|
Wow, ovis, what hardware do you have?
|
|
|
|
wow... you have spent too much time on this thread Jorge... you are sounding more and more like a troll lunatic/Bitcointalk.org member/one of us than an academic that anyone would take seriously, shame for you.
The language may be a failed attempt to be funny but the opinion is quite serious. What we saw since May/20 was a sudden rise from ~440$ to ~640 that no one can (or wants to) explain, then seven weeks of wandering around 600$, then a sudden drop back to ~470, that no one can (or wants to) explain either. Why is it absurd to consider all that as a single event? I have proposed a partial explanation: starting May/20, a few people got wind of something that made them buy all they could. Now those people changed their minds, and dumped everything back. So the price got back to where it was. Is this so much sillier than the narwhals(*) that people have been discussing here? (*) a large sea mammal reputed to be a cross between a whale and a unicorn. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but a Coindesk article from a few days ago ( http://www.coindesk.com/margin-trading-crash-price-bitcoin/) gave a good hypothesis: margin trading. A lot of people borrowed money on margin to buy at the end of May, which led to the rally. Now all of those trades are being undone as people's positions are being liquidated due to margin calls. That seems very plausible. I just wish someone had made light of that (prominently) in June. |
|
|
|
For every buyer, there is a seller. So saying there is a lot of buying doesn't really mean much since there is a somewhat equal side of seller.
What matters is the volume relative to price movement. The reason the OP's observation is a good one is that a comparison is being made between the volume when price rose in May vs. the recent volume during which the price has retraced most of that rally. If everything were perfectly the same and balanced, then the volume on the decline should equal the volume on the rally. So looking at the difference can give you some insight on general sentiment. The fact that recent volume has been much larger suggests that more people are willing to buy. If there weren't, then the price would have dropped a lot more than it has. This bodes well for price once the selling subsides. This, of course, is just looking at the technicals. Fundamentals can step in and trump those at any time. Actually, wait a minute. I wasn't paying enough attention to the date ranges. What I said would have been true if May 16-31 were compared with Aug 1-15. But May 1-15 the price hardly moved--it hung out right around 450. |
|
|
|
For every buyer, there is a seller. So saying there is a lot of buying doesn't really mean much since there is a somewhat equal side of seller.
What matters is the volume relative to price movement. The reason the OP's observation is a good one is that a comparison is being made between the volume when price rose in May vs. the recent volume during which the price has retraced most of that rally. If everything were perfectly the same and balanced, then the volume on the decline should equal the volume on the rally. So looking at the difference can give you some insight on general sentiment. The fact that recent volume has been much larger suggests that more people are willing to buy. If there weren't, then the price would have dropped a lot more than it has. This bodes well for price once the selling subsides. This, of course, is just looking at the technicals. Fundamentals can step in and trump those at any time. |
|
|
|
When a consumer pays in bitcoin he will have had to had purchased the bitcoin somehow in the past. It would not be unusual for someone to buy more bitcoin then what they spend so the net effect would be that more bitcoin would be purchased.
I agree that people may buy a little extra bitcoin than they need for a particular transaction, which would have a slightly positive effect on price. If they hold that bitcoin for any length of time, that may also help a little. But said bitcoin could also come from mining, which would have a net negative effect on price. |
|
|
|
I am sceptical of anything that ends with "ism" as in socialism,communism,capitalism,facism,totatilarism....lets just have a democracy with social justice for all without the will of one dictating the will of many and vice versa.Is there a system called commonsense?Over regulating and making too many ridiculous laws and overjealous political correctness lead down the slippery slope to tyranny.
On the surface this sounds great. It would be nice not to have so many stupid and inefficient laws and methods for doing things. The problem is that too many people have different definitions for different things. And there are a lot of people that (at least seem to) lack commonsense. If you don't spell things out precisely, someone will figure out how to take advantage of it. I think that the first and perhaps most important prerequisite for something like this to work is that everyone would have to care about other people as much as they do themselves, and they'd need to be willing to sacrifice for them. |
|
|
|
If Internet has shut down, the whole world will affect not only bitcoin. So I think living without the Internet nowadays is impossible to happened.
