I have a question i hope someone with more insight of market could answer: Let's say you have a large sum of stolen bitcoins, i mean really a lot of them. A lot of people, motivated and skilled in blockchain analysis is rightfully after you. What can you do? You can't trust mixers or any other gambling sites, because the magnitude of the operation will either take too long or expose you. In my opinion the only thing you can do is transfer them anonimously in a exchange, sell them and buyback with a legit account(s). For this to work you must choose an exchange with good volume and also without hidden orders books, for those would let you know beforehand the entity of the inevitable loss you are going to take in the operation. Could this be? don't throw tomatoes please  To enter an exchange, Know Your Customer regulations mean identification may be necessary. Crypto to crypto is best. I don't know, i knew that KYC rules were enforced only to fiat transactions (deposit/withdrawals), i'm sure it's like that in at last one major exchange. Also i don't think crypto to crypto is suitable because 1) a lot of coins are worthless, therefore you'd end losing more than you already lose by dumping and buying back 2) the few that may have a future don't have enough liquidity to sustain such transfer of wealth. |
|
|
|
I have a question i hope someone with more insight of market could answer: Let's say you have a large sum of stolen bitcoins, i mean really a lot of them. A lot of people, motivated and skilled in blockchain analysis is rightfully after you. What can you do? You can't trust mixers or any other gambling sites, because the magnitude of the operation will either take too long or expose you. In my opinion the only thing you can do is transfer them anonimously in a exchange, sell them and buyback with a legit account(s). For this to work you must choose an exchange with good volume and also without hidden orders books, for those would let you know beforehand the entity of the inevitable loss you are going to take in the operation. Could this be? don't throw tomatoes please |
|
|
|
|
Looks to me like a new generation of miners (pooled) in mid August entered the market and begun selling at loss to cut others out.
It's early to tell, but hashrate seems to be going down, altough it has been always volatile itself. So far seems like someone is giving up.
Where i live big shopping centers did the same: they came, choked little business and only then prices came back to normal if not higher.
|
|
|
|
|
Quick! Close the doors, don't let that fallling guy run away
|
|
|
|
Come on whales, show some balls and pump the price while the apple live is on... make the man sweat |
|
|
|
|
Go jack nicholson, axe that wall!
Give a chop to that old itshappening gif too
|
|
|
|
Wtf creepy video, reminds me of those movies with aliens communications switching auto radio channels |
|
|
|
Can't do better than wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Days_DestroyedIn my understanding a value of zero would mean that all the volume you see is being made from the same wallets trading by themselves, which also happens to be JorgeStolfi theory  . In my opinion it is a glitch. |
|
|
|
Also, what is the point in wasting fees by transacting over wallets with the same owner? Unless you prove metcalfe's law wrong the only achievement of such waste is to keep the price (value) of bitcoin high, so i take it you mean it's a speculative manipulation.
Even so, with a true wallet-to-many scenario (OpenBazaar) the percentage you are proposing here are doomed to shift.
Two obvious reasons why someone would want to move bitcoins between wallets of his own are (1) tumbling and (2) hotwallet/coldwallet management. Someone may also be (3) torture-testing wallet software. (All the blockchain traffic could easily be created by a single person with a modest BTC capital.) Last time I checked, very few transactions included fees. Right now the mining network is financed by "printing" new bitcoins, to the tune of 10% of the existing bitcoins per year. (That is, 10% yearly inflation, in the strict sense of the term...) Since address creation and transactions are free, there is nothing to discourage fake blockchain traffic. Fake traffic may include also (4) intentional attempt to inflate the transaction volume. Right now, if the cost of the mining network were to be paid by fees rather than "inflation tax", the fee would have to be nearly 4% of the total transaction amount. But if fees were charged then the "fake" volume would all but disappear. If only 50% of the transactions are real e-payments, then the cost of processing one transaction would be 8% of its amount; if only 10% is real, the cost would be 40%. Thus someone may be inflating the volume to hide this unpleasant fact. Some blockchain traffic is also (5) people depositing and withdrawing BTC from exchanges and other services with individual accounts. Although that traffic is not "fake" by my defintion, it is still sort of fake because the BTC on the exchange still belong to the client, logically. (Bitcoins changing accounts inside the exchanged do not generate blockchain traffic, but they are not real e-payments either, since there is no counterpart transfer of goods or services -- merely a swap of one currency for another.) Metcalfe's law seems to hold when the quantities are plotted in logscale over the last 5 years. However, the last year is compressed to a tiny area at the top right corner of that plot. At that scale, a deviation of 90% would hardly be noticed, since it would span less than 20% of the vertical scale. If the data is plotted only over the last year, the fit is not that good. And, anyway, if the traffic had been 90% "fake" over the last 5 years, Metcalfe's law would hold just as well. I disagree on so many points that the implications of debating every single one of them really discourages me. Sorry Jorge i feel that's not a good behaviour from me to pull back like that and i apologize for that |
|
|
|
Fear not, Openbazaar is alive and kicking.
As i strongly believe price is correlated to number of transactions (which is different from plain adoption/number of wallets) i think in the near future (months) we will be able to see metcalfe's law applied to bitcoin in his newly born habitat.
Actually bitcoins are mostly held or traded intra exchange, neither of those is good for the health of the network, it's like a brain without neurotransmitters--->no thoughts-->mostly useless and easily manipulated.
More than 90% of the transaction volume (transaction count and total BTC output) on the blockchain is "fake" -- that is, between addresses with the same owner. Prove that this statement is wrong. (Evidence that it is correct: the way it has changed with time for the past year.) Hi Jorge  Maybe i'm not skilled enough in statistical analysys of blockchain to achieve such a proof (assuming i believe it's somehow important), but looking at your evidence i'd argue that neither you are. Also, what is the point in wasting fees by transacting over wallets with the same owner? Unless you prove metcalfe's law wrong the only achievement of such waste is to keep the price (value) of bitcoin high, so i take it you mean it's a speculative manipulation. Even so, with a true wallet-to-many scenario (OpenBazaar) the percentage you are proposing here are doomed to shift. |
|
|
|
Fear not, Openbazaar is alive and kicking. As i strongly believe price is correlated to number of transactions (which is different from plain adoption/number of wallets) i think in the near future (months) we will be able to see metcalfe's law applied to bitcoin in his newly born habitat. Actually bitcoins are mostly held or traded intra exchange, neither of those is good for the health of the network, it's like a brain without neurotransmitters--->no thoughts-->mostly useless and easily manipulated. Let it grow, it will kick ass  |
|
|
|
maybe it's fishing for another round of margin calls, if i were to trade this i'll put my orders on high 300's @btce but i'm just painfully holding  |
|
|
|
Their site still only has a short form for registering interest. It appears to me that you cannot yet make an account there and trade. That's true, even if it's not an exchange (don't know if they'll let you trade online) it's strange that their twitter also is silent on debut day |
|
|
|
fallling will you pm me when (and if) you turn bullish?
|
|
|
|
|
seems to me there might be a correlation between the steady rise of discus fish (chinese mining farm) and the bitcoin price.
Hashrate and difficulty also took an unusual acceleration, but that could be just an illusion of logaritmic rappresentation
|
|
|
|
|
Are we sure them at GABI weren't talking about 200M Satoshis?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
