Man, if he does that, buys up a bunch, then crashes it, it sure would suck to sell to him for a high price and then buy back when low. He'll sure show us!
Right now it wouldn't do much since not many people use the currency in real world transactions. Also if he had most of the money he could control the price. He would never have most of the money. If he tried to buy it all, the price would skyrocket, he would make us all rich and he would hold a bunch of bitcoins that nobody else used. If he then tried to sell them, he would have to do so an absurdly low price. Essentially, he would make himself doubly poor and us doubly rich. |
|
|
|
The calculation on BitcoinCharts is inaccurate soon after a difficulty increase. That's because the hash rate and estimated difficulty are calculated based on the rate of block generation since the last increase. Since only 19 blocks have been found at the new difficulty, the sample size is very small and leads to an inaccurate calculation. Sorry to burst your bubble.  |
|
|
|
Deflation slows the economy. Maybe for a debt based currency, like the dollar. It's psychologically bad to constantly getting pay cuts, because currency values are going up. This is balanced out by the psychological good of decreasing prices. So the maximum amount that can be made throughout time is 21 million? What happens if I have 5 million bitcoins and my house burns down and the 5 million bitcoins are destroyed with my computer? Big time deflation if the supply can't be replenished to 21 million. First, you'll never have 5 million bitcoins, nobody will. Even those with large amounts will eventually sell them to new users as the price increases. Second, there are two options here... if you were actively trading that 5 million, then as soon as the market "realizes" that that money is gone, deflation will occur and prices will take into account the smaller number of bitcoins. If you were just holding that 5 million indefinitely, then nothing has really changed. Soros could wreck the thing because he has enough money to buy out the whole market pretty easy. This idea comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of currency exchanges. Every bitcoin he buys must be sold buy a current holder. As he starts buying up bitcoin, people are going to realize this and increase their selling prices comparatively. Eventually, he'll be paying millions of dollars per bitcoin. This would be a great way for him to distribute his wealth to users of a comparatively worthless crypto-currency. Thanks, George! |
|
|
|
|
One question.
BTC = Bitcoin
UBC = ?
|
|
|
|
kjj:
I think he is saying that if you can buy 1 btc for $0.25 from A and sell 1 btc for $9 to B, people will buy like crazy from A until A has raised the price to $9.
No, he said that more miners = lower bitcoin exchange rate. Unless he was saying that more miners = higher difficulty = higher costs, in a very difficult to understand way? |
|
|
|
|
You can move money to MtGox using Dwolla, it's pretty easy to set up, though it might take a week or so to complete your first transfer.
As far as early adopters unfairly benefiting, think about it this way...
Back when bitcoins had never traded above $0.06/BTC, what would you have said if someone suggested that you invest a couple thousand dollars into this currency, or infrastructure to support this currency? Most likely you would have called them insane. Today, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea now that we have a history of an uptrend.
Early adopters took large risks, and if bitcoin succeeds in becoming a widely adopted currency, will reap large rewards. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Anyway, if you think about it in the terms you have mentioned, that each bitcoin could be worth much more in the future than it is today, even if you buy at $9/BTC, you're still an early adopter.
I say this as someone who first bought bitcoin around $0.50 and has a respectable amount of savings (and investment) held in BTC.
|
|
|
|
So then it is not a right, it is a contractual obligation?
exactly. other guaranteed rights work the same way, and by converse, the granted powers of government, through the concept of social contract. Let me paraphrase some of the more pertinent parts of the best rebuttal of the social "contract" I have seen. The social contract is the idea that those citizens who live in a country must obey the state. Remaining in the country, and having the right to vote, constitutes a form of voluntary "contract" between citizen and government. Thus the social contract (SC) is...
Geographical (country)
Unilateral (State-> citizen)
Implicit (Not signed/ formal)
Any methodology which claims validity must itself be subject to its own constraints.
Ex: The scientific method is subject to the scientific method.
Logic and evidence must be subject to logic and evidence.
Atheism cannot claim truth by divine inspiration.
The government proposes itself as the highest and only agency of justice in the land.
The government claims justification based on the SC.
Thus the SC must be the highest and most moral contract in existence, since it is the root of all other contracts enforced by the state.
Thus all contracts which fulfill the requirements of a SC (geographical, unilateral, implicit) must be just contracts!
Suppose I send a letter to every household in a 10 block radius telling the occupants that I have bought a car on their behalf. They can choose whether to receive a Volvo or BMW. If they don't choose, they will receive the car that the majority chooses. It will be delivered to them next week, cannot be returned, and they owe me $30,000 for this service. If they don't want the car, they have to move out of the neighborhood, where they will most likely be forced to choose another car.
Suppose now that I bring this contract to the government for enforcement. Their response will be to laugh at me and call me a deranged fool. If I attempt to use the threat of force or actual force to execute this contract, I will be considered a dangerous criminal and will be imprisoned.
Yet I am perfectly fulfilling the requirements of the social contract.
The SC is considered to be the highest moral good, and the greatest evil simultaneously.
Exactly to the degree that the SC is morally good, the government is morally evil for attacking competing impositions of a universally good moral contract.
Exactly to the degree that the SC is morally evil, the government is morally evil since it uses the ethics of the SC to justify it's own violent power.
Therefore, the SC, invalidates the SC. |
|
|
|
if you purchased and owned the land all your telecommunication equipment used, then yes, it would be your property.
but being as you entered into agreements (in practice with the government, but could also be in theory with each individual landowner and have the same effect) to obtain the use of that land rather than purchasing it, it is not fully your property, and thus subject to certain restrictions and requirements, such as being required to provide service on some terms.
