|
BitsharesX is perhaps the most interesting distributed asset ledger I've seen so far. Unlike everything else, it does actually require backing in the form of BTSX. However, this is also its weakness. If there is ever a run on BTSX and the price drops, the system will not allow people to sell their undercollateralized as less than the price peg specified by the oracles. Of course, it should be possible for people to put up this cheap BTSX as collateral to short more of the bit asset into existence, which should help stabilize the falling BTSX price plus recolateralize the asset. However, the risk is that nobody steps up in a crises. There should be a profit motive though, so it may work out. We'll just have to see how it goes when the eventual price drop of BTSX happens. If the system makes it through that, I think it will quickly rebound with a new found level of trust, and could potentially provide a means of trading almost any asset digitally with the same speed and low cost of bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
wave iii is always the strongest move
Not quite, wave 3 is never the weakest move. Bitcoin traditionally has seen many strong 5th waves. |
|
|
|
|
I do too... we need some sleazeball to start up a new Bitcoin Savings and Trust to borrow coins from newbies to short the market. When the newbies realize the jackass stole their money and try to withdraw, said jackass will be caught between a short position and a jail sentence and will try to fuck with the market to get it back. These pitiful attempts will fail of course, and the sudden loss of bitcoin by all the investors coupled with everyone knowing the sleazeball's hand, coupled with him providing an opportunity for cheap bitcoins will drive the market up to ensure he can't recover from his error.
Oh wait, we had one of those already.
|
|
|
|
This is yet another instance of the common misunderstanding among finance/econ people that the currency and the blockchain are separable. But it's good that these people are seeing value in "the underlying technology". They did not 2 years ago. And I suspect that sometime in the next 2 years or so, it's going to dawn on a lot of these people that you can't use the technology without the unit/currency. Agreed. But I think it's going to happen a lot faster. Once you see value in the underlying technology it's only a matter of time before you tie things together. The world is now getting condition that the blockchain is amazing..and bitcoin..well it's just an app that may or may not survive. It shouldn't take long to flip the switch and realize that bitcoin's value makes the blockchain work. I like what I'm seeing..just need a "AHA" moment before the masses rush in. The infrastructure is getting to the point where it's almost capable of handling the rush. The infrastructure is better, but not there yet. There are also certain segments of the population that will rush in before others. Full adoption could take a few decades. A first objection I often hear is that people don't want smartphones. Sure, you could do an sms wallet, but is there one that legally operates in the US? |
|
|
|
Gentlemen, we're headed to da moon. Fasten your seatbelts, we're bringing back the rover.  Um.... how does the flag wave without air? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks, that was helpful. I had one thing a little backwards. The offset is how far away from current you are looking rather than how far from the first transaction. So I believe I just need to walk from 0 forward until I see a transaction I already know.
|
|
|
|
|
The listtransactions API call allows you to specify an offset of how many transactions are skipped. My question is this: is the ordering of this list stable such that you can simply track how many transactions you've already recorded and rely on a new call to give you any new information. Specifically, if I import a private key that has a transaction that happened well in the past, will that transaction show up on my next listtransactions call, or will it be buried underneath causing my call to return a transaction I've already seen previously?
|
|
|
|
Buying. right now.
bitcoin is going to nowhere but down lower and lower, buying = lossing, buy more lose more Unless you're wrong... seriously though, nobody will listen to someone who says they know where price is headed. The only people with valuable input here are those who talk in probabilities, and only a few of those. |
|
|
|
“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said.
