|
900's being a real cocktease.
|
|
|
|
I just can't shake the feeling that there's one more good thrust left in this run.  |
|
|
|
|
A lot of microtrades seemingly to try to paint the tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Does anything like this exist? Either a managed fund that seeks to invest in the most promising altcoins, or just a broad industry index, would be useful for people who don't have time to keep track of all the little developments.
|
|
|
|
Right, so please tell me if im missing something blatantly obvious. They'll accept it when it's no longer volatile. Now is the wealth preservation phase of Bitcoin. Or in the meantime they can use Bitpay if they want to be an early innovator. Some people will make purchases for the same reason that they sell: their portfolio is overweight in BTC. This will usually only be after they have accumulated enough BTC for their goals. |
|
|
|
The imgur chrome extension is great. Right click and the image URL is on your clipboard. It's so easy it's almost second nature!  |
|
|
|
 Google trends:  1-year log chart for MtGox:  |
|
|
|
Molyneux: "Some guy just transferred like $6 million and it cost him 6 cents." Schiff: <shifts uncomfortably in his seat> |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, because nothing has intrinsic value, because value isn't intrinsic - it requires a valuer.
Bitcoin isn't backed by anything, because it's not a promise like a gold-backed dollar used to be.
Bitcoin is like a club with ironclad rules. As long as that club exists, those rules ensure that your BTC have purchasing power within that club. It's "backed" simply by the solidarity of that social formation, the Bitcoin fraternity, the Bitcoin community, whatever you want to call it. And that solidarity is ensured by the rules of the protocol and the fact that following those rules has proven extremely valuable and promises to be even more extremely valuable in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
This consolidation is just what the doctor ordered. The price was simply rising too fast last week.
Now we have a fairly solid base for another rocket launch. Perhaps even this week.
|
|
|
|
Investopedia is confused. anth0ny and deisik seem to be agreeing with each other that "intrinsic value" is an incoherent term. And it is. Sure, it's used in common parlance...but one of the first lessons of clear thinking is not to bring terms of everyday talk into a technical context, even if certain academics are in the habit of doing do.
One of the first lessons in clear thinking is not to reject a something with a knee-jerk reaction, but first ask yourself "maybe i don't get it?" What you have described above is not clear thinking, but stubborn contrarianism. A donkey can do it. In simpler terms: If 99% of the academia disagrees with you, chances are it's you who is wrong. Not guaranteed, but plenty good for me. Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. Not likely to fly on bitcointalk. When dealing with definitions, the only thing one *can* appeal to is authority. Hence "authoritative reference," "authoritative definition." When dealing with common usages, the only appropriate reference is popularity. Basic stuff  Remember when I said, "one of the first lessons of clear thinking is not to bring terms of everyday talk into a technical context"? That is exactly what I was talking about. A dictionary definition reflects common usage, which is frequently sloppy. If you want to think and communicate clearly when using words, you've got to ensure that your definitions are clear and unambiguous. Sometimes a word needs to be more clearly defined, and sometimes it needs to be abandoned because it is useless in precise contexts. This is a case of the word being useless. |
|
|
|
(Mind you I said "using" not "hoarding" - hoarders contribute nothing to the value of the currency - although they may make the price of individual coins artificially higher, they do so by making the number of coins in circulation artificially lower.) They increase the market cap, which reduces volatility and sends a price signal to everyone else to alert them to its value. Speculation is a very valuable service. However, we don't need to measure hoarding specifically, since it is already reflected in the market cap. |
|
|
|
Investopedia is confused. anth0ny and deisik seem to be agreeing with each other that "intrinsic value" is an incoherent term. And it is. Sure, it's used in common parlance...but one of the first lessons of clear thinking is not to bring terms of everyday talk into a technical context, even if certain academics are in the habit of doing do.
One of the first lessons in clear thinking is not to reject a something with a knee-jerk reaction, but first ask yourself "maybe i don't get it?" What you have described above is not clear thinking, but stubborn contrarianism. A donkey can do it. In simpler terms: If 99% of the academia disagrees with you, chances are it's you who is wrong. Not guaranteed, but plenty good for me. Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. Not likely to fly on bitcointalk. |
|
|
|
|
That is good. I was hoping people would use Prezi more. It's a great tool for visual wikis and you can make one very large one and use it to make a whole series of videos discussing a topic.
|
|
|
|
minicoin Nice. That sounds plausibly like what they may be called. Or just a "mini" when speaking fast. "That'll be 25 mini." |
|
|
|
|
Investopedia is confused. anth0ny and deisik seem to be agreeing with each other that "intrinsic value" is an incoherent term. And it is. Sure, it's used in common parlance...but one of the first lessons of clear thinking is not to bring terms of everyday talk into a technical context, even if certain academics are in the habit of doing do.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah it's true that these numbers get so astronomical that it hardly matters anyway. It's going to be "lots and lots of cash."
|
|
|
|
|
As long as Bitcoin retains dominance, the altcoins will only ever account for a few percent of the total cryptocurrency market cap. Compared to the exponential growth and multiple orders of magnitude of error in our projections, that percentage should be negligible from where we stand now.
|
|
|
|
Please feel free to add to that. It's just a few links so far, but I've seen many more that I forgot about and will have to dig up later. This might be a good addition for the natural order section, or perhaps summary. Here's another, perhaps belonging in the panarchy section: Bitcoin and Unbreakable Law. Excerpt: Imagine that you were entertaining a business deal with a man with an supernatural ability to make two kinds of promises: 1) promises that are impossible for him to break and 2) ordinary, breakable promises. Why would you accept anything other than the unbreakable promises from him? If he offered to make breakable promises you might grow suspicious about his intent.
It’s easy to see how unbreakable promises would be a revolution for contracts and law. Enforcement costs for contracts would be drastically reduced. It would enable a new era of globalization, allowing people to participate in contracts with each other without regard to jurisdiction. The rights promised to a citizen of a country could be guaranteed instead of relying on the benevolence and caprice of their sovereign.
This is why I find Bitcoin so exciting. Sending someone a bitcoin is like making a promise that can’t be broken because the rules governing the transfer of bitcoins are secured by cryptographic algorithms which cannot be broken. Bitcoin is a system of rules for the accounting and transfer of property rights in a way that is completely verifiable and unforgeable. The regulation and enforcement of property rights is a big portion of what governments do so bitcoin opens the door to more efficient and trustable decentralized forms of governance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
