I do say, however, that you definitely need a much higher percentage of gold than percentage of BTC in your portfolio atm.
Nothing in my calculations points that way (for people with less than $50M net worth). Care to share yours? I believe the PM manipulation will break fairly soon and (physical) PMs will multiply in price. Also, their prices are around production value already and it seems like even the the most fierce manipulation can't press them much lower anymore - so downside risk seems very limited. BTC, on the other hand, in my book has huge potential, but huge risk as well. Bottom line: Price/Reward ratio (or whatever is the correct English term) is a lot better for PMs. Conclusion: Lots of PMs, and some BTC is the way to go. hmm.. Let me guess.. you're probably quite a bit over 40 years of age? David Morgan suggests the older you are the more you should be in gold as opposed to silver. Replace "gold" with "precious metal" and "silver" with "crypto" and I can agree. No, under 40 here. I'm a bit surprised - you don't believe in the manipulation being stopped soon, Comex empty, etc? Just curious - why not? If the majority of the capital in the market agreed with you, price would already be different. |
|
|
|
Pictures of 1 BTC coins:   |
|
|
|
|
I have 3x 1BTC, series 1 with spelling error, and 1 each of 5BTC and 25BTC casascius coins. 1 and 5 BTC coins have some minor wear, but the 25 BTC coin has never been out of it's plastic sleeve for more than a few seconds. 1BTC and 25BTC coins are dated 2011, and the 5BTC coin is dated 2012. I am probably only looking to part with one or two of the 1BTC coins at the moment, but I'm entertaining offers for any or all of it.
|
|
|
|
Doge is a fad. The internet loves a meme, but memes eventually get old, and then they become annoying. Except cat pictures, obv.
Dog pictures with money might have more staying power than you'd think. Dogecoin is nowhere near the scale of market penetration many memes have achieved. Many suckers, such pump. The good news is, it spreads the idea of cryptocurrency and makes Bitcoin look stable and professional by comparison. |
|
|
|
The market wants to go down, only if there was no other market that is preventing it from going down. Silly market.
Yes. The market where BTC really changes actually hands in large volumes is being obstructed by the market where BTC gets passed from a whales left pocket to his right pocket in mostly micro-sized volumes. Silly market. Any imaginary cord shouldn't be too hard to break. |
|
|
|
His analysis about the behaviour of the bots are spot on. I´m not sure if a huge drop is about to come in in the next hours/days,
but right now it´s bots who are keeping the price up on Stamp/Gox for whatever reason it is.
I agree his observations are valid in that the "last" price is being pegged to the ask side. What I disagree with is his jump to the conclusion that the market wants to go down. If the market, which is made up of the capital at risk in the market, wanted to go down it would be down. Since it is not down, we can assume that there is sufficient capital to absorb any sells at this point in time. He is also right that pressure is building. But I am far less certain than he of the direction we will break out. All I know is that when we do start moving, we will move decisively. |
|
|
|
Isabella Kaminska, whose work I am otherwise a great fan of, does not seem to like Bitcoin much - pointing to its extreme Gini coefficient and other problems as indicative of its undesirability. She does write about it fairly regularly though.
Well she's dead wrong on the Gini. Consider the 85 who own more than 50% globally. With bitcoin there is a new 85. That doubles the dispersion of the high end, which dramatically improves the Gini. You might want to recheck your source on that one. There's been a recent misprint that's since been corrected. In fact, 85 people own the same amount as the bottom 50% of people. Not quite the same. |
|
|
|
... In the future ...
About the same answer was given 6 months ago in another thread. In theory, the problem can be solved, but it's not so simple, or the devs would have solved it already. It requires some effort to code and test, and IMO the early adopters should be putting some money into solving it before it becomes more than a nuisance. Except work is being put into it. There are several projects, but one is listed right on the bitcoin wiki's scalability page under "Related works". You really haven't put much effort into researching this. The problem really only exists with the reference client, and most new users aren't using that anyway. They use a mobile wallet or a web wallet. |
|
|
|
Who the fuck are you to say what the market wants?
Besides, isn't the capital involved in the market what makes the market? So why shouldn't those with the most capital control the pacing?
