I feel resistance when people claim this is just a correction because the crash from 266 to 50 over 2 days, cannot be called a correction. Such price move is called a crash. And since then it's been lower high's, which also corresponds with a crash. (where do you get the higher highs from? 266/160/150/...) The lower highs trend was broken since last week: 266 - 166 - 150 - 125 - 134 (now) The higher lows were as follows: 50 - 79 - 98 - 103 Broken I would not agree with yet as you can simply remove the 125: 266 -166 -150 -134 (now) The higher lows is true though. So I would agree it's not clear cut. However, this forum is still very bullish. Where are the doubts? There is plenty of doubt among those who are new to bitcoin, or have even just heard about it but aren't sure about it. You're in an echo chamber that will always be bullish on bitcoin. Duh. |
|
|
|
So make these SV and WS speculators pay dearly, as in like $1000's per bitcoin, for any bitcoins they get. Do not let them take any sizable positions cheaply. Be the beneficiary of the wealth transfer.
Maybe next time.  haha, I failed to see that this thread started in April Indeed, NEXT TIME  It's really great that we can go back in time with this forum. I can't remember having been part of a speculative community where this was the case. Clearly these people were overly bullish. Price had hit $140 and they start saying don't sell until $1000. None of these people took the money of some rich newcomers that overpaid for the coin... When bears have been proven wrong time and time again, are laughed at, ignored, is exactly the time when they have the most value. Price is still almost 140.... I wouldn't call holding at 140 a bad move just yet. |
|
|
|
How do you ensure that each bitbuck on the chain is actually backed by a dollar?
Yeah that's the problem. Colored coins might be the solution. I'm still reading the OT + BM thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=212490.120) with great interest. Colored coins is simply marking a particular satoshi (or group of satoshis) as representing something else so that ownership of that asset can be transferred. You still have to trust the issuer of the asset that they actually have what they claim they have. |
|
|
|
Wow, I really like this idea!
Having a cryptocurrency pegged to the USD or something will allow anyone to convert it to BTC easily.
The only problem is adoption. This new cryptocurrency (say, BitBucks) will actually solve the problem, but only if everyone accepts it. If everyone in the world accepted BitBucks, then it would be easy to convert between fiat and BTC! If no one accepts it, then no one will want to convert to BitBucks because its useless.
So you have the same problem as Bitcoin where the market is determining its value, yet we want to peg the value of BitBucks to the USD.
Just thinking out aloud here...
How do you ensure that each bitbuck on the chain is actually backed by a dollar? |
|
|
|
This is the best thread so far - and it does highlight the big problem is how to marry fiat with crypto.
I wonder if the answer is to have a p2p version of localbitcoins?
At the moment, I am sending my fiat, from my bank account to another bank to an exchange which creates a voucher, which I can use to buy crypto. Anyone else can sell their crypto for a voucher which the exchange can send to their bank, who send it to your bank and then you can spend it as fiat.
We need a p2p exchange, where a fiat voucher can be converted into local fiat.
Bitcoin already has miners, is it time it also had bankers?
What if there was a local Jane or Harry who would convert digital coins (and we know how to create digital coins by today!) into a fixed rate of fiat and the other way around for a fixed fee?
Lets say an alt coin was created that could be mined and had a value of 0.1c and couldn't be worth any more. Lets assume 200 bn were mined! Actually - why not use DEVCOINS? They would finally have a real use! If these were used as a direct replacement for fiat, in a localbitcoin model, with a charge of .01% per transaction, you would then have a digital fiat voucher that could be used on the exchange, as described above.
You would also have got around the problems currently caused by the regulations of bank transfers etc because the sums would be small and local and no change in value means no speculation is possible. Might still have a problem with money laundering laws, but that's something that could be dealt with on a local basis.
Any feedback to that?
That's just it. The fiat side has to be solved on a local basis because if you don't follow the local laws you risk having your assets seized. |
|
|
|
* Solution for the Problem with interfacing into the legacy banking system: *
We simply create our own banking system outside of the legacy banking system bypassing old banks all together.
We as individuals create out own mini-p2p-banks with a small or large safe at home to store cash/silver/gold/whatever.
We build trust by having trusted individuals inspect/audit the mini-banks cash holdings and security on a regular basis.
Each mini-p2p-bank builds security and trust scores as independent private trusted auditors inspect their "banks".
It would be smart to store your money at different banks to protect your wealth against a bank crash.
The mini-p2p-banks handle money transports between themselves.
And then mini-banks have their assets seized by the feds for violating regulations. |
|
|
|
Unless you can solve the issue of reversibility that exists with all digital fiat transfer mechanisms, as well as a solution to the escrow issue addressed above for cryptocurrencies, I remain unconvinced. |
|
|
|
Mary in the OP's scenario can not be trusted. Who will hold her accountable?
2-of-3 transactions 1. I make a transaction to send btc to an address defined by three public keys. You hold one private key, I hold one private key, and Mary holds the last private key. It takes two of these three keys to sign a transaction sending these coins. 2. You make a transaction to send ltc to an address similarly. 3. We each make our transactions spending the funds to our own private address. We sign this transaction with our key and then ask our trading partner to sign it, or the escrow can sign it. 4. If you don't pay to your assigned address before a timelimit, the escrow and I can send my funds back to me. Yeah its easy to implement with cryptocurrencies, but what about fiat? Bank transactions aren't as transparent as LTC or BTC. Right. Fiat is out if we want true decentralization without physical meetups. |
|
|
|
Mary in the OP's scenario can not be trusted. Who will hold her accountable?
