It's a sign of me being annoyed by the influx of dogetards
You feel annoyed because your position is vulnerable, like anyone else's whose only crypto is Bitcoin. And your constant shilling here for POS, despite claiming you were done with this thread, indicates you are worried that your investment in pos is vulnerable. |
|
|
|
Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…
My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s). They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital. But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.
They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin. How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?
Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys? For alot of us, it'll need to get into single digits before we feel any pain. And we'll also be big buyers well before it gets there. I do feel bad for those who got in higher than this. Hell, I feel bad for myself as I've been buying small chunks on the way down. But I'm not worried for the long term as nothings changed in the fundamentals. In fact, those are better. Maybe we are in the equivalent stage of the NASDAQ crash of 2001. Apple was at 12. BTW, gold certainly is not UP. You've got plenty to be worried about. Wowow. I bought in at $550. lol Such investmenting Well then, sell now if you feel so bad. Early adopter with nothing to lose? Thanks for the advice  I helped fund a major portion of the Bitcoin economy early on when it was not in any way clear it was going to make it especially during the down turn from 32 to 2. So yes, I do have a lot to lose. There were guys all over here just like you crying foul and trying to scare everyone. So what's your excuse? |
|
|
|
Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…
My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s). They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital. But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.
They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin. How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?
Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys? For alot of us, it'll need to get into single digits before we feel any pain. And we'll also be big buyers well before it gets there. I do feel bad for those who got in higher than this. Hell, I feel bad for myself as I've been buying small chunks on the way down. But I'm not worried for the long term as nothings changed in the fundamentals. In fact, those are better. Maybe we are in the equivalent stage of the NASDAQ crash of 2001. Apple was at 12. BTW, gold certainly is not UP. You've got plenty to be worried about. Wowow. I bought in at $550. lol Such investmenting Well then, sell now if you feel so bad. |
|
|
|
Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys?
Right, so it's possibly a good time for people who were thinking of increasing their exposure to begin to do so. I'm thinking 3-4% of financial assets in this case is acceptable: enough upside to make a difference to their lifestyle should bitcoin adoption continue, but the downside is limited to only a few % of net worth. I'd push it to 5% Peter. Especially given what I think are low and getting cheaper prices. That's not an unreasonable % and I'd be more concerned if they were buying at 1000. Leg in slowly. |
|
|
|
Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…
My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s). They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital. But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.
They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin. How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?
Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys? For alot of us, it'll need to get into single digits before we feel any pain. And we'll also be big buyers well before it gets there. I do feel bad for those who got in higher than this. Hell, I feel bad for myself as I've been buying small chunks on the way down. But I'm not worried for the long term as nothings changed in the fundamentals. In fact, those are better. Maybe we are in the equivalent stage of the NASDAQ crash of 2001. Apple was at 12. BTW, gold certainly is not UP. You've got plenty to be worried about. |
|
|
|
Look at this ad. Makes you proud enough to want to bomb everyone out of existence: Bloomberg: F-22 Stealth Fighter Debuts Firepower in Syria http://bloom.bg/1vdjOyK |
|
|
|
I have to say it is getting annonyingly ignored these days (the SOV function) I cringe at videos on youtube or reddit that claim : "Bitcoin it's more than just money". As if money was not the most subversive aspect of Bitcoin. "The real value is in the technology, not the currency" These type of speech make me sick. One would not exist without the other. Also. I'm cool with Coinbase, they're adding a whole lot of value to the ecosystem right now. But the reality is they are themselves a middle-man, that will eventually be cut loose when it is no longer needed He's a payment processor so his mind is on one thing; processing. As opposed to someone like me who is a hodler. Even in the Wences video, he had to apologize to Gallippi as he knows processing is his thing too. As opposed to Wences who is a hodler. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NERAN-89j8M&app=desktop |
|
|
|
US Military discussion on Virtual Currencies http://www.cnbc.com/id/102033875Bitcoin Lead Counsel, Rickards in attendance. @JamesGRickards: Special Forces + #Bitcoin by @EamonJavers. "Bitcoin has to start talking to US intelligence" http://t.co/t7LYMrBgX0 @stacyherbert @Skoylesy reply by Stacy Herbert @stacyherbert: @JamesGRickards bitcoin is a public ledger, anyone can read it; big banks are where they should look @EamonJavers Sometimes you only see what you want to see.
