In no way is the "Bitcoin's bullet proof BTC/blockchain linkage" broken. The coins aren't actually moved to the other chain, they are held on the mainchain like gold in a vault and a representation which is NOT BTC and can't be spent at coinbase for example, appears on the sidechain.
There is no way sidechains break the 21 million scarcity limit of real BTC. And anything that a sidechain could do to "dilute" the space (that is by creating a new token type) can be done with an altcoin today, and that has gotten nowhere. Any "betrayal" of the BTC "brand" that can be done with sidechains can equivalently be done much more easily (and with the same brand damage) with centralized solutions. We've seen it over and over again; Gox ponzi didn't kill BTC, and SCponzi won't either. But the risk of SCponzi will certainly make the mainchain the preferred place to hold and make large transfers. Sidechains will make Bitcoin the preferred long term store of value, because tremendous utility is just a chain transfer away.
And how is Gox going to go Ponzi when the GoxBTC and GoxUSD on its sidechain must match the BTC "locked" on the mainchain and the USD in their bank accounts (which can be audited)?
If a multi-token sidechain is created with scBTC and inflata-Coin-to-make-devs-rich, what do you think people will do? Probably not even touch the sidechain. But assuming they do, they will hold the scBTC and when they need to "use" the sidechain features the require inflata-coin, they'll buy the inflata-coin moments before spending it.
But without sidechains you really do risk a new token that comes along and takes massive market share. We as a society are not ready to put stocks, mortgages, etc on a blockchain (because why have the risk of a new tech coupled with the return of an old stock). But someday we WILL be. And when we are, what's going to be the preferred payment? Old stodgy BTC that you have to sign up for exchanges, do AML, etc to access real markets, or tradecoin which can be tranformed into GOOG 5 seconds after receipt? There's a REASON gold shot up when ETFs appeared -- its called access to markets.
What about the IOT (internet of things) token? 20 years from now, items in your house might be doing 500 txns per day for a total of < $5 automatically on your behalf... Sidechains allow BTC to scale beyond our wildest dreams to applications we can't even consider.
You are like the guy who said there's only use for 5 computers in the world.
You should instead consider that the biggest risk to BTC right now is the sidechain-altcoin that Blockstream so "kindly" offered to build instead of integrating these technologies directly into BTC. That altcoin has the potential to leave BTC in the backwaters of digital currencies (except that I believe in the core devs in Blockstream to move the tech over).
Ok, that's probably the end of my rant... but my subsequent silence does not mean that you are right :-). Honestly, I miss the great insights you guys (and mostly cypherdoc) provide about the larger world economic picture on this thread and hope that we can eventually get back to it! But I'll tell you this; I'm a technologist and I've skipped from one newly breaking technology to the next for my entire career in startups; gaming, telecom in 1995-2000, storage, wireless, OSHW, bitcoin. I'm telling you if sidechains CAN be done (honestly I haven't really verified the gory details of the automated 2-way peg myself) they WILL eventually be the dominant coin. I proposed them in early 2012 (the concept not the mechanism)... but don't worry to much, BTC will not die; it'll be the Rolls Royce with a valuation above what we have today, while the sidechain-enabled coin takes 99% of the market.
EDIT: tl;dr. Bitcoin is the zerg. It will take over everything thru sidechains.
That's a really persuasive argument from someone I respect. The other way to question this though is that somehow btc units are fed through the peg and through some magic stocks, bonds , smart contracts, altcoins, etc come out the other side and somehow this is not inflationary? What if it just breaks the entire system? Why would they want to hold the inflationary altcoin when they could hold the btc-pegged coin? If it was needed for functionality, they would buy it only as they needed to spend. The alt would have to be backed by some actual service to be valuable. Bitcoin would become the interchange mechanism and would primarily be used by arbitragers, speculators, and hodlers. And Cypherdoc gets to keep his pile on the right. |
|
|
|
In no way is the "Bitcoin's bullet proof BTC/blockchain linkage" broken. The coins aren't actually moved to the other chain, they are held on the mainchain like gold in a vault and a representation which is NOT BTC and can't be spent at coinbase for example, appears on the sidechain.
There is no way sidechains break the 21 million scarcity limit of real BTC. And anything that a sidechain could do to "dilute" the space (that is by creating a new token type) can be done with an altcoin today, and that has gotten nowhere. Any "betrayal" of the BTC "brand" that can be done with sidechains can equivalently be done much more easily (and with the same brand damage) with centralized solutions. We've seen it over and over again; Gox ponzi didn't kill BTC, and SCponzi won't either. But the risk of SCponzi will certainly make the mainchain the preferred place to hold and make large transfers. Sidechains will make Bitcoin the preferred long term store of value, because tremendous utility is just a chain transfer away.