2-of-3 transactions 1. I make a transaction to send btc to an address defined by three public keys. You hold one private key, I hold one private key, and Mary holds the last private key. It takes two of these three keys to sign a transaction sending these coins. 2. You make a transaction to send ltc to an address similarly. 3. We each make our transactions spending the funds to our own private address. We sign this transaction with our key and then ask our trading partner to sign it, or the escrow can sign it. 4. If you don't pay to your assigned address before a timelimit, the escrow and I can send my funds back to me. |
|
|
|
|
Or are you saying we do two 2-of-3 transactions, one for each currency, with me, you, and escrow each as a key.
That would make sense.
|
|
|
|
If I want to trade with you, how does both of us handing our money to the same stranger help? So you can't screw me, and I can't screw you. (By either not sending your half or by creating software to steal it more sneakily.) To add something constructive, perhaps a m-of-n escrow would work. You would still have the issue of ensuring the escrow holders don't collude to cheat you, but it might work okay if you and your trading partner take turns randomly choosing escrow providers. Escrow is the easy part in the plan above. Don't fix what ain't broken. TLDR: Do you suggest to separate pure crypto trading from FIAT-crypto trading? No. Reed Moar. But he can still screw us..... he now has both of our funds. That's what's broken. |
|
|
|
- 5. Have three-user (trustless) trading, so a non-interested 3rd party always hosts the trade between the buyer and seller. (And should provide Escrow too!)
If I want to trade with you, how does both of us handing our money to the same stranger help? Edit: To add something constructive, perhaps a m-of-n escrow would work. You would still have the issue of ensuring the escrow holders don't collude to cheat you, but it might work okay if you and your trading partner take turns randomly choosing escrow providers. |
|
|
|
|
Governments are shooting themselves in the foot when they clamp down on bitcoin exchanges.
|
|
|
|
I'd accept 4BTC to say ripple is a scam.
I won't say it's a scam... just that it is a scammer's paradise. |
|
|
|
Gentlemen, you can't fight here, this is the wall movement tracker hardcore.
 |
|
|
|
You seem to be having a nice conversation with yourself. Please post louder, I can't hear you:  |
|
|
|
I understood your argument, and I agree with it, but my comment is tangential to it. I only took issue with they way you presented guns as only useful for committing crime. Obviously, there is no one thing that will save you in a SHTF situation besides a hardworking and loving community to live in. Coming from a rural setting, the shit hitting the fan doesn't really worry me much. We plant a little more and bump up our livestock numbers. It's the urban people who freak out when they consider such a situation and then go looking for "saviours".
Point taken. I think the difference in my perspective may simply have to do with my diet and my location. I don't consume meat and I live in a rural area in a tropical climate where food is grown year-round, so guns/ammo for purposes of food production is of no concern to me. In my personal situation, the only reason I'd have a gun is for self-defense. However I'll concede that it is a little short-sighted to present the "economic demand" for guns in that light, considering that there are so many more perspectives I was not considering. Also, for anyone interested: Professor Antal E. Fekete interview regarding gold backwardation, May 15, 2013. http://professorfekete.com/articles%5CAEFTheDailyBellinterview2013.pdf A lot of "interesting" foods for thought in there. There we go.... I'm from WV, so we only have about 4-6 months of weather warm enough to grow crops outdoors. I actually used to be vegetarian as well, then I ate a hamburger and I was not longer cold all the time  . I kid, but not being able to stay warm was a real problem with that diet in this climate. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I can only take so many YEARS of bitching and moaning about the same shit before I get sarcastic. You've only had to put up with it for 3 months, so you probably have some patience left. If he had added anything new, I wouldn't complain, but every point he brought up has been beat to death.
Apology not accepted. You should learn to control your nerd rage. It's offensive. The fact the lag continues after 3 years does open up new questions. It's clearly a fixable problem given the money they have. Why they won't bring in outside help to fix it is troubling. There is a cool feature called ignore. There's also a cool feature called, "keep scrolling". Your mouse probably already has it. If it doesn't, they're pretty cheap. Look for the newfangled "scroll wheel". It's insane. It lets you scroll through the page really quickly. Skipping any shit you don't feel like reading. Crazy huh? Next time you get REALLY REALLY upset at a post, take a time out. Here's 10 things you can try to make life on the internet a lot easier. Mayo Clinic - Anger management: 10 tips to tame your temperLol... It wasn't an apology to you. BitcoinAshley is actually a thoughtful member of the community. You should learn to be nice. You're offensive. Being an asshole doesn't help anybody. Anyway, congratulations, after 3 years on this board, you are the first one to make it on my ignore list. |
|
|
|
LOL... when did I comment on programming or math in this thread? I agree that MtGox is crap, but complaining about it doesn't do any good.
Ad hominems don't make you right, and when they are baseless, they hurt your credibility.
Ad hominems? What the fuck. From the guy throwing out the "let's see you do better" logical fallacy. But wait, you agree with me. Do you even know what ad hominem means? I already know I'm right (which you agree with), I'm just calling you out because it's baffling anyone would object to discussion of extremely concerning flaws in the trading engine and why after 3 years they refuse to address it despite the fact they have plenty of money. It had nothing to do with my argument, MtGox is indefensible, that's a given. Your programming knowledge comes into question when you defend MtGoxs trading engine. "Where's your exchange" implies it's harder then it looks, I doubt you could do better, and they're not as awful as you're saying. Which is why I thought you were 6 years old (and/or retarded). It's hardly baseless, your reply does make me think you're autistic. Sorry. Do you know what ad hominem means? An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.
Instead of addressing the topic, you called me retarded  . Also, I never defended the MtGox trade engine. It is harder than it looks, but mostly from a regulatory standpoint. I agree their system is crap and could easily be improved upon. But, instead of finding out the truth you make assumptions about me that lead you to believe I am of low intelligence. I'm just tired of hearing the same shit repeated over and over. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
