What if Bitcointalk.org started a pool to donate money to Sea Shepherd so they can buy a new ship (or rename an existing ship thus) and name it Satoshi Nakamoto. If it is shown on Whale Wars that would be a great way to advertise Bitcoin. And it would help to save the whales and stuff.
Better off to call the ship Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto is a psuedonym and a name that most of the populous will not equate with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If and when fiat fails, and we still have not determined what 1 satoshi is worth, no arguments. Bitcoin will also fail with the fiat. And what do you propose so that everyone comes to a unanimous consensus for value? Dont SELL bitcoins, trade them. I'll give you a bag of 100% Kona coffee for 1 BTC. Deal? |
|
|
|
You are entitled to your opinion, so I am going to create the centralized version of this exchange first because that will prove the model. If it works in a centralized manner where the central 'authority' is merely simulating matching bids / asks, then do you agree that it would work in a blockchain?
I think as a proof-of-concept, your model (with some refinement) will work. My concern is whether or not it will be practical. As you know, a functioning market requires liquidity and I don't see any efficient way to inject liquidity into the model right now. Basically you're stuck at the fiat to crypto exchange hurdle. Using escrow and such works on a micro level but if you scale everything up to a macro view, I just don't see how you're going to be able to get all the necessary funds into the market. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but it seems the main feature of your new endeavor is to eliminate the need for fiat deposits. Without an efficient way to do that, I can't see a need for all of the rest. I'm hoping in this respect you are more visionary than I am as I think this is the main issue facing Bitcoin right now (how to decentralize the exchange of fiat to BTC). I'll be watching closely and hopefully adding some productive comments along the way. Maybe even some capital if I can be convinced this is potentially a viable solution. |
|
|
|
you know what is messed up with the premise of this whole article is that just who are the worst speculative attackers of just about every currency in the world today?
why, central banksters! by printing and suppressing interest rates, they are encouraging speculators (Wall St) to borrow (short) the USD and buy risk (stocks, real estate, bonds, commodities, etc).
and just who do their actions hurt the most? citizens, producers, and savers.
so what exactly is the IMF doing about that?
Yup, and it not only hurts these people but also forces those (like retirees) to chase more speculative investments as well. Before ZIRP, you could earn a decent amount (4-5%) from savings accounts, CDs, bonds, etc. Now you earn practically nothing, negative yields if you factor in inflation. |
|
|
|
It is absurd that Pay Pal was mentioned in that story, but what really made me angry was that there is a concern by the Fed to protect the banksters and their ripoff fees. They want the fleecing to continue.
The Fed is nothing more than a cartel of banks, it shouldn't surprise you that they're trying to protect their own. |
|
|
|
Here is how it works, you can send money via the banks, dwolla, or any other system. You could use gold/silver if you like. The point is the exchange does not depend upon it. Keeping money in the exchange will actually yield a higher return and because businesses no longer have to worry about 'exchange risk' they will be far more likely to accept it. The end result is that the existing banking system will become increasingly irrelevant. I understand how you would send money, I'm just skeptical people would use these methods on any significant scale. I know I can wire anyone on this forum money, that doesn't mean I'm going to do it. The issue here is trust, you need to trust someone that the exchange will happen and they won't walk away with your money. I get that there's no parameters on how the money will be exchanged, but on the flip side, that also means there are no parameters (or guarantees) that you will not get scammed. As for businesses, wouldn't exchange risk be substituted with counterparty risk? In this essence it sounds very much like Ripple. Essentially what you have is an exchange built upon leverage (margin accounts) and trust (off exchange, USD <--> cUSD transfers). Here is the deal, I can pay someone else to do the work and keep my current job. I can give the idea away and let the VC pay someone else to do it. Unfortunately, I am not independently wealthy and have to eat. So the question is am I paying myself above market rates for the work I am doing? The answer is no, I would have been my self 50% less than I am currently making. That said, I believe I have a workable solution with my current employer that will allow me to go part time and thus VCs will no longer have to pay for my living expenses. I will work 2 days per week at my current job and then the rest of my time dedicated to this. Hopefully that is better for VCs. I understand where you're coming from but this is the way all entrepreneurs think. As someone who is familiar with VC firms, it has been my experience that they tend to stop listening to you once you bring this up because even if you are taking a pay cut, it is your decision to do so, they couldn't care less if it's only a fraction of your old salary. I'm glad you found a workaround, it was more or less just a bit of advice based on experience. I commend you for thinking outside the box and being transparent with the community. IMHO, I wouldn't even mention anything about paying yourself from investors as they're just going to counter with the "sweat equity" adage. |
|
|
|
This means that someone could exchange paper-USD outside the exchange and receive a positive USD balance inside the exchange. The problem as I see it is how do you envision people doing this on any significant scale? It's rather cumbersome to do face-to-face transactions or some other medium that would be agreeable to by both parties. Also, this isn't really circumventing or cutting ties to the traditional banking institution. Lets say you and I meet up to exchange $10k in paper-USD for crypto-USD. I give you $10k USD and you "transfer" $10K cUSD to me. The second you deposit those funds into the bank, they're going to file a CTR (currency transaction report). If it's later questioned where those funds came from, and you say you exchanged cUSD for USD, you're going to need a license or be subject to penalties. Essentially, you're just transferring the risk from the exchange to all the individuals in the system. There's no cut ties unless everyone is stashing USD under their mattress. $30K budget is to enable me to quit my high-paying job and still pay child support. You realize this is THE #1 red flag/turnoff for VC's, right? The last thing they want to hear is that you're paying yourself on their dime. I'm rather surprised you got people to give you $30k to do this (more power to you) but any VC firm worth their salt will stop listening the second you mention you want to pay yourself a salary to further your own project. I've been following your ideas and find them intriguing, it just seems like you're a bit hasty with your decisions as you seem to be bouncing from one idea to the next rather rapidly. That's not a bad thing but I think you need to have a solid business plan first before you start seeking out equity investors. |
|
|
|
No conspiracy kids. Just a practical solution. Nobody takes Bitcoin away from you. No Bitcoin moves hands but there is a psychological factor that generally takes place, similar to a stock split. Generally this is to the upsize and short-term but there is usually an impact on price even if there shouldn't be one. |
|
|
|
dead cat bounce here now. i see some big blocks going through on the buys side some 30 and 40 coin orders. I think the bulls will be ok for a bit
30 to 40 coins is a big block? ROFL. You must be new. |
|
|
|
How have you been selling Skyline GTR's in the US?