The group's members include a who's who of America's corporate and financial elite, according to its website, including Jeff Bezos of Amazon, former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg and David Koch of Koch Industries.no wonder Amazon hasn't gotten onboard. |
|
|
|
we are seeing us equities enter bubble territory as a base here as usd rises with equities... we are back to pre great recession correlation instead of usd acting as a safe haven its becoming an indication of US economic performance.
interesting theory. could be. we'll see what happens Monday. the pick up in volatility would suggest otherwise. either way, bad for gold and silver. i still think Bitcoin disconnects from the pm's and heads back up from here. I called for it since 2011(predicted it happened within a year at that time) so the fact that it happens more now just means its a more powerful trend... can never get the timing right... but the hunch is usually right based on macro analysis. Makes sense anyway.. the country with the biggest army is the safest economically until the whole system implodes. Since gold broke 1700 to the downside after 19xx we've seen flashes of this correlation but now its becoming evident... i personally think it will put downside pressure on btc in the short term, but any correction should help btc. not sure if you mean you predicted gold or stocks in 2011. if you mean the top in gold & silver, then you were right there with me altho certainly not around here. i still think Bitcoin disconnects with gold and heads higher but it certainly is possible to go down with it for a while. as for stocks and the dollar, there is a fundamental inconsistency in your argument. since most money is debt and most of the money Wall St and stock jockeys play with is leverage and margin, a rising dollar cuts into any earnings from rising stocks. it reduces their vig. they want the dollar to go down so that they win on both sides of the trade. in fact, the Fed has said it explicitly wants to chase cash holdings into "productive assets" which by their definition is stocks. we even have a name for it now; financial repression. great, look what happened in 2000 and 2008. the avg US citizen doesn't trust this strategy anymore and your rising dollar thesis would only reinforce their dollar hoarding. what will chase them into stocks? who's left to fuel the stock pump? unlimited liquidity injections from the Fed to Wall St? but wait, QE is going to terminate by the end of the year. the other thing worth considering is 0 interest rates. we seem to be at the lower bound altho i wouldn't doubt they'd try to shove negative rates down our throats. rising rates would kill everything i think. mind you, i don't see any structural evidence we're near a top in the stock mkt. for me, it's just a matter of timing and cycles. we're overdue depending on what cycle you use. doesn't mean it has to happen anytime soon though. just things worth considering. |
|
|
|
but still, for a system that is supposed to hold and secure all sorts of valuable assets, i know i'm not the first one to bring up the concern regarding infinite loops due to Turing completeness. I'm satisfied that they can fix infinite loops by paying per cycle. What's more concerning is that nobody has bothered to do many actual use case evaluations and cost/benefit analysis. Etherum is supposed to be, fundamentally, a blockchain-based computer. Because it's a global blockchain, the cycle times need to be somewhere on the order of minutes to ensure synchronization. Cycle times in the minutes means a clock frequency in the millihertz range. The processor in your smartphone operates in the gigahertz range. That's not quite a fair comparison - each tick of the Ethereum computer can do more useful work than a single tick in an transitional CPU. How much more work? Maybe about a million times more work. This means Ethereum is a computer with an effective clock speed in the kilohertz range. (The Intel 8086 processor released in 1976 had a minimum 5 megahertz clock speed) Sure, it's Turing-complete, but the kinds of applications you're going to run on a computer with kilohertz-scale cycle times and access latencies measured in minutes are going to resemble the kind of programs that used to be written on punch cards more than they'll resemble Windows 8. Oh, and how about the cost? Let's assume there really are applications that are appropriate for the Ethereum computer. Not only are there applications, but the market demand for these applications is great enough that the transaction fees will pay for the operation of the Ethereum network (no network can pay for itself via currency printing for ever, after all). Computations performed on the CPU in your PC only need to involve the transistors in a single chip, and are generally only performed once. Computations performed on Ethereum need to be duplicated by CPUs all over the world and broadcast all over the globe. Running your applications on Ethereum (absent any currency-printing subsidy) is going to be millions of times more expensive than running it on a local CPU. Certainly there will be some applications that absolutely require what Ethereum does and will be willing to pay six orders of magnitude more than other alternatives in order to get it, but will there be enough of those applications to pay for the operation of the Ethereum network? In my mind, much of this boils down to Gavin's point that really the most interesting things you can do with "blockchain apps" involve some set of "Oracles", which can't be 100% decentralized... So, in light of the above cost outline, the question becomes: what *are* the applications which are worth paying millions of times more per compute cycle, which DO NOT involve an Oracle? (since presumably it's stupid to pay that much for decentralized compute when your key inputs are centralized anyways). uh, maybe because The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money? |
|
|
|
we are seeing us equities enter bubble territory as a base here as usd rises with equities... we are back to pre great recession correlation instead of usd acting as a safe haven its becoming an indication of US economic performance.
