I think pump and dumps in bitcoin are almost not happening at this point, the alt coins are the ones that some whales use only to orchest their pump and dumps, like fontas.
I'd love for this to be true but I fear that simple pump-and-dumps with Bitcoin may well be profitable given enough funds. Certainly, the bitcoin market has been slowly building resistance to such schemes in the past few years and I very much hope this continues to the point where even advanced and well-timed pump-and-dumps by very large holders are almost always unprofitable. |
|
|
|
Schemes that take advantage of other people are not helpful.
Such schemes, when profitable, take advantage of bad day-traders. It is the bad day-traders that are not only unhelpful but destructive. Disincentivising this activity will reduce volatility and quicken the process of price discovery. People that enjoy taking advantage of other people will get what they deserve in the end. I hope you lose everything.
I suppose it's good karma to wish others misfortune. |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, is it theoretically possible for mathematical breakthroughs to undermine the way bitcoin works?
Certainly. The standard riposte is "If a mathematical discovery left Bitcoin beyond repair, Bitcoin would be the least of your worries". |
|
|
|
Market manipulation is the last thing we need. These stupid pump and dump schemes only hurt what this community is trying to accomplish.
Stupid pump-and-dump schemes are not profitable so, while they certainly do hurt the market, there is at least a strong disincentive to executing them. However, some pump-and-dump schemes are profitable and take advantage of manipulable day-traders. These certainly help the market and the community and I for one hope we see more of them. |
|
|
|
Not now it isn't. As said above, years from now I can guarantee there will be more strict regulations on this type of stuff when it becomes more and more popular.
Maybe not a guarantee, but highly probable. Fortunately, it is fairly likely that distributed forms of exchanging wealth will be sufficiently well-developed to render such regulations ineffective. |
|
|
|
It is now clear that this poll misrepresented all options, so results presented here are skewed. Another poll shows 15% approval of bit coin/bits/satoshi naming convention vs much more for other options. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349579.0your link proves that this debate has been going on for 9 months now. we have gone through: 1. polls talking about top down. (starting from 1bitcoin and then having names for divisible's) 2. polls talking about bottom up. (starting from 1satoshi and then having names for multiples) 3. polls to actually name both medium points of top down and bottom up 4. polls to debate, should 1bitcoin actually be 100satoshi to bring billions more "bitcoins" into existance 5. polls that relaunch th debate of points 1-4. and after all of that these are the decisions that seem most popular if you collate the data together 1. bitcoin in a few years will be so expensive that it will be common place and easier to manage 100satoshi amounts rather then 100million satoshi amounts day to day 2. common man prefers bottom-up, where they only have to deal with 100 decimals and a multitude of whole numbers. 3. that people prefer to keep the name bitcoin for 100,000,000 satoshis and not to 'cheapen' bitcoin to being worth only pennies. to instead give a different name to 100 satoshi's 4. that the term xbt should be reserved for formal forex/stock exchanges much like how USD/GBP is, and a common name should also be given such as where USD=dollar, bucks. GBP=pound, quid. and this topics poll is the biggest amount of votes in 1 poll that after all the 9 months of debating shows well over 70% of over 500 voters are agreeing that 100satoshi should be the bases of common man useage. so can we please not open any more polls that are simple repeat polls of the last 9 months. and only opn new polls if: 1. there are NEW!!!! insiring idea's worthy of mentioning. 2. that the new polls do not ignore previous winning vote idea's out of biased. 3. that the lame brains of new polls dont bitch that their poll is better unless it has over 500 voters. which i hope means that unless something big and radical changes in the mindset of atleast 500 voters.. then this topics poll should be the deciding and end result of the 9 month debate. analogy there is no point rehashing the same block (argument) over and over again if its already been solved... move on and accept the solution provided Firstly, notice that your points 1-4 don't distinguish "bit" from "mic", "zib", or even "fin" (in honour of Hal Finney). Each of these have properties 1-4 and are simple short names for 100 satoshi. More to the point, many of the 500+ voters are supporting "bit" because they don't like prices such as "0.000351 BTC" (check the comments of this thread). Consequently, you can take the 500+ votes as some support on the idea of using the 100 satoshi unit instead of BTC, not as direct support for "bit" over other names for 100 satoshi. Secondly, you do seem to be playing the "500+ voters" card over and over again, and I suspect this is mainly because it's the only real argument for "bit" over its rivals. However there is a huge difference between these votes and actually being commonly used: - 500 votes for one option is practically unheard of in a bitcointalk.org poll.
- There are far more than 500 people in the world that are using bitcoin.
- One person would have been able to vote more than once using sock puppets.
