oh so sad. many of the altcoins are slowly getting strangled by Bitcoin. Ripple down over -41%. Dogecoin on a steady decline. I the only one doing really well albeit for a short time period is Darkcoin b/c apparently ppl like privacy.  Are the Bitcoin devs open to implement true anonymity if it is possible? It's good to see the scamcoins dropping like flies, but I do wish Bitcoin was much more anonymous. Right now, I can't even select which inputs to use for a transaction (I believe Coinjoin will let you do this?). Of course you can do this, also in the official client (just update your client once in a while  ) Really? Can you do it in Armory too? How? Yes |
|
|
|
oh so sad. many of the altcoins are slowly getting strangled by Bitcoin. Ripple down over -41%. Dogecoin on a steady decline. the only one doing really well albeit for a short time period is Darkcoin b/c apparently ppl like privacy. |
|
|
|
Even though PMs may garner some gains in the next 5 years, it will pale in comparison to the valuation crypto has overall in the same timeframe
Peter Schiff doing a 180 is a clear sign of things to come.
he hasn't done a 180, yet, he's just using it as a utility i bet he's lying about that. i bet he's had an epiphany and now is trying to accumulate. the least risky way to do that is to sell a service or a good and i think that's what he's concluded. his business is ideally set up to do this and i think they realize they need to hedge their previously strident opinion on Bitcoin. i bet a year from now he'll be singing a different tune. i bet a year from now he will be singing a different tune too, but i honestly do not think he knows it yet. i think he might be to the point of, "lets give this a shoot" if he was in btc he would be silent about it until he had all he could buy, then he would be talking about it non stop. but the 180 degree turnaround is so abrupt and so public that the press demands a statement. so he lies. if he says he's bullish on accumulating Bitcoin, the price jacks up and that makes his new position much more difficult. |
|
|
|
Even though PMs may garner some gains in the next 5 years, it will pale in comparison to the valuation crypto has overall in the same timeframe
Peter Schiff doing a 180 is a clear sign of things to come.
he hasn't done a 180, yet, he's just using it as a utility i bet he's lying about that. i bet he's had an epiphany and now is trying to accumulate. the least risky way to do that is to sell a service or a good and i think that's what he's concluded. his business is ideally set up to do this and i think they realize they need to hedge their previously strident opinion on Bitcoin. i bet a year from now he'll be singing a different tune. |
|
|
|
Gold obvously doesnt have such big dips like bitcoin but in the long run bitcoin will win
I agree with this as well, but there is no point in saying gold is down and btc is up when clearly that is not the case. I have been trading gold/silver since 2002 and btc since 2010. the thing i noticed in that time is that some times it is good to use btc to buy gold, and some times to use gold to buy btc. btc does not always go up and gold does not always go down. to say that it does every week, esp in 2014 is just  well i dont know what it is. i 100% do not understand why it is being done. anyone with access to a 6 month chart of both btc and gold will know that it is just not true. Trading BTC since 2010? Proof? Lol Lol, Smoothie you troll. I guess the 100% correct way to put it would be "HODLing since 2010" I was not actively trading in 2010, just stacking. Anyone notice how goat still didn't prove his claim? Lolz If he was stacking he could prove it. Of course he hasn't and likely won't just like his claim of buying PMs since 2002.  Yes goat I'm a "troll" for asking you to prove your claim. Don't you have any new material? It is getting old calling me a troll.  BTW how are those "not-for-profit" physical litecoins coming that you claimed we're coming in October, November, December, January....? And now it is may. lol! i liked it better when you really were a troll! |
|
|
|
I was being schooled in the value of gold by gold bug propaganda.
actually, we all need to give miscreanity credit where credit is due. he's the head master of this altho not alone. |
|
|
|
a bit off topic but it is so odd here, no one is on the road, everyone is at home cuz of the 10 pm curfew. there is no police or army check points but everyone has obeyed.
it is very odd, people in the west would never just obey like this.
i haven't been following the Thai news. what's going on over there? if i were in your shoes i could probably see how the gold/Bitcoin argument shifts a bit. |
|
|
|
As a passive observer here early on, I thought cypherdoc was being hypocritical hypercritical and over confident when he was called out for using gold in his avatar, (yes I know never make an investment call on the colour of someone’s avatar) – actually I held cypherdoc, position as an uneducated default, I was being schooled in the value of gold by gold bug propaganda.
for the life of me, i never understood why anyone would draw any conclusions for using gold in my avatar, let alone think they've called me out. i'm a known, former gold bug and i still thinks it's pretty. doesn't mean i think it's a good store of value or currency next to Bitcoin. it is just a cool looking symbol representing a historical transition. |
|
|
|
(i now see it as Armageddon insurance.)