I thought they were illegal because of their admissions?
The new GT-R can be purchased in the US. The older ones, I believe it's an issue with not meeting US crash safety specs I'm not sure if it has to do with emissions. |
|
|
|
Incorrect. OpenCoin has complete control over the price by having complete control over the supply.
The market takes that into account. It's still a free market in the bigger picture. Opencoin can not control whether or not people purchase XRP. As of now the free market has assigned a value of around 50 XRP per usd. When you unilaterally control supply, there is no free market. If OpenCoin were to dump 30 billion XRP on the market tomorrow, do you think the value would still be 50 XRP/USD? Obviously not. Until the majority of the XRP is distributed, market demand is in the hands of OpenCoin. Opencoin is a company. Not a government. XRPs are their property. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here. Anyone who purchases XRP knows exactly what the situation is. (I have not purchased any XRP fwiw) That goes without saying but it isn't a free market. You're confusing freedom with free market, they are not the same. A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies. OpenCoin has a monopoly on XRP. Yes, it is their property and they have every right to control it. However, that by definition means it is not a free market, it is a controlled market. |
|
|
|
comment below with suggestions, comments, interest
Calling it a "jap car" is a highly offensive racial slur to anyone of Japanese descent. Surely you should know this as an importer. |
|
|
|
|
The ability for anyone in the world to move money using military-grade cryptography.
(Based on a quote by David Perry, "It feels really surreal to use military-grade cryptography to pay for Schnitzel")
|
|
|
|
Incorrect. OpenCoin has complete control over the price by having complete control over the supply.
The market takes that into account. It's still a free market in the bigger picture. Opencoin can not control whether or not people purchase XRP. As of now the free market has assigned a value of around 50 XRP per usd. When you unilaterally control supply, there is no free market. If OpenCoin were to dump 30 billion XRP on the market tomorrow, do you think the value would still be 50 XRP/USD? Obviously not. Until the majority of the XRP is distributed, market demand is in the hands of OpenCoin. |
|
|
|
Wow, $350k in "real" money? Much better than the fake stuff we've been playing around with  |
|
|
|
100g = 3.215 Troy Oz
Very nice bars, GLWS
Thanks, I always forget to convert to troy ounces. And thanks OP for the reply. |
|
|
|
FED is going to end its QEI sometime during this year, that will also impact the available risk capital in the market Not a chance. They might scale it back but they won't pull the rug from under the house of cards. They're going to keep printing because it's all they know. I think you're right. In fact, as long as Alan Greenspan's hand picked dick sucker clone mini-me successor is the head of the Fed, it's pretty well guaranteed. But the last time they came to this loggerheads and started pissing their pants they got Paul Volker. It could happen again. The Dollar has (so far) been absolutely the most successful long con in history. If they're going to keep it running longer, they have to raise interest rates and slow inflation at some relatively near point. Bernanke ain't got the balls to do it, but there are others who might. Obama isn't the sharpest economic tool in the shed, but he is astute at reading the writing on the wall. Never count out the Imperial ability to spin and duck. Of course, there is one other way to prop up the dollar and still inflate. Another two branches of goverment, one euphemistically called 'defense' and the other called Intelligence, have been setting the stage for world war III for some time. If they choose that option, this time the USA will be Germany. Since it's military presence is already global, that could be real ugly, but it would postpone the destruction of the dollar. It also is EASY to raise the apathy of the American public to bloodlust without thought. Anyone who don't believe me, just look at the evidence from September 12, 2001. I frankly think that overt attacks on the bitcoin are unlikely at this time. Regulatory horseshit like what they've done to Mt. Gox, yes. They'll make the big exchanges play ball. But that doesn't change a lot, and in some ways makes it easier to subvert and or bypass the dollar economy. I suspect that such attacks will strengthen the bitcoin, and perhaps some of it's variants as well. I'm long on this one. The problem with Bernanke, from day one, is that he's fighting the wrong war. He's a student of the Great Depression (liquidity crisis) and is very well versed in how to combat this problem, however, this is not the problem we are facing today. We have a problem of solvency, not liquidity, which is why all this money printing is doing nothing to help the situation. He mistakenly thinks he's fighting the same war but this is an entirely different animal. It would be similar to thinking because water put out a house fire, now I should use water on this grease fire. All fires are not the same and in the case of a grease fire, water actually makes things worse. Maybe his successor will realize this but I'm not very hopeful. |
|
|
|
|
Silver is about $22.30/oz.
100g = ~ 3.53oz
So the bullion value of your bar is worth about $78.72. You're asking ~$130 (depending on BTC fluctuation). I'm not trying to troll, just making sure my math is correct and you have about a $50 markup on these (more if buying from the US)? I'm genuinely interested but I could get four 1oz eagles for less.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
