They also stopped withdrawals. No one is allowed to sell until their OTC ETF gets approved by the SEC.
Neat regulatory captured? |
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Gold collapsing, bitcoin (also collapsing)
Oil too. What is up? Just USD? The USD is entering the 'red giant' phase, having exhausted its primary fuel of gold and silver backing and now being powered by the less dense energy source of hydrocarbon hegemony. Although less productive, the economic bloat of malinvestment results in a higher apparent magnitude via the financialization process. That is why gold/silver/BTC (stuff you have) are collapsing, while insurance/food/medicine/education (stuff you need) costs are soaring. While less massive bodies of fiat may ultimately wind up as harmless white dwarfs, the USD is so large it will enter a phase equivalent to carbon-burning when runaway debt-monetization overcomes the hydrostatic equilibrium provided by petrodollars. This will result in a supernova of hyperinflation, and finally a black hole will remain where the global reserve currency once existed. that's good  |
|
|
|
Back to the gold topic. There is a referendum in Switzerland, in November, which is likely to secure a yes vote that the SNB holds 20% of its assets in gold (currently at 7.6%). As soon as this passes the bank will have five years to reach the 20% target. There is no legal escape for it. Considering that the SNB balance sheet has recently blown out Fed/BoE/BoJ-style - it will have to buy up to 1,700 tons of gold in the open market - and take delivery! http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-28/things-make-you-go-hmmm-swiss-gold-status-quo-showdownI really think this will put a floor under the current gold price, and maybe even spark another medium-term rally. Will be interesting to watch the weasels at the SNB try to wriggle out of it ... after the shit they pulled with the EUR peg anything is possible. |
|
|
|
A must-read, imho. I imagine we will hear a lot more about the topic, but for now:
“A key element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. They may seek legal counsel but they may not reveal the fact they received a letter to those who are not directly involved with responding to the letter nor the public so the exact number of letters going out nor the companies receiving them will not be revealed by those affected without legal consequences.”
Secret courts, secret enforcement actions, secret letters ... sounds legit. The Judiciary has failed the people in the final analysis to let the rot go this far. |
|
|
|
Could we make a decentralised 'social media' with a new protocol, based on what we learned from the bitcoin? - A new basic protocol for messaging and commenting on content(or an old one in a new jacket, like jabber) - Content not on a central location, but on a diverse set of different cloud or local storage sollutions? - Revenue of the big datapool would roll back to the owner of the data(in bitcoins ofcourse!) and not to a facebook ceo the chain would connect all things, transfer messages and bits and bytes.. you choose your own frontend, facebook could facilitate this, or any other party, like hootsuite. Instead of fixing your social media to a single entity like google+, facebook, twitter and the likes, you just share what you want on the social chain, keep contact with other social chainers. just a bit like the internet, but more structured  |
|
|
|
Thanks to those who responded.
As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised. Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise.
I dont think M of A was trying to be rude to you specifically But anyway, I think this tweet sums up the line of thinking that says blockchain and currency cant be separated @gendal: @robustus @Chris_Skinner @jonmatonis If you want decentralisation/censorship resistance/no central control, you need a native currency Yep ... I don't know who is saying this "blockchain not bitcoin" crap but nanobrain has been around long enough you would think, but nothing specific was being levelled at her. Let's spell it out: - a distributed consensus needs a database that is protected from cheating by the nodes - the security for the bitcoin blockchain database is the grinding of the hashing algorithm that guards against cheating - the P.O.W. hashing is incentivised by the reward provided by the issuance of bitcoin, yes the currency! - the security of the distributed consensus does NOT function and will get attacked without a sufficiently valuable bitcoin and at the end of the day what is this amazing blockchain?? It is a sequence of files that have the hash of the previous file included within them ... what? that is it? the true multi-trillion dollar invention here? In fact, the distributed global ledger is not the blockchain but the UTXO. The blockchain is merely the journal record of what TX took place ... who owns what is in the UTXO. That is where the innovation that bitcoin 2G tech will get built upon ...  "Blockchain Buzz" is last year now, sidechains is the final nail in the coffin for that BS. |
|
|
|
sheesh, i didn't bother to read this link until now. It's just a bunch of VC-titillating fluffy buzzwords, no-one with a serious intention for examining this technology should be taking shit like this seriously. If that is your "must read" "nailed it" material you are going to lose a lot of dough lady. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC. It's been around for some time now.
Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.
Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function? It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique. Thanks to those who responded. As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised. Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise. Since others seem to have pointed out the massive blind spot in your thinking I won't reiterate. For those a little more flexible I suggest: Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/Which nailed it back in February. And of course, all this has happened before with radio, telecoms, the internet and other technology as Tim Wu's "The Master Switch" eloquently describes: the hegemony will strip "bitcoin" of all the useful components it needs to continue its control and leave the libertarians tilting at windmills. ... not waving, but drowning. |
|
|
|
What is true is that for big money, crypto as it is now is not attractive at all. Why make some of the current crowd rich?
