Cloud mining (short term and or with exit strategy)
Gambling investments (short term with exit strategy i.e: moneypot)
Could you please explain how it works (if it does at all). From all I know Cloud mining haven't been profitable for anyone except the owners of the sites which offer the scheme. Back to OP's question. My "Passive Income", if we may to call it so, the Sig. Campain on this forum. It gives me from $25 to $50 per month (which is not bad where I live). Cloud mining has always seemed dubious to me for one simple fact: there is a company that has a lot of mining capability, so what should they do with it? They have two options: 1) Mine bitcoins with it. 2) Sell it to others to mine bitcoins with it. As rational business people, they choose the option that makes them the most money. Do you see the problem with this then? The fact that they choose option two means it costs more to rent the mining hardware than the mining hardware will ever produce, otherwise they would be choosing option one. So anyone renting hardware in a cloud mining operations is renting it at prices higher than the hardware will produce for them. If the hardware did produce more than the market rental prices, the cloud mining company would just be using it to mine bitcoins with it themselves, since that is more profitable. |
|
|
|
bitcoin is not real money but merely a different way of employing existent fiat money, obviously it cannot replace it.
in other words, a bitcoin is not itself money, because it always relies on an actual form of money to underlie it.
I don't get it. Can't we say the same about any currency or even about gold? Would you agree with the notion below? "Gold is nothing by itself it is only something when you know the price of it in dollars."I hope not.  Yes, I think just about everyone would agree with that statement. If I offer to trade you a hunk of gold for $100, you have no idea whether you're getting a good deal or not without knowing what the value of the gold is in US dollars. If you know the gold is worth $200 dollars, you'd probably take that trade in an instant. If you know the gold is worth $20 dollars, you'd probably tell me to take a hike. If I offer to buy an expensive piece of furniture off you for half an ounce of gold, you don't know whether to make that trade or not without knowing the value of half an ounce of gold in USD. That's because our economy is denominated in USD, and everyone deals in and thinks in USD. No one knows the value of gold except in terms of USD, that's why it's quoted in USD. |
|
|
|
I'm buying USO (an oil based ETF) because it seems to me that oil is very likely undervalued over the long term.
Loooong term being the operative word. I agree with you that oil eventually rebounds. It's cyclical, and has always been cyclical, and people with short time horizons or investment objects always think that the current price of oil is the new paradigm, but history has repeatedly proved them wrong. Oil is likely to stay relatively low for the next 3 years, and trying to project longer than 5 years out is a crapshoot at best. China is complicated, and undergoing inner turmoil as the government tries to shift people to a consumption-based economy. This could work wonderfully and add to global economic growth and help oil rebound, or it could end disastrously, as China is currently pumping their stock market and the ensuing bubble pop could wipe out a lot of wealth in China and cause a major recession, which could further cull the demand for oil. Long term, oil isn't where I'd want to invest, personally, because there are better options in equities. Oil pipeline operators are actually a good place to straddle the middle, as they've been whacked along with every other oil-based company, but actually make the vast majority of their money from operating the pipelines that move oil, so they make money no matter the price of oil. They're like a tollbooth operator, collecting fees for moving oil around the country. The fact that they've been sold off because oil is a scary topic right now presents a great investment opportunity. I like Spectra Energy for this reason (ticker: SE). |
|
|
|
The current low price makes oil a excellent investment.
While the big oil countries keep producing more and more, the price is going down and down. At 1 moment we will see such a low price that it water will cost more then oil
We'll never reach that point because there is a minimum price it costs to produce oil and the price cannot remain below that point for an extended period of time, and that point is much higher than the cost of water. The laws of economics simply don't work here. The price of oil could actually fall very low (down to single digits). Why? Because Saudies will pump oil at any price, never ever looking back at the cost of production (or anything that economics would dictate). Otherwise, the ruling family of the KSA will be totally and ruthlessly exterminated, and no one would give a fuck about them...  Just like they exterminate all opposition, nip brewing dissent in the bud and drown any disobedience in blood Saudis are not immune to laws of economics. They can only run a loss on oil production until they've exhausted their cash reserves and can't borrow money any more. They can sustain losses longer than a business can, and they're trying to flood the market to force out high cost producers in the US and Canada. But they will cut back long before they're exhausted their cash reserves. They're playing a game of chicken, but they're still rational, and they'll respond to accordingly when forced to. I think the main difference between this oil drop and oil drops of the past is that we actually are at a point where there are feasible alternatives to oil. Technology will only push us further.