A good way to look at gold! I am however sorry you trade a fair amount of BTC for Gold. I would never tell anyone to trade more than 10% of their crypto for gold unless the thought a BTc correction was going to happen soon. I'm 85% crypto, 10% PMs, and even 5% fiat cuz, well hookers and blow... actually i can't disagree with this. i've been pretty open that i still have 24 oz left for posterity. i was thinking of selling even those too this past week however. still $2500/oz miscreanity? |
|
|
|
A quote from the other forum talking about the coup in Thailand. Anyway we have food to last us a bit, and gold to get us out if need be. No one is going to take fiat or BTC at the airport if it comes to that.
quoting yourself? oh, that's great. |
|
|
|
Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?
Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:
1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."
Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.
I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.
Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.
For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed. i hate to say it but it's b/c of Andreas. i've had to become much more vocal against him saying the Bitcoin the currency is "just" the first app layered over the blockchain protocol implying that we can get rid of the currency yet still retain the value of Bitcoin with just the blockchain. in his mind, the blockchain is paramount, which is totally wrong. and you see this attitude has spilled over into many other topics/projects he advocates such as Ethereum and the concept that there will be "thousands of altcoins", etc. the right way to think of this is that the Bitcoin units are integral and fundamental to the Bitcoin network and can never be separated from the blockchain. they were designed to function within it. it is a self contained financial system: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0 if you really think about what Satoshi was trying to do with Bitcoin, it was this: he started with the inviolable concept of how to design a fixed supply of currency (mimicking gold) and then combined various tools from separate fields and came up with the blockchain technology around the currency units to secure this fundamental principle. yeah, he mentions things like smart contracts and stuff in a separate post on the forum but the fixed supply currency was priority #1. this is why i'm so vocal against the concept of Sidechains. if you look thru my comments over on Reddit, i've argued this extensively from an economic and technical standpoint. b/c Sidechains will need to be merged mined, by definition, they will never be as secure as the main blockchain. this presents a huge opportunity for a non-economic malicious attacker to wait until approximately 20-30% of all BTC migrate over to a popular Sidechain and then launch an attack. if successful, all those BTC will be wiped out and i think the blowback effect would be to destroy Bitcoin. we already have a hard enough time convincing the general population to accept a fixed supply currency. if you then lose 20-30% of BTC from a Sidechain failure, it will destroy confidence in Bitcoin forever as a too deflationary intense to be workable new form of money. there are many more arguments i've presented but that one is the most important. don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of Andreas as we need someone like him to speak the unspeakable to rally the masses. but he's just wrong in this particular area of his abstraction. You make some great points. I believe Andreas is speaking so highly of the blockchain, mainly because he is deeply involved in it (and its expected....like if anyone where in the same situation, they would probably plug their own project etc). I believe new layers can be good. A few comment-ors discussed a coin that is distributed by how many bitcoins you already have. Some thing like this would be a "new layer" and have a built in following (since it basically would not start from scratch). (The new coin could be improved and not frustrate deeply involve members....since the beginning circa 2009-2011) I agree with the whole satoshi thing you mentioned above. I like the idea of sidechains because it is another layer. I have not thought about it the way you have, and your ideas are interesting (especially since I am new and eventually I might have similar wisdom after learning more about things like sidechains). you're talking about Spin Offs which was hatched right in this thread by Peter R. it's a devious and well thought out economic concept that has great potential. i just hope he gets around to implementing it. if i were a coder, i'd be systematically going thru the altcoins, one by one, and taking this Spin Off stick to them, all the while profiting. |
|
|
|
Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?
Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:
1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."
Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.
I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.
Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.
