All the people saying that a government auction of Silk Road seized Bitcoins won't affect the price of Bitcoin are wrong.
They assume that the people buying Bitcoin at government auction would not have bought Bitcoins otherwise. This is almost certainly false in the majority of cases. They are mostly people who want to buy Bitcoins, and decide to buy them at the government auction instead of an exchange. This means fewer bidders on the auctions, which will drive down the price.
I agree on this point which is why I was wondering if the sale price will become public. If it does become, public and it is much lower than current market rate, it could cause a correction in the marketplace. If the price is lower then the market rate then the buyers would have a greater incentive to attempt to arbitrage the market. |
|
|
|
I'm looking to invest £5k into something that will outperform inflation. I already own BTC, and want to diversify into something low-risk, low-return - anything above 5%/year would be OK.
Buy forest. It has predictable returns overall (in decades) above inflation (even if not managed intensively) and is really low risk if bought at reasonable prices. However you have to have knowledge in forest management. It also offers recreational benefits. What a great suggestion! I'd definitely take a piece of forest over stocks/bonds/paper promises any day as well. The great thing about a piece of land like a forest is that not only will you have a retreat if/when shit hits the fan, you can also sell firewood! Each tree is like a stack of bills  In order to sell your trees you will need to spend some amount of money in order to cut down, transport and sell the trees. |
|
|
|
I would personally never trust my coins with Facebook.
Well it does seem a bit risky, that said if they used cold storage and proper security measures a reputable company would be fine Although the NSA knowing what your balance is or asking it is a turnoff for certain. Edit: Your right I would not trust my coins with them given their privacy policies Privacy would be the biggest concern. Another big concern is that facebook accounts get hacked all the time. I can't tell you how often I get spam from people on my friends list that is clearly some kind of spam bot, their account is later recovered and I see a status apologizing. I know what you mean I have gotten a few spam mails from the contact list selling Product X or Product Y That said I can't see them messing cold storage if their is no balance on the account so to me it is a measure of how they do the transactions If its just log into FB then spend its a weak system If it log into FB get email notification to verify transaction and a 24 hour rule before you can change the address you want to send bitcoins to (As a settings option) Then it could be fairly secure, that said if they know all your transactions and history then the points above are moot lol. You may have security but not privacy lol. Unless it was darkcoin or something with a coinjoined client that they can merge transactions into lol. Even a 24 hour rule would probably not work. People often post where they are going to be to the public. People often say they will not be on Facebook for "x" amount of time (for lent for example, but for other reasons too - like a vacation where they will not have internet access). If someone were to find a way to hack a Facebook account, wait until they know they will not be checking their facebook for a 24+ hour period, then they could easily get away with all of a user's funds. |
|
|
|
You guys realize that making bitcoin is just the same as making fiat money? It's all about the time investment. I never understood why some people want to make coins only even if they could make more in fiat for the same amount of time invested, when they could just go to an exchange...
You are not able to "mine" Dollars. |
|
|
|
I wonder why he receives so many when other addresses receive nothing Deposits are often 0.0001BTC! IMO, there are 2 reasons. 1. The address is one of the richest addresses ( http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100). So, people are more likely to check that page from time to time, and so it has a higher successful rate for the ads and begging stories (I personally don't think it works at all). If you check the list of richest addresses, you can see there are notes on many of the addresses as well. 2. The bitcoin on that address is indeed the "DPR Seized Coins 2". So, you can find some sorts of messages to the FBI and US government (Of course, the FBI won't care about it). If you are ever looking for a good laugh these addresses are a good place to go. IMO many of the "beggers" do not speak english, at least not very well and their english translations are very bad. |
|
|
|
.... Hong Kong has a high percentage of female ASIAN Bitcoin users?
