OK, please bear with me here I've sort-of read quite a lot but still don't feel I 'get it' so I'll put forward what I think I understand from it and I'd appreciate someone putting me right if I'm wrong.  Bear with me whilst I think aloud with this...

So Ripple is a credit network.  So if I want to start a network with my friends/family I go to each and say: "We need to agree an amount you would be happy to lend me about which you'd be confident I'd pay you back even if I lend it to someone else and I never get paid back.  Also vice versa, an amount I would be happy to lend you confident if you lent it to someone else and they failed to repay you'd still pay me back out of your own pocket."

So although most of the time the lending would happen in principle with no money actually exchanging hands each in the chain is taking the risk and needs to accept responsibility for the creditors they've extended trust to.  If this doesn't happen isn't it a bit precarious?

But if this does work, let's say I put up a craigs list or ebay type site that works cash on delivery, no charge-back risk and negligible transaction fees.  I could invite those in my immediate and then extended networks to put something up for sale and to see if they fancy buying something off it.  If it got to the stage where someone wanted to buy something Ripple could more-or-less be used as escrow so the buyer would 'lend' credit to the seller who puts it in the post (seller taking risk of non-delivery).  When it arrives the buyer makes a bitcoin or bank transfer to the seller.  I like this because it by-passes the whole feedback thing which whether on ebay or on a web of trust is too easy to build up a reputation in order to abuse it.  With Ripple the only people you can rip off are your own friends and family.*

If I put BTC for sale for pounds on this web listing service of mine (or pounds for BTC) then it takes out the chargeback issue that most seems to scupper all scalable attempts I've read about.  It's only one step further then, as these mini-networks join up, to a proper p2p currency exchange with the Ripple trust network meaning people can have confidence that i) a listed order is a promise to exchange at that rate ii) trades are honoured, are 'cleared' at the end of the day by bank transfer or whatever.

I really like the principle (if I've understood it right).  The only thing that may be awkward is in finding a reason for someone to get enthused and join me to establish my direct links in my network when I have to explain there is a risk of losing money and there's very little gain for having done so - and I thought Bitcoin was a hard sell!

Also, every person in the chain needs not only to be trustworthy to the credit limit extended but also must have the means of being able to pay it in the event something goes wrong.

As a consequence the network may be very large and interconnected for small transactions but the bigger the transaction, the fewer the links with sufficient credit to carry it (except I suppose where there's more than one pathway over the weakest link the maximum credit is the sum of both max credits)?

Mmm, food for thought - but I think I like it

*I guess a COD silk road equivalent could also work, negating the risk of apparently expensive escrow or someone running off with hundreds of thousands of bitcoin (as I seem to recollect having read about recently).

Good luck with that  I admire your confidence.  

I'm following the advice given me by a long-time pro trader when he said 'never trade into a falling market'.  In common with many who have commented on this thread, I've switched paradigms and am not looking at my Bitcoin holding from a fiat investment perspective but looking at it as the currency with which I hope over time to be doing more and more of my daily dealings.

Therefore, from a long-term Bitcoin optimist perspective, it's the falling fiat market I'd be trading - which is too risky for me

It was not covered in the interview but not according to the Forbes piece.  There he appears to be talking about a new currency with a gold standard!

I think all three would be good.  I'd thought of the roulette one as an app that has (or a web page with a poppup window of) a spinning wheel from the moment the bet is placed that just keeps on spinning till the result is known and lands accordingly.  It would be interesting to find out if reducing the dividend to strengthen the bankroll to increase the limits would pay for itself or not because even a small increase on the higher payout bets would require a much bigger bankroll.

One way I've been considering (given that I'm in construction with many migrant day-rate subcontracting workers, many of whom send money home) is to give them the option of being paid in Bitcoin rather than as a bank transfer.  We wouldn't want to offer part bank/part BTC because the company pays a fixed bank fee per transaction so there's be the additional administrative overhead of the Bitcoin payment without the saving of the transfer fee.

The way I envisage it (and I'd welcome comments/suggestions) is to set up a system which would take a single DistributingAddress and for each subbie a BitcoinAddress, SplitRatio and IsOptedForBitcoin field.  So the way the process would work is:

• The pay run list is generated as it is now showing who is owed what after tax;
• The list is split to into two with those having opted for Bitcoin on one and those to be paid by bank transfer on the other;
• From the total to be paid in Bitcoin the ratio to be paid to each subbie is calculated and put against their receiving address;
• From fiat already sitting on MtGox the total (plus transaction fee) is converted;
• The exact Bitcoin sum converted is sent as one lump to the distributing address;
• The system automatically splits that lump according to the ratios and forwards to the subbie addresses;
• From an accounting/record-keeping perspective the net element of each Bitcoin subbie's pay would be paid off as its fiat value against the MtGox account.