interesting theory. could be. we'll see what happens Monday. the pick up in volatility would suggest otherwise. either way, bad for gold and silver. i still think Bitcoin disconnects from the pm's and heads back up from here. |
|
|
|
I don't want to spoil the revelations of "This American Life": It's far better to hear the actual sounds on the radio, as so much of the meaning of the piece is in the tones of the voices -- and, especially, in the breathtaking wussiness of the people at the Fed charged with regulating Goldman Sachs. But once you have listened to it -- as when you were faced with the newly unignorable truth of what actually happened to that NFL running back's fiancee in that elevator -- consider the following:
1. You sort of knew that the regulators were more or less controlled by the banks. Now you know.
2. The only reason you know is that one woman, Carmen Segarra, has been brave enough to fight the system. She has paid a great price to inform us all of the obvious. She has lost her job, undermined her career, and will no doubt also endure a lifetime of lawsuits and slander.http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-26/the-secret-goldman-sachs-tapes
|
|
|
|
All this makes me want to weep: In her ruling on Wednesday, Abrams also rejected a move by Stengle for greater disclosure by the judge about her husband's relationship with Goldman Sachs. Abrams disclosed on April 3 that she had just learned that her husband, Greg Andres, a partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, was representing Goldman in an advisory capacity.
Stengle said at the time she would not seek Abrams' recusal, the judge said, and went ahead the next day with scheduled oral arguments on the defendants' bid to dismiss the case.
But on April 11, Stengle made a written request for a "more complete disclosure" of Andres' relationship with Goldman, and Abrams' own working relationship with another defense lawyer.
Abrams said that was too late, given that Segarra by then would have had a chance to "sample the temper of the court" and perhaps anticipate she would lose unless Abrams recused herself. "The timing of plaintiff's requests suggests that she is engaging in precisely the type of 'judge-shopping' the 2nd Circuit has cautioned against," Abrams wrote, referring to the federal appeals court in New York. "Such an attempt to engage in judicial game-playing strikes at the core of our legal system."http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-26/how-goldman-controls-new-york-fed-475-hours-secret-goldman-sachs-tapes-explain |
|
|
|
Took four words and a symbol to total fail: "Bash – the Unix shell – came out ..." If anything is 'the unix shell' it is bourne shell. I've had to devise systems occasionally which allow some user input to a shell or other program but it is rare and I aggressively limited the input. In fairness, however, it would be possible for a regex engine (which does the discrimination) to harbor some hidden bug as well, but relatively unlikely; many of these ancient systems are quite small and simple and have been extensively analyzed over the past decades. The changes are small so a lot of eyes will be looking at the deltas. IMHO, the best way to achieve security is to build on very simple solutions and try to make one's own system very limited. Even more critically, don't be lazy when it comes to installation (esp, which user executes which operations.) yeah, i knew it was a cheap shot when i wrote it. was waiting for someone to call me out on it. but still, for a system that is supposed to hold and secure all sorts of valuable assets, i know i'm not the first one to bring up the concern regarding infinite loops due to Turing completeness. |
|
|
|
Skim this report, not one mention of Bitcoin. They're talking about a triple bottom in gold despite silver having broken down out of its consolidation pattern. Big mistake. Not only that, but all the masturbation around mining companies. We are nowhere near a bubble in Bitcoin, as the gold bugs have yet to come (literally) : http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/16271 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
