Nice design. How about "fabricate diem pvnc"  (Terry Pratchett) |
|
|
|
BTC exchange rates on the other hand are still way overvalued, and still it's anyone's guess where they'll go next until the market matures. Sorry jackwagon, I already have my strategy in place to deal with a potential speculative mania scenario. I guess you are consistent in being rude too. Or should I be flattered because you think my opinion will move the market? You do realize that you come across as a scared, cornered animal right? That to me says that you are heavily invested in a precarious position. Not sure how you want to hedge that apart perhaps from volume trading on small bounces while generally going down, or has option trading started already? I like this post better than most, because you've actually put something in writing that doesn't sneer at the forum in general. Oh the irony You apparently keep misjudging me. How do you even know I have a position at all? BubbleBoy's contribution is valuable. As I stated before, price should depend on real world value, speculative expectation is not tenable in the long term. When the economy is actually smaller than Dollar parity, anything like $15/BTC is ludicrously overpriced. The few reasons that keep the bubble from bursting are an immature market, small volumes and traders trying not to pop it while playing for small gains on volume. It could go any minute if someone decides to cash out. As far as I'm concerned it would be better if the bubble burst quickly, we would go back down to somewhere between actual economy size (below USD parity) and $4 (tenable speculative expectation value) and then grew with the economy. The sad conclusion from your statements is that you don't care about Bitcoin's future, you're here for the quick buck, with exit strategies in hand. If that is the case than you are no better than the banksters with '2BG2FAIL' vanity plates on their Porsches. |
|
|
|
..
I'm looking for insights to the problem posed. Any time you propose going full tilt gold standard, backing gold by BTC, BTC by gold, USD by BTC etc. etc. it's just putting up an abstraction that doesn't actually solve the problem. These all fall in the "you have proposed a solution to spam, here is why it won't work" category. We need to think about this ahead of time, it'll all work out in the end is not a good answer. A few decades of chaos is not a good answer either. BTW, I think the meaning of inflation/deflation is clear from the given context, at least I'm ok with both the 'proper' use of inflation meaning increase in supply of the currency as well as with the 'common' use of increase of prices of goods priced in said currency (which equals devaluation of the currency, which describes the result of said increase in supply). |
|
|
|
LOL Lardycake. Even a spinning pissing drunk will hit a urinal once in a while. Guess if you piss long enough... Or is it drink long enough. No matter, what comes out is the same as your posts anyway. LOL2, the same could be said of you At least you are consistently bullish. Honestly, BTC exchange rates are like sitting down to poker with a bunch of newbies, you simply can't know what's going to happen next. The comparison breaks down when you figure this out, since you can always beat newbies by simply playing tight. BTC exchange rates on the other hand are still way overvalued, and still it's anyone's guess where they'll go next until the market matures. If noone moves like now, then they should slowly decline as miners cash out. Remember it's 50% inflation this year, 33% next. |
|
|
|
A Bitcoin Standard. This doesn't answer the deflation question. Neither does fractional reserve banking (in fact deflation complicates that). Economically speaking there is little difference between a Bitcoin or gold standard, apart from Bitcoin supply being more deterministic. Practically speaking, if you back a currency with Bitcoin, then why not use Bitcoin instead of said currency? we could allow a reasonable amount of fractional reserving, say 10:1, that could prevent an entire collapse of the existing system. FR is besides the point. It increases the amount of circulation (which may or may not cause inflation), but BTC in circulation (or not) will still deflate at the same rate. And as said, why would a bank not buy BTC with USD when they see the deflation coming? A similar thing is happening with countries like China and Russia buying gold (and some SDR) and getting rid of USD. USD is going down the toilet, so gold (and SDR to some extent) is deflating in relation. OK, USD may not go down the toilet, but whatever they come up with for that, someone will have to pay the price. Most probably US citizens the most, the rest of the world to a lesser extent (USD is part of the SDR basket). |
|
|
|
The problem with ß is that is that it is actively used by a country/language.
Same with ฿.
To my knowledge, Ⓑ doesn't have that problem; and it is a "B" in a circle - like a "coin".
Ⓑ is used by the Belgian railways It's also horrible for small typography. ß is used a lot in German and could be confused with the Greek β. BC will be confused with Before Christ. XBC will be confused with Xbox and possibly XBMC. Does anyone even know about non-governmental currencies? ฿ and BTC are still the best options. |
|
|
|
Most people type in all caps or no caps. Very few people use mixed case unless writing something very important. So all of your sentences are very important. And everyone else posting here. Everything we say is important. Cool. |
|
|
|
Anyway, in that video dude claims that he received and offer from someone to create a 'pro bitcoin video' for 2000 USD, he supposedly replied with demand of 10 mil USD for this, and than some counter offer was received for 20 000 USD.
