Wow. Cleared out quite a bit of bid volume and it still makes a new high. I will repeat: unbelievable
buy now were going to 100$! its like ... for sure!
 So should I skip the dca this paycheck?  the action lately leads me to believe that there is a HUGE surge of USD coming into bitcoin ATM (that chart would seem to confirm that), price is resilient to bad news. feels nothing can stop us now! I should start doing dca too... sell low, progressively buy higher and higher... good plan!  Shit... I might need to skip it this month. You're too bullish. |
|
|
|
Wow. Cleared out quite a bit of bid volume and it still makes a new high. I will repeat: unbelievable
buy now were going to 100$! its like ... for sure!
So should I skip the dca this paycheck? |
|
|
|
...
What about this is so hard to understand?...
Gox is where the action/volume is at, that is their only advantage, but it's a huge one. If you're a US seller, it seems bitfloor is where the action is. Prices are still at $47. It is helping hold up Gox along with a few of the other exchanges. |
|
|
|
At least more anonymous than credit card or PayPal.
Besides, if you wish to protect your identity, it's your sole responsibility to make sure everything is anonymous. As far as the BTC system is concerned, the wallet addresses are anonymous. As long as you don't link any personal info to that wallet address, it's perfectly anonymous.
To that wallet address, or any other address in that wallet if you use the reference client. Some clients give you more control. People should understand that it is not a given. |
|
|
|
Wow. Cleared out quite a bit of bid volume and it still makes a new high. |
|
|
|
OP, that sounds about right to me.
Trace, nice collection of data.
Didn't know market cap of Mastercard and Visa were so big compared to AAPL (thought AAPL would be an order of magnitude higher).
Elevator going down:  |
|
|
|
Much of it is group mentality sparked by conversations in this subforum.
I concur. |
|
|
|
"I think what will happen now is going to be a good test of the community," says Hearn. "We have to get as many people upgraded to 0.8 as possible, as fast as possible, and then go through a deliberate hard fork much earlier than we had planned." I wish Mike Hearn wasn't out there saying stuff like this in the press. This is purely his opinion. Colour me skeptical, but we need to remember that Mike H. put in a major effort to upgrade reference client to the levelDB database, the database widely used by his employer Google. Mike is not an independent (non-conflicted) actor when it comes to wishing everyone would just upgrade to "his" software, 0.8 levelDB. Some people have massive and expensive infrastructure built around pre-0.8 bitcoind, scripts, supporting code, etc. 0.8 levelDB bitcoin needs to be backwardly compatible for better or worse, for now and the foreseeable future. I agree that Mike is biased and that his solution is risky. However, the bdb versions certainly need to be updated to properly configure the database locks. Once this issue is fixed, we can consider our possibilities. We either begin allowing larger blocks again and hard fork immediately (there will be some unattended nodes that continue the old chain for some time), or we take the opportunity to address the blocksize debate and maybe some other things on the hardfork wishlist. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I misunderstood you as not wanting to do btc loans at all. I'll post in the thread if I ever have a few extra btc. /offtopic Here you go:  |
|
|
|
Isn't this what got the economy into the subprime mortgage mess? No. The reason we got into the "mess" is because the government coerces citizens at gunpoint to behave in certain ways. The most egregious being that we are forced to use Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender, and that the production and use of alternatives are punishable. We are not forced to use Federal Reserve Notes, except in the sense that everyone else uses them, so we need them to transact. The production and use of alternatives is completely legal, otherwise Bitcoin would be against the law. Go sit in a corner. I'm pretty sure he's right that men with guns show up if you make enough money and don't pay your taxes. The government requires taxes be paid in USD. Additionally, the US government has confiscated gold previously. Don't think they won't do it again. |
|
|
|
Available slots only works for just so long, and then you MUST adjust it. Minimal fees are fine as long as the network continues to grow and flourish. If you are collecting 0.2 - 0.5 BTC per block in fees right now that is GREAT!!! Because if the network increases 100fold that could rise to 20 - 50 BTC per block. I know there are other factors to consider, but I am hoping that in 16 - 20 years (yes I'm not looking at tomorrow or next year or two) Our reward for solving a block will be higher than the 50 BTC we started with.
I'm not saying to leave the 1MB limit in place. I'm just saying this statement is incorrect: no one will want to LIMIT block size.
Expanding block limits to ridiculous sizes will ensure that blockchain maintenance becomes a rich man's only game .. i.e. only Google, Facebook and Citigroup can afford to maintain full blockchains. Conversely it will keep fees relatively lower for longer .... decisions, decisions. But better we are kept aware of the impending changes before being rushed into them by an employee of Google.