 They are marketing it as a privacy feature. If seeking privacy means you are going "beyond the law", maybe decades of law enforcement overreaching and seeking extensions of the laws into our personal lives is the problem. Besides, if they take it away from the default install they will only remove if from the average consumer who isn't breaking laws. The criminals will root their phones and use encryption anyway. They can't stop this unless they make rooting illegal, and even that will only slow it down slightly. If it comes to that, I'm fucking out of here. I won't live in a country where it is illegal to own a general purpose computer that can run software that doesn't have the approval of government and corporate overlords. |
|
|
|
ok, this is very cool and important. http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/29/352476454/how-hong-kong-protesters-are-connecting-without-cell-or-wi-fi-networks"Mesh networks are an especially resilient tool because there's no easy way for a government to shut them down. They can't just block cell reception or a site address. Mesh networks are like Voldemort after he split his soul into horcruxes (only not evil). Destroying one part won't kill it unless you destroy each point of access; someone would have to turn off Bluetooth on every phone using FireChat to completely break the connection. This hard-to-break connection isn't super important for casual chats, but during tense political showdowns, it could be a lifeline."i can't wait for BitcoinCard or something similar to come along and give us the option to connect via Mesh Networking. They can still shut it down fairly easily by strongly broadcasting noise on the frequencies used. That technique can knock out Bluetooth or any other wireless communications in a fairly large area with a small transmitter. Bluetooth is particularly vulnerable since it is so low power in the first place. If we look at details then it is quite easy to find and destroy ONE small transmitter. And now you have destroyed government property. Congratulations, you just upgraded your peaceful protesters to enemies of the state. |
|
|
|
ok, this is very cool and important. http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/29/352476454/how-hong-kong-protesters-are-connecting-without-cell-or-wi-fi-networks"Mesh networks are an especially resilient tool because there's no easy way for a government to shut them down. They can't just block cell reception or a site address. Mesh networks are like Voldemort after he split his soul into horcruxes (only not evil). Destroying one part won't kill it unless you destroy each point of access; someone would have to turn off Bluetooth on every phone using FireChat to completely break the connection. This hard-to-break connection isn't super important for casual chats, but during tense political showdowns, it could be a lifeline."i can't wait for BitcoinCard or something similar to come along and give us the option to connect via Mesh Networking. They can still shut it down fairly easily by strongly broadcasting noise on the frequencies used. That technique can knock out Bluetooth or any other wireless communications in a fairly large area with a small transmitter. Bluetooth is particularly vulnerable since it is so low power in the first place. |
|
|
|
To the guys not understanding why this is big and good: I have now 10 friends, that got coins from Circle today.. so it has set something in motion.. They are IT ppl, and wanted to buy bitcoin, but the exchanges look shady.. I know they are right, and localbitcoins is not the place to go and try to buy for a novice. Circle is backed by known name institutions, and is not Mt.Gox... I did not want to sell, I want to buy. So now I can sell them more coins than I mine/trade.. so this is good.
I hope you don't live in the US. If you do you are risking prosecution for financial crimes by selling directly to friends. The land of the free is not so friendly to financial freedom. |
|
|
|
|
Look at the last 18 months and maybe you'll see a bigger picture.
|
|
|
|
Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys? we hit the cost of production floor, maybe undershoot by5-10%, coins become cheaper to buy than mine, some hashrate goes offline ... then the next super cycle can begin again. That's what next you blind old fool  This. I said months ago that we won't truly bottom until ASICs saturate and hashrate begins to taper. |
|
|
|
I can see how they mix very well: as paypal being an off-chain BTC payments processor with "added value" (chargebacks, consumer protection).
Exactly. But any merchant that integrates Bitcoin via PayPal can also directly integrate Bitcon payments, in minutes. Faster, no middlemen, no need to be banked, lower fees. PayPal stands to lose a chunk of its business, and is moving not to lose it all. Paypal will only gain. Look at the situation in Merchant Services. There is a huge integration of Visa/Mastercard used through Paypal, in preference to direct with the card issuers. The reason is the accessability of Paypal. The reason is merchants prefer to push PCI compliance off to paypal. |
|
|
|
holders have good reason to be stubborn tho...
On the flipside, bears clearly had plenty of reason to be bearish. They were born that way? |
|
|
|
This number is something that bothers me. According to bitcoinrichlist.com [1], there are only about 1.6 million addresses with a current value of more than 0.001 (= $ 0.40 currently). Assuming, that each bitcoin holder has to control at least one address, this feels a bit wrong. I assume there are a many ways to explain this: 1) All bitcoin holders currently owning more than $ 0.40 in bitcoin are also coinbase users. -- Somehow this seems to be unlikely. 2) Coinbase sugarcoated their stats. 3) A significant amount of coinbase bitcoin users does not hold the private key for their bitcoins. (EDIT: thx to FNG) 4) A significant amount of coinbase users bought coins with a total value less than $ 0.40. -- Is this even possible or rational because of fees? 5) Stats of bitcoinrichlist.com are wrong. -- Are there alternatives that provide the same data? Am I missing something? [1] http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=3200003 + people who keep btc on exchanges Thx. This is just logical, the less users that don't hold the private keys to their bitcoins, the less addresses are used. And this phenomenon not only applies to coinbase. How about some people have more than one address. With a market cap at 5,240,808,508 and 1,600,000 users, that is $3275.50 per user. Of course, there are more users than coinbase users. I know I don't have all my funds on a single address.