And how is Gox going to go Ponzi when the GoxBTC and GoxUSD on its sidechain must match the BTC "locked" on the mainchain and the USD in their bank accounts (which can be audited)?
If a multi-token sidechain is created with scBTC and inflata-Coin-to-make-devs-rich, what do you think people will do? Probably not even touch the sidechain. But assuming they do, they will hold the scBTC and when they need to "use" the sidechain features the require inflata-coin, they'll buy the inflata-coin moments before spending it.
But without sidechains you really do risk a new token that comes along and takes massive market share. We as a society are not ready to put stocks, mortgages, etc on a blockchain (because why have the risk of a new tech coupled with the return of an old stock). But someday we WILL be. And when we are, what's going to be the preferred payment? Old stodgy BTC that you have to sign up for exchanges, do AML, etc to access real markets, or tradecoin which can be tranformed into GOOG 5 seconds after receipt? There's a REASON gold shot up when ETFs appeared -- its called access to markets.
What about the IOT (internet of things) token? 20 years from now, items in your house might be doing 500 txns per day for a total of < $5 automatically on your behalf... Sidechains allow BTC to scale beyond our wildest dreams to applications we can't even consider.
You are like the guy who said there's only use for 5 computers in the world.
You should instead consider that the biggest risk to BTC right now is the sidechain-altcoin that Blockstream so "kindly" offered to build instead of integrating these technologies directly into BTC. That altcoin has the potential to leave BTC in the backwaters of digital currencies (except that I believe in the core devs in Blockstream to move the tech over).
Ok, that's probably the end of my rant... but my subsequent silence does not mean that you are right :-). Honestly, I miss the great insights you guys (and mostly cypherdoc) provide about the larger world economic picture on this thread and hope that we can eventually get back to it! But I'll tell you this; I'm a technologist and I've skipped from one newly breaking technology to the next for my entire career in startups; gaming, telecom in 1995-2000, storage, wireless, OSHW, bitcoin. I'm telling you if sidechains CAN be done (honestly I haven't really verified the gory details of the automated 2-way peg myself) they WILL eventually be the dominant coin. I proposed them in early 2012 (the concept not the mechanism)... but don't worry to much, BTC will not die; it'll be the Rolls Royce with a valuation above what we have today, while the sidechain-enabled coin takes 99% of the market.
EDIT: tl;dr. Bitcoin is the zerg. It will take over everything thru sidechains.
This. Decentralizing all business, including the ponzis, will let people keep an eye on things. Federated sidechains don't go far enough because only a few centralized entities control the rules, and failure rate has traditionally been high in this space. And Cypher, if you want wild conspiracy theory, how about blockstream is meant to divide the BTC community so that they can overtake it with such a sidechain-altcoin. If it could be merged mined, miners would be stupid not to participate. They have the capital, so the only way to win this one is ideas. By making this one concession, we get to keep our hard money status, while allowing bitcoin funded innovation in a continuum of sidechains from fully decentralized through various levels of federated to fully centralized. Let the market choose which sidechains to accept. |
|
|
|
A lot of people here find taxes tyrannical. But who will commit to not using the services they pay for? That would strengthen the case for not paying. I can respect that. If you are using all the benefits of taxation but not paying, then you are just sticking your bills to another person who will have to make up for you. I can't respect that.
I don't mind paying my share, but I want the government to go after dead beats if it means I will have to pay for them.
The problem isn't all services and all taxes. The problem is the cruise missiles that cost $1 million each, and all the other military hardware that only makes us less safe. Our enemy has become a body of ideas, and by waging a war of force, we are creating more orphans, who are the most vulnerable to radicalization. |
|
|
|
It's been announced that 50 thousand silk road bitcoins are due to be auctioned in early December. The announcement coincided with a crash down to 375, but it seems to be bouncing back a bit now. What's this going to do to the price in the run up to the auction and afterwards? http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/Do you really have to post this in every thread? I posted it in two technical analysis threads to get opinions because Chessnut thinks the bottom is in and the master thinks it's not in. Perhaps they will both have different opinions about the second silk road bitcoins auction and I am interested to hear them. And it is off topic in both since they are technical analysis threads. |
|
|
|
It's been announced that 50 thousand silk road bitcoins are due to be auctioned in early December. The announcement coincided with a crash down to 375, but it seems to be bouncing back a bit now. What's this going to do to the price in the run up to the auction and afterwards? http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/Do you really have to post this in every thread? |
|
|
|
When a Bitcoin miner starts merge mining Namecoin, how much more opportunity cost do they forfeit compared to the case where they only mine Bitcoin?
The time, electricity, and capex needed for mining Bitcoin doesn't count because that cost is paid for with Bitcoin. From the perspective of Namecoin's security model, it's not an opportunity cost.