People talking about alternatives to oil arising due to oil falling in price don't have a clue that low oil prices beat the shit out of these alternatives This is absolutely true. Oil isn't going anywhere in a major way in the next 100 years. Every developing economy will be building wealth off the back of oil. It is one of the most energy efficient sources on the planet (price:energy output), which is why it has come to dominate the world energy market. |
|
|
|
Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.
As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though... Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN Banks are required to report transactions. That has nothing to do with forbidding. There is no law forbidding cash transactions. It's only not done because it's impractical to deal with physical cash in most business situations. |
|
|
|
I don't know if this is another difference between the US/Russian system, but the issues you discuss are not the case in America. Deposits are not property of the bank, they always 100% belong to the depositor, whether it is a simple savings account or a term deposit instrument. Even in term deposits, you are not forbidden from withdrawing, there is just usually some sort of financial penalty, like forfeiting so many months of interest or paying a withdrawal fee, but in no instance I am aware of is a bank permitted to deny a withdrawal
You don't get it. What I say is not dependent on jurisdiction, fundamentally. If banks can actually loan out the money (which they do) they took from their clients (i.e. your money), the clients should necessarily waive at least some of their rights to that money. Otherwise, banks loaning out their clients money would be violating these rights... But we don't see any banks sued for doing just this No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights. |
|
|
|
Source here: http://www.bitcoinfuturesguide.com/bitcoin-blog/is-there-fake-trading-volume-on-bitstampBitstamp is a well-established Bitcoin exchange, operating since 2012. It is one of the top five USD volume bitcoin exchanges and has some degree of influence among traders, playing second fiddle to Bitfinex. For a while now, it has been known that the Chinese exchanges, particularly OKCoin, are involved in faking trading volume. Bobby Lee of BTCC has spoken openly about this. The ex-CTO of OKCoin admitted as much in a statement made after leaving the company. The famous "volumizer" running on their futures platform is known to amuse traders in slow times of market activity, as seen below:  But we knew that the Chinese fake their volume, with their 0% fee model being the main culprit. This fee structure allows for wash trading between customers, with or without the knowledge of the exchange. However, we would not expect Western exchanges to behave in the same manner. But many traders are pointing to the charts and say there is something going on over there, see Exhibit A:  The orange line is Bitfinex, which is how a normal exchange would behave when there's no overal market turmoil The yellow line is Bitstamp. Notice how within the one hour period in the chart, there is a large degree of swinging between the spread, $2.5, for no particular reason. On a normal situation you have people that put their bid or offer in between the spread, but there appears to be just constant orders hitting both sides, causing these choppy swings. In the chart below, note how during periods of low volatility, multi-thousands of coins are exchanged, exceeding the volume during a significant price change.  This may be coincidence, it may be nothing. But traders who sit at charts all day notice irregularities like this, and it is following a similar pattern as has been observed in China, which essentially has confirmed fake volume. This could easily be going on without Bitstamp's knowledge, between marketmakers that they have no control over. Bitstamp had offered 0% fees after they were hacked earlier in the year, which would make some sense. Their marketmakers could have a special deal where they receive a rebate for volume delivered. This is all speculation among traders, and nobody knows for certain. But there's enough strange action going on with their price action and volume changes that it has been arousing suspicion. I don't see this as evidence of volume faking, just conjecture. There needs to be more data to support the conclusion, one data point doesn't even make a correlation. In the chart below, note how during periods of low volatility, multi-thousands of coins are exchanged, exceeding the volume during a significant price change.
The conclusion that there should be more coins exchanged during high volatility, therefore anything else is suspect, isn't a sound conclusion. You have one data point here showing the contrary, which is not enough to make an argument, and further, the volatility could be higher because of the low volume. When the volume is thin, one trader with a large order has a much larger effect on the price and can move the price much more significantly than during periods of high volume where his actions are diluted. This chart doesn't show evidence of fake volume, it shows a correlation between low volume and high volatility, which we already know to be logical. |
|
|
|
If they are making fake transaction volume than is the price of bitcoin is just the made one by those exchangers ?