- Most of the 500 votes came in the first day.
I strongly suspect a flashmob tactic, probably from reddit (where "bit" was first suggested). If you accept the result of such a poll as definitive you must also accept that the most popular character in the videogame universe is Draven. |
|
|
|
... microbits (or bits for short).
Fail! It should be crystal clear by now that, as an abbreviation for microbitcoin, "bit" is an appauling suggestion. Ask any linguist person. I believe the bedrock of the argument in favour of "bit" is as a wholly new term representing 0.000 001 BTC of wealth. While I resist this and consider the notion misguided, there is some milage to the approach. I am interested to see how "bit" fares over the coming couple of years. Terrible ideas can last a long time (proportional mining anyone), and where there's a network effect involved, they can persist indefinitely (qwerty keyboard layout; possibly Litecoin). |
|
|
|
|
Happy Bitcoin-Pizza Day everyone!
I went with "Pizza Point" via takeaway.com (paid with Bitcoin). They managed to impress.
|
|
|
|
When you have used a service for a decent amount of time without issues, your default assumption isn't that you are being scammed. That would be a really cynical was to look at everything.
Incorrect. If the service is not independently audited, is not regulated, and is not insured by a reliable and trustworthy underwriter, then assuming that you are always being scammed is the ONLY way to protect yourself from loss. Without proof that a services claims are legitimate, you should always assume that all services are lying. A rare opportunity to disagree with DannyHamilton. To combat potential losses, one should accept the omnipresent possibility of loss and work to balance perceived risks against rewards. It is not correct to assume that an exchange will necessarily return your money, but it is equally wrong to assume that an exchange is certainly scamming you. Also, there's nothing magic about independent auditors, regulators, and insurers. Certainly, having checks by independent parties can help to reduce risk, but the extent to which risk is reduced will depend on the reputations of these independent parties as compared with the reputation of the service in question. There is risk in everything. While you might be disagreeing with the specifics of what I said, I agree with you that risk mitigation is a nuanced endeavor that must be balanced against expected rewards (which is why I was willing to transfer "some" value to an exchange for the purpose of exchanging it into some other form of value). The points I was trying to make are: 1. It is not valid to default to the assumption that a particular service is entirely trustworthy just because they haven't been caught doing anything dishonest yet. 2. It isn't fair to call those that lose out to such a dishonest service "fools", "moronic", or any other derogatory term that one might use to make themselves feel that they are in some way a better person than the one who was taken advantage of, exclusively based on the fact that they were a victim of the dishonesty and you weren't. I suspect you'll agree with me on those two points. I expected that I'd misunderstood you. You have a reputation for quality, well-reasoned posts. To be clear: I do agree with you on these two points. |
|
|
|
When you have used a service for a decent amount of time without issues, your default assumption isn't that you are being scammed. That would be a really cynical was to look at everything.
Incorrect. If the service is not independently audited, is not regulated, and is not insured by a reliable and trustworthy underwriter, then assuming that you are always being scammed is the ONLY way to protect yourself from loss. Without proof that a services claims are legitimate, you should always assume that all services are lying. A rare opportunity to disagree with DannyHamilton. To combat potential losses, one should accept the omnipresent possibility of loss and work to balance perceived risks against rewards. It is not correct to assume that an exchange will necessarily return your money, but it is equally wrong to assume that an exchange is certainly scamming you. Also, there's nothing magic about independent auditors, regulators, and insurers. Certainly, having checks by independent parties can help to reduce risk, but the extent to which risk is reduced will depend on the reputations of these independent parties as compared with the reputation of the service in question. There is risk in everything. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the detailed response. The relevance of such elastic supply of money should not be underestimated, as it will trigger a virtuous loop for volatility too: as long as the currency keeps constant value, a sudden large variation of its demand will become unlikely.
You've lost me here. Why would variation in demand for a cryptocurrency be at all affected by this price stabilising mechanism? The same uncertainties and speculative opportunities would exist. While I ruminate about possible more convincing explanations I really challenge you to think harder about how comfortable you would be about entering into a bitcoin mortgage.
