|
Do you think it would be possible to "organize" a rally? Or a sell-off, could go either way.
If you started several threads, calling everyone to buy "all-in" on, say, Feb 1st, to make an artificial rally, would it happen?
It's hard to say... I mean, some people might do it, which means other people would be interested in doing it as well to "catch the wave", so to speak. It could compound to the point where lots of people end up buying in on Feb 1st. But then, probably just as quickly, people would sell, because they knew it was an artificial rally and they knew that others would sell as well.
But, if all of this is known in advance, wouldn't people take that in to account in today's trading price? I mean, if I know there's going to be a rally on Feb 1st, wouldn't I want to buy a day or two early, to ensure that I get the lowest possible buy-in price?
If you have a lot of money, you could state that you plan to buy 50,000 coins on Feb 1st in the hope of starting an artificial rally. You'll also state that you won't buy them all at once, but have various buy orders throughout the day (so that no one can tell when you bought and dump their own coins right after they see the purchase). But then again, people would probably buy early, then try to sell in the middle of the day when they think it will go no higher, pushing the price back down.
So, is it not possible to start an artificial rally?
|
|
|
|
|
*Putting my paranoid hat on*
What if this is all a big nothing, conspired by Matthew to steal all our coins? He gets BTC from advertisers, and from people pre-ordering the magazine. It's fairly easy to make good-looking headlines and cover pages if one knows their way around photoshop. It could be one very elaborate scam!
*Takes paranoid hat off*
BUT, I don't believe it is. Just something interesting to think about, especially given the history of various Bitcoin entrepreneurs.
|
|
|
|
|
Must've been kept loaded on the shelf, for whatever reason... Note to self: Loaded black powder weapons should be fired, not stored.
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin ever takes off mainstream, this will be a collectors item akin to original Elvis memorabilia. First volume of first season of first Bitcoin magazine ever printed? Heck yes... Especially with the low qty first edition print. Just ordered a printed copy. If it comes wrapped in plastic, I'm not sure I'll have the heart to open it. Good thing it comes with a digital copy too.  Best of luck with the magazine. I hope it succeeds in high enough numbers to continue on longer than the prior attempt at a Bitcoin publication. @ istar - To some extent, I agree with you. OTOH, a stark cover like this will draw attention to it very quickly when it is seated among racks of magazines all garnering for a person's attention. You know what they say - any publicity is good publicity. Or something like that. At any rate, I think at this stage in the game, it's still more about getting the word out there than making it look good. Making people curious about it should be the #1 priority. Someone has in fact asked me to provide them with a Mylar plastic wrapping and a certificate of authenticity of first printing ever of the #1 issue, but this kind of thing would require a much different arrangement and we're currently looking into it. This individual in question offered 1BTC more for the special service, but I am not so sure that would cover the costs. I will find out. I might be interested in that as well... no guarantees though. Even the 1 BTC expenditure was a bit hard to swallow considering all of the bills I need to pay. |
|
|
|
Ive been reading and searching further on this subject to decide on the oil. I can not find a cheap local source of mineral oil, so Im gonna go for vegetable oil. Im aware this is less stable and can oxidize (go rancid). It seems the biggest factors contributing to oxidation are sunlight and humidity. The first is easy enough to tackle, I have no need for a transparent aquarium, by setup is going to be butt ugly anyway.
To counter humidity, Im going to try to add a layer of mineral oil on top of the vegetable oil as sealant. Mineral oil is lighter and should therefore float on top, but Ill have to see if it mixes or not.
If anyone has other suggestions, Im all ears. Is there something lighter than mineral oil that is stable and not conductive to use as sealant?
I like this idea. Way to think outside the box! |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin ever takes off mainstream, this will be a collectors item akin to original Elvis memorabilia. First volume of first season of first Bitcoin magazine ever printed? Heck yes... Especially with the low qty first edition print. Just ordered a printed copy. If it comes wrapped in plastic, I'm not sure I'll have the heart to open it. Good thing it comes with a digital copy too. Best of luck with the magazine. I hope it succeeds in high enough numbers to continue on longer than the prior attempt at a Bitcoin publication. @ istar - To some extent, I agree with you. OTOH, a stark cover like this will draw attention to it very quickly when it is seated among racks of magazines all garnering for a person's attention. You know what they say - any publicity is good publicity. Or something like that. At any rate, I think at this stage in the game, it's still more about getting the word out there than making it look good. Making people curious about it should be the #1 priority. |
|
|
|
|
One thought I've had as I've been watching this site...
It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead. I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins? It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.
What's the solution? I haven't a clue. You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place. You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway. Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.
Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner? So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003. Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050. This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.
Just some thoughts. I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.
|
|
|
|
I think there are two major problems and a couple minor ones.
1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.
2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.
a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)
b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.
c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.
1) Maybe wait til there is a problem with spam posts? I agree that sending a small amount of Bitcoin would be a prime way to keep bots out though. 2) Agreed, can't hurt to have QR codes. a) Eh? You can vote something up for 0.001 BTC. Less than a penny. Is that really a lot? b) Agreed. All the serif fonts on the site need to be changed to sans-serif. Serif looks terrible on webpages. c) Agreed. |
|
|
|
Seems utterly pointless to me...