None of this sounds plausible at all. Imagine you are some 'bitcoin investor' would you really hire this guy (or anyone) for 10k$ to be a "pro bitcoin" shill? What's the ROI on that? LOL, some people are overly paranoid (dog reflection heh). This dude is legit, you can't make this shit up. If he's not, he's a world class actor. He reacts to a bunch of stuff the same way he does to Bitcoins, nothing to see here (he's an ex marine with obvious hormone level issues). The most you could say of him is that he's probably scared of Bitcoin because he is invested in silver (to which he would reply "scared? Yeah, me and my concealed handgun licence!" heh). If Bitcoin really takes off, it could hurt gold and silver prices. The stuff about him getting mails is more than likely legit too, the person(s) sending the mail were probably trying to troll/entrap him, and/or get personally identifiable info out of him so they could fuck with him later. He didn't fall for that because it was so obvious. |
|
|
|
Great thread, keep this one above the troll's It's like $cientology asking a yes/no question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" |
|
|
|
Bruce,
you were ON baby with the Timpone interview. you finally hit all the major rebuttal points that i've wanted you to broadcast to the world about the Fed, gold, inflation, and bitcoin.
one thing i'd like to emphasize is that you seem to imply that the price of btc will keep on rising forever while the price of everything else will fall in relation to btc. while i agree that btc still has a long way to rise, i think its important for people to understand that at some price it will level out and become a stable, constant, currency that doesn't whipsaw up and down like it is now in its infancy.
the reason this point is important is that if it did keep rising forever, number one it would crush the value of everyones other investments (homes, stocks, commodities, whatever) and this scares people. we don't want to scare people. Bruce misunderstood Patrick's question (which came from Andy Gauss) and answered it with "but Bitcoin is infinitely divisible" (Patrick seemed confused and didn't ask for clarification). It doesn't matter if it's infinitely divisible (which is a hyperbole by itself), the point of the question was the above. Most people will have other holdings/debts (a house/mortgage, car payments/amortization, maybe gold/silver, pension in USD etc.), which will indeed be crushed if Bitcoin keeps deflating exponentially. And if Bitcoin is successful, it has to keep deflating a lot before equilibrium is reached, which could be ongoing for decades. That's a major issue to which I haven't heard a proper rebuttal yet, it has been routinely sidestepped. Also, even if you could, you wouldn't want to convert your mortgage into BTC, because if you have to pay back 10k BTC now, a few years down the line when the BTC/USD value will have gone up by a magnitude, your debt (mortgage in BTC) will have gone up by a magnitude too. The only way to equal that as far as I can see is to hold as much BTC of your own to compensate, but that kinda makes having a mortgage pointless, so we have to assume that the mortgage is needed and therefore a heavily deflating Bitcoin is a disaster. The prevailing argument seems to be that this will prevent lending (banks will want to sit on Bitcoin because it should generate much more revenue than interest or trading and people would be crazy to take on loans that increase their debt exponentially). Which would mean that noone could buy a house upfront unless they already had the money for it. This has far reaching implications, it would impact the automotive industry, shipping, commercial building in general (how do you get loans for railways, airstrips, harbours, bridges etc.?), anything that requires an upfront investment that is regained slowly over years. I guess one answer would be that you would want to use USD or whatever for all of those things and BTC for everything else while BTC slowly takes over, but somehow I'm skeptical about this working out without almost something like a planned economy. Why would a bank not convert all of their USD into BTC for maximum ROI as soon as they saw where it was going for example? And this would accelerate the demise of USD (or whatever has taken its place by then, after QExxx) as well, which would cause chaos on a massive scale. I don't think that the argument flies that people will be forced to abandon rampant consumerism, because you have to buy food, shelter, medical care, education for your children etc. with something. overall, great show and i watch it everyday! I watched a couple of them in succession, the one with Stefan Thomas was great, very intelligent, precise and sympathetic too, someone I would gladly work with. The episode before that was a good rant Bruce: a criticism you must have heard before is that you seem to be engrossed in your own world most of the time. Particularly when the guest is speaking, don't concentrate on your laptop/chatroom/forum/papers, pay attention to the screen. Have your production assistant do the other stuff (wear earpiece for prompting). Also, you're on screen, not on radio, we can see every hand gesture regarding text messages and whatnot. It may be a good idea to get more suitable chairs as well, you're slouching |
|
|
