Any company will make coins for you, you can make your own BTC or LTC any way you want, instead people are being duped into buying these.... And guess what, you people act like these are "the first LTC physical coins" and the cascius BTC coins "are the originals" SATOSHI didnt make the cascius coins, and Maged, or whoever it was didnt make these LTC coins, its just some random person who decided to have the coins made themselves and sell them at an extremely high markup. Yes. and? Free market, free speech. They aren't worth the price to you, they are to me, you don't buy, I do. That's the way we play this game, fun! Maybe he charges too much, maybe not enough. The market decides. None of your complaints are that our industrious seller of these pieces is misrepresenting them, so it is an honest and fair offer, to be accepted or not. I also make silver and gold pieces of original design, I price mine very low. So low I make close to nothing from them, but my goal is different. I just want everyone to have them and don't need to make money from it. I am happy when those that buy from me make money from them. When the volume is high enough, maybe there will be some profit left for me, but that might be 10 or 20 years away, or never, who knows? I wish smoothie every success, and I expect to buy more once the limit is removed. (Or if any of you want to buy some and resell them to me) |
|
|
|
I've been a coin collector for years, so to me these are not "investment" pieces, or things that I just want to sell later and make a profit, for me these are beautiful silver coins that will make a really cool addition to my collection. To me they're worth every LTC.
+1 I think we are in the minority though. We Collectors are strange folks. We pay too much, but are always looking for a deal. And we are really picky high-maintenance customers, we always want something weird and have too much input to offer on "how it should be"... |
|
|
|
|
You might even have both higher and lower than spot market pricing.
If someone wanted IMMEDIATE sale, they might accept lower price in fiat to jump to the head of the line.
To get one of the low priced sales, you might require a buyer to have a much shorter time to close the sale.
Your income comes on volume no matter what price.
|
|
|
|
good day what is the shares of this Bitcoin fund thanks...Ira
I am not understanding the question. Min to open an account EUR100.000 Per trade minimum EUR10.000 It is for institutional investing. Banks, sovereign funds, pension trusts, that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP010.htmGold details there. Bitcoin as of a while ago, are also as short-able as an ETF. https://exante.eu/press/news/314/"Additionally, they can also initiate a short position in the shares of the Bitcoin Fund even without selling Bitcoin – this is more or less like an ETF or contract for difference (CFD) instrument." This means you can drive the price like a car if you have access to enough fiat currency.
|
|
|
|
Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?
That also happens to be against the law... let me check my worldwide statute book... everywhere. Anybody that helps you avoid tax liabilities will also be acting illegally. So you'll need a group of users -- merchants and customers -- willing to flout the law (and possible jail time for conspiracy) in every single country in order to avoid taxes. Good luck with that. Those of us who live in the real world will report taxable income when legally required to do so. I avoid taxes every time I decide not to buy cigarettes. |
|
|
|
It's all my perception and of course really crazy events aren't included in this scenario, but even with a ban in some countrys it's value won't be zero though.  I agree. Bitcoin is resilient to law. It is not resilient from technology. Any of the largest governments, and even some of the large banks, if they wanted Bitcoin gone, could 51% it. They could 90% it. We are a mote. No mistaking it, we can go to zero. I am optimistic, I think this will not happen, but I also recognize that it might. |
|
|
|
no offense but the site seems terrible. it might as well be a text box and asubmit button as you just ask everyone to submit a query through the help desk  Agree, the website is the weakest link. The service however is excellent. If it were the opposite, there would be much anger rather than simply doubt. |
|
|
|
Those are my reasons to call 50 and 30-35 as worst worst worst case.  0 and a lawsuit are my worst worst worst cases. I like your worst case instead. Sell me some insurance? |
|
|
|
|
The price decline is not due to ASIC.
Consider the amount of BTC that was liquidated. about US$5-10M/day.
Are the ASIC sales quotas that high? What fraction of that might be ASIC business 3%?
(and that is just what shows on the exchanges, very much is NOT on the exchanges.)
|
|
|
|
Gersham observed that when people are forced to accept devalued coins (i.e. soldiers will drag them away and throw them in prison if they don't) at the same exchange rate as non-devalued coins they adapt by spending the devalued (bad) coins as quickly as possible and saving the good coins.
This has been summarized as "bad money drives out the good".
Many people who use this phrase use the shorthand version as if it's some inherent fact of nature without any reference to the situation it's summarizing.
There's no basis for taking an observation based on how people adapt to coercion to assume that "bad money drives out the good" is a generally true principle.
