Without proof the funds 'invested' are not being used to fund payouts, the only reasonable course of action is to stay far away from schemes like this.
That's absurd logic. Think about this....10 ppl invest, all their funds go into a cryptocurrency on the exchange, the coin(s) are bought then sold at the higher price for profit. Then the funds are placed back in the pool and a payout is calculated based on the amount of profits made. So collectively all the investors' funds are creating profit and by proxy funding the payouts. How else would profit be made and paid??? From thin air!? It wouldn't. The operators would take funds from their investors and create the impression of shating profits by paying their victims a small portion of the funds they 'invested' whenever payouts are due. The users, happy, report success, convince new marks to join and possibly throw more funds at the scheme themselves. This goes on until the amount to be paid to victims exceeds the amount of funds coming in from the victims. There is no place for trust in giving money to strangers. If a 'business' can't prove they're not operating as outlined above, especially when claiming to operate an investment scheme, they are to be avoided at all costs. |
|
|
|
|
There's an economic incentive to post crap. (Notice the correllation between the amount of drool flowing from a user's mouth and the amount of referral links in their sig.)
There's not much financial incentive to spend time on thoughtful posts and the influx of mouthbreathers spamming the forums is rapidly removing any intellectual incentives. Par for course for internet forums, then.
|
|
|
|
|
Without proof the funds 'invested' are not being used to fund payouts, the only reasonable course of action is to stay far away from schemes like this.
|
|
|
|
The Great Flood of Noah's day was only about 4300 to 4400 years ago. Since that flood wiped everyone except Noah's family from off the earth, that means that the currency system isn't more than that old. In addition, the currency almost assuredly wasn't used by Noah. What would he use it for? Any barter he did, would have been between him and his children and grand children, etc. Who needs money for that? Probably the oldest money system that we could connect to is way less than 4000 years old.  I don't think a worldwide flood wiping out all but one family a little over 4000 years ago is exactly the consensus view forged through rational analysis of the available historical data these days. |
|
|
|
|
How would you get rid of fees? Miners aren't likely to support a fork without the ability for miners to set a fee requirement to process blocks. Actually, I'm not sure how feasible such a fork would be without entirely removing even voluntary fees. Do that, and you run a serious risk of undermining Bitcoin's security model in the long term.
Without fees, you're left with trusting the preset reward rate to be optimal to guarantee sufficient interest by honest miners to ward off hashpower attacks. Fees provide important room to increase the network hashrate from what the reward rate alone could support.
|
|
|
|
In more detail, depending on core developers' approach to trade-off of supporting small or large transactions in the future, whichever in priority, they should not only set a strict transaction fee (rather than a donation) such as [a percentage of the transacted amount] or [a fixed minimal fee + a percentage of the transacted amount], but also do this in a manner such that it fills the gap created by the future slow down of price increase together with the block rewards decrease. That is, to fix the total rewards, I propose the developers that they increase the transaction fees gradually over time, to keep up with a fixed hypothetical sum expressing total block earnings (sum of block rewards + tx fees) per block as follows,  note: The block rewards decrease once in every 4 years at once, as we all know it. Hence we should see cuts in the above graph but assuming it is approximated, we can ignore the cuts for the sake of simplicity. However, as stated in paper, we all know that it is early for this kind of a modification. So I basically propose this kind of a "transaction fee such as a dynamic (gradually increasing) percentage", not now but in the future, when the time comes. I think it is ok to replace "when the time comes" with "when price of a bitcoin or lets say volatility reaches to the stability level of gold or a well-known fiat currency". Well, that's all about it. Although being arguably straightforward, to the best of my knowledge, I have not seen such a proposal before. As a future research, I believe it is crucial to determine/approximate, what a fixed transaction fee/percentage can/might/should be in a userwise/marketwise pacified/stabilized setting, in order to be able to compare tx savings with competitors such as visa/paypal etc. Setting aside the issue that this kind of centralized policymaking goes directly against the fundamental ideas Bitcoin is based on, and the difficulty of mandating a fixed fee in an open software system - how would you decide what level to fix the fee at? Essentially you need to decide what the value of 'sum' in your graph should be. Currently that is left to a market-based price discovery mechanism to suss out. You seem to propose a central controller model with 'the devs' (of Bitcoin Core?) tasked with figuring out the optimal price for a bitcoin transaction. Frankly, this seems like a very bad idea to me, even if you could find a way to make it happen. |
|
|
|
Yet another 'investment fund'... I rank the odds of any funds sent to this person actually being used for the purpose described as Very Low. |
|
|
|
|
Inform them, if the issue is not fixed and users are at risk, go public.
|
|
|
|
(Neither the number of stores that "acecpt bitcoin", nor the blockchain traffic, nor the venture capital investments imply growth of any market.)
What would imply growth? |
|
|
|
..see you at $100...
