|
Few points of note:
1) read carefully and slowly and do not twist my arguments, I wrote "N is number of entities" not people.
2) monetary velocity is a typical academic economists red herring variable, it only serves to self-aggrandise the formula of value whilst obfuscating any useful information about the psychology of value while conveniently, for the Statists, indicting the performance of the economy in the value of money
3) my formula can be as useful or as useless (passive) as you choose to make it, expectations of value and reality are inextricably intertwined in the subjective theory of value for monetary goods.
|
|
|
|
|
The market invariably chooses to use the best money available. There can only be one.
|
|
|
|
|
that monetary velocity formula is a convenient fiction for ivory tower academic economists, e.g. I don't see anything about an human psychology factor in there.
Here's the one I use:
Bmo = N x A
Bmo ~ total value bitcoin M0 (also called 'market cap')
N ~ total number of entities holding bitcoins
A ~ average Amount of value holding entities are willing to hold in btc
It appears likely that N is only going to keep increasing for the forseeable future (perhaps with exponential adoption rates at times).
A will stay around the same but also may increase as the confidence in holding value in btc becomes firmer.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is vastly superior to traditional fiat currency schemes.  .I don't think that it is true...can you give me some issues? ... impending systemic collapse due to massive centralisation of collective risks. |
|
|
|
WOW, my leveraged long seems to be gotten margin called at 382??? (we hit 381.998 but it wasn't supposed to be margin called till 358)
It said it would get margin called at 358?? What the fuck has happend??
Welcome to derivatives 101 Take heart tho, it's not a lesson that can be taught. It must be learned. What?? My average price was 375 and I get margin called at 382?  Exactly. You learn quick! You did not own the asset, you owned a claim on the asset. Paper shenanigans, and it sucks, but that's what you get, and that is how their system works. What the fuck are you saying?? Are you saying some asshole decided he did not want to lend out any usd for me anymore? And he managed to do this AT THE SPLIT FUCKING SECOND we were at 382?? House rules ... you give them your fiat money or your coinz you play by their rules. And all exchanges are like loaded casinos, house always wins. Unbelievable with an asset like bitcoin, the first digital asset of its kind to allow circumvention of having to deal with crappy house rules people think they are going to beat the house by trading. Take the coins of the table and leave the house is the only way you can win this game and bitcoin allows you to do this for the first time. |
|
|
|
thanks, good summary |
|
|
|
|
World Bank, IMF all those guys deserve people like Williams and Krugman misinforming each other in a Keynesian, Luddite back-clapping circle (that was the gentle version).
The longer they chose to be isolated and ignorant of the future of monetary technologies the better chance they will be totally left behind and ultimately ostracized from any meaningful power or malignant influence their corrupt enterprises currently wield in the world.
|
|
|
|
...places that haven't participated significantly in the previous waves, like Argentina, Phillipines, Canada, Mexico, Australia, U.K., Carribean, Switzerland ... Canada? Are you kidding? Home of Ethereum, first public BTC ATM, rich mining tradition? Maybe you should add Germany, the USA, Russia and China to the list. LOL oh yeah, canada this time last year was 2 or 3 guys in the vancouver office at bitcoiniacs ... mega player, my bad. I left out Singapore and Hong Kong, they look ready to play this time around too. |
|
|
|
2015 could be re-run of 2013 at new order of magnitude scale, i.e. ~$2600 around March/April and ~$10k by end of year 2015.
I don't like spreading rumors but this looks like it, and feels the same, I sold a lot of coin in 2012 just before I got left behind, and I'm in the same position again. where the new demand would come from? China is sleeping, and willy bot is dead. Maybe to some chinese clone of Wally? Anyway I think it is more likely a new recover to 600, like april ... bitcoin activity is picking up solidly in many places that haven't participated significantly in the previous waves, like Argentina, Phillipines, Canada, Mexico, Australia, U.K., Carribean, Switzerland ... to name a few. Should be interesting to see what the power of the many brings versus the relatively brief singular china, usa or european waves, I'm expecting the next one to be longer, smoother, less manic probably with a blow-off though. |
|
|
|
|
2015 could be re-run of 2013 at new order of magnitude scale, i.e. ~$2600 around March/April and ~$10k by end of year 2015.
