The approaches aren't mutually exclusive! When I write down criteria for a trade, it follows analysis (you could also apply sentiment analysis - what the community is saying - though I tend to focus on technical analysis and fundamentals, the ratio of TA:FA depending on the timescale).

A technique I found helpful is to wrote down what would need to happen in order to trade, and only trade when the criteria were met. For example: "(1) if BTC/USD reaches $300 and then falls below $300 then I'll go short. (2) If BTC/USD reaches $200 and then rises above $200 then I'll go long." Anytime I'm tempted to trade I check my criteria, and if they've not been met I know I'm just trading on emotion. It forces me to think through what likely scenarios are, and how I can profit from them (and, equally, avoid losing scenarios).

I'm afraid not It's way above my head. My instinct is that Bitcoin will reach a point beyond which it can't grow without a block size increase, but I can't say that with any certainty.

Ah, understood. I'm still hopeful maximum block size will be increased before the heat death of the universe, but the participants in the debate do seem determined to prove me wrong!

I dunno, seems to be about the same as the previous times it pushed towards 300.

Not the UK. As much as it pains me to say this, the UK government tends to be fairly sensible when it comes to Bitcoin. The UK's banks - not so much.

Erkallys, you don't think transaction fees will increase enough to compensate for the reduction in the block reward? (Gentlemand, you also seem sceptical - or at least not totally convinced. I've always taken it as a given, without giving it too much thought, that TX fees would be subject to market forces. I'd be interested in having my assumption challenged).

Heh, I noticed that too! All from full members with usernames starting with an "N". Hmmm.

Some people worry that signature campaigns encourage posters to post just for the sake of the payment, without reading the thread.


Because the question isn't as easy to answer as that. The thread you mention is fairly recent (in a previous post, above, I refer to an older thread that served the same purpose). One problem with these threads is that the original post is updated frequently, to stay current. Another problem is that the first signature campaigns weren't necessarily discussed in these threads at all, but only in their own thread, which a few people also mention earlier in this thread.

I guess it makes sense to compare two crypto-currencies at similar points in their history, e.g. LTC just before the block reward halving with BTC just before its first reward halving. I'm much less convinced that we can gain much insight from comparing BTC now (i.e. before its second halving) with LTC (before it's first and only halving). 70% of total BTC is already mined - the remaining 30% will be distributed over the next 200 years. In contrast, LTC still has (over?) half its total still to be mined. I'll be disappointed if BTC's next halving results in similar results to LTC's first halving.

I think being ballsy when investing means having the confidence to do one thing while everyone else is doing the opposite!

I also think you're making the right call. BTC has been trading between ~200 and ~300 since late January. It dips below 200 briefly, then heads up. It goes over 300 briefly, then heads down. I've been buying around the $220 mark, and don't intend to buy much above that - unless/until we get over 300 and remain there. Sure, there's the risk that we regret not buying when it was cheaper - but the alternative is buying now and then watching it fall. Making a loss instead of making a (reduced) profit.

In the medium-term I'm fairly bullish - I think since we've tested 300 several times already the chances are good when we next hit 300 we'll push through it. But I'm not going to risk buying now, in case I'm wrong. There have been - and will be - better opportunities with less risk.

I don't know, but in June 2013 someone ran this "raffle". By November 2013 there was a thread about actual signature campaigns. I've not read too far into the thread, but it's possible it might answer some of your questions? (Obviously the OP has been edited to stay current, so it won't be as useful as later posts might be).

You may be right: "Whether procurement regulations actually prevent governments wasting taxpayers' money is another matter..."

Support and training are the usual costs associated with free/open source software. (Obviously with proprietary software too, but purchase costs are more obvious).

Assuming you're not (a) an employee of the state and (b) at work, then you could presumably use whatever you wanted. Ubuntu, Debian, any other Linux distro, there are Apple stores in China, the BSDs are downloadable, etc!

No. I'm saying that the statement "complies with the Chinese Government procurement regulations" means that Kylin is OK for Chinese civil servants to use. And, implicitly, if we're not employees of the PRC government we don't need to care about the statement in the slightest.

Not only is BTCJam listed in the OP (under "Lending"), but it's mentioned a further 16 times in this thread.

That's true right now. If you spend $10000 on BTC right now, and the price goes up 10%, you make $1000. The only difference is the amount of BTC you hold in between investing your $10000 and selling your BTC - in the "right" now example you temporarily hold 10 BTC and in the "BTC worth $10k" example you only hold 1 BTC.

If you were Chinese the Chinese Government procurement regulations wouldn't apply to you unless you worked for the Government. Most governments have procurement regulations, so taxpayers can be assured that they're getting value for money, and their government isn't wasting money. Whether procurement regulations actually prevent governments wasting taxpayers' money is another matter...