|
I remember that some time ago I read a story here about a cartoon story describing an underground world which has no color, and a little girl found color through a cave to the colored world, and she plant some the color flower under a cave opening for getting some golden light. The book is written by some of the federal reserve bank... Who have the link?
|
|
|
|
Before I thought that's the most troublesome topic in bitcoin, but now this bug in BDB opened a window to lift that limit, Gavin you are so lucky!  |
|
|
|
We'll see 30 or lower very soon Don't mistake me, I regard this fork accident a very positive feeback to the community, now everyone will take this chance to see lot's of interesting aspect in bitcoin world, which are not that clear or almost hidden before |
|
|
|
Another test of faith |
|
|
|
Stan Druckenmiller, one of the best- performing hedge fund managers of the past three decades, has a warning for the youth of America: Don’t let your grandparents steal your money. Druckenmiller, 59, said the mushrooming costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, with unfunded liabilities as high as $211 trillion, will bankrupt the nation’s youth and pose a much greater danger than the country’s $16 trillion of debt currently being debated in Congress. “While everybody is focusing on the here and now, there’s a much, much bigger storm that’s about to hit,” Druckenmiller said in an hour-long interview with Stephanie Ruhle on Bloomberg Television’s Market Makers. “I am not against seniors. What I am against is current seniors stealing from future seniors.” Druckenmiller said unsustainable spending will eventually result in a crisis worse than the financial meltdown of 2008, when $29 trillion was erased from global equity markets. What’s particularly troubling, he said, is that government expenditures related to programs for the elderly rocketed in the past two decades, even before the first baby boomers, those born in 1946, started turning 65. ... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/druckenmiller-sees-storm-worse-than-08-as-seniors-bankrupt-kids.html |
|
|
|
From pure speculation's perspective, this is a good chance to reduce exposure Mark: current price 30.22 @20:38 GMT |
|
|
|
|
Everytime, when I tried to advertise bitcoin to my friends, the typical question they asked is: What is this thing backed by? What's the use of it?
Although I can explain to them that it is backed by mathematics and P2P network, and you can use it to buy anything online, it still does not make them feel safe enough, since that is real money, they are afraid of it's just a scam or a bubble
Just like MBS, CDS, eventually they are backed by a house, which is needed by majority of people, so no matter how abstract in concept and construction they are, they still get accepted. Because a house is a house, even the price crashed to 0, it still can provide some utility and that is the reason the price will never drop too much
"If the USD exchange price of this thing drop to 0, what is the use of it?"
There is an answer for gold/silver/diamond/house, even WoW gold
But there is no answer for bond/stock/options/futures
So it seems bitcoin fall into the second category, e.g. a financial security, and unlike bond/stock/options/futures, it has no underlying base instrument, or to say it is based purely on some promises
If we could find some good use of bitcoin even when the exchange price is 0, then it will flourish for sure
|
|
|
|
|
The year is 2015, bitcoin had a hard fork with 99% of users vote to raise the block size limit to 10M
As usual, the original bitcoin blockchain by then was called bitcoin legacy and disgarded, exchange rate falled to under $0.01, and all major bitcoin sites already run the client version 2.0 and will not accept newly mined coin from bitcoin legacy chain
One day, Tom came down to his basement, found there is a dual 7970 card gaming machine with bitcoin client 0.3 installed, he can not do anything with that machine on bitcoin 2.0 network, so he play it for fun to mine some bitcoin legacy. Surprisingly he found out that he can mine 10 block per day! He experienced exactly what those early btc miners did in 2010... Slowly that chain were picked up by more and more gpu owners, the difficulty on the chain is low, every one can mine a decent amount of coin
This spread quickly, since the availability of GPU is much higher than ASIC, the amount of people join the bitcoin legacy game are magnitude higher than bitcoin 2.0, this in turn revived pools, exchanges and web services based on bitcoin leacy
The amount of participants and pupularity on the legacy chain get higher each day, the exchange rate on the bitcoin legacy also crawled back and on a steady rise. Since the price developement is quick, lot's of capital were attracted, another 1000x rise happened, bitcoin legacy made the miracle again and cleared $10 mark, this attracted many ASIC miners to turn their hashing power towards bitcoin legacy network and those ASIC manufacturer also got good sales
While on the bitcoin 2.0 network, it is totally different: one bitcoin worth $1000, huge transaction volume, a rich boy club with a few thousand guys holding ASIC farms, power plants etc. They periodically meet investment bankers, hedge fund and pension fund managers from different countries to discuss how to take over the world finance market by the next fork ...
|
|
|
|
|
Ben just printed 1 trillion dollar, where would them go?
