d to explain it.
If lots of people buy the etf and its price goes up then the BTC price gets driven up through arb, so yes buying the ETF does affect BTC
That is a non-trivial "if"... What is it exactly that prevents those potential COIN buyers from buying BTC directly, or SMBIT shares? The fact that they are not traded on an exchange like NASDAQ? Or some intrinsic property of the asset? Note that COIN shares will uninsured against theft or loss, besides being backed only by a "stock" (BTCs) that itself has no backing assets. The Fortress investment group bought a bunch of BTC in 2013. Those BTC were the only red stain in their Q1/2014 report. So Fortress promptly swapped those BTC for equity in the Pantera Fund's managing company (not shares of the fund itself). If COIN existed in 2013, and Fortress had bought COIN instead of BTC, the result would probably have been pretty much the same. What I mean is that COIN may not be much more attractive to large investors than BTC itself. Large investors are not likely to be impressed by a 5-year logscale plot with a red straight line on it. In case you have not been paying attention, to people outside the bitcoin community bitcoin does not look like the financial miracle that it seemed to be 13 months ago. And it is a fact that no one who has some money to spare believes that bitcoin will be worth 3000 $ in 2015. Otherwise they would rush to buy those coins that are now being offered for sale at 290 $/BTC, and no one is buying. Permit me to quote myself from another thread..... One point that's been overlooked in this discussion: ETFs allow institutional and qualified/professional investors to purchase regulated securities, pursuant either to their own internal bylaws and product placement memoranda, or to securities laws by which they must abide. For example, a professional investment fund, such as a mutual fund or hedge fund or pension fund, is limited in how it may allocate investors' funds insofar as the fund is only permitted to purchase securities regulated under such-and-such provisions. A fund may indeed wish to purchase bitcoins right now, but it cannot due to the aforesaid regulatory provisions; however an ETF investment vehicle would allow the fund to purchase shares in the bitcoin ETF right now, shares that would presumably track the Bitcoin price, and may be bought, sold, and traded—in a regulated environment—as any other shares would be. this Also... (just about) every investment analyst talks their book. They are trying to net some fees. Until the ETF comes out, they are not in on any of the deals. Once they get a cut of the trade, they can change their tune and start trying to shill for bitcoin instead of against it. So in addition to unlocking a lot of potential investment fund, it unlocks the media, coopts them. Face it, a single investor could pretty much buy the current bitcoin float on the exchanges. It isn't though the unlocking of the funds is that big of a a deal. But changing the investment news media tide is going to change a lot of minds and hearts. Some of these may even bother to learn what bitcoin really is, and that is where it becomes a good thing. As an engine for price manipulation the ETF is a monster, it can wreck massive damage. but as a tool we can leverage to educate, it is hard to beat. |
|
|
|
I'm new to this thread. Without reading all 989 pages of posts, can somebody summarize the prevailing Zeitgeist of this thread?
Shouldn't it read, "Bitcoin collapsing, Gold is steady"?
It reminds me, as a gold bug, of the 'collapse' in gold the last few years. Since my average price is well below $1000 an ounce, I don't really care if it falls from its all time high, as I'm still above water.
Is it the same with most of you BTC holders? Or did you buy at the peak?
TonyT
There are no precise statistics about the number of people that bought higher than the current market price but you can assume it's now more than 50%. picolo, TonyT, there are VERY precise statistics of exactly this (just not by "person", only by "bitcoin"). All of the data is in the block chain. Anyone can see precisely when every bitcoin was last transferred. There are also pretty good data on exchange rates to whatever your favorite currency is (if not bitcoin). Every UTXO exists in a timestamped block. Ratcliff has put together some nice area charts showing the age. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2n205b/an_area_chart_showing_the_distribution_of/So to answer your question, most bitcoin were last transferred at well under the current price. (And this chart below only includes the last 4 years of transfers, older bitcoin are not included)  |
|
|
|
The same reason it did EXACTLY six years ago.