If the merchants in question were free to choose they wouldn't accept the "bad" money at all, or else they'd accept it at its true exchange rate.
What I was talking about with regards to self-serving misinterpretations is when people assert that when people have a choice of free market currencies they'll hoard the stronger one and preferentially spend the weaker one (as opposed to just not dealing with the weak currency at all) based on the linguistic meaning of "bad money drives out the good" without any reference to the context in which it was derived. It's a non sequitur.
So then, what do you call the principle of people-desiring-to-change-what-you-perceive-as-bad-money-for-better-money when it happens outside your historical definition? If you are not going to allow it to be spoken in your presence without the recitation of history, we need something to help us move on to the application, yes? Merchants are free to choose. They still accept the "bad" money, they also may accept better money if they can get it. So long as they aren't caught holding the bag of bad money, they still come out ok. |
|
|
|
|
I was contemplating doing something very similar to bitcoin-brokers and am happy that I don't have to do so.
Now that it is here I can just be a customer, so much easier.
|
|
|
|
Gresham's Law applies to a bi-metal monetary standard where the ratio of the values of the two metals are set by the government, or to the situation when the face value of a coin is less than its melt value.
I should fix that wikip, the philosophy has more profound implications than the narrow interpretation to which you adhere. At the time the term was coined (ahem) many currencies were private. It was not government only. That is a recent deviation. In the years Wikipedia has existed, that circumstance was largely unknown. The only problem is those other interpretations do not have the empirical verification the "narrow" interpretation has. Gresham's law observes how people behave when some entity tries to force them to act as if two non-equal items have equal value. It's an expression of how the individual preferences which make up a market express themselves even in a situation of coercion. Some of people like to improperly generalize this into something entirely different, for reasons which tend to appear self-serving. This post was sort of funny because it starts by defending the "narrow" interpretation. The second sentence rephrases it to a "broader" interpretation" And the third vilifies the generalization of the second. It left me confused so I have to ask... Your notion of what is "improper" here is curious, but I will bite your cookie to learn its taste. Please tell us what term you use to describe the general notion of "bad money drives out good" if you are going to constrain your personal definition of the phrase to "bad government money drives out good government money within a bi-metallic system"? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245850/Greshams-lawWhat is the proper generalization, please? I am happy to change my mind, so long as the change makes things better. But being pedantic for its own sake is a bit bothersome. "Money functions in ways other than as a domestic medium of exchange; it also may be used for foreign exchange, as a commodity, or as a store of value. If a particular kind of money is worth more in one of these other functions, it will be used in foreign exchange or will be hoarded rather than used for domestic transactions." To me this parses as: 1) If money (such as Bitcoin) is worth more as Foreign Exchange than a medium of exchange, it will be used in foreign exchange or hoarded rather than used for domestic transactions. (your proper definition) and 2) If money (such as Bitcoin) is worth more as a store of value than a medium of exchange, it will be hoarded (used as a store of value) rather than used for domestic transactions. and 3) If money (such as Bitcoin) is worth more as a commodity than a medium of exchange, it will be used as the commodity or hoarded rather than used for domestic transactions. For example of the narrow, if you look at the legal tender denominations on American Eagle coins (Silver ounce US$1, Gold ounce US$50, Platinum ounce US$100) these are hoarded rather than used for domestic transactions due to the perceived value being greater than the legal tender value. For example of the broad, every trade made where you have a choice of payment method. I am also curious about the assertion of appearance of Self-Serving reasons. Would you care to expound on that or are you satisfied to simply cast aspersions on those people who improperly generalize (are we both guilty, both innocent, or neither)? |
|
|
|
Certainly this seems like a nice escrow service charging 2% to the buyer.
Unfortunately, the fact that the bitcoins need to be transferred to a wallet owned by a person or persons who are not clearly identified leads to substantial risk for both buyer and seller. There would be no way for either party to legally go after the owners of that wallet in the event the site simply goes down and the BTC are moved elsewhere.
Certainly, a little faith is required with a new service. I simply would like to report that it appears successful in what might be described as personal experience so far, that doesn't mean there's no risk involved. I am making regular purchases with increasing (small) amounts. So far no problems. It looks and feels like a live beta test, and seems to be having measure of success along with continuing improvements. Early days but so far so good. The folks involved are taking it seriously. |
|
|
|
Merkle Root : The beginning!!!
Nicely done! I'd bonus you with some Abstraction, but time has divested my coin to contemplate the endless void of an abstract wallet due to a vow of perversity. Your concrete support of abstraction is bafflingly clear. |
|
|
|
As reference for my second post (re the Government attacking Bitcoin);
Blockchain.info reports the total network hashrate as being 184,000GH.