Yes, it's possible if some authority decide to shut down Internet but hope this will never happen. There was an editorial in the WSJ today that highlighted the thread of a nuke being detonated over North America. It said that the EMP would do serious damage to the entire country. I would argue that this would be the only real way to shut down the internet and/or "ban" bitcoin. It's not that complicated. Remember that woman in Georgia that cut a few cables and two countries were left offline for two days? The internet is just a bunch of computers hooked with cables , cut 4 or 5 of the most important ones and chaos will rule. http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internetWhat's even more scary is that the power grid is pretty similar. There are only a few places through which a lot of the electricity passes (at least in the US). Although, I would imagine that a lot of places could still get at least some power from local power plants. I'm not sure how all of that is set up. |
|
|
|
maybe a double reduction of coins? from 100 billion SPN to 50 , and then again to 10...
I'm afraid that the ship has already sailed on that latter reduction. We're almost at block 107,000. The average of the first 30k blocks was somewhat close to the 150k mined per block now (technically it was around 162.5k, but we'll assume 150k for a very rough estimate). So approximately 107,000*150,000 or 16B coins have already been mined. A reduction to maybe 25B might work, but it would have to be implemented very soon. |
|
|
|
Yes, but the universe acts as a unit. We don't exactly know the hows/whys/wheres/whats of magnetism and gravity. They react on the motion of the whole universe both macro-cosmically and micro-cosmically. Does this mean that someday the whole universe will run down and stop, simply because we make electricity? If we knew the answer to that question, we would have the perfect Unified Field Theory as a Law.  We understand electricity, magnetism, and energy pretty well. Over time, energy diffuses from higher concentrations (like stars) to area of lower concentration, and may eventually reach a uniform state. It's like have a pot of hot water in a room. Over time, the pot cools down as the energy diffuses to the rest of the room, and the rest of the room warms up a little bit. Eventually, the "universe" in this example (pot + room) reaches a steady-state in which the energy is even distributed throughout the room (i.e., the temperature of the room and the temperature of the pot are the same). The same kind of thing is happening to the universe as a whole. |
|
|
|
http://cointelegraph.com/news/112278/breaking-bter-hacked-50m-nxt-stolenhe discussion about the hard fork continues. The new version released would only freeze the hacker's account. Which means those funds would still be lost but hacker would not be able to benefit other than the 100 BTC he got by blackmailing Bter. The rest of the blockchain will be rescanned and all transactions besides those coming from the Bter account would still be valid. Another fork could "unfreeze" the account, but that would of course be subject to another round of blockchain voting. I have to say that this is one of the coolest things I've seen with cryptocurrencies: the ability to effectively take back stolen coins from thieves, assuming enough of the network agrees to the plan. I love seeing justice like this. |
|
|
|
"Edmund C. Moy noted governments are accustomed to possessing the ability to arbitrarily and instantaneously inflate their national currencies. Governments bristle at the thought of limited coin supplies or even fixed rates of inflation, so it is unlikely they will be willing to submit themselves to the limitations imposed by cryptocurrency’s algorithmic nature." As they said, this is why it likely wouldn't happen, at least in the form of cryptocurrencies as we know them. Sometimes it sucks that governments can inflate their currencies at will, but it's occasionally a "good" thing (where by "good" I mean the better of two options that are both bad, like printing money vs. default). |
|
|
|
The misconception is that improvement will reduce the total amount of energy used to mine Bitcoin, but the truth is that it will result in an increase in the difficulty. The total amount of energy used to mine Bitcoin depends primarily on the cost of energy and the value of a bitcoin.
But miners don't care about this. They just want to be the first to use the more efficient chips so they can make a profit before the rest of the miners get them and the market renormalizes. |
|
|
|
Do you guys think the price will fall some more? I want to buy when it's at it's lowest. Or should I just buy now?
