Every time, for as long as I remember, that I go on bitcointalk, everyone keeps posting "BTC IS DEAD" "SELL" etc... And then a few Sr/Hero members come and explain how thats wrong.
I just don't get it.
Aren't we used to the price fluctuating by now? Whats with all the crying/moaning about price bubbles, crashing, inflations, Russia, China blablablablablablaaaaa!
Jeez... Do some research before posting, I saw one post which got LOADS of attention, yet the first post was done by paint, with an unlabelled graph which showed wrong data!
This is getting to the point where we are affecting newer members or gullible people into selling/dumping all their coins instead of keeping them. I mean when I come on the forum, I see that its crashing, why would I buy in?
I think we need to stop giving the panicking people attention and focus more on positive sides.
 Look at this and realize how stupid people look when they say "Bitcoin is dead" from now on. |
|
|
|
Why do you think there is a difference? How does mistreating people make them more profitable?
If machines already have all the production in hand that could be "good" for them, and if they are more intelligent than we are (a necessity - but not sufficient - to be "good masters"), then how could we even be profitable for them ? What could we do for them that they can't do themselves any better ? If all standard labour is replaced by robots, if all design and invention labour is replaced by super-smart computers, and if strategic management is replaced by super smart computers, what good are we *for them* ? We take the position with respect to machines, in the same way as animals take a position with respect to us. What "profit" do animals make for us ? - as pet animals (because we have some affinity for furry animals, but are machines going to have affinity for pet humans) - as cattle (because we want to eat them, but are machines going to eat us, or desire other body parts) - as a nuisance, to be exterminated (like mosquitoes or rats) - in a reserve, for tourism, or for ecological needs (but machines are not "connected" to the carbon cycle, so they don't care in principle) During a certain time in our history, animals did "profitable labour" for us, like oxen as "mechanical engines" and horses as means of transport. Dogs do some labour for us still for blind people, and to work as guardians and so. But will machines use us as mechanical engines, guardians and the like ? Probably machines themselves are much better at this than we are. Maybe machines will use dogs, but not humans :-) First you say people will use guns and then you say machines should use guns.
I mean: the entities in power are in power because they use guns, not because "they are fair" or something of the like. In our history, the entities in power have always been certain humans, or certain classes of humans. They got the power through weapons. The states are still entities wielding guns to keep the power. The day machines take the power, they will wield guns to enslave us, not just "by being fair employers" or some other joke. People still have the power to choose to stop using electricity and turn off the machines, but people will choose not to do so.
I think that at a certain point, people will not have that choice, no more than you have the choice right now to "switch off the state". The rare times in history where people "switched off the king" (like Louis XVI) was because people took the guns, and the king ended up having less guns than the people. But machines wielding guns will always be stronger. The aim is not to work and produce but to consume and increase your standard of livings even if creating and working are a huge source of satisfaction. You could still create and produce even if machines were doing all the heavy work. Working is shit for most people, few enjoy their jobs. Not only because it pays shit, but because they are boring and personally they don't care. I would rather have free time and a basic income while jobs get automated and produce for me and spend my free time with art/leissure time even if I make little money compared to active people in the economy. |
|
|
|
What does cryptonote do? Can someone give a beginners explanation pls.
There is a decent high level intro on the web site. Extreme high level into is an anonymous (untraceable and unlinkable) blockchain plus some other tweaks to Bitcoin (no fixed block size, etc.) https://cryptonote.org/inside/It all seems great, but for some reason they are struggling to come up with a functional gui. AFAIK Monero still didn't got the gui going right? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Venture Capital per Quarter is Exploding  And we have not even ended quarter yet ... Im gonna post this graphic from now on everytime I hear someone say "bitcoin... isn't it dead yet"? type of comments. |
|
|
|
Well Apple's trying to get into the action, and IBM won't want to be left behind.
You would think that they have some expertise to bring but it is usually hard to arrive on a new tech market as a company from an other market even if you have a lot of expertise that relates to this new market. Look at google with its social network. True, but never underestimate the herd mentality... Im just hoping people don't buy on this bs and don't put their money in closed source monetary systems. |
|
|
|
I have a question to the OP: what are the underlying assumptions that make this log regression's trend held over the entire period depicted?
