in all possible solutions.. even moving funds during being held hostage, multisig, safety deposit boxes etc.
the guy is still in your house and knows you still have control of your funds. he knows you would rather give him the funds .. eventually .. rather then send them to an address with no known privkey (losing control yourself knowing you will never get them back ever).
so he will hammer you until he gets the multisig, privkey, safety deposit key, privkey where funds were diverted to.
i guess the cartoon did no explain that enough
This is exactly true. If you are in physical danger there is no reason to try to protect you money/bitcoin. Money can be replaced, your life cannot. Prove it. How do you know death is not simply a reset button where you get to start over? You don't know, and neither do I. I find your fear of death to be irrational, especially in light of the known suffering of existence. Do you know anyone who got to "start over" when they died? If if I were to accept your argument that is would be a possibility, if you really started over then your bitcoin would be lost regardless. |
|
|
|
I also find it strange that one of the bitcoin developers announced selling a huge stash of their bitcoins over this whole 51% fear. I can understand why one would do that, but why announce it? Sounds like a joined effort to spread FUD..
He said he consulted a lawyer and was advised to announce it to prevent any possible liabilities. I'm buying that, it sounds reasonable to me. Heh, I could see a lawyer saying something like that. But in reality there's no way you could be held liable for something like that. It's like saying I'm going to be selling half my gold because I work at a goldsmith's shop. either way, I can't think of anything that rips away confidence in Bitcoin more than its own developers starting to split. the good news is, next estimated difficulty change is 20%, and theres no way most of that is coming from Ghash. we need large difficulty changes now to diversify the network.. so keep it comin' This would only hold to be true if the new miners being brought online are not going to ghash, or are going to ghash at a lower rate then their current network share. |
|
|
|
It is confusing to me too. I think it is technically possible that eBay can accept bitcoin as payment without paypal, or eBay can start a new subsidiary to handle bitcoin payments alongside paypal. eBay owns paypal, so they can make changes if and when they need to.
It is still anyone's guess at the moment, eBay CEO has hinted enough times in interviews about bitcoin integration, but has failed to give any details on how it will be implemented.
You would pay for your goods when you win an auction in bitcoin to the seller. The transaction would not involve paypal |
|
|
|
I read an article that had a headline of "Bitcoin sponsors football game"
It was not until towards the bottom of the article was it revealed that it was actually bitpay that was sponsoring the game
I remember thinking "are the miners giving up part of their block rewards to pay for this" while reading the article
(Almost) No one would object to Bitpay sponsoring a bowl game and using the word 'Bitcoin', but what if someone "truly objectionable" sponsors (for example) illegal dog fights and uses the words "Bitcoin K9 Battle". ^^^ Who controls the usage of the word Bitcoin, and what gave Bitpay the right to use it? (keeping in mind that someone "bad" might also want to use the word in a sponsorship) Who has the right to the word "Dollar"? No one does many countries have "dollar" as the name of their currency (not the US dollar, but their own dollar) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is worth far more than mining gear, you will never make it back paying retail prices for the miners, even with free electricity/rack space.
In theory you would eventually ROI if you did not have these operating costs as you could simply leave your miners on almost "forever" |
|
|
|
a merchant could afford to offer a 3% discount for paying in bitcoin and would have profits stay the same (no net cost). The customer would need to pay the coinbase "fee" of ~0.32% but would still end up paying ~2.68% less then they otherwise would. This is not only a lower net cost to the customer but the costs are more transparent.
Ok, ok, but how does the customer send the money to Coinbase? They can use their bank account, one that does not carry any fees. |
|
|
|
At least bank's transaction can be reverted. So its almost risk free.
Not if that bank is insolvent or freezes withdrawals. Having a bank account is worthless if you can't access your funds. It would be unlikely that your account would be completely worthless in the long run as you would eventually be given something. Although this something is likely to be much less then what your account should be worth based on how much you have deposited In the long run is also a problem. Most people don't keep a decent stash of currency in the house. In the 2008 meltdown it was the people that caused the problem that got taken care of while the people that were truly hurt got nothing. This is true however people can survive for some time without money. Most families keep some level of food in their house, don't need to fill up their gas tank every day, have a grace period on their rent/mortgage. If they were to change the way they got paid by their employer so they would be paid in cash then a family could somewhat get by until they are paid (now in cash) again |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if market cap is the only relevant factor for price stability. I think equally or even more important is the main use of bitcoin.
