The US money supply supports the $15 trillion of the US GDP for example. And that GDP is a significant multiple of the monetary base of $600 billion or so. The same holds true of other currencies around the world ... With Bitcoin it is very different indeed. Transaction value ... is much lower for Bitcoin than the outstanding value of the currency is.
Beyond the obvious error where he writes "monetary base of $600 billion" (M1 is $2.6 trillion), he is simply wrong. U.S. GDP is about 5.8 times M1. Bitcoin transaction value is about 10 times the Bitcoin M1 (109.5 million / 11 million). Of course, GDP is a small part of total transaction value, but at least Bitcoin is in the same ballpark. According to this Wiki article, the "montary base" is not M1, but M0, which is smaller than M1 but no longer reported by the Federal Reserve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_base |
|
|
|
After numerous calls and finally a demand for a refund, I just got a tracking number for an order I placed 8 days ago. I will update when it arrives.
DHL? FedEx. |
|
|
|
|
FRB would be possible but it would require a lot of people to keep their Bitcoin in Bitcoin banks. I don't see this happening, because it's incredibly easy and, if you're halfway smart, just as secure to keep your Bitcoin on your home computer wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
After numerous calls and finally a demand for a refund, I just got a tracking number for an order I placed 8 days ago. I will update when it arrives.
|
|
|
|
I certainly hope Darklore is trolling.
Here:
1 = bitcoin
0.1 = 0.1 bitcoins = 100btm
0.01 = 0.01 bitcoins = 10btm
0.001 = 1 mBTC = 1btm
0.0001 = 0.1 mBTC = 10ksat
0.00001 = 0.01 mBTC = 1ksat
0.000001 = 100 satoshi = 100sat
0.0000001 = 10 satoshi = 10sat
0.00000001 = 1 satoshi = 1sat
The above is CORRECT... well if you're me that is. Honestly I think it makes the most sense and would be a nice consensus This makes most sense to me, too! This is absolutely correct, with the addition of .01 = 1 bitcent The term "millibitcent" should never be used under any circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
I put a Coinabul order in on Wednesday which was supposed to have "Next Day Express" shipping. The order is still showing as "processing."
I spoke with and got an email from Jay on Thursday saying it should be shipped by Monday. It's late Tuesday now, my order still says "processing," and I have heard nothing new. Just left a message on his phone.
I know things may be shaken up because the one guy quit, but customers should at least be kept updated.
Edit: Just got a call, was told I should have a tracking number within 24 hours. . .
|
|
|
|
Correct, millibitcent is a stupid name.
|
|
|
|
|
All the people who say Bitcoin stinks because it must inevitably increase in value - do you think they do the logical thing that their belief points to and put their money in Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone *knows* that the money supply will increase a certain way (at a decreasing rate), then this information will be factored into the price of Bitcoin. It is not a surprise to anyone. If the rate of inflation would cause the price of Bitcoin to increase, it would increase instantly at the beginning, and not gradually over time. Therefore, you can not expect the price of Bitcoin to inevitably increase.
The price of Bitcoin is increasing because it is becoming more popular, not because the number of Bitcoins in existence is increasing at an ever-slowing rate.
|
|
|
|
kangasbros, Is there any way to report a spam contact? I got a message this afternoon from "ElitePeasant" with this message: ElitePeasant: Learn how you can counterfeit Bitcoins, and quadruple what's in your wallet NOW! >>>>>>>>>> http://www.mediafire.com/xxxxx <<<<<<<<<<<<<< I changed the xxxxx from what it was so no one accidentally clicks it.  I reported them to Mediafire as spammers, and got an email saying their page was taken down. |
|
|
|
kangasbros, Is there any way to report a spam contact? I got a message this afternoon from "ElitePeasant" with this message: ElitePeasant: Learn how you can counterfeit Bitcoins, and quadruple what's in your wallet NOW! >>>>>>>>>> http://www.mediafire.com/xxxxx <<<<<<<<<<<<<< I changed the xxxxx from what it was so no one accidentally clicks it. Yep, I got the same one. |
|
|
|
|
Wasn't Tradehill based in Argentina? Wish they had stuck around.
|
|
|
|
|
Call me cynical, but I think Alex Jones is paid by someone to make conspiracy theorists look idiotic.
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is that the Martingale strategy with the 50% bets is basically identical to repeatedly playing the 85-97% winning odds bets with the amount of Bitcoin that you would risk at maximum with your Martingale strategy.
i.e. if you play Martingale starting with 1 BTC on the 50% game and you're prepared to keep doubling at losses up to 64 BTC, you might as well keep betting 64 BTC on the 97.6% odds game. (not exactly sure of the numbers but it's equal at some point.)
|
|
|
|
To be fair I think you people think the "value" of Silver is fluctuating a lot because they "value" of currency is, that's what the charts are based on anyway. I quote from a documentary I saw "One silver coin gets you two goats a thousand years ago, one silver coin gets you two goats today." The value of silver doesn't change, the value of money does (for obvious reason).
The dollar value of silver swung up by a factor of 4 between December 2008 and December 2010. The dollar value of goat meat did not quadruple during that time. The price of silver changed. |
|
|
|
It's value in fiat changes a lot.  Gold is rather tranquil by comparison. Yeah but that's the value of money changing not silver. Certainly not. The spending power of the dollar did not go down by 80% from 2008 to 2010, and then up by 30% from 2010 to present (in any sense other than the dollar price of silver.) These changes are almost entirely due to changes in the value of silver. A set number of dollars could not buy five times more labor, or butter, or gasoline, or real estate in 2008 than it would in early 2010. |
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_schemeA Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors Bitcoin pays no returns. So it can't be a Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments Bitcoin offers no returns. So it can't be a Ponzi scheme. The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Bitcoin has no earnings and no payments to investors. Ditto. Accusing Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme is a red flag that the accuser doesn't know what a Ponzi scheme is. If you want to accuse Bitcoin of anything, a very good case can be made that it is a bubble. Whether true or not, that at least makes sense. It makes no sense at all - it is a violation of the definition - to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme.
|
|
|
|
From the perspective of the Bitcoin network if you receive 10 coins, wait for 6 confirmations and then send 0.1 coins somewhere else, what actually happened behind the scenes is that you received a new payment of 9.9 coins back to yourself (as "change"). So it's correct that it's unconfirmed.
Does the bitcoin.org client behave in this way? There is a difference between a transaction being confirmed and being spendable. With the Satoshi client if someone else sends you bitcoin it is both unconfirmed and unspendable until it appears in a block. With Satoshi, your change is unconfirmed but is spendable straight away. What Mike mentioned is to change the bitcoinj spending policy so that your own change is spendable. It is still unconfirmed though (meaning literally not on a block yet). This will then be the same as the Satoshi client. Different clients have different spending policies and they change over time. I notice for instance that the 'old' Instawallet allowed you to always spend (even unconfirmed receipts from other people) but the 'new' Instawallet requires one confirmation. They allow you to spend your change immediately. I think that combination will become the norm. Thanks for the clarification. I get it now. |
|
|
|
From the perspective of the Bitcoin network if you receive 10 coins, wait for 6 confirmations and then send 0.1 coins somewhere else, what actually happened behind the scenes is that you received a new payment of 9.9 coins back to yourself (as "change"). So it's correct that it's unconfirmed.
Does the bitcoin.org client behave in this way? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