*buys ticket*
OK. Cancel your ticket. Heard that the vast majority of them are middle-aged. (Chinese Bitcoiners as a whole are significantly older than the average Bitcoin user in the United States or the European Union). Ha! Well I'm middle aged (at least I hope I'm almost halfway through life by now) so no one has to fear losing any coin to my "girly whiles". (AND I mine my own) There was a post from some time ago regarding how to spot a scammer on the board and ... >someone claiming to be a girl was one of them. For a moment I didn't know whether to offended or amused...so I choose to be amused ;-). I'm not in the tech industry, I'm interested in how to apply technology to whatever I'm doing so the time for us average consumers is coming. I think the scammer post regarding people claiming to be girls was related to doing business with someone. As a possible scam would be to "flirt" with someone prior to doing business in order to gain their trust. |
|
|
|
Personally I never bought at Amazon because they only accept credit cards.
Once they accept bitcoin I might consider amazon.
In other words: any retailer that accepts Bitcoin will have more customers. I'm limiting myself to online transactions because of the need of a CC. I usually message Amazon/Ebay/other after a purchase that I'd rather use Bitcoin. Why don't you give them a call? How much time does it take you to send them an email? How long does it take you to delete emails? |
|
|
|
no kidding...america demanding argentina's debt be paid off? now that's funny. No, Argentina's bond holders are demanding that Argentina pay its debts. I wonder what would happen if china did the same to the us with regards to their debt? Has the US defaulted on any debt to China? When Argentina issued it's debt and restructured it's debt it had a very bad credit rating and agreed that the US would be able to resolve any disputes (via it's court system). This court merely interoperated the agreement between Argentina and it's bond holders. Argentina simply wants to not pay/adhere to what it agreed to. |
|
|
|
I'm talking about bitcoin, this is covered by: So the bitcoin community will face a choice: - Stick to the fixed supply model and get banned from legal commerce. This would destroy BTC value and bitcoiners would lose a lot of money (or more precisely: wealth) within short time.
What you suggest (gov starts its own altcoin) will only open a possibility for bitcoiners to flee the sinking boat As discussed in this very thread and in hundreds of other threads just like this one: The total number of Bitcoins specified in the Bitcoin protocol cannot be changed. Bitcoin will end up with (slightly less than) 21 million coins, end of story. The only thing you, the government or anyone else can do to get more is to change the protocol to allow more coins but in doing so a hard branch will be created. Even if there are only a handful of people left in the entire world mining, using and doing transaction on the original blockchain - the one with the 21 million coin limit - that chain is still Bitcoin by definition. Even if the value goes to $2.00 per BTC some of us will still mine it, use it, and support it, just like we did the last time it was $2.00 per BTC. There are already what, over 100 alt coins? There will be more and maybe someday a government controlled and backed one. It is all good. Let the market decide which coins live and which coins die. The protocol could be changed in the event that the miners were to agree to the changes. Now the question of would the miners agree to this type of change, no almost certainly not. The question of is this a realistic scenario, also no. |
|
|
|
|
This is pretty cool.
My question is how do you justify charging 2.5% to your fellow miners?
Merged mining NMC would add ~1% to mining revenue with virtually no cost (the cost is as close to zero as it gets).
If your fellow miners were to mine on eligius they would be mining on a pool that charges 0% for mining, and controls only ~7% of the network (sufficiently small)
|
|
|
|
Say that someone knows half a private key and the corresponding public address. Can he find out the other half of the private key somehow? ... apart from brute forcing for a billion years You would likely be safe. There are certain sophisticated attacks that could be done to further narrow down the possibility of what the possibility the rest of your private key is. To keep it simple, you will likely not have your coins stolen within seconds of someone finding your private key, but it would be advisable to cease using the subject BTC address right away and to move your coins at your earliest connivence. Note: the corresponding public address does not matter, the attacker knowing this does not make a difference (besides the fact that an attacker may know that the address they are trying to "hack" contains x amount of bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
What the issue is, for those who are not familiar with the backstory:
Several years ago Argentina issued debt to investors. They were perceived as risky and had to agree to certain terms. One of the terms was that they agreed to give up "sovereign immunity" for the debt in question and disputes would be resolved by the US court system. In other words they gave up certain rights that countries normally have when issuing debt and in the event of a dispute the court case would be herd in US Federal Court.
Some time later Argentina was having trouble "servicing" it's debt and worked with creditors to restructure. A good portion of bond holders agreed to a reduced principle and reduced interest payments (they took losses). Not all bond holders agreed.