If a Bitcoin miner wants to attack Bitcoin's ledger, they have to pay a real cost for it. If a Bitcoin miner wants to attack Namecoin, the cost of the attack is effectively free.
We know how easy it is for Bitcoin miners to attack other double SHA256 ledgers, because they've done it before.
At best, merge mining creates security equivalent to proof of stake.
Merge mining may not require more hashes, but it does require CPU, ram, and network resources. |
|
|
|
You are dispicible, and I regret ever coming to your defense in previous "troll battles". If your own privacy is so important, how can you justity putting a bounty on someone else's personal life? Talk about a double standard.
dude, you really have trouble defining your own ethics don't you?
Should have let me out you... we could have split the bounty.
 of course! to no surprise cypher doesn't catch an obvious sarcasm/joke attempt Exactly, weaseling his way out of answering the question. I really do regret helping to create this monster, but we are all foolish from time to time. The biggest tip off to his dishonesty is that he never admits the smallest imperfection. Only idiots and con men display such behavior, so which is it cypher? |
|
|
|
So who are you? If brg444's privacy has to be sacrificed for the sake of an honest discussion, so should yours.
what i'm really looking for is a connection of brg444 to Blockstream. it would explain the all out character assassination mode, afaic. and it didn't come with a silver spoon or connections. i grew up in a lower, middle class family in a shitty city. the only way i was going to a quality university was to get a full scholarship out of high school, which i did. that was the ticket that got my career rolling.
And a wife with a nice fat trust fund. nice try but i didn't get married until i was 27. so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.
And we'd like to know who we're dealing with. you're dealing with someone who has fought 2 previous long, grueling troll battles in the past supporting Bitcoin: the gold collapsing debate since Aug 2011 when gold was near its top @1923 and the brutal Bitcoin crash of 2011 from 32-->1.98 against the Bitcoin bears. this current debate is nothing new for me and is consistent with my past behavior. You are dispicible, and I regret ever coming to your defense in previous "troll battles". If your own privacy is so important, how can you justity putting a bounty on someone else's personal life? Talk about a double standard. |
|
|
|
...
Seriously cypher, don't be a dick. There is no reason to fuck with people's privacy over an internet fight. Grow the fuck up.
I think his account was hacked, or maybe he's been tweaking a bit. The real cypherdoc would never do anything like that. hey, it worked didn't it?  i got his identity within minutes and from the most unlikely of all sources, brg444 himself. and i didn't have to pay a dime. btw, the 2 BTC bounty is still open for any evidence, subject to my approval, of a direct link of Alex Berg @bergalex to Blockstream. it really helps to know who your opponent is. isn't that what Sun Tzu said? for a moment there, he had me worried i was talking to gmax or luke and i'd actually have to learn something technically. instead, i now know he really is a 24 yo kid with a shitty job who has only been in Bitcoin for a mere 8mo and who has no perspective on the ups and downs of Bitcoin since Jan 2011 when i got involved (lurking). hell, when i was 24 yo my career success was baked in the cake. i was in the middle of my training at the #3 ranked school in the nation for what i do and the #1 research grant recipient for same said school. i've gone on to reach the absolute apex of my field and in my element i have absolute authority to which ppl have to respond within seconds or else lose their jobs. i work with the highest and coolest of technologies and enjoy a level of respect from clients only granted to a few select professions. i love what i do and i have time for Bitcoin, which i also love. So who are you? If brg444's privacy has to be sacrificed for the sake of an honest discussion, so should yours. and it didn't come with a silver spoon or connections. i grew up in a lower, middle class family in a shitty city. the only way i was going to a quality university was to get a full scholarship out of high school, which i did. that was the ticket that got my career rolling.
And a wife with a nice fat trust fund. so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.
And we'd like to know who we're dealing with. |
|
|
|
Here: I'll throw you a bone since I really don't have anything to hide and it can only serve to make you look even more stupid in your own thread. https://twitter.com/bergalexShould have let me out you... we could have split the bounty. Seriously cypher, don't be a dick. There is no reason to fuck with people's privacy over an internet fight. Grow the fuck up. |
|
|
|
http://bfxdata.com/combined/btc.phpDid someone just close a 5k short and then reopen it shortly after? That's an insane amount of bitcoin swaps that seemed to move together. Edit: No trades during that time... perhaps it is a whale who had already closed his shorts trading in his swaps for a lower interest rate... Even if all the selling since then has been this big fish, he still has a lot of dry powder that is burning interest.
|
|
|
|
FOR FUK SAKE
had my leverage stop loss at the motherfucking bottom.