I have been sitting for much of the day, watching this absurd $815 - $825 battle going on, whereby any serious volume of trade brings the price down closer to $815 level, only for a microtransaction of 0.02 btc or something to be triggered immediately afterwards bringing the spot price back up to $825. Even on the minute chart this makes it look as though high volume trades are happening at the Ask wall, but this is bullshit and it can be seen to be bullshit by the near perfect ruler drawn lines that appearing along the top of the candlesticks on the short term 1,3,5 minute charts. If the bots were preventing the market from driving price up, these lines would appear along the bottom of the candlesticks. In the meantime, the Bid and Ask walls are piling up on Bitstamp. At the start of the day, there was 500 BTC of Asks in between the spot price and my stop loss order. There is now over 2000 BTC and the Ask volume has been steadily piling up and advancing on 'no man's' land, whereas the Bid volume in close range to the spot hasn't really moved at all. That is who I am to say what the market wants u damn fuckwit. Maybe you should take a walk. Sitting all day staring at charts isn't good for you. There's plenty of money to be made here without stressing out about it. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will not change anything. The poorest people in the world own no bitcoins, so it doesn't really matter what the value is.
Also, the article had a major correction. It turns out that, "the 85 richest people own about 0.7% of the world's wealth, which is the same as the bottom half of the population."
Damn. For a second there, I thought maybe we could kill 85 people and double everyone else's standard of living.  |
|
|
|
|
Who the fuck are you to say what the market wants?
Besides, isn't the capital involved in the market what makes the market? So why shouldn't those with the most capital at risk control the pacing?
|
|
|
|
I see this as a false dichotomy. AM can certainly tell no one anything and still produce gen3 chips, deploy massive Phash, and capture 20% of the global hash, and at the same time produce millions for investors in hardware sales. You cannot simply equate a lack of communication with a lack of results. That would be irrational.
You're forgetting about one thing : human greed. Have you been paying attention on Chinese mining mafia? "Discus Fish" pool for example? Sure they can produce millions ... for themselves. Why they need to produce millions for so called "investors"? They don't need our money anymore. We're redundant here. Maybe even a burden. And they're proving it every day with their non-existing PR. edit : again ...we're waiting months for 20th January 2014 ... and its 21st now and nobody from company don't have a time to come here and write few words for us. Seems like they don't give a shit about us and yes I am pissed off. I was thinking about this... a while ago. What is going to keep them paying dividends? I believe firstly since the company is so lean, having a force of people out on the internet talking up their company when their products are released has value. I imagine Asicminer is going to want to keep selling hardware, as managing hardware is an extra cost when there is so much demand for hardware out in the community, and you can sell it for a good price. Additionally, there are several shareholders who have enough resources and connections that if friedcat did simply stop paying dividends, yet was still mining in some way... I imagine having to "watch his back" all the time would get frustrating. Additionally, the legal status of his operation in china is in flux, I doubt he would want to draw unwanted attention. Tl;DR I believe friedcat benefits more from staying honest and honoring shares, then he does from keeping profits to himself, I may be wrong. Not to mention FC and his team are majority shareholders. The shares cost them nothing but their time and effort, which they have already been compensated for with their generous salaries. These shares are worth 0.6 BTC each after IPOing at 0.1 each at a time that BTCUSD was MUCH lower. Stopping dividends would crush the value of these shares. |
|
|
|
This is not a problem and never was. OP, go read the white paper and the developments in the dev subforum. This is what happens when n00bs spend too much time in Speculation and not enough time learning about the bitcoin protocol itself.
We get a thread whining about scalability at least every month.
1) You do not need the entire blockchain
2) Blockchain compression
3) Big hard drives. When I was a kid people had 32 megabyte hard drives. And again, you don't need the entire blockchain!!!
4) Lite clients that require 0 trust using some devious merkel tree tricks
5) Read the fucking available material on the problem already, smart people have already solved it.