So far bitcoin clients have been fairly secure because mostly internet savvy folks are using it. When it opens up to other users, if the clients are not absolutely 100% fool-proof, there will be key loggers, trojans, and viruses stealing wallets. It will scare folks off and henceforth require online bank type security to use through a centralized server. Limiting the size of the wallet for entertainment purposes limits the risk and lessens the fuel for news headline panics. On the same token, however, a limited wallet is a limited wallet. How many people are going to say, "Hey, this Bitcoin thing is stupid - I can only have one of them at a time"? Yes, it would limit risk, but it would also limit purchasing power, usability, and usefulness of the wallet. Since the first impression is generally the most important one, in the user's mind, those things would be a limitation of Bitcoin as a whole, pushing them away from it. Go ahead and make such a client (or have someone make it) if you really believe in it, but I think it's a bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
Seems utterly pointless to me...
|
|
|
|
I can't stand all this liking and tweeting bullshit. Everyone knows that the internets feed on hate. Research shows that common hates produce stronger social bonds than common likes. But where is hate monetized on the internets. Like if I suggest something and gamble that everyone will think it is worth hating on. If they hate on it in sufficient number I get paid. If not I lose my deposit. Then a great repository of hate can be built. Sort of like the library of Alexandria.
If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
Hm. How about a site that allows you to pay to drive the item DOWN instead of up? Then you can monetize in both directions!  Haha, I like that idea! |
|
|
|
I still want to see someone come out with a debit card that literally works exactly the same as a current debit card would, except it withdraws BTC from your account equal to the USD you spend.
OKPAY already does that.Well, not quite. They don't hold your balance in BTC - they hold it in USD. But it's pretty close! |
|
|
|
I can send interested persons the development card of bitcoindebit.net It is not pretty but it functions. I am working on a plastic card design I hope to get completed in the next month. I still want to see someone come out with a debit card that literally works exactly the same as a current debit card would, except it withdraws BTC from your account equal to the USD you spend. It would probably lower exchange rates for a while (everyone spending their BTC on everyday items with their debit cards), but it would bring with it a lot more interest and excitement of BTC. MAKE IT HAPPEN ANDREW BITCOINER!  |
|
|
|
Agree that your take is too high. It should be something like 80/20 author/you, or 90/10. 50/50 is greedy, IMO.
Also, ditch the serif font - it doesn't look good on the web!
Good call. Now 80/20. Site text will update tomorrow. Cool, I think that's reasonable for now. Later on, if you have a bunch of traffic, you might be called on to reduce it even more, but I don't think many will have a problem with 80/20. |
|
|
|
|
Agree that your take is too high. It should be something like 80/20 author/you, or 90/10. 50/50 is greedy, IMO.
Also, ditch the serif font - it doesn't look good on the web!
|
|
|
|
Oh... or you could give them the key and then later receive to that address and the coins would be taken by GoX? Do they do that? Constantly monitor and credit you?
I think it's because MtGox doesn't necessarily guarantee that those coins will stay at that address, just that your account will be credited with those coins. It doesn't matter if they move from that address, just so long as they don't move from your MtGox account. But yeah, I wouldn't add a private key to your wallet that has also been redeemed at MtGox or weird stuff like this will happen. |
|
|
|
Is the system designed so that the total amount of BTC in circulation does not exceed 21m or it will always be below that figure?
From what I've read 21m is an asymptote meaning total BTC will always be nearing this number but never reaching.
I must admit I do not know if it will be 21M on the dot, or some fractional number around it. But does it really matter if it's 21M, or 20.999M? |
|
|
|
How can you set up a sell order at $4.00 without executing it though? If the price is $5.00, and the liquidation for a particular long holder is $4.00, you couldn't pre-set a sell order at $4.00 without it being executed. Unless I am missing something..?
Doh. You're right. MtGox would have to support stop-loss orders for that to work. Even if they did, it would only help avoid losses in the case of getting those orders executed in front of other potential orders. But if there's no one willing to buy between $3.51 and $4.00, then even a stop-loss order at $4.00 isn't going to avoid a loss. I think there were just far too many liquidations compared to the buy book, and once that snowball started rolling, all the liquidations just couldn't be sold at the price they should have been sold at. Just my speculation though - I don't know the truth behind why zhout took a loss. |
|
|
|
Given that you know what the liquidation threshold is well in advance, why is "speed" a factor? You could have the order sat on Mt.Gox's books from the moment the position is established. The market then couldn't move to a "slippage" price without passing through your order.
Let's do a very basic scenario. Someone is long with a base of $5 and liquidation at $4. MtGox has open buy orders of $4.50 and $3.50. The $4.50 buys are filled, and the "price" suddenly drops to $3.50, because there is nothing at $4.00. The person gone long is liquidated, but zhout has no choice but to liquidate the Bitcoins at $3.50 instead of $4.00, because that is the going market price. Normally, the spread between bids is very small, so $4 would be liquidated at $3.995 or something, and zhout makes the money off the maintenance fee (if the liquidation is $4.00 to the user, then the "true" liquidation is actually $3.75 or $3.90 or something). But with large price movements and lots of liquidations in a short period of time, not enough buyers can be found on MtGox to sell all of the liquidations at their liquidation prices, and they slide the price even further beyond the maintenance fee, causing a loss. Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong - this is all just guessing based on the way I would set it up. I believe you are correct SgtSpike. realnowhereman is also correct that he could avoid slippage by putting orders in place. This has it's own issues though since if the user closes or changes their position, the order would need to be updated. If the market took the order before it could be adjusted, again Zhoutong has loss. How can you set up a sell order at $4.00 without executing it though? If the price is $5.00, and the liquidation for a particular long holder is $4.00, you couldn't pre-set a sell order at $4.00 without it being executed. Unless I am missing something..? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