NO, sorry, you are simply wrong about this. It has been sort of the point of this whole thread is that this is a DIFFERENT reason than 6 years ago. Six years ago there was a global recession from the real-estate financial theft by the banking cartels (first from each other, then from the government bailouts / taxpayers). This time it is not because of declining usage from a global recession. USAGE is increasing. DEMAND at a certain price falls due to an increase in SUPPLY. So oil gets cheaper, which stimulates even more oil USAGE. If you look at the chart you posted. It shows the difference. This time oil and stocks are not moving together, six years ago they did. |
|
|
|
cypherdoc: it seems you are against side-chains on an economic principle rather than a specific technical implementation
multiple reasons: economic (risks sound money function by encouraging speculative asset trading on SC's inside the Bitcoin system), technical (depends on a miner gratuity of 100% MM to be as safe as Bitcoin), fairness aka conflict of interest (5 devs in same for profit can "block" altcoin op_codes and even improvements to Bitcoin Core if a threat to SC business) 1) I'd aver that the MM makes it less safe rather than "as safe as", given the competitive nature of the offering - for both SC and MC. 2) That there is no other mining code other than what these core devs have custody, with significant % of operations, enhances the gravity of the COI issue. Does this principle then extend to all other provably-backed (cryptographically-linked) bitcoin substitute tokens? And would you like to specify/define exactly what that principle is so that future technical improvements can be evaluated equally?
i'd like to see any improvements to Bitcoin be done on MC with testing on federated servers or on Testnet There are many new innovations to come that will achieve the same or similar results in principle to the side-chain conversion SPV 2wp, using multi-sig and time-locks, ZKP, etc ... are you going to be opposed to all these innovations also? (Hint: they will allow fast, off-chain, private settlement, or ttx bundling, with near zero-trust, i.e. blockchain level security and low costs).
I think that the economic principle of operation you seem to be vehemently opposed to is inevitable in some form or another. There will be token money substitutes that really will be cryptographically "as good as bitcoin", in a way that paper money substitutes were never "as good as gold".
hard to evaluate what ifs. i'm not opposed to innovation, just do it on MC. one thing these guys haven't explained is how does one evaluate success of a SC innovation when the conditions can never be exactly those that exist on MC? price? lack of attacks? #users? market cap? I'd evaluate #of transactions, mining fees generated, and # of BTC moved to the SC as primary indicators. I am curious about how Blockstream get paid out though, just consultant fees for dev time? If it is something more arcane, it may be a cartel worthy of investing in, just in case they are able to run away with all the marbles. |
|
|
|
New Bank bond issues
Works the same as always - exceptionally long 2.5 days offering time.
The benchmark Long Bond - the ultimate determinant to the Trust on our Game
The Prince of New Liberty Bids: 1 @ 45 1 @ 35 3 @ 25 |
|
|
|
However, there are no details in the paper to even tell what applications could be "sidechains", how the integration would work, what concrete benefits they would derive from that, why other projects could not obtain the same benefits without being "sidechains of bitcoin" -- and why would bitcoin be saved as a result. Needless to say, there is also no analysis of possible failure modes.
So I take it you didn't read the paper  I did read it, and also the "sidechains for dummies" blogpost that people recommended, and some more posts. So what you are saying is that I did not understand it at all. Perhaps. But then I ask, for example, why Bitstamp is not already a "sidechain". OK, it is not decentralized nor merge-mined, but does the whitepaper say that a sidechain must be those things? My impression is that the paper did not want to rule out anything, for fear that it might prevent co-opting a possible "bitcoin killer". For a thing to be a sidechain I guess it would need to first be a chain. Can you point me to Bitstamp's blockchain? They have a ledger but it isn't a block chain. |
|
|
|
Im sure some of it has to do with Saudis wanting to fuck Russia over Syria
It has to do with a weak demand and an abundant production. Usage is increasing slower than supply is increasing. Oil has a large markup due to scarcity created from cartelling, and that markup is contracting. At a lower price, usage will increase more swiftly, until then we should expect the price to over-correct. As for renewable energy being more expensive? That depends somewhat on what is included in the cost. I agree with you on oil. As for "renewable" energy, it ends up being more costly than natural resources. This depends on what you are measuring, how and where. It is not the universal truth you seem to imagine it might be. The Hoover Dam seems to have worked out pretty well, and there are many other examples. |
|
|
|
who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half. forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize. now is the time to do this.