About point 1. I assume this is correct but imo there is no simple way to determine what can be deleted. They cannot purge transactions older than X years since this might kill peoples offline wallets. You can only remove transactions to accounts that now hold 0 BTC but that might give the spender free money again. The only way you could pull it off is by making a 5year checkpoint every 1st of January, in which all the balances of blockchain accounts ever used are stored and only transactions from that date forward are processed. I see a lot of problems with your point 1. P.S. haven't read the smart people solution but a link would be appreciated. There are multiple levels available with existing software. Bitcoin-qt stores the entire blockchain, but supports bloom filters on the network side. Bloom filters allow clients connected to the network to specify a small hash value that represents the addresses they are interested in. Mobile/thin clients can use these filters to only receive transactions for the addresses they care about (and some false positives as a privacy feature). They still get the full block header, which is small, but allows them to verify the transaction hash is indeed confirmed. In the future, the official client will likely move to a model where some nodes store the full chain, but most nodes only store a GB or so. This GB can be randomly selected (other than the transactions the user clearly cares about) and this will enable wide coverage of the blockchain spread across many nodes. Miners only need the unspent transaction output set, or UTXO. This is still only a few hundred megabytes. |
|
|
|
Guess what? People can change their opinions. Just because he said something in the past doesn't mean you should judge every post after it by what he said before. You seem to be very good are remembering and pointing out peoples past mistakes as they are trying to improve themselves.
Did I miss the part where he is trying to improve himself? I know some of you have taken it upon yourself to try and bring him around. I think its wasted effort. Bitcoin will bring people like Jorgi around by itself eventually, unless a person just truly loves to hate it. There is not much we need to do other than spread the word, use it, invest in it and/or its eco-system. Bitcoin will do the rest. There are people that still hate Apple. Who knows, perhaps you are one. No matter how obvious a success something is some people are going to hate it. One of my former careers was actually motivation and personal development training. I stood in front of 1000s of people at a time and spoke. I traveled all across the country. So, I have had a fair bit of personal experience dealing with people and their motivation for "improving" themselves. My conclusion: lead by example. Most people are not going to change unless they decide deep down its something they want to do. I'm not saying anybody needs to help anybody else with motivation or self improvement. You clearly have a cynical view of people, which is only strengthened by you throwing the past in their face. Of course people won't improve in such an environment as you foster. Oh, and I do hate Apple, as a company. As an investment, I agree they have been and may still be a good bet. But their abuse of intellectual property laws, consumer privacy, and lack of user control of purchased hardware leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. |
|
|
|
In NYC bitcoin was on the front page of the Times last week
Speaking of which, I was touristing in NY over the year-end holidays (yes, it was cold). We went to see Wall Street one evening, and was surprised to see a "Bitcoin Information Center" right next door to NYSE. Behind a small lounge one could see a room where someone was presenting a talk to a small audience. My sons, who knew of my obsession strong scientific interest in the matter, urged me to go in and pretend I was some rich sucker would-be investor. While we were at it, a fellow came out and invited us inside, saying something about something being already up to some zillions of dollars. But I was too tired and thinking only of getting back to my hotel. The rent for that place must be a small fortune. That's one thing that I find off-putting about Bitcoin: too much lavish marketing for a project by a bunch of young digital subversives whose goal is to steal a highly lucrative business from banks and undermine the governments' control of money flow, worldwide. Your particular type of psychosis is an interesting case. I wish we could get some professional opinions on it. On one hand you are aware that you have this obsession with bitcoin, yet your obsession is purely negative. It is like you get some sort of pleasure in hating bitcoin. You have even admitted that part of you has sour grapes and are bitter that you missed out on such incredible growth. But the arguments you use against bitcoin are mostly rehashed fare that has been recycled through these forums a dozen times or more. Now you are starting to bring more and more absurd "insights" to the table, suggesting that bitcoin is full of subversive techie salespeople pitching bitcoin in back rooms like it was wolf of Wall Street meets Scientology meets Ron Paul meets Star Trek. You seem to be getting more and more delusional in your assertions and in your obsession. Why don't you go spend your time doing something productive? Or at least find an obsession that you are positively wired towards. Right now you are starting to come across as soon creepy bitcoin stalker. I can tell your not the common troll, that's why I'm even responding to you. Go spend time with your kids. Have sex with your wife. Do something that makes you happy. For your own sake man, get out of this forum. o_O Projecting much? Not at all. Did that hit a little too close to home Oda?  You continue to make no sense whatsoever. Or I don't get the joke. Trying to find anything Jorge-etc posted that could be construed as "negative obsession" with Bitcoin... all I see is a moderately bearish poster. Guess what, he's not alone  If it makes no sense to you it's because you haven't read his body of posts. Do some reading. "Moderately bearish" is the under statement of the year. He does not and has never had interest in owning bitcoin. The fact that you relate to him means my comments did hit too close to home. I'm actually generally worried about the guy. I don't think someone should spend time researching and writing about things they loath. What a waste. Case I point. Last time I checked this was a trading forum. You and I trade. We discuss trades. Jorgi has never and will never buy the very asset that is being traded and discussed here. Again, what a fucking waste IMO. Guess what? People can change their opinions. Just because he said something in the past doesn't mean you should judge every post after it by what he said before. You seem to be very good are remembering and pointing out peoples past mistakes as they are trying to improve themselves. |
|
|
|
Bots are people too, trying to make a profit. If you are sure of this, use cryptotrader to program one yourself to outwit the "evil" bots.
