|
Yep, transfer fiat to bitstamp, and btc to bitfenix, buy at 400 on bitstamp, get btc out of bitstamp, and simultaneously sell btc at 409 on bitfenix, rinse and repeat. at times get btc out of bitstamp and send them to bitfenix, get the fiat out of bitfenix and send to bitstamp. these are all the needed steps for a roundtrip. you have utilized the spread of 10% only once, but for more than one of the steps you have to pay a percentage on the full amount.
|
|
|
|
why the price inarease $15 yesterday?
I guess Moolah got spooked trying to cash out all that coinage. Lol .. Mainstream media won't give a damn. Moolah hogs 5000+ btc and probably should now be dumping, its weird to see growth in price. Bitcoin Trader and Moolah went down at the same time so Bitcoin Trader should dump their stake too. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin was overinflated with the idea of buying hotel rooms with it and the average banks in China buying into it and exchanging it. A purpose in which it was never intended for or at least Bitcoin itself not the idea as a whole. So yes BTC will continue to drop back down to natural levels and will one day return to it's original purpose.
|
|
|
|
I don't care about the price of btc in 25 years. Technological innovation happens fast, and it's only a matter of time before btc is dethroned by one or more superior cryptos.
Are you shorting Bitcoin right now? https://www.bitfinex.com/https://icbit.se/If not , why not? No I am not because I do not trust these centralized exchanges. Use bitfinex. I've been quite satisfied with it. |
|
|
|
|
The main factor driving the bitcoin bubble is not quite speculation, but manipulation and money laundering. In Japan, there are more than 700 thousands chinese folks. If Bitcoin is credible among the majority of Asian collaborators, it may be attractive for japanese in their daily property transactions.
|
|
|
|
The guy attends shows and puts on a legit farce and has a business. Wonder if any of this will bleed over to his rl.
I find it useful to keep reminding myself that the map is not the territory and the bitcointalk/github account is not the person. Co-incidentally, I encountered some interesting relevant info, thought I'd write it up and share it with the discussants here ... BlockNet is a straightforwardly-rebranded git clone of BitSwift. By “straightforwardly-rebranded”, I mean that, apart from some minimal changes to parameters, the rest of the changes are to the strings carrying the coin's name. This string replacement is often crude, fuzzily focused and inadequately constrained. Fuzzy focus in BlockNet revealing BitSwift origin https://github.com/atcsecure/blocknet/blob/master/COPYING#L1Copyright (c) 2014 BitSwift Developers
Copyright (c) 2013-2014 NovaCoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2011-2012 PPCoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2014 Bitcoin Developers
The current construction of BlockNet's heritage trail as AGS, DRM, HACK is incomplete and should read BITSWIFT, AGS, DRM, HACKAs a cloneparent, BitSwift itself is a straightforwardly-rebranded git clone of AegisCoin, as revealed by the dog's breakfast that the AegisCoin dev has made of the original carsenk <spit> clone with s/DRM/AGS/g and which, like a treasured family heirloom, has been faithfully preserved all the way down to the BlockNet code: Example of inadequate constraint inherited from inept ancestor dev https://github.com/atcsecure/blocknet/blob/master/src/addrman.cpp#L9int CAddrInfo::GetTriedBucket(const std::vector<unsigned char> &nKey) const
{
CDataStream ss1(SER_GETHASH, 0);
std::vector<unsigned char> vchKey = GetKey();
ss1 << nKey << vchKey;
uint64_t hash1 = Hash(ss1.begin(), ss1.end()).Get64();
CDataStream ss2(SER_GETHASH, 0);
std::vector<unsigned char> vchGroupKey = GetGroup();
ss2 << nKey << vchGroupKey << (hash1 % ADAGSAN_TRIED_BUCKETS_PER_GROUP);
uint64_t hash2 = Hash(ss2.begin(), ss2.end()).Get64();
return hash2 % ADAGSAN_TRIED_BUCKET_COUNT;
} AegisCoin itself is a clone of DreamCoin, a Carsen Keck <spit> device. The original carsenk <spit> github repo is long gone but I made a fork at the time and the code testifies that the Korean hackcoin dev (who, to give him his due, had successfully created a “best-of” coin which is still prized today) was justified in accusing Carsen Keck <spit> of crass ineptitude: https://github.com/gjhiggins/dreamcoin/blob/master/COPYING
Copyright (c) 2014 hackcoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2013-2014 NovaCoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2011-2012 PPCoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2014 Bitcoin Developers
