Hi all,
I guess it's the time of the week for me to go on my customary long rant (that nobody reads) about how to change the bitcoin credit market.
This time I think it's a pretty simple and helpful idea, though. Real markets have these things called repos (repurchase agreements) which are basically a loan using another asset as collateral. As more and more people start using GLBSE (and eventually MPEX, I hope) for their bitcoin investments, it becomes very easy to transfer securities between users. These transfers are the simplest form of collateral ever: if borrower B asks for a loan, he can transfer an equivalent number of shares to lender L and get the coins, with an agreement that B will buy the shares back from L at a later date for a pre-determined higher amount. If B runs off with the coins, L is left with a bunch of shares. If L loses the shares, B still has coins.
It does expose L to risk from fluctuations in the price of the asset being repurchased, but that's typically better than just losing the entire principal from a dishonest B. By removing most of the counterparty risk from the equation, it could lead to loans with lower risk (good for the L) and lower interest (good for B). Obviously L would have to believe that B's shares are worth something to begin with for this to work, but there are several assets on GLBSE right now that are moderately liquid (bitbond, puremining, SS, gigamining soon, probably BFLS soon)
Anyway, I'd be interested to see what people think. I'd really like to find ways to lower credit risk without compromising the decentralized/pseudonymous nature of this community.
tl;dr: use shares/bonds as collateral for loans
Not a bad idea... unless B also runs the PonziShares he offers as collateral  . |
|
|
|
you can't possibly know all the fundamental factors involved that go into the price of gold. this is why technical analysis is so important. Of course. I can't possibly know all the factors to predict the weather. But I can be pretty much sure that there will be summer after a spring. I was going to address your winter boots comment to suggest now is the best time to buy them since demand is minimal, but you seem to want to avoid that discussion since you removed that part of your post  . |
|
|
|
Seriously guys:  But well, it's true that we have to allow new people to use bitcoin, and it's not our fault if they use fail phones Wish I could, but I'm locked in Apple hell after I had an iPhone purchased for me for a project I was working on. Man, will it be nice when I can get an android. My girlfriend has one and it is much better for someone technically inclined like myself. Anyway, we're really off-topic since the fact is people have iPhones and we don't want to throw out that market. |
|
|
|
Greed is good... Greed without bad consequences is the problem.
did you just say something good not resulting in something bad is the problem? binary logic fail  Greed is good PERIOD It's what drives evolution and has driven it since the first spark of life. I kinda like evolution, don't you? There's no good or bad a priori and evolution is about survival. +1 Good and bad don't exist outside the individual who labels events/concepts as such. Some people even go so far as to actively discourage themselves from applying such distinctions to observations and concepts. |
|
|
|
 http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=bitcoin&date=today%201-m&cmpt=q (30 day chart) The spike labelled "A" was the recent Reuters story. Sure, the spike isn't comparatively huge but traffic didn't fade away immediately over the week. That's definitely a bullish signal and given that it takes a week or so to get set up with mtgox/dwolla this week looks to be good. 1. That spike is big... from 50 to 100 is double the search volume and it appears to be settling around 80, which is still up 60%. 2. Insights is a horrible indicator except as confirmation. It is delayed several days. |
|
|
|
oh, thanks for the x-axis  Blue= Monthly nasdaq composite close Nov-95 to Feb-2012
Red= Monthly Unadjusted Gold Ounce/USD Jan-1976 to April-1992
Thanks for reading . Seriously arepo, you seem pretty critical lately. Is everything alright dude? |
|
|
|
Alright, thank you for clearing up!
1 more question (be patient with me, other than some in this forum I dont understand everything Zhou is concocting in Bitcoinica):
Why are both positions (long & short) sanctioned with interest? I know in the beginning Zhou was paying traders interest to put USD in there (ergo: to go short). Does he have so much right now, so that he can afford to ask for interest for both: BTC and USD?
Thx
Rather than the long-winded explanation I was going to give, I'll just point you to Zhou's post about how interest is dealt with: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63694.msg745958#msg745958 |
|
|
|
|
Please continue... you may even inspire me to break out my chart analysis software and delve a little deeper.
|
|
|
|
Supply halfs, demand same so price doubles.