A hard fork to increase blocksize may be needed, but the proposed exponential blocksize growth is both unnecessary and harmful to propagation of the sufficient bitcoin nodes desired for resilience. I'm curious to know what you (and others btw) make of Mircea Popescu and his crew's position that blocksize should not (arguably never) be increased I've published on this matter extensively already. Block size stagnation to preserve TOR is not sufficient reason. (Block size is the decompressed size, network layer issues can be resolved at network layers rather than at application layer.) I also disagree with Mircea P that Block size should be limited as an incentive to increase tx fees in order to support miners. Miners need no such support. We have more mining and fewer nodes than we need. Gavin's proposal is naive wrt security, and prejudiced against increasing nodes (something the network does need), it is likely to decrease them instead. The notion that market forces rule all and that block size will be constrained by the incremental risk of orphaning a block vis a vis the prospect of a competitive advantage from economies of scale knocking out smaller opposition is short sighted. It creates a perverse incentive to increase block sizes and stuff them with junk to kill off smaller competitors. There are other technical solutions in play which may mitigate this with storage advancements and databasing and UTXO search but with the current state of things, his proposal breaks more than it fixes. |
|
|
|
who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half. forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize. now is the time to do this.
A hard fork to increase blocksize may be needed, but the proposed exponential blocksize growth is both unnecessary and harmful to propagation of the sufficient bitcoin nodes desired for resilience. |
|
|
|
Im sure some of it has to do with Saudis wanting to fuck Russia over Syria
It has to do with a weak demand and an abundant production. Usage is increasing slower than supply is increasing. Oil has a large markup due to scarcity created from cartelling, and that markup is contracting. At a lower price, usage will increase more swiftly, until then we should expect the price to over-correct. As for renewable energy being more expensive? That depends somewhat on what is included in the cost. |
|
|
|
======================== *** STONETON CONGLOMERATE *** ======================== The bids are to be given in the following format: "quantity @ price (XMR)". For example "100 @ 2.25". This Auction closes Friday Jan 2nd 6PM, BCT server time, or one hour after the last winning bid (in case a winning bid was submitted during the last hour, the auction lasts as long as there are no new winning bids submitted in the hour since the previous one. All shares are same class of shares 1000 total, 700 float. ========================== Current Final status: Auction closes at the price of 0.90 Congratulations to all the winners, you are getting an incredible deal. 1.20 - 50 Shares - Earl Paul of Soul 11.15 - 50 Shares - Earl Paul of Soul 11.10 - 50 Shares - Earl Paul of Soul 11.05 - 50 Shares - Earl Paul of Soul 11.00 - 100 Shares - Earl Jacket of North Face 1.00 - 100 Shares - Chancellor Smooth, Earl of Cryptoluna 1.00 - 100 shares - Lord Paulson 1.00 - 25 Shares - Lord Kronicblazer 1.00 - 50 Shares - Earl Paul of Soul 10.90 - 20 Shares - Dame Roopatra ============== No-bid shares to Prince Joseph 105@0.90mAsset - K1 a built property in 2 SW covering 14q, 10q is built with revenue producing structures. 1 Non-NLQI shareholder, so all shareholders may jump ahead of this bid with their "First Refusal" opportunity using an equal bid to outbid it. NOTE: Buy price is now 1.00 so all auction winners that want to sell NOW for immediate 11% profit, Prince Joseph is making market for these shares. |
|
|
|
SC solves all known problems.
Death also does this, but I am not eager for it. |
|
|
|
|
========================
*** STONETON CONGLOMERATE ***
========================
The bids are to be given in the following format: "quantity @ price (XMR)". For example "100 @ 2.25".
This Auction closes Friday Jan 2nd 6PM, BCT server time, or one hour after the last winning bid (in case a winning bid was submitted during the last hour, the auction lasts as long as there are no new winning bids submitted in the hour since the previous one.
==========================
100 @ 1.00 - Lord Jacket
20 @ 0.90 - Lady Roopatra
==============
Prince Joseph 580@90
Asset - K1 a built property in 2 SW
TIP of the day for NLQI shareholders. Bidding here is the final benefit of NLQI shareholding, (because you inherit the option of first refusal). The last year of operation for these buildings whilst they were in the service of NLQI and income was received... they produced revenue of 10,669,500. If that rate were to hold, the ROI on this property would be an unprecedented 65.6 days. Prince Joseph would be happy to take ownership of it all, but Baroness Asenath reminded the Prince of the virtue of "fairness" to the minority shareholders (perhaps a more prized virtue among those not born to nobility). The Prince was persuaded, and the new corporation formed for that purpose.
|
|
|
|
NLQI closes, and the land is immediately bought by the town and vacated for construction:
Check from the City Map DB, how cheaply we are able to sell this land to the first taker! (prices range from 11 to 30 per quadrat!)
