I thought that after so many months into bitcoin you would have learnt something about the markets: price is driven by price action. That's why when BTC goes up for a while the growth becomes exponential (and more so when ATH is broken), and also why the lower it goes the bigger are the dumps.

People is emotional, and the amount of euphoria during a mania phase is directly proportional to the level of fear just before the capitulation.

No, it is not dead. Or is the dollar dead because of the HSBC mouney laundering fiasco, etc?

Capa caída? La apreciación del BTC en los últimos 15/16 meses ha sido brutal, lo mismo la de NXT desde que se hizo la "IPO". En mi opinión $400 es un buen precio para acumular unos cuantos BTCs más, mientras que todo lo que estuviera alrededor de 0.0001 era definitivamente el momento para vender NXT y una fuerte bajada era de esperar, pero dada la apreciación brutal de ambas monedas en los últimos meses no diría que están "de capa caída". Nada puede subir al infinito y en linea recta.

FYI:

Tested 0.91-beta on OSX 10.9.2

Beautiful update, only quirk is that it seems that one of the few bugs I had with 0.90-beta, which was Armory crashing after the system went on sleep and QT out of sync is still not solved... Now it doesn't crash completely, it just freezes and I have to force it to close.

One of the updates I consider more important is the "safe download" option: I have to admit that downloading a new version from the webpage and verifying the files manually had me a little nervous, I feel much more comfortable by having a trusted and automatic way to download updates.

It has. History repeats. Posts like yours just demonstrate that we already hit the bottom of the last bubble ($400ish) and that the way down is limited.

Those who bought at the near-top without a clear vision on fundamentals usually get over sentimental and bitter and sell at the near-bottom.

Definitely. I'm buying too. Market sentiment is very bottom-ish.

And OP: you bought close to the top. I'm sure you didn't expect BTC to go just up forever, and that by analizing past history you know it is prone to boom and bust cycles. Just hold.

Its been feeling kinda bottomish to me for the last days... I confess I bought more. We might go lower, but I cannot see bitcoin retesting $266 or lower at this stage.

It surely looks like the next couple of bubbles will be massive. Till now only a little minority of early adopters wrapped their heads around bitcoin and managed to buy some coins, but if it becomes easier for the masses to buy in the following mania phase will take the price to the stars and beyond.

The best advice is cristal clear for me: if you can afford it, forget about asking for a mortgage and buy the house cash. I know this is not the "American style", but why should you pay interests and live in debt if you have enough BTC to convert them to fiat and pay for the house immediately and in full?

I assume you need and like that house and thus it will be a good purchase regardless of what the BTC exchange rate will do after you bought it. You will sleep better without being in debt and your bank will have to stfu.

Finally, I will probably also change bank... Just because I don't like the attitude you described.

This is the oldest trick, pulled out by all scammers since the very first bitcoin scam: the MyBitcoin eWallet.

1) Stop withdrawals
2) Take the service down and announce it was hacked and all the bitcoins are gone
3) Rage spreads amongs customers, later on despair takes over and finally customers settle in the acceptance phase
4) Suddenly announce that a portion of the coins were recovered (in the case of MyBitcoin, 49%; in the case of MtGox, 25%)
5) Customers are happily surprised as they thought it was all gone, and gladly accept the partial refund
6) Minimize legal actions & profit.

(wash, rinse and repeat)

The fact is that you tried to sell a useless program that simply did not work, while promoting it with fake arguments that could be explained only by a) a total lack of understanding of basic cryptography, or b) malice.

Now please prove you can generate multiple valid signatures for the messages + public keys posted above.

Just sign a message with a btc address, and post message + signature + public key (the "address") - just as Automatic did.

Anarchists are not necessarily against free markets. They are for self organization, self management and for the workers themselves owning the means of productions, but many support the idea of workers federations, cooperatives and individuals interacting in free markets. That's for example Proudhons and also Bakunins idea, while only a minority of Anarchists were against private ownership of the fruits of one's Labour and thus consider free markets unnecessary - for example Kropotkin supported the idea of the socialization of works Labour too, as he considered it the most efficient way to distribute wealth - and that's why he is considered as an exponent of a minority of anarcho-communists.

There's also a minority (but very relevant in theAnAnglo Saxon world) influenced by Rothbard that is not even against the private ownership of the means of production, but I won't even call them Anarchists at all.

Yours is a gross oversimplification at best. You are ignoring, among other things, that in the 1930s the biggest and more relevant trade-union in Europe was the Confederacion General del Trabajo (CNT), with more than 1.000.000 affiliates in the mid-1930s, and together with the FAI it was precisely the forefront against the fascist counter-revolution. The CNT-FAI was able to control a territory (Aragón and part of Catalonia) for 8 years and installed an anarchist society which did not tend toward fascism at all, until it was crushed precisely by the army of Francisco Franco together with the help of the Russian KPSS.

Furthermore, Italy was not "broadly syndicalist" and thus "it tended to fascism". Trade-unions had a minor relevance in Italy in the first 20 years of the Century, and when fascism raised strongly as an opposition to the Russian revolution of 1917 its first actions consisted in beating up precisely trade-unions members. Trade-unions gradually lost any relevance until 1923, when Mussolini established a single, vertical trade-union that made "unnecessary" those founded by the workers themselves. The fascist trade-union in Italy was a joke as it didn't represent the workers but the fascist party itself, and it was a totally vertical organization, which as you might understand is completely opposed to the anarchists organizations which are always horizontal.