Argentina has decided to pay interest to bondholders that agreed to take losses while not pay anything to bond holders that didn't.
......
Now the US has said that if it does not pay the bondholders that did not take losses (they are in default on those bonds and due owe money to these bondholders) then Argentina would not be able to use the uS financial/bank system to pay bondholders that did take losses (bondholders that they want to pay).
|
|
|
|
People do need licenses and in fact Ireland is the best country for this.
They are really fast and dont put a lot of pressure on you.
Yea, Ireland is awesome.....they made sure Full Tilt didnt scam millions of dollars....  I understand that Ireland is great for taxes if you do not have a lot of business in Ireland (like setting up a "headquarters" in Ireland) |
|
|
|
If you regularly have deposits exceeding $5,000...or even if you regularly just have a lot of deposits into your account that cannot easily be explained, then you are just begging to be audited.
By declaring nothing (if you have large cap gains), you are raising such a red flag it is not even funny.
There are ways around the things of which you speak. How would you get around this? If the deposits are in cash then each $5,000 deposit must be recorded by the bank. The iRS is able to compel you to allow them to look at your bank records. This may not be setting up a red flag to get audited, but if you do then you would be facing stiff penalties. In the event that the bank send a suspicious activity report (SAR) then your chances of getting audited go up and it may actually guarantee an audit depending on the circumstances. |
|
|
|
As Mt Gox have filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan, it is important to realise that establishing liability against the company may not necessarily result in the recovery of damages, a position which will be carefully monitored. As in all litigation, there is a cost risk for a Claimant if that Claimant were to lose the litigation. However, we are examining options for Insurance policies that would protect Claimants from such costs.
Two things. 1. This is obvious, there are risks that you will not win your case. Why make your clients pay up front if you will purchase insurance against loosing? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply have the insurance company "front" the law firm the money for expenses and then repay the insurance company in the event that the case wins. 2. I am not sure about the ethics rules outside the United States, but my understanding is that in the US it is against ethics rules for attorney's to advertise for their services. This looks a lot like an advertisement. 3. (I know I only said two things but there is a 3rd point). Suing GOX would like lead to a lower recovery then would otherwise be received as GOX has limited assets that are less then total liabilities and would incur additional costs in dealing with a lawsuit. |
|
|
|
The Chinese Gov't has been buying up holdings in BTC for a long time now. They will ease up on some of the regulations once they feel that they have a large enough holding to give them the sense of control.
This is probably not true. The chinese government likes to keep control of their currency (that restrict the price their fiat currency trades at in dollars and have restrictive capital controls). Bitcoin would not give them this level of control. and more specifically, they don't want chinese citizens to move their money out of the country, as they consider this as something that will hurt their economy. i think the state wants to control everything so badly that it won't accept bitcoin.. because bitcoin makes controlling shit a lot harder. Controlling bitcoin makes capital controls impossible. The Chinese do have a lot of control over a lot of things, more then what is probably best. |
|
|
|
|
That article did not say anything about it probably being a massive theft. It said that an investigation would take place.
|
|
|
|
I had considered this already - and I think the solution is perhaps to get such information (name, address, etc.) and add a "salt" then *hash* this and publish the hashes (so can't be reversed).
When it comes to to "prove" this info it can be easily done (but only by the person who provided the info).
I think the Company is required to "register" the share transfer when presented with a sufficient endorsement (that proves the previous owner agrees to the transfer). It sounds like the company must record the legal name and address of a human or corporation. The Company has obligations to release this information under certain circumstances (and it needs to track % foreign ownership is certain cases). This is also true for us telecommunication companies as there are limits as to foreign ownership |
|
|
|
Great news. Quadriga CX has the perfect Bitcoin ATM service. The reasons are:
1. The fees is just around 3%, which is much lower than that of the other ATMs.
2. Their ATMs are affordable, and comes at $999 apiece.
3. No ID proof is required for Bitcoin purchases.
How do they get their ATMs to be so cheap? |
|
|
|
A total of $250 million would be nearly three times the Bitcoin investments from venture capitalists in 2013. The best thing about this article is that the rate that investment is growing at is 300% YoY. This is huge and a lot of innovation should come of this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