I would be very uncomfortable entering into a pure simple bitcoin mortgage (a loan secured in property for which fixed regular bitcoin payments are specified). Of course, the reason for this is that I expect the value of a bitcoin to swing wildly relative to the value of the property. The term of a typical mortgage and value of a typical property would be sufficient to cause me serious problems should the value of a bitcoin soar. This, however, does not make the idea of having a mortgage where regular payments in bitcoin occur. The contract could be worded such that, at regular intervals, I pay a number of bitcoins with value equivalent to a fixed number of dollars (for a simple example; as you note in your paper, we can do better). I'd find such a contract to be much more palatable. What you are proposing as a money is very different from things which have historically been used as money. No, it is not. Without dismissing your point, which I acknowledge as "new unfamiliar paradigm": the elastic supply of money is no novelty at all, as it is exactly what every central bank has been doing for every fiat currency. Certainly, an elastic money supply is not a new idea. Certainly, there are many examples of the purchasing power of an untouched wallet varying with time. What seems new to me is having the number of units in an untouched wallet vary. Given that prices are simply "numbers of units", I very much suspect that classical arguments for the superiority of price stability over price volatility do not translate to stablecoin. Moving to elastic supply, the goal of getting rid of monetary authorities is never abandoned, only made easier by a better stronger cryptocurrency.
Fear not; it's reasonably clear from your paper that you do not intend to introduce central (corruptible) elements and that you are sensitive to the distortions (and harmful effects thereof) that a central-bank-style monetary inflation can introduce into an economy. My only criticism is with the claim that Stablecoin would somehow be a "better stronger cryptocurrency" than an otherwise identical coin with inelastic supply. I would like to be convinced, but have yet to read a convincing explanation. |
|
|
|
You drive worse, when you are drunk. That is a biological fact. You can't really argue about that.
I'm not arguing that. I'll happily concede it for the purpose of this discussion. It is risk management.
Precisely. So it is with laws against the possession and use of certain drugs. Buried as it was in my questioning style, this was my point. It also doesn't matter, that there are also car accidents with sober drivers.
Nonsense. This is central to the debate if we are justifying the law from the point of view of risk management rather than ethics. How many people are killed by sober drivers each year? To society, is the freedom to drive worth the increased mortality? Most people believe, that bad things are not happening to them, until they do happen to them.
Irrelevant. |
|
|
|
I meant just the fact of using drugs shouldn't be illegal. Obviously the caveat of as long as you're not harming anyone else applies here. I don't think alcohol should be illegal, but drink driving obviously should be and quite rightly is so.
What if a person is able to drive drunk without harming anyone? Should driving be illegal? Nah. If someone plants a bomb and it doesn't kill anyone then that doesn't mean they're not guilty of a crime. How is driving drunk analogous to planting a bomb where driving sober is not? Even when sober, it is possible to cause a fatal accident. Indeed, road accidents are a relatively common way of being killed. Could you clarify your position on the legality of driving sober? To return to my main point: What if I'm able to prove that I can drive sufficiently well while drunk? Perhaps I could elect to pass my driving test while drunk. It may be that, while drunk, I'm still safer on the road than many motorists. |
|
|
|
you go further to suggest that people should think in terms of a "rebased" bitcoin, even to suggest that bitcoins themselves should be an implementation detail, hidden from the user.
I actually write about stablecoin and basecoin, recognizing that redefining bitcoin will surely be impractical. A new cryptocurrency is probably needed... but I would love to salvage bitcoin from the decline of non-Hayek Monies ;-) Agreed. I don't mean to misrepresent you. I'm just attempting to simplify as much as possible while attempting to communicate the kernel of the idea. I fear very few people will read your entire paper. Everyone benefits from seeing that prices in this new unit are relatively stable, but they suffer from not knowing how many of these units they will have in the future. Today you know the number of unit currency you know, but prices change, right? Well at least in my proposal the situation is specular, probably unfamiliar, but not worse. In reality I try to make clear in my paper (sec 6.2) that what I am suggesting is completely equivalent to what every central bank does today, just adapted to the blockchain as a multiplier of the monetary stock. The only difference is that when central banks create new money they do not distribute it to everybody. When they tighten the monetary base they remove currency units from those who need to borrow. Pretty unfair, and they want everybody not to realize the extent of this theft disguised as service to the economy. Bitcoin does not suffer from this theft, but completely gives up on monetary policy losing price stability. I will try to make this point clearer in the next paper revision. I won't argue that it's worse, but for precisely the same reason, I don't see it as better. I assure you that the different mindset is no problem for me. I'm dropping all potential problems to do with marketing, adoption, understanding in an attempt to understand why this is being proposed at all. I agree that stablecoin would be superior to an otherwise equivalent one which distorted the distribution of purchasing power when the supply was altered. What I'm missing is why we want stable prices. If you can sell me on that point in this context, you might sell me on the coin. I really feel it is not enough to say "you know, we want stable prices because loans, salaries, forward payments, et cetera; all the usual jazz". What you are proposing as a money is very different from things which have historically been used as money. I can hold a dollar note, I can hold an ounce of gold, I can hold a bitcoin (not physically, but hold as in own and directly control). I cannot hold a stablecoin. I cannot have a holding of stablecoins in the traditional sense. If I have a stablecoin today, I may find it becomes 0.8 stablecoins tomorrow. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (again, functional equivalence to Bitcoin saves you here), but for me this is a sufficiently fundamental difference to warrant revisiting why these great economists desired stable prices. This doesn't address the volatility concerns; it merely shunts them into another realm I am going to expand section 6.4 to better answer this point. Please check back at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2425270 on monday for a revisited version of the paper. I will if I remember. |
|
|
|
|
It seems you are simply describing the need for a reliable way of measuring the present value of 1 bitcoin (which is undeniably more volatile today than most goods/services/assets/currencies that most people care about).