For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed. i hate to say it but it's b/c of Andreas. i've had to become much more vocal against him saying the Bitcoin the currency is "just" the first app layered over the blockchain protocol implying that we can get rid of the currency yet still retain the value of Bitcoin with just the blockchain. in his mind, the blockchain is paramount, which is totally wrong. and you see this attitude has spilled over into many other topics/projects he advocates such as Ethereum and the concept that there will be "thousands of altcoins", etc. the right way to think of this is that the Bitcoin units are integral and fundamental to the Bitcoin network and can never be separated from the blockchain. they were designed to function within it. it is a self contained financial system: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0 if you really think about what Satoshi was trying to do with Bitcoin, it was this: he started with the inviolable concept of how to design a fixed supply of currency (mimicking gold) and then combined various tools from separate fields and came up with the blockchain technology around the currency units to secure this fundamental principle. yeah, he mentions things like smart contracts and stuff in a separate post on the forum but he designed the blockchain to ensure the fixed supply currency as priority #1. this is why i'm so vocal against the concept of Sidechains. if you look thru my comments over on Reddit, i've argued this extensively from an economic and technical standpoint. b/c Sidechains will need to be merged mined, by definition, they will never be as secure as the main blockchain. this presents a huge opportunity for a non-economic malicious attacker to wait until approximately 20-30% of all BTC migrate over to a popular Sidechain and then launch an attack. if successful, all those BTC will be wiped out and i think the blowback effect would be to destroy Bitcoin. we already have a hard enough time convincing the general population to accept a fixed supply currency. if you then lose 20-30% of BTC from a Sidechain failure, it will destroy confidence in Bitcoin forever as a too deflationary intense to be workable new form of money. there are many more arguments i've presented but that one is the most important. don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of Andreas as we need someone like him to speak the unspeakable to rally the masses. but he's just wrong in this particular area of his abstraction. Agreed. I can't help but think that the Ethereum mania will end badly for anyone who gets heavily involved financially early on. There are a lot of moving parts and technical and economic uncertainties at the moment, and WAY too much hype. Similarly, while I agree that we will likely see a lot of blockchain implementations and alternate "currencies", the vast majority of them will have little or no value. I rather like the "spin-off" ideas that were being discussed a while back, and I feel like their existence is an inevitability. It will be difficult for innovative and competing systems to prevent bitcoin users from "co-opting" their technology. I like Andreas as well, but he is very strong headed, which is both an asset and potentially a liability at times  when you speak as frequently as he does, sometimes one struggles to find "new material". in Bitcoin's case, that's not necessary. it's complicated enough to explain the basics. he should just stick to discussing various parts of the protocol instead of trying to always introduce new mind blowing economic concepts. |
|
|
|
Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?
Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:
1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."
Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.
I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.
Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.
For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed. i hate to say it but it's b/c of Andreas. i've had to become much more vocal against him saying the Bitcoin the currency is "just" the first app layered over the blockchain protocol implying that we can get rid of the currency yet still retain the value of Bitcoin with just the blockchain. in his mind, the blockchain is paramount, which is totally wrong. and you see this attitude has spilled over into many other topics/projects he advocates such as Ethereum and the concept that there will be "thousands of altcoins", etc. the right way to think of this is that the Bitcoin units are integral and fundamental to the Bitcoin network and can never be separated from the blockchain. they were designed to function within it. it is a self contained financial system: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0 if you really think about what Satoshi was trying to do with Bitcoin, it was this: he started with the inviolable concept of how to design a fixed supply of currency (mimicking gold) and then combined various tools from separate fields and came up with the blockchain technology around the currency units to secure this fundamental principle. yeah, he mentions things like smart contracts and stuff in a separate post on the forum but he designed the blockchain to ensure the fixed supply currency as priority #1. this is why i'm so vocal against the concept of Sidechains. if you look thru my comments over on Reddit, i've argued this extensively from an economic and technical standpoint. b/c Sidechains will need to be merged mined, by definition, they will never be as secure as the main blockchain. this presents a huge opportunity for a non-economic malicious attacker to wait until approximately 20-30% of all BTC migrate over to a popular Sidechain and then launch an attack. if successful, all those BTC will be wiped out and i think the blowback effect would be to destroy Bitcoin. we already have a hard enough time convincing the general population to accept a fixed supply currency. if you then lose 20-30% of BTC from a Sidechain failure, it will destroy confidence in Bitcoin forever as a too deflationary intense to be workable new form of money. there are many more arguments i've presented but that one is the most important. don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of Andreas as we need someone like him to speak the unspeakable to rally the masses. but he's just wrong in this particular area of his abstraction. |
|
|
|
Yeah I've been posting on this on reddit all day. My bet is he's had an epiphany and is accumulating near a price bottom trying to not attract attention. Lol. More people getting out Goat. |
|
|
|
remember this? negative interest rates coming right up:  well, Harvard's Ken Rogoff appears to favor that idea: http://cryptocrimson.com/2014/05/harvard-economics-professor-makes-case-bitcoin/" Rogoff makes the compelling case that as the Federal Reserve’s efforts to stimulate the economy have been abysmal at best, and as the U.S. central bank has already slashed interest rates as low as zero percent, the only way in which they can go lower according the the professor, is if the U.S. would adopt some form of digital currency. Essentially, it is his belief that if rates were to dip below zero, which is possible, instead of you paying to take out a loan, banks would pay you to take out a loan.