It is hard to believe, taking out some severe doom-like event to the US dollar, to see the price of Bitcoin reaching $100k by 2020. Not even to talk about the valuations beyond the 2020. Isn't it that you try to estimate the trend for much longer time period (next 10, 20, 50 years), having the data from a relatively short period of time (2010 till now) and thus committing a huge prediction error, due to the insufficient amount of data?
Who would have thought in 2009 that bitcoin could reach 1 per coin? we have the same mentality towards 10 or even 100K. Everything impossible in the unknown future. |
|
|
|
I'm very bullish on the Wall Street Journal, they actually put Bitcoin on the front page of their print newspaper!!!  CNBC TV is on all the time at my office, and whenever they have one of their correspondants speak about Bitcoin, I feel myself getting dumber and dumber... Nice, the rest should learn and get with the times, and hire some people that aren't brain dead about how BTC works. |
|
|
|
|
Been saying it for a while... they have been looking at bitcoin and they are working in a bitcoin ripoff and will try to push it into them asses and make it mainstream, goverments will probably back it up since they will be all in. Of course all centralized, regulated and closed source like Bill Gates want it. These pigs want to distract the people from bitcoin by creating their own currency and move their fiat scam into the e-currency field and start all over again. This is why we need to reach critical mass of adoption with Bitcoin as soon as possible and go mainstream.
|
|
|
|
|
I sometimes trade fiat currencies against each other. It was a nice move today. I normally don't trade in the evenings because of it. Just have been playing EUR/USD all day and the chart was too easy not to trade.
|
|
|
|
How much money can you make? what are the payments depending on how much content you translate? please details. |
|
|
|
|
They will end up adopting it forced by the competition as the rest keep accepting it. Paypal is already in.
|
|
|
|
Something should be centralized.
Not everyone is educated.
Look at those scammers and thieves who are on always on a prowl for unsecured sites, they do it because there is no central entity that will fuck him up if he did those things.
So, we sometimes need it.
Like it or not we are heading towards a totally decentralized technological future, or at least the option of being at a totally decentralized internet. Yes of course, the idea of decentralize everything is good but the process might be very very difficult because some people dont like to "decentralize" all the life aspect (yes I know it is hard to understand, but this is true). The freedom and the decentralization are really correlated. I dont think it will be difficult. People will naturally go towards it as they keep getting scammed with with fiat (they go to bitcoin) and they keep getting spyed on (they stop using normal internet for maidsafe etc) |
|
|
|
Would you agree or not? Bitcoin Only Needs Two YearsHmmmm... I respect the guy yeah.. But I do not know where his information came from. 2 years might be a little bold.. Maybe give it 3-5 years. I am still having doubt about that. What do you think? Why does he have to say that? To make us hope? I just wish he is right. Well we live on a (supposedly) free country and he is free to make any prediction, and a 2 year positive prediction is objectively correct given our current coordinates. |
|
|
|
|
Study the market as in see what other people doing similar stuff are charging then decide your price.
|
|
|
|
|
I dont trully understand how open source can still be a problem.
I think TrueCrypt devs were bribed to discontinue the program and recommend Bitlocker or god knows what.
In any case you can get VeraCrypt these days which should be legit.
|
|
|
|
 That's pretty cool. Did you make that? I saw this posted in offtopic but without Dorian's face lol. |
|
|
|
|
My main fear is that the miners start jumping off the ship if the price goes lower.
|
|
|
|
They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.
We have that already. It's called mining. How does mining address particular questions such as "do we want a fork or not?" |
|
|
|
|
Anarchocapitalist advocates often are out of arguments when confronted about the obvious problems 0% regulation generates.
|
|
|
|
ugh. stick with small exchanges like cointrader, coinchimp and localbitcoins .. the big ones are all scams
In localbitcoins you can get stabbed by some thug. Everything has it's own risks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