|
Could you buy me dinner now? I'd at least like to have a nice meal before I get fucked. Eric Cartman, you're grounded! It doesn't matter where their physical offices are located if they commit crimes in Australia. Obvious troll is obvious. @Jered: I hope you do careful due diligence on any (financial/legal) advice you get from third parties. |
|
|
|
A generation ago, multi-user time-sharing computer systems had a similar problem. Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but the way this is phrased implies that he's not talking about a home user, since the home user is usually their own system administrator and trust in yourself is implicit. The same home user eventually will lose that privilege though, moving to the cloud (e.g. dropbox changing their TOS getting licence to your stuff), on locked down mobile platforms (e.g. Apple) or if companies like Microsoft get their way (no more administrator privileges, remote revoke rights on software etc. - this is already the case for ebooks, ironically 1984 was revoked from Kindle by Amazon). Obviously in a corporate environment the user has no admin privileges (sometimes they do have local admin rights, but these are often trumped by network admin rights implemented through domain policies for example). If the user is not their own admin then the above is naive for a number of reasons. The admin will not allow user file/partition encryption on the system unless they get the key as well (or have a master key) since without this: - no off-line virus scans are possible - encrypted files cannot be compressed so will cost the company more storage for backups - quota/policy enforcement on filetypes becomes more problematic - no access to the user's files is possible in case of an accident, or employee leaving the company inamicably - the company cannot comply with corporate and/or legal requirements to scan/monitor the user's performance/files/mail/whatever As soon as the user does not comply with this, he'll be in trouble. Perfect example of the worst case scenario is Terry Childs. |
|
|
|
Which will also effect TH, afterall, their money will be seized. Great, this or next week is good, instead of millions in a couple of years, they'll get all $500 or so of it now I'm sure this will send shockwaves through the Bitcoin community, causing everyone to abandon it with ehm, abandon. I love prophets with distinct and up-close dates, they are so easily proven wrong. |
|
|
|
This is more or less what I've figured all along (although it's interesting to hear that the admin account could just grant himself arbitrary bitcoins; I reckoned instead that somebody had used an admin account to collect bitcoins together from other accounts). Those are quite possibly the same thing. The blurb is, perhaps intentionally, unclear on the exact details. Where it says "was able to arbitrarily assign himself a large number of Bitcoins" it could be that that large number is the total number of Bitcoins in the system, which would effectively be a pooling of all user balances (not necessarily zeroing out user balances, just a sum/view). If there are no safeguards to limit admins to a balance that is actually backed, then an attacker could 'create' 50 million BTC and sell as long as there are buy orders. This would of course have to be rolled back. "We would like to note that the Bitcoins sold were not taken from other users’ accounts—they were simply numbers with no wallet backing." doesn't specify whether there are internal safeguards against going over the backed limit, but it makes it possible. BTW, saying the withdrawal was prevented by unspecified security measures could mean they had an on-line wallet that was used for small or expected day-to-day withdrawals and perhaps their off-line wallet was accessed once every 24 hours to move funds back and forth as necessary. But the full withdrawal could just as well have been prevented by panic sells and opportunistic buys quickly driving the price up (0.50 USD/BTC for a withdrawal of 2000 BTC with a $1000 limit). |
|
|
|
But my real point is that the exchange markets exist because of convience, not necessity. True, but from that follows that those who would adopt Bitcoin because it is easier/cheaper than say Paypal would be eliminated from the picture without exchanges, because seeking out someone already holding Bitcoin is neither easier nor cheaper (time=money). I cannot guarantee that this is the majority, but I'm reasonably certain it is. |
|
|
|
Das System hinter Bitcoins wird seit 2007 von einer Hackergruppe entwickelt, die heute vom US-Bundesstaat Massachusetts aus operiert.
The system behind Bitcoins is being developed since 2007 by a group of hackers, which operates from Massachusetts nowadays.
What? I only skimmed it but it's the worst kind of hit piece. They do everything to make it look and sound bad. They even invent stuff like 'cyber maffiosi made a lot of money off the flash crash'. Conclusion is: it is made by hackers, it is only used for illegal stuff and will be made illegal soon. Hackers being used in the classic media sense of evil masterminds out to destroy everything, of course. |
|
|
|
I never knew the marines were into buzzword bingo |
|
|
|
As part of customer service, can you please stop using the phrase 'going forward'? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