I'd argue that the more bitcoin is used for transactions the less volatile it will be. If bitcoin is primarily seen as a commodity it will have higher volatility than if it's primarily used as a transactional currency. With market capitalization in the trillions and primarily commodity properties it will have gold-like volatility which is still substantial but would not impede usability either.
This is 100% correct. It is not so much market cap that affects stability but total transaction volume, both measured by goods/services to bitcoin and by exchange volume. Once TX volume picks up (from TX of actual trades involving goods/services) then the price of bitcoin should stabilize. I would say the opposite. I would say that once the price stabilizes then trade volume would increase as people will be less susceptible to losing money between the time they acquire the bitcoin and the time they spend the bitcoin When you have more trades, you will have more people buying/selling bitcoin (and higher volume), when you have more volume of bitcoin being traded it will take more money to move the price then when volume is lower |
|
|
|
One thing that would improve transparency a lot would be to attach a scrambled client ID to each bid/ask submission, and the two IDs to each trade. That would not reveal the identity of the clients, but would allow other clients to check the logs for suspicious behavior by other clients or by the exchange owners. (Professional auditors could later certify, under NDA, that those IDs are mapped to the actual clients in 1-1 fashion.)
This would get a lot of people to stay away from exchanges, at least people who plan on buying/selling large amounts. If it was clear that scrambled id "1234" was buying large amount of bitcoin then other traders could also buy expecting the large buyer to further drive up the price. The result would be that this large trader essentially pays a higher price then if several small traders bought the same amount at the same time |
|
|
|
The exchanges will never allow transfers directly on another exchanges. They can't because of the law.
This is not necessarily the law, but rather would make it much more difficulty to do AML due diligence so much exchanges would likely prohibit it. One way to get around regulation is to have each exchange have bilateral deal. Each one granting each other certain amount of fiat credit and settle it every few days. Then implement another portal on each exchange to grant user credit. This will by pass all the AML rules in place and not really violating any existing rules. The AML rules are not about the exchanges, they are about the people whose money the exchanges are holding. It would be very difficult for an exchange to verify that when "Person A" is sending fiat to his own account at "exchange2" when he sends fiat to "exchange2" The only way around this would be for an exchange to setup a new bank account for each customer. The problem with this is that it would be very expensive to setup (you cannot automate the setting up of bank accounts) and to audit (there will be a lot of bank statements to check for accuracy) I don't think this would ever happen because a lot of people open up an exchange account to only use once, or end up never using it. |
|
|
|
i saw ATM's for BTC in some places, and i think that its possibale to buy with cash and also credit card
AFAIK BTC ATMs will not allow you to use a credit card You can't, you must trade fiat for bitcoin or bitcoin for fiat. These type of ATMs do not accept any kind of cards I dont get how those ATMs pay instantly without conformation? Obviously they would be a failure if you had to wait 10 mins for the first confirmation, so i expect they trust most people wont be ripping them off. If you are buying bitcoin with cash fiat then you simply insert the cash in the machine and the machine instantly verifies that the cash is legit, you provide a QR code for your BTC address and the machines sends the BTC to your address, the confirmation (of the cash) is instant. When selling bitcoin, the machine will provide a QR code with an address to send BTC to. It will print out a receipt that you can later scan to redeem your cash once the transactions is confirmed by the network (with "x" confirmations). You would not need to actually stand/wait at the machine while you are waiting for the TX to be confirmed. Ok, that would make sense, but they demonstrated on TV the first Bitcoin ATM in New Zealand, he scanned the QR code with the smartphone and the cash came out of the machine almost instant! They probably changed the settings so it will disburse cash when the TX is showing as 0/unconfirmed for the demonstration, but in practice all of the ATMs likely need at least 1 confirmation |
|
|
|
Yields tumbled because it was expected that QE3 would be announced in the near future.
Yup, that's how market analysis works.  Trying to find an explanation post factum. Of these explanation the one I like most is because of expectations. If at the time QE2 was finished market participants thought that the Fed would continue to buy bonds (with a possible short break between programs) then this logic would be valid. Most people know QE will never end in the foreseeable future. The Fed is actually winding down additional purchases of bonds at a rate of $10 billion per month. Once the additional purchases are complete they will likely have a larger then usual balance sheet for decades. |
|
|
|
Google is an internet GIANT. This further legitimizes and mainstreams bitcoin. Although I'm surprised yahoo finance beat google to adding charts for bitcoin. Once other altcoins like LTC gets big enough, I'm sure they'll follow suit.