So, you'd need another 184,000 on top of that to have 50%. Then, account for all the other ASICs that are on the verge of shipping, lets call it that the government needs 500,000 GH to be reasonably certain they can shut it down quickly.
One BFL Jalapeno retails for $249 and provides 5 GH. You need 100,000 of them to achieve that much hashing power. That means at WORST, any interested party could pull off an attack for $24,900,000. But, wasn't BFL offering to sell their chips for $70 or so in quantity? So buying directly from them, eschewing cases, and such would bring the cost of the silicon down to $7 million. And that $70 cost likely includes a bit of profit margin not just for Butterfly Labs themselves, but their foundry too. At the end of the day, the gov't could probably go to a foundry and get what they needed for $3 or $4 mm. Even if assembly costs are $1 million, that brings the cost of attack up to $5 million.
Seems quite vulnerable if you ask me.... the ASIC's deployed certainly don't provide much protection against any "real" attacker, as much as people seem to think they do. And with all that said, the original question is "why is it not going up?", I'd now ask "Why should a virtual currency that can be attacked and nullified at a cost of $5 million have a market cap close to 200 times that?" Or, have I missed something?
Right. If some government REALLY felt threatened (pro tip: they don't) they could issue an order to a major chip fab corp (AMD/INTEL/broadcom or any of the smaller ones even) to produce a couple million ASICs at sub 25 nm. Our chip makers are tiny compared to the big guys. Bitcoin remains fragile and at the mercy of these factories. So play nice, we aren't the biggest or even the smartest kids in the sandbox by a long shot. 500TH is a small datacenter and a couple months work if they want to break us. Its not like they can't, they just aren't. If they did, it would expose that they are afraid in a very visible way. So.... It won't be the US, though it might be an "ally" that could do this. The other option is to paint Bitcoin as Illegal druggies and gun-toting evil devil people, and then they can end us as a "public service". So... be nice. |
|
|
|
I covered all my shorts yesterday, but have now re-opened them plus some, so I am putting my money where my mouth is in case anyone wants to call me on that. And by short I mean negative Bitcoins, not just sitting in fiat.
What is negative Bitcoins? I always thought that short means sit on fiat waiting to increase bitcoin position later as they fall in price I mean leveraged short CFD's ... I make fiat when the price goes down. To me holding BTC is long, holding fiat is 'flat'. 'Short' means selling borrowed BTC or a CFD (or ETF  ) Where do you trade these instruments? I think Bitfinex lends BTC to short from what Frozenlock has said. There may be others. Some online FX brokers are now offer BTC CFD's. Plus500 and Spreadex to name two accessible in the UK. I am sure there are many more. But tread carefully and manage your risk well if you intend to use leverage on something like Bitcoin. Things can blow up in your face real quick if you don't have the cash to cover it. TBH, for me the leverage just serves as a way to give them less of my fiat. A CFD is a Contract For Difference in case you are not aware- basically a bet that the price will go up or down where you make or lose only fiat and never touch the underlying asset, though the issuer may do. Its a derivative - the paper shit that Rampion hates ! TBH for me it's not the 'paper shit' that is the issue, it is it's misuse/abuse that is the problem. Any market should have the ability to go short in my opinion otherwise there is no way for true price discovery. It's when the derivatives become greater than the value of the underlying that the problems start to arise and the house of cards starts to be built . When people use them to magnify position to such an extent that a small unexpected move can 'blow them up' that the systemic risk arises. See Long Term Capital (Mis)Management for the best example. And Lehmans for the more widely known one. EDIT : I normally don't disclose my positions - I feel it can bring bad luck. I just felt in this instance it was necessary If your minimum trade is >EUR10K you can also use BitcoinFund's ETF to short. Need EUR100K minimum account. Available 24/7 globally through Exante. They are pro at getting orders processed with minimal market movement for maximal customer profit. |
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see how the US will react to the good news from MtGox. Up or Down? We will find out in about an hour from now.  I bet there will be fireworks. Lots of fireworks. And parades. Which color, i prefer Red, they shine better  Maybe its already starting.. Red is guaranteed, with some white and blue. There will also be much drinking and BBQ. People will celebrate nationwide. |
|
|
|
If I was in a government and I wanted to destroy bitcoin...
I'd figure out how to buy up all the coins with fiat and then destroy them.
M
It would be cheaper, and maybe even profitable (especially for those in the know), to create so much volatility using ETFs that it becomes difficult to use as a currency. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