BlockNet, presented for ICO in Nov 2014, is basically a degraded copy of 6 month-old hackcoin and the identifiable descendants that populate the family tree have all turned out to be black sheep. Using this foul heritage as a foundational codebase for an ambitious project is an inexplicably odd choice for a reputedly savvy dev. It may be that the choice of initial commit is irrelevant - some devs adopt the tactic of simply obliterating the original commit with a later monolithic commit or even ignoring the open source code entirely and pursuing a V2.0-binary-only release policy, spuriously argued as aimed at protecting IP. Cheers Graham Oh my... this is bad. Can't believe I almost joined the IPO. It sounds drastic but the best way to make them look like an ass is to complete the project. Seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Burning currency seems to only hurt the person doing it, since everyone else gets richer. Unlike if one collects one million dollars in new bills, which hurts everyone else, if only slightly, since only one person's wealth has increased(hence the inflation - prices doubling is no biggie if wages double too!). It would seem that, if 300 million dollars were printed, provided that every American gets 1 of those dollars, everything will be peachy.
|
|
|
|
JimboToronto posted this back in February: Maybe this will help the noobs to understand:  Looking at this i just need an Uber for Bitcoin delivery to my office |
|
|
|
|
Anyone who truly believes that bitcoin will increase 100x in 2015 should logically convert 90%+ of their assets into bitcoin (assuming they haven't already). Be interesting to know how many people have actually done that, as opposed to simply voting on a poll.
|
|
|
|
with bitcoin deviating from all predicted trend lines and constantly dropping in price
the hash rate and difficulty is just inversly climbing up and up
So the result is clearly all those mid level bitcoin miners are left with loss ultimately have to quit and mining becomes only a market for the whale like players with lots of money who make bitcoin mining more centralized!
by 2012 domestic bitcoin became a thing of the past..
by 2014 even mid level mining players have to quit
mining affordable by diamond and coal mine owners?
The opposite. As soon as bitcoin increased enough in value to where it was profitable to create dedicated mining devices, the outcome was inevitable. I'm not sure what you mean by "leading to..."; virtually all mining is completely controlled, directly or indirectly, by a small number of individuals. Much of the current "control" is by operators of pools. If the decisions made by the pools are not generally accepted by the community as a whole then the control will go away Most of the "control" is by a small number of asic manufacturers who, if push came to shove, could easily run without any of the major pools, or without the community. Consider too that not only do they control a substantial share of the hashing power directly, but they indirectly control the rest in that they decide who can mine, and in what amounts they can mine. There is nothing you, me, or any "community" can do to change that. I agree. But that misses another point. The reason why people tend to prefer pooled mining is because of risk aversion. Solo mining offers a low probability of a high reward. Pooled mining offers a high probability of a low reward. The latter is more attractive to most people for the same reason that people generally prefer to invest the bulk of their cash in low-risk low-reward investments rather than lottery tickets. Indeed this is the case even if the net discounted return from pooled mining is actually lower than from solo mining. Of course none of this has anything to do with ASICS. It is simply a reflection of the low probability of any given solo miner mining a block. The solution is simply P2P pooled mining which avoids the centralized control problem. |
|
|
|
It's stupid for banks not to cheat in a society of cheating institutions. What exactly is supposed to be fair about fractional reserve banking? Billing mistakes and banking errors always work in the institutions favor and that's a reason why banks dislike/ban crypto  |
|
|
|
|
If someone made tremendous amounts of money on his/her own, like the owner of Virgin or something like that, people can respect them because they put in their time and learning into generating their own income. Those who want money and have business on their minds say that it is important to make friends with everyone and have an open mind. It's true but it's also ridiculous because it is not just your friends who make you rich - people need to do their own work too.