Exactly. Make the blocks too large too quick and watch the storage of the blockchain become centralized. There is plenty of room to expand it without too much concern, but just throwing out the limit completely would never achieve miner consensus. |
|
|
|
Um, is it just me or are they really SUPPORTING the network with the fees they are paying on transactions? In 16 - 20 years this is going to be our bread and butter tx fees will likely hit 25+ bitcoins per block within that time frame if my math is even close to correct. (not showing my math here, because it is filled with a lot of conjecture and guesstimation and I really don't feel like having it picked apart.) If we think competition for blocks is harsh now. Just wait until we are looking at 10-100k tx per block and fees that are 5x+ what the generated coins are, also consider that bitcoins will likely be in the $100-$1500 range by then (likely higher) as long as the network stays strong. The adoption is there now. We just need to keep stability in the network. We need to get this shit figured out with larger blocks, because eventually with fees being the major source of income, no one will want to LIMIT block size.
Miners will certainly want to limit free transactions, since they cost money to store. There is also the argument that with unlimited block size we will have a tragedy of the commons situation where everyone uses minimal fees. If there is a limit, transactors will compete for the available slots, driving up fees. It's not as simple as you seem to think. |
|
|
|
I haven't forgot, I just have no interest in lending btc and being repaid based on dollar value. oh, so you haven't read my thread thanks Not since this: Both you guys are discounting the fact I will be doing each loan on a case by case basis.
And to top it off; my business model is sustainable in that I will be able to payback within the regular term or within a few months even if Bitcoin and Litecoin DISAPPEAR
I do day trading and options contracts besides my regular job and living frugal
The rates aren't very incredible in the bitcoin community
How do you intend to repay if I lend you bitcoin and it disappears? Will I not be paid back in bitcoin? well obviously that would be in the terms. proably by the value of the btc loaned or the value at disappearance or an average but i prefer to be loaned in USD anyway GOX USDoh, screw that. |
|
|
|
I haven't forgot, I just have no interest in lending btc and being repaid based on dollar value. |
|
|
|
It depends on the area as well though Notme as well as living standards etc. for instance, in the UK we have a stupid problem and I mean really stupid problem with car insurance, so while you could get a house outside the city, if it turns out to be that the outskirts are a rough area then it'll be more expensive than living in the city where the shops are all in walking distance and so on because you're having to pay for the car.
Good points. In the US, we have cheap used cars (I can get a chevy cavalier or similar with a solid drivetrain for under $200, again because of where I live. Good luck finding a deal like that in an urban area.) and cheap gas. As long as you plan ahead a little bit, you don't have to make extra trips to shop. In my experience, the 10-20% savings on nearly everything is only comparing my area to a smallish city. In NYC, most things are at least twice as costly. |
|
|
|
BTC, DMT
Coincidence? I think not
How much does a jeweled self-dribbling basketball cost in btc?
Um, what coincidence? You might as well compare BTC to ATX... both are 3 letters with a T. As far as I can tell, that's all BTC has in common with DMT. |
|
|
|
Watching.
Seems BDB's MAX_LOCK needs to be taken into account also, for backward compatibility.
Yes. All miners should be migrating to v0.8 as soon as possible (while maintaining default limits), so that the above is no longer a factor. General question. Is Deepbit too conservative for its own good? They are refusing to upgrade from version 0.3. Deepbit, please prove me wrong! Please give the development team time to put together a plan. If the majority of miners are on 0.8, a single bad actor can cause another fork by making a block with too many transactions for <= 0.7 to handle. |
|
|
|
I only got to where I am by going all in. Before bitcoin I had no savings.
I diversify when my bitcoin holdings get too large due to price increases. I buy the same dollar amount every time I get a paycheck. It's not so complicated.
Happy for you that it worked out so well. I mean that. Looking back on it do you think that it was a good strategy of you to go all-in? I'm asking honestly. I'm conflicted about it. Do you think you would have gone all-in if you had considerable amount of savings when you discovered bitcoin? Now I understand but isn't that unnecessary work. If you need to sell bitcoin due to price increases from time to time. Why not simply stop buying more btc with your paycheck? If I had significant savings, I probably would not have gone all in, but I probably would have dumped any extra fiat (or bonds) I had sitting around. Selling hard assets to buy bitcoin would be harder to do, although some people have done fantastically doing just that. (see cypherdoc's "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP" thread). Sure, it is unnecessary if you are buying and selling at the same time. However, I usually buy twice a month and I buy some gold/silver/copper or sell some to fund my IRA only every few months. For the metals, I buy directly with bitcoin, but if my objective is to get fiat to buy stocks, I will just skip a buy or two. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
