Regulators want:
- to know who has what kind of money
- to know who sends what money to whom and what for
- to decides who is allowed to have or send money all together
- to be able to stop any transaction and confiscate any money
And they want all this 100%, not 50% or even 99% will be enough.
Such coin can be built.
Joe
Regulators would not necessarily want to know all of this information. Regulation simply means that the certain aspects of an industry are restricted in one or more ways. There are certain regulations that do not require any information to be reported. |
|
|
|
Hasn't the british pound been around though, for hundreds of years?
Something to ponder: why is it named the 'pound'? Good question. A pound of sterling silver. So a pound of silver today would cost about $340 ($21.25/oz* 16 oz). The pound is not worth $340 US dollars. :-) still, it seems the pound is still around, so people that say "every fiat dies" aren't being totally accurate. Just no. The pound is no longer a pound. It is now a fiat currency. Accordingly, the fact that there is still something called the pound in monetary use, cannot be used as an example of a fiat currency lasting a long time. Exactly. Calling it the same name does not mean it is related to the original currency in any important way. Just another soon to be worthless fiat currency. Inflation in the UK has caused the british pound to lose value verses the value of silver. It is still the same currency, as if you had a bank note from several years ago you could still tender it for payment today. But when it stands for one pound of sterling silver, and then doesn't and is worth 0.5% of a pound of silver, then is it really the same currency? If I photocopy a GBP note, is it still a pound? If you photocopy a GBP note then it would be a worthless counterfit. Like any currency inflation has decreased the value of the British pound. If you were to measure a the british pound (or any other major currency that has been around for 200+ years) by what it buys in terms of standard of living then inflation has not taken as bad of an effect. In other words, if you were to live the same way that one lived 100 years ago, then it would not take that much more money to have the same living standards. |
|
|
|
In order to see the price of bitcoin, gold and all commodities goes up, we need the dollar's price (or value) to go down. In other words : inflation. With QE infinity, the world is heading towards inflation !. So good news for US  There is certainly a correlation (and sometimes a strong one) between the strength of the dollar and the price of commodities and other currencies, but it's not a perfect correlation. If the dollar weakens, that could help the price of bitcoin rise, but not necessarily. Ultimately, the price of bitcoin in USD is simply determined by how much USD people are willing to pay for it. The price of bitcoin in USD will only rise as a result of USD weakness if people believe that bitcoin will hold its value better than USD. And btw, the US is still on course to continue tapering its bond purchases, so QE infinity is (theoretically) coming to an end. The Fed is also expected to start raising interest rates within another year or so (of course that prediction keeps getting moved back), which will remove the last of the stimulus. This is true regarding the value of the dollar. However in times of economic (and geopolitical) crisis the dollar tends to rise as it is considered the least risky asset class. |
|
|
|
The monetary base is still increasing at an alarming rate, whether its parked with the fed, in my savings account or stuffed in someones mattress, the fact remains the same: It's increasing rapidly. What you should be worried is that even w QE, demand hasn't risen and unemployment is still not dropping. Means its not working so they gotta find a better theory or we looking at possibly a decade of recession like Japan The goal of QE was to get people to take more risk with their capital and to get asset prices to rise. This has happened and QE has been successful in this regard. It was hoped that the rising asset prices and people taking more risk with their capital would result in higher employment rates. What has hampered higher employment was the amount of transfer payments and new regulations that has set back our economy. Things like unemployment insurance that lasts almost 2 years and disability insurance that lasts a lifetime give people disincentives to look for and actually work. |
|
|
|
I've found it useful to divide not into just white/black markets, but into five areas: white, black, gray, red and pink. From http://www.nostate.com/3441/black-markets-vs-free-markets/ : “Black market” as commonly understood is a problematic term, since it encompasses both harmless things that governments ban (the cannabis trade, for instance) in most places, as well as harmful things that governments also ban (murder for hire, for example). I personally favor the market analysis given by agorist theory, which breaks down things along two axes: - White market: State-approved, moral (i.e. non-rights-violating) (e.g. on-the-books employment)
- Gray market: Banned unless done in state-approved manner, moral (e.g. off-the-books trade)
- Black market: State ban, moral (e.g. drugs)
- Red market: State ban, immoral (e.g. murder for hire)
- Pink market: State-approved (and largely state-conducted), immoral (e.g. taxation, conscription, compulsory education)