The last big bubble lifted the price from ~120$ in early Oct/2013 to ~800$ in Jan/2014. The fall from ~800$ in Jan/2014 to the present ~350$ can only be due to the undoing of that bubble (and to the undoing of the May/2014 "pseudo-bubble"). I cannot see any plausible explanation for the Oct-Nov/2013 bubble other than the opening of the mainland Chinese market. The undoing of that bubble then must be due to the loss of that market. According to a few articles, the Chinese bitcoin market consists mainly of amateur and semi-professional speculators who, lacking access to the stock market, were used to day-trading other bizarre commodities. So, if those traders pull completely out of the market, the May/2014 pseudo-bubble is completely undone, and no new market opens, the price should eventually go back to ~120$. Draw a straight line on the Bitstamp price chart, in log scale, from the prices at Jan/2014 (~800$) and at May 19, 2014 (~400$). Extrapolation of that line suggests that the price (minus the May pseudo-bubble) will reach ~120$ by the end of the year. I suspect that the Chinese were responsible also for the Jan-Apr/2013 bubble, that lifted the price from ~12$ to ~120$. Specifically, the start of that bubble seems to coincide with the hiring of Bobby Lee by BTC-China in Shanghai. In that case, if that market closes too, so that the Jan-Apr/2013 bubble gets undone, the price could go down again to 10--20$. Needless to say, these extrapolations will be moot if another market opens (COIN? Argentina? Africa?). What about growth in existing markets? |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Piggles: You don't buy BTC first. You borrow some, promising to pay it back later and then sell the btc you borrowed. If the price moves down, you profit. If it goes up, it will cost you more to buy the BTC you need to repay than you got from selling them, so you lose money.
|
|
|
|
How much money do you make shorting?
Can someone explain it to me?
Like say you have 1 coin.
You short at $390
What does it need to hit/how do you profit?
If it goes to $350 what would you make on that?
ELI5 please someone who knows more than I do
Assuming no leverage, it's like you sold at 390 and bought back in at 350 - you profit 40 usd minus any fees. If you're on a service that allows leveraged trading, you can post 1 btc (or a sum of fiat) as collateral to borrow more btc that you then sell to open a short position. Your potential profit is increased by the amount of leverage you're using - say 2x - but so are your potential losses, and you're now at risk of getting a margin call. This is when your position is forced to close before you're so far in the red your collateral is no longer sufficient to cover the amount you have borrowed against it. |
|
|
|
|
On topic: remainder of 353.x wall pulled, moved to 360?
|
|
|
|
I see. Its probably a good idea for sure... I just dont have such a device. What do you think of the new Trezor? Are they safe?
Haven't tried the trezor, nor looked too much into it. Maybe someone else can answer that question better. But if you have a laptop or desk computer where any wifi can be turned off via hardware switch, and use a well-known linux distro from a livecd, I'd consider that an acceptable level of safety.You're probably not being actively targeted by an adversary. |
|
|
|
|
Is your Android device secure? No back doors? How do you know?
For long-term storage, your private keys should not touch any device that can connect to the internet. Creating e.g. paper wallets on a livecd os without net access is an acceptable solution IMO, although you can get more paranoid than that still. I certainly wouldn't trust any mobile OS with long term storage.
|
|
|
|
I don't think it is a good idea to allow any individual code their own version of bitcoin core which will damage the single independent network of bitcoin. Some one may code the software to obuse bitcoin to get profit.
I don't think it's a good idea to not allow any individual to code their own version of bitcoin core. The measures required to prevent it would be abhorrent and the bitcoin devs might "code the software to abuse bitcoin to get profit". |
|
|
|
That bearwhale is probably super pissed right about now
Bearwhale has missed out on a cool $3 MILLION by selling a week too early. hard to feel sorry for a bear whale that sold and got 9 million usd...if he is smart paid his taxes on such legit he walked away with no worries and made around 4.5 million or so but yeah he probably is walking around saying 'damn it I coulda made 6 million net..idiot' it is how we are 'wired' (i should make such wonderful 'mistakes') Some people do risk assesment and base their actions on that. Those people accept that while the odds may favor a market move in one direction, the movement may end up going the other way. Market action after the fact doesn't make a rational choice based on a reasoned analysis any less valid. |
|
|
|
|
if you wanted to buy around 300, and needed to wait for fiat to arrive, how much would you be buying for it to make sense to risk 30k btc on it? What would you be looking for?
It would help if you knew there wasn't much USD on bitstamp waiting to buy your wall. It would help if you had some fiat ready. Then, if you made a deal to sell X BTC at some price above 300, you could make sure you can buy that amount back for less provided you can get the funds on stamp before others do. Is there a set of numberd that would make this play reasonable?
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone fatfingered their bot, adding a few significant zeroes in their ask_amt variable...
Otoh, if this is not a mistake, and whoever is behind this, how long could they keep this up?
-Place huge wall at 300
-buy under 300
- replenish wall with bought coins (hasn't happened so far)
- watch your money bleed away gradually
|
|
|
|
|
It's like the good old days again. Just remember - Bitstamp knows who it is with the wall...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