If robots are doing trading than it can be counted as real but if exchangers are making this bullshit, why don't they get punished. It will be scary to bitcoin if they are in real making fake volumes.
yes, this is what they are doing and of course and the BTC price reflects that The price is made by the exchangers. ALL the exchangers are doing this shit(maybe less those with financial license because they are audited but I think it is a way to cheat that too). Fake transactions made by robots...this is what you can see on their websites. Who can "punish" them if most of them are not regulated(no financial license)? Nobody. That;s why I said that they would be in jail if they would do that in a regulated market. The market manipulation is a big crime. They may not be registered exchanges, but they can still be prosecuted for fraud in the US, and it is also illegal to run an unregistered securities exchange. Being not regulated is not a license to do whatever you want; you still can't break the law. That's why you're seeing US-based exchanges registering with regulators. It's only a matter of time before foreign-based exchanges have to register too with their local jurisdictions, and a giant scandal by one of these Chinese firms would hasten the process. |
|
|
|
The current low price makes oil a excellent investment.
While the big oil countries keep producing more and more, the price is going down and down. At 1 moment we will see such a low price that it water will cost more then oil
We'll never reach that point because there is a minimum price it costs to produce oil and the price cannot remain below that point for an extended period of time, and that point is much higher than the cost of water. |
|
|
|
Ownership always remains with the depositor. It is always yours, and it is withdrawalable on demand. You grant the bank custody of the money, but that doesn't change the ownership.
Not necessarily. If you open a term deposit, it may not be withdrawalable on demand (this depends on jurisdiction, though). That essentially means that you don't own the money for the term of the deposit, since you evidently can't control it during that period. Furthermore, if we are talking about current accounts (or deposits withdrawalable on demand), and you preserve full rights over the money you put there, banks wouldn't be able to issue loans with that money, right? But given that they are, nevertheless, able to do it quite legitimately and lawfully, you necessarily give up some rights over the money. Ultimately, this is irrelevant since we are arguing over insignificant legal details... Economically, this is still the same claim-liability relationship I don't know if this is another difference between the US/Russian system, but the issues you discuss are not the case in America. Deposits are not property of the bank, they always 100% belong to the depositor, whether it is a simple savings account or a term deposit instrument. Even in term deposits, you are not forbidden from withdrawing, there is just usually some sort of financial penalty, like forfeiting so many months of interest or paying a withdrawal fee, but in no instance I am aware of is a bank permitted to deny a withdrawal. And no, banks do not have to "own" the money to be able to loan it. People can withdraw their deposits whenever they want, whether or not it's been loaned out. Banks cannot deny withdrawals because they loaned the money out. If there's a run on deposits, banks are forced to call the loans to be able to redeem deposits, or are forced to raise capital another way through borrowing or selling bonds. But the bottom line is you cede no rights to money you deposit, and this key fact is what makes people trust banks. (Again, whether it works like this in Russia I can't say, but it works this way in America.) |
|
|
|
This post is interesting because it brings up an important point.
In the United States 97% of money is generated through fractional reserve banking, this means that only 3% of money is cash.
So if everyone in the United States demanded their money in cash, this would reveal the truth. There simply isn't enough cold hard cash, to back up the digits on the computer.
If that were to be the case, the Central Bank (which is the Fed in the case of the US) would just print the required amount of cash. But it is simply impossible per se because companies (the major owners of the "digits on the computer") are not allowed to deal in cash (down to a very small limit for retailers). The truth is that the term itself ("fractional reserve banking") is a misnomer... Since it shifts focus from the important to the insignificant Is it that they are not allowed to deal in cash, or they just don't as a matter of practicality? I've never heard this before. Can you point me towards a source for further reading? I don't know which the US rules limit the turnover of cash for the US companies, but here, in Russia, the cash turnover limits are set by the Russian Central Bank (Note 3073 as of October 7, 2013). That Note says, in particular, that all payments in cash between companies should be limited up to 100,000 roubles (i.e. about $1,400) Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic. |
|
|
|
Oil will never reach the $50 per barrel mark again, period. Earlier it was difficult to extract crude oil from complex geological formations such as tar sands and shale. But with the advancement of technology, the extraction of crude from these formations can be done at a very reasonable cost (say $30 per barrel). And there are trillions of barrels of tight oil waiting to be extracted.
I disagree. I think oil will have another bull market during the next emerging countries boom but it's still a few years away. Oil is cyclical. Three years ago, there were people just as confident that oil never would fall below $50 again. Speaking in absolutes isn't wise. I share your opinion that oil breaks $50 (and likely goes much higher) when the global cycle turns yet again. |
|
|
|
How does one invest in oil?
