China has been trying to short the bitcoin market a couple of times now by making weak hands panic sell on every of their PBOC announcements. The PBOC is obviously using their power to destabilize the market in order to keep stealing money from weak hands and profit from margin traded short positions as well.
So, you believe that the PBOC is buying bitcoins and/or shorting it? I'm skeptical. Where's your evidence?
|
|
|
I have an idea that will change the world. I know it sounds really stupid, but I know how to do it. I think it could actually work.
Good luck.
|
|
|
Paper gold is just a promise to give you gold. Promises can be broken.
|
|
|
Hi, I was wondering, did anyone of you ever thought about that if there were only sound money in place such as (BTC, Gold,...) all consumer credit is gone
Why couldn't someone borrow bitcoins? The easy credit is currently based on money borrowed that they don't have. If Bitcoin is in place and then the actual Bitcoins would have to change hands the interest rate won't be what is it today but at least double. So then you don't actually believe that "all consumer credit is gone", it would just be more expensive like it was 20 years ago. Also, there is no reason why there couldn't be fractional reserve banking with Bitcoin. I think it is inevitable.
|
|
|
A top-of-the-line PC will mine less than a dollar's worth of bitcoins in a year and cost hundreds of dollars in electricity.
|
|
|
Hi, I was wondering, did anyone of you ever thought about that if there were only sound money in place such as (BTC, Gold,...) all consumer credit is gone
Why couldn't someone borrow bitcoins?
|
|
|
Oh look! NewsBTC is promoting another Ponzi scheme!
|
|
|
Hmm. These suspensions of withdrawals are similar to events at Mt. Gox, and Cryptsy, and every other exchange that turned out to a scam.
|
|
|
A state or company could reduce volatility by encouraging adoption of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange, or at least removing their impediments to adoption. Volatility is primarily due to speculation, and increased adoption as a medium of exchange would reduce the effect of speculation, and thus reduce the volatility.
|
|
|
Bitcoins are the same no matter where they come from. Once you get the bitcoins, you can do whatever you want with them.
Bitcoins aren't normally sent to ab email address unless you go through a company that provides such a service.
|
|
|
I have bought games on Steam with bitcoins twice now. I had no problems.
Valve will be happy to know that I would not have bought them if I had to use some other method of payment.
|
|
|
WARNING: DO NOT SEARCH FOR AN ACTUAL PRIVATE KEY AT THIS SITE. TELLING THE SITE YOUR PRIVATE KEY WILL ALLOW IT TO TAKE YOUR BITCOINS. Thanks Cpt. Obvious. Why not put the font size to 72pt or something like that? Never enter private keys to any site anywhere. Ever. So it applies also to the aforementioned site. No news there. It was originally posted in the Beginners & Help sub-forum, so I think the warning was very appropriate.
|
|
|
If you generate private keys randomly, it will be extraordinarily unlikely that you will you ever see one at the very beginning or at the very end. Oh, and this... WARNING: DO NOT SEARCH FOR AN ACTUAL PRIVATE KEY AT THIS SITE. TELLING THE SITE YOUR PRIVATE KEY WILL ALLOW IT TO TAKE YOUR BITCOINS.
|
|
|
Tribalism, picking sides, starting wars are all paths to failure. Give up your pride and you precious ego, and do what is best for you and everyone else.
If you aren't clear who this post is directed at, then it is directed at you.
|
|
|
... says the member of a signature campaign. While I'm sure you don't post to make money, most signature campaign members do. Signature campaigns make equally trivial amounts of money. A person can make more money doing menial labor than they can make by posting for a signature campaign.
Again, you're forgetting about discrepancies of the world wealth distribution and existence of the 2nd and 3rd world countries. There are places where signature campaign monthly wage is higher than money people can earn by doing 'mental labor' in 'real job. Minimum wage of $15/hr is reality only in the wealthiest countries in the world. Citizens of 1st world nations tend to forget that part. I am aware, but I agree that many people in the rich nations are not. People in the U.S. complain about the "1%", but don't seem to realize that they are in the "1%" when you consider the entire world. An income of "only" $33k USD is enough to put your income in the top 1%, according to http://www.globalrichlist.com.