Great bargains to be had. It is the New City after all... (My chars will wait 12 hours before purchasing any)
Congratulations to my fellow shareholders of NLQI on a successful run!NLQI offered the best price for stone in the game through its entire operation to its shareholders AND a discount under the market price to the public (non shareholders), NLQI mined more stone than any other quarry by the time it closed, and returned over a million stone, 300 gold, and almost 200Mm at liquidation. Those that did the very best were the shareholders that had use for the stone, or upsold it, but everyone came out ahead. Being ever vigilant for the incredible deals. Asenath secured the prime lands in the former NLQI quarry that had been chosen by the natives to this land as the best places where they themselves preferred to live, to enjoy offices, and of course to revel after a hard days work in the taverns. - It is the only lot in the entire chapelry that has eight (8) street facing 10m sections.
- All frontage is on the main streets.
- The lots are already built!
- Staffed by experts in serving this population from the disbanded quarry.
- Secured for a very low price, (primarily because we were first in line and HM could not buy it for 12 hours yet).
Whilst NLQ Inc. is dissolved as per its founding charter at the closing of the quarry. Asenath has encouraged us to extend the offer to the former shareholders to take part in our good fortune for our swift action and artful negotiation and own a piece of the ongoing operation of this real estate in a new corporation for this " STONETON CONGLOMERATE". Goodbye NLQI, hello STONETON Bidding is unrestricted to all players and is available for 700 shares with a special rule. Former NLQI shareholders have a "Right of First Refusal" and so may "Jump Ahead" of any bidder at an equal value bid in accordance to their shares held, and ahead of all non shareholders. Other than that, the auction is as normal. ======================== *** STONETON CONGLOMERATE *** ======================== The bids are to be given in the following format: "quantity @ price (XMR)". For example "100 @ 2.25". The reserve price is priced so that anyone can take part no matter how much wealth they have at only 0.90 each and no more than 2 decimals (so former NLQI shareholders may also bid 0.90 until 700 are bought above this price). Though we think it will go for much more. Higher bid wins over lower one, earlier bid wins over later one except as provided above, and all winners pay the same amount per lot (the price of the highest non-winning bid). The right to participate in the auction is limited as follows: - if it is not legal for you to do so, cannot participate - negative trust rating, cannot participate This Auction closes Friday Jan 2nd 6PM, BCT server time, or one hour after the last winning bid (in case a winning bid was submitted during the last hour, the auction lasts as long as there are no new winning bids submitted in the hour since the previous one. ========================== |
|
|
|
I don't think traditional currency peg apply. The mechanics behind these pegs are not solid and open to the failures you've illustrated.
The situation here is one where a sidechain unit has its equivalent in BTC collateral. A mathematically enforced 1:1 convertibility between both units. Each units' exchange rate value might differ but the protocol dictates that they are exchangeable 1:1 no matter their economic value. That is because for every unit on a sidechain there exist an equivalent amount of BTC locked in an "escrow" type transaction.
Theoratically, and I might be wrong, but even if the perceived market value of the unit on a sidechain would come to 0 one could still return is sidecoin for its equivalent in BTC.
If markets are efficient then market value of pure 1:1 sidechains should only ever be *higher* than BTC. They should never have the same market value. The time delay via SPV to use the sidechain makes it such that there should be a premium on no-delay (bought from market). We never did find out why the SC marketing folks are using the economically discredited term "peg", for something that is so very different from a peg in any traditional sense of the word. It is bound to confuse people. |
|
|
|
I really don't like that it is a felony, although there are some annoying people who record police instead of just cooperating with them. It does keep the police in check though when there are cameras on them.
It is already against the law to interfere with the police. This is additional and egregiously unnecessary expansion of power for intimidation's sake. |
|
|
|
I agree with this. A lot of people go around, recording cops and purposely irritating them. It's hard to work under pressure especially when people keep on pushing and pushing you. There are already video recorders and cameras in the cars of many cops so if people have complaints they can always get a judge to allow access to the videos in order to make a claim. People who record cops usually do it because they are pretentious douche bags... just saying.