Also, there is the fact that coinbase btc for multiple users are stored on a single address that is in cold storage.
Point being, there is not a 1-1 correspondence between users and addresses.
Yes, if you assume, that some people have more than one address, the comparison of 1.6 million addresses vs. 1.6 million coinbase users even more implies, that one of the above explainations has to be true. I don't try to establish a 1:1 relationship between addresses and users. But with 1.6 million addresses, there can only be 1.6 million users (at most), who control the private key to their bitcoins. Well I personally have several addresses with less than 0.001 btc, but maybe I'm just weird. |
|
|
|
This number is something that bothers me. According to bitcoinrichlist.com [1], there are only about 1.6 million addresses with a current value of more than 0.001 (= $ 0.40 currently). Assuming, that each bitcoin holder has to control at least one address, this feels a bit wrong. I assume there are a many ways to explain this: 1) All bitcoin holders currently owning more than $ 0.40 in bitcoin are also coinbase users. -- Somehow this seems to be unlikely. 2) Coinbase sugarcoated their stats. 3) A significant amount of coinbase users does not hold the private key for their bitcoins. 4) A significant amount of coinbase users bought coins with a total value less than $ 0.40. -- Is this even possible or rational because of fees? 5) Stats of bitcoinrichlist.com are wrong. -- Are there alternatives that provide the same data? Am I missing something? [1] http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=320000How about some people have more than one address. With a market cap at 5,240,808,508 and 1,600,000 users, that is $3275.50 per user. Of course, there are more users than coinbase users. I know I don't have all my funds on a single address. Also, there is the fact that coinbase btc for multiple users are stored on a single address that is in cold storage. Point being, there is not a 1-1 correspondence between users and addresses. |
|
|
|
so people bought btc to pump doge you say?  He's claiming people are sending btc to exchanges to pump doge.. that is network transactions, not exchange transactions. |
|
|
|
There is the dilemma I guess. Money in of itself is not evil. The LOVE of money is evil. Do I love money? I think it is hard not to be tempted by the comfort it can bring for sure. I wrestle with this. I am going to India in six weeks and I will be hit in the face and greatly humbled by those that can live lives of complete contentment and even joy with far less than I have. So in a way you are right. It is an area that I probably have some issues with, especially growing up in a rich area in the United States that is surrounded by every luxury we could ever want.
You almost sound smug beforehand, as if you're being a better person by deciding to go somewhere where people are poor, and already portraying yourself as 'being humbled' before you even went. As a critically thinking Christian (a rear breed indeed), I can assure you that the vast majority of Christians do see themselves as "better". But, I also think most of them are fools who take the wrong things literally while ignoring the crucial truths that can be found in religious texts of all creeds. @BitChick, while you're in India PLEASE do more listening than talking, especially about religion. I am sure I am going with a pre-conceived idea of what will happen and sure, I might be totally smug too. I might be a greedy, selfish, self indulgent person that cannot even see her own hypocrisy and I need a good kick in the pants and hopefully this little trip, or other things in my life, will help me see the areas I am blind to. That is my prayer anyways. We are going to be doing various things in India, not just "talking." We are putting in some water wells, visiting orphans and some other humanitarian outreaches. I am actually going to be singing too, at least one song in their language, for a women's conference we are having with 500 women or so attending. I was asked to talk. It is humbling to do so really, so I have to admit that I will be doing some "talking." It will be translated into Telugu. It seems weird to go as a westerner to speak to Dalit women in India, but they are not used to American women even going there and in a way they are happy we are even coming. (we are funding the entire event too. Some of these women have never even been on a retreat at all so this is a huge even for them! Regardless of what I say, or if it even irrelevant, the retreat itself will mean so much to them I hope!) All I'm trying to say is that these people probably have more to add to your understanding then you have to add to theirs. They have much more experience with struggle and sacrifice than you will ever know. Keep that in mind, and do pray for humility before you go so you can maximize what you learn. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