|
|
|
So far I'm only a newbie here, I don't have full of knowledge about in bitcoin, I'm in the stage of learning process. For what I do now is bitcoin faucets, reading in the forum to gained more knowledge about everything here.
with all due respect, faucets are a complete waste of time. just like watching advertisements online for bitcoin, its just not worth the effort/time spent, how much can you make of it? 2$ for 6 hours or work? even working out there for a minimum wage and use the few bucks you can save buying bitcoin seems like a better idea. ... says the member of a signature campaign. While I'm sure you don't post to make money, most signature campaign members do. Signature campaigns make equally trivial amounts of money. A person can make more money doing menial labor than they can make by posting for a signature campaign.
|
|
|
I understand that. And I don't claim that the producer shouldn't get any profits. But this is not the real issue. The real issue here is that the amount of money in circulation doesn't change. Say, the consumer and the producer have $100 each at the start (let's break free from the borrower/lender dichotomy for simplicity), and the consumer also happens to work for the producer. So, at the end of the production cycle, the producer should get income of $105 and pay $100 to the worker (who is also the consumer). The consumer gets paid $100 for his work as well as pays himself $105 for apples. Now the producer has $105 while the consumer only $95. Both were not sitting idly, but in the end the wealth got redistributed, and someone (the producer) ended up wealthier while someone else (the consumer who is also the worker) poorer, any way you look at it. By the end of the next cycle, the producer will have 110 dollars while the consumer (the worker) just 90 dollars, until the worker can't pay for apples at all
And how could this system be sustainable in the long run?
I agree that more productive people gain a disproportionate share of the wealth, and it is not sustainable. It eventually results in revolution where the haves become have-nots. But this has nothing to do with a fixed money supply. How does that have nothing to do with a fixed money supply? I basically proved to you that the reason for this system to be unsustainable is exactly because of a fixed money supply. If you don't really see how it is the crucial point here, assume that there is a dynamic money supply. In that case, the profits of the producer will be from the new money created, i.e. at the end of each cycle new 5 dollars will enter the system, and the producer gets this money while the worker still has his 100 dollars and is able to buy the same amount of apples each cycle without becoming poorer. The producer can then expand production and start growing oranges as well as hire two children of the worker for this new production. So more wealth get created in the end with everyone becoming wealthier in real as well as nominal (money) terms It appears that you are assuming that all the wealth in the world is backed by money, but that is not the case. If you determine the total wealth in the world, you will find that it far exceeds the total amount of money in the world, by orders of magnitude. The wealth of the world grows because people are productive and they create value and not because there is more money.
|
|
|
Welcome! Feel free to participate, but if you are asking where to post referral spam, pyramid scheme spam, and ponzi scheme spam, my preference is that you don't post at all.
|
|
|
I understand that. And I don't claim that the producer shouldn't get any profits. But this is not the real issue. The real issue here is that the amount of money in circulation doesn't change. Say, the consumer and the producer have $100 each at the start (let's break free from the borrower/lender dichotomy for simplicity), and the consumer also happens to work for the producer. So, at the end of the production cycle, the producer should get income of $105 and pay $100 to the worker (who is also the consumer). The consumer gets paid $100 for his work as well as pays himself $105 for apples. Now the producer has $105 while the consumer only $95. Both were not sitting idly, but in the end the wealth got redistributed, and someone (the producer) ended up wealthier while someone else (the consumer who is also the worker) poorer, any way you look at it. By the end of the next cycle, the producer will have 110 dollars while the consumer (the worker) just 90 dollars, until the worker can't pay for apples at all
And how could this system be sustainable in the long run?
I agree that more productive people gain a disproportionate share of the wealth, and it is not sustainable. It eventually results in revolution where the haves become have-nots. But this has nothing to do with a fixed money supply.
|
|
|
hashflare.io is pretty safe. But if you look here, you'll notice that right now the best contract have payback period of 813 days. So it's more than two years just to break even. Most of the contracts (all timed ones) never pay back. For example 1-year ethereum mining at hashflare.io will give you net loss of around 30%.
That's kind of a contradiction. You say they are safe, yet you will lose money. I guess you could consider them to be safe because of the transparency -- they let you know ahead of time that you will lose money. It is odd that people still invest in cloud mining knowing that they will either lose some of their money or all of their money.
|
|
|
|