With easy access to such a value, merchants would be able to update their prices automatically, and loans and salaries could incorporate reference to the value so that they too dodge Bitcoin's volatility.
These are not new ideas, but certainly good ones.
However, you go further to suggest that people should think in terms of a "rebased" bitcoin, even to suggest that bitcoins themselves should be an implementation detail, hidden from the user. I'm not sure what you feel this change in mindset achieves. Everyone benefits from seeing that prices in this new unit are relatively stable, but they suffer from not knowing how many of these units they will have in the future. This doesn't address the volatility concerns; it merely shunts them into another realm.
Why is it important that people see "200 stablecoins" rather than "200 stablecoins worth of bitcoin" in their forward payment agreements? It seems as though you're willing to give up a lot to obtain this simplification.
Minor error: you have two section 3.1s.
|
|
|
|
Not really keeping up with this, but in what way does a past accusation of paedophilia detract from a person's ability to help foster Bitcoin? What is it about a supposed sexual attraction to young children or infants that causes people to abandon logic? I have never had any sort of sexual relations with anyone under age --- ever in my life --- even when I was underage myself, and I certainly have no interest in doing so. It is a horrific and despicable thing. ( Even when I was under 18, my first boyfriend was 19, and I was 17. We were together for 6 years. )
So, your first boyfriend was horrific and despicable? I've not met this boyfriend but I highly doubt he is deserving of such a description. |
|
|
|
I meant just the fact of using drugs shouldn't be illegal. Obviously the caveat of as long as you're not harming anyone else applies here. I don't think alcohol should be illegal, but drink driving obviously should be and quite rightly is so.
What if a person is able to drive drunk without harming anyone? Should driving be illegal? Anyway, this is offtopic. More power to Silk Road 2.0! |
|
|
|
From the poll it looks like there is a pretty strong consensus. But in the mockup in the OP there are too many digits. 10023.04 Bits ? This is 10 kiloBit for me.
Or "10 mills". If we're going to use SI prefixes anyway, why bother changing from bitcoin to "bit" at all? For those recommending anything else you are not thinking about the people who make up the total potential bitcoin market.
A common false dichotomy: Either you support "bit" or you want all prices to look like ".000123". When a business designs a product/service they design it to the needs and expectations of their target consumers/segments.
Ok...so the people have spoken. Most people like bits better than mBTC and uBTC which is way too nerdy.
HOW DO WE VOTE THIS INTO IMPLEMENTATION?
Fortunately, Bitcoin is neither a business nor a democracy. Perhaps we could start a big BTC fund, and when it gets to a certain point we pay off the major wallet and exchanges to implement bits. Eventually it will reach critical mass and will grow organically.
That's more like it. |
|
|
|
Bit is the new unit, period.
You asserting a thing does not make it so. It is simple and mainstream proof. It works. The confusion argument has been debunked thoroughly in my opinion. Many words have different meanings to them without it being a problem, that is not a reason to fight this change.
Roughly yes. However, I'm not arguing against "bit" for this reason, I'm arguing against it because it's worse than what we currently have. This solves many issues at the same time. For one, bitcoins will no longer be thought of as too expensive. We won't need to use decimals with the exception of the 2 that are still available after the change. As was explained before, it's actually good to have some decimals.
This is not an argument for adopting the term "bits", this is an argument for shifting from quoting prices in bitcoins, to quoting them in millibitcoins, microbitcoins, and/or satoshis. We will also be able to fully separate the technology / network from the currency units. The units themselves can be called coins (BTC) and bits (µBTC) while the network is called Bitcoin.
It's true that reducing the load on the word "bitcoin" is a plus. However, where this is an argument for calling microbitcoins "bits", it is an even greater argument for calling microbitcoins "mics"/"mikes" (which is what we already have). Now we need not discussion but action. Wallets and services need to start working on enabling bits, otherwise this is all talk.
Action? Natural language evolution does not require pressure groups; it happens automatically with time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