Yeah, I also get annoyed when douch bags try to interrupt my important work of stealing and gang violence. It's hard for me to appropriate your possesions, break up your family, and destroy economic infrastructure when you are taking local measurements of the aether nearby me. Why don't you just talk to my boss? He will set you straight  The thing is that recording the police doing their work does not impede their work. The police need to follow the law just like everyone else does and recording them is one way to prove that they have or have not broken the law. The police does not need to do anything different regardless of if they are being recorded They claim it does, and more often than not, they get away without any real punishment for violating the civil rights of their recorders. On a NPV level it increases the accountability of the police. Even if they are only held accountable a small percentage of the time, they will likely almost never be held accountable when there is no recording at all The proper response to being murdered by a government agent is not to hold up a camera which will then be destroyed by your murderer, or if not, won't guarantee life imprisonment or death for your murderer. Being illegal is not going to stop the recording. It is only going to make it covert, and the publication anonymous. |
|
|
|
A significant increase in the use of nuclear power in Japan (and more importantly elsewhere) will likely lead to long term lower oil prices. It remains that nuclear energy is much safer and much cleaner then other types of energy (including 'green' energy like solar and wind)
Because windmills also sometimes create superfund radioactive sites where human life is impossible for generations? They don't but they produce a tiny amount of usable energy, so you need a LOT of windmills, solar panels, etc., and this leads to other safety issues. More mundane industrial accidents perhaps (falls, car/truck accidents, electrocution, factory accidents, etc.), but if you are that person, you are just as injured or dead. If you measure safety in the economically reasonable way, not as an absolute but with risks in the numerator and output in the denominator, then even nuclear fission looks pretty damn good compared to everything else (or another way to say that is that nuclear is still bad but everything else is worse to much worse). Acknowledging that correctly estimating the tail risks in the numerator is difficult, but we do the best we can. I remain skeptical, or else they would be insurable. As it stands, only nation-states can build them. Industry at best can do management contracts, with government backing (insured by all taxpayers). Cleaner than coal on a per joule basis? Granted. Cleaner than windmills? I doubt this. Even if you are considering the dead birds. I didn't say cleaner than windmills, though that might also be true for the same reasons (I haven't seen the numbers), I said safer. Here's one fairly recent ranking. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/mortality rate Wind: 150 Nuclear: 90 Wind is actually in second place and fairly close, so its entirely possible this ordering is wrong (likewise with solar). But what is more important is the comparison of nuclear to the scale baseload sources that realistically substitute for it (not just coal). Those differences are orders of magnitude. Thanks for the link. scarsbergholden's claim was cleaner and safer. I suspect when you count the folks "relocated" from the areas, and later effects, the numbers might be different. Worse for coal though. Lung cancer is the highest rising mortality in China. We'd have to use the female rate and discount the males there though because >50% are smokers and <2% of women. |
|
|
|
I'd love to see a site that nicely shows (probably on one long page) the 1yr chart vs bitcoin of all sufficiently-aged alt-coins. I'd guess 99%+ would look like LTC and MSC.
*ahem* Counterparty. |
|
|
|
A significant increase in the use of nuclear power in Japan (and more importantly elsewhere) will likely lead to long term lower oil prices. It remains that nuclear energy is much safer and much cleaner then other types of energy (including 'green' energy like solar and wind)
Because windmills also sometimes create superfund radioactive sites where human life is impossible for generations? They don't but they produce a tiny amount of usable energy, so you need a LOT of windmills, solar panels, etc., and this leads to other safety issues. More mundane industrial accidents perhaps (falls, car/truck accidents, electrocution, factory accidents, etc.), but if you are that person, you are just as injured or dead. If you measure safety in the economically reasonable way, not as an absolute but with risks in the numerator and output in the denominator, then even nuclear fission looks pretty damn good compared to everything else (or another way to say that is that nuclear is still bad but everything else is worse to much worse). Acknowledging that correctly estimating the tail risks in the numerator is difficult, but we do the best we can. I remain skeptical, or else they would be insurable. As it stands, only nation-states can build them. Industry at best can do management contracts, with government backing (insured by all taxpayers). Cleaner than coal on a per joule basis? Granted. Cleaner than windmills? I doubt this. Even if you are considering the dead birds. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