In terms of additional processes, on the pay run database it would be pretty straightforward to pick up who has opted for BTC from the distribution system and to calculate the ratios to export for import into the distribution system.  The administrative and cost saving would be obtained from having a shorter list of folk to pay by bank transfer.  Maybe it would even be possible to have the distribution system in the cloud so subbies could have access to amend their receiving address themselves and to select/deselect their preference for BTC/GBP as frequently as they want?

I could even make myself some pocket money by turning up on site at the end of the day on pay day to buy Bitcoin from anyone who wants some of it as GBP cash straight away!

OK, so I think this is now great in principle.  The only problem I see is that I don't think the bank transfer charge for the amounts we pay is as high as the .6% MtGox transfer charge (plus cost of wiring the money to japan) would work out.  Ah well!  Nice thought.

For now I guess it would take demand from the subbies for this and a preparedness to take a hit on their pay to cover their costs - which they'd only be prepared to do if they understood Bitcoin well enough already that they would consider transferring their fiat to Bitcoin themselves (for saving/investing, for international transfer or for silk road)!  Anyone here London-based who speaks Romanian/Polish/Lithuanian/Albanian well enough to come to site to sell the advantages of Bitcoin

Maybe also instead of using MtGox we could build a relationship with a Bitcoin dealer to negotiate a better rate.

If we did get this far and it worked then we'd also be able to offer to our off-shore clients to make the company part-payments in Bitcoin, thus saving them international wire transfer fees and delays.  Then we're cooking on gas!

I don't think we're in disagreement about the mechanics of a bubble.  It's the chances of a bubble trigger happening without new money I'm doubtful about.  There is of course plenty of money on the bid side to take the price sky high but unless something changes I don't see why people would respond with a panic buy to someone taking the price up a bit.  It might not necessarily be the new money that triggers a bubble but because we don't know how much and when new money arrives when the Japanese banks are open there's more reason to fear a new big fish making the opening price history.  As a consequence even though bidders would rather not buy at or higher than current ask I think they're more likely to keep the finger over the mouse click should their fears materialise.  Bid orders are where they are because people don't really want to pay current ask prices (or above) so if everybody understands weekend buying is only really necessary to obtain immediately required BTC (and later on to anticipate Monday) then nobody needs to panic.

I know there's a lot of ask orders hoping the price will drop so they can get (back) in.  However I fail to see what could trigger a panic buy if there's no lumps of new money happy to pay current price and start the push up.  On the other hand I still think there's quite a lot more on the ask side than shows.  Most of the big dumps that cause dips or temporarily halt the upward trend come from off-book.  They tend not to show their hand until they're ready to play.  That's my take anyway.

On a Saturday without any new money on MtGox to fuel it? Just askin

There's a more in-depth covering of this story in Forbes

I'm afraid to have to inform you that says more about your failure to do even the most basic fact checking than it does about what is going on with S.DICE

Again, one of the beauties of this business model with Bitcoin is that it is largely transparent.  The statistical analysis that is done on a daily basis by someone independent of evoorhees (and can be checked by anyone with the the requisite understandably of how it works) gives us figures that tell us what the monthly profit is.  From that it can be calculated approximately what the dividend will be.  So if the dividend is paid and it is what is expected I'm failing to see the potential you're claiming for skulduggery.

On the 'insider playing' point, technically you may have a point in that somebody with an interest in inflating the value of the business could be playing the game all the time and getting the losses back as part of their dividend.  However this is more likely to have been the case before any shares were made public.  The higher the proportion of existing stock is owned publicly, the higher the proportion of the profits made from 'insider playing' that doesn't go back to the player.  I'm not saying it's not possible but it is getting less likely.  Also, if the purpose of this whole underhand exercise was to maximise the demand for and the price of the stock why on earth would the Monday tranche of stocks have been put on the market without announcement at ~60% of what they were trading for at the time?

Please by all means keep up with the scepticism. I guess we're all vulnerable to some degree of getting carried away with excitement, confidence and trust to our own detriment so it is healthy for us all that some here are airing their doubts.  However you'd come over as more credible and be of better service to the rest of us if you'd do some fact checking and research first.