You buy futures contracts. |
|
|
|
i think you didn't grasp my example, that guy asking what do do and the other responding in that way, it's like they can do whatever they want with your money
But this is obviously not the same as printing new money (which wouldn't be either mine or yours) by just adding up to the numbers, right? Or is it the same for you? Are you really that dense? no obvious i was talking merely how they can modify your funds without you, not even knowing about it Wtf, I thought it was no secret that they take your money and lend it out as theirs (in fact, they don't even need it to issue a loan, wow). Strictly speaking, after you put your money in a bank, it is no longer yours (you get a claim on this money in return), therefore they are essentially free in disposing of it as they see appropriate... Is this something of an eye-opener to you? Ownership always remains with the depositor. It is always yours, and it is withdrawalable on demand. You grant the bank custody of the money, but that doesn't change the ownership. |
|
|
|
This post is interesting because it brings up an important point.
In the United States 97% of money is generated through fractional reserve banking, this means that only 3% of money is cash.
So if everyone in the United States demanded their money in cash, this would reveal the truth. There simply isn't enough cold hard cash, to back up the digits on the computer.
If that were to be the case, the Central Bank (which is the Fed in the case of the US) would just print the required amount of cash. But it is simply impossible per se because companies (the major owners of the "digits on the computer") are not allowed to deal in cash (down to a very small limit for retailers). The truth is that the term itself ("fractional reserve banking") is a misnomer... Since it shifts focus from the important to the insignificant Is it that they are not allowed to deal in cash, or they just don't as a matter of practicality? I've never heard this before. Can you point me towards a source for further reading? |
|
|
|
Yep, in terms of trading volume displayed by thrse exchanges. That isn't new for us and they've been doing that for almost a year now. Sometimes, I just get surprised how these exchanges achieve a volume that big compared to what Western exchanges can collectively.
I thought the Chinese exchanges didn't charge trading fees, unlike the western exchanges, so there is no financial penalty to churning out trades. The volume might be legitimate. |
|
|
|
You're right that bitcoin can't be printed when more is needed. You're wrong that bitcoin has real value. The value is perceived because all of us place value upon it...just as we do fiat currency. There is no tangible thing that supports the value of bitcoin, that can prove there is value to it. There's no Gold, no Silver, no other tangible item that exists in the world...just the promise that only so much bitcoin can every be mined and that the validity of transactions and balances are verified by the community that uses it. What is money? Dollars/euros etc don't have value either. Even gold and silver don't really have value unless you want to build a smartphone or computer or something. Real value is in food, clothes, luxury items like cars, things you can use. Gold and currencies only have value for as long as people are willing to trade real wealth for it. In that sense Bitcoin is as real as any other currency. I think you're confusing "value" with "utility." Utility and value are closely correlated, but they are different. Gold, silver, fiat, and crypto all have value when any person decides it does and will trade something else for it. |
|
|
|
Excess reserves?
Banks do not have enough reserves! Haven't you heard about fractional reserve? When banks give a loan, they are creating money out of hot air. The reserves they're keeping are barely a few percents of the money they're lending. That's why so many people like BTC, because it was designed without the possibility of fractional reserve, or wild money creation.
Excess reserves above what is statutorily required. That's the key point. |
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_reserves#/media/File:EXCRESNS.pngExcess reserves, to my understanding, are the reserves beyond which a bank needs to comply with regulations. It acts as a 'cushion' against loan defaults and people withdrawing deposits. So it seems to me that excess reserves are SO huge now that a bank can safely have a huge chunk of its loans default and a huge proportion of its depositors withdraw their money in cash and they will still be solvent. Just look at that graph! So why aren't they offering loans to everyone, no questions asked? Also what incentives to banks currently have to take appropriate credit risks with such huge reserves? There is great harm caused by loaning money out if it can't be repaid. Just because banks are sitting on huge reserves doesn't mean they throw profit motive out the window. They don't loan money to anyone they don't believe will be able to repay the loan. Basically, you're asking why aren't banks being more reckless, and the answer is 2008. |
|
|
|
So i think that chinese BTC traffic is completely false,the bitcoin that are on their sites are not real,they are present only on their systems, they do not really exist.
So all the pump of the last 2 month are fake, the price of BTC is in the hands of these scammers with no regulation.
no one says anything, perhaps because it benefits everyone this fake bull...
By "traffic" I'm assuming you mean trading volume. Even if the volume is false, the price is still based on buying pressure and selling pressure. If the volume is fake on the Chinese exchanges, it shouldn't matter to any other exchange, because the buyers and sellers who make up the price aren't operating there, and those exchanges have no power to fake data on any other exchange. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
the good point of bitcoin ... is that you can print paper money if you want : 