|
|
|
|
Look, it's a tradeoff. If you want some level of mass adoption, you are going to have to accept some degree of govt oversight. You always have the option to opt out by staying underground, not paying btc related taxes etc
... compromise is the language of losers, cop-outs and generally failure. |
|
|
|
Moon? i lol'ed: "So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=USI suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article. Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition ...sounds like he's 'got it'. Good to see some off the smarter mainstream money managers digging down into the essence of it, finally. He hasn't really said anything that wasn't being said around here in late 2010, early 2011, etc except for maybe the over-confidence in bitcoin's ability to be regulated (it can't) ... but good to see nonetheless. These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to hold a conversation with government agents about bitcoin you should probably be dropping peyote buttons and indeed insist that they the government agents too are taking peyote ... or else it's essential essence will be missed completely and they would just never "get it".
|
|
|
|
They are correctly "freeze-locked" coins
Give us some more words on this please? The TX that 'locks' the main chain coins is cryptographically much harder than a regular lock. It requires a 100 block confirmation depth (as for coinbase TX) for validity, and equally to reverse. Rightly, it is being called a "freeze" on those coins. Those coins are frozen on the main chain in such a way to cryptographically prove they cannot be moved, except within very specific conditions. The only way to move those coins, outside of the specific side-chain conditions, takes the same amount of hashpower as to change a coinbase TX. I.e. it is not merely a lock on those coins but a freeze-lock. You should start a side-chains thread. It's interesting as hell I'll admit they are intriguing, but ultimately they are already old technology ... they just don't know it yet.  Whatever keeps the money flowing to the technologists is alright by me. The sharks are swimming in our tank now, |
|
|
|
They are correctly "freeze-locked" coins
Give us some more words on this please? The TX that 'locks' the main chain coins is cryptographically much harder than a regular lock. It requires a 100 block confirmation depth (as for coinbase TX) for validity, and equally to reverse. Rightly, it is being called a "freeze" on those coins. Those coins are frozen on the main chain in such a way to cryptographically prove they cannot be moved, except within very specific conditions. The only way to move those coins, outside of the specific side-chain conditions, takes the same amount of hashpower as to change a coinbase TX. I.e. it is not merely a lock on those coins but a freeze-lock. |
|
|
|
how do we ChangeTip Lawsky for doing the right thing and resigning? |
|
|
|
Yawn.
Wake me up when we hit 600-700 dollars per BTC.
I'd have to have a stash of 1000 BTC to get excited over a 50 dollar rise.
So anything shorter than 50 grands in a week is not worth your attention... how do you sleep at night? on a mattress filled with dollar bills with 2 ebony slaves singing sweet songs in your ears? 50 bucks is nothing for such volatile asset as bitcoin. It can go back down as easy as it gone up last few days correct. It can go up another 50 just as easily too. |
|
|
|
...
Agree that having names for each of the varieties would make it easier to discuss.
I'm not fond of using the term "pegged sidechain" but that is what the Blockstream folks call them now.
I don't think a "peg" is a good thing. Currency pegs have horrible implications, almost always fail, and I think calling them this brings them down, but I didn't choose the name.
If it was mine to name, I might have gone with "coin wrappers" or something without all the bad historical connotations.
I'd suggest 'lock' instead of 'peg'. 'Peg' brings up images of a cribbage board where pegs are moved around as needed, and that is also the failure mode of many currency peg schemes (I imagine.) 'Lock' is more indicative of what is happening here. BTC are locked with high security to back a sidechain extension. As always, the security is a function of the quality of the implementation of course, but it's pretty clear to me that quality in implementation will bubble to the top (very much unlike the opaque world of off-chain extensions that we have seen to date.) They are correctly "freeze-locked" coins |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Collapsing, SideChains and Gold Up ... amIrite?
|
|
|
|
I tried to compile trezord at github.com/trezor/trezord using build.sh on ubuntu 14.04. However, it complains that
Linking CXX executable trezord
/usr/bin/ld: Can not find -lkrb5
/usr/bin/ld: Can not find -lk5crypto
/usr/bin/ld: Can not find -lgcc_s
Any idea how to solve this problem? Thanks.
the linker failed to find those libraries on your system |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