Let's say the block reward change occurs on December 9th, 2012. On December 8th there are 10,492,800 BTC issued and another 7,200 will be issued that day. The "supply' comes from those 7,200 that miners don't keep plus a certain amount of the 10,492.800 BTC that those holding them are wishing to sell at whatever the current price is. So demand does not drop in half, only the amount of currency inflation is what drops by half (from 7,200 BTC to 3,600 BTC). Incidentally, in a market where the commodity is scarce, a doubling in demand causes the price to rise by way more than double. You are forgetting the effect this news has on people Just like SoiledCon when King RealScam announced the change to cut reward the price doubled in the same day as people bought up the coins ! But it's very easy to double the price of something worth in the tenths or hundredths of a cent... I see the way they do it over at BTC-e. Pretty much a daily routine on whichever flavor it happened to be that week. Good point, plus announcing you are changing it is very different from the BTC situation. It is well known and will be mostly priced in by the time we get there. |
|
|
|
Stack overflow... Now I'll know to be weary of static variables. I'll try replacing large static arrays with allocated memory and hopefully it will work... I thought the stack size would grow to meet larger variables... It would be nice if there was some error or warning when this happens.
That's it... don't make static variables over a few hundered bytes. Just don't. |
|
|
|
OP dont understand 2 things
when you buy bitcoins, bitcoinica have more bitcoins, when you liquidate your long position they got less bitcoins and you get same effect like when you short
if you use the exchange feature you get the same, you can change the swap value buy just exchanging 4 digit of bitcoins, if you exchange bitcoins for USD you are selling but without taking a position, mst ppl that want to benefit from this downtrend but dont want to join the marker just use the exchange feature and now they are on USD side
so, sell longs + shorts + btc->usd exchange = zomfg epic short squeeze
Sorry, I dont understand this gibberish Pls help! I too was trying to figure out if it actually means something. If you apply factor-label analysis to it, you will find it doesn't, and your identification of it as gibberish is quite correct. I understood it, but I've read hundreds of myself's posts. Basically, he's saying that shorting isn't the only way to make shorting more expensive. Exchanging BTC for USD via the exchange function, and closing a long position also increase the swap penalty. He then claims both of these other things have been happening in large numbers, and if a rocket blasts off, many of these people will be moving back to the BTC side as well. |
|
|
|
Arguing about the arguments is a distraction. If you aren't examining the data you're doing worse than wasting your time.
Except both sides believe the other's data is falsified. So that doesn't get you anywhere either. |
|
|
|
It's pretty much what you would expect. Jones makes some good points. Rothschild makes some good points. Then it devolves into name calling.
This thread appears to be a re-enactment, then? As long as there are bufoons who think the principles of greed and exploitation via an unconstrained free market are more important than the state of the Earth, then yeah, there will be a perpetual argument. So that's a yes... we've devolved into name calling. |
|
|
|
what you say about this ?
I agree on the lower target, but I can see 4.8 happening without breaking the downtrend. |
|
|
|
Up 85 (51.8%)
Down 39 (23.8%)
Same as now 20 (12.2%)
I don't know 20 (12.2%)
Total Voters: 164
Arrgggg 51% attack.
51% were WRONG. |
|
|
|
Everyone, quit farting around and just leave it at 0.00005. What is so hard about that? We're heavily backed up on purchases ...
From page 72. Yeah but heavily backed up on 20000 share purchases is probably not enough to satiate everyone's desire for leased shares 24 hours a day. Except leasing doesn't run while pirate sleeps. |
|
|
|
OK but what is wrong with this line? FILE * file = fopen("price.dat", "rb");That's as perfect as a line of code can be. It makes me think the compiler is corrupting the program somehow. Or you have a bad pointer somewhere and C won't stop you from overwriting your code stack and screwing up the instructions, leading to an error being identified in a bit of code that was fine before the program did exactly what you told it to do. |
|
|
|
Pretty early to be short in a 3rd of 3rd wave up mega-rally. But thanks anyway for the 19 BTC.
The flip giveth, the flip taketh away. Anyway, I haven't closed the position yet, so it's premature to say anything about how it will turn out. You may be in the money before too long. |
|
|
|
|
Filled up for now. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
my kitchen calendar say 15 16 17 You must follow a different calendar then we do. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