Sometimes it's better to trust your gut feeling on when to buy, sell or hold. If you feel confident on buying just do it. +1000 K I just bought 20$ worth of capt, hopefully it rises  Great! CAPT Price will most likely rise. I think we should work out some kind of valuation methods. One method I m thinking is to peg to BTC price. 1. BTC can go to maximum of 20-21 million Coins 2. CAPT can go to 100 million coins 3. About 18 million could get destroyed after the 50 days distribution. Total coins will be around 82 Millions. So from the no. of coins side, BTC to CAPT ratio is about 1:4. Why not looks for a 1/4 BTC Price of CAPT by pegging to BTC. Do you understand what it takes to peg one currency to another? You can't just say, "X CAPT will be equivalent to 1 BTC" and expect the market to respect it. If you want a certain ratio to exist, you have to have someone with a LOT of resources constantly monitoring the exchange rate and buying and selling to maintain the desired ratio. If CAPT is actually worth significantly less than the pegged ratio, the person/people maintaing that ratio need to be prepared to lose a LOT of money. |
|
|
|
Unfunded liability such as social security and pension are not counted toward the National debt figure.
The money need to be printed in the coming years will be staggering as baby boomer starting to retire.
One of the biggest problem of most western countries is demographic : aging population with too generous systems, less saving, big government, big taxes This is exactly true. Programs like social security and medicare force people to become dependent on the government while far from enough taxes are collected to pay for these programs. Liberals then will want to increase taxes on the rich aka successful in order to pay for these social programs. But instead of using the money to cover the costs of social programs, the liberals will use most/more then all of the new tax revenue to pay for even more social programs and the cycle will just continue. Programs like SS and Medicare are very important so that everyone has at least some minimum of retirement benefits and medical coverage. You don't want 80-year-olds to have to work because they have nothing. However, you are certainly correct that politicians (not just liberals) don't use tax money the way they should when they get more of it. |
|
|
|
I agree that wars suck, and dollars do fund wars. But how do you know that bitcoin doesn't fund wars, or that it won't in the future? How do you know that people on the other side of the world aren't funding some of the wars going on in the Middle East and Ukraine? Not to mention the potential use for funding terrorist activities...
Well from something I've heard ISIS had looked into using bitcoin, but the issue with Bitcoin is not many people accept it vs accepting state issued currencies. Also if Bitcoin was/is/will be used for funding wars/terrorism it will probably be in the form of a temporary transfer of money, not using it to directly buy, but I can only speculate. Also remember terrorism is a subjective term used by the state to denote violent groups that they don't fund/suppor. Remember the Mujahdeen("freedom fighters"), and the Vietcong("terrorists")? Precious metals I believe are a better way of laundering money than Bitcoin currently as you can open anonymous safe deposit boxes almost anywhere, and Precious metals have certain price stability to them, and more people are willing to exchange fiat for precious metals vs Bitcoin. Bitcoin may not work as well yet, but isn't the eventual goal total adoption? If it reaches that point, accepting it for payment won't be a problem. And whether bitcoin would be used to buy, say, weapons, or whether it would be used to transfer money so terrorists can buy weapons doesn't really matter. Bitcoin would still be a much more convenient way to transfer money than fiat or precious metals. As for defining terrorists, maybe the term is sometimes applied incorrectly, but a terrorist is someone who uses violence to cause terror, usually for some kind of particular goal. If you're detonating bombs in buildings, subways, etc. to scare people, you're a terrorist. It doesn't matter whether you think you're doing it for some noble cause or not. When it's part of a war (or police action or whatever other BS term you want to use for it), it's usually a little different. |
|
|
|
The financial crisis took out a few players (banks / investment banks) in the credit market. The absence of these financial intermediaries would have resulted in lower credit being available to main street. Rates would also have risen, with banks not willing to take on additional risk. QE was supposed to ensure that this did not happen, by making ample liquidity available in the system.
So, in the worst case, QE just didn't work out since there was not much demand for credit from the "main street", but it didn't make it worse either, right? It hasn't made it worse, but its efficacy was low. QE and low interest rates postponed the crisis but it is going to be worse and will probably end up in hyper inflation and wars I really don't see QE and wars being linked, especially since most of the modernized world has engaged in some kind of QE (neither wars fought with military or economic/trade wars). Also the fact that banks are keeping the majority of the money they get from QE as excess reserves at the federal reserve is preventing inflation from getting out of hand. Fiat allows bigger and more expensive wars; QE and low interest rates is a way not to be honest about the situation and to hide the problems for a while; when the problems will come back and be bigger, the politicians will not accept it and say they were wrong. QE+low interest rates manipulate the markets heavily which can come back in the form of frustration, protests or wars. In the US the politicians tend to regulate for the big banks and the big corporations such as the military industry; wars are good for the former so wars are made. Politicians are often sociopaths who want to control everyone so they are likely to start wars when their fallacious economic actions are unsucessful It sounds like you are implying that QE allows for governments to borrow at artificially low interest rates in order to pay for wars. Although this is technically true this has not happened, but rather the opposite. The US has withdrawn from one War (Iraq) and has not entered into really any conflicts since QE started. Instead the US and much of europe has used QE for social programs to give away money to the lazy and less successful. They've been giving it to the lazy, less successful, and the rich, which include banks. People that have invested in the stock, commodity, and especially bond markets (i.e., mostly the upper middle class and the rich) have made a lot of money off of QE. |
|
|
|
When, I talk to people about bitcoin, they often tell me that it is BS because yoa can not use it without electricity. They are like, when electricity in your area will go off, you are poorest guy in world. I found that argument stupid, but dont really know what to tell them. for some reason they all count on not having electricity available...