As crazy as the idea sounds, and given the fact that those banking on earning interest from their savings accounts would be out of luck, Rogoff explains that this is unlikely with a cash economy because would then force consumers to spend, rather than save. His point is; however, the same point that the Fed makes, which is that in order to stimulate the economy, consumers need to spend. Despite the unlikely scenario of which would force consumers to spend instead of save, given negative interest rates, Rogoff says that this is where digital currency comes in.
The professor says that if there was no physical money, the unfavorable scenario would be avoided in the case in which negative interest rates exist; this is due to the fact that as digital currencies such as bitcoin do not need to be stored in traditional banks, consumers therefor would not be forced to spend it. In fact, rather than becoming less valuable, digital currencies such as bitcoin, which are deflationary in nature, would actually become more valuable with time.
According to Rogoff, another plus for digital currency is that it could actually increase tax revenue, based on the notion that without cash, the government could finally track transactions, elimination the potential for tax evasion. While critics of digital currencies like bitcoin say it promotes misuse and illegal conduct, Rogoff says that it has the potential to do just the opposite, meaning that with increased tracking, illicit operations would no longer be possible." i'd love to read the original paper if anyone has access to it. i don't quite understand fully the above paragraph as he appears to say that he wants to force ppl to spend by utilizing negative interest rates but yet he says Bitcoin will allow a safe haven to avoid just that. the part i like though is where he says Bitcoin will become more valuable with time if negative interest rates are imposed along with a push to digital money becomes a reality. bottom line: negative interest rates could become a distinct reality. keep buying. |
|
|
|
I used weloveservers' vps node and put a bitcoind on it. The vps has went down a couple of times, weloveservers support mentioned that it is getting ddos'ed. Did anyone experience similar issue?
I doubt people would ddos a bitcoin node, seeing there are tons of them, and there's little to gain from ddosing a single node. what probably happened was that your VPS provider was overselling its servers, and are using ddos as an excuse. i sometimes get >100 connections at a time on one of these servers. could that many simultaneous connections look like a ddos itself to an admin? |
|
|
|
...
I have more LTC than gold, silver and every other metal combined.
Now that's nuts. I don't like the multi-decade outlook for PMs, but I don't like the multi-*year* outlook for litecoin. There are no prizes for being 2nd in this race, especially if you offer nothing technically over #1. But I'm not a trader, so if you have some market-momentum argument, that's fine. I agree and I am slowly moving some LTC into BTC (and some metals) but my point of making that public was to show people just how bullish I am on crypto. Just cuz I hold gold does not mean I don't like crypto. Also I do have some LTC cuz if BTC breaks or forks LTC is our best shot. However BTC is looking stronger every day. yeah sure, your positions always magically change once we appear to be making a definitive turn in direction of the price, like over the last 2 days. prior to that, you were bad mouthing crypto and pushing metals heavily. not only that, you like to rewrite history, like that time several months ago when you claimed you were selling metals back in 2011. no you weren't. b/c for someone who so often likes to comment about how right they were, you would've been all over this thread back then announcing that fact as this thread was front and center. instead we only hear about it a few months ago. |
|
|
|
Do the blue2's with 512MB ram and 25GB HD space have enough resources to run a node? Those are available but the blue3 are sold out
No |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