Finally, it should be added the huge impact that trade-unionism had in UK, Scandinavia or Australia (just to name a few territories), which never gravitaded towards fascism.



While all anarchists are against private property, not all of them are against markets and prices: Proudhon's idea of a working economy in an anarchist society was mutualism, in which free market is a fundamental piece. In any case and besides Mises theories, the hard cold fact is that anarchism was tested empyrically only once (Aragón 1930-1938), and it was a successful experience. It should be noted nevertheless that the duration of such community was short lived (only 8 years) and its size was relatively small (less than 100k individuals living in it).

On the contrary, I'd say that the type of society the "an-caps" are looking for has been thoroughly tested in the past: the middle ages, with their lack of states or nations but the presence of private property (established by force, as usual), seems a good test-case for the "anarcho-capitalist" society. In fact, Rothbardian's like to point out how prosperous Medieval Iceland was, and they consider it as an example of the ideal society. I would add that while Medieval Iceland was quite peaceful for middle ages standards, it remains the fact that it was a hugely unbalanced society were the majority of poor had to work for the minority of rich, and where justice or safety was available only to those able to pay for it (a minority).

There are strong economic arguments against your statement. The distinction about personal and private property is clear: the former is non-productive, the latter is productive property.

Furthermore, anarcho-syndicalism has been empyrically tested just once: in Aragón, Spain, from 1930 to 1938. It was a peaceful, self-managed, classless and cashless, stateless society that succeeded until the spanish fascists and the russian communists joined forces to crush it, as a successful anarchist society was a huge threat to their own interests in Europe (anarchists were obviously strongly opposed to communism and its hierarchical structures). Finally, anarcho-syndicalism "inevitably leading to statism and dictatorship" is complete nonsense, being its core principles "no state, no God, no ruler". How feasible would be such anarchist society is yet to be seen, but as stated earlier the *only* empyrical experience in that sense (Israel Kibbutz's are too small to serve as an example) indicates that it could work quite well.

In very basic terms: Coercive hierarchical structures are inherent to capitalism. Individuals who do not own any means of production are forced to sell their labor as a condition for survival to those who do own means of production, triggering a "wage slavery" mechanism. You need to employ your time as your employer wants, otherwise you might starve.

As a side note, capitalism is based on a competitivity principle which is opposed to the "mutual aid" principle professed by anarchists (Kropotkin).

To make a long story short, anarchist thinkers share Marx's view on capitalism, and about this specific (coercion) point:

All the anarchism founders were anti-capitalists - in fact anarchism was born precisely as a reaction to the rise of capitalism in the first half of 1800. On the contrary, the vast majority of "US libertarians" are totally pro-capitalism and simply ignore the work of the founders of anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin et al.), while tending to glorify Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" which, by the way, is pure and simply a ridiculous oxymoron.

It should also be said that anarchists were against "private property", but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An anarchist would never accept any ruler/boss, regardless of that ruler/boss being "public" (the government) or "private" (the guy paying your wage - "wage slavery" is a no-no in anarchism). In fact, one of the core principle sof anarchism is workers themselves controlling the product of their labor and self-managing factories, farms, etc. If you are working a piece of land, then you own it, and nobody can decide for you what to do with the fruit of your work.

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".

Bitcoin is pseudoanonymous: as soon as someone links one of your addresses to you (because you made a payment to him, or because a database of a service such as Gox is leaked) then he can learn your total BTC balance - or at least the total BTC balance of the wallet to which that address belongs - with trivial blockchain analysis.

By mixing your coins you make that task much more difficult, and thus you eliminate yourself from the list of easy targets in a situation as per the Gox database leak.

Said with other words: by not mixing your coins you are revealing your whole balance to the recipient of every transaction you make... And that is an important privacy breach.

That's why everybody should use encryption by default. Its years I'm using the Tor Browser Bundle for +50% of my browsing, basically for everything that is not linked with my real identity (banking stuff and such), and also for my QT instances, Bitmessage, IRC and so on. I also use PGP to sign (and sometimes to also encrypt) important work communications. I may be putting a red target on my back, but I confess I'm not worried about it. If they decide to look into me they will just lose their time as I'm not doing anything illegal, for me end to end encryption and onion routing for standard browsing are just healthy safety procedures that everybody should use. If I'd be doing something illegal, which I'm not, I would use Tor/encryption in a very different way: firstly and foremost I would have a dedicated machine in which I would run throwaway VM instances connecting through chained VPNs with very strict firewall rules, with Tor at the very end of such chain - and I would obviously never connect for such activities from any network used also for my non-illegal activity. I'd say that is just common sense - and wildly offtopic: the OP is about using easy procedures to avoid being an easy target for script kiddies and/or meatspace criminals targeting "bitcoin users" as a whole.

Not at all. Only a minority of Gox customers had still positive balances, the majority had already left Gox for good in the past, I'd say that an "orderly stampede" started to happen after the many red flags that were blatantly obvious since at least April, 2013 - just check the leaked info, the accounts with positive balances are just a fraction of the total Gox userbase.