Compare 2 alternatives
1. He lend them to government to setup some project, hire some worker, make some products. At first, this will create some jobs, but after a while, production increased, competition get hard, price level will go down, some other companies shut down and jobless rate increase again. Since computer and automation solutions are continuously deployed everywhere, less and less people will be required, and the government project can not fight against such a big trend
2. He lend them to people to buy bitcoin. After a while, bitcoin prices are on the steady rise, and everyone join the game wins, they start to spend big , more business are rushing into this new economy, and other companies will expand their capacity to meet the rising demand
-----------------------------
The core reason for a recession is simply caused by one fact: People do not have enough money to spend
So it is clear that in alternative 1, majority of people still don't have money, they just had another consumption option which might deplete their saving further, it does not really help them to get out of their trouble
But in alternative 2, people will get rich from buying bitcoin, and then they have money, they have saving, and they will spend, the recession will end naturally
|
|
|
|
|
If there are any other reasons, please post them here
|
|
|
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/02/14/why-i-dont-think-bitcoins-big-price-rise-is-another-bubble/"For example, right now, the wire transfer industry is dominated by monolithic firms like Western Union. Bitcoin could make it possible to build a decentralized Western Union competitor that in principle could have lower fees and much greater convenience." I think he pointed out a very bright future for BTC as an infrastructure for international clearing. Although the transaction itself is irreversible, the services built upon it will handle that without problem, more flexibility can be added
|
|
|
|
Some old news, but it is the first time I read about north korea currency reform, I also heard that they raise the salary for normal workers by 100 times in the process, how genius ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On November 30, 2009, North Korea announced that it would exchange new currency for old currency at the rate of 100:1, spurring panic in the North Korean markets. The plan was announced to the public with little advance warning, catching individuals with large amounts of local currency off guard. As a strategy for exposing and impoverishing holders of excess local currency, the initial phase of the strategy was effective. A representative of the Korean Central Bank affirmed that “we are not moving toward market opening, but will further strengthen the principle and order of socialist economic management.” North Korea’s objective in pursuing the revaluation, therefore, was aimed at curbing the markets and reinstituting state control over the markets and over public reliance on the state. But given that objective, it is clear that as the currency revaluation process unfolded, it met with a variety of challenges that in the course of less than two months led to an unprecedented public admission of failure by DPRK Premier Kim Yong-il and the dismissal—and reported execution—of finance chief Pak Nam-gi. North Korea's policy failure occurred at a variety of levels. At the technical level, initial implementation of the currency revaluation was undermined by the inability of the state to have sufficient goods on hand to restore the public distribution system as a replacement to the market. Moreover, the reforms themselves caused the markets to seize up, robbing them of the exchange needed to ensure that they continued to be well supplied with goods from China, leading to the breakdown of distribution of necessities in North Korea. A related failure was the difficulty the state faced in setting prices in the aftermath of the reform. The failure to get prices right also interfered with the functioning of the markets and made normal commerce difficult to conduct, leading to shortages of goods. Second, the state effort to expropriate hoarding of local currency and set the limit for exchange of new currency at impossibly low levels invited public outrage and a rather strong backlash among the people. In fact, the backlash was sufficient that the government was forced to undertake tactical readjustments to the ceiling on the amount of local currency that could be exchanged for new currency within days of the announcement of the initial plan. Each dimension of the failure contributed to exposing the major conceptual miscalculation behind the policy, namely, that it is possible to roll back the markets and return to the old state-centered distribution system of the past. The Chosun Sinbo interview with Central Bank representative Cho Song-hyo'n states clearly the objective of the currency revaluation as follows: "In the future, a great deal of economic activities will be conducted not according to the market but based on the planned supply and circulation system, and it is expected that this will make it possible to further strengthen order in the planned economic management. . . In the past, the utilization of the market was partially allowed because the state was unable to satisfactorily secure the supplies needed for the production activities of enterprises as planned. The market was utilized as a supplementary means based on the principle of socialist economic management. We believe that, as the capability of the state has strengthened, the role of the market—which has performed its function as a supplementary means—will gradually dwindle." For the state to restore its role as the primary source of distribution within North Koreansociety, it would be necessary for DPRK central authorities to restore government-led distribution mechanisms to a level that would allow it to replace the markets, along the lines of the way that the Public Distribution System (PDS) had historically worked. In order to do this, the state-authorized points of distribution would have to be stocked at levels that would be more reliable than the markets. Distribution of new currency into the hands of the people would strengthen ties of people to their work units and restore loyalty to the state. But the spike in demand for goods resulting from distribution of the new currencies, the impoverishment