Visual illustration on slide 7 of a powerpoint I made for a presentation to a libertarian meeting this summer at http://www.nostate.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/What-Sort-of-Libertarian-Are-You1.ppt (reproduced for readers of this blog below).  Why is the "Red Market" included in the chart that the state allows it as long as regulations are followed? |
|
|
|
Sounds like the IMF are turning can kicking into a science. God help future generations if this whole damn mess doesn't collapse under its own weight :/
The IMF's proposal is counter intuitive. Even if extending the maturity dates of bonds does not trigger a "credit event" for credit ratings purposes and/or credit covenant purposes it would still change the NPV of the underlying bonds, making the bonds worth less to investors. |
|
|
|
I think 50 to 100k is possible in the far away future if a lot of things come together
1m is just a ridiculous number, far too abstract almost
Just because it seems "ridiculous" does not mean it isn't possible.  Many people thought $1000 a coin was a ridiculous price and it would never get there. Why don't you look at it this way. Once all the BTC is mined there will be 21,000,000 BTC in circulation. If one BTC is worth $1 then the market cap of bitcoin would be $21 million If one BTC is worth $100 then the market cap of bitcoin would be $2.1 Billion If one BTC is worth $1,000 then the market cap of bitcoin would be $210 Billion If one BTC is worth $100,000 then the market cap of bitcoin would be $21 trillion If one BTC is worth $1,000,000 then the market cap of bitcoin would be $210 Trillion. As of 2012 the GDP of the US was ~15 trillion dollars and the GDP of the world was ~46 Trillion Does it still seem plausible for bitcoin to reach $1,000,000? |
|
|
|
The private key is uncrackable for now. Who know if this is true 10 years down the road.
If technology was progressing to the point where it was feasible for a private key to be cracked, couldn't the devs just upgrade the encryption? Firstly , you cannot 'crack' a single private key , you just need to find all the private keys in the entirety of Bitcoin. Secondly , it's not possible that it will be cracked , by any force in our universe.
So how can we be that sure about it being impossible to crack?  The amount of energy that would need to be used by the amount of computing power necessary to crack a private key is so enormous that it would literally take lifetimes to crack a private key if all of the sun's energy were captuted If we could walk to the Moon Sun, it would also take the lifetimes of many generations to get there (let's assume for a moment that we have an interest of getting there). That is what people assume. We can progress at exponential rate if we put our mind into it. Walking on the Sun could be done if we set our mind into it. We are still a very long ways away from being able to potentially accomplish the possibility of cracking a private key. It is much easier to use social engineering to steal coins as evidenced by the number of thefts and hacks that in some part used social engineering. Could someone enlighten me on the "speed of light" part? Is there any amazing new discovery happened very recently? There is a maximum amount of energy that can be used on earth (the amount of energy that the sun emits. If you were able to use all of the energy that the sun emits then it would still take several lifetimes in order to crack a private key using the most efficient miners that is possible. |
|
|
|
A stock market crash right now wouldn't affect too much bitcoin. There's still not enough infrastructure/awareness to allow stock traders to quickly move to cryptos.
However, if it happens in a year or so, the scenario might be completely different and cause a major buy in into btc.
Yes, there needs to be an easy way to sell stocks and buy bitcoin (or a proxy thereof) on the same platform. If/when a bitcoin ETF becomes tradable, it will then be possible for average investors to buy into bitcoin easily. The ETF will also likely increase public awareness of bitcoin, causing more people to adopt bitcoin. Probably true, but direct investment will have a much larger effect on bitcoin price than adoption. Additionally, a bitcoin ETF would grant access to a lot more capital as people could then invest with 401ks and other retirement savings. A ETF would not be available in most workers' 401(k) accounts as the investment choices are limited by the plan administrator of the accounts. I would be very interested to see how fungible a BTC EFT is compared to bitcoin. That is how easy it would be to go from a share in the ETF to bitcoin. Really? Plan administrators restrict the ETFs you can buy in a 401(k)? I didn't know that as my retirement plan only allows investment in mutual funds. Maybe I was thinking of IRAs. In any case, thanks for pointing that out. You can't actually trade ETFs with a 401k the same way that you can trade them in a normal brokerage account, but you can hold some ETfs if the plan allows it. You are correct to say that you can hold any ETF in an IRA (as long as it trades on a major exchange) but the value of funds in IRAs is much less then what is held in 401(k)s Maybe once enough people invest in bitcoin in the "mainstream" world then more large, early adopters will sell their holdings, further diversifying the holders of bitcoin in circulation |
|
|
|
|
As long as bitcoin does not become the uniform measure of how things are priced then economies will be safe from the dangers of deflation.