I doubt any of the alts will ever make it on to major finance sites as they generally can only be traded for BTC as apposed for actual goods/services (virtually no merchants accept them). They are also tiny when compared to bitcoin |
|
|
|
I personally would only use localbitcoin if I met the person in a busy place. I don't trust anyone (meaning web sites or exchanges) with bitcoins. Also, you have to remember that the Govt has its eye on local bitcoin. IF you buy from the wrong person, they will get you for money laundering, although i think they are just using localbitcoin to try to reel in the bigger fish.
All untrue. The government has charged multiple people with violating money laundering charges when they were trading on local bitcoin for large amounts and received high premiums Do you have any proof for this? Links? The only stories I have ever read involved police arresting someone for selling bitcoins after the undercover officers told the seller many times that they were going to use the BTC for illegal purposes. I have never seen a story of anyone being charged for money laundering directly. So unless you have credible links you are just repeating rumors and spreading FUD. The only issue in these cases is if the seller was following AML rules, including having a money transmitter license. If he undercover police told them they were going to use the BTC for illegal purposes and the seller followed all of the AML rules then there would be no case. |
|
|
|
Maybe they'd rather developmen their own digital coin.
There is no doubt in my mind that this won't happen. Amazon loves to try and do everything, but it all sucks I wouldn't be so surprised if they did. Then again, eventually I also get a feeling that some countries may enable their own form of their local currencies into their own crypto. But if amazon decided to make their own coin it wont so successful(marketing it would be too expensive for them) they would be better off using bitcoin. You do realize that was a spectacular failure? They would have no reason to make an Amazon coin, that would be of no use to them as they would need it to have a central authority and that is contra to what the crypto currencies are about. Amazon does have a currency of it's own....it is called Amazon Gift Cards |
|
|
|
used to buy ltc on btc-e and sell it on kraken when the difference was at least 1 ltc per btc and repeat, worked for about a month, its not possible anymore as prices are the same
That is interesting, I have never thought of attempting arbitrage between altcoins. Out of curiosity how much BTC were you able to get out of this? |
|
|
|
I couldn't agree with you more hvanra. Backtests showing eye popping gains are really just for demonstrative purposes. In reality there is orderbook liquidity and vwap slippage that brings things back to reality. What a 'million dollar backtest' does show, however, is consistency of performance over a wide range of market conditions.
"past performance does not guarantee future results" Well said! Thank you. This is a disclaimer that you will always see when investing in any mutual fund or a ETF, or other similar managed investment. I do not think I have seen it in any of the bitcoin related investments. |
|
|
|
I am kind of hoping for cheap coins out of all this. This market has been making a fool of me for months now so who knows.
It would be better for bitcoin over the long term if the price simply stabilized. |
|
|
|
It would of been a bit better if he actually earned the first $1000. He took a gamble with the money his grama gave him and he got lucky. Nothing really to be impressed about. You wouldn't be impressed if Dank gambled some money that he borrowed and won enough to pay back the loan and buy a mansion with 150 bathrooms. There isn't much difference. I'm not really that impressed.
The site isn't that great and paying instructors to teach people will cost a lot more than hes expecting. He is 15 years old and hasn't got a degree etc so people would be less likely to want to be taught by him. Also this type of site has been done by experts so he has a lot of competition and only a 100k investment.....very difficult.
He invested the money in a high risk/high return investment which shows that he was willing to postpone gratification and sacrifice the present for the future which is very rare for any of us; most people get what they can in the present and don't plan too much for the future because they lack the skill to sacrifice the present to enjoy more in the future I wouldn't say that his investment was high risk/high return. I would say that he put money in something that he likely did not understand and happened to make it big. |
|
|
|
A few minutes with a calculator will show anyone why Cex.io can never be profitable when used just for mining. The price of a gigahash falls faster than the bitcoins that gigahash can generate during the same time, even if you end up selling the investment plus keeping the generated bitcoins. And then there are the fees.
The only people who make money on cex.io are the ones who got in very early and the traders riding the price downwards while extracting value from price swings. Everyone else loses.
Wrong i'm afraid, take a look at GHS price charts, been upwards since begin of May, interestingly it seems to have disconnected from it's inverse relationship to difficulty.. Take a look at the Futures contracts CEX.IO made available (FHA & FHM) again profitable opportunities. If you ONLY buy cloud hashing sit back and expect a profit, then the only outcome you'll get is disapointment. Trading GHS and mining combined can be profitable if you educate yourself and treat your trading as a business in terms of your approach. This is a very interesting feature of the GHs that are sold by CEX. In a market that was 100% efficient the price of the GHs should gradually go down as they will produce less and less income in the future. I am curious to know how much cex trades GHs for their own account. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