So then it is not a right, it is a contractual obligation? |
|
|
|
its actually untrue for some countries, where its human right, according to laws/constitution. and other countries problem is lack of similar laws  What does it mean for telecommunication to be a right? Can you use violence against someone who denies you the use of their telecommunications equipment? |
|
|
|
|
Sorry about that, I had changed the name of my repository, but later realized it was stupid to do so. Thankfully, github support quickly reverted the change even though they say you only get one name change.
It should be good now, though I have not yet had time to commit the additional changes I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
BitterTea, on this we are in violent agreement. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=violent%20agreementIf you suggest, further, that this forum is inappropriate for seeking interest and discussing how to go about starting it, well, I would like to hear about that from a moderator. Perhaps a new topic or section, once it becomes more than an idea. I was responding to the idea (not necessarily yours) that BTC is "unfair" and should be changed to suit those who did not or could not enter the market until now. Since nobody is forced to use it, I don't see how it could possibly be unfair, and those that think so should start their own block chain. Your post seemed to imply that early adopters think that alternate block chains should be repressed, but I think you will find the truth to be the exact opposite. It is entirely possibly I read too much into your post, but it seems to be a common belief, becoming more common as the USD/BTC exchange rate rises. I don't think discussion of alternate block chains should be banned in any way. I do think it is disingenous and bordering on fraudulent to make claims that the bitcoin economy is controlled by a small number of participants, to the detriment of all the rest. In fact, it is because of the early adopters that bitcoin has such value today. |
|
|
|
So if I end up with 50 BTC that satoshi generated, I will be unable to spend it? Fuck that! I think it's hilarious that these guys are worried about early adopters, rather than the huge conglomerations of power and wealth that exist in the real world. The only way this viewpoint makes any sense to me is if you are one of the following: - a concern troll
- economically ignorant
- jealous
|
|
|
|
Some of us might want to implement the bitcoin concept with a chain other than BTC and see that chain compete with BTC. I see no principled objection to this. You are all free to ignore us if we actually do it.
I'm pretty sure this is what we have been telling you to do. If you don't like the Bitcoin blockchain for whatever reason, feel free to start your own block chain. Just don't try to make us change ours. |
|
|
|
lol no
That only assures 50% +1 gets their whims and desires heard. ...and the other 49% can get fucked in the ass.
Good thing most people follows the "Do unto others..." motto. Great! Then we agree that states are not necessary! |
|
|
|
If you think that your fellow human beings are "sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun," then you have some serious problems. And I'm not joking.
Do you assume that most people are good? Then why do we need states? Do you assume that most people are bad? Then how can you dare put some in a position of power? |
|
|
|
There's no such thing as anti-competitive behavior in a free market.
Then why do you see it every now and then in the news? Oligopolys were formed by market leaders to push up prices . This happens both in very diverse markets, both free and not so free. One example that comes to mind was a paving oligopoly that was broken up not so long ago. Would you say that paving is something that is protected by the state and that no free market exist there? I'm sure you would. As long as there's a state somewhere in the world it can be blamed for everything by anarchists. It seems. Perhaps because almost all markets are regulated by the state? I feel like a broken record here, but there is no such thing as a corporation without the the implicit and explicit grant of privilege by states. |
|
|
|
I thought that's what was already going on.
Not unless you know the fundamental value of a Bitcoin, and are able to determine that it's current trading price is significantly out of line with its that value. GOLDSTEIN: The people in the experiment, they were buying the stocks for sometimes for more than it could ever pay out. And this gives us a definition of a bubble: It's when the price of something rises way above what you might call its fundamental value.
KESTENBAUM: So let's apply that definition to gold: Is gold in a bubble? Here's Tim Harford. He's an economist and a columnist at the Financial Times.
Mr. TIM HARFORD (Economist and Columnist, Financial Times): Gold is a tricky one, and here's why. Remember we said bubbles should be defined in terms of fundamental values? The price of corporate stock should be looking at future profits, and you need to make your best judgment on what that would be.
But price of gold, it's just not clear what the fundamental value of gold is. I mean, it's worth something because people have always thought it's worth something. And that's really weird, because what that really tells you is, well, gold's in a 4,000-year-old bubble. And if it's lasted 4,000 years, maybe it'll last another 4,000 years. Who am I to say? To clarify, when I said "we should do this with bitcoins", what I meant was to set up a system similar to their simple stock market, except you would play the "game" with your real bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
Who insures us against anticompetitive and antisocial behavior from the state?!
|
|
|
|
That's a Hobson's choice. Everyone is still forced to pay for the FDA. It sounds like those school voucher programs.
It doesn't force the FDA to be more competitive because the consumer's still have to pay twice (they still get paid if they screw up) and I bet the government would just limit the hell out of competitors if they got anywhere close to threatening the FDA's position.
Good point. In order to get the benefits of this system, the FDA would have to make its money from companies voluntarily procuring its services (which some would, especially at first, I think) instead of taxes. Just an idea, not that I think it's likely that government organizations will give up their enforcement monopoly. |
|
|
|
|
Here's an idea for a way to transition away from government regulatory bodies. I'll use the FDA as an example.
If instead of having enforcement power, the FDA was merely another certification organization, there would be many benefits.
1. Individuals who trust the government and want to exclusively buy government regulated products can continue to do so.
2. Those who do not trust the government or have higher risk tolerance can buy unregulated or non-government regulated products.
3. Forces the FDA to be more competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