Up until the point that all 21 million BTC are mined, bitcoin will technically be inflationary because more bitcoin will be in circulation then the previous day. The reason why people call bitcoin deflationary today is because it is expected that the price of bitcoin will increase over time, which has the same effect as deflation (one dollar tomorrow buys more goods/services tomorrow then it does today)
|
|
|
|
This is coming to a bank near everyone someday.
At first there will be delays and hopefully they will be able to get printed cash to fill the demand for deposits of their customers.
Get ready everyone.
Not likely to happen in the US with FDIC insuring peoples accounts...The government would just print the money and cover the shortages....Whether its the bank creating money or the government creating money it doesn't matter, they are all intertwined and in cahoots with each other to keep their 'fractional reserve' banking scam alive and kicking... The FDIC has 50 billion dollars - probably in the form of bank deposits. It's a joke. The implicit guarantee from the government is what you have to rely on. The FDIC does not need more then that much. Many banks have failed over the past several years and the FDIC was able to make deposit-holders whole. Most banks that fail are very small with only a few billion in deposits at most. Yes FDIC is sufficient when a small local bank out in the wilderness goes bust. That's exactly what I said. Even though the FDIC has the guarantee of the federal government, it is suppose to be self sufficient, that is that the premiums collected by the FDIC from the banks should cover any losses from failed banks. |
|
|
|
I like satoshi now too. Everything else is just confusing. It took awhile but it is a lot easier to keep track of now, especially as the new unit people keep advocating for us all to use keeps changing. Forget it, just use satoshi, feel rich!
It makes sense to use Satoshi as long as it is not more then 100 satoshi, otherwise you should just use BTC and use decimal places to the right. |
|
|
|
There's always this spectre of 'regulation' hanging over bitcoin. If the US, or Japan or another major country decided to regulate bitcoin, what would we expect to see exactly? How do you think they would approach it? What sort of impact would you think it would have on bitcoin, either positive or negative?
People need to get over their fear of regulation. People won't even realise the regulation. It'll simply bee that people have to start paying taxes on bitcoin purchases or trades into fiat etc. Regulators need to fear the people. Any bit coin specific regulation would just be government trying to get it's finger into the pie. Bit coin does not need permission. A small amount of regulation can be healthy for any industry. For example if regulators were to require that exchanges periodically audit their holdings of coins they hold for their customers then the Gox fiasco could never have happened (assuming what they have claimed is true) |
|
|
|
|
Why don't you simply have your paycheck direct deposited into your account at an exchange and have the exchange automatically buy bitcoin whenever they receive a deposit?
|
|
|
|
It would obviously harm Bitcoin's reputation, but it is only a matter of time before it happens
no .. it will not damage the reputation of bitcoin. although it would be a scam business will, which is blamed for his business. bitcoin there only as a means of payment. Unlike other businesses that use real money. although the business will be a scam, but it will not damage the reputation of the money What you write makes sense in theory. But the reality is that the media will twist the story to make bitcoin look bad Media also created problem with Bitcoin's reputation for the fall of Mt. Gox. So stop creating exchanges ? Moreover, get out of the shell and know MLMs are NOT SCAM. Ponzi is SCAM where they claim 120%-130% return. Multi million dollar businesses like Amoy to TupperWare run on MLM model. U need to have a proper business model to employ MLM. MLM is just a marketing strategy. Ponzi schemes do not need to offer any specific rate of return for them to be a scam. The reason the MLM is often associated with Ponzis is because they act in very similar ways. Regardless most MLM "programs" are only profitable when you take into consideration the amount of time you put into them for the very early adopters. |
|
|
|
No the price of the ETF would trade higher then the underlying amount of bitcoin held. As a result the APs would have an incentive to purchase more bitcoin on exchanges, convert the bitcoin to shares of COIN and sell the ETF in the market, causing the spread between BTC and COIN to decrease; this process would be repeated until the spread would not be worth the risk for the AP
3 scenario's 1) as quote above says selling higher to incentivize fun managers ("authorized participants") to buy more baskets 2) price mirrors bitcoin average price/5 because shares are backed by bitcoin no one would pay alot more 3) prices are below once you take into account fee's i think that share prices will be close to a 5th of a btc (5shares=btc equivelent remember). and fund managers ("authorised participants") dont care* if bitcoin goes to $5000 or $50. because they are getting a set commission per trade. much like how btc-e, bitstamp, etc dont care as they are making 0.2% for from the buyer and the seller. so these fund managers controlling their basket of 50,000 shares could make alot of money just buy having a basket that kept swapping between clients hands.. without any hard work at all. for instance.. take bitcoin exchanges.. if btc-e have a trade volume of 10,000 coins a day they make 0.4% per trade (0.2 buyer 0.2 from seller). just by having the 10,000 fly through different peoples hands btc-e makes 40btc profit per day. the basket managers if their 50,000 shares were to change hands per day, they are making alot of money doing nothing but sitting there watching the screen fill up with transaction fee's. if the fe was 1%, they can simply buy another basket in 100 days without even lifting a finger. and if the share price sticks to roughly bitcoin price, then the managers get a known daily income. yes we will se spikes that will incentivize managers to buy more coins to add more baskets, which would raise true bitcoins up to mirror the winkledex again *well they do care because 1% of $5000 is better then 1% of $50.. but thats another level im not above the point im making Over the long run the price of COIN will mirror the price of BTC/5, if it deviates too much then the APs will step in and perform an arbitrage trade. If it deviates a little bit then traders on exchanges will see the difference, anticipate trades from APs and buy/sell on the exchange in order to close the gap. Over the loan run an ETF should improve liquidity in the bitcoin market. |
|
|
|
The crypto world would be a better place if we worked together. It is odd that both sides here (Bitcoin and Litecoin) are not interested in working together to do this.
I found it pretty disturbing most people in the Litecoin community didn't want to do it. I guess it's gonna take a $0.50 Litecoin before they will do anything. One of their biggest slogans right now is "we help with Bitcoin development", but IMO if they truly wanted to help Bitcoin then they would be more open to implementing this.
Dude, Litecoin is already freaking dead.It has had no updates/features/anything added by it's developer
It has an extreme lack of community, Dogecoin's puts it to shame
It has no first mover status
It has no adoption by any major organizations/companies at all
Leave that dead coin alone please. No one wants to affiliate a shit alt-coin like Litecoin, with Bitcoin. Shut up already bro. Anyone that cares knows your opinion after you repeated it the first 500 times. This thread is about securing Bitcoin and saving Litecoin. Well if the only viable use for LTC is to secure BTC then it's value would likely be near zero. If it's value is near zero then it's miners would have little incentive to continue to mine for the network. |
|
|
|
Why are most of the alt scrypt PoW coins dropping despite the production costs? Aren't the ASIC's producing coins much more efficient than the inefficient graphic cards? Miners can sell at a much lower price. It would not be correct to say the ASICs are producing coins more efficiently. The Bitcoin protocol is setup so that the network can generate, on average one block per 10 minute period. It would be more appropriate to say that ASICs can make SHA-256 calculations more efficiently then what CPUs and GPUs can. |
|
|
|
You don't need asics at all technically speaking. All of the gpu and cpu that are deployed on mining altcoins can be used to donate to science projects such as Boinc and folding proteins etc.. The whole article is about he blockchain tech. If GPU can do it, I am sure asic can be made to do these kinds of computations. I think as the Bitcoin popularity rises more and more people are gonna start to ask if all the power mining is sucking from the electricity grid can be applied somewhere really useful. I think it is only a matter of time. 1) bitcoins proof of work does not do protein folding. that would be probably a job of a protein folding altcoin, thats protocol is different then bitcoin.
2) bitcoins proof of work does not do prime numbers.. thats the job of an altcoin called primecoin
In theory ASICs could do this kind of work. I would doubt that bitcoin ASICs could do either of these as they are programmed to do a calculation to find a hash under a certain number, but the same manufacturers could make different ASICs to solve these kinds of problems. ASICs used to mine bitcoin are only able to make SHA256 calculations. I am not sure if either of these applications would need these kinds of calculations done. What would be the incentive to donate this processing power to these causes? I would assume that the companies that are working on these problems are doing to with the hope of one day somehow being able to find the solution and profit off of it. |
|
|
|
|
I think that arguing about if it is appropriate to say that Bitcoin is a "virtual currency" is a lot like arguing what the definition of "is" is.
It is considered virtual because it only "exists" on the internet (blockchain) and cannot be touched. The term currency is used loosely to mean that it can be used to purchase things.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