Edit:  Apologies all for being off-topic but bitcoinBull has been raising this point on a number of threads and I thought should be put right on the most blatantly incorrect aspects (so the casual reader is not misinformed).  Maybe bitcoinBull and EskimoBob should start their own thread to put forward the theory that SD is a scam.  Their intentions may be good but bringing the same points up repetitively in different threads I'm afraid makes it come across (to me at least) as conspiracy-theory FUD.

Possibly more of as much significance for Bitcoin right now is not so much whether and when such a crash will happen but that "64% of all Americans believe the Government is the problem."

What that tells me is there's a massive untapped US Bitcoin userbase ready for it now (or as soon as they understand how Bitcoin fits into this picture).

Sorry to sound like a broken record but from my understanding, regardless of the legality, there is a number of criteria including a fraudulent element (" false and misleading positive statements*") to pump and dump.  Buying in small increments and by these market actions alone encouraging others to buy on the way up then selling big thus causing the price to dip is just people playing the market -  whether it's one person driving the market or a repeating herd pattern .  Where is the dishonesty there?

Is it Adam (and others') 'BUY BUY BUY' posts that are tongue-in-cheek being referred to here?

I certainly may be missing something but I'm reluctant to let it pass because of the implication in the term (and in the 'morally dishonest' comment) that someone's playing this market unfairly.  I've yet to see any evidence of that.

I'm with you on that one.  Call me an optimist but anything the price does seems like good news to me!  If it's taking a dive it's good because it's shaking out some weak hands and making it less likely that a dive further up will turn into a crash.  If it's going sideways for some time it's giving people the chance to tweak their longer term positions, it's a chance for more people to buy in when it's steady and it is easier than when volatile for people to trade with or for international transfer etc.  And when it's going up fast then, well, if it's going where I think it's going it has a mighty long way to climb and if we're going to have periods of tumbling prices and steady prices it also needs to be making these jumps at times as it climbs towards that liberating future

Nope - I can guarantee you nobody will have read that

Welcome btw

I turn my back and...

Yup, that's £14.30 GBP
I'd given up on the pound market for tonight because for the last few hours there had been a wall between £2000 and £5000 at £13.99 only being bitten away at very slowly and then...

Thanks for the rapid response with your update Erik

Anybody know if there's news from Erik today regarding the 4th tranche tonight?  The 1 million @ .0062 that was the third tranche is still sitting untouched as an ask order on MPEx with a few bits and bobs priced slightly below.

Wiill tranches 4 & 5 be postponed to give the market time to recover?  Will they go on for the same to pile up waiting for buyers; go on for less to try and get something back for them today for a lower price?

Looks like there's been very little SD trading activity either on MPEx or on the passthrus today.  Maybe everybody's waiting to find out what's happening next?

Wow, see that $22 wall come tumblin down!

Would you explain please why you differentiate between individuals and (I guess) larger scale ASIC buyers?  There is very little difference on bang per buck for those purchasing a single 'Single SC' and those buying multiple 'Mini SCs' or a large scale purchase from any ASIC manufacturer.  Other than for those with cheaper electricity or who have some other competitive advantage related to scale that I can't see all ASIC buyers (who receive their equipment at the same time) are in the same boat.

There appears to be a lot of this kind of talk implying it's pointless an individual or small-time miner buying ASIC.  If the increase in difficulty means it's pointless an individual buying, it's just as pointless for a Bitcoin mining 'farmer'.  But if there is profit to be made it will not be far off the same ROI whatever the scale (other than the very smallest scale such as the Jalapeno where you're getting a fair bit fewer hashes per $ as otherwise).

* my emphasis

You're right in that it makes no difference who of the 'private holders' is selling but my understanding is that there's a world of difference between private holdings being sold (to another private investor or to the public) and the business raising money by issuing new stock.  The latter increases the business's capital by creating more stock.  If the new capital brings in enough new revenue then profit as a percentage of capital will remain the same therefore the dividend will remain unchanged.  

But for this to happen the new capital would need to be spent on marketing or something to increase turnover sufficiently to keep the dividend the same.  So 'just' issuing new stock and increasing capital with no action to utilise the additional capital would result in a reduced dividend per share and have a consequent on share value.  This is not by any stretch of the imagination the same as selling privately held stock.

As for why Erik or associate is selling why does anyone sell shares?  I don't care as long as it is not diluting existing stock - which it isn't - even though there is an impact on price for the time being.


This is virtually identical to what EskimoBob wrote on another thread to which evoorhees responded: