short answer: its backed by production costs
EG gold miners sell gold to cover their costs of production and a profit to cover their livelihood. gold is getting more expensive to produce a gold bar, hence the high prices.
long answer: its backed by productions costs and profit dependant on demand
EG if an individual gold miners costs were $1500 to make a weeks worth of gold bar the minimal they would sale for is $1500 plus a weeks wages. that's if their was not much demand and the miner was desperate to sell it just to break even.
but if the demand is high, the miner can sell for higher prices and rake in the profit.
same with bitcoin, its electricity and computer components mainly, as oppose to excavators and 'washer' machines. bitcoins are getting harder to mine a block hence the higher price. then add on the costs of a few grands worth of rigs the miner has pre-paid for they will want more buck for their BTC. the amount of profit ontop of costs varies depending on the demand for it.
so just wait till ASICS hit the majority. at first there will be a flash flood of BTC hitting the market which may cause a drop, due to too much supply and not enough demand. but once the difficulty changes a few days later the supply amounts will decrease, demand will then increase again which would cause a rise.
This is easily one of the longest most wrong economic fallacies of all time. Things are not worth their input costs. That isn't real, that isn't what happens. Laptop + milk = fail. |
|
|
|
Getting investment advice here about investing in bitcoin is terribly biased. Tread carefully.
In which direction? According to the poll its biased against putting all of his savings in. Most of the comments here have been pretty level headed. In my opinion, if you personally believe bitcoin is going to be the commodity/money of the future, then by all means invest every spare cent you have in it. If you have doubts, then don't. That isn't the bias of the poll that is the result of the poll. You can't really tell from a result which direction the bias is in unless there is unanimity, then you can rule out bias in the opposite direction. If you don't know wtf to do and people at 'the bitcoin forum' are telling you not to then maybe you should not. |
|
|
|
|
If you feel you have good reasons and evidence that a certain 'surprising-to-other-people' thing will happen I don't think it's really right to call it a black swan. Plus, even if you are just like "Oh, that would be unlikely" that doesn't make it a black swan. We know monetary revolutions happen. We know technology can change how payments are made. Plus we know that normal people are willing to use bitcoin. So the 'bitcoin revolution' will just be more of the same.
|
|
|
|
6) physically write the private key down on a piece of paper and save a text file with a copy of the private key to the usb drive
If you are going to do that it might be best if you then later typed back in (by reading from your written down version) that private key into say an offline version of brainwallet.org (just to be certain that you didn't write it down incorrectly as that could be a disastor). Obviously you should be careful, but it isn't a disaster to have to check all possible typos after you realize it isn't right. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, I wonder if the people asking you to focus on making things for them have any other possible agenda besides your best interest.
Obv I'm not saying there is anything wrong with exports (which is just an arbitrary subset of something called 'trade') but the freaking point of and incentive to trade isn't what you give it's what you get, otherwise just talk about the important of gift-giving.
|
|
|
|
|
Some miners saying "yeah, I'll do that latter" doesn't mean a different miner won't include a tx that makes the first one invalid (uses the same coin to pay someone else). The miner's intent or even promise means nothing because when they build the block it will be ignored because it has an impossible tx in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry guys, it should work now. The room wasn't really full, it's a bug.
|
|
|
|
"Are you in need of a no chargeback currency for online shopping"
This got me thinking. I always thought no-chargeback was a bit bad for customers. But now that you ask this so plainly I must admit I never ever made use of chargeback. I guess only criminals use chargeback  I didn't even use plastic much before bitcoin, but I never charged back either. Certainly we're paying for those who do, fraudulent and not. The people with the real good stuff that the consumers want get to choose ultimately. |
|
|
|
I always answer 'ahoy' as Graham Bell wanted.
Do not deviate from the proper phone answering words!
Sorry OP, I'm with Bell and Elwar. |
|
|
|
- Longer private/public keys = more possible addresses, better protection against money loss due to the identical address generated by 2 people
There might be something to other points, but this is not a real thing. |
|
|
|
I am not knowledgeable about Ripple, but it is described as a lending system in this article.
Then why do they compare it to an exchange?
I mean, sure, you could get bitcoins for a while, but you have to pay them back.
In an exhange, you exchange one good (for example dollars) for another, permanently, because you want to own the other thing.
If you want to own bitcoins and have the capital for it, why pay interest on it?
I think the idea is that you can just buy anything with your promise to pay, so if it can be used for anything it could be used for purchasing bitcoins. I'm not really sold on it seems messy as hell even once it gets the critical mass that is absolutely required in order for it to function at all. I mean bitcoin might have been 'pointless' too when there were only 100 users, but the system worked, but ripple just doesn't help at all until there are many relationship 'coincidences'. I don't see how it bootstraps like bitcoin did. |
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you want to give away free puts, but the terms aren't very clear so maybe not.
You want to promise X rate for up to Y coins until sometime for people who have specifically requested this protection?
As with most anything you give for free you'll have more people wanting to take it from you than supply it.
A market for puts and other financial devices would be quite nice and useful.
I think for merchants who are just worried about the rate it makes the most sense to simply sell the coins right away, possibly using a service like BitPay.
|
|
|
|
|
More people using Bing?
A fixed amount of interest generates a larger price increase because new coins are flowing at a lower rate now?
Larger capital holders getting in (fewer searches per buck)?
|
|
|
|
There where a lot more people intersted in bitcoin back than.
I think that is mostly an illusion. Lots of people were becoming interested at the same time back then and there was so little content and infrastructure that they nearly all came here. The quality (in terms of average usefulness of a post) was much higher immediately before the explosion so it was a reasonable place to come. I think a lot of people left the boards, and maybe also came down from a bitcoin high, and certainly some decided bitcon wasn't interesting after all, but I think it is much more a matter of dispersal than disappearance. I would not send someone new to the boards now, but it was the first place I'd mention 2 years ago. |
|
|
|
Did I get any of the facts wrong? Is my reasoning flawed?
I don't see any facts that are wrong. In fact if he really wants to argue the idea that there is supposedly nothing backing bitcoins, you can pull the Ace and say that the original value of a bitcoin was equal to the electricity (electrons, copper wire degraded, silicon & chipsets depreciation) that went into the creation of it. On top of that, because of those qualities and the fact that they were packaged into a nice little electronic token gave a slight buffer not to the intrinsic value but to the perceived value which, again, can be traced back to what the perceived value of other commodity currencies were at their own times. I think you're spot on. The electricity that went into creating the block could not be intrinsic value of bitcoins - because you can not take the electricity out again. But couldn't you say that the resources were exhausted and therefore the remnant of them is the coin? I'm not referring in this case to an exchange, but that the bitcoin itself is an extension of the very things it consumed in being created. Though I suppose on second thought that isn't a very good parallel, since we do not think of dollars as having any value for the paper they are printed on (though we theoretically could). Consider the value of the ashes of beautiful furniture. |
|
|
|
Did I get any of the facts wrong? Is my reasoning flawed?
I don't see any facts that are wrong. In fact if he really wants to argue the idea that there is supposedly nothing backing bitcoins, you can pull the Ace and say that the original value of a bitcoin was equal to the electricity (electrons, copper wire degraded, silicon & chipsets depreciation) that went into the creation of it. On top of that, because of those qualities and the fact that they were packaged into a nice little electronic token gave a slight buffer not to the intrinsic value but to the perceived value which, again, can be traced back to what the perceived value of other commodity currencies were at their own times. I think you're spot on. The cost to make something does not give it value. My idea of bitcoin and the regression theorem is that maybe it applies maybe it's too much of a stretch, but it doesn't matter. Like the vaccine/evolution comment implies, just because there is a known route to something doesn't mean everything needs to take that route in order to work. |
|
|
|
If anyone has the problem of freezing upon reconnecting when you have multiple tables open from this point on please let me know.
I still seem to have issues with Chrome, and used to have problems with all browsers, but for whatever reason, Safari seems to work and I played multiple tables with no problems for hours. Is that starting just today or before? Supposedly today's upgrade improve re-connection handling especially when multiple tables are open. |
|
|
|
|
Mike isn't saying that 0 conf is safe. He's saying that with a small fix it is as safe as (most people thought it was) it was before which may be not safe at all or totally fine depending on what you are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone has the problem of freezing upon reconnecting when you have multiple tables open from this point on please let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
