The dark pool point is interesting, would those trades show up in trade volume on MTGOX? If not, then it's conceivable the recent large buys that led to reaching parity are now being converted back into USD at some profit. Haven't looked at the amounts bought then to see whether that makes sense.
edit:
Did a small test buy, there does seem to be someone selling at 1.05019 in the dark pool.
Yes, dark pools show up in volume after the fact. But there are surely plenty of trades happening off of any books, not to mention all the trades for goods. Mullvad has dropped prices again, now 6BTC/mo. Does anyone know what their very first bitcoin price was? I think I remember 60BTC, but I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
|
Same offer still good, just bumping myself because I know there are a lot of new eyeballs recently.
|
|
|
|
New site (not mine): Title: My Healthy Organics Link: http://www.myhealthyorganics.com/Description: Organic Products! Beauty, Baby, Supplements, Cofffee / Teas, Cleaning Supplies, and much more! I've been thinking that parity is just some arbitrary line to be crossed and trying not to care too much, but damn it's nice to switch to bitcoin prices on this site and watch the nominal price drop. BTC >> USD |
|
|
|
|
I like how the choice is this year or never. I think that's correct actually, but funny to think about.
|
|
|
|
Here is an interesting article about the Tulip Mania of 1637. http://mises.org/daily/2564The explanation essentially comes down to the idea that in 17th century Netherlands there was a relative free market in money, which causes lots of money to flow into the Netherlands, causing a mania. Assuming the Austrian school explanation of the Tulip Mania is the correct one, are there any parallels with the Bitcoin Mania of 2011? tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip tulip Bitcoin is a little different. |
|
|
|
|
Current offer (2/10): I buy Bitcoins with my Poker Stars at a rate of $1/BTC, up to $400. $5 minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
Old offer (2/09): I buy Bitcoins with my Poker Stars at a rate of $.85/BTC
|
|
|
|
why wouldn't the financial oligarchy see it fit to destroy a threatening currency? they certainly show themselves capable with their silver manipulation via JPM and QE 1,2 and soon to be 3?
Would unrecoverable be a better word than lost or destroyed?
People holding their savings in bitcoin is indistinguishable from people throwing them away. Both increase the value of other bitcoins. I hope this is how governments try to destroy Bitcoin. QE is bad for a currency because it makes more units not fewer. |
|
|
|
Might it seem useful to at least some miners to buy from themselves some of the early bitcoins they created by mining, precisely for the purpose of creating an appearance of the saleablilty of BitCoins, but refraining from buying other people's BitCoins since they are not actually trying to spend dollars they are trying to keep the dollars themselves whilst making it look like people are parting with dollars? Yes, this is possible. I just bought a deck of cards (standard 52 card pack) for $45 (from myself, not that it matters). Anyone want it for $30? No? you don't make purchase decisions based on other people's previous trades? Pretty clever. All that matters are currently available offers to buy and sell. Those can be 'faked' only as long as someone has USD to part with to waste on paying more than necessary. |
|
|
|
|
We don't really want to send data in obscure ways though since we want to distribute widely and quickly and to strangers.
|
|
|
|
Why has there not been any trading since Jan 23?
Because no-one has been willing to cross the bid-offer spread. They've been crossed for a few hours at least. Selling for 41 cents and buying at 43, but no trade goes. |
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4tWwY02dj8time 0:56 - "Obama calls for Mubarak to refrain from initiating violence against his people." -AP News Narrator time 1:00 - "The people of Egypt have rights that are universal."-Obama This is precious. The NAP and Universality principles together in one small 5 second AP news clip. Cool, maybe he'll grant me those universal rights next  |
|
|
|
I am new to BitCoin, and I haven't looked through it all yet. I just had this thought: isn't the race for more computing power kind of a tragedy of the commons?
No. The power consumption is the one thing I don't like about BitCoin...
Well, gold also requires lots of energy/resources to be mined. The thing is, how to invent a currency that -anyone can issue/mine/generate/etc, in other words, it's issuing is not centralized. -doesn't inflate too fast -doesn't consume too much resources to issue, in other words, it's easy to produce So far you can at most pick two... if you manage to invent something that satisfy these 3 criteria at once, I bet everyone here would be really interested.  Bitcoin is pretty cool because it starts easy to create and eventually becomes impossible. Best of both worlds imo. It would be nic e if there was a way around the arbitrariness of the rate of decrease, I'd prefer smoother and that's been discussed here. I do kind of like the general method though: most in 15 years, but not all for 120. |
|
|
|
This thread disturbs me, for several reasons.
I'm glad that you are choosing to participate anyway.  edit: also you are not alone, imageshack took down the half nipple pic, lol. |
|
|
|
He says we've chosen to have children so now we have an obligation to feed, clothe, educate, whatever. Even if this is true what does it mean? That they can punish us? That anyone can? Does this mean that we have to meet someone's definition of minimum care?
Stephan's philosophy (sorry I don't have a link) is simply that if you don't wish to care for your children, you should allow others to do so. There's no need for punishment, or an arbitrary minimum standard of care. That does seem right. I don't want to misrepresent his position. I certainly shouldn't have implied that he advocated using force against people for not meeting his standards of care. I would say that even if you are caring for your children you should let others care for them as well. On what grounds could you stop it? It's disappointing that it's so hard to find people who won't abuse out of habit and without knowing what they are doing. That's not to say there aren't people who do know that they are abusing or even that that is a black/white issue. |
|
|
|
Might be back.... back lost my 3 wagers  |
|
|
|
So the difference I see in your two scenarios is that in the first you are telling someone that they can't do something to your property, and in the second you are telling someone that they cannot satisfy their own need even independently of you.
Mm, I do agree that food is an established want|need to satisfy the preserved health and continued existence of the individual asking for food. However, this may be comparable to the established want|need to satisfy the preserved and continued effort of the individual asking for burglarization. Food and burglarization are different things and in our minds and understandings we recognize these things as different and therefore apply different expectations or responses. In the case with the request for food, the food potentially fed to the daughter may be the property of the Father's. In the case with the request for burglarization, the home potentially burglarized may be the property of the Father's. btw, I do not mean to blatantly troll, as I do not necessarily agree myself with the direction of my posts, but I am curious about the ideas. Even stipulating that the burglar has as genuine a need for whatever he intends to get from you as a child has for food it is still a different question. If the child says "Can I eat?" and you say "No" that is to claim that you will prevent the child from getting anything at all from anyone. If the child says "Can you get me some food?" saying "No" only means that you aren't going to or can't get food for the child (and usually only for some limited amount of time). If you forcedly keep your child away from other then you are aggressing for sure. If the potential burglar says "Can I take your lawnmower?" you don't respond "No you can't have a lawnmower from anyone" or just say "No, I won't give you a lawnmower". |
|
|
|
|
I crashed the site. I'd been making multiple bets at a time and getting pretty lucky, upped it to three bets of 10 and they all stopped refreshing, now I can't get the site at all.
|
|
|
|
scenario two, repeat infinitely: daughter: Daddy, may I eat now? I'm hungry.
father: (assertively)no. Convincing someone that they need permission from you in order to eat is bad imo. My boy doesn't ask permission to eat, he asks for help getting food down from the cupboard. This isn't a semantic thing. If a father says "no you can't eat now" and a kid goes to ask mom then daddy gets all hot and bothered about having his authority circumvented. But if daddy says "I'm not going to get you any food now" and then mommy does it then daddy can just be glad that someone else met the child's need. So the difference I see in your two scenarios is that in the first you are telling someone that they can't do something to your property, and in the second you are telling someone that they cannot satisfy their own need even independently of you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