If you have to put your stops so tight, you're using too much leverage. |
|
|
|
Hi Erich, what is that green thing you have strapped onto the front of that face mask you are wearing in your avatar photo?  It's a filter. |
|
|
|
Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs. If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid. If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable. Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.
Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY. Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork). My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid). What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain. As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof. All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A). The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B). So we get a forked blockchain… Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain. When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B. Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain. However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked. TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision. It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain). That makes sense, thanks for clearing it up. You're a troll who can't hear. I've explained a thousand times. By using their 40% core dev plus 3 top committers to jam through a source code rule set change that specifically favors their business model over that if others who already committed millions to alternative plans and so will lose as a result, then setting up a for profit to benefit from said rule chang, and then on top of all that refusing to step down from their conflicted position so that they can block any future competition.
They can't jam anything through. The developers still need to get miners to run their code. |
|
|
|
then by all means, implement it as a federated server model. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.
Open source -> everybody can download and change this code. Everybody is free do not use any changes in code. They(anybody, you too) can create your own bitcoin (and there are plenty of alts, already). as a separate topic, i see this free for all mentality as inconsistent with the consensus model both of which are supposed to be principles of open source. by your argument above, you suggest that someone should just fork code w/o bothering to gain consensus. that's weird. how is that consistent with the consensus model that supposedly our core devs engage in with Bitcoin? shouldn't we all, as a community, strive to figure out ahead of time what our path should be so as to attempt to minimize mis-steps as long as force is not applied? If you do not like open source then do not use it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_softwareOpen-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software is very often developed in a public, collaborative manner. Open-source software is the most prominent example of open-source development and often compared to (technically defined) user-generated content or (legally defined) open-content movements.
+1 Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs. If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid. If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable. Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community. |
|
|
|
the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.
their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.
there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?
Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.
If bitcoin can easily just be moved into these sidechain then won't they still have the exact same value as before? Lets say 1 btc = 100 scBtc. When miners are rewarded 1 btc, it'll always been worth at least whatever 100 scBtc is worth because it could just be easily moved to that chain at any time? So I don't understand how value itself would be siphoned from bitcoin since you could easily use the bitcoin to buy value from any chain you wish? by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges. their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess. but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it. they will be transformed. this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof. Won't the free market take those things into account making scBtc less valuable and higher risk? And those who stayed in btc have their value rise? Cypher only believes in the free market when it helps make his case. |
|
|
|
the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.
their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.
there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?
Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.
If bitcoin can easily just be moved into these sidechain then won't they still have the exact same value as before? Lets say 1 btc = 100 scBtc. When miners are rewarded 1 btc, it'll always been worth at least whatever 100 scBtc is worth because it could just be easily moved to that chain at any time? So I don't understand how value itself would be siphoned from bitcoin since you could easily use the bitcoin to buy value from any chain you wish? by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges. their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess. but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it. they will be transformed. this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof. Again, SPV proofs are only needed for decentralized sidechains. These will be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. |
|
|
|
the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
I don't see this assumption. The assumption is that the ledger can be extended. BTC are locked, creating an entry on a subledger. Only by proving the validity of the subledger can the BTC be unlocked. I don't see how this breaks Bitcoin as money. Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.
their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.
Centralized entities have no need for a SPV proof, the federated model using m-of-n bitcoin addresses will work just fine for them. BTW, this is still a SC under the definitions given in the paper, and it can be done today. there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?
The only way "all the bitcoin" will move to a sidechain is if the sidechain is obviously better than BTC. If that's the case, why not upgrade? Your BTC will be convertible. I see no losers here. If "all the bitcoin" move to many sidechains, BTC is still needed as the backbone to move between the different sidechains. That's where the fees will come in, and maintaining a limited block size will ensure they are high enough. Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.
I don't think you understand their business model very well. The have an obligation to profit, yes. But their business is developing new capabilities by extending the Bitcoin platform. In order to continue offering services extending the Bitcoin platform, they have to ensure the Bitcoin platform remains viable. A dairy farmer doesn't eat his cattle. |
|
|
|
What is going on  What's going on is we're up over 16% since a week ago. That in itself is pretty crazy, anything above 400 at this time is just incredible. We're down 7.5% in 24hrs   We? I'm so down. |
|
|
|
Speaking of absurdities, is there a way to check the rates for specific dates? If so, would someone be a sport and share a screen cap of 12/21/12 so we can see what happened with bitcoin when the world ended. Or even compare to various time based speculations of things happening and see what bitcoin rates were doing. Only reason I suggest it is because it seems to me that every time there's bad news, bitcoin price jumps UP and any time there's good news, it takes a nosedive. Curious whether the world ending would be good or bad for bitcoin buyers! Bitcoincharts.com has historical charts (select "custom time" to narrow it down to what you want). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