of those marketeers in North Korea who had used local currency as a medium of exchange to facilitate distribution of goods from China, the lack of small bills available initially in the new currency in the markets, and the failure of state-guided pricing to "stick" at the time of the introduction of the new currency all served to undermine the effort. Central bank representative Cho states in his Chosun Sinbo interview that commodities were set at the price levels that had existed in July of 2002 when previous economic reform measures had occurred, "with the international market price of rice as the standard." But those prices proved to be far from the market price of goods, especially in the new currency under circumstances where demand was outstripping supply. As a result, hyperinflation made it impossible for the state to set effective prices in the markets in early December, further contributing to the breakdown of the market mechanism. North Korean authorities took a second step against the markets by banning use of foreign currencies on December 28, 2009. The Daily NK reported that the official decree requires businesses to deposit all foreign currencies in banks, to be withdrawn after obtaining approval for use of the foreign currency. This measure was designed to further strengthen political control over foreign exchanges in order to “bring the black market under control." The measure essentially criminalized the unauthorized possession of foreign currency in an edict that endangered anyone conducting foreign trade outside of market channels. Having impoverished individuals most likely to be active in meeting market demand, the foreign currency ban criminalized those same individuals. The third step was the most drastic: North Korean authorities shut down general markets across the country in order to transition them to farmers' markets. This shutdown exacerbated both inflation and the supply of goods inside North Korea, contributing to the spread of famine conditions in various parts of the country. Good Friends reported deaths by starvation in both North and South Hamgyong and North and South Pyongyang Province and a sharp drop in the value of the new currency in North Korean markets. Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland argue in their recent policy brief that North Korea's currency reform was confiscatory in nature, that "currency reform was designed to target groups engaged in market activities that not only generate cash earnings but also require cash balances given the underdevelopment of the North Korean financial system, while at the same time providing compensatory allocations to favored groups closely connected to the state." In the same policy brief, Haggard and Noland estimate inflation in North Korea to have exceeded 100 percent per year in the years following 2002 and dropped to double or single digit levels in 2007 before accelerating again in 2008-2009. Following the surprise announcement of the currency reform, North Koreans were given only a week (from November 30 to December 6) to exchange old currency for new and faced strict limits on the amount of currency they were allowed to exchange, although these limits reportedly faced strong opposition from average North Koreans. Interestingly, in the face of protests, North Korean authorities adjusted the original ceiling of 100,000 won per individual to 150,000 won in cash and 300,000 won in bank savings. The most egregious mistake of the reform was a serious underestimation by the authorities of the extent to which market activity—and the resulting need for money— was being used to hedge against political control by the state. The reopening of the markets was accompanied by a rare public apology in a reported meeting with government officials and local village leaders. Premier Kim Yong-il stated that "regarding the currency reform, I sincerely apologize as we pushed ahead with it without a sufficient preparation so that it caused a big pain to the people" and that the government "will do its best to stabilize people's lives." Media reports have also revealed that the alleged responsible official, Park Nam-ki, was dismissed in January as chief of the planning and finance department of the Workers' Party and reportedly executed in March for his failure to lead the currency exchange successfully. |
|
|
|
A joke, don't take it seriously  2 Billion internet user, say 1/10 of them are able to handle BTC without too much trouble, they put a small amount of their retirement saving into BTC as a diversification, $10,000 is a decent amount, that is 200 million people share 20 million coin, each people get 0.1 coin, each coin worth $100,000 I start to worry about that 8 decimal place might not be enough, and those who holding a lot of BTC today might have devastating influence over humanity, could be worse than FED, anyway FED do have a committee  |
|
|
|
|
If I block port 8333, will it still work?
Or simply, can I use port 80 in a node?
|
|
|
|
I believe that BTC will become part of everybody's retirement plan, so let's see how much a BTC will worth depend on people's projection of their retirement saving |
|
|
|
|
On a small island there are 3 people: A capture fish, B pick fruits, C collect shells and work as a merchant
Everyday, A catch 3 fish, eat one fish, sell 2 to C and exchange for 2 shells, 1 shell used to buy a basket of fruit from C and he save 1 shell
B pick 3 baskets of fruits, eat one basket, sell the other 2 and get 2 shells, spend 1 shell to buy 1 fish from C , and save 1 shell
C collects 4 shells, all of them used to purchase 2 fishes and 2 baskets of fruits, sell 1 fish and 1 basket of fruit to get 2 shells back, he eat 1 basket of fruit and 1 fish, and left with 2 shells. From second day he only need to collect 2 shells to make the system work, if he collect 3 shells then he could save 1 shell for himself
In order for C To live, he must continuously collect shells to buy products from A and B, the shells work as a medium of exchange and are regarded as a store of value too
Over time, the saved shells on the island will get more and more, their savings increased and some more investment could happen. (In fact, these savings do not correspond to real consumable wealth, but since each shell contains certain amount of labor from C, and they seldom degrade, people tends to regard shells as wealth token, e.g. the shells have value).