Those who want to make friends with the rich just because they are rich, deserve the least respect. But those who have found a way to be rich on their own could be respected.
|
|
|
|
Let's distill the reasons why people have made money in bitcoin since 2009.
2009-2010 : inventor & crypto mailing list hardcore guys. made the most money out of everyone, because nobody knew about it
2010-2011 : slashdot readers & hardcore geeks. made the 2nd most money, since nobody else knew about it
2011-2012 : bitcoin begins to leak to some mainstream media (some specialist financial press). risk takers & techno early adopters (not just hardcore geeks). made the 3rd most money in 2011 bubble high of ~$30.
2012-2013 : no bubble, just recovery from 2011 crash
2013-2014 : final biggest buggle. bitcoin makes it big in china and a rally is sparked led by china. bitcoin appears for the first time in the financial times a few days before it's all time high ($1200). at this point everybody knows about it. the main people making money from this bubble were either the remnants of the last few years or newbies in china.
At each stage, it seems to have been the early adopters who made the most. The criteria for doing well has been, find out about bitcoin early and buy & hold. this worked because there were still many people who didn't know about bitcoin, or who dismissed it.
Now, having reached the front page of the FT, everybody in the business + investing world knows about bitcoin. So you have to ask yourself, what other quality or attribute will I need to make money in bitcoin the next time (if there is a next time)? In life in general, if you ever expect to get rich easily you're heading for disaster. Many people in bitcoin have probably learnt that the hard way.
As a conclusion, if you expect to make money from any activity, you have to be doing something that the wider public is not. That includes bitcoin.
Actually the majority of mid-level players who don't have hundreds of thousands dollars in bitcoin, make money when big investors playing the market, where else gives you such a huge potential for growth. The problem is that early adopters of Bitcoin have taken their profits and this has pushed the value down; investors set stops to ensure that they do not lose too much money and therefore have been selling when price drops. This places additional downward pressures on the value. I believe some of the people who have sold (including myself) will be re-investing in Bitcoin as soon as the price stabilizes but no sensible investor buys in a falling market, and if they do they will probably have to dump again before the price hits rock bottom. What we are seeing at the moment is a race to hit the rock bottom price. When prices hit rock bottom people will start to buy again and this rush to get back into the game will probably fuel another price boom, however how do we know when the price has bottomed out. I've never bough at rock bottom as it is impossible to know when that is until after it has happened, so basically what we all do is waiting for a recovery and then buying on the upward trend, to ensure we are not caught out by a small price blip and upward trend must first develop and therefore we are not likely to see any substantial upward movement until such time as the price stops dropping. |
|
|
|
|
The problem is that the price need to stay on a slight upward trend for miners. Next halvening is in 2016. Very difficult to say what will happen. But I guess that once the inflation will be a bit lower, the trend might invert if there is more and more people to use Bitcoin.
Don't forget about the $ gaining value as well.
|
|
|
|
Wrong, 500k is not the initial sum, but the whole turnover. sorry i didn't check the whole inputs but it seems that there is nearly nothing left according to what is stated in the op premine should be near 125K |
|
|
|
XC Premine was discovered to be gone and admitted to by the team. I think we found out who was selling off on good news time after time....The XC Team selling the premine. was discovered by whom? Can anyone confirm this statement? |
|
|
|
|
Given that debt-to-gdp ratio is over 100% now and anything over 90% is a drag on economic growth usa should at least crank out a few trillion or so new greenbacks so you don’t have to borrow for a while. Once your debt ratio is down to a manageable 50% you could give the printing presses a rest and hold a big celebration.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