... the same as has it been always, fear of missing out and greed trumps envy. Because they would like to enter a market without trumping these fools first? You are very naive. ... mmm, probably. But where were you when the fools and the naive were building things that could make the world a better place? Slumming it with the godlike, oh-so-wise big money supposedly? |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC. It's been around for some time now.
Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.
Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function? It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique. |
|
|
|
Amir Taaki and Cody Wilson are developing Dark Wallet for BTC. Then BTC will be 100% anonymous (if you use Dark Wallet of course). There's nothing you can do to stop them.
Laudable aims, though I would prefer 'privacy wallet' or something a little less deliberately provocative. Whilst I agree with the premise of the project in principle I think they are terrible PR for bitcoin right now. They are being provocative on purpose. Great. Everyone is free to do what they like. But IMO bitcoin as a growing idea and concept billowing out into the wider world is provocative enough right now without creating a poorly named wallet and saying you have no problem with ISIS using it on a bbc interview. Despite what Marcus says about the 'sheeple' wanting the best form of private money going, the general public take a dim view of supporting terrorism and tend to believe whatever rubbish the MSM feed them as the truth. the sheeple are fickle, you can scare and coax them this way and that gently with MSM pablum, like dogs herding the flock but when you send a pack of rabid wolves into the middle of them (war, disease, famine) they will all split this way and that and it is every sheeple for themselves, devil take the hindmost. That's when what type of money becomes most important ... cash, gold, bitcoin. The sheeple don't always do what you want or think or anyone can predict. |
|
|
|
I spoke with hundreds of wealth managers, lawyers, accountants and one of the questions I would talk to them about is bitcoin. I would ask them what do they think, what are they telling their clients, and almost without exception they had one of two answers: Either they pled ignorance and said I just don’t know enough. Or they shared some myth or legend that they had heard in media reports or through the grapevine, and none of them have done any diligence. i like that. we are early adopters and thats good tbh, it would be great if these guys were the last to get on board ... i.e. after all the people who have been raped and disenfranchised by the fiat monopoly swindle. |
|
|
|
What is true is that for big money, crypto as it is now is not attractive at all. Why make some of the current crowd rich?
... the same as has it been always, fear of missing out and greed trumps envy. |
|
|
|
These guys are still at the nervous to invest stage and are trying to leverage there skills to mitigate risk, they see the value in the network and why alts fail and can't out innovate Bitcoin so they've devised this mechanism to leverage the investment. Interesting insight into a possible alignment of motivations. Cryptopunks showed up, first started hacking then bought coins .... techies showed up, first built miners then bought coins ... VC's showed up, first started start-ups ... lawyers showed up, first started creating unnecessary regulations ... bankers showed up, first started by naked short selling. Explains why bitcoin is going through a soft spell until these last three groups get past their "How can I get into this by risking only some sweat equity first?" phase. |
|
|
|
I still can't believe people think that Bitcoin is going anywhere...in 5 years it will be some long gone fad.
In the meantime everyone and their dog will be using blockchain technology for other things.
Bitcoin was a great idea but its over...get on with real life
 |
|
|
|
No one? Good to know this market is propped up by a few big money players and almost zero grass-roots, organic activity.
that's the way it's going ... though right now they are not big big, just bigger than little guys. Eventually it will be merchant banks and CBs using bitcoin to settle their scores because it is the best solution out there for that particular problem right now, bar none. SWIFT is a mere messaging system and centralised, bitcoin is a quantum leap ahead of SWIFT in value information technology terms. Just be glad that if you have the chops you can get a seat at the big boy table. |
|
|
|
My personal favorites for BTC exchanges that will "dissapear" in the next months are either Bitfinex or Huobi. Just a wild guess.
yes, someone should be running an options or prediction market on failed exchanges. To hedge if nothing else, CDS or similar. |
|
|
|
They have banded together [nominally under the Bitstream banner] because they believe this proposal adds considerable value to Bitcoin's infrastructure. Nothing more.
...
The makeup of this group makes them vastly more credible than Mikin 'red-list' Hearndresen and the Bitcoin Foundation circle-jerkers. I would absolutely consider their work on Bitcoin to be the mainline branch and TBF-associated 'enhancements' to be a side-branch if/when push came to shove. And very possibly a hostile side-branch. Hopefully the big miners are clued in and still independent enough to see things the same way. If Peter Todd came up with a workable generic shared ledger, especially one which employed treechain methods, I'd consider it a (very interesting) alt-ish type thing. Blockstream: sipa bluematt gmaxwell BitPay: jgarzik TBF: gavinandresen Viacoin: Peter Todd Independent:? wumpus (current lead dev) ... plus large number of 'vested-interest' coders making commits, comments and ready to pounce on BS. I don't see any issues at present. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