Tell them this: credit cards, ATMs, and online bill payment won't work without electricity, either. Yes, you could still pay with cash, but who has thousands of dollars in cash laying around at home? You should always have some for emergencies, but if electricity is out for weeks or more, there will be major major problems. |
|
|
|
The more u think about it, the more it seams that none of the options are good for solving the poverty.
In a world where technology is increasingly replacing human power, there are more and more manpower that is not needed.
It seams that there are simply too many of us, and that a good way to decrease poverty would be to implement rule of regulating birth rate, similar what china has.
Dont know how would that be sustainable when were talking about pension funds tho.
That's a good point. But it doesn't seem like it has to be that way. As populations have increased, so has the number of employed people, even with technology replacing some jobs. But I'm not sure what the answer is. There needs to be more demand to support more jobs, but you need more jobs to support more demand. Having a healthy economy is one of the most helpful ways, but can you ever get to the point where there's enough demand to support everyone having a job if they so choose? |
|
|
|
I would hope that if you pay in X over your career that you'd get more than X+inflation out (interest might be pushing it). Otherwise there's little point. But as long as the numbers are calculated correctly, that doesn't *have* to be a problem. The population *should* be growing such that there will always be more workers paying in than those receiving benefits. But with people having fewer kids now, that really messes things up. Like I said, it's supposed to be a pyramid system. And it works fine as long as the base is much wider than the top.
I would disagree that it should work this way. The social security administration obviously has administrative costs that would need to come out of total benefits paid. Social security has been setup very much like a pyramid scheme but this is a very bad way of doing it (only a liberal would think this is a good idea). The thing is that the population boom that we saw after WW2 when soldiers started to come home and a lot of people started to start families at roughly the same time was not sustainable and was not sustained. As a result we will (and are) having a concentrated number of people stopping paying FICA taxes and start taking social security benefits at the same time. A very major problem with having SS be a massive pyramid scheme is that the earth has limited resources and can only handle a limited number of people living on it at one time (based on things like ability to house people, ability to grow enough food, ability to produce energy, total water supply) so population growth cannot last forever. Social security should be setup so that the average person draw slightly less then total taxes paid over their career plus inflation in total benefits. Some people would obviously draw more because they last longer, and some people would draw less because they die at a young(ish) age. I'm talking about from the worker's perspective. If I can end up with more money by just saving what I would have contributed, then what's the point in having SS?  Yes, you bring up a good point about the long-term issues with population growth having to level off at some point. But things could still be balanced if they're set up right. Means testing could also help. |
|
|
|
I believe in technocracy... social system will have to be hybrid of best from both socialsim and capitalism. But it will be more socialistic because there will have to be center of power, which will be run by software, computers dont cheat, nor steal, so no goverment will be doing evil deeds, more like scientist checking machines if everything is goin right way.
Majority of people wil be jobless, there will be no need for work by people other than science and technology research. And those people are not doing it for money, but from personal passion.
people will get money for buyng stuff from government and everything will be very cheap, thanks to effectivnes, technology brings so many options, that were never available. Fire, wheel, electricity...those are things that shape society...
I hope the world is never run by technology. Who would create all that software? Wouldn't they be tempted to write it unfairly? Computers can certainly cheat, steal, etc. if they are so programmed. They also usually don't have compassion...but then again, a lot of politicians don't seem to either, so I guess that one's a wash. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