So are conmen and thieves. Bot operators are moulding, mishaping, and manipulating market and bring nothing of value to the market except giving their owners an advantage over everyone else. If they are indeed misshaping the market, the market will correct them eventually. Bots have no advantage in altering price. |
|
|
|
How do you artificially hold up an exchange rate? If I wanted to sell my BTC I sell and that now means there are less dollars to buy any more BTC.
Right now, there exists an unusually large gap between Bid and Ask walls on Bistamp with unusually steep walls lining up at 815 and 825 respectively. In between them, there is not very much to speak off. However, all a bot (or a person) has to do is buy 0.01 BTC into the Ask wall, and that is the spot price at 825. So along comes Joe Bloggs to buy some Bitcoins and if he doesn't know any better, he thinks the price of a Bitcoin is 825, and puts in an order for 10 BTC @ 825, thus eating 10 BTC into the ask wall and probably taking the BTC from the bot owners account as their bots will ensure their coins are 1 cent cheaper than all the other coins on the wall. Thus the price is manipulated higher than the market wants it to be and the bot operators get to sell their coins at a higher price than everyone else. But anytime there is any meaningful volume being shifted on Stamp at the moment, it is always at markedly lower prices than the spot price being maintained by algorithmic bot micro-trades. However as soon as an 80 BTC order goes through at $816, the bot orders 0.001 BTC at the ask wall, and the spot price is back up at 825 within a microsecond. I might believe a few hundred milliseconds, but within a microsecond? Surely you are being hyperbolic. |
|
|
|
There's a very obvious Occam's Razor-style explanation for why the price hasn't appeared to be so news-sensitive. Maybe it's really been reacting mostly to fundamentals all along, and our consensus of relating it to news is just ex post facto attribution error?
Sure. And Dogecoin is obviously reacting to fundamentals as well. In fact, it is. One of the basic premises of Dogecoin is the meme-factor. From a viral marketing perspective, dogecoins cute dogs and silly language is much more appealing to the majority of the human psyche than bitcoin's marketing, which talks of decentralized, p2p networks, ecliptic curve digital signature algorithms, hash functions, and merchant adoption (which is admittedly still hard to find unless you are looking). |
|
|
|
There's a very obvious Occam's Razor-style explanation for why the price hasn't appeared to be so news-sensitive. Maybe it's really been reacting mostly to fundamentals all along, and our consensus of relating it to news is just ex post facto attribution error?
Sure. And Dogecoin is obviously reacting to fundamentals as well. In fact, it is. One of the basic premises of Dogecoin is the meme-factor. From a viral marketing perspective, dogecoins cute dogs and silly language is much more appealing to the majority of the human psyche than bitcoin's marketing, which talks of decentralized, p2p networks, ecliptic curve digital signature algorithms, hash functions, and merchant adoption (which is admittedly still hard to find unless you are looking). |
|
|
|
In terms of averting disaster:
It doesn't matter if solutions are known.
It doesn't matter if a single solution has a consensus.
It matters whether a solution has been fully deployed.
Only then can it be relied upon when SHTF.
What impending disaster do you forsee that can't be immediately dealt with via existing codebases? The only thing I see that could be an issue is the 7tps limit, but in a true global economic crisis, I'm sure we could get support to replace the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1 with a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 100 or some other hack to keep things running. Ideally, we solve this problem carefully and methodically so we don't have to keep changing a constant, but the block size can adjust while maintaining proper incentives for broadcasting, processing, and storing transactions. Otherwise, transaction volume can be dealt with via existing pruning and bloom filtering solutions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
