as grossly negligent as you are? Yea nice lawmanship. Get proper lawyer to draft for you the terms. Bitcoinica, with such drivel in force majeure clause you are way better off without one. tl;dr Bitcoinica thinks that having their computers hacked releases it from any liabilities to everyone.I don't see what's so shocking about that. Isn't that exactly what Linode thinks (as was written in their ToS), and, infact, what ended up being the case for the big hack a few months ago? If I remember, all Bitcoinica ended up getting was an apology and an offer of free service for a year. Edit: To be clear, I'm not defending that practice, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't seem to be uncommon and it's apparently enforceable. |
|
|
|
I'm not questioning the tech tbh, but more whether people would prefer this over mobile phones (a social problem) despite improved security. Phones can do way more than this device so I'm not sure.
My understanding is that the argument for this sort of device over a phone is that it has the potential to be independent of traditional communication infrastructure, which, assuming the P2P infrastructure it uses is secure, would eliminate at least that attack vector. I love that idea, however, I think there are two related criticisms to be made. (1) Network independence depends on widespread enough adoption and it's hard to believe that level of adoption is achievable even over the next few years. (2) It seems that to overcome (1) they'll use hubs that are connected to the world's standard communication infrastructure, and, therefore, possibly invalidate the security benefit, at least initially. Though, perhaps I'm misunderstanding how these hubs will work, and maybe they don't plug into the existing infrastructure but simply act as higher power signals for the P2P network. Admittedly I haven't read all the documentation they've provided, so if I've got something wrong let me know. |
|
|
|
|
It is comforting to hear that things are beginning to move along. Again, I say take your time and do it right, but keep us updated.
|
|
|
|
Yeah. I call BS on that too.
BTC is a game. EUR is established.
Would be dumb trading the crappy EUR for an even crappier BTC. It's like jumping from a tower.
BTC is riskiest asset ever. EUR not so much.
Euro is now the second most traded currency on bitcoin exchanges. You may think bitcoin is a game, but apparently those Europeans don't. Was the Euro ever not the second most traded currency on bitcoin exchanges? I always thought it was, but I never really checked into it. Previously, the GBP was the second-most traded currency, back when Britcoin was strong. The GBP remains with enough volume to surpass EUR at any moment still. Oh yeah, forgot about that. I think I conflated the two in my mind. I am American, after all. |
|
|
|
Yeah. I call BS on that too.
BTC is a game. EUR is established.
Would be dumb trading the crappy EUR for an even crappier BTC. It's like jumping from a tower.
BTC is riskiest asset ever. EUR not so much.
Euro is now the second most traded currency on bitcoin exchanges. You may think bitcoin is a game, but apparently those Europeans don't. Was the Euro ever not the second most traded currency on bitcoin exchanges? I always thought it was, but I never really checked into it. |
|
|
|
|
Mt.Gox, you're doing it...right! Thanks for the update.
|
|
|
|
BS, what numbers are they basing their claims?
Phantasy?
Yeah. I call BS on that too. BTC is a game. EUR is established. Would be dumb trading the crappy EUR for an even crappier BTC. It's like jumping from a tower. BTC is riskiest asset ever. EUR not so much. There's no question that bitcoin is riskier than just about any government issued currency in terms of maintaining value, but there is something to be said for the ability to move money (read: bitcoins) around with so little friction and the ability to secure one's stash of bitcoins more completely than any traditional currency. Though, I'm not sure that to most people the latter are compelling enough reasons to transfer a significant portion of wealth to bitcoin. We'll see, I guess. |
|
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong but I barely use blockchain and I was taking a look at it and it shows you a map of all the coins being sent in the world.
This is suppose to be all anonymous..
You're right. We can see all the coins being sent from one address to another. Now, looking at that information, tell me the identity of the person who owns 18pJmBTvjmcNGUR4CXtUMz5jZbU1KnSx7q. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think people realize that cypher's emails don't always have to do with bitcoin. He comments a lot on PM and the stock market.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