This is a saving driven economy, investment happend after a saving has been made, it is not mandatory to do investment, everyone can have a lot of saving while the society can still have a low GDP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population and economy expands, there are not enough shell for trading, so C stops shell production and issue the shell notes instead, there is no essential difference in transaction as long as shell notes keep their value stable
But now for C, he does not need to work, which is very strange, why it does not matter if C is working? The reason is: Shell can not be consumed, the end user only consider shell's exchange value. A and B only care about if shells can be used to exchange other things with a good and stable face value
In modern banking system, any person except central bank must use their valuables/labor to exchange currency, including commercial banks and the government, they can sell their own assets to central bank to get currency, or borrow currency from the central bank, but only central bank have the origianl ownership of the new issued currency
This generated some difference:
In the original system, A and B work and sell the products to C to get currency, their income generated from C's purchasing and consumption. C also work to generate currency, this process is sustainable, everyone is working, everyone can have their saving
In the new system, the central bank produce currency, but he do not buy products from A and B, he only lend to a commercial bank C, but C also do not buy products directly from A and B, he loan to a big wholesaler D and D make a living by trading A/B's products
Back to the island:
A capture 3 fish, eat one, sell the other two to D for 2 shells, 1.5 shells are used to purchase a basket of fruit from D, and he save the rest 0.5 shell
B pick 3 baskets of fruit, eat one basket, sell the other two baskets for 2 shells, and then spend 1.5 shell to buy a fish from D, and save up 0.5 shell
D borrowed 4 shells to purchase 2 fish and 2 baskets of fruits, he sold 1 fish and 1 basket of fruit to get back 3 shells, eat a basket of fruit and a fish, and at the day end he have only 3 shells at hand (the other shell has become A and B's saving)
It is clear to see, if A and B want to have some saving, then D will not have enough currency to pay back his loan, not even mention the interest
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first system, there is a steady stream of currency flow into market and become ABC's saving, everyone can have more and more saving. In the second system, all the currency flow into the market as some kind of loan, A and B's saving will become D's debt, the overall saving of all the people on the island will always be 0
Why such difference?
In the first system, C produce money and use them to buy products from A and B and consume them, money flow into the economy, becomes A and B's saving, everyone's saving is positive, and it will increase over time
In the second system, the money produced by central bank eventually become some kind of loan, so the society as a whole can not have a net increase of saving, because the central bank never consumes anything
In one word: If the money producer do not consume, the society as a whole could not have net saving in money's form
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose we divide everyone in the society into two corporate A and corporate B, (or similar to an island with only 2 people), each year banks loan out 1 Billion to A and 1 Billion to B, and they do production and consumption and trade with each other. They need to return the loan plus interest. Since the money supply is only 2 Billion, where is that extra interest come from?
Obviously, it can only come from the previous savings of A and B, so if this process continue, sooner or later A and B's saving will be depleted. Of course bankers will also spend their earned interest to buy products from A and B, but since everyone have also the need to save, it can not balance itself
There is a way to avoid this from happening: Continuously issue new loan to A and B, for them to pay back the old loan + interest. And for each new loan, same rule applies, they need future loan money to payback the interest, and if they want to have some savings, even more future loans are needed
But any business have a market size limit, after reaching certain maturity, there are less and less growth, so eventually this model will be broke for any industry
Then the hope is placed on the new enterprises in the future, but that is also non-sustainable. These new enterprises must have much higher income to digest all the existing business' higher and higher sale. With existing enterprise getting more and more, the size of new enterprises will reach an impossible level to support the earnings for all the existing enterprises
As a result, the original observation might be more close to reality: Everyone's saving is depleted slowly by the banks, and saving becomes more and more difficult
|
|
|
|
|
I just discovered that some old transactions do not displayed the same way:
In my bitcoin client 7.0 beta, the transaction I sent out is an integer, for example 40
But in blockchain.info, same transaction include 2 transactions, besides the original transaction, there is another one charging the transaction fee:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0.55126951 BTC
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy 40 BTC
-40.49513626 BTC
The transaction towards xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the above case did not get recorded in my QT client, so client recorded only -40 BTC spending, but the blockchain.info recorded -40.49513626 BTC, which is not the total of these 2 transactions either, very confusing...
The result is that my QT client showed a higher total balance than the blockchain.info for a certain address
currently I'm not able to check this out in blockexplorer.com (seems search function dead), so I have no other more authoritive info
|
|
|
|
How much belief do you have in BTC